Bell Muir Extension - VLDR 2.5 Parcels · COOPER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1681 BIRD STREET P.O. BOX 1679 OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-1679

AG-80

VLDRVLDR

VLDR

VLDR-2.5

VLDR

AG-40

AG-40

VLDR

AG-80VLDR-2.5

G-C

GI

G-C

P

P

City of Chico

Jones AveChurchill D

r

Ciulla LnAloha Ln

Sheltering Oak Ct

Bell Estates Dr

La Force Ct

Dead End Ct

Shadygrove Ct

Santiago Ct

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Bell Muir Extension - VLDR 2.5 Parcels

.0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250

FeetNote: acreages shown are approximate.

13.0 ac.

5.8 ac.5.4 ac.

5.0 ac.7.2 ac.

6.1 ac.

5.9 ac.6.0 ac.

Bell Rd.Bell Rd.

Nord Ave.

Guynn Ave.

Muir A

ve.

Rodeo Ave.

Bell Rd.

MINASIAN, MEITH,SOARES, SEXTON &COOPER, LLPATTORNEYS AT LAWA Partnership Including Professional Corporations

1681 BIRD STREETP.O. BOX 1679OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-1679E-mail: [email protected]

PAUL R. MINASIAN, INC.JEFFREY A. MEITHM. ANTHONY SOARESDUSTIN C. COOPEREMILY E. LaMOEPETER C. HARMANANDREW J. McCLUREWILLIAM H. SPRUANCE,RetiredMICHAEL V. SEXTON,Retired

TELEPHONE:(530) 533-2885FACSIMILE:(530) 533-0197

May 1, 2015

The Honorable Larry WahlButte County Supervisor, District 22233 Nord Avenue, Suite 2Chico, CA 95926

The Honorable Maureen Kirk Butte County Supervisor, District 3196 Memorial WayChico, CA 95926

Re: Deficient Notice of 2012 Amendments to the Butte County General Plan andZoning Ordinance Impacting the ‘Bell Muir Extension’ Area

Dear Ms. Kirk and Mr. Wahl:

In the fall of 2012, the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisorsapproved amendments to the County’s General Plan which changed the land use designation of aroughly 32-parcel area known as the ‘Bell Muir Extension’ from RR 5 (Rural Residential –minimum parcel size of 5 acres) to VLDR 2.5 (Very Low Density Residential – