HomeMy WebLinkAboutButte_GP_FEIR_PublicReview2030
www.buttegeneralplan.net
September 13, 2012
Final Supplemental EIR
2030Final Supplemental EIR
www.buttegeneralplan.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1
2. REPORT SUMMARY ................................................................................. 2-1
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR .......................................... 3-1
4. LIST OF COMMENTORS ........................................................................... 4-1
5. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .................................................................. 5-1
6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................. 6-1
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
List of Figures
Figure 3-4A Approved Project General Plan 2030 Land Use
Designations ........................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-4B Approved Project General Plan 2030 Land Use
Designations ........................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5A Modified Project General Plan Amendment Land Use
Designations ........................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-5B Modified Project General Plan Amendment Land Use
Designations ........................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-9 Proposed Zoning Map ............................................................ 3-9
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................... 2-7
Table 3-1 Changes to Land Use Designations ........................................ 3-2
Table 6-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................... 6-2
1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
This document has been prepared in the form of an addendum to the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed General
Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Ordinance Update. The Draft
Supplemental EIR identified the likely environmental consequences
associated with the project, and identified policies and regulations contained
in the proposed project that help to reduce potentially significant impacts.
This Final Supplemental EIR responds to comments on the Draft
Supplemental EIR and makes revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR as
necessary in response to these comments. Revisions to the proposed GPA
and Zoning Ordinance made in response to these comments will be presented
in a memorandum that will be considered by the Butte County Board of
Supervisors as part of the adoption of the GPA and Zoning Ordinance.
None of these revisions result in significant changes to the Project
Description or findings of the Draft Supplemental EIR that would trigger the
need to recirculate the Draft Supplemental EIR.
This document, together with the Draft Supplemental EIR, will constitute
the Final Supplemental EIR if the Butte County Board of Supervisors certifies
it as complete and adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
B. Environmental Review Process
According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public
agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the
general public and project applicant with an opportunity to comment on the
Draft Supplemental EIR. This Final Supplemental EIR has been prepared to
respond to those comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR and to
clarify any errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of discussions of findings
in the Draft Supplemental EIR.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-2
The Draft Supplemental EIR was made available for public review on May
30, 2012. The Draft Supplemental EIR was distributed to local and State
responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public was advised of the
availability of the Draft EIR through public notice published in the local
newspaper and posted by the County Clerk as required by law. The CEQA-
mandated 45-day public comment period ended on July 13, 2012.
On June 14, 2012, a Planning Commission hearing was held to receive
comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR during the official public review
period. The hearing was held in the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Chambers, located at 25 County Center Drive in Oroville, California.
Copies of all written comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIR, as
well as a summary of the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft
Supplemental EIR, are contained in this document.
This Final Supplemental EIR will be presented at a Planning Commission
hearing at which the Commission will advise the Board of Supervisors on
certification of the Supplemental EIR as a full disclosure of potential impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives.
However, the Planning Commission will not take final action on the
Supplemental EIR or the proposed project. Instead, the Board of Supervisors
will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Final
Supplemental EIR and the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance during a
noticed public hearing and make the final action with regard to certification
of the Final Supplemental EIR. The Board of Supervisors is currently
scheduled to certify the Final Supplemental EIR at a public hearing on
October 23, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-3
C. Document Organization
This document is organized into the following chapters:
¨ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter discusses the use and
organization of this Final Supplemental EIR.
¨ Chapter 2: Report Summary. This chapter is a summary of the
findings of the Draft and the Final Supplemental EIR. It has been
reprinted from the Draft Supplemental EIR with necessary changes made
in this Final Supplemental EIR shown in double underline and
strikethrough.
¨ Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR. Corrections to
the text and graphics of the Draft Supplemental EIR are contained in this
chapter. Double underlined text represents language that has been added
to the Supplemental EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from
the Supplemental EIR.
¨ Chapter 4: List of Commentors. Names of agencies and individuals
who commented on the Draft Supplemental EIR are included in this
chapter.
¨ Chapter 5: Comments and Responses. This chapter contains
reproductions of the letters received from agencies and the public on the
Draft Supplemental EIR. The responses are keyed to the comments
which precede them.
¨ Chapter 6: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This
chapter lists the mitigation measures included in the Draft Supplemental
EIR, and identifies programs for monitoring and reporting the progress
on implementing these measures.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-4
This is a summary of the findings of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs.
This document has been reprinted from the Draft Supplemental EIR with
necessary changes made in this Final Supplemental EIR shown in double un-
derline and strikethrough.
This summary presents an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter 4 of
the Draft Supplemental EIR: Environmental Evaluation. CEQA requires
that this chapter summarize the following: 1) areas of controversy; 2) signifi-
cant impacts; 3) unavoidable significant impacts; 4) implementation of mitiga-
tion measures; and 5) alternatives to the project.
A. Project Under Review
This Supplemental EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmen-
tal consequences of adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is described in a greater
level of detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this the Draft Supple-
mental EIR.
B. Areas of Controversy
The County issued an official Notice of Preparation for the proposed GPA
and Zoning Ordinance on February 29, 2012 and held a scoping meeting on
March 15, 2012. The official Notice of Preparation for this Program EIR was
issued to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and forwarded to
federal, State, and local agencies, and interested parties. The official scoping
period for this Supplemental EIR was between February 29, 2012 and March
30, 2012, during which interested agencies and the public could submit com-
ments about the proposed project. The comments received focused primarily
on the following issues:
Aesthetics and loss of open space
Farmland conversion
Biological resources
Hazards
Groundwater and water quality
Public services
Traffic increases
Growth inducement
All of these issues are addressed in this Supplemental EIR.
C. Significant Impacts
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a sub-
stantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical con-
ditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, min-
erals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic signifi-
cance.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this the Draft Supple-
mental EIR, implementation of General Plan 2030, as modified by the pro-
posed GPA, is anticipated to result in the development of approximately
13,600 new dwelling units and the addition of 33,600 new residents, as well as
the development of 1.7 million square feet of new retail and office space and 1
million square feet of new industrial space by 2030. This development, in
combination with long-term, region-wide growth and development, has the
potential to generate environmental impacts in a number of areas, including
direct construction impacts on biological and cultural resources; indirect im-
pacts associated with use of this built environment on areas such as transpor-
tation, air quality, and noise; and capacity impacts to utilities and public ser-
vices, such as water service, wastewater, solid waste, schools, and parks.
However, by incorporating policies intended to avoid environmental impacts
and by steering the majority of development to existing communities, Gen-
eral Plan 2030, as modified by the proposed GPA, is largely self-mitigating.
Rather than mitigating impacts through mitigation measures in this Supple-
mental EIR, the policies and land use map in General Plan 2030, as modified
by the proposed GPA, are intended to prevent the majority of environmental
impacts altogether.
Implementation of the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance has the poten-
tial to generate five new significant environmental impacts beyond what was
identified in the 2010 EIR for the Approved Project. All of the impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable. They are discussed in the following
two sections and summarized in Table 2-1.
Of these impacts, four are the result of the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordi-
nance and one is the result of the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance
combined with other cumulative development in the larger region.
Throughout this Supplemental EIR, the terms “project” or “proposed pro-
ject,” are used to refer to the implementation of the proposed GPA and Zon-
ing Ordinance. The term “cumulative” refers to the proposed GPA and Zon-
ing Ordinance as well as development that will happen in the incorporated
municipalities and the surrounding region.1
The new significant project impacts are in the following topic areas:
Agriculture and forestry resources (two project impacts)
Transportation and circulation (two project impacts)
The new significant cumulative impact is in the agriculture and forestry re-
sources topic area.
The proposed GPA contributes to all of the impacts on a programmatic level.
Because it implements General Plan 2030, as modified by the proposed GPA,
the proposed Zoning Ordinance would not create any new impacts in and of
itself. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance would work to reduce potential impacts
of General Plan 2030 and the GPA by including specific standards and regula-
1 See also Section B in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Evaluation, and Section D in
Chapter 6, CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions, for an expanded discussion
about the cumulative analysis.
tions that would restrict development beyond the restrictions established in
the General Plan.
D. Mitigation Measures
This Supplemental EIR suggests specific mitigation measures to reduce the
significant impacts of the Modified Project, in addition to those included in
the 2010 EIR for the Approved Project. Mitigation measures have been iden-
tified for Impacts TRAF-15 and TRAF-16. However, these impacts are found
to be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. The mitigation measures
in this Supplemental EIR will form the basis of a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program to be implemented in accordance with State law.
E. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any
significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of
feasible mitigation measures. As described in Chapter 4 of this the Draft
Supplemental EIR and shown in Table 2-1, five new significant unavoidable
impacts were identified in the areas of agriculture and forestry resources, and
transportation and circulation.
F. Alternatives to the Project
This Supplemental EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed project. Three
alternatives to the proposed project are considered and described in detail in
Chapter 5 of this the Draft Supplemental EIR:
No Project Alternative
Updated Zoning Ordinance Alternative
Minimized Zoning Densities Alternative
As shown in the alternatives analysis in Chapter 5 of this the Draft Supple-
mental EIR, the Updated Zoning Ordinance Alternative has the least envi-
ronmental impact and is therefore the environmentally superior alternative.
By maintaining the Agriculture, Timber Mountain, and Resource Conserva-
tion areas as approved under General Plan 2030, while also adding regulations
proposed in the Zoning Ordinance, this alternative would be an improve-
ment over the proposed project with respect to potential negative impacts
associated with aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; biological re-
sources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and mineral resources; hazards and
safety; hydrology and water quality; land use; public services and recreation;
and transportation and circulation.
G. Summary Table
Table 2-1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified
in this report. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues
discussed in Chapter 4 of this the Draft Supplemental EIR. Table 2-1 distin-
guishes between two types of significant impacts: on the one hand impacts
that directly result from the Modified Project, which is the implementation of
the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance, and on the other hand, impacts
that result from implementation of the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordi-
nance, in combination with other regional development, including in the in-
corporated municipalities and the surrounding region.2 Although this is a
programmatic EIR, CEQA defines a “project” as any action that “has the po-
tential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378). Impacts that are the result of the proposed project
are termed “project impacts,” while impacts that are the result of the cumula-
tive condition are termed “cumulative impacts.”
2 See also Section B in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Evaluation, and Section D in
Chapter 6, CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions, of the Draft Supplemental EIR
for an expanded discussion about the cumulative analysis.
The table is arranged into six columns: 1) significant impacts; 2) classification
as a project impact, as discussed above; 3) classification as a cumulative im-
pact, as discussed above; 4) significance prior to mitigation; 5) mitigation
measures; and 6) significance after mitigation. For a complete description of
potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4 of this
the Draft Supplemental EIR.
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to aesthetics.
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
AG-4: The Modified Project would allow 4,460 acres
of forest land to be redesignated to a non-forest des-
ignation.
SU A significant portion of the changes to the Gen-
eral Plan 2030 land use map that are included in
the GPA, including the changes pertaining to this
impact, were identified through the extensive
meeting process that occurred in 2010 and 2011
for the GPA and the Zoning Ordinance Update
(described in more detail in the Project Descrip-
tion, Chapter 3). Many of the public meetings
for the Zoning Ordinance Update focused on the
zoning map, providing the opportunity for a
detailed review of zoning designations by mem-
bers of the public, County Planning Commis-
sioners, and County Supervisors.
During this detailed review, participants identi-
fied changes and corrections to the original (Ap-
proved Project) General Plan land use designa-
tions. Further, as the new General Plan came
into use over the 19 months since its adoption,
County staff identified corrections to land use
designations that were necessary to remain con-
sistent with the approach used to create the pre-
ferred land use alternative identified for General
Plan 2030 and designate lands under the Ap-
proved Project.
SU
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AG-4 continued
Throughout the foothills and mountainous por-
tions of Butte County, the Modified Project
would change the designation of various parcels
from Agriculture and Timber Mountain designa-
tions to designations that would allow residential
development. All of these areas are located close
to existing unincorporated communities, includ-
ing Cohasset, Forest Ranch, Palermo, and Berry
Creek, where introducing new timber harvesting
and practices may present conflicts with rural
residential land use patterns.
In some cases, the amended residential designa-
tion would fill in an area between two existing
residential areas (including areas with existing
homes and areas that are currently vacant but
designated for residential development), or that
are accessed by primitive roads that also serve
rural subdivisions. Again, because these areas are
located adjacent to other residentially designated
areas, they may no longer be viable for forestry
practices and would present conflicts with resi-
dential land uses.
In addition, in the foothill area south of Palermo,
a significant acreage would change from Agricul-
ture to Rural Residential on forested parcels.
Many of these parcels are sized well below the
160-acre minimum parcel size considered by the
General Plan as appropriate for timber produc-
tion or the 20-acre minimum size considered ap-
propriate for Agriculture, reducing the viability
for forest or agriculture practices.
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AG-4 continued
In summary, impacts to these forested areas have
largely already been realized from existing or
proposed residential development, surrounding
residential land use patterns, and the presence of
unincorporated communities. The Modified
Project proposes to redesignate these lands in
recognition of this fact. However, the proposed
GPA and Zoning Ordinance cannot undo exist-
ing development patterns or residential land uses.
For these reasons, the potential impacts of a Tim-
ber Mountain designation on these parcels would
likely be greater than the potential impacts of the
proposed residential designations. Therefore, this
impact is significant and unavoidable.
AG-5: The Modified Project would allow for the
conversion of forest lands to non-forest use because
they include non-forest designations on such lands,
as described in Impact AG-4.
SU As described in Impact AG-4, the Modified Pro-
ject would change the designation of various par-
cels in the foothill and mountainous portions of
Butte County to designations that allow residen-
tial development. These areas are located close to
unincorporated communities and other areas that
allow residential development, so they may no
longer be viable for forestry practices, and forest-
ry practices could present conflicts with residen-
tial uses. In addition, in the foothill area south of
Palermo, a significant acreage would change from
Agriculture to Rural Residential on forested par-
cels. Many of these parcels are sized well below
the 160-acre minimum parcel size considered by
the General Plan as appropriate for timber pro-
duction, reducing the viability for forest practices.
SU
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AG-5 continued
In summary, impacts to these forested areas have
largely already been realized from existing or
proposed residential development, surrounding
residential land use patterns, and the presence of
unincorporated communities. The Modified
Project proposes to redesignate these lands in
recognition of this fact. However, the proposed
GPA and Zoning Ordinance cannot undo exist-
ing development patterns or residential land uses.
For these reasons, the potential impacts of a Tim-
ber Mountain designation on these parcels would
likely be greater than the potential impacts of the
proposed residential designations. Therefore, this
impact is significant and unavoidable.
AG-6: Although General Plan 2030 goals, policies,
and actions related to forest land would reduce and
partially offset Butte County’s contribution to forest
land impacts, the overall cumulative impact would
remain significant.
SU Because the amount of growth foreseen in the
region and the decisions of surrounding counties
regarding conversion of forest land are outside the
control of Butte County, the impact is significant
and unavoidable.
SU
AIR QUALITY
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to air quality.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to biological resources.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to cultural resources.
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to geology, soils, and mineral resources.
HAZARDS AND SAFETY
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to hazards and safety.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
LAND USE
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to land use.
NOISE
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to noise.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to population and housing.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to public services and recreation.
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
Significant Impact
Project
Impact
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TRAF-15: Implementation of the Modified Project
would lead to unacceptable LOS F operations on
State Route 99 between East Biggs Highway and the
southern intersection of State Route 99 and State
Route 162.
S TRAF-15: Incorporate passing lanes into the sec-
tion of State Route 99 between East Biggs High-
way and the southern intersection of State Route
99 and State Route 162 as described in the State
Route 99 Transportation Concept Report pub-
lished by Caltrans in August 2010. The County
will support the Butte County Association of
Governments (BCAG) and Caltrans for the pro-
curement of necessary State and federal highway
funds for this improvement.
SU
TRAF-16: Implementation of the Modified Project
would lead to unacceptable LOS D operations on
Honey Run Road between Skyway and Centerville
Road.
S TRAF-16: Upgrade the section of Honey Run
Road between Skyway and Centerville Road to
the County’s arterial roadway standards.
SU
UTILITIES
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to utilities.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Modified Project would not create any new significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.
This chapter presents specific changes to the text of the Draft Supplemental
EIR that are being made in response to comments made by the public and/or
reviewing agencies. In each case, the revised page and location on the page is
set forth, followed by the textual, tabular, or graphical revision. New text is
double-underlined and text removed is shown in strikethrough. None of the
changes constitute significant changes to the Draft Supplemental EIR, so the
Draft Supplemental EIR does not need to be recirculated.
All changes to Chapter 2 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, including changes to
the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, are included in Chapter 2
of this Final Supplemental EIR.
The changes to the Draft Supplemental EIR reflected in this chapter are sup-
ported and explained by the responses to comments in Chapter 5.
Table 3-1 on page 3-12 is hereby amended as shown on the following
page.
Figures 3-4A, 3-4B, 3-5A, and 3-5B on pages to 3-15 to 3-18 are hereby
amended as shown on pages 3-3 to 3-6 of this Final Supplemental EIR to
identify the location of Butte Valley.
Description of Area
Approximate
Affected
Acreage Land Use Designation in Approved Project Land Use Designation in Modified Project
North of Cohasset and Forest Ranch 720 Timber Mountain Foothill Residential
Cohasset 1,130 Timber Mountain Agriculture
South of Forest Ranch 410
390
Timber Mountain
Agriculture/Timber Mountain
Foothill Residential
Planned Unit Development
Bell Muir Area (west of Chico) 150 Rural Residential/Agriculture Very Low Density Residential
West of Paradise, along the Skyway 130 Agriculture Foothill Residential
Butte Valley/Southwest of Paradise 820 Resource Conservation Agriculture
Butte Valley/South of Paradise 910 Resource Conservation Foothill Residential
Butte Valley/South of Paradise, west and
east of Highway 191 290 Agriculture Foothill Residential/Rural Residential/
Very Low Density Residential
Butte Valley/South of Paradise, east of
Highway 191 100 Foothill Residential/Rural Residential Agriculture
Durham Dayton Highway and Highway
99 80 Agriculture Industrial (with Retail Overlay)
East of Paradise 400 Agriculture Foothill Residential
Thermalito 40 Rural Residential/Very Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential
East of the Oroville Airport along
Highway 162 50 Retail and Office Very Low Density Residential/Medium Density
Residential/Medium High Density Residential
South of Oroville between the Feather
River and Highway 70 250 Recreation Commercial Industrial
South of Oroville along Lincoln
Boulevard 100 Industrial/Resource Conservation
Rural Residential/Very Low Density Residential/
Medium Density Residential/ Medium High Density
Residential
Southwest of Oroville along Highway 70 280 Resource Conservation/Very Low Density Residential Agriculture
East of Biggs 550 Agriculture Rural Residential
Palermo 1,890 Agriculture Rural Residential
South of Palermo 960 Agriculture Rural Residential
pp
pp pp
|
|
|
|
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
DURHAMDURHAM
COHASSETCOHASSET
FOREST FOREST
RANCHRANCH
BEBE
CONCOWCONCOW
YANKEE HILLYANKEE HILL
BUTTE BUTTE
MEADOWSMEADOWS
STIRLING STIRLING
CITYCITY
DAYTONDAYTON
NORDNORD
MAGALIAMAGALIA
CHEROKEECHEROKEEBUTTE VALLEYBUTTE VALLEY
CHICOCHICO PARADISEPARADISE
99
70
32
191
APPROVED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN 2030 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 3-4 A
012MilesSource: Butte County and The Planning Center | DC&E GIS, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Agriculture/Timber/Conservation Designations
Agriculture (20-ac to 320-ac minimum)
Agriculture Services (0.8 maximum FAR)
Timber Mountain (160-ac minimum)
Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)
Residential Designations
Foothill Residential (1 to 40 ac/du)
Rural Residential (5 to 10 ac/du)
Very Low Density Residential (1 du/5 ac to 1 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (1 to 3 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 du/ac)
Medium High Density Residential (6 to 14 du/ac)
High Density Residential (14 to 20 du/ac)
Commercial/Industrial Designations
Mixed Use (4 to 20 du/ac and 0.5 maximum FAR)
Retail and Office (0.4 maximum FAR)
Recreation Commercial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Sports and Entertainment (0.4 maximum FAR)
Industrial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Research and Business Park (0.5 maximum FAR)
Other Designations
Public
Planned Unit Development
pp Airports
Railroad
Highways
Major Roads
Sphere of Influence
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
Parcels Subject to GPA
pp
|
|
|
|
|
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
URHAMURHAM
BANGORBANGOR
BERRY CREEKBERRY CREEK
PALERMOPALERMO
FORBESTOWNFORBESTOWN
HONCUTHONCUT
NELSONNELSON
RICHVALERICHVALE
CHEROKEECHEROKEEBUTTE VALLEYBUTTE VALLEY
OROVILLEOROVILLE
GRIDLEYGRIDLEY
BIGGSBIGGS
99
70
70
162
APPROVED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN 2030 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 3-4 B
0 1 2 Miles
Source: Butte County and The Planning Center | DC&E GIS, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Agriculture/Timber/Conservation Designations
Agriculture (20-ac to 320-ac minimum)
Agriculture Services (0.8 maximum FAR)
Timber Mountain (160-ac minimum)
Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)
Residential Designations
Foothill Residential (1 to 40 ac/du)
Rural Residential (5 to 10 ac/du)
Very Low Density Residential (1 du/5 ac to 1 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (1 to 3 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 du/ac)
Medium High Density Residential (6 to 14 du/ac)
High Density Residential (14 to 20 du/ac)
Commercial/Industrial Designations
Mixed Use (4 to 20 du/ac and 0.5 maximum FAR)
Retail and Office (0.4 maximum FAR)
Recreation Commercial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Sports and Entertainment (0.4 maximum FAR)
Industrial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Research and Business Park (0.5 maximum FAR)
Other Designations
Public
Planned Unit Development
pp Airports
Railroad
Highways
Major Roads
Sphere of Influence
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
Parcels Subject to GPA
pp
pp pp
|
|
|
|
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
DURHAMDURHAM
COHASSETCOHASSET
FOREST FOREST
RANCHRANCH
BB
CONCOWCONCOW
YANKEE HILLYANKEE HILL
BUTTE BUTTE
MEADOWSMEADOWS
STIRLING STIRLING
CITYCITY
DAYTONDAYTON
NORDNORD
MAGALIAMAGALIA
CHEROKEECHEROKEEBUTTE VALLEYBUTTE VALLEY
CHICOCHICO PARADISEPARADISE
99
70
32
191
MODIFIED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 3-5 A
012MilesSource: Butte County and The Planning Center | DC&E GIS, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Agriculture/Timber/Conservation Designations
Agriculture (20-ac to 160-ac minimum)
Agriculture Services (0.8 maximum FAR)
Timber Mountain (160-ac minimum)
Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)
Residential Designations
Foothill Residential (1 to 40 ac/du)
Rural Residential (5 to 10 ac/du)
Very Low Density Residential (up to 1 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (up to 3 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (up to 6 du/ac)
Medium High Density Residential (up to 14 du/ac)
High Density Residential (14 to 20 du/ac)
Commercial/Industrial Designations
Mixed Use (4 to 20 du/ac and 0.5 maximum FAR)
Retail and Office (0.4 maximum FAR)
Recreation Commercial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Sports and Entertainment (0.4 maximum FAR)
Industrial (0.5 maximum FAR)
Research and Business Park (0.5 maximum FAR)
Other Designations
Public
Planned Unit Development
pp Airports
Railroad
Highways
Major Roads
Sphere of Influence
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
Parcels Subject to GPA
pp
|
|
|
|
|
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
R HAMRHAM
BANGORBANGOR
BERRY CREEKBERRY CREEK
PALERMOPALERMO
FORBESTOWNFORBESTOWN
HONCUTHONCUT
NELSONNELSON
RICHVALERICHVALE
CHEROKEECHEROKEEBUTTE VALLEYBUTTE VALLEY
OROVILLEOROVILLE
GRIDLEYGRIDLEY
BIGGSBIGGS
99
70
70
162
MODIFIED PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
FIGURE 3-5 B
012MilesSource: Butte County and The Planning Center | DC&E GIS, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Agriculture/Timber/Conservation Designations
Agriculture (20-ac to 160-ac minimum)
Agriculture Services (0.8 maximum FAR)
Timber Mountain (160-ac minimum)
Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)
Residential Designations
Foothill Residential (1 to 40 ac/du)
Rural Residential (5 to 10 ac/du)
Very Low Density Residential (up to 1 du/ac)
Low Density Residential (up to 3 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (up to 6 du/ac)
Medium High Density Residential (up to 14 du/ac)
High Density Residential (14 to 20 du/ac)
Commercial/Industrial Designations
Mixed Use (4 to 20 du/ac and 0.5 maximum FAR)
Retail and Office (0.4 maximum FAR)
Recreation Commercial (0.4 maximum FAR)
Sports and Entertainment (0.4 maximum FAR)
Industrial (0.5 maximum FAR)
Research and Business Park (0.5 maximum FAR)
Other Designations
Public
Planned Unit Development
pp Airports
Railroad
Highways
Major Roads
Sphere of Influence
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
Parcels Subject to GPA
A new bullet is hereby added to the list under Section c, Policy Changes,
on page 3-23, as follows:
Add Policy LU-P2.6, which will state the following: The General Plan
2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assumes the following maxi-
mum development projections for the year 2030 for the lands located
within unincorporated Butte County:
13,600 new homes.
1.7 million square feet of new retail and office space.
1 million square feet of new industrial space.
The Development Services Director shall maintain a list of development
projects approved by Butte County. When approved development ap-
proaches the maximum number of residential units and non-residential
square feet projected in the General Plan 2030 EIR, Butte County shall
prepare and adopt an update to the County General Plan including envi-
ronmental review prior to subsequent development projects to address
growth impacts that would occur due to development exceeding the
General Plan 2030 EIR’s projections. Development activity within the
county shall be furnished to the Board of Supervisors and made publicly
available through an annual report prepared by Development Services.
Figure 3-9 on page 3-27 is hereby amended as shown on page 3-9 of this
Final Supplemental EIR in order to correct the Scenic Highway Overlay
(by expanding it) and the zoning on a set of parcels south of Neal Road
(by changing the zoning from Ag-80 to AG-40 on these parcels).
The first paragraph under Section D.2, Cumulative Impacts, on page 4.2-
18, is hereby amended as follows:
As described on pages 4.2-16 to 4.2-17 of the 2010 Draft EIR for the Ap-
proved Project, development allowed by the Approved Project would con-
tribute to cumulative agricultural impacts in the Central Valley, resulting in a
significant and unavoidable impact; this is identified as Impact AG-3 in the
2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project. The Modified Project would allow
more farmland to convert to non-agricultural uses than the Approved Project.
Therefore, the Modified Project would increase the severity of the cumulative
impact to agricultural land compared to the Approved Project, and it would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The first paragraph on page 4.4-13 is hereby amended as follows:
Butte County has several sensitive natural communities including riparian
woodland, oak woodland, streams, and wetlands. Short-term cConstruction
activities for development allowed by the Modified Project and long-term
uses allowed by the Modified Project could have potential direct and indirect
impacts on sensitive natural communities. Construction projects and land
uses allowed by the Modified Project in the county would also have the po-
tential to affect sensitive natural communities by spreading or introducing
invasive plant species to currently uninfected areas. Invasive species spread
aggressively and crowd out native species, potentially altering the species
composition of natural communities. A predominance of invasive species
reduces the overall habitat quality for native plants and wildlife. In addition,
short-term and long-term impacts related to construction and development
allowed by the Modified Project could impact sensitive natural communities
through the loss of permeable surfaces, erosion from dirt roads, tree removal,
and pollution to adjacent streams. See Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, for a discussion of potential impacts related to runoff, erosion, and
water quality.
The paragraph extending from page 4.8-5 to 4.8-6 is hereby amended as
follows:
The proposed GPA would extend the amount of land on which development
is allowed. This additional development could degrade water quality in Butte
County through increases in non-point source pollution from new impervi-
ous surfaces, construction activity that increases erosion and sediment loads in
downstream receiving waters, increased pollutants from additional traffic, and
increased use of chemicals and other pollutants, such as pesticides and fertiliz-
ers, from various land uses allowed by the GPA.
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
pp
pp pp
pp
DURHAMDURHAM
COHASSETCOHASSET
BANGORBANGOR
FOREST FOREST
RANCHRANCH
BERRY CREEKBERRY CREEK
CONCOWCONCOW
PALERMOPALERMO
FORBESTOWNFORBESTOWN
YANKEE HILLYANKEE HILL
HONCUTHONCUT
BUTTE BUTTE
MEADOWSMEADOWS
CLIPPER MILLSCLIPPER MILLS
STIRLING STIRLING
CITYCITY
NELSONNELSON
DAYTONDAYTON
NORDNORD
RICHVALERICHVALE
MAGALIAMAGALIA
CHEROKEECHEROKEE FEATHER FALLSFEATHER FALLS
CHICOCHICO PARADISEPARADISE
OROVILLEOROVILLE
GRIDLEYGRIDLEY
BIGGSBIGGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿ99
99
70
70
32
191
162
162
0 2.5 5 Miles
Source: The Planning Center | DC&E GIS, 2012.
Note: The Deer Herd Migration Area Overlay Zone and Military Airspace Overlay Zone are provided as separate maps.
Agricultural Zones
Agriculture - 20
Agriculture - 40
Agriculture - 80
Agriculture - 160
Agriculture Services
Natural Resource Zones
Timber Mountain (160-ac minimum)
Timber Production (160-ac minimum)
Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)
Residential Zones
Rural Residential - 5 (up to 1 du/5 ac)
Rural Residential - 10 (up to 1 du/10 ac)
Very Low Density Residential (up to 1 du/ac)
Very Low Density Residential - 2.5 (up to 1 du/2.5 ac)
Low Density Residential (up to 3 du/ac)
Medium Density Residential (up to 6 du/ac)
Medium High Density Residential (up to 14 du/ac)
High Density Residential (14 to 20 du/ac)
Foothill Residential - 1 (up to 1 du/ac)
Foothill Residential - 2 (up to 1 du/2 ac)
Foothill Residential - 5 (up to 1 du/5 ac)
Foothill Residential - 10 (up to 1 du/10 ac)
Foothill Residential - 20 (up to 1 du/20 ac)
Foothill Residential - 40 (up to 1 du/40 ac)
Commercial and Mixed Use Zones
General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Mixed Use - 1
Mixed Use - 2
Mixed Use - 3
Recreation Commercial
Sports and Entertainment
Industrial Zones
Light Industrial
General Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Special Purpose Zones
Public
Airport
Research and Business Park
PUD
Overlay Zones
Airport Compatibility Overlay
Chapman/Mulberry Overlay
Cohasset Overlay
North Chico Specific Plan Overlay
Public Housing Overlay
Retail Overlay
Recreation Commercial Overlay
Scenic Highway Overlay
Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan Overlay
Recycling and Waste Facility Overlay
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!Unique Agriculture Overlay
Watershed Protection Overlay
pp Airports
Highways
Greenline
Railroad
Major Streams
Major Roads
Sphere of Influence
City/Town Limits
County Boundary
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED ZONING MAP
FIGURE 3-9
Mitigation Measure TRAF-15 on page 4.13-8 is hereby amended as fol-
lows:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-15: Incorporate passing lanes into the section
of State Route 99 between East Biggs Highway and the southern intersec-
tion of State Route 99 and State Route 162 as described in the State Route
99 Transportation Concept Report published by Caltrans in August
2010. The County will support the Butte County Association of Gov-
ernments (BCAG) and Caltrans for the procurement of necessary State
and federal highway funds for this improvement.
The significance after mitigation for Mitigation Measure TRAF-15 on
page 4.13-8 is hereby amended as follows:
Significance After Mitigation: Construction of this improvement would
mitigate the impact on this segment. However, because this is a State fa-
cility, and the County cannot guarantee its implementation. Therefore,
the County will commit to implementing this measure, but because it
cannot guarantee its implementation, and the impact remains is conserva-
tively classified as significant and unavoidable.
The first paragraph on page 4.15-4 is hereby amended as follows:
The 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project identified that Butte County
generated 601,266 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) emis-
sions in 2006. As identified in Table 4.15-5 of the 2010 Draft EIR, buildout of
the Approved Project in 2020 would generate 714,440 MTCO2e and buildout
of the Approved Project in 2030 would generate 803,582 MTCO2e. Conse-
quently, the Approved Project would not achieve the County’s GHG reduc-
tion target of a 15 percent reduction from 2006 levels (85 percent of 2006 lev-
els) by 2020. The Modified Project would result in slightly less development
in 2030 compared to the Approved Project, as explained in detail in Chapter 3
of this Supplemental EIR. However, because the Modified Project would
allow more development in rural areas, it would result in a slight increase in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Specifically, the Modified Project would result
in an increase of 1,511 VMT per day compared to the Approved Project pre-
sented in the 2010 Draft EIR. This represents an increase of less than 1/10th
of 1 percent in the overall countywide VMT reported in the Draft EIR for
the Approved Project. In addition, the Modified Project would allow for the
conversion of natural vegetation and agricultural lands to other land uses such
as residential and commercial. Since natural vegetation and agricultural land
can act as carbon sinks, this land conversion could result in a loss of carbon
sinks. However, given the uncertainties associated with estimating GHG
fluxes from natural vegetation and agricultural lands, the potential loss of car-
bon sinks associated with land conversion was not quantified.
The paragraph extended from page 4.15-4 to 4.15-5 is hereby amended as
follows:
Because the Modified Project would allow slightly less development in 2030
compared to the Approved Project and the VMT increase would be minimal,
GHG emissions impacts would be similar to the Approved Project. As de-
scribed in detail on page 4.15-65 of the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Pro-
ject, General Plan 2030 directs the County to prepare a Climate Action Plan
that includes a Climate Change Preparedness Plan that will prepare for the
impacts of climate change on the county’s economic and natural ecosystems
and promote a climate-resilient community. In addition, General Plan 2030
includes many policies that limit the amount of natural land conversion due
to urban growth, as described on pages 4.15-51 to 4.15-52 of the 2010 Draft
EIR for the Approved Project. General Plan 2030 also includes other policies
that protect agriculture, promote public health and safety, reduce wildfire
risk, reduce risks from flooding, promote a sustainable water supply, and pro-
tect natural ecosystems.
Compared to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would allow slight-
ly less development overall in 2030, although more development in forested
areas could occur, resulting in the loss of carbon sinks, and VMT could slight-
ly increase. Overall, because impacts are based on a quantitative analysis re-
lated to the projected 2030 buildout and VMT, GHG emissions impacts
would be similar to the Approved Project. In addition, the General Plan 2030
policies that address GHG emissions would be maintained. Because such a
plan the Climate Action Plan is not currently in place, and it is therefore not
known whether the plan will succeed in achieving AB 32 targets, GHG im-
pacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
4 LIST OF COMMENTORS
4-1
A. Written Comments
Written comments were received from the following agencies, organizations,
and members of the public.
State Agencies
1. James Herota, Staff Environmental Scientist, Flood Projects
Improvement Branch. State of California, California Natural Resources
Agency, Central Valley Flood Protection Board. July 13, 2012.
2. Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse. State of California,
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. July 16, 2012.
3. Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse. State of California,
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. July 17, 2012.
4. Gary Arnold, Chief, Office of Transportation Planning – North. State
of California, Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency,
Department of Transportation. July 20, 2012.
Non-Profit Organizations
5. Robyn DiFalco, Executive Director, Butte Environmental Council. July
11, 2012.
6. John Scott, Advocate, Butte Valley Coalition. July 15, 2012.
7. Georgia Bernoudy, Advocate, Butte Valley Coalition. July 16, 2012.
Members of the Public
8. Neil McCabe. 2255 E. 8th Street, Chico, CA 95928. June 6, 2012.
9. John C. Schaller, Attorney at Law. 1458 The Esplanade, Chico, CA
95926. June 15, 2012.
10. Chris Nelson. 2300 B Estes Road, Chico, CA 95928. July 1, 2012.
11. Mary Allport. mary.allport@gmail.com. July 9, 2012.
12. Melinda Teves. apricot.farmer@hotmail.com. July 13, 2012.
13. Adele Pfister. adele.pf@gmail.com. July 16, 2012.
14. Michael T. Rehg, Associate Professor, California State University, Chico.
Mbrehg1105@att.net. Date Unknown.
15. Petition entitled “Inadequacy of DSEIR.”
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
LIST OF COMMENTORS
4-2
B. Public Hearing Comments
Planning Commission Hearing
16. Oral comments made during the Public Hearing on Thursday, June 14,
2012.
5 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-1
This chapter includes a reproduction of, and responses to, each letter received
during the public review period. Each letter is reproduced in its entirety, and
is immediately followed by responses to the comments in it. Letters follow
the same order as listed in Chapter 4 of this Final Supplemental EIR and are
categorized by:
¨ State Agencies
¨ Non-Profit Organizations
¨ Members of the Public
Each comment and response is labeled with a reference number in the mar-
gin.
In addition, the chapter includes responses to comments received at the public
hearing on the Draft Supplemental EIR, which was held on June 14, 2012.
Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may
direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. Where a re-
sponse requires revisions to the Draft Supplemental EIR, these revisions are
explained and shown in Chapter 3 of this Final Supplemental EIR document.
Some comments address the General Plan Amendment or Zoning Ordinance
themselves, and not the Draft Supplemental EIR. They do not require a re-
sponse in this Final Supplemental EIR, and so the statement "no response is
required" is used. However, the comments will be considered by the Board
of Supervisors when considering the General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Ordinance adoption.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-2
A. State Agencies
1-1
1-2
COMMENT LETTER # 1
1-2
cont.
1-3
1-4
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-5
Letter 1: James Herota, Staff Environmental Scientist, Flood Projects
Improvement Branch. State of California, California Natural Resources
Agency, Central Valley Flood Protection Board. July 13, 2012.
1-1: The comment states that the proposed project is located within the
jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. It is not a
comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no
response is necessary.
1-2: The comment summarizes the permit requirements for the Central
Valley Flood Protection Board. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is necessary.
1-3: The comment states that encroachments must be managed to avoid
impacts on flood control and levee over-topping, and that the project should
include measures to improve and maintain channels and levees to prevent
and/or reduce hydraulic impacts. As indicated on pages 4.8-8 to 4.8-9 and 4.8-
13 to 4.8-15 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the proposed project includes
policies that minimize flooding impacts as a result of drainage alteration such
as from vegetation, encroachments of structures, and levee failure. In
particular, Policy HS-P2.4 prohibits development on lands within the 100-
year flood zone unless it can be demonstrated that the development will not
interfere with the existing water conveyance capacity of the floodway. In
addition, Policies HS-P2.1 and HS-P2.2 direct the County to support efforts
of public agencies and private landowners to improve and maintain flood
management facilities. Policy HS-P4.2 directs the County to support the
efforts of levee owners and public agencies to design and reconstruct levees
that do not meet flood protection standards. This comment does not dispute
the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR’s analysis of hydraulic impacts,
so no further response or revision to the analysis is required.
1-4: The comment directs the reader to the Central Valley Flood
Protection permit application and other permits. It is not a comment on the
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-6
adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is
necessary.
2-1
COMMENT LETTER # 2
2-1
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-9
Letter 2: Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse. State of
California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. July 16, 2012.
2-1: The comment states the Draft Supplemental EIR was submitted to
select State agencies for review and acknowledges that the County has com-
plied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for environmental
documents. No response is required.
3-1
COMMENT LETTER # 3
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-11
Letter 3: Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse. State of
California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. July 16, 2012.
3-1: The comment states that a comment letter was received by the State
Clearinghouse after the end of the State review period. Although CEQA
does not require a response to a late comment, the State Clearinghouse en-
courages a response. This Final Supplemental EIR responds to the late com-
ments, including comments in Letters 1 and 4.
4-1
4-2
COMMENT LETTER # 4
4-2
cont.
4-3
4-4
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-14
Letter 4: Gary Arnold, Chief, Office of Transportation Planning –
North. State of California, Business, Transportation, and Housing
Agency, Department of Transportation. July 20, 2012.
4-1: The comment states that the Draft Supplemental EIR does not ade-
quately quantify the additional AM and PM peak hour trips or their distribu-
tion resulting from the additional residences proposed in the project. This
analysis used PM peak hour trips because the PM peak typically represents
the highest hourly volume during a typical weekday. This volume is used to
design future roadways because of its regular weekday occurrence. Using a
higher or lower volume hour could lead to inadequate designs or designs that
are underused. A review of existing count data collected for the 2030 General
Plan EIR shows that PM peak hour volumes were about 7 percent higher
than AM peak hour volumes.1
As shown on pages 4.13-4 to 4.13-5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, PM peak
trips have been quantified. The Modified Project would generate 25 addition-
al PM peak hour trips above what was evaluated in the 2010 Draft EIR for the
Approved Project. To be conservative, the analysis assumes that these trips
could occur on any of the roadway facilities analyzed as a part of the Trans-
portation and Circulation chapter of the 2010 Draft EIR. However, these
trips would actually be more localized to the area where the additional resi-
dences would be allowed, i.e. parts of southern Butte County that would
change from Agriculture to Rural Residential under the Modified Project.
Therefore, while the distribution of these trips is not modeled, a more con-
servative approach was used, and it identified additional significant impacts on
State Route 99 and Honey Run Road resulting from these additional resi-
dences.
In addition, as explained in Chapter 3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the
Modified Project would slightly reduce the countywide projected 2030
1 David Robinson, Fehr & Peers Associates, personal communication with
Joanna Jansen of The Planning Center | DC&E, August 29, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-15
buildout. Therefore, the Modified Project would not change the cumulative
transportation impacts of the Approved Project, which were found to be sig-
nificant due to traffic increases on regional roadways, including State Routes
65, 70, and 99. These impacts are described in detail in the 2010 Draft EIR for
the Approved Project.
4-2: The comment notes that the Draft Supplemental EIR identifies ade-
quate mitigation on State Route 99 for Impact TRAF-15, but concludes that
the impact is significant and unavoidable because the roadway is outside of
the County’s jurisdiction. The comment states that CEQA does not limit
mitigation to areas and facilities under the jurisdiction of the lead agency, and
requires mitigation regardless of jurisdictional boundaries, noting that Cal-
trans is available to assist Butte County in this mitigation. The County ap-
preciates this indication of support from Caltrans. The Draft Supplemental
EIR does not avoid mitigation simply because the roadway facility is outside
of the County’s jurisdiction. Rather, it requires this mitigation, but conserva-
tively concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable because the
County cannot guarantee the timing or nature of Caltrans’ cooperation in
implementing this mitigation measure along a State-owned facility. This mit-
igation measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro-
gram outlined in Chapter 6 of this Final Supplemental EIR, indicating that
the County will work with Caltrans to implement the measure. Chapter 3 of
this Final Supplemental EIR clarifies these points. See also the response to
comment 4-3.
4-3: The comment recommends adding the identified mitigation measures
to Butte County’s Impact Fee Program. As noted on page 4.13-9 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR, the mitigation measure for Honey Run Road has envi-
ronmental constraints, making the mitigation infeasible. The mitigation
measure for State Route 99 is already identified as a necessary improvement in
Caltrans’ State Route 99 Transportation Concept Report, regardless of the
additional trips generated by the proposed GPA. The County will support
the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) and Caltrans for the
procurement of necessary State and federal highway funds for this improve-
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-16
ment; this has been clarified in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Final Supplemental
EIR. However, Butte County does not typically contribute development
impact fees to State highway projects when the improvements are identified
in a Caltrans study. This approach is consistent with the approach to mitiga-
tion on State highways in the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project.
4-4: The comment requests that the Final Supplemental EIR be provided
to the commentor. The Final EIR will be distributed to Caltrans.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-17
B. Non-Profit Organizations
July 11th, 2012 Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
RE: Zoning Ordinance, General Plan Amendment, and EIR Comments
To the Butte County Department of Development Services, Butte Environmental Council (BEC) has studied the documents released on May 31st: the Zoning Ordinance (ZO), the General Plan Amendments (GPA), and the EIR. We appreciate County staff for providing clarification and
background on some concerns, as well as their willingness to participate in
public outreach events. BEC supports the goals of the General Plan and we are
submitting comments to ensure the ZO, GPA, and EIR honor fairness in the
public process, and support the goals the County has committed to. We are
pushing Butte County to set standards not by comparing these documents with
what was, but rather what could be. There is a lot to be commended: decreasing ranchettes on ag lands by raising the minimum parcel size to 20 acres, integrating water protection and conservation policies, and creating overlays to further protect unique areas.
However, we have some serious concerns about the use of the amendment
process to include developer driven, not policy driven rezones, assumptions
made throughout the EIR that there will be no increases in development despite
the 6,930 newly zoned residential acres, and the fact that there are no plans in
place for mitigating land conversion and offsetting increased Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions.
Zoning Ordinance Concerns, Recommendations, and Progress Overarching Concern Since the General Plan was approved in 2010, after the extensive public
participation process in which many issues and specific location were vetted,
there are now nearly 1000 parcel rezones. It has been explained that many of
these rezones are corrections to mis-designated properties, however it seems
clear that many parcels are being rezoned based on requests by landowners and
developers and are not in fact corrections.
We support the requirements listed for rezoning agriculture lands in section E, however many of the recommended rezones do not meet the intent of these requirements. We acknowledge that this is not an approved document, but do not understand why the County is recommending so many rezones and parcel size reductions that go against the general plan goals and intent of the ZO.
These rezones undermine the entire general plan process, and decrease the
5-1
5-2
COMMENT LETTER # 5
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 2
public’s confidence about the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to implementing the General
Plan.
Article 10. Overlay Zones
Page 88. We support the addition of the Unique Ag overlay as an interesting way to support local
farmers, help the consumer better understand the source of their food, and eventually lead to the
protection of ag lands.
Page 90. The Watershed Overlay is intended to maintain and improve water quality by
establishing additional development standards within sensitive watershed areas. Please explain
how sensitive watershed is defined and the purpose for protecting these three areas alone.
BEC would like to see additional sensitive watershed areas included in this overlay,
including Butte Creek, Big Chico Creek and others with threatened species and important beneficial uses.
Page 92. Removal of trees is prohibited within buffer areas. Exotic and invasive plant species
are an on-going problem in Butte County and many species are within riparian buffer areas. We
request this section be edited to allow for the removal of exotic invasive trees within the buffer areas.
Article 16. Riparian Areas
Page 114. Permitted activities in the riparian area include livestock grazing, agricultural practices and roads used primarily for the maintenance of a property. Allowing these uses has the potential for severely eroded stream banks with no vegetative cover, reducing habitat value
and increasing sediment into the stream. Allow livestock grazing as a conditionally permitted
use if an off-stream water source can not be provided, and then only with a management
plan to ensure protection of the riparian area. Do not allow agricultural uses and service
roads in the 50ft riparian buffer zone.
Article 17. Agricultural Buffers
Page 118. An agricultural buffer area shall be 300 feet from any property line that abuts
Agriculture zones. Thank you for keeping a 300ft minimum setback and buffer requirement
which will help minimize conflict along the urban rural border.
Article 18. Clustered Development
Page 125. As an incentive for development projects to conserve open space and protect natural resources, maximum permitted residential densities for projects utilizing clustered development provisions shall be, at a minimum, 15 percent greater than allowed by the zone applicable to the property. When calculating number of total allowable developments and density incentives,
do not to include acres that would otherwise be inappropriate for development. These
areas include riparian zones, unstable slopes, wetlands, sensitive biological habitats and
sensitive archaeological sites. We oppose cluster development in unincorporated areas. Article 19. Parking and Loading
Page 143. Rainwater shall be managed on-site with designs that encourage infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and water re-use. This is forward thinking for both groundwater recharge
5-2
cont.
5-3
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 3
and storm water management. This is being implemented successfully in other towns such as
Ashland, Oregon and we are pleased to see it included in the ZO.
Article 24. Land Use Compatibility Standards
Page 185. Erosion control standards shall apply to all development projects in all urban zones. Erosion occurs throughout the county, and especially in rural areas such as along riparian zones,
in the oak woodlands, and in fire prone canyons. Many of these areas are currently being
recommended for residential development but do not fall under the urban category. Apply these
erosion control standards to rural areas as well.
Article 38. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Page 298 and 299. The Board of Supervisors may approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment only
if all of the following findings are made; consistent with the General Plan, and will not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safely or welfare of the county. Our concern is that
during this very first amendment, many rezones do not meet the intentions behind the requirements and actually go directly against county goals. This sets a bad precedent for
implementation and consistency with the General Plan. Allowing such a large number of
rezoning requests also deprives the county of fees and the public of an opportunity to scrutinize
specific requests. These rezones have been described as “special cases” and “not typical”. Why
then are they being recommended, and what are the assurances this isn’t just a continuation of business as usual, as before this General Plan was adopted? For this and future zoning
amendments, we request that justification be provided for each rezone request explaining how it meets the above amendment requirements.
Article 39 General Plan Amendments Page 302. The Board of Supervisors may approve a General Plan Amendment only if all of the
following findings are made; in the public interest, consistent and compatible with the rest of the
General Plan. For all the current and future GPA rezones, provide a justification for each
that explains how it meets the above requirements.
General Plan Amendment Concerns and Recommendations
Overarching concern
The Butte County community was assured through the General Plan process that the purpose of public input was to ensure more holistic planning that would be policy driven not
driven by the individual interests of landowners and developers. We were ensured that the
County would make decisions in the public’s best interest and in line with the policies developed
throughout the five year General Plan process. We were assured that the GPA process was to
correct mistakes and repair unintended consequences that have come up in the last two years since the General Plan was completed. Unfortunately what has occurred is a landslide of
requests made by individuals and developers to change the zoning of forest lands, agriculture
lands, and resource conservation areas to allow residential development, as well as reducing the
parcel size of these lands.
There are nearly 1,000 parcels being recommended in the GPA for rezones. We have no way of knowing how many of these requests are corrections and how many are owner requests.
5-3
cont.
5-4
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 4
But we do know these rezones result in more rural and scattered development and go directly
against the county’s goal to direct development to existing urbanized areas. Allowing this large
number of rezones through the Amendment after the extensive public process feels unfair,
especially for very controversial resource issues that were widely discussed including cluster development in the oak woodlands, subdividing land in Butte Valley, exceeding GHG emission goals, and continuing to recommend residential development in areas where the groundwater
conditions are not clearly understood. We call for all new rezones that are not technically
‘corrections’ to go through the process recommended in the ZO, which are required to be
in the public interest, consistent and compatible with the rest of the general plan, and determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. BEC opposes the ‘freebies’ that are being included in the GPA process that degrade environmental quality.
EIR Concerns, Recommendations, and Progress
Overarching Concerns In the Modified Project (i.e. GPA) there are 6,930 newly zoned residential acres,
including a 390 acre cluster development in the oak woodlands. However the EIR makes the
assumption that there will be 100 fewer dwellings in the Modified Project when compared with
the Approved Project (ie. General Plan). How can the EIR claim “no new development” when it
is clear that adding new residential acres will likely or potentially result in new development? On page 3-48 it is stated that the proposed designation change would not increase the amount of
projected 2030 development because these locations are not expected to develop before 2030.
Given that many of the rezones and parcel size reductions being recommended are developer
requests, the assumption of no additional growth is inaccurate and neglects to fully evaluate the
impacts to the environment, existing communities, and personal safety. We disagree with the EIR’s assumption that build-out will not occur and call for a justification for these assumptions as well as further analysis of development assumptions for each recommended
rezone. Provide a table similar to what was created for the Approved Project and shown in
Table 3-5 on P. 3-45, and include all rezones, not just those that that are near previously
identified growth areas.
The draft EIR identified constraints for development such as Very High Fire Hazard
Severity, flood hazard, liquefaction, constraints with wastewater, impacts to federally-protected
wetlands, expansive soils, high landslide potential, and very high erosion potential.
Recommended residential zonings include the following list, with some areas have more than one hazard associated:
~600 acres located in high landslide potential.
2,750 acres located in areas classified by the State as High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and 2,100 acres increase in lands that are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
~2,820 acres in the foothill areas classified as having high erosion potential
610 acres within the 100-year flood zone.
The County is recommending these areas to be rezoned for residential, and throughout
the EIR justifies these rezones by claiming a less than significant impact because when it is time
to develop there will be local and State regulations. Rezoning in these areas opens the door and
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 5
gets the ball rolling for development in these locations, which will result in high hopes for landowners/ developers and sets the stage for many project by project disputes. We call for the county to make a policy driven decision now and avoid problems later by not approving residential rezones in areas with severe problems and safety hazards that are not in the
public interest.
Throughout the EIR, related to GHG emissions, traffic, air quality and other environmental problems there are findings of cumulatively significant impacts. Yet the action is
to move forward without identifying mitigations and without indicating when the addition of
new actions will cross a threshold of impacts to deny new rezones. We request a definition of
cumulatively significant impacts, and call for a policy that identifies thresholds that would trigger no net increase in impacts, and implementation of mitigation for all impacts.
The General Plan directs the County to prepare a Climate Action Plan, however at this
time, as these rezones are being recommended, this plan is not in place and the impacts to GHG
emissions continue to exceed the County’s GHG reduction target and it is unknown if the county will succeed in achieving AB32 targets. Do not recommend rezoning that allows for increased development, inevitably contributing to the increased GHG emissions until solutions have been identified.
The General Plan directs the County to develop an agricultural mitigation ordinance that would help to mitigate potential losses of agricultural land as mentioned on P.4.2-12. We are very concerned that thousands of acres of farmland are being recommended for rezoning to non-
agricultural uses and identified as a significant impact, yet at this time there is no mitigation
program in place, nor any funding or a timeline for implementation. We acknowledge the
challenges with funding but feel strongly that without mitigation measures, anything lost will be unrecoverable. We call for implementation of a county mitigation program ASAP, and for the County to prioritize funds to create this program. We recommend 1:1 acre mitigation on agriculture lands lost due to rezoning currently in the GPA that are not county
corrections.
Regardless of whether economic conditions make it unlikely that Butte County would realistically achieve max buildout by 2030, we are very uncomfortable with the idea that stating
a Maximum buildout makes it allowable for that level of increased population growth in our
community that is neither planned for nor desired. Maximum allowable buildout is short term
thinking that opens the door for a worst case scenario but does not evaluate these long-term effects. We do not want to end up in a situation of approving projects that continue to
cumulatively increase the significant impacts. We call for a policy that dictates a plan of
action, including an updated EIR, once development increases beyond the estimated
projected build-out.
Report Summary Section
Page 2-2. By incorporating policies intended to avoid environmental impacts and by steering the
majority of development to existing communities, General Plan 2030, as modified by the
proposed GPA, is largely self-mitigating. We strongly disagree with this statement considering
the GPA results in more rural and scattered development, not less. Mitigations need to be
5-8
cont.
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 6
included to prevent the majority of environmental impacts from the recommended residential rezones scattered throughout the county.
Table 2-1. The Modified Project would allow 4,460 acres of forest land to be redesignated to a
non-forest designation, and this is a ‘significant and unavoidable’ impact. Under the mitigation
measures none are listed, only long explanations and justifications for rezoning. This is inadequate and mitigations need to be identified.
Table 2-1. The Modified Project would not create any significant impacts related to land use.
The county is recommending changes including decreasing the number of resource conservation
acres by 1,860, timber mountain acres by 2,810, and rezoning oak woodland areas, all significant changes to land-use. This impact and others are based on the assumption of no increased development. We call for the county to do a more thorough analysis of likely development
and include these developer requested rezones as likely build-out.
Page 3-6. Address agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County’s economy that will be protected, maintained, promoted, and enhanced. We call for an explanation describing how the 2,090 acres of unmitigated loss of farmlands meet these goals and what are the overriding considerations that justify these significant losses?
Page 3-8. Changes to the General Plan 2030 were identified by County staff, the public and county decision makers. Other changes including a significant portion of the changes to the General Plan 2030 landuse map were identified through the extensive meeting process. During
this detailed review, participants identified needed changes and corrections to General Plan
land use designations. We know that many of the rezones and decreases in parcel size were
developer driven by the December 16th, 2011 summary of Board Actions. It is dishonest to call these “needed changes and corrections”. We are very concerned about the use of this process to include ‘freebies’ and the unidentified number of changes being included in the GPA that
contribute to the ongoing loss of ag lands and sensitive environmental areas. We call for an
honest analysis identifying parcels that are corrections and those that are likely to develop,
and make this available to the public Page 3-31. The Foothill Residential -1, -2,-5, -10, -20, -40 sub-zones would be maintained. One
of the largest threats to oak woodlands in California is parcelization of large, continuous
woodland for development. Keeping the smaller 1, 2, 5, and 10 acre zones contributes to this
problem. BEC recommends maintaining continuous oak woodlands by raising the minimum lot size.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Page 3-29. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance minimum lot sizes would be increased. We
are pleased to see that the new Ag minimum is now 20 acres and will prevent further subdivision of ag land into 5- and 10-acre ranchettes. However we are dismayed to see the large number of
Ag-160 parcels that are proposed to decrease to 20 acres because these become likely candidates
for future developments. We are being reassured that this won’t happen under this general plan,
but it feels like a slippery slope, especially since many of the requests came from developers
5-13
cont.
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 7
rather than farmers. We recommend the Agriculture Commissioner review these
recommended rezones and ensure they will remain in agriculture before approving.
Page 3-23 and 4.2-7. Amend the Chico Area Greenline policies to allow Very Low Density
Residential uses on the agricultural side of the Greenline, in addition to Rural Residential on the
adopted General Plan Land Use Map. It has been described by the county that these rezones
are for consistency in the area and that the parcels in question are not ideal for ag anymore, however we do know that requests in the Bell Muir area have come from landowners hoping to
subdivide and develop. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture small farms, organic
farms, young farmers, and micro farms that contribute to farmers markets are all on the rise.
These farming operations tend to need smaller affordable acreage close to urban areas, making
the Bell Muir area are perfect for these types of farming. We recommend the county not amend the Chico Area Greenline policies on the agriculture side of the Greenline, maintain current zoning, and defer future growth of that area to the City of Chico. We also need a breakdown of how many of the 150 acres recommended for rezoning are currently zoned
ag and how many of them are just name changes from Agriculture Residential to VLDR.
Page 4.2-9. In Nelson approximately 25 acres of Prime Farmland would change from
Agriculture to Agriculture Services. According to county meeting notes, the actual acreage
being proposed for conversion is 39 acres and on prime farmland currently being farmed. This
goes directly against the original intent of AS explained in the General Plan which was to utilize
lands no longer viable for farming. Do not approve these rezones from Agriculture to AS. And because they were requested after the rezoning of the Helena Chemical Company due to growth inducing impacts, we call for the amendment process to be used as intended and correct the mistake and address the unintended consequences of rezoning the Helena
Chemical Company land to AS, and return the zoning at this site back to agriculture.
Page 4.2-11. Approximately 500 new acres of farmland of concern under CEQA would be
subject to conversion through non-agricultural use. Farmland of statewide importance, Prime
Farmland, and Conversion of Farmland of Concern are being recommended for conversion to
residential. These rezones would increase the severity of the impacts in the General Plan and
remain ‘significant and unavoidable’. We recommend the county adopt a no net loss policy regarding these farmlands of concern. Page 4.2-15. In total, the GPA would allow 4,460 acres of forest land to be redesignated to a
non-forest designation. It has been reiterated that some of the rezones to residential in the mountain areas are because they would increase conflict if logged. As an alternative to increased residential in these fire prone areas, we recommend zoning these parcels Resource Conservation to help mitigate the current losses. We oppose rezones in the forest
lands, including those in the foothills that are not corrections but ‘freebies’.
Air Quality Page 4.3-3. Many of the designation changes allowed by the proposed GPA would not be
expected to develop by 2030. Therefore the projected 2030 buildout under the GPA is slightly
less that that which was evaluated in the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project. Only areas
that fall into categories identified in the General Plan process are included in the assumptions of
5-19
cont.
5-20
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-21
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 8
growth, but this does not adequately analyze the air quality impacts for more rural and scattered
development. We call data, facts and justifications to be provided to the public that keep air quality impacts ‘less than significant’.
Page 4.3-5. The Modified Project would result in an increase of 1,511 vehicle miles traveled
per day compared to the Approved Project. Again how does the county justify these numbers
with 6,930 newly zoned residential acres scattered around the county? Because Butte County and the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin Air Quality Attainment Plan are designated as nonattainment for three air quality standards, any increases should be
categorized as significant.
Biological Resources Page 4.4-13. Butte County has several sensitive natural communities including riparian
woodland, oak woodland, streams, and wetlands. Construction activities allowed in these areas
allowed by the Modified Project could have potential direct and indirect impacts on sensitive
natural communities. We call for the inclusion of the effects of developing in these sensitive
communities over the long-term, not just during construction, such as decreases in permeable areas, erosion from dirt roads, tree removal, and pollution to adjacent streams.
Page 4.4-16. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan has not yet been completed. There would
therefore be no conflict from the Modified Project and no impact. However, there is a significant impact that would contribute towards the on-going loss of undeveloped lands that support sensitive biological resources. We call for the county to identify how potential unintended
consequences caused by rezoning conservation areas can be corrected and mitigated later, if there are conflicts discovered once the BRCP is completed. We also recommend setting
aside funding to accomplish this.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Page 4.6-2. The proposed GPA would allow development in new areas, including areas on or
near inactive and potentially active faults, valley sites on areas subject to liquefaction, sites with
landslide potential, areas with expansive soils and sites with high erosion hazard potential.
These areas unsafe, bad for the environment, and are not properly analyzed for development as the county has deferred responsibility of these areas to local and State regulations. We strongly
oppose rezoning in those areas unsafe for residences and unhealthy for the environment. And we strongly oppose the county opening the door for development and passing the buck
to local and State regulations. Hazards and Safety
Page 4.7-7. 2,750 acres located in areas classified by the State as High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones would be changed to a designation that allows development and 2,100 acres increase in
lands that are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones that new allows development. This could expose new populations to loss, injury, or death due to wildfire. This section also transfers responsibility on local and Sate laws that address wildland fire, however a recent study
funded by the USGS found that land-use planning is a critical tool for reducing fire risk by
focusing on location and arrangement of houses rather than just measures taken after the
rezoning. It is irresponsible to allow the continued development of these areas and then put the
5-25
cont.
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-29
5-30
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 9
home owners at risk and the burden of fire fighting on the public. We strongly oppose rezoning
in these areas that are unsafe for residences and that defer the costs of protection to the
general public.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Page 4.8-6. The GPA allows a greater extent of development that would reduce areas available
for groundwater recharge and increase areas dependent on groundwater supply. These changes are not expected to affect hydrology and water quality. We’re pleased to see the County potentially getting funding for a comprehensive study, but
without this information we remain very concerned about development decisions being made in
the absence of sufficient information about the health of the Tuscan Aquifer. With thousands of
new acres of residential designated lands please provide a justification and analysis how
these would not affect hydrology and water quality with increases in impervious surfaces, dirt roads throughout the oak woodlands potentially contributing sediment to nearby streams, septic, herbicides and fertilizers, and increased demand on groundwater.
Page 4.8-6. Applicants for rezoning must demonstrate that the cumulative effects of additional sewage disposal and surface water runoff resulting from the proposed action will not result in any adverse impacts on water quality and the watershed. We recommend language be included in the ZO that requires no increases in surface water runoff be allowed and runoff be managed on site.
Page 4.8-7. Overall, the Modified Project impact on water quality would be about the same as the impact from the Approved Project. We disagree that with all the new rezones to residential in highly erosive areas, areas not suitable for septic, and adjacent to creeks that there will be no
additional impact on water quality. A more thorough and honest analysis regarding water
quality needs to be conducted and mitigations implemented.
Page 4.8-7. Policy W-P2.9 requires that applicants for new major development projects demonstrate adequate water supply to meet the needs of the project, including an evaluation of
potential cumulative impacts to surrounding groundwater users and the environment. We are
pleased to see this policy included, however we know that understanding the groundwater in this
area has proven difficult at best and by putting this burden on developers makes it unlikely that cumulative impacts will be fully recognized. We call for no new major developments until the county fully understands the impacts of new development on groundwater.
Page 4.8-8. The Modified Project allows a greater extent of development that would reduce areas available for groundwater recharge and increase areas dependent on groundwater supply. This impact is considered less than significant because of development restrictions in the
Watershed Overlay Zone that covers the Firhaven Creek watershed, and Paradise and Magalia
Reservoirs watershed. These overlay zones are unrelated to the residential development rezones
recommended in the GPA. There are also landscaping water conservation requirements listed in
the Zoning Ordinance identified to help conserve water. These two mitigations are unrelated to the impacts and inadequately address the decreases in groundwater recharge and increased
groundwater use. Throughout the Hydrology and Water Quality section the watershed overlay is
used as an offset for all the damage done by all the new rezones, including runoff, water quality,
5-30
cont.
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-34
5-35
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 10
decreases in infiltration and recharge, drainage patterns, and stormwater drainage. This overlay
only covers three small watersheds making it an inadequate and unrelated mitigation. We call
for a water balance justifying these offsets or mitigations related to the individual actions and impacts.
Public Service and Recreation
Page 4.12-4. The Modified Project would result in slightly less development in 2030 compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the cumulative fire protection facilities impact would not change, remaining less than significant. This finding relies on the assumption that there will be
less development, even though there are 2,750 acres located in areas classified by the State as
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones would be changed to a designation that allows development
and 2,100 acres increase in lands that are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
that allows new development. We call for an honest analysis of likely growth for the GPA rezones and mitigate appropriately. Transportation and Circulation
Page 4.13-8 Implementation of the Modified Project would lead to unacceptable LOS D operations on Honey Run Road between Skyway and Centerville Road. Mitigation is also unlikely because of environmental constraints including steep canyons, erosion hazards, and riparian resources. Because this increase in traffic is unacceptable, not likely to be
mitigated, and remains significant we recommend denying additional residential rezoning
in this area.
P. 4.13-1 Butte County adopted its Bicycle plan which aims to encourage the use of bicycling as a mode of transportation and recreation. Thank you for making this a priority and seeing it
through to completion.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page 4.15-4. The Modified Project would allow slightly less development compared to the Approved Project and the VMT increase would be minimal GHG emissions and impacts would
be similar. Again, there are 6,930 newly zoned residential acres, many developer requests, and
more rural and scattered development throughout the county. The county has done an
inadequate job of truly analyzing the impacts that these rezones will have on GHG emissions. Because a Climate Action Plan is not yet in place and the county has no mitigations to offset these increased emissions, they remain a significant problem. We strongly recommend the
county not approve additional rezones in rural and scattered locations, not approve the
cluster development in the oak woodlands, and implement a mitigation plan for any
additional rezones approved during this Amendment process.
Page 4.15-4 The Approved Project would not achieve the County’s GHG reduction target. What
has been the overriding consideration for the county to continue to exceed GHG emission
goals and increase cumulative impacts?
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Page 5-2. We recommend adding an additional alternative that covers the Zoning
Ordinance update and GPA rezoning of parcels that are considered mistakes or corrections
5-35
cont.
5-36
5-37
5-38
5-39
5-40
5-41
Public Comment Letter by Butte Environmental Council 11
only. Do not include those that are landowner/developer requests in this GPA, but forward those to the next amendment process and require them to go through the fair process the
ZO requires.
Thank you for your efforts throughout this process as well as your consideration of the issues we have brought forth.
Sincerely,
Robyn DiFalco
Executive Director
Butte Environmental Council
5-41
cont.
5-42
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-29
Letter 5: Robyn DiFalco, Executive Director, Butte Environmental
Council. July 11, 2012.
5-1: The comment provides introductory remarks, which are described in
more detail in subsequent comments. See the responses to subsequent com-
ments for detailed responses.
5-2: The comment notes that the proposed project includes changing the
General Plan land use designation on nearly 1,000 parcels, and suggests that
many of these changes are driven by landowners and developers. The com-
ment also states that these changes are not consistent with the goals and intent
of General Plan 2030 and the Zoning Ordinance. It is not a comment on the
adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is neces-
sary. The Butte County Department of Development Services will provide a
response separately from the Final Supplemental EIR.
5-3: The comment recommends changes to the proposed Zoning Ordi-
nance and commends certain aspects of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. It is
not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and there-
fore no response is necessary. The Butte County Department of Develop-
ment Services will provide a response separately from the Final Supplemental
EIR.
5-4: The comment notes that the proposed project includes changing the
General Plan land use designation on nearly 1,000 parcels, and expresses con-
cern that it is not known which parcel changes are simply corrections and
which are developer-driven. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft
Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is necessary. The Butte County
Department of Development Services will provide a response separately from
the Final Supplemental EIR.
5-5: The comment states that the proposed General Plan land use desig-
nation changes result in more rural and scattered development, conflict with
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-30
the County’s goal to direct development to existing urbanized areas, and are
unfair given the controversial resource issues that were discussed as part of the
General Plan 2030 process. The environmental impacts of the development
allowed by the proposed General Plan land use designation changes were
evaluated in the Draft Supplemental EIR, including impacts related to oak
woodlands (pages 4.2-13 to 4.2-18), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (pages
4.15-4 to 4.15-5), groundwater (pages 4.8-7 to 4.8-8), and growth inducement
(pages 6-1 to 6-2), the resource topics highlighted in the comment.
5-6: The comment requests that all General Plan land use changes pro-
posed in the GPA that are not simply corrections be subject to the findings
required for a General Plan Amendment, as outlined in Section 24-282 of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is necessary. The Butte
County Department of Development Services will provide a response sepa-
rately from the Final Supplemental EIR.
5-7: The comment notes that the proposed GPA would increase the acre-
age of land designated for residential uses by over 6,900 acres, and summarizes
the Draft Supplemental EIR’s assumptions that lead to a slightly reduced pro-
jected 2030 buildout. The comment requests justification for the projected
2030 buildout assumption and further analysis of development assumptions
for each proposed General Plan land use designation change, suggesting that
the information provided in Table 3-5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR be pro-
vided for each proposed General Plan land use designation change.
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate the “reasonably foreseeable” direct and
indirect impacts of a proposed project. Consistent with that requirement, the
Draft Supplemental EIR evaluates the projected development that will occur
under the General Plan through its horizon year of 2030, which is called the
“projected 2030 buildout” throughout the EIR. In order to estimate the pro-
jected 2030 buildout, a set of assumptions is required. The Draft Supple-
mental EIR based its projected 2030 buildout assumptions on the assumptions
that were used in the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project so that the
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-31
EIRs would be consistent. These projected 2030 buildout assumptions were
based on the best available information, but because they cover a relatively
long timeframe of about 20 years, it is likely that there will be deviations
from the development projections. However, deviations from the projected
2030 buildout are not in themselves a basis for finding inadequacy of the EIR
since they represent Butte County’s best estimate of “reasonably foreseeable”
development under the Modified Project.
Furthermore, because it is more difficult to accurately predict where devel-
opment will occur, as opposed to the quantity of development, the Draft
Supplemental EIR, consistent with the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Pro-
ject, considers all potential development allowed by the Modified Project in
the spatially-based evaluations, including aesthetics, agriculture and forestry
resources, exposure to localized air pollution and noise, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology, hazards and safety, hydrology and water quality,
and land use. Only quantitative-based analyses, including traffic generation,
air pollution emissions, GHG emissions, noise generation, population
growth, public services and utilities, and recreation, utilize the projected 2030
buildout.
Justification for the projected 2030 buildout assumptions, and why they result
in a slightly reduced projection under the Modified Project, is described on
pages 3-44 and 3-48 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. In summary, changes
made after the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project was published, but
before General Plan 2030 was adopted, reduced the development potential of
parcels throughout the county, reducing the projected 2030 development po-
tential of the Approved Project from that which was evaluated in the 2010
Draft EIR. In addition, the projected 2030 buildout assumptions only consid-
er “2030 development areas” as locations where development will happen by
2030, and some of the changes proposed by the GPA are not located in 2030
development areas. The 2030 development areas were identified through the
General Plan 2030 process, and include the geographic areas around the in-
corporated municipalities and unincorporated communities, where develop-
ment pressure is greatest. Therefore, parcels that would change to a designa-
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-32
tion that allows development under the proposed GPA may not contribute to
the projected 2030 buildout if they are located outside of the 2030 develop-
ment areas. In addition, it should be noted that the change to a designation of
Foothill Residential or Rural Residential would not significantly increase the
development capacity of many of the parcels subject to the GPA. This is be-
cause many of the parcels that would change from an agricultural, timber
mountain, or resource conservation designation to one that allows develop-
ment under the GPA are already parcelized. A single home is allowed under
the current agricultural, timber mountain, or resource conservation designa-
tion of General Plan 2030; subdivision and construction of additional homes
would only be allowed if the parcel is large enough to subdivide under the
designation proposed by the GPA.
While the commentor suggests that such changes inherently indicate a devel-
opment interest in these parcels, which indicates that they should be included
in the projected 2030 buildout, the County disagrees. Many of the proposed
changes to the land use designations in the remote areas were spurred from
property owners, but it has been the County’s experience that such property
owners are interested in establishing the right for future development, often
for future generations, which may not happen for many years. With one
exception that is described below, there have been no formal proposals for
development on these parcels, and there has been no formal proposal nor
informal interest expressed in any specific 390-acre cluster development in an
oak woodlands area, as referenced in the comment. The assumption that re-
mote areas will not develop significantly by 2030 is consistent with past de-
velopment trends and with the best available current information.
The only development interest received by the County is a request made by
the Enterprise Rancheria of the Estom Yumeka Maidu Indian Tribe, who
recently purchased an existing residential subdivision in the Thermalito area
for the development of affordable housing for low-income tribal members.
The Enterprise Rancheria submitted a letter disclosing their future plans and
requesting a change in the General Plan land use designation and Zoning from
Rural Residential to Medium High Density Residential to accommodate their
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-33
development plans. The request was analyzed by County staff and identified
as a correction because the property was subject to a prior approval for the
residential subdivision. Because this parcel is located in a “2030 development
area” (shown as “Study Area 21, Thermalito” in Table 3-5 on page 3-46 of the
Draft Supplemental EIR), any development potential on this parcel with the
proposed GPA changes is included in the projected 2030 buildout.
The Draft Supplemental EIR accounted for development allowed by the pro-
posed GPA in both remote rural areas and areas closer to existing urbanized
areas and small communities. Table 3-5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR pro-
vides the detailed development assumptions for 2030, divided into three cate-
gories:
1. Each anticipated development project: None of these changed as part of
the GPA.
2. 2030 development area: The 2030 development areas include areas close
to existing urbanized areas, as well as smaller unincorporated communi-
ties in rural parts of the county. For the Draft Supplemental EIR, a new
2030 development area was added in the areas south of Palermo and east
of Biggs, where clusters of new development capacity would be added by
the proposed GPA. Any parcels that are subject to a GPA and are locat-
ed in the 2030 development areas were included in the projected 2030
buildout.
3. Areas of the county with specific land use designations (including High
Density Residential, Agriculture, Timber Mountain, and Deer Herd
Overlay). The Draft Supplemental EIR anticipated development in these
designations based on past permit history on parcels with these designa-
tions.
In total, over 75 percent of the parcel acreage that would change to a residen-
tial designation under the proposed GPA was included in an existing or new
2030 development area. The approximately 25 percent of the remaining par-
cel acreage that was not included in a 2030 development area is scattered
throughout the county, and is not anticipated to develop by 2030. However,
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-34
even if some scattered development does occur by 2030 in these remote areas
that is not included in the projected 2030 buildout, such development is eval-
uated in all spatially-based analyses, as explained above. The spatially-based
analysis topics, such as biological resources, hazards, and groundwater supply,
have the greatest potential to be affected by development in these areas. The
small and scattered amount of development that could occur in these remote
areas would not likely significantly affect the quantitative-based analyses re-
lated to traffic, air quality, GHGs, noise, population growth, public services
and utilities, and recreation.
5-8: The comment notes that the proposed GPA would include designa-
tions that allow development in areas that are constrained by fire hazards,
flood hazards, geologic hazards, wastewater service, and wetlands, and sum-
marizes the findings in the Draft Supplemental EIR that such impacts would
be less than significant due to local and State regulations that address those
constraints. The comment states that the proposed GPA would allow devel-
opment in these areas, setting the stage for future disputes over individual
projects, and requests that the County exclude the proposed General Plan
land use designation changes in these areas.
Through the General Plan 2030 and GPA process, the County has already
made a number of policy decisions about where to locate development, how
to protect existing and future residents from hazards, and how to address oth-
er constraints. The County is balancing input from residents and landowners
from all parts of the county, including those in areas that face hazards and
constraints, who are requesting the right to maintain economic use of their
property. To address impacts related to development in areas with identified
hazards and constraints noted in this comment, General Plan 2030 includes
the following policies.
Wildfire Hazards:
¨ Policy HS-P11.1 requires that the County consider fire hazards in all land
use and zoning decisions, environmental review, subdivisions review, and
the provision of public services.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-35
¨ Policy HS-P11.4 requires that new development meet current fire safe
ordinance standards for adequate emergency water flow, emergency vehi-
cle access, signage, evacuation routes, fuel management, defensible space,
fire safe building construction, and wildfire preparedness.
¨ Action HS-A11.1 directs the County to complete roadside fuel reduction
projects to reduce wildfire risk, increase visibility, and maintain safe
evacuation routes.
¨ Policy HS-P12.1 maintains regulations regarding vegetation clearance
around structures.
¨ Policy HS-P12.3 requires the use of fire resistant landscaping and fuel
breaks in residential areas.
¨ Policy HS-P12.2 requires fuel breaks along the edge of developing areas in
High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
¨ Policy HS-P12.4 requires all developments in wildland urban interface ar-
eas in High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to provide, at a
minimum, small-scale water systems for fire protection.
¨ Policy HS-P13.1 requires that new development in High or Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones identify access and egress routes and make
improvements or contribute to a fund to develop, upgrade, and maintain
these routes.
¨ Action HS-A13.1 directs the County to delineate and publish alternative
evacuation routes for communities in foothill and mountain areas with
high fire potential.
¨ Action HS-A13.2 directs the County to seek funding to conduct a study
to identify evacuation routes for areas in High and Very High Fire Haz-
ard Severity Zones, and then to seek funding to implement the necessary
improvements to the routes.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-36
Flood Hazards:
¨ Policy HS-P2.4 prohibits development on lands within the 100-year flood
zone, as identified on the most current available maps from FEMA, un-
less the applicant demonstrates that it will not:
Ÿ Create danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or ve-
locities caused by excavation, fill, roads, and intended use.
Ÿ Create difficult emergency vehicle access in times of flood.
Ÿ Create a safety hazard due to the height, velocity, duration, rate of rise,
and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
Ÿ Create excessive costs in providing governmental services during and
after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public fa-
cilities.
Ÿ Interfere with the existing water conveyance capacity of the floodway.
Ÿ Substantially increase erosion and/or sedimentation.
Ÿ Contribute to the deterioration of any watercourse or the quality of
water in any body of water.
Ÿ Require storage of material or any substantial grading or substantial
placement of fill.
Ÿ Conflict with the provisions of the applicable requirements of Gov-
ernment Code Sections 65865.5, 65962 or 66474.5.
¨ Policy HS-P2.5 requires that the lowest floor of any new construction or
substantial improvement within Flood Zones A, AE, AH, and shaded
Zone X be elevated 1 foot or more above the 100-year flood elevation.
¨ Policy HS-P2.6 requires that the County make specific findings related to
flood safety prior to development approval that would result in the con-
struction of a new residence. Under this policy, the County must find
that it has imposed conditions that will protect the property to the urban
level of flood protection, as defined in Government Code Section 65007,
in urban and urbanizing areas, or to the FEMA standard of flood protec-
tion in nonurbanized areas.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-37
¨ Action HS-A2.1 directs the County to update General Plan 2030 within
24 months of the adoption of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
(CVFPP) to appropriately reflect the CVFPP and to identify State and
local flood management facilities and flood hazard zones.
Geologic Hazards:
¨ Goal HS-6 aims to reduce seismic risks in Butte County through policies
that require that seismic investigations for new private and public devel-
opment to ensure that site-specific seismic hazards are mitigated.
¨ Policy HS-P7.1 requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to assess
landslide potential for private development and public facilities projects
in areas rated “Moderate to High” and “High” in Figure 4.6-2 or the most
current available mapping.
¨ Policy HS-P8.1 requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to assess
erosion potential for private development and public facilities in areas
rated “Very High.”
¨ Policy W-P1.7 requires that agriculture, logging, mining, recreational ve-
hicle use, and other open space uses follow best management practices to
minimize erosion and protect water resources.
¨ Policy W-P6.2 requires proponents of new development to prepare a hy-
draulic and/or geomorphic assessment of on-site and downstream drain-
ageways that are affected by project area runoff in areas where stream-
banks are already unstable, as demonstrated by erosion or landslides
along banks, tree collapse, or severe in-channel sedimentation.
¨ Policy AG-P1.1 supports State and federal legislation designed to con-
serve soil and protect agricultural land.
¨ Policy HS-P9.1 requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to assess
risks from expansive soils for private development and public facilities in
areas rated “High.”
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-38
Wastewater Constraints:
¨ Policy W-P1.2 requires the County to cooperate with State and local
agencies to identify and eliminate or reduce all sources of existing and po-
tential point and non-point sources of pollution to ground and surface
waters, including sanitary waste systems.
¨ Policy W-P1.8 supports the conversion from septic systems to public
sewer service, where feasible.
¨ Policy PUB-P12.1 permits applicants to make case-by-case assessments of
septic and other wastewater treatment systems to determine appropriate
system designs and densities.
¨ Policy PUB-P12.1 permits applicants to utilize new technologies that are
supported by State and County practices.
¨ Policy PUB-P12.2 requires on-site wastewater treatment and disposal sys-
tems in the Chico area to continue to be regulated according to require-
ments in the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan.
¨ Policy PUB-P12.3 requires that new community sewerage systems be
managed by a public County sanitation district or other County-
approved methods and that proponents demonstrate the financial viabil-
ity of constructing, operation, and maintaining the proposed community
sewerage system.
¨ Policy PUB-P12.4 requires all sewer collection and transmission systems
to minimize potential inflow and infiltration.
¨ Action PUB-A12.1 is to complete and implement updates to on-site
wastewater policies and standards, which will include minimum require-
ments for soil suitability in the locations of proposed wastewater systems.
¨ Policy PUB-P13.2 requires new development to demonstrate the availa-
bility of a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system.
¨ Policy PUB-P13.3 requires applicants of projects that will rely on on-site
wastewater systems to provide detailed plans demonstrating that the sys-
tem will be adequate to serve the project.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-39
Wetlands:
¨ Policy COS-P7.4 requires that new development mitigate its impacts in
habitat areas for protected species through on- or off-site habitat restora-
tion, clustering of development, and/or project design, and through the
provisions of the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) within the HCP/NCCP
Planning Area.
¨ Policy COS-P7.5 prohibits development in wetlands, except within the
Butte Regional HCP/NCCP Planning Area where such development is
consistent with the conditions of the HCP/NCCP.
¨ Policy COS-P7.6 requires that new development include setbacks and
buffers along riparian corridors and adjacent to habitat for protected spe-
cies except where permitted in the Butte Regional HCP/NCCP Planning
Area and where such development is consistent with the conditions of the
HCP/NCCP.
¨ Policy COS-P7.7 requires the installation of construction barrier fencing
around sensitive resources on or adjacent to construction sites.
¨ Policy COS-P7.8 requires that construction employees operating equip-
ment or engaged in any development-associated activities involving vegeta-
tion removal or ground-disturbing activities in sensitive resource areas be
trained by a qualified biologist and/or botanist who will provide infor-
mation on the on-site biological resources (sensitive natural communities,
special-status plant and wildlife habitats, nests of special-status birds, etc.),
avoidance of invasive plant introduction and spread, and the penalties for
not complying with biological mitigation requirements and other State
and federal regulations.
¨ Policy COS-P7.9 requires that a biologist be retained to conduct construc-
tion monitoring in and adjacent to all habitats for protected species when
construction is taking place near such habitat areas.
¨ Action COS-A7.2 directs the County to develop a set of guidelines for
evaluating project impacts to habitat in locations outside of the approved
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-40
HCP/NCCP Planning Area, as well as for requiring specific mitigations
for impacts that are identified.
¨ Action COS-A7.3 directs the County to establish a mitigation bank pro-
gram for impacts to habitats for protected species, such as oak woodlands,
riparian woodlands, and wetlands, in locations outside of the approved
HCP/NCCP Planning Area, using mitigation fees on new development as
a funding mechanisms.
¨ Policy W-P1.4 protects riparian and fish habitat by requiring that new de-
velopment, where appropriate, minimize impervious area, minimize run-
off and pollution, and incorporate best management practices.
¨ Policy W-P5.4 protects riparian and fish habitat by requiring that tempo-
rary facilities be installed during construction activities in order to ade-
quately treat stormwater runoff from construction sites.
¨ Policy W-P6.1 requires that any alteration of natural channels for flood
control retain and protect riparian vegetation to the extent possible while
still accomplishing the goal of providing flood control.
As summarized by the commentor, the Draft Supplemental EIR concludes
that the local policies described above, in combination with other local, State,
and federal policies and regulations, would reduce potential impacts related to
these constraints to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, potential impacts
of the proposed project have been evaluated in accordance with CEQA. Fu-
ture disputes over projects in these constrained areas do not affect the adequa-
cy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no additional response is required.
5-9: The comment states that the Draft Supplemental EIR finds signifi-
cant cumulative impacts related to the topics of GHG emissions, traffic, and
air quality without identifying mitigation or consideration of denying a pro-
posed General Plan land use designation change. The comment requests a
definition of cumulatively significant impacts, a policy that identifies a
threshold at which no net increase in impacts would be allowed, and mitiga-
tion for all impacts.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-41
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or
more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” In a program-
matic document like the Draft Supplemental EIR, cumulative impact analyses
often consider the impacts of the proposed project in combination with the
impacts of anticipated development elsewhere in the region. This is summa-
rized on pages 4-2 to 4-4 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
CEQA does not require that a project or EIR identify a threshold at which
no net increase in impacts would occur, nor that project impacts be mitigated
to achieve no net increase in impacts.
Feasible mitigation measures for the proposed project are identified in the
Draft Supplemental EIR. As summarized in Table 2-1 of the Draft Supple-
mental EIR, the Modified Project would result in new significant impacts, but
for many of these impacts, no feasible mitigation is available. Section 15126.4
of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR only describe feasible mitiga-
tion measures; feasible is defined in Section 15364 as “capable of being accom-
plished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.”
In addition, the Draft Supplemental EIR finds that many of the significant
impacts of the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project would remain un-
changed by the Modified Project, including the GHG emissions impact,
which is cumulative, and the cumulative traffic impact; cumulative impacts
related to air quality were found to be less than significant. Because the Mod-
ified Project would not change these impacts, mitigation is not described in
the Draft Supplemental EIR. Refer to the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved
Project for a discussion of mitigation related to those impacts.
5-10: The comment notes that General Plan 2030 directs the County to
prepare a Climate Action Plan, and states that the General Plan land use des-
ignation changes proposed in the GPA would make it more difficult for the
County to achieve a GHG reduction goal that is consistent with AB 32.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-42
As described on page 4.15-3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the Modified Pro-
ject would result in slightly less development in 2030 compared to the Ap-
proved Project. Although the Modified Project would result in a slight in-
crease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by allowing more development in ru-
ral areas, this increase would only be less than 1/10th of 1 percent in the over-
all countywide VMT reported in the Draft EIR for the Approved Project.
Therefore, the Draft Supplemental EIR finds that GHG emissions impacts
would be similar to the Approved Project.
Furthermore, the County is working with BCAG on the Sustainable Com-
munities Strategy, which will also focus on reducing GHG emissions in Butte
County, and is seeking funding for the County’s Climate Action Plan. Both
of these plans will outline specific measures and programs that will reduce
GHG emissions in Butte County, and the Climate Action Plan in particular
will be developed to include measures that will allow the County to achieve a
GHG emissions reduction target that is consistent with AB 32. The County
has already taken an initial step towards preparation of the Climate Action
Plan by conducting an inventory of GHG emissions in a baseline year of
2006. The results of that inventory are presented in Chapter 4.15-33 and Ap-
pendix F of the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project. The County dis-
tributed a Request for Proposals for the development of a Climate Action
Plan in August 2012, and has completed a sustainability report to the Board
of Supervisors concerning Sustainability, Energy Efficiency, and Cost Effec-
tiveness in County Operations prepared by the Butte County Sustainability
Work Team, which will be used as a resource in preparing the Climate Ac-
tion Plan.2
However, the Draft Supplemental EIR acknowledges that because a Climate
Action Plan is not yet in place, it is not known whether the plan will succeed
in achieving AB 32 targets, and therefore finds the GHG impact to be signifi-
cant and unavoidable. This comment does not dispute the adequacy of the
2 This report is available at http://www.buttecounty.net/
~/media/County%20Files/AdminOffice/Public%20Internet/News/AdminSustainab
ility%20Report%202012report.ashx.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-43
GHG analysis in the Draft Supplemental EIR, nor the conclusion that im-
pacts would be significant and unavoidable, so no further response is re-
quired.
5-11: The comment notes that General Plan 2030 directs the County to
prepare an agricultural mitigation ordinance. The comment states that the
proposed GPA would allow the conversion of thousands of acres of farmland
to non-agricultural uses, but does not propose mitigation, and the agricultural
mitigation ordinance is not yet in place. The comment requests that the
County adopt the agricultural mitigation ordinance as soon as possible, in-
cluding 1:1 acre mitigation on agricultural lands lost through the proposed
GPA.
As noted in the comment, General Plan 2030 Action AG-A2.1 directs the
County to create an agricultural mitigation ordinance. This ordinance will
require developers to permanently protect agricultural land of equal or great-
er value in place of land that is redesignated from Agriculture to a non-
agricultural designation. The proposed GPA was not initiated by a develop-
er, and is instead a county-initiated effort to address errors and other appro-
priate changes to the countywide General Plan land use map and text that
were identified during the remainder of the General Plan 2030 process devot-
ed to the Zoning Ordinance Update. Furthermore, the agricultural mitiga-
tion ordinance action item does not apply to the comprehensive countywide
General Plan 2030 update, of which the proposed GPA is a part, but rather it
applies to future rezones and general plan amendments initiated by private
parties for specific areas of the county, where such amendments would in-
volve the redesignation of lands designated Agriculture under the County
General Plan to a non-agricultural designation. Lastly, the agriculture mitiga-
tion ordinance was not identified as a mitigation measure under the General
Plan 2030 EIR; rather, it was included in General Plan 2030 as an “action,”
which is defined under the General Plan as “an implementation measure, pro-
cedure, or technique intended to help achieve a specified goal…” The County
included Action AG-A2.1 in the Action Plan approved by the Board of Su-
pervisors at the time the General Plan was adopted. The Action Plan outlines
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-44
projects that should be completed within the first five years after County
adoption of General Plan 2030 in order to begin its implementation, as well as
those that would be completed in subsequent years. The completion of ac-
tions set forth under the Action Plan is contingent upon the availability of
funding resources and is subject to priorities set by the Board of Supervisors.
In addition, as indicated in Table 3-2 on page 3-19 of the Draft Supplemental
EIR, the proposed GPA would change the designation of approximately 2,090
acres from the Agriculture designation to a different designation. As in many
instances under the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance, the County wish-
es to align General Plan designations and zoning with existing land uses, in-
cluding parcel sizes, a factor that affected the proposed changes to some par-
cels that were designated Agriculture under General Plan 2030. However, as
described on pages 4.2-9 through 4.2-12 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the
proposed GPA would only allow the conversion of an additional 420 acres of
farmlands of concern under CEQA (i.e. prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, and unique farmland) beyond what was allowed by the
Approved Project. The entire 2,090 acres that would change from a designa-
tion of Agriculture to a non-agricultural designation are not subject to the
CEQA thresholds – only the 420 acres that are classified as farmlands of con-
cern under CEQA are subject to the thresholds.
As summarized on page 4.2-12 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the 2010 Draft
EIR found that the Approved Project would have a significant and unavoida-
ble impact related to the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA to
non-agricultural uses because it would allow the conversion of approximately
4,700 acres. The Modified Project would allow an additional 420 acres of
farmland of concern under CEQA to convert to a non-agricultural use.
Therefore, the Modified Project would increase the severity of the impact
compared to the Approved Project, and it would remain significant and una-
voidable.
As explained in the 2010 Draft EIR, an Agriculture designation alone cannot
ensure ongoing agricultural use on agricultural parcels near existing urban and
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-45
suburban areas and/or small agricultural parcels. In addition, placing or keep-
ing an agricultural designation on parcels that are not viable for agricultural
use would be inconsistent with General Plan 2030 policies that promote eco-
nomic opportunities, and could direct development away from urban centers
if those parcels are located close to urban areas. It is therefore found that mit-
igation beyond the General Plan 2030 policies is not feasible, and that the
impact is significant and unavoidable. As noted above, the Modified Project
would increase the severity of that impact by designating an additional 420
acres of farmland of importance under CEQA to a non-agricultural designa-
tion, but it does not change the impact conclusion from the 2010 EIR.
5-12: The comment states that development beyond the projected 2030
buildout could occur prior to 2030, and requests a policy that calls for an up-
dated EIR once development increases beyond the projected 2030 buildout.
As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final Supplemental EIR, the requested policy
has been added. This new policy would not change any of the findings in the
Draft Supplemental EIR. In addition, the Draft Supplemental EIR agrees that
maximum theoretical buildout is not planned or desired, but it is included for
the purpose of disclosure, as indicated on pages 3-48 to 3-49.
5-13: The comment highlights a sentence from the Draft Supplemental
EIR that states that General Plan 2030, as modified by the proposed GPA, is
largely self-mitigating. The comment disagrees with the statement, and re-
quests that mitigations be included to prevent the majority of environmental
impacts from the proposed GPA. The statement that General Plan 2030 and
the proposed GPA are largely self-mitigating is based on the extensive set of
policies and actions in General Plan 2030, in combination with the proposed
GPA, that help the County to avoid significant impacts altogether. For ex-
ample, impacts on scenic vistas are mitigated by General Plan 2030 policies
that maintain and enhance the quality of Butte County’s scenic and visual
resources. Rather than including these policies as mitigation measures, they
are incorporated into the plan to make it self-mitigating. Feasible mitigation
measures for environmental impacts from the GPA are identified throughout
the Draft Supplemental EIR.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-46
5-14: The comment notes that 4,460 acres of forest land would be redesig-
nated to a non-forest designation, resulting in a significant impact, and re-
quests mitigation for this impact. The text provided in the column for miti-
gation measures in Table 2-1 and in the analysis chapter on pages 4.2-19 to 4.2-
21 of the Draft Supplemental EIR provides evidence for why potential mitiga-
tion measures are not feasible. In summary, impacts to these forested areas
have largely already been realized from existing residential development, sur-
rounding residential land use patterns, and the presence of unincorporated
communities. The Modified Project proposes to redesignate these lands in
recognition of these existing physical conditions. The proposed GPA and
Zoning Ordinance cannot undo existing development patterns or residential
land uses. For these reasons, the potential impacts of a Timber Mountain
designation on these parcels would likely be greater than the potential im-
pacts of the proposed residential designations, mainly from conflicts between
existing residential uses and potential timber operations uses under the Tim-
ber Mountain designation. Therefore, the impact is found to be significant
and unavoidable.
5-15: The comment notes that no new significant land use impacts were
found in the Draft Supplemental EIR, and suggests that the land use map
changes would create significant impacts. The comment also incorrectly
states that the findings of less-than-significant land use and other impacts are
based on an assumption of no increased development.
Simply changing the designations on the land use map does not in and of itself
create land use impacts. Impacts are based on an evaluation in accordance
with the CEQA thresholds, which are listed in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, the thresholds for the topic of land use and planning
relate to whether the project physically divides an established community;
conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted to avoid or miti-
gate and environmental effect; or conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan. The analysis provided on pages 4.9-4
to 4.9-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR responds to those thresholds. In par-
ticular, as noted on page 4.9-6, once adopted, the proposed GPA would
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-47
amend Butte County General Plan 2030, so the land use map changes would
not conflict with the adopted General Plan. In addition, other potential im-
pacts that could result from these land use map changes are evaluated in other
analysis chapters.
Findings of less-than-significant impacts related to land use, as well as many of
the other analysis topics, are not based on an assumption of no increase in
development. As explained in the response to comment 5-7, the Draft Sup-
plemental EIR considers all potential development allowed by the Modified
Project in the spatially-based evaluations, including aesthetics, agriculture and
forestry resources, exposure to localized air pollution and noise, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology, hazards and safety, hydrology and wa-
ter quality, and land use. Only quantitative-based analyses, including traffic
generation, air pollution emissions, GHG emissions, noise generation, popu-
lation growth, public services and utilities, and recreation, utilize the project-
ed 2030 buildout. Contrary to the statement made in this comment, the land
use designation changes included in the GPA are not associated with a specific
development proposal that has been received by the County either informally
or formally, with the exception described in the response to comment 5-7.
Therefore, the likelihood that any properties subject to the GPA will develop
before 2030 is based not on specific development proposals but on the geo-
graphic location of the potential development, as described on pages 3-41 to 3-
48 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
5-16: The comment highlights the General Plan 2030 Guiding Principle
that the General Plan should address agriculture as an important aspect of
Butte County’s economy that will be protected, maintained, promoted, and
enhanced, and requests an explanation of how the proposed GPA meets this
goal, as well as the overriding considerations that justify the loss of agricultur-
al land. General Plan 2030, as it is proposed to be amended, maintains 46 per-
cent of the unincorporated county as agricultural land, and includes proactive
and innovative policies and actions to support this Guiding Principle. The
proposed GPA would reduce the agricultural acreage by 0.4 percent com-
pared to the adopted General Plan, maintaining approximately 465,000 acres.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-48
The proposed GPA also maintains the General Plan policies and actions that
support this Guiding Principle. Overall, the proposed GPA continues to
support all of the Guiding Principles by balancing the sometimes competing
goals, and does not significantly change the overall theme and approach of
General Plan 2030.
Findings of overriding considerations for the proposed GPA and Zoning Or-
dinance may be made by the Board of Supervisors at the certification and
adoption hearing, and would be published in the staff report for that hearing.
In addition, findings of overriding considerations for impacts related to the
Approved Project are available at http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/
ebinder/2010/2010-10-6/B_BOS_Findings%20of%20Fact_Override_MM.pdf.
5-17: The comment states that the Draft Supplemental EIR’s statement
that the proposed General Plan land use map changes were needed and/or
corrections is dishonest, and requests that the EIR identify parcels that are
corrections versus those that are likely to develop. As explained in the re-
sponse to comment 5-7, with one exception, there have been no formal pro-
posals for development on the parcels subject to the proposed GPA, so there
is no solid information on which to base an assumption that the parcels will
develop. Therefore, the Draft Supplemental EIR uses a set of assumptions
that are consistent with the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project and that
are based on the best available data to determine where development is likely
to happen by 2030.
5-18: The comment notes that the proposed Zoning Ordinance would
maintain the Foothill Residential-1, -2, -5, -10, -20, and -40 sub-zones, and
states that the smaller sub-zones would parcelize oak woodlands. The Draft
Supplemental EIR includes an analysis of the proposed project’s potential
woodland impacts on pages 4.2-13 to 4.2-16. That analysis considers all land
designated Foothill Residential, which includes all sub-zones in the Zoning
Ordinance, to impact forest lands. The forest lands considered in this analysis
include lands covered with a density of trees of 10 percent or greater, which
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-49
includes oak woodlands. This comment does not address the adequacy of the
EIR’s analysis of impacts to forest lands, so no further response is required.
5-19: The comment states that the proposed Zoning Ordinance would
change a large number of parcels that are currently zoned AG-160 to AG-20,
suggesting that they will become candidates for future development. The
comment also recommends that the Agriculture Commissioner review the
proposed changes from AG-160 to AG-20 in the Draft Zoning Ordinance to
ensure that they will remain in agriculture before approving them.
The existing Zoning Ordinance zones approximately 31,090 acres for AG-
160. The proposed Zoning Ordinance zones approximately 139,980 acres for
AG-160. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would result in a net
increase of 108,890 acres zoned AG-160. The proposed Zoning Ordinance
also zones approximately 53,880 acres for AG-20. The proposed Zoning Or-
dinance allows a single-family home and a second dwelling per parcel in all
AG sub-zones, regardless of the parcel size. There is no difference in allowed
uses between the AG sub-zones. Therefore, the AG-20 parcels are subject to
the same land use regulations as the AG-160 parcels. The differences in the
sub-zones are related to the development standards, which allow different
parcel sizes based on the sub-zone. Any future development beyond a single-
family home and second unit per parcel would require a General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and potential agricultural
impacts of such development would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA.
The issue of AG sub-zones was subject to much public discussion and review
by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during the General
Plan 2030 process. The Planning Commission discussed this issue in detail on
September 22, 2011 and the Board of Supervisors accepted the Planning
Commission recommendations and provided additional instructions on De-
cember 13, 2011. These meetings included testimony from representatives of
the Farm Bureau, Cattleman and Cattlewomen’s Association, the Agriculture
Commissioner, and other private ranchers and farmers.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-50
5-20: The comment notes that the proposed GPA would change the Chico
Area Greenline policies to allow Very Low Density Residential uses on the
agricultural side of the Greenline, and would change some parcels in this area
from Rural Residential and Agriculture to Very Low Density Residential.
The comment states that these parcels would be ideal for small farm opera-
tions, and recommends that the Chico Area Greenline policies not be amend-
ed and that current zoning in that area be maintained.
The majority of the parcels subject to the GPA west of the Greenline are not
classified by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique
farmland, which are farmlands of concern under CEQA. Portions of only
three parcels totaling 13 acres have farmlands of concern (prime farmland).
Because these three parcels were already designated for residential use with a
Rural Residential designation under the Approved Project, the Modified Pro-
ject would not change the agricultural impact of designating these parcels for
residential development. Therefore, the agricultural impacts of changing the
land use designation on the parcels west of the Greenline was adequately cov-
ered in the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no additional analysis is required by
CEQA.
5-21: The comment requests a breakdown of how many of the 150 acres
proposed for a General Plan land use designation change in the Bell Muir area
are currently zoned Agriculture and Agriculture Residential. Only a 1-acre
parcel located in the southeast portion of the Bell Muir neighborhood is cur-
rently zoned Agriculture Residential; the remainder of the Bell Muir neigh-
borhood is currently zoned Agriculture (A-5).
5-22: The comment notes that the Draft Supplemental EIR states that ap-
proximately 25 acres of prime farmland in Nelson would change from Agri-
culture to Agriculture Services under the proposed GPA. The comment
states that County meeting notes indicate that the actual acreage is 39 acres
and that the farmland is in active use. The comment requests that the County
not approve this change.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-51
The comment is correct that approximately 39 acres in Nelson would change
from Agriculture to Agriculture Services under the proposed GPA. Howev-
er, as correctly stated on page 4.2-9 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, only 25
acres are considered to be farmland of importance under CEQA because they
are classified as prime farmland by the FMMP. The impact of changing the
designation from Agriculture to Agriculture Services was evaluated on pages
4.2-9 to 4.2-12 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The 25 acres of prime farm-
land that would be impacted by changing the designation to Agriculture Ser-
vices is located in the small town of Nelson, which limits its viability for on-
going active agricultural activities. As development in the center of Nelson
continues, nuisance complaints from neighbors, prohibitions of spraying pes-
ticides and herbicides near sensitive receptors, vandalism, and traffic will re-
duce the future viability of working agricultural land. In addition, due to the
limited viability for continued active agriculture and the economic develop-
ment opportunities of agricultural service uses to serve surrounding agricul-
tural operations, keeping an agricultural designation on this parcel would
conflict with General Plan 2030 policies that promote economic develop-
ment, making the General Plan internally inconsistent.
5-23: The comment notes that the proposed GPA would redesignate ap-
proximately 500 acres of farmlands of concern under CEQA from Agricul-
ture to a non-agricultural designation, and recommends that the County not
approve any of these changes. The Draft Supplemental EIR evaluates the
impacts of allowing for the conversion of these farmlands of concern on pages
4.2-9 through 4.2-12. In Chapter 5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, alterna-
tives to the proposed project are considered, including the No Project Alter-
native, in which the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance are not adopted,
and the Updated Zoning Ordinance Alternative, in which only the Zoning
Ordinance, modified to be consistent with General Plan 2030 without the
proposed GPA, is adopted. Under both of those alternatives, the designation
on these farmlands of concern would not change. The County will consider
these alternatives at the adoption hearing for the proposed GPA and Zoning
Ordinance.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-52
In addition, adopting a “no net loss policy” of farmlands of concern is not
considered an environmental impact but rather a policy issue to be deter-
mined by the Board of Supervisors. However a “no net loss policy” of farm-
lands of concern is not included in General Plan 2030 or the proposed GPA.
5-24: The comment notes that the proposed GPA would allow 4,460 acres
of forest land to be redesignated to a non-forest designation, and recommends
that these parcels be designated for Resource Conservation instead of for resi-
dential use, in part due to fire hazards. A Resource Conservation designation
may avoid potential conflicts with residential uses while also avoiding the
impact. However, CEQA does not require that the project be changed in
order to avoid an environmental impact. The County has included these land
use designation changes based on other overriding considerations, including
the fact that most of these parcels are located near the existing residential
communities of Cohasset, Forest Ranch, Berry Creek, and Palermo. Fur-
thermore, the majority of the parcels located in these areas are sized well be-
low the minimum parcel size of 160-acres set by the County General Plan
under the Timber Mountain designation as being conducive to forest man-
agement and the harvesting and processing of timber products.
In addition, the potential wildfire hazard impacts of allowing residential de-
velopment in these areas was evaluated on pages 4.7-7 through 4.7-9 of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, concluding that such impacts are less than signifi-
cant.
5-25: The comment summarizes the statements in the Draft Supplemental
EIR air quality analysis that the projected 2030 buildout under the proposed
GPA is slightly less than that which was evaluated in the 2010 Draft EIR for
the approved project. The comment states that the approach used in the
Draft Supplemental EIR does not adequately analyze the air quality impacts
for rural and scattered development. See the response to comment 5-7. In
addition, the Draft Supplemental EIR recognizes the potential for impacts
related to increased VMT caused by allowing more development in rural are-
as, where people will need to drive further to access services and employment
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-53
areas. Specifically, the Draft Supplemental EIR quantifies the increase in
VMT caused by the proposed GPA (i.e. 1,511 VMT compared to the Ap-
proved Project presented in the 2010 Draft EIR). Throughout the air quality
analysis, the impacts related to this increase in VMT are evaluated.
5-26: The comment recognizes that the Draft Supplemental EIR quantifies
an increase of 1,511 VMT resulting from the proposed GPA, and questions
the validity of this quantification given that almost 7,000 acres would be re-
designated for residential use. In addition, the comment states that any in-
crease in VMT should be categorized as significant because Butte County and
the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin are in nonattainment for three air
quality standards.
Although the proposed GPA would redesignate almost 7,000 acres for a resi-
dential use, the projected 2030 buildout would not increase. See the response
to comment 5-7 for an explanation of projected 2030 buildout. The impacts
related to air quality standards violations related to VMT are discussed on
page 4.3-6 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. The 2010 Draft EIR for the Ap-
proved Project found that General Plan 2030 would have a less-than-
significant impact on air quality standards violations from VMT because cri-
teria pollutant emissions are expected to decrease by 2030 relative to existing
conditions due to continuing improvements in engine technology and the
phasing out of older, higher-emitting vehicles. The increase of 1,511 VMT
under the proposed GPA, which represents less than 1/10th of 1 percent of
the overall countywide VMT evaluated in the 2010 Draft EIR for the Ap-
proved Project, would not be substantial enough to offset the emission reduc-
tions from engine technology and the phasing out of older vehicles. There-
fore, the impact would remain less than significant.
5-27: The comment summarizes the analysis on page 4.4-13 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR, which finds that construction activities in sensitive natural
communities could impact such communities. The comment states that the
long-term impacts of developing in these sensitive natural communities
should be disclosed, including impacts related to the loss of permeable areas,
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-54
erosion from dirt roads, tree removal, and pollution in nearby streams. Run-
off, erosion, and water quality impacts of the proposed project are evaluated
in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; this evaluation considers both
the short-term construction impacts and the long-term impacts that could
occur following construction. In addition, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Fi-
nal Supplemental EIR, the impact analysis related to sensitive natural com-
munities has been revised to clarify that potential impacts could include long-
term impacts after construction, and could involve the specific issues noted in
the comment. These revisions do not change the impact finding of less than
significant.
5-28: The comment requests that the County identify potential unintend-
ed consequences of redesignating conservation areas, in case there are conflicts
with the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) once it is com-
pleted. Because the Butte Regional HCP has not yet been adopted, CEQA
does not require that the Supplemental EIR evaluate potential conflicts with
this plan. As it has throughout the Butte Regional HCP process, the County
is continuing to work with BCAG as a plan participant, ensuring that the
General Plan and HCP are consistent. In addition, General Plan 2030 in-
cludes Action COS-A6.1, which directs the County to continue to work with
BCAG and the five municipalities to develop and implement the Butte Re-
gional HCP, and subsequently update it as necessary. The proposed GPA
would not change this General Plan action. Therefore, it is not anticipated
that any conflicts will occur once the Butte Regional HCP is adopted.
Butte County has coordinated with BCAG on the Butte Regional HCP (now
referred to as the “Butte Regional Conservation Plan – BRCP”) since the start
of this conservation planning effort and will continue to coordinate with
BCAG throughout the remainder of the process, scheduled for completion in
2013. The County has provided BCAG with all land use data proposed under
the GPA and Zoning Ordinance, including countywide General Plan land use
designations and Zoning maps. The information was used to inform the
BRCP process, establishing Urban Permit Areas within the boundary of the
BRCP, and for the County to make its own decisions regarding land use poli-
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-55
cy. BCAG indicates that the proposed changes under the GPA and the pro-
posed Zoning Ordinance were addressed under the BRCP process.3
5-29: The comment opposes allowing development in areas subject to geo-
logic hazards, and states that the County has deferred responsibility for allow-
ing such development to local and State regulations. Chapter 4.6, Geology,
Soils, and Mineral Resources, evaluates the potential geologic impacts associ-
ated with allowing development in these areas. These impacts are found to be
less than significant due to local and State regulations that would mitigate
potential impacts. CEQA does not require that the County do more to miti-
gate potential impacts if they are found to be less than significant based on
existing regulations.
5-30: The comment opposes allowing development in areas subject to
wildfire hazards, and states that the County has deferred responsibility for
allowing such development to local and State regulations. Pages 4.7-7 to 4.7-9
of the Draft Supplemental EIR provide an analysis of potential wildfire haz-
ard impacts, which finds that potential impacts would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level due primarily to existing Butte County regulations: pol-
icies in General Plan 2030, the County’s Wildfire Mitigation Action Plan, the
County’s Wildfire Protection Plan, and the Butte County Municipal Code.
As noted in the response to comment 5-29, CEQA does not require that the
County do more to mitigate potential impacts if they are found to be less
than significant based on existing regulations.
5-31: The comment states that additional information about the Tuscan
Aquifer is needed before development that would impact groundwater re-
sources is allowed. The comment also requests justification and analysis for
how the proposed GPA would not impact hydrology and water quality, call-
ing out increases in impervious surfaces, dirt roads and sedimentation, septic
systems, pesticides and fertilizers, and groundwater demands.
3 Devine, Chris, Planning Manager, Butte County Association of Govern-
ments. Personal communication with Dan Breedon, Butte County Department of
Development Services. August 24, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-56
The groundwater analyses in the Draft Supplemental EIR are based on the
best available information at this time. This information is adequate to sup-
port the programmatic evaluation of the Modified Project. The findings in
Chapter 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, and Chapter 4.8, Hy-
drology and Water Quality, which indicate that the Modified Project would
not create any new significant hydrology and water quality impacts, are based
on substantial evidence. Specifically:
¨ Page 4.8-10 discloses potential impacts related to increases in impervious
surfaces, and finds that they are less than significant due to General Plan
2030 policies that address stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces, the
Butte County Stormwater Management Program, the Butte County
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, and other
State and federal regulations. Furthermore, the proposed Zoning Ordi-
nance would minimize water runoff through the Watershed Protection
Overlay Zone, restrictions in riparian areas, requirements to minimize
impervious surfaces, and requirements to minimize erosion and runoff.
¨ Pages 4.8-8 to 4.8-9 disclose potential impacts related to erosion and silta-
tion, and finds that they are less than significant due to General Plan 2030
policies designed to minimize the impact of erosion, siltation, and flood-
ing as a result of site drainage alteration, as well as the Butte County
Stormwater Management Program, the Butte County Stormwater Man-
agement and Discharge Control Ordinance, and other State and federal
regulations. Furthermore, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would min-
imize erosion through the Watershed Protection Overlay Zone, re-
strictions in riparian areas, requirements to minimize impervious surfac-
es, and requirements to minimize erosion and runoff.
¨ Page 4.6-15 discloses potential impacts related to septic systems, and finds
that they are less than significant due to General Plan 2030 policies that
ensure the safety of future septic systems.
¨ Pages 4.8-5 through 4.8-7 disclose potential impacts related to water quali-
ty, including from the use of chemicals and other pollutants; Chapter 3 of
this Final Supplemental EIR clarifies that discussion to explicitly state
that such chemicals and pollutants can include pesticides and fertilizers.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-57
Impacts are found to be less than significant due to General Plan 2030
policies that protect water quality, the Butte County Stormwater Man-
agement Program and Discharge Control Ordinance, and other State and
federal regulations. Furthermore, the proposed Zoning Ordinance in-
cludes the Watershed Protection Overlay Zone that would add regula-
tions for development in certain sensitive watershed areas and require-
ments for riparian areas to protect water quality.
¨ Pages 4.8-7 to 4.8-8 disclose potential impacts related to groundwater de-
mands, and finds that they are less than significant due to General Plan
2030 policies and actions designed to maintain groundwater supplies, sus-
tain groundwater resources, promote groundwater recharge, and mini-
mize impervious land cover. Furthermore, the proposed Zoning Ordi-
nance would protect groundwater resources in the Firhaven Creek water-
shed and the Paradise and Magalia Reservoirs watershed through the Wa-
tershed Protection Overlay Zone; establish restrictions for riparian areas,
which will help to ensure that important recharge areas adjacent to
streams are protected; and establish landscaping requirements that pro-
mote water conservation, which will minimize impacts on groundwater
supplies.
5-32: The comment recommends that the proposed Zoning Ordinance
prohibit any increases in surface water runoff and requires that runoff be
managed on site. As described on pages 4.8-8 to 4.8-9 of the Draft Supple-
mental EIR, the proposed Zoning Ordinance includes provisions that address
surface water runoff, including Section 24-145(G), which requires that provi-
sions be made to effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by
changed soil and surface conditions during and after development. The exist-
ing General Plan policies and proposed Zoning Ordinance regulations that
address runoff would mitigate any new potential impacts caused by the Modi-
fied Project.
5-33: The comment disagrees with the Draft Supplemental EIR’s finding
that the Modified Project would not increase the severity of the water quality
impact caused by the Approved Project, and calls for a more thorough and
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-58
honest analysis of water quality impacts. As demonstrated in the response to
Comment 5-31, the water quality analysis provided on pages 4.8-5 to 4.8-7 of
the Draft Supplemental EIR is based on substantial evidence. It finds that
although more acreage could develop under the Modified Project, the Modi-
fied Project also includes new regulations in the proposed Zoning Ordinance
that would reduce potential impacts from both the proposed GPA and other
development in the county that is allowed by the Approved Project. Fur-
thermore, development allowed by the proposed GPA would be subject to
General Plan policies and other local, State, and federal regulations that pro-
tect water quality.
5-34: The comment highlights Policy W-P2.9, which requires that appli-
cants for new major development projects demonstrate adequate water supply
to meet the needs of the project, including an evaluation of potential cumula-
tive impacts to surrounding groundwater users and the environment. The
comment states that this policy is unlikely to be implemented because of a
lack of information, and requests that the County not approve any new ma-
jor developments until the impacts of new development on groundwater are
fully understood. The County included this policy in General Plan 2030 with
full awareness of the availability of data, and intends to implement this policy
with all future major development projects. In addition, such projects will
also be subject to CEQA, which provides additional support for ensuring that
the project-groundwater specific impacts will be identified. This policy is
appropriately called out in the Draft Supplemental EIR as helping to mitigate
potential groundwater impacts from the Modified Project.
5-35: The comment states that hydrology and water quality impacts are
found to be less than significant based on the proposed Watershed Overlay
Zone, which covers three small watersheds in Butte County, and landscaping
water conservation requirements in the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The
comment states that these proposed Zoning Ordinance provisions are an in-
adequate basis for the findings of less than significant.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-59
General Plan 2030 contains many goals, policies, and actions, as set forth be-
low, designed to maintain groundwater supplies, sustain groundwater re-
sources, promote groundwater recharge, and minimize impervious land cov-
er. The General Plan’s separate and optional Water Resources Element was
created with the overarching goal to protect, maintain, and restore water re-
sources in Butte County and the surrounding region. Particularly relevant
goals, policies, and actions from the Water Resources Element, including one
policy from the Conservation and Open Space Element, are listed here:
¨ Goal W-3: Effectively manage groundwater resources to ensure a long-
term water supply for Butte County.
¨ Policy W-P3.3: The County shall protect groundwater recharge and
groundwater quality when considering new development projects.
¨ Action W-A3.1: Seek funding for and conduct comprehensive, county-
wide mapping of water resources and groundwater recharge areas.
¨ Action W-A3.2: Evaluate gaps in existing federal, State and local stand-
ards, and develop additional standards as needed to preserve groundwater
recharge and protect groundwater quality.
¨ Goal W-4: Promote water conservation as an important part of long-term
and sustainable water supply.
¨ Policy W-P4.6: New development projects shall adopt best management
practices for water use efficiency and demonstrate specific water conser-
vation measures.
¨ Goal W-5: Protect water quality through effective stormwater manage-
ment.
¨ Policy W-P5.2: New development projects shall identify and adequately
mitigate their water quality impacts from stormwater runoff.
¨ Policy W-P5.3: Pervious pavements shall be allowed and encouraged
where their use will not hinder mobility.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-60
¨ Policy W-P5.4: Temporary facilities shall be installed as necessary during
construction activities in order to adequately treat stormwater runoff
from construction sites.
¨ Policy W-P5.5: Stormwater collection systems shall be installed concur-
rently with construction of new roadways to maximize efficiency and
minimize disturbance due to construction activity.
¨ Policy COS-P1.4: New development should provide above-ground and
natural stormwater facilities and use building designs and materials that
promote groundwater recharge.
In addition to the Water Resources Element goals, policies, and actions and
Conservation and Open Space Element policy discussed above, the General
Plan 2030 land use map protects the County’s water resources by conserving
sensitive areas and watersheds and directing development where fewer im-
pacts will be realized. Several General Plan designations that cover broad
areas of the county protect water resources by conserving land and limiting
development potential. The Timber Mountain General Plan designation pro-
tects one-third of the county that covers important upper watershed areas and
imposes a minimum parcel size of 160 acres. Another 45 percent of the coun-
ty is designated Agriculture with a corresponding minimum parcel size from
20 to 160 acres, which includes many lower foothill areas of the county, areas
that support groundwater recharge. The Deer Herd Overlay covers approx-
imately one-third of the county in foothill and mountain regions and restricts
development to 20- or 40-acre parcels. In total, these designations include
hundreds of thousands of acres of important timberland, native oak habitat,
and watersheds critical to the protection of the county’s water supply and
groundwater recharge. General Plan 2030 Land Use Element Goal LU-1 in-
structs that the County will “Continue to uphold and respect the planning
principles on which the County’s land use map is based.” This goal is sup-
ported by several policies that help to protect the County’s water resources,
and the land uses that depend upon them including:
¨ Policy LU-P1.1: The County shall protect and conserve land that is used
for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-61
¨ Policy LU-P1.5: The County shall conserve timber resources.
¨ Policy LU-P1.6: The County shall conserve important habitat and water-
shed areas, while protecting the public safety of County residents.
¨ Policy LU-P1.10: The County shall limit development in foothill and
mountain areas that are constrained by fire hazards, water supply, migra-
tory deer habitat, or infrastructure.
Water quality is also an integral part to the overall protection of groundwater
recharge. General Plan 2030 incorporates by reference important local regu-
latory programs such as the Butte County Stormwater Management Program,
the Butte County Discharge Control Ordinance, and other State and federal
water quality programs. The Watershed Protection Overlay prohibits the
division of lots or parcels in the Firhaven Creek watershed, and prohibits
rezoning to a smaller minimum parcel size in the Paradise and Magalia Reser-
voirs watershed and the Firhaven Creek Watershed. Impervious surfaces
within this overlay may not exceed 50 percent of the total site area. This
overlay also requires a 200-foot vegetative buffer for development adjacent to
lakes and reservoirs, and a 100-foot buffer adjacent to perennial and intermit-
tent rivers and streams. Special erosion control measures area also required
within the Watershed Protection Overlay zone.
Article 16 (Riparian Areas) of the proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes
restrictions for riparian areas, which will help to ensure that important re-
charge areas adjacent to streams are protected. Article 21 (Landscaping) of the
proposed Zoning Ordinance establishes landscaping requirements that pro-
mote water conservation, which will minimize impacts on groundwater sup-
plies.
The goals, policies, and actions as set forth above, and others from the Gen-
eral Plan and proposed Zoning Ordinance work together to address the issues
of groundwater recharge and water quality and quantity. All of these tools
are used together, along with other County programs and State and federal
regulations, to direct development and conservation within the county and to
protect the county’s water resources.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-62
5-36: The comment summarizes the finding in the Draft Supplemental
EIR that the Modified Project would not change the cumulative fire protec-
tion facilities impact because the projected 2030 buildout is slightly reduced
compared to the Approved Project. The comment questions this finding be-
cause the proposed GPA would allow development in wildfire hazard zones.
Wildfire hazard impacts and impacts from development within Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones are analyzed in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Safety,
of the Draft Supplemental EIR. See pages 4.7-7 to 4.7-9. This analysis is a
spatial analysis that takes into account all potential development that would
be allowed by the proposed GPA, regardless of whether it is included in the
projected 2030 buildout.
The analysis of potential impacts related to the construction of new fire pro-
tection facilities is included in Chapter 4.12, which covers Public Services.
The need for new public services, including the construction of new fire pro-
tection facilities, is based on the quantity of development in certain areas of
the county. The Draft Supplemental EIR concludes that the Modified Project
would not change the impact from the Approved Project because it results in
a slightly reduced projected 2030 buildout. Even if some scattered develop-
ment occurs in the remote areas of the county that was not included in the
projected 2030 buildout, it would not likely be substantial enough to generate
the need for new fire protection facilities. If such facilities become necessary,
they would be subject to project-specific CEQA analysis as well as to General
Plan policies summarized on page 4.12-14 of the Draft EIR for the Approved
Project. These regulations are anticipated to result in a less-than-significant
impact finding related to the construction of new fire protection facilities for
the Approved Project. The Modified Project would therefore not increase
the severity of potential fire protection facility impacts.
In addition, see the response to comment 5-7 for a discussion of the method-
ology used to arrive at the projected 2030 buildout.
5-37: The comment summarizes Impact TRAF-16, which includes unac-
ceptable LOS operations on Honey Run Road, and recommends that the
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-63
County not amend General Plan land use designations in that area because
mitigation is found to be infeasible. In Chapter 5 of the Draft Supplemental
EIR, alternatives to the proposed project are considered, including the No
Project Alternative, in which the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance are
not adopted, and the Updated Zoning Ordinance Alternative, in which only
the Zoning Ordinance, modified to be consistent with General Plan 2030
without the proposed GPA, is adopted. Under both of those alternatives, this
impact would be avoided. The County will consider these alternatives at the
adoption hearing for the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance. This is not a
comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no further
response is required.
5-38: The comment expresses support for the Butte County Bicycle Plan.
It is not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no
response is required.
5-39: The comment summarizes the finding in the Draft Supplemental
EIR that the Modified Project would have a slightly reduced projected 2030
buildout and a minimal VMT increase compared to the Approved Project,
resulting in a similar GHG emissions impact as the Approved Project. The
comment questions this finding because of the extent of the proposed redes-
ignations that would allow residential development and because a climate
action plan has not yet been adopted. See the responses to comments 5-7 and
5-10.
5-40: The comment summarizes the statement in the Draft Supplemental
EIR that the Approved Project would not achieve the County’s GHG emis-
sion reduction target, and requests the County’s overriding consideration to
exceed this target. The 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project found a
significant and unavoidable GHG emissions impact; the statement of overrid-
ing considerations for the Approved Project is available at: http://www.
buttegeneralplan.net/ebinder/2010/2010-10-26/B_BOS_Findings%20of%20
Fact_Override_MM.pdf.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-64
5-41: The comment requests an additional alternative that evaluates a GPA
that only includes the land use designation changes that are considered mis-
takes or corrections. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that
an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would
obtain the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or lessening signifi-
cant impacts, and states that an EIR need not consider every conceivable al-
ternative to a project.
The Draft Supplemental EIR considers a reasonable range of alternatives, in-
cluding the No Project Alternative, in which the proposed GPA and Zoning
Ordinance are not adopted, and the Updated Zoning Ordinance Alternative,
in which only the Zoning Ordinance, modified to be consistent with General
Plan 2030 without the proposed GPA, is adopted. Under both of those alter-
natives, the proposed GPA would not be adopted. Furthermore, impacts
from General Plan land use designation changes resulting from corrections to
the land use map would not be inherently different from impacts related to
changes requested by property owners.
In addition, as indicated in the response to comment 5-17, it would be diffi-
cult to categorize each General Plan land use designation change as a correc-
tion versus an intention for future development, and such a categorization is
not pertinent to CEQA except to the extent that the Supplemental EIR ac-
counts for planned future development in its projected 2030 buildout esti-
mate.
5-42: The comment provides conclusory remarks. No response is re-
quired.
From:John Scott
To:Breedon, Dan
Cc:Snellings, Tim; Robyn DiFalco, ED, BEC
Subject:BC GP 2030 DSEIR Comments, July 15, 2012
Date:Sunday, July 15, 2012 8:48:58 PM
Dan Breedon, AICP, PrincipalPlannerJuly 15, 2012Butte County Department of Development Services7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
subject: Butte Valley Coalition comments on the DSEIR for the BC GP 2030
Dan Breedon,Since the start of the Butte County General Plan 2030, the Butte Valley Coalition hashad many meetings with the BC Department of Development Services concerningButte Valley. We have spoken mostly about our concerns of Butte Valley's shallowand fragile aquifer at many Butte County Board of Supervisor meetings; as well as,the Planning and Water Commissions. Many Butte Valley residents have sent younumerous letters and emails outlining our concerns. We even worked together onafew public meetings at Butte College. At one of our meetings a month ago yougave us copies of your Butte Valley proposed Zoning map, which we appreciated.
After reviewing the DSEIR we have a few suggestions for changes to the DSEIR, andthese should also apply to your other BC GP 2030 documents as well.1. The Butte Valley map should be added to the BC GP 2030 documents.
2. Table 3.1 Changes to land use designations, should properly label parcels in ButteValley and not in Paradise according the Butte Valley map.
3. Table 3.1 also notes Paradise East of 191 (Clark Rd). This should say ButteValley East of 191 or Clark Rd.
4. The parcels North and East of the 99 fwy, and South of Neal Rd. should belabeledButte Valley and not Paradise.
5. The Butte Valley overlay for the Winter Deer Migration compromises and splitsabout 6 miles of their migration path with zoning along the east and west sides ofClark Road, from Butte College up to the Paradise Airport.The Deer migratory pathrequires20 acre parcels, and your proposed VLDR 2.5 zoning is going in the wrongdirection.We will be meeting with you on the Clark Corridor Zoning this week.
6.Section 4.8 'Hydrology & Water Quality' ignores the known facts abouttheshallow and fragile water table in Butte Valley, and re-zoning thousands of acreswithout any Hydrological data is foolish at best.
7. Finally, Butte Valley is not mentioned once in the entire DSEIR...... Is that anoversight?
Very Sincerely,
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
COMMENT LETTER # 6
John ScottButte Valley CoalitionAdvocate
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-67
Letter 6: John Scott, Advocate, Butte Valley Coalition. July 15, 2012.
6-1: The comment summarizes the Butte Valley Coalition’s communica-
tions with the Butte County Department of Development Services. It is not a
comment on the adequacy of the EIR, and no response is required.
6-2: The comment requests that the Butte Valley map be added to the
Butte County General Plan 2030 documents. Since the proposed GPA and
Zoning Ordinance are countywide documents, the countywide maps provid-
ed in the Draft Supplemental EIR are adequate.
6-3: The comment requests that Table 3-1 use Butte Valley as an identifi-
er. This change has been made, as reflected in Chapter 3 of this Final Sup-
plemental EIR.
6-4: The comment states that the Winter Deer Herd Migration Area
Overlay compromises and splits the deer migration path with Very Low
Density Residential (VLDR) -2.5 zoning along Clark Road from Butte Col-
lege to the Paradise Airport. As explained on pages 4.4-15 to 4.4-16 of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, development allowed by the proposed GPA and
Zoning Ordinance could adversely affect migratory deer herds. However, the
existing Deer Herd Migration Area Overlay in General Plan 2030, in combi-
nation with the proposed corresponding zoning overlay, fence standards, and
riparian and watershed regulations, would mitigate potential impacts. See
also the response to comment 7-2.
6-5: The comment states that the hydrology and water quality analysis
ignores known facts about a shallow and fragile water table in Butte Valley.
Pages 4.8-7 and 4.8-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR provide an analysis of
groundwater impacts from the proposed project. This analysis is based on the
existing conditions and regulatory setting data presented in detail in the Gen-
eral Plan 2030 Draft EIR pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-17. Since this is a program-
matic countywide document, it does not evaluate the impacts of individual
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-68
development projects. Rather, the Draft Supplemental EIR acknowledges
that potential short-term and long-term groundwater impacts could occur
from development allowed throughout the county, and highlights existing
and proposed local policies and regulations that would mitigate potential im-
pacts. See also the response to comment 5-31.
6-6: The comment expresses concern that Butte Valley is not mentioned
in the Draft Supplemental EIR. See the response to comment 6-3.
7-1
7-2
COMMENT LETTER # 7
7-2
cont.
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-12
cont.
7-12
cont.
7-13
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
7-13
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-127
Letter 7: Georgia Bernoudy, Advocate, Butte Valley Coalition. July 16,
2012.
7-1: The comment requests that the information contained in this letter
be part of the administrative record for the project. By including it in this
Final Supplemental EIR, the letter is part of the record.
7-2: The comment summarizes the enclosed petition, which includes 228
signatures, requesting that the zoning for the Clark Road corridor be changed
from VLDR-2.5 and Rural Residential (RR) -5 to RR-10. This is a comment
on the project itself and not on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
In response to the concerns outlined in this comment and letter, Butte Coun-
ty Department of Development Services staff met with concerned residents,
including the Butte Valley Coalition, to review the VLDR-2.5 and RR-5 zon-
ing along the Clark Road corridor. Based on the public input, Development
Services staff will recommend a change in the General Plan and zoning desig-
nation to support the RR-10 zone for the Clark Road corridor to the Butte
County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at their September
27, 2012 and October 23, 2012 meetings, respectively. This reduction in al-
lowed density would reduce the development potential for this region, and is
expected to have a corresponding reduction in environmental impacts. Ac-
cordingly, it is not expected that this recommendation will generate any new
significant environmental impacts. However, since the Board of Supervisors
has not yet taken action, no changes are reflected in the revisions shown in
Chapter 3 of this Final Supplemental EIR.
7-3: The comment states that Butte Valley is not an urban area, and
summarizes statements in the Paradise General Plan regarding Butte Valley.
This is not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and
no response is required.
7-4: The comment states that Very Low Density Residential is used to
indicate areas that are in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of a municipality.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-128
General Plan 2030 and the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance do not de-
fine this land use designation in this way. There are many other areas with a
General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential that are
not located within an SOI, such as in the communities of Cohasset, Forest
Ranch, Durham, Dayton, and Berry Creek. It is not a comment on the ade-
quacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no additional response is required.
7-5: The comment states that the Very Low Density Residential land use
designation is a growth-inducing designation. The Very Low Density Resi-
dential land use designation along the Clark Road corridor was established by
General Plan 2030; the proposed Zoning Ordinance implements this General
Plan land use designation. Therefore, the growth-inducing impacts of the
Very Low Density Residential designation were covered in Chapter 6 of the
2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project, which were found to be less than
significant because of General Plan 2030 policies that control how growth
occurs, encourage infill development, maintain the rural character of Butte
County, and minimize impacts of anticipated growth. See also the response
to comment 7-2.
7-6: The comment states that Butte Valley depends on groundwater, and
expresses concern over potential overdrafts caused by new development. Po-
tential groundwater impacts of the proposed project are discussed on pages
4.8-7 and 4.8-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Impacts are found to be less
than significant because of General Plan 2030 policies and actions designed to
maintain groundwater supplies, sustain groundwater resources, promote
groundwater recharge, and minimize impervious land cover, as well as ripari-
an area and watershed regulations proposed in the Zoning Ordinance. In
particular, Policy W-P2.9 requires that applicants for new major development
projects demonstrate adequate water supply to meet the needs of the project,
including an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts to surrounding
groundwater users and the environment. See also the response to comment 7-
2.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-129
7-7: The comment states that the Butte County Department of Water
Resources does not know how the Butte Valley aquifer is recharged, but that
the aquifer has been dropping steadily over the past 25 years. See the re-
sponses to comments 5-31 and 7-6.
In addition, the statement that the Butte County Department of Water Re-
sources has no knowledge of how or where the county’s shallow aquifer is
recharged is incorrect. A significant amount of data and information exists
regarding Butte County’s geology and hydrology that provide a solid scien-
tific foundation to reasonably understand how recharge occurs in Butte
County. The information, data, and recharge characteristics have been de-
scribed in the Butte County Integrated Water Resource Management Plan4
and the General Plan 2030 Settings and Trends Report, which was used under
General Plan 2030 to describe the County’s existing conditions.5 The De-
partment of Water Resources has published reports describing the recharge
characteristics in Butte County. The recharge of the shallow aquifer, referred
to as the alluvial, is well understood. In 2005, the Department of Water Re-
sources produced a comprehensive report entitled “Butte County Groundwa-
ter Inventory Analysis.”6
Data has not shown that the aquifer has been dropping steadily for the last 25
years. On a countywide basis, the Butte County Water Resource Inventory
and Analysis concluded that Butte County currently has adequate water re-
sources available to meet demand within most areas of the county under
normal hydrologic conditions. The report found that the groundwater basin
4 The Butte County Integrated Water Resource Management Plan is availa-
ble at
http://www.buttecounty.net/Water%20and%20Resource%20Conservation/Butte%20
IWRP.aspx.
5 The General Plan 2030 Setting and Trends Report is available at
http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/products/SettingandTrends/default.asp.
6 The Butte County Groundwater Inventory Analysis is available at
http://www.buttecounty.net/Water%20and%20Resource%20Conservation/Inventor
y%20Analysis.aspx.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-130
in Butte County has recovered from the 1988-1994 drought. During normal
to wet years, the aquifer system recharges to its maximum storage capacity by
the following spring. Some portions of the basin have experienced slight de-
cline in groundwater elevation. However, long-term trends in groundwater
storage indicate the basin groundwater aquifer is not in a state of decline.
There is specific data related to groundwater elevation in basin portions of
Butte Valley. Butte Valley comprises a portion of the groundwater basin in
the Cherokee SIU while other portions of Butte Valley lie outside the basin
in the Foothill and Mountain inventory units. Within the Foothill inventory
unit and Mountain inventory unit, overall groundwater supply is limited be-
cause groundwater occurs primarily in fractures and joints of the volcanic
bedrock. Shallow, domestic wells could be susceptible to dewatering during
periods of drought. Under the drought conditions, the Foothill inventory
unit can experience water shortages. The unreliability of groundwater in the
Butte Valley is likely the cause of water supply problems.
Groundwater elevation data is being collected and evaluated from the Chero-
kee portion of Butte Valley. A steady decline of the basin has not been ob-
served, as reported in the 2011 Groundwater Status Report/2012 Basin Man-
agement Objective (BMO) Report. These reports describe the evaluation of
groundwater conditions in the Cherokee SIU. The Basin Management Ob-
jectives for the Cherokee SIU are available at http://www.buttecounty.net/
Water%20and%20Resource%20Conservation/BMO/~/media/County%20
Files/Water%20Resource/Public%20Internet/BMO/2012%20BMO/DRAFT
_Cherokee_12_BMO.ashx.
7-8: The comment states that new development will increase traffic con-
gestion along Clark Road. As noted in the response to comment 7-5, the
proposed Zoning Ordinance implements General Plan 2030. Since there were
minimal changes to the Clark Road corridor proposed in the GPA, the traffic
impacts of development allowed by the land use designations were covered in
the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project. In that 2010 Draft EIR, the
most intense zoning option for each land use designation was assumed, so
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-131
VLDR (1-acre lots) was already assumed for the areas along Clark Road that
were designated for Very Low Density Residential. The analysis of PM peak
hour traffic on the State Route 191 (Clark Road) segment from Durham-
Pentz Road to Airport Road, in the Butte Valley area, concluded that year
2030 levels of service under General Plan 2030 would be A-C, meaning a “sta-
ble flow” of traffic where individual users are not severely affected by the
amount of congestion on the roadway. The proposed GPA and Zoning Or-
dinance are not expected to increase traffic congestion along Clark Road be-
yond what was already evaluated in the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved
Project.
7-9: The comment states that fire safety has not been addressed. Impacts
from wildfire hazards are discussed on pages 4.7-7 to 4.7-9 of the Draft Sup-
plemental EIR.
7-10: The comment states that development in Butte Valley will impact
plant and animal species. Impacts to biological resources are discussed in
Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources. Impacts to special-status plant and animal
species are found to be less than significant due to General plan 2030 policies
and State and federal regulations that address special-status species. See also
the response to comment 7-2. It should be noted that animal keeping is a
conditionally permitted use in the VLDR zone and a permitted use in the RR
zone that staff will recommend the Board adopt.
7-11: The comment states that RR-10 zoning will be less dense than the
proposed VLDR-2.5 and RR-5 zoning. See the response to comment 7-2.
7-12: The comment is a reproduction of a page of the Paradise Summit
Draft EIR pertaining to the Butte Valley area. It is not a comment on the
adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no response is required.
7-13: The comment is a petition requesting that the zoning along the
Clark Road corridor be changed to RR-10. See the response to comment 7-2.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-132
C. Members of the Public
1
June 6, 2012
To: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965
From: Neil McCabe
2255 E. 8th Street
Chico, CA 95928
Subject: Comments on County General Plan 2030 Amendment and Draft Zoning
Ordinance Draft Supplemental EIR
These comments are submitted regarding the Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) for the General Pan 2030 Amendment and Draft Zoning Ordinance. Although other neighborhoods and zones may be affected in ways similar to those discussed below1,
these comments are made with specific reference to the El Monte Avenue neighborhood
in Chico.
1) The El Monte Avenue neighborhood. This neighborhood has been zoned SR-1 for many years. My wife and I, and our
children, before they left for college, have lived here, at 2255 E. 8th Street (at the corner
of E. 8th Street and El Monte Avenue) since 1973, enjoying the established character of
the neighborhood: single family residential use on large lots and the keeping of animals, including horses. The proposed VLDR Zone would allow the introduction of new uses of an entirely different character than those that exist here now. I do not know of any
neighborhood support for such a dramatic broadening of the range of permissible uses.
2) The environmental impact of rezoning from SR-1 to VLRD has not been considered. Adoption of the Draft Zoning Ordinance (DZO) would rezone the El Monte
Avenue neighborhood from Suburban Residential (SR-1) to Very Low Density
Residential (VLDR), allowing new uses to be introduced here that are not now allowed in
the SR-1 Zone and are not specified or even hinted at in GP 2030. The environmental
impact of these new uses was not considered in the Final EIR for GP 2030, certified October 26, 2010, and is not considered in the Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) for the
General Pan 2030 Amendment and Draft Zoning Ordinance.
The DSEIR explains this lack of consideration as follows:
“Because it implements General Plan 2030, as modified by the proposed GPA,
the proposed Zoning Ordinance would not create any new impacts in and of
itself.” DSEIR, p. 2-3.
1 Table 3-2 of the DSEIR indicates that the VLDR land use designation applied to 10,880
acres pursuant to the Approved Project and to 11,070 acres for the Modified Project.
8-1
8-2
8-3
COMMENT LETTER # 8
2
“The approved General Plan 2030 was evaluated in an EIR that was certified in
October 2010. The Zoning Ordinance Update has not previously been evalu-
ated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compli-
ance with CEQA, this Supplemental EIR describes the potential environmen- tal impacts of the GPA and Zoning Ordinance as compared to those of the approved General Plan 2030, as evaluated in the 2010 EIR.” DSEIR, p. 3-1.
In view of these explanations, the county’s position seems to be that the
environmental impacts of GP 2030 have already been evaluated and, since the DZO simply implements GP 2030, the DZO would not create any new impacts. The problem with this position, as further discussed below, is that the DZO does not simply implement
GP 2030, and it allows substantial new uses that do not exist now in the El Monte
Avenue neighborhood and are not allowed in the existing SR-1 Zone.
3) The DZO does not simply implement the VLDR land use designation set forth in GP 2030.
GP 2030 generally describes the residential land use designations it established as
follows:
“Seven residential land use designations allow for residential uses ranging from very-low-density farmsteads and low-density single-family homes to duplexes
and multi-family structures. Secondary dwelling units are also allowed in all
residential land use designation categories and are not to be included in the overall
density calculations for a given designation. In every residential designation, existing legal parcels smaller than the minimum may remain as legal parcels. The residential land use designations also allow for public and quasi-public land uses
that serve the community. Examples of allowable uses include churches, schools,
parks and recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries, day care facilities,
community centers and other public uses.” GP 2030, p. 62.
The Very Low Density Residential designation is specifically described as follows:
“This designation allows single-family dwellings at densities from 1 dwelling unit
per 5 acres to 1 dwelling unit per acre (0.2 to 1 unit per acre).” GP 2030, p. 63.
The VLDR Zone in the DZO goes well beyond this GP 2030 language and would
allow new uses not included or even hinted at in it. Such new uses, as specified in DZO
section 24-19, include Medical Offices and Clinics, Bed and Breakfasts, Heavy
Equipment Storage, and Personal Services (beauty and barber shops, shoe repair shops and tailor shops, dry cleaners, launderettes, driving schools, martial arts studios, fitness centers, photography studios, funeral parlors and mortuaries, and other similar uses).
4) The DZO would allow substantial new uses that do not exist now in the El Monte
Avenue neighborhood and are not allowed in the existing SR-1 Zone. The character of the El Monte Avenue neighborhood has been established in a
8-3
cont.
8-4
8-5
3
manner consistent with the SR-1 Zone. The neighborhood is characterized by single
family residences on large lots and the keeping of animals.
The VLDR Zone would, as specified in DZO section 24-19, allow a substantial number of new non-residential uses not allowed in the SR-1 Zone (existing section 24-
135) and which do not now exist in the El Monte Avenue neighborhood. These new uses
are as set forth in the attached Table A.
5) The DZO would allow the introduction of new land uses not contemplated by GP 2030, creating a conflict between new and existing land uses that would be a significant
land use impact.
The DSEIR recognizes at p. 4-9 that changes between the Approved Project,
namely, adoption of GP 2030, and the Modified Project, which includes adoption of the Draft Zoning Ordinance, “…would have a significant land use impact if they would… Create or exacerbate a conflict between land uses.” The Draft Zoning Ordinance would
make changes by allowing new land uses not contemplated by GP 2030. These new
uses could conflict with existing uses, resulting in a significant land use impact.
6) Allowing the introduction of new uses in the El Monte Avenue neighborhood would conflict with GP 2030 policy LU-P 4.1 and with the intent of the Draft Zoning
Ordinance.
GP 2030 policy LU-P 4.1 states as follows:
“The integrity and stability of existing residential neighborhoods shall be promoted
and preserved.” GP 2030, p. 74.
This policy is recognized in the EIR for GP 2030. See p. 6-2 of the DEIR for GP 2030. GP 2030 and the EIR for it did not contemplate the subsequent adoption of a
Zoning Ordinance that would have exactly the opposite effect of this policy.
The DSEIR states at p. 3-7 that the intent of the Draft Zoning Ordinance is to
“Preserve the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods.”Allowing new uses that would conflict with existing uses would defeat this intent.
7) New uses could cause traffic, noise, air quality and other impacts that have not been
considered.
What adverse environmental impacts could occur as a result of introducing new uses that conflict with the existing character of the El Monte Avenue neighborhood?
This is a question that should be answered by the DSEIR but is not. Certainly increased
traffic, and the noise and air quality impacts associated with it, would be expected from
the new uses listed in Table A attached to these comments. Many of these uses would
generate substantially more traffic, and traffic of a different type, than the traffic from single-family residences. For example, the storage of Heavy Equipment, i.e., equipment
and vehicles with a manufacturer’s gross weight of 10,000 pounds or more would be
allowed: 1 piece, subject only to Zoning Clearance; 2-6 pieces, subject to a ministerial
8-5
cont.
8-6
8-7
8-8
4
Administrative Permit; and 7 or more pieces with a Minor Use Permit. DZO section 24-
173 C and D. This equipment could be stored and removed on a daily basis, subject to the hours of operation of 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday-Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. DZO section 24-173 E 3. Vehicles would be allowed
to idle at the site for up to 15 minutes prior to leaving or upon return. DZO section 24-
173E. 8. Most of such vehicles would likely be diesel powered. As pointed out at p.
4.3-1 of the DSEIR, the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook identifies mobile sources of emissions as “… the primary contributor to health risk in California. The majority of risk is primarily from diesel particulate matter.”
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Draft Supplemental EIR for the County General Pan 2030 Amendment and Draft Zoning Ordinance is inadequate. This inadequacy could be resolved by revising the DSEIR to include an analysis of the
environmental impact of allowing the new uses listed in Table A or by deleting those
uses from the DZO.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil McCabe
Attachment: Table A
8-8
cont.
8-9
Table A Uses not allowed in the SR-1 Zone but allowed in the proposed new VLDR Zone
Use *Type of permit required Applicable Regulations
Stables, Semi-Private M, but only permitted on
sites 5 acres or larger
Section 24-158
Clubs, Lodges and Private
Meeting Halls
C
Medical Office and Clinic C
Parks and Recreational
Facilities
C
Public Safety Facilities C
Religious Facilities C
Schools, Public and Private C
Agricultural Product Sales,
On-Site
P
Bed and Breakfast M
Heavy Equipment Storage P, 1 piece
A, 2-6 piecesM, 7 or more pieces
**Section 24-173
Personal Services C ***Section 24-304 definition of Personal Services
Micro Wind System A Table 24-19-1, Note 7
*The abbreviations used here for the different types of permits required are the same as used in Draft Zoning Ordinance Table 24-19-1:
P Permitted use, subject to Zoning Clearance
A Administrative Permit required
M Minor Use Permit required
C Conditional Use Permit required
** Section 24-173, subsection C, states: “Heavy Equipment Storage includes the storage
of all heavy equipment with a manufacturer’s gross weight of 10,000 pounds or more.”
***Section 24-304 definition: “Personal Services. An establishment other than a professional office that provides services to individuals as a primary use, and that may
provide accessory retail sales of products related to the services provided. Examples of
Personal Service uses include beauty and barber shops, shoe repair shops and tailor
shops, dry cleaners, launderettes, driving schools, martial arts studios, fitness centers,
photography studios, funeral parlors and mortuaries, and other similar uses.”
8-10
TABLE B
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USES ALLOWED IN PROPOSED VLDR (VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND EXISTING SR (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) ZONES
PERMITTED LAND USES --SEE FOOTNOTES [1] AND [2]
Key
P Permitted use, subject to Zoning Clearance
A Administrative Permit required
M Minor Use Permit required
C Conditional Use Permit required
– Use not allowed Zone
VLDR SR-1
Applicable Regulations for
Final Draft ZO
Agricultural Uses
Animal Grazing p p Section 24-158
Stables, Semi-Private M [3] - Section 24-158
Stables, Private p p Section 24-158
Residential Uses
Home Occupation -Major M A 24-162
Home Occupation -Minor A A 24-162
Residential Care Homes, Small P p
Second Units P P Section 24-172
Single Family Home P[4] P[4[
Community Uses
Child Day Care, Large M M Section 24-159
Child Day Care, Small P P Section 24-159
Clubs, Lodges and Private Meeting Halls C -
Community Centers C C
Golf Courses and Country Clubs C C
Medical Office and Clinic C -
Parks and Recreational Facilities C -
Public Safety Facilities C -
Religious Facilities C -
Schools, Public and Private C -
Commercial Uses
Agricultural Product Sales, On-Site P -
Bed and Breakfast M -
Heavy Equipment Storage P - Section 24-173
Personal Services C[5] - Section 24-304
Warehousing, Wholesaling and Distribution - -
Transportation, Communication, and Utility Uses
Telecommunications Facilities A or C P or M See Article 26
Utilities, Minor P [5] - 24-157
8-10
cont.
Key
P Permitted use, subject to Zoning Clearance
A Administrative Permit required
M Minor Use Permit required
C Conditional Use Permit required
– Use not allowed Zone
VLDR SR-1
Applicable Regulations for
Final Draft ZO
Other Uses
Accessory Uses and Structures
See
Section
24-156 –
extensively
updated
list of
Accessory
Uses and
Structures
P
NOTES for Final Draft Zoning Ordinance and VLDR:
Notes: [1] See Article 42 (Glossary) for definitions of listed land uses.
[2] The construction or expansion of structures occupied by any land use identified in this table requires the approval of a Site Devel-
opment Permit, except as specifically exempted by Article 30 (Site Development Permits). [3] Permitted only on sites 5 acres or larger. [4] One single-family home and a second dwelling is permitted per legal parcel. [5] “Personal Services” is defined in Section 24-304. Examples include beauty and barber shops, shoe repair shops and tailor shops, dry cleaners, launderettes, driving schools, martial arts studios, fitness centers, photography studios, and funeral parlors and mortuar-ies. [6] Micro Wind Systems are subject to an Administrative Permit in all residential zones.
8-10
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-140
Letter 8: Neil McCabe. 2255 E. 8th Street, Chico, CA 95928. June 6,
2012.
8-1: The comment explains that the comments in this letter pertain to the
El Monte neighborhood in Chico. It is not a comment on the adequacy of
the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no response is required.
8-2: The comment states that the existing Suburban Residential (SR) -1
zone has been in place for the El Monte neighborhood for many years, and
that the proposed VLDR zone would allow uses that would change the char-
acter of the neighborhood. The comment also states that the neighborhood
does not support this change. Potential land use conflicts that could arise
from the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance are discussed on pages 4.9-7
to 4.9-8 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Land use conflicts are found to be
less than significant because of existing General Plan 2030 policies and pro-
posed zoning regulations that would mitigate potential impacts. Related to
the particular concerns raised by this comment, Policy LU-P4.1, which di-
rects the County to promote and preserve the integrity and stability of exist-
ing residential neighborhoods, would protect the character of the El Monte
neighborhood.
In addition, in response to this comment and other concerns expressed in this
letter, the Butte County Department of Development Services held a com-
munity meeting at the Lakeside Pavilion in Chico on July 26, 2012 from 5:30
to 7:30 pm. Staff representatives included Tim Snellings, Director, Pete
Calarco, Assistant Director, and Dan Breedon, Principal Planner. Approxi-
mately 50 members of the public attended the meeting.
This meeting was held to discuss an alternative to the currently proposed
VLDR zoning for several neighborhoods, including the El Monte Road, Chi-
co Canyon Road-Centennial Avenue, Stilson Canyon Road, and Spanish
Garden neighborhoods.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-141
Development Services received several petitions to amend the existing Draft
VLDR zoning due to the allowance of a number of uses that were seen as in-
compatible with the residential nature of these areas. In response to this con-
cern, staff drafted a Very Low Density Country Residential (VLDCR) zone,
which eliminated the uses seen as incompatible and mirrored the existing SR-
1 zone and Agriculture Residential (AR) zone as closely as possible.
The uses viewed as incompatible included Large Child Day Care Facilities;
Clubs, Lodges, and Private Meeting Halls; Community Centers; Golf Cours-
es and Country Clubs; Medical Offices and Clinics; Parks and Recreation
Facilities; Public Safety Facilities; Religious Facilities; Schools, Public and
Private; Bed and Breakfasts; Heavy Equipment Storage; and Personal Services
such as light retail.
A majority of the people present at the Community Meeting supported the
new Draft VLDCR zone for the four neighborhood areas, although no one
was present from the Spanish Garden neighborhood. In addition, existing
commercial uses in the El Monte neighborhood, including the Music Express
Inn (a bed and breakfast and music school) and Evers Veterinary Clinic, were
discussed. Based upon input received during a facilitated discussion, Devel-
opment Services staff will recommend a zoning change from VLDR to
VLDCR for these four neighborhoods and application of the Community
Commercial (CC) zone to the existing commercial uses in the El Monte
neighborhood at the September 27, 2012 Planning Commission and October
23, 2012 Board of Supervisors meetings. These changes would not result in
any new impacts not identified in the Draft Supplemental EIR. However,
since the Board of Supervisors has not taken action, no changes are reflected
in the revisions shown in Chapter 3 of this Final Supplemental EIR.
8-3: The comment states that the change in zoning from SR-1 to VLDR
in the El Monte Avenue neighborhood is not adequately addressed in the
Draft Supplemental EIR. Aside from the alternatives analysis, CEQA does
not require an evaluation of the change from one zone to another. Rather, as
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-142
stated in Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, the baseline against which
the proposed project should be compared is the physical environmental con-
ditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time that the notice
of preparation was published, rather than against the existing planning docu-
ment that is in effect prior to the proposed project. The proposed Zoning
Ordinance is compared to the existing Zoning Ordinance in Section C of
Chapter 5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. In addition, see the response to
comment 8-2.
8-4: The comment states that the proposed VLDR zone does not simply
implement the Very Low Density Residential land use designation that is set
forth in General Plan 2030 because it allows more uses than are described in
General Plan 2030’s description of the Very Low Density Residential designa-
tion. The proposed Zoning Ordinance is intended to implement General
Plan 2030. By nature, the Zoning Ordinance provides significantly more de-
tail than the General Plan, including a list of all uses that are allowed through
various permitting requirements. The uses identified in this comment, in-
cluding Medical Offices and Clinics, Bed and Breakfasts, Heavy Equipment
Storage, and Personal Services, support residential uses, and all require a dis-
cretionary permit from the County within the VLDR zone, with the excep-
tion of storing a single piece of heavy equipment in association with a home.
The discretionary permit process will consider site-specific impacts. See also
the response to comment 8-2.
8-5: The comment states that the Draft Zoning Ordinance allows sub-
stantial new uses that do not exist in the El Monte neighborhood and that are
not allowed in the existing SR-1 zone. See the responses to comment 8-2 and
8-3.
8-6: The comment states that the Draft Zoning Ordinance would create a
land use impact because the new land uses allowed by the Draft Zoning Or-
dinance would conflict with existing uses in the El Monte neighborhood. See
the responses to comments 8-2 and 8-4.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-143
8-7: The comment states that the new uses allowed in the El Monte
neighborhood would conflict with General Plan Policy LU-P4.1 and the in-
tent of the Draft Zoning Ordinance. See the response to comment 8-2.
8-8: The comment states that the Draft Supplemental EIR does not ad-
dress the potentially adverse environmental impacts that could occur as a re-
sult of allowing new uses in the El Monte neighborhood, including traffic,
noise, and air quality impacts. The 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project
evaluated the traffic impacts of the Very Low Density Residential land use
designation in this neighborhood; that increase in traffic was also evaluated in
the air quality and noise analyses.
Although the detailed set of uses allowed in the proposed Zoning Ordinance
includes more than just residential uses, the main use intended for this zoning
designation is residential. As noted in the response to comment 8-4, many of
the non-residential support uses that could be developed in this zone require
discretionary approval, which would consider site-specific impacts. Although
a single piece of heavy equipment may be stored at a residence without a dis-
cretionary permit, and that equipment could idle for up to 15 minutes, such
limited operations are not expected to significantly impact the air quality of
the neighborhood.7 In addition, the California Air Resources Board limits
diesel truck idling to 5 minutes throughout California.8 For this program-
matic document, it cannot be anticipated which non-residential support uses
would be developed and where in the El Monte neighborhood and it would
be speculative to attempt to evaluate impacts from such uses. See also the
response to comment 8-2.
7 Cathy Fitzgerald, Senior Engineer, The Planning Center | DC&E. Per-
sonal communication with Tanya Sundberg, The Planning Center | DC&E. August
15, 2012.
8 California Air Resources Board, 2009, Heavy Duty Vehicle Idling Emission
Reduction Program, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm,
accessed August 15, 2012.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-144
8-9: The comment provides conclusory remarks that summarize the pre-
vious comments. No response is required.
8-10: The comment provides additional information about the uses that
are allowed in the existing SR-1 zone and the proposed VLDR zone. No re-
sponse is required.
9-1
COMMENT LETTER # 9
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-146
Letter 9: John C. Schaller, Attorney at Law. 1458 The Esplanade, Chico,
CA 95926. June 15, 2012.
9-1: The comment expresses opposition to the change from SR-1 zoning
to VLDR zoning for the El Monte Avenue neighborhood proposed in the
Zoning Ordinance, and states that the uses allowed by the VLDR zone would
conflict with existing uses in this neighborhood. See the responses to com-
ments 8-2 and 8-4.
Chris Nelson2300 B Estes Rd. Chico, Ca. 95928
July 1, 2012
General Plan EIR Comments:
Re--Land Use Designation
Agriculture 476,760 474,670 -2,090 -0.4%Timber Mountain 352,510 349,700 -2,810 -0.8%Resource Conservation 39,120 37,260 -1,860 -4.8%
Foothill Residential 59,730 62,580 +2,850 4.8%
Rural Residential 29,020 32,400 +3,380 11.6%
Very Low Density Residential 10,880 11,070 +190 1.7%Low Density Residential 2,410 2,470 +60 2.5%
In the new General Plan there is a loss of Agriculture and Timber Mountain at the same time there are increases in Foothill Residential, Rural Residential, Very Low Density housing and Low Density Residential. This means there is less carbon sequestration, more human incursions into rural lands of all categories (valley,foothill, and mountainous,) without regard to drive times, need for new infrastructure like roads or long drive-way roads and more land under concrete/asphalt. I would like you to address the issue of cumulative impacts and climate change in the final EIR. There is no way to mitigate against more miles driven and more timber harvest and land coming out of agriculture and thus higher carbon dioxide levels. There are also increased risks of fire hazard and erosion caused by the extension of residential into previous Timber Mountain lands that are non-compatible with wildlands.
Re--Military Airspace Overlay
This new overlay designation would be appliedto areas that are located within Military Operations Areas (MOAs)in order to ensure that the military has the opportunity to review extremelytall structures and other potential projects within these areas thatcould interfere with the operations of military aircraft.
♦ Add language throughout the General Plan to discuss coordination withmilitary operations and consistency with MOAs. Add a new goal and associatedpolicies to avoid land use conflicts in MOAs.
I object to the militarization of our skies in Butte County as well as in the entire Western United States. Our Butte County General Plan is a civilian plan and the military has no right to comment on structures as they have no business flying lower than civilian aircraft who are controlled by FAA guidelines. The military burns huge amounts of gasoline and increases carbon dioxide and smog components over our valley and foothills, increasing cumulative impacts leading to extreme global warming. Butte County has no responsibility to include special language in the General Plan or to grant the military even greater access to civilian airspace than they have already forced upon us. Please address why the military should be allowed low flights over our civilian terrain if you accept the premise that this is so. There can be no National Defense reason why Butte County should give away our civilian rights to clean air to military which already have access to vast training areas. When did Butte become a “special use air-space?” And why weren't the citizenry notified?... this is a “taking” that many of us would have disagreed with in the strongest terms.
I'd like County staff to review the following which also brings into consideration the increased risks of mid-air collisions:
BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
10-1
10-2
10-4
10-3
COMMENT LETTER # 10
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1462 HEARING: 4/28/04AUTHOR: Kuehl FISCAL: YesVERSION: 4/26/04 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE AND CEQA
Background and Existing Law
More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, military
spending remains a significant asset to California'seconomy. The U.S. military relies on California'shigh-tech and aerospace industries. In addition, the
state's military bases and the airspaces that link them areimportant to the Pentagon's planning for overseas combat.Military aircraft from all branches use this airspace,
often at high speeds and low altitudes. Military trainingover civilian development can be hazardous and result inpolitical pressure to limit low-level, high-speed flights.Military officials worry about the land use conflictsbeneath special use airspace.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirespublic officials to think about the environmental effectsof their decisions. The lead agency that proposes to
approve a project must conduct an initial study todetermine if the project may have significant, adverseenvironmental effects. If not, the lead agency issues a
negative declaration and, after a 30-day review period,proceeds with its review and decision. If it finds minoreffects that can be mitigated, the lead agency issues a
mitigated negative declaration and then proceeds. If itfinds that the effects may be significant, the lead agencyprepares an environmental impact report (EIR). Preparingthe EIR begins when the lead agency sends a notice ofpreparation to other public agencies, soliciting advice onthe EIR's scope. Lead agencies must notify the military
for some proposed projects (AB 1108, Pavley, 2002). If theproject is of statewide, regional, or areawidesignificance, the lead agency holds a scoping meeting with
the other agencies. The lead agency circulates its draftEIR and invites public comments during a 45-day reviewperiod. An EIR shows public officials how to avoid or
mitigate the proposed project's environmental effects.After this public review, the lead agency issues a final
SB 1462 --4/26/04 --Page 2
EIR that responds to the comments that it received. Aftercertifying the final EIR, the lead agency acts on theproject and files a notice of determination.
10-4
cont.
Additional procedural details appear in the CEQAGuidelines, written by the Governor's Office of Planningand Research (OPR) and formally adopted as stateregulations by the Secretary of the Resources Agency. OPRruns the State Clearinghouse which receives CEQA documents(e.g., negative declarations, notices of preparation, draftEIRs, notices of determination), circulates them to stateofficials for comment, and collates the state's responses.Proposed Law
Senate Bill 1462 amends the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA), subjecting potential conflicts between
proposed development projects located beneath special useairspace to environmental review procedures.
I.Notice . For projects located beneath special useairspace, SB 1462 requires lead agencies to send theirnegative declarations, mitigated negative declarations,
notices of preparation, environmental impact reports, andnotices of determination to all military branches that haveprovided the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) with a single California mailing address.Specialuse airspace means the areas designated by the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) as military operating areas,
military training routes, and restricted areas.
II.Consultation . At the request of any military
branch, SB 1642 requires lead agencies to provide forconsultation before filing an application for a projectlocated beneath special use airspace. The consultation
must involve the project's range of actions, potentialalternatives, mitigation measures, and any potential andsignificant environmental effects.
III.Mediation . SB 1462 allows either a militarybranch or the lead agency to ask the OPR Director toarrange for "non-binding mediation" over any matters ofconcern. OPR must maintain a list of qualified mediators.This mediation occurs during the public review periods for
proposed negative declarations and draft environmentalimpact reports (EIRs). The bill requires this mediation to
SB 1462 --4/26/04 --Page 3
finish by the end of the review periods, "to the maximumextent feasible." The mediator's report becomes part ofthe public record and part of the final EIR. The billallocates the mediation costs equally among the militarybranch, the lead agency, and OPR.
IV.Handbook . Current law requires OPR to publish an
10-4
cont.
advisory planning handbook explaining how to reduce landuse conflicts between civilian development and militaryreadiness activities, including military airspace. Thishandbook was due on January 1, 2004, if federal funds wereavailable (SB 1468, Knight, 2002). The U.S. Navy paid aconsultant to write a handbook but the draft doesn't meetOPR's needs. SB 1462 appropriates $200,000 from the StateGeneral Fund to OPR to complete the advisory planninghandbook.
V.State Policies . SB 1462 declares that it is thestate's policy to cooperate with the military to:Protect special use airspace from incompatible
civilian land uses.Respect property owners' constitutional rights.Identify incompatible civilian land uses.Create processes to avoid and mitigateincompatible civilian land uses.Create conflict resolution processes.
Comments
1.Defense and development . Low-level, high-speed flighttraining is essential to the military's combat success.All branches train like they fight, flying long distances
over difficult routes with diverse terrain. Crossing theCaliforniacoast to strike at inland targets preparesmilitary aviators for battle. Civilian development can
diminish the military's use of this special use airspace.Tall office buildings, apartments, communications towers,and wind generators that protrude into special use airspace
create physical hazards. Building houses, shoppingcenters, schools, and community facilities beneath specialuse airspace prevents military aircraft from flying
low-altitude routes. Plus, it creates political pressureto stop military training flights. Encroaching civilianland uses crimp the military's training and reduce the
effectiveness of the state's remaining military bases. To
SB 1462 --4/26/04 --Page 4
avoid these problems, SB 1462 harnesses the existingenvironmental review procedures to tell public officialsthat they must identify potential conflicts early and thenexplore alternatives and mitigation measures.
2.Good intentions, no actions . By insertingcivilian-military conflicts into CEQA processes, SB 1462
gives the military a venue to talk about its concerns withpublic officials and developers. But neither CEQA nor SB1462 requires local governments and state departments toact in any particular way. CEQA makes public officials
10-4
cont.
think about avoiding problems, consider alternatives, andeven propose mitigation measures, but it doesn't stopdevelopment projects. After hearing the military'sconcerns, public officials can still approve projects thatare right below low-level military training routes. Thebill does not protect the nation's strategic interests inthe military airspace over California; encroachment cancontinue. SB 1462 is all talk and no action.
3.How will they know ?SB 1462 requires lead agencies ---both local governments and state departments ---to sendtheir CEQA documents to the military for proposed projectsthat are located beneath special use airspace. Theseroutes crisscross California from the Pacific to thedesert, from Oregon to Mexico. The bill affects more thancounties and cities; its new requirements apply todevelopment decisions by special districts, schooldistricts, community redevelopment agencies, state
departments, the California State University, and theUniversity of California. The Committee may wish toconsider how state and local planners will know whethertheir projects lie below military airspace. Will OPR'syet-to-be-printed advisory handbook show these flightroutes? What happens when the FAA revises these routes?Without accurate and reliable information, public agenciescan easily miss the new mandate, resulting in more lawsuitsalleging noncompliance with CEQA. The Committee may wishto consider an amendment that requires OPR to provide anaccurate, on-line, publicly accessible data base of theFAA's special use airspace maps.
4.Hurry up and wait . Two years ago, the Legislature toldcounties and cities to put military concerns into their
general plans, but not until the federal government agrees
SB 1462 --4/26/04 --Page 5
to pay the state government for the costs of that new state
mandated local program. State officials have yet to sign adeal with the Pentagon. Further, there is no specificdeadline for local planners to comply; changes wait until
the community's next general plan revision (SB 1468,Knight, 2002). The 2002 Knight statute told OPR to adviselocal planners on best practices for avoiding conflicts,
but that advice didn't get into the 2003 General PlanGuidelines. The 2002 legislation also told OPR to publisha separate planning advisory handbook by January 1, 2004;it still isn't finished. In the meantime, developerscontinue with their own plans to build beneath special useairspace. Military officials object to the Tejon Ranch's23,000-unit Centennial development in Los Angeles County.Better general plans can avoid future problems but until
10-4
cont.
they're funded and implemented, there must be another wayto identify and avoid conflicts.
5.The talking therapy . Recognizing that different stateagencies sometimes confound local officials when theychampion competing policies, the Legislature directed theGovernor to come up with conflict resolution processes byJanuary 1, 2005 (AB 857, Wiggins, 2002). TheSchwarzenegger Administration is still working on itsproposals. However, these new processes focus on disputes between state agencies, not a state agency and a localagency. The Legislature had previously created mediationprocedures to divert land use disputes from the courts (SB517, Bergeson, 1994). These mediation procedures areavailable only until January 1, 2006 (AB 857, Wiggins,2002). SB 1462 ignores these existing laws, and creates anonspecific "non-binding mediation" effort. Instead ofinventing yet another process, the Committee may wish toconsider expanding the 2002 Wiggins conflict resolutionstatute.
6.Altered states . Arizona, Florida, and Texas have
recently created their own programs to protect the military's use of special use airspace from civilianencroachment. By recognizing the importance of military
bases and airspace to their statewide economies, thosestates have embraced efforts beyond the local planningrequired by the 2002 Knight statute. If California
legislators want to protect the military's special useairspace, the Committee may wish to consider how to adapt
SB 1462 --4/26/04 --Page 6
that policy in this political environment. What works bestfor us?
7.Re-refer ? Reacting to builders' opposition to aproposed state commission, the author's April 26 amendmentsconverted a land use bill into a CEQA bill. SB 1462 would
have created a Southern California Military GreenwayCommission to identify and review civilian land uses thatconflict with special use airspace. That land use topicfell within the jurisdiction of the Senate Local GovernmentCommittee. The April 26 amendments take another approachthat relies on environmental review procedures. CEQA billsare within the policy jurisdiction of the SenateEnvironmental Quality Committee. The Committee may wish torefer SB 1462 to the Senate Rules Committee for a possible
re-referral to the Committee on Environmental Quality.
8.Technical and clarifying amendments . Drafted quicklyto meet legislative deadlines, the April 26 amendments are
10-4
cont.
not letter perfect. After more than 30 years oflegislation, litigation, and regulations, the CEQA
cognoscenti have their own lexicon. Legislators shouldexpect further amendments that clarify the bill's languageand smooth over technical drafting problems.
And the bill language itself--
89
Senate Bill No. 1462CHAPTER906An act to amend Sections 65352, 65404, 65940, and 65944 of theGovernment Code, relating to land use.[Approved by Governor September 29, 2004. Filedwith Secretary of State September 30, 2004.]LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGESTSB 1462, Kuehl. Military readiness activities: special use airspace.(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires the planning agency priorto action by a legislative body of a city or county to adopt or substantiallyamend a general plan, to refer the proposed action to specified entities,
including, among other entities, any elementary, high school, or unifiedschool district within the area covered by the proposed action and anyareawide planning agency whose operations may be significantlyaffected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.The bill would include among those entities the branches of the UnitedStates Armed Forces when the proposed action lies within 1,000 feet of
a military installation, within special use airspace, or beneath a low-levelflight path and would require the Governor, on or before January 1, 2005,to develop processes to resolve conflicts between the military, a local or
state agency, and a project applicant when the proposed project may havethe potential to affect military readiness activities.(2) The Planning and Zoning Law also requires each state agency and
each local agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail theinformation required from a project applicant as part of its statement ofapplication for a development project and requires that copies of this
information be made available to all project applicants and to any personwho requests the information.The bill would also revise the information required in the applicationby the project applicant when the proposed project is located within1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level flight path, orwithin special use airspace, and would require the public agency toprovide a copy of the complete application to any branch of the UnitedStates Armed Forces, as specified. The bill would authorize any branch
of the United States Armed Forces to request consultation with thepublic agency and the project applicant to discuss the potentialalternatives, mitigation measures, and the effects of the proposed project
on military installations.Ch. 906 —2—89
(3) The bill would provide that the provisions specified in (2) aboveare not operative until the Department of Defense provides electronicmaps that identify military installations and special use airspace at a
scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office ofPlanning and Research and provides other related information. Byincreasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would impose astate-mandated local program.The bill would also require the Office of Planning and Research,
within 30 days of its determination that the information is in anacceptable scale and format, to notify cities, counties, and cities andcounties of the availability of the information on the Internet. It wouldrequire cities, counties, and cities and counties to comply with the
10-4
cont.
provisions specified in (2) above within 30 days of receiving this notice.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse localagencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.Statutory provisions establish procedures for making thatreimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.(5) This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 65352of the Government Code proposed by SB 18 that would become
operative only if SB 18 and this bill are both chaptered and becomeeffective on or before January 1, 2005, and this bill is chaptered last.The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of thefollowing:(1) Military installations and their mission are important to the
California economy.(2) The military needs military installations, low-level flight paths,and special use airspace to train personnel and test weapons systems
effectively.(3) The development of civilian land uses may impair the military’sability to train personnel and test weapons systems.
(4) Creating a process to identify and assist in resolving potentialconflicts between land uses and the military’s need for militaryinstallations, low-level flight paths, and special use airspace is essentialto California’s public health, safety, and welfare.(b) Accordingly, the Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy
of the state to cooperate with the military to do all of the following:(1) Consider the effects of civilian land uses that may be incompatiblewith the military’s use of its assets.
—3 —Ch. 90689(2) Create processes to resolve conflicts between civilian land uses
and the military’s use of its assets.SEC. 2. Section 65352 of the Government Code is amended to read:65352. (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or
substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer theproposed action to all of the following entities:(1) Any city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the
proposal, and any special district that may be significantly affected bythe proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.(2) Any elementary, high school, or unified school district within thearea covered by the proposed action.(3) The local agency formation commission.
(4) Any areawide planning agency whose operations may besignificantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by theplanning agency.
(5) Any federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdictionmay be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined bythe planning agency.
(6) (A) The branches of the United States Armed Forces that haveprovided the Office of Planning and Research with a California mailingaddress pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65944 when the proposed
action is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within specialuse airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as defined in Section21098 of the Public Resources Code, provided that the United States
Department of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flightpaths, special use airspace, and military installations at a scale and in anelectronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and
Research.(B) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning andResearch that the information provided by the Department of Defenseis sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notifycities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the
information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shallcomply with subparagraph (A) within 30 days of receiving this notice
10-4
cont.
from the office.(7) Any public water system, as defined in Section 116275 of the
Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, thatserves water to customers within the area covered by the proposal. Thepublic water system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the
proposed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide theplanning agency with the information set forth in Section 65352.5.(8) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposed
action within the boundaries of the district.Ch. 906 —4—89(b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of ageneral plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date the
referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless alonger period is specified by the planning agency.(c) (1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to
refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section doesnot affect the validity of the action, if adopted.(2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the
requirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), therequirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail.SEC. 2.5. Section 65352 of the Government Code is amended to
read:65352. (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt orsubstantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the
proposed action to all of the following entities:(1) A city or county, within or abutting the area covered by theproposal, and any special district that may be significantly affected bythe proposed action, as determined by the planning agency.(2) An elementary, high school, or unified school district within the
area covered by the proposed action.(3) The local agency formation commission.(4) An areawide planning agency whose operations may be
significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by theplanning agency.(5) A federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction
may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined bythe planning agency.(6) (A) The branches of the United States Armed Forces that have
provided the Office of Planning and Research with a California mailingaddress pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65944 when the proposedaction is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, or lies within special
use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as defined in Section21098 of the Public Resources Code, provided that the United StatesDepartment of Defense provides electronic maps of low-level flight
paths, special use airspace, and military installations at a scale and in anelectronic format that is acceptable to the Office of Planning and
Research.(B) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning andResearch that the information provided by the Department of Defense
is sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notifycities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of theinformation on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall
—5 —Ch. 90689comply with subparagraph (A) within 30 days of receiving this notice
from the office.(7) A public water system, as defined in Section 116275 of the Healthand Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves
water to customers within the area covered by the proposal. The publicwater system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the proposedplan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning
agency with the information set forth in Section 65352.5.(8) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposedaction within the boundaries of the district.
10-4
cont.
(9) On and after March 1, 2005, a California Native American tribe,that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American HeritageCommission, with traditional lands located within the city or county’s
jurisdiction.(b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of ageneral plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date thereferring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless alonger period is specified by the planning agency.(c) (1) This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to
refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section doesnot affect the validity of the action, if adopted.
(2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with therequirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), therequirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail.
SEC. 3. Section 65404 of the Government Code is amended to read:65404. (a) On or before January 1, 2005, the Governor shalldevelop processes to do all of the following:
(1) Resolve conflicting requirements of two or more state agenciesfor a local plan, permit, or development project.(2) Resolve conflicts between state functional plans.
(3) Resolve conflicts between state infrastructure projects.(4) Provide, to the extent permitted under federal law, for theavailability of mediation between a branch of the United States Armed
Forces, a local agency, and a project applicant, in circumstances wherea conflict arises between a proposed land use within special use airspacebeneath low-level flight paths, or within 1,000 feet of a militaryinstallation.(b) The process may be requested by a local agency, project applicant,or one or more state agencies. The mediation process identified inparagraph (4) of subdivision (a) may also be requested by a branch of theUnited States Armed Forces.
SEC. 4. Section 65940 of the Government Code is amended to read:Ch. 906 —6—89
65940. (a) Each state agency and each local agency shall compileone or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will berequired from any applicant for a development project. Each local
agency shall revise the list of information required from an applicant toinclude a certification of compliance with Section 65962.5, and thestatement of application required by Section 65943. Copies of the
information, including the statement of application required by Section65943, shall be made available to all applicants for development projectsand to any person who requests the information.(b) (1) The list of information required from any applicant shallinclude, where applicable, identification of whether the proposed projectis located within 1,000 feet of a military installation, beneath a low-level
flight path or within special use airspace as defined in Section 21098 ofthe Public Resources Code, and within an urbanized area as defined in
Section 65944.(2) The information described in paragraph (1) shall be based oninformation provided by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant
to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) as of the date of the application.Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall comply with paragraph (1)within 30 days of receiving this notice from the office.
(c) (1) A city, county, or city and county that is not beneath alow-level flight path or not within special use airspace and does notcontain a military installation is not required to change its list of
information required from applicants to comply with subdivision (b).(2) A city, county, or city and county that is entirely urbanized, asdefined in subdivision (e) of Section 65944, with the exception of a
jurisdiction that contains a military installation, is not required to changeits list of information required from applicants to comply withsubdivision (b).(d) (1) Subdivision (b) as it relates to the identification of special useairspace, low-level flight paths, military installations, and urbanized
10-4
cont.
areas shall not be operative until the United States Department ofDefense provides electronic maps of low-level flight paths, special use
airspace, and military installations, at a scale and in an electronic formatthat is acceptable to the Office of Planning and Research.(2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and
Research that the information provided by the Department of Defenseis sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notifycities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the
information on the Internet.SEC. 5. Section 65944 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65944. (a) After a public agency accepts an application ascomplete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any—7 —Ch. 906
89new or additional information which was not specified in the listprepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of
processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify,correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for theapplication.
(b) The provisions of subdivision (a) shall not be construed asrequiring an applicant to submit with his or her initial application theentirety of the information which a public agency may require in order
to take final action on the application. Prior to accepting an application,each public agency shall inform the applicant of any informationincluded in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940 which will
subsequently be required from the applicant in order to complete finalaction on the application.(c) This section shall not be construed as limiting the ability of apublic agency to request and obtain information which may be neededin order to comply with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.(d) (1) After a public agency accepts an application as complete, andif the project applicant has identified that the proposed project is located
within 1,000 feet of a military installation or within special use airspaceor beneath a low-level flight path in accordance with Section 65940, thepublic agency shall provide a copy of the complete application to any
branch of the United States Armed Forces that has provided the Officeof Planning and Research with a single California mailing addresswithin the state for the delivery of a copy of these applications. This
subdivision shall apply only to development applications submitted toa public agency 30 days after the Office of Planning and Research hasnotified cities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of
Department of Defense information on the Internet pursuant tosubdivision (d) of Section 65940.(2) Except for a project within 1,000 feet of a military installation, the
public agency is not required to provide a copy of the application if theproject is located entirely in an ‘‘urbanized area.’’ An urbanized area is
any urban location that meets the definition used by the United StateDepartment of Commerce’s Bureau of Census for ‘‘urban’’ and includeslocations with core census block groups containing at least 1,000 people
per square mile and surrounding census block groups containing at least500 people per square mile.(e) Upon receipt of a copy of the application as required in
subdivision (d), any branch of the United States Armed Forces mayrequest consultation with the public agency and the project applicant todiscuss the effects of the proposed project on military installations,
Ch. 906 —8—89low-level flight paths, or special use airspace, and potential alternatives
and mitigation measures.(f) (1) Subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) as these relate to low-level flightpaths, special use airspace, and urbanized areas shall not be operative
until the United States Department of Defense provides electronic mapsof low-level flight paths, special use airspace, and military installations,at a scale and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the Office of
10-4
cont.
Planning and Research.(2) Within 30 days of a determination by the Office of Planning and
Research that the information provided by the Department of Defenseis sufficient and in an acceptable scale and format, the office shall notifycities, counties, and cities and counties of the availability of the
information on the Internet. Cities, counties, and cities and counties shallcomply with subdivision (d) within 30 days of receiving this notice fromthe office.
SEC. 6. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section65352 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and SB 18.It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become
effective on or before January 1, 2005, (2) each bill amends Section65352 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after SB 18,
in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative.SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant toSection 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a localagency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees,or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of servicemandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code.
10-4
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-159
Letter 10: Chris Nelson. 2300 B Estes Road, Chico, CA 95928. July 1,
2012.
10-1: The comment states that because the proposed GP would reduce the
acreage designated for Agriculture and Timber Mountain and increase the
acreage for residential uses, carbon sequestration would reduce and VMT
would increase, resulting in climate change impacts. The comment requests
that cumulative climate change impacts be evaluated.
The climate change impacts associated with the proposed project are de-
scribed on pages 4.15-4 to 4.15-5 of the Draft Supplemental EIR. As indicated
on page 4.15-5, climate change is the result of cumulative global emissions,
and there is no single project, when taken in isolation, that can “cause” global
warming. Therefore, the project analysis provided on pages 4.15-4 to 4.15-5 is
also a cumulative analysis.
The Draft Supplemental EIR accounts for the slight increase in VMT that
could happen from the proposed GPA. As indicated on page 4.15-51 of the
2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project, there are uncertainties associated
with estimating GHG fluxes from natural vegetation and agricultural lands,
so the potential loss of carbon sinks associated with land conversion was not
quantified. However, chapter 3 of this Final EIR clarifies that GHG emis-
sions could increase as a result of the loss of carbon sequestration from land
use changes allowed by the proposed GPA.
10-2: The comment states that there are increased fire hazard and erosion
risks caused by the extension of residential uses in areas previously designated
Timber Mountain. Wildfire hazard risks are evaluated on pages 4.7-7 to 4.7-9
and erosion impacts are evaluated on pages 4.6-10 to 4.6-12 of the Draft Sup-
plemental EIR.
10-3: The comment objects to the establishment of the Military Airspace
Overlay, noting that the military burns gasoline and increases carbon dioxide
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-160
emissions and smog, and requests that the EIR explain why the military
should be granted access to civilian airspace. Military operations that con-
tribute to climate change are not under the jurisdiction of Butte County, the
proposed GPA, or Zoning Ordinance; therefore, potential GHG emissions
resulting from military operations need not be evaluated in the Supplemental
EIR. The question of why the military should be granted access to civilian
airspace is not within the purview of CEQA, and does not require a response
in this Supplemental EIR.
10-4: The comment reprints Senate Bill (SB) 1462 and its related bill analy-
sis, and notes risks of mid-air collisions. SB 1462 amended CEQA to ensure
appropriate notification and consultation with military agencies for projects
that are located beneath special use airspace, and to subject potential conflicts
between proposed development projects and military airspace use to envi-
ronmental review. The County has consulted with the military on the devel-
opment of the Military Airspace Overlay and related regulations, consistent
with the requirements of SB 1462. In addition, potential airspace hazards are
evaluated on page 4.13-7 of the Draft Supplemental EIR.
11-1
11-2
11-3
COMMENT LETTER # 11
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-162
Letter 11: Mary Allport. mary.allport@gmail.com. July 9, 2012.
11-1: The comment states that the proposed VLDR-2.5 zoning for Butte
Valley would cause impacts related to woodlands, aesthetics, biological re-
sources, land use conflicts, groundwater resources, and public services and
infrastructure. As noted in the response to comment 7-5, the Very Low Den-
sity Residential land use designation along the Clark Road corridor was estab-
lished by General Plan 2030; the proposed Zoning Ordinance implements this
General Plan land use designation. Therefore, potential impacts related to the
Very Low Density Residential land use designation, as well as the implement-
ing VLDR-2.5 zoning designation, are mainly addressed in the 2010 Draft EIR
for the Approved Project, with supplemental information provided in the
Draft Supplemental EIR. Given the concerns raised in this comment, see
specifically Chapters 4.1, Aesthetics; 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
4.4, Biological Resources; 4.7, Hazards and Safety; 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality; 4.9, Land Use; 4.12, Public Services and Recreation; and 4.14, Utili-
ties.
See also the response to comment 7-2, which notes that Development Services
staff will recommend a change in the General Plan and zoning designation to
support the RR-10 zone requested in this comment for the Clark Road corri-
dor to the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at
their September 27, 2012 and October 23, 2012 meetings, respectively.
11-2: The comment requests that the zoning along the Clark Road corri-
dor be changed to RR-10. See the response to comment 7-2.
11-3: The comment summarizes previous comments and provides conclu-
sory remarks. No additional response is necessary.
From:apricot girl
To:Breedon, Dan
Subject:concerns from a Chico resident/general plan
Date:Friday, July 13, 2012 10:35:32 AM
Dan Breedon, Butte County Principal Planner,
Thank you for listening to my concerns. I really want my county to protect the beautiful agricultural landand forest land that make living here so wonderful. Please do not allow it to be chipped away, piece bypiece, by succombing to developers' requests.The way I see it - the goals of the General Plan are to protect ths land. I appreciate those goals. Butnearly 1,000 parcels are being recommended for rezoning for development, mostly for residentialdevelopment. (A step closer to spraw?) There will be 6,930 newly zoned residential acres, with a 390acre cluster development in oak woodlands, but the EIR assumes no increase in development. Hmm.How are groundwater recharge, harm to oak woodlands, harm to habitat, loss of ag lands addressed?These do not look like county 'corrections' to the EIR to me. They look like helping developers out.
I want my county to protect the environment (ag lands, woodlands, clean water) that make my towndesirable, beautiful, and healthy for my children and grandchildren. I want my county to STOP rezoningland in rural, scattered locations that will chop it all up. First, the land is chopped into 20 acre parcels atdevelopers' requests. Then, the developers say, "Now it's too small for agriculture." Then, they get it
rezoned for even more density. This is a slippery slope. Look at so many parts of California that are nowugly sprawl. Is this what anyone wants for our special community?
1. Say no to the cluster development recommended in the oak woodlands in this GPA
2. Do not ignore fire, flood hazard, liquefaction, impacts on federally-protected wetlands, erosion, etc. tothe areas the County is recommending be rezoned. Please make it POLICY to reject developer requeststhat are not in the public interest!3. Do not decrease by 2,090 acres the agricultural land.
4. Do not convert 1,860 acres of Resource Conservation and 2,810 acres of Timber Mountain toresidential zoning!!! 5. Do not reduce ag parcel size in the oak woodlands from 160 acres to 20 acres!!!6. Groundwater should be a huge concern to all of us. This development will hurt recharge. Study the
Tuscan Aquifer and the hydrology of Butte County before approving these developments.... so we're notsorry later!7. Development will hurt our attempts to limit GHG emissions. Where is our CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.Other cities are doing it. So can we!!
Thank you, Melinda Teves
12-1
12-2
12-6
12-7
12-8
12-9
12-10
12-5
12-3
12-4
COMMENT LETTER # 12
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-164
Letter 12: Melinda Teves. apricot.farmer@hotmail.com. July 13, 2012.
12-1: The comment notes that nearly 1,000 parcels would be changed un-
der the proposed GPA, including a significant increase in residentially-
designated land, and questions why the Draft Supplemental EIR assumes no
increase in development. See the response to comment 5-7.
12-2: The comment asks how groundwater recharge, harm to oak wood-
lands, harm to habitat, and loss of agricultural lands are addressed. Impacts
related to these topics are discussed in the following chapters, respectively:
Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; Chapter 4.2, Agriculture and
Forestry Resources (see specifically Sections D.1.c, D.1.d, and D.1.e); Chapter
4.4, Biological Resources; and Chapter 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Re-
sources (Sections D.1a, D.1.b, and D.1.e).
12-3: The comment states that the land use designation changes proposed
in the GPA do not appear to be “corrections,” and requests that the County
not redesignate land in rural, scattered locations that will allow subdivisions.
See the responses to comments 5-4 and 5-5. In addition, in Chapter 5 of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, alternatives to the proposed project are considered,
including the No Project Alternative, in which the proposed GPA and Zon-
ing Ordinance are not adopted, and the Updated Zoning Ordinance Alterna-
tive, in which only the Zoning Ordinance, modified to be consistent with
General Plan 2030 without the proposed GPA, is adopted. Under both of
those alternatives, the proposed land use changes would not be adopted. The
County will consider these alternatives at the adoption hearing for the pro-
posed GPA and Zoning Ordinance.
12-4: The comment suggests that after zoning agricultural land for 20-acre
parcels, in the future developers will argue that it is too small for agriculture,
and will be able to redesignate the land for development. The proposed Zon-
ing Ordinance designates significant areas for AG-20, a zone that is intended
to support agricultural uses. One single-family home and a second unit are
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-165
permitted on each parcel, as with all Agriculture sub-zones. The Supple-
mental EIR considers these parcels to be used for agriculture; future redesig-
nations to a use that allows development will be subject to additional CEQA
review. In addition, General Plan 2030, as modified by the proposed GPA,
and the proposed Zoning Ordinance are focused on promoting and enhancing
the agricultural roots of Butte County. Many of the participants in the Gen-
eral Plan 2030 process emphasized the need to recognize the small farms that
are important to Butte County’s economy. The proposed Zoning Ordinance
recognizes the wide range of the scale of agricultural operations in Butte
County, from small wineries and orchards to large-scale rice farming. The
AG-20 zoning district is important to support the small to medium-size farms
in Butte County.
12-5: The comment requests that the County not approve cluster devel-
opment in oak woodlands. Potential impacts to oak woodlands are discussed
in Chapter 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft Supple-
mental EIR. See the response to comment 12-3.
12-6: The comment states that there are impacts related to fire, flood, liq-
uefaction, wetlands, and erosion that would result from the proposed GPA,
and recommends that the County reject developer requests in the GPA. Im-
pacts related to fire, flood, liquefaction, wetlands, and erosion are discussed in
Chapters 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources; 4.7, Hazards and Safety;
and 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft Supplemental EIR. See
the response to comment 12-3.
12-7: The comment requests that the County not decrease the acreage of
land designated for agricultural, resource conservation, and timber mountain
use. See the response to comment 12-3.
12-8: The comment requests that the County not change the minimum
parcel size from 160 to 20 acres in oak woodlands. In Chapter 4.2, Agricul-
ture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft Supplemental EIR, potential im-
pacts to oak woodlands are discussed. Parcels with an agricultural General
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-166
Plan and zoning designation are not considered to result in the loss of forest
land because such a designation only allows a single-family home and a second
unit. Therefore, forest lands, including oak woodlands, can be maintained.
See also the response to comment 12-3.
12-9: The comment states that development allowed by the proposed pro-
ject will impact groundwater recharge, and requests that the County study
the Tuscan Aquifer and Butte County’s hydrology prior to approving devel-
opment. See the response to comment 5-31.
12-10: The comment states that development will impact GHG emissions,
and asks why the County has not yet adopted a climate action plan. See the
response to comment 5-10.
From:Adele Pfister
To:Breedon, Dan
Subject:Public Comment to General Plan Zoning Amendments
Date:Monday, July 16, 2012 8:26:02 AM
Dear Mr. Breedon and the Butte County Department of Development Services,
I am writing to provide comments on the Zoning Ordinance (ZO), the
Draft General Plan Amendments (GPA) and the EIR. I am in support of the
County’s goals to protect agriculture lands,forest lands, resource conservation
areas, direct growth to urban areas,ensure a sustainable water supply,and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.However, I have some concerns that in these
documents there is a divide between the General Plan goals and the actions
taken to implement them.
There are nearly 1,000 parcels being recommended in the GPA for
rezoning,and in many cases they convert agriculture,forest lands, and resource
conservation areas to residential development.I am concerned that many of
these appear to be landowner/developer driven, that increase environmental
damage and more rural and scattered development. I am also concerned that
there are 6,930 newly zoned residential acres, including a 390 acre cluster
development in the oak woodlands, but throughout the EIR there is an
assumption of no increases in development. I feel this inadequately addresses
the real impacts of these rezones and parcel size reductions related to
groundwater recharge and usage, increased fire danger,degradation of oak
woodlands, loss of sensitive habitat, and irreversible loss of agriculture lands.
An analysis of which rezones and parcel size reductions are county corrections
and which are developer requests needs to be provided to the public.And as a
result these development projection impacts need to be integrated into the EIR,
and mitigated.
Throughout the EIR,related to greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, air
quality and other environmental problems there are findings of cumulatively
significant impacts.
Why does the county continue to recommend changes in land-use that continue
to exceed standards and put pressure on the already stressed environment and
human health?At what point will the county implement an action plan to stop
the increases in pollution and mitigate the impacts, rather than just document
the damage? I am calling for the county stop rezoning lands residential in rural
and scattered locations that have cumulatively significant impacts on the
environment until there is a plan in place that ensures we meet standards and
restore environmental damage.
13-1
13-2
13-3
13-4
COMMENT LETTER # 13
Thank you for your efforts in this process and for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
13-5
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-169
Letter 13: Adele Pfister. adele.pf@gmail.com. July 16, 2012.
13-1: The comment provides introductory comments and summarizes
County goals related to the project. No response is required.
13-2: The comment notes that the GPA proposes to change the land use
designation on nearly 1,000 parcels, and states that many appear to be land-
owner- and developer-driven. The comment also expresses concern that the
Draft Supplemental EIR assumes no increase in development, since it increas-
es the acreage designated for residential use. See the responses to comments 5-
4 and 5-7.
13-3: The comment requests an analysis of which proposed land use desig-
nation changes are developer requests and which are corrections, and states
that the resulting development projection impacts need to be integrated into
the EIR and mitigated. See the response to comment 5-17.
13-4: The comment notes that the Draft Supplemental EIR finds that the
proposed project will result in cumulatively significant impacts. The com-
ment calls for the County to not approve redesignations of rural areas for
residential use and to mitigate impacts rather than simply documenting them.
See the response to comment 5-9.
13-5: The comment provides conclusory remarks. No response is re-
quired.
Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
To the Butte County Department of Development Services,
I am writing to provide comments on the Zoning Ordinance (ZO), the Draft General Plan
Amendments (GPA) and the EIR. I was very disappointed to find that many of the proposed
changes are not in line with the stated goals listed on page 3-7 of the ZO, especially the first
goal, to “preserve, protect and enhance the fundamentally rural character of Butte County.”The
General Plan itself states on page 15 that the current residents of the county “wish to conserve
and enhance the legacy of their forebears, namely, sustainable development…” and on page 23,
the caption under the photo states: “Butte County’s stunning natural beauty is key to its high
quality of life.” Why then, are the proposed amendments, to a large degree allowing for the
degradation of the very aspects of the county that are highly valued? Specifically, Table 3-1 of
the DSEIR lists 19 projects, seven which result in a loss of agricultural land in the amount of
4300 acres, with an additional three timber mountain or resource conservation areas being
converted to residential uses in the amount of 2430 acres. Only 100 acres are going from
residential to agriculture. In total there are 6930 acres of increased residential or planned unit
development, while agriculture timber mountain and resource conservation areas decrease by
6760 acres. These changes are not consistent with the goals previously outlined.
Looking only at acreage, however, obscures the impact that residential development has on
an area. The increase in pollution, water use, and traffic and an inevitable decrease in aesthetics
all contribute to a degradation of the quality of life for current Butte County residents. Yet the
amendment does not address these issues, or simply states that there are no impacts in these
areas. If the modified project finds a significant and unavoidable impact, then why are those
impacts not addressed? I find that unacceptable, and want to know what data and assumptions
are being used to come to these conclusions.
There are too many instances in the amendment to go into all of what I find to be inconsistent
with the General Plan goals. Below are a few examples:
•Why are we allowing residential development of forest lands where they are adjacent to
rural residential land use (AG-4,AG-5, Table 2-1 SEIR pg. 2-7-2-12)? The argument
that new timber harvesting and practices conflict with residential land use patterns
would lead to eventual development of a large amount of forest lands as they will
continue to become adjacent to developed land. We need to preserve these forest lands
to prevent the spread of development in our foothills, else we will end up like many
parts of southern California with too many people and houses located in mudslide areas
14-1
14-2
14-3
COMMENT LETTER # 14
and fire hazards. Land that is no longer viable for forestry practices does not make it
useless as a forest. It still has aesthetic value in that state.
•What forestry practices “could” present conflicts with residential uses? What is the
likelihood of these conflicts occurring? The statements I see in Table 2-1 are not
definitive, and therefore I question what evidence they are based on. I want to know
what evidence is being used in making all of these determinations.
•In the areas south of Palermo, how is the impact to Timber Mountain lands greater by
leaving it in that designation, than by changing it to rural residential?
•AG -6 Table 2-1. We cannot control the decisions made by other counties, but that
should not dictate our planning. Why do we have to follow the status quo that is
happening in other areas? If what is stated here is correct it basically negates the stated
goals of Butte County’s own general plan. Stick to the goals that the citizens of Butte
county have decided, not with some other county’s goals.
•Why is Honey Run road even being considered for further development? The amount of
congestion already there, the number of other uses of the road, especially by cyclists,
and the impact to the watershed should take precedence over any development in that
area.
•The Bell Muir area changes are confusing (is it beyond the green line or not?), but in any
case development in that area would destroy the quality of life of the adjacent residential
areas. Additional problems with congestion on the north end of the Esplanade would
increase. This has already occurred due to development around Shasta School, and
further development would make it worse.
The county needs to look beyond impacts to a small area –a few parcels here and there -and
consider wider problems caused by development. In general it appears to me that these changes
are running counter to our general plan, and impacts do not appear to be properly addressed.
Where, for instance, is the climate action plan? It is time that we decide to manage growth
responsibly. The county should not promote benefits for the few, at a cost paid by the many.
Developer’s interests, or the interests of one landowner,should not take precedence over the
quality of life of the majority of Butte County citizens.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
//SIGNED//
Michael T. Rehg
Associate Professor
California State University, Chico
Home email: mbrehg1105@att.net
14-4
14-5
14-6
14-7
14-8
14-9
14-10
14-3
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-172
Letter 14: Michael T. Rehg, Associate Professor, California State Univer-
sity, Chico. Mbrehg1105@att.net. Date Unknown.
14-1: The comment states that the proposed project is not consistent with
the goals of General Plan 2030 or the proposed Zoning Ordinance, highlight-
ing the reduction of land designated for agricultural, resource conservation,
and timber mountain use and the increase in land designated for residential
use by the proposed GPA. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft
Supplemental EIR, and no response is required.
14-2: The comment states that the Draft Supplemental EIR does not ad-
dress the impacts related to pollution, water use, traffic, and aesthetics that
would be caused by the additional residential development allowed by the
proposed GPA. The comment also states that if a significant and unavoidable
impact is identified, then the impacts should be addressed.
The Draft Supplemental EIR addresses impacts related to the additional resi-
dential development allowed by the proposed EIR. In each of the topic areas,
the change between the Approved and Modified Project is evaluated in order
to determine whether the Modified Project would change any of the findings
from the 2010 EIR for the Approved Project, which is consistent with Section
15163(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a Supplemental EIR need
only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate
for the project as revised. In most cases, based on analysis presented in the
chapter, it is found that the change between the Approved and Modified Pro-
ject would not change the finding from the 2010 EIR for the Approved Pro-
ject; in such cases, the reader should refer to the 2010 EIR for the Approved
Project for an expanded discussion of potential impacts and mitigation
measures. In the previous EIR, significant impacts are addressed through
General Plan policies and other federal, State, and local requirements. How-
ever, in some cases, the EIR concluded that even these regulations, which
would serve to mitigate impacts, are not sufficient to reduce the impact to a
less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact is defined as “unavoidable.”
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-173
However, this should not be interpreted as an inability or unwillingness to
take any steps to reduce the impact.
In the Draft Supplemental EIR, only in the topics of agriculture and forestry
resources and transportation and circulation are new significant impacts iden-
tified:
¨ Under the topic of agriculture and forestry resources, new impacts relat-
ed to forest resources are identified. These were not identified in the
2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project because the CEQA thresholds
that time did not cover forestry resources. A full analysis of potential
impacts and mitigation measures is provided in the Draft Supplemental
EIR, Chapter 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
¨ Under the topic of transportation and circulation, two new impacts re-
sulting from the change between the Approved and Modified Projects
were identified. A full analysis of these impacts and mitigation measures
is provided in the Draft Supplemental EIR, Chapter 4.13, Transportation
and Circulation.
14-3: The comment states that forest lands should not be redesignated for
residential use in foothill areas, citing mudslide and fire hazards. The com-
ment also notes that even if timber harvesting operations would conflict with
nearby residential use, these areas could still be preserved for aesthetic rea-
sons. See the response to comment 5-24.
14-4: The comment asks what forestry practices could conflict with resi-
dential uses, and what the likelihood of such conflicts would be. As described
on page 4.2-17 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, timber harvesting operations
could cause noise, dust, and visual impacts on residential development, and
residential uses could cause vandalism, traffic, and access impacts on timber
production uses. In addition, adjacent urban development could drive up
land values, increasing the property tax burden for forest land. It is difficult
to predict the likelihood of such conflicts from arising for a countywide doc-
ument like the General Plan; the likelihood would be based on site-specific
conditions.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-174
14-5: The comment questions the evidence on which the statements made
in Table 2-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR are based. Table 2-1 of the Draft
Supplemental EIR is a summary of the findings made throughout Chapter 4
of the Draft Supplemental EIR. Therefore, the evidence used to make those
findings is provided in each analysis section of Chapter 4 of the Draft Sup-
plemental EIR.
14-6: The comment questions how the impact to timber mountain lands in
the area south of Palermo is greater by leaving the area with a Timber Moun-
tain designation instead of Rural Residential. To clarify, land use designations
in the area south of Palermo would change from Agriculture to Rural Resi-
dential under the proposed GPA. This area includes land that meets the “for-
est land” definition under Public Resources Code Section 12220(g),9 and
therefore contributes to the significant impacts related to forest land conver-
sion. Although the Draft Supplemental EIR states that leaving a Timber
Mountain designation on the impacted forest land parcels would result in
greater impacts than a residential designation (on page 4.2-20), the statement
was primarily referring to other areas of the county where this forest land
impact occurs, and where impacts from conflicts between existing residential
uses and potential timber operations could occur. In the preceding paragraph,
the Draft Supplemental EIR explains why potential mitigation for the area
south of Palermo is not feasible: “Many of these parcels are sized well below
the 160-acre minimum parcel size considered by the General Plan as appro-
priate for timber production or the 20-acre minimum size considered appro-
priate for Agriculture, reducing the viability for forest or agriculture practic-
es.”
9 Section 12220(g) of the Public Resources Code defines “forest land” as “land
that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods,
under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest re-
sources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality,
recreation, and other public benefits.”
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-175
14-7: The comment highlights the statement under Impact AG-6 in Table
2-1 of the Draft Supplemental EIR that that the County cannot control the
decisions made by other counties. The text in question is:
AG-6: Although General Plan 2030 goals, policies, and actions related to
forest land would reduce and partially offset Butte County’s contribution
to forest land impacts, the overall cumulative impact would remain sig-
nificant.
Because the amount of growth foreseen in the region and the decisions of
surrounding counties regarding conversion of forest land are outside the
control of Butte County, the impact is significant and unavoidable.
The comment states that decisions made by other counties should not dictate
the County’s planning, and that the County should follow its own goals ra-
ther than those of other counties. The statement in Table 2-1 is not intended
to mean that the County will abandon its own goals related to forest land
preservation because it cannot control the decisions made by other counties.
Rather, the statement is used to explain why the new cumulative forest land
impact is unavoidable. The cumulative impact is found based on an under-
standing that development allowed by the proposed project in Butte County
will contribute to a region-wide loss of forest land. That impact is found to
be unavoidable because regardless of Butte County’s actions, other counties
can continue to convert forest land to other uses.
14-8: The comment asks why Honey Run Road is being considered for
further development given the amount of existing congestion, conflicts on the
road between cars and cyclists, and watershed impacts. To clarify, no addi-
tional development is proposed along Honey Run Road under the Modified
Project. As explained on page 4.13-4 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the traf-
fic analysis conservatively evaluated the additional homes that would be al-
lowed by the increase in residential development under the GPA, assuming
that the additional trips generated could occur on any of the roadways ana-
lyzed in the traffic analysis for the 2010 Draft EIR for the Approved Project.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-176
This resulted in a worsening of the level of service (LOS) along Honey Run
Road to a point that would create a new significant impact.
14-9: The comment states that development in the Bell Muir area would
destroy the quality of life of adjacent residential areas and increase congestion
on nearby roadways. The proposed GPA would change the designation of
parcels on the agricultural side of the Greenline from Rural Residential to
Very Low Density Residential. In this area, development was already allowed
by the Approved Project; the Modified Project would only change the densi-
ty of that allowed development. The average parcel size for these parcels is
3.9 acres, which is smaller than the minimum parcel size allowed by the Rural
Residential designation (i.e. 5 acres). Therefore, existing parcels would not be
allowed to subdivide any further, and it is not expected that the change from
Rural Residential to Very Low Density Residential will significantly impact
the quality of life in that area. In the southwest corner of the Bell Muir area
along Nord Avenue, which is on the urban side of the Greenline, approxi-
mately 25 acres would change from Agriculture to Very Low Density Resi-
dential and Retail under the proposed GPA. All but one of these parcels is
developed with a single-family home, and the majority of these parcels are
already at a size that is consistent with the Very Low Density Residential des-
ignation. Therefore, this designation change would not allow a significant
number of parcels to subdivide, nor a significant number of new homes to be
constructed, and the proposed land use designation change for this area would
not be expected to affect the current quality of life. Finally, as indicated in
the response to comment 14-8, the traffic analysis considered the additional
traffic that could be generated by the increase in residential development; the
traffic analysis did not identify a new impact on the Esplanade.
14-10: The comment states that the County needs to consider wider prob-
lems caused by development, rather than focusing on individual parcels. The
comment summarizes the concerns in the letter that the proposed project is
not consistent with the goals of General Plan 2030, and asks why the County
has not yet adopted a climate action plan. The Draft Supplemental EIR con-
siders the impacts of the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance as a whole,
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-177
rather than site-specific individual development projects. In addition, the
cumulative impact analyses provided for each analysis topic considers the im-
pacts of the proposed project in combination with growth and development
anticipated elsewhere in the region. See also the responses to comments 5-10
and 14-1.
15-1
COMMENT LETTER # 15
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
15-1
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-188
Letter 15: Petition entitled “Inadequacy of DSEIR.”
15-1: This comment is a petition expressing opposition to the proposed
Zoning Ordinance because it designates the Stilson Canyon neighborhood in
the Chico area as VLDR, which allows uses that are not allowed by the exist-
ing zoning designation of SR-1. The comment states that this zoning designa-
tion is inconsistent with General Plan 2030 Policy LU-P4.1 because it would
not protect the integrity and stability of the existing neighborhood, and that
the Draft Supplemental EIR does not consider the adverse environmental
impacts of allowing these new uses in the Stilson Canyon neighborhood.
See the response to comment 8-2, which explains that, in response to input
from residents, Development Services staff will recommend a zoning change
from VLDR to VLDCR for the neighborhood in question at the September
27, 2012 Planning Commission and October 23, 2012 Board of Supervisors
meetings.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-189
D. Public Hearing Comments
Butte County Planning Commission Meeting
Summary of Oral Public Comments
June 14, 2012
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) on theGeneral Plan Amendment to General Plan 2030 and Final Draft Zoning Ordinance
Comments received from the public:
Sean Horning –Opposed to the taking of property rights on property at Butte Valley
(Eagle Creek Ranch)Neal Road to Durham Pentz. Process has penalized owners who have not developed or subdivided their properties. Current zoning is AG-160 (1/3) and
2/3 went to A-40 zoning. States opposition of changing existing A-5 zoning to AG-40.
Robyn DiFalco –Butte Environmental Council –Concern –This meeting taking place
only 14 days after the release of the DSEIR. Pleased with maintenance of Greenline in
Chico. Only able to address a couple points:
Objected to the large number of proposed zone changes coming through the amendment process. Understand that many are misdesignations, but other requested by owners/developers. This may deny public’s ability to comment on individual changes
and deprive county of revenue and fees used to process individual applications.Process states that rezones are to be in the public’s best interest, how?Discussed
Maximum build out of General Plan.Uncomfortable with idea that very high max buildout
opens door for worst case scenario for growth expansion, would prefer a “desirable maximum buildout”.Document refers to mitigation measures that would address loss of
Agricultural land, indicates that this mitigation plan should be prioritized in the budget
and put in place as soon as possible. Voiced concern over proposed changes from AG-160 down to AG 20 & AG 40…could be a slippery slope resulting in loss of AG land to
residential development.Pleased to see that no AG land would be divided below 20-
acres.Delay in the Butte Resource Conservation Plan also presents a problem. Once it is completed the general plan should be amended and the mitigation measures need to
be implemented. Ground water and recharge potentials need grant funding for studies,
there is insufficient information to make decisions regarding developments impact.
John Scott –Commented on the VLDR zone –Spoke about heavy equipment parking -the intent was not to allow people to store “fleets” of vehicles but for those working independent contractors to drive work trucks home and park in their driveways.This
part should be extracted from the General Plan, also commented that we have a VLDR problem in Butte Valley and was unhappy with Clark Road Corridor being zoned VLDR.
The following members of the public spoke specifically regarding the El Monte Neighborhood and the inadequacies of the DSIER to address zoning impacts in
this area:
Susan McCabe –Voiced concern over change from Chico SR-1 to VLDR for the El
Monte Road Neighborhood in Chico.42 neighbors signed petition.
16-1
16-2
16-3
16-4
16-5
16-6
16-7
16-8
16-9
16-10
COMMENT LETTER # 16
Robert Purvis –DSEIR is inadequate. Objects to rezone for the El Monte area from
SR1 to VLDR as being out of character.Clubs, lodges, private meeting halls, heavy equipment storage, barber shops, fitness centers, funeral parlors, etc.are not
appropriate. Cited inconsistency with Land Use Element Policy LU P4.1.
Neal McCabe –DSEIR inadequate for the El Monte Neighborhood. New uses would
impact the neighborhood. Analysis of this impact was not in the GPEIR in 2010.Cited
examples:
•Storage of big rigs up to six and the ability to idle diesel vehicles for 15 minutes in
the am & pm
•Sewage disposal –new uses –not feasible (laundromat)
The draft zoning would change flavor of neighborhood –DSIER should be revised to addthe impact of these uses, or county could remove these incompatible uses from the
VLDR zone. Takes issue with wording in DSEIR that the Zoning Ordinance has no
impact because it is implementing the General Plan and believes the Draft Zoning Ordinance goes further. Asks for zoning to remain the same –SR-1 for El Monte area.
Sandra Dell Agustino –likes the El Monte neighborhood. Has horses, country style setting, not a need to operate more businesses in this area. Wildlife in the area –
businesses would not allow that type of activity.
Richard Ponarelle –Pointed out that many school children use area –El Monte has
been a throughway from the schools through the Park, especially Hank Marsh. Zoning changes would affect the safety of the children walking to school. Already so close to the city, the current commercial needs are already being served to the residents of the
area.
Therese Chuely –23 year El Monte resident –proposal is a significant change to the
neighborhood. Is there a need for these changes? She feels it’s doubtful. Adjacent to Bidwell Park, preserve the integrity of the Park. To allow development would not
preserve the integrity. Drainage issues on the road and percolation issues. Not sure if
geologically the neighborhood can support these changes.
David Hall –New zoning is so permissive. Zoning violations are not resolved. Not
appropriate to have a hotel in the residential area and discussed unresolved zoning violation concerning Bed and Breakfast/Weekly rental. How are you going to enforce
zoning? VLDR may be appropriate in some areas but not in El Monte area.
Claudia Rollins –Stated difficulty in resolving zoning violations. Neighborhood
has environmental issues. Discussed that public funds have been spent to build
traffic calming measures to make area safe.
16-10
cont.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-192
Letter 16: Oral Comments Made during the Public Hearing on Thurs-
day, June 14, 2012.
16-1: The comment expresses opposition to the proposed zoning on a par-
cel in Butte Valley. The concern is related to property rights and the Zoning
Ordinance process. The comment is not about the adequacy of the Supple-
mental EIR, and no response is required.
16-2: The comment expresses concern over the large number of land use
designation changes proposed in the GPA and over whether the changes are
corrections or developer-driven. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the
Draft Supplemental EIR, and therefore no response is necessary. The Butte
County Department of Development Services will provide a response sepa-
rately from the Final Supplemental EIR.
16-3: The comment expresses concern over the maximum theoretical
buildout and potential growth that could occur in this scenario. As explained
in Chapter 3 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the projected 2030 buildout is a
realistic estimate of the amount, type, and location of development and con-
servation that is likely to occur under the proposed project, and the analysis
in the Supplemental EIR assumes this projected 2030 buildout is the most
“reasonably foreseeable” outcome of the proposed project, consistent with
CEQA. It is extremely unlikely that the maximum theoretical buildout al-
lowed under the GPA would ever occur, even over hundreds of years, be-
cause not every parcel that is allowed to develop will develop, and not every
parcel that develops will be built out to the maximum allowed under the
GPA. Moreover, it is anticipated that Butte County will adopt an updated
General Plan by or before 2030. Although there is no specific statutory
schedule for General Plan updates, the California Supreme Court has noted
that “local agencies must periodically review and revise their general plans as
circumstances warrant.” See also the response to comment 5-12.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-193
16-4: The comment highlights the agricultural mitigation ordinance,
which General Plan 2030 directs the County to adopt as a General Plan ac-
tion item. The comment requests that this ordinance be prioritized and
budgeted. See the response to comment 5-11.
16-5: The comment expresses concern over changing some areas from AG-
160 to AG-20 and AG-40, indicating that this could eventually lead to the loss
of these areas to residential development. See the response to comment 5-19.
16-6: The comment expresses concern that the Butte Regional HCP is not
yet adopted, and requests that once it is adopted, the General Plan be amend-
ed an mitigation measures implemented. See the response to comment 5-28.
16-7: The comment states that there is insufficient information about
groundwater resources and recharge to make decisions regarding allowing
development. See the responses to comments 5-31 and 5-34.
16-8: The comment notes that the intent of allowing heavy equipment
parking in the VLDR zone is to allow those working as independent contrac-
tors to drive work trucks home and park in their driveways. It is not a com-
ment on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR, and no response is re-
quired.
16-9: The comment disagrees with the VLDR zoning along the Clark
Road corridor. It is not a comment on the adequacy of the Draft Supple-
mental EIR, and no response is required. See also the response to comment
7-2.
16-10: The comment expresses opposition to the application of the VLDR
zone in the El Monte Avenue neighborhood, and states that the Draft Sup-
plemental EIR does not adequately address the impacts that could be caused
by uses allowed in the VLDR zone related to land use conflicts, traffic, air
quality, wastewater, biological resources, pedestrian safety, recreation facili-
ties, and drainage. See the responses to comments 8-2, 8-4, and 8-8.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-194
This page intentionally left blank.
6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-1
This chapter provides a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the
MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as
part of the environmental review for the project. The MMRP includes the
following information:
¨ A list of mitigation measures;
¨ The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;
¨ The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;
¨ The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and
¨ The monitoring action and frequency.
Butte County must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it
approves the proposed GPA and Zoning Ordinance with the mitigation
measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
BUTTE COUNTY GPA & ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-2
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible for
Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Transportation and Circulation
TRAF-15: Incorporate passing lanes into the section
of State Route 99 between East Biggs Highway and
the southern intersection of State Route 99 and State
Route 162 as described in the State Route 99 Trans-
portation Concept Report published by Caltrans in
August 2010. The County will support the Butte
County Association of Governments (BCAG) and
Caltrans for the procurement of necessary State and
federal highway funds for this improvement.
Caltrans and Public
Works Department
Prior to 2030 Caltrans Verification that
improvement is
constructed
Once
TRAF-16: Upgrade the section of Honey Run Road
between Skyway and Centerville Road to the Coun-
ty’s arterial roadway standards.
Note: As indicated on page 4.13-9 of the Draft Supplemental EIR, this potential mitigation measure
is infeasible due to environmental constraints, and would not be implemented.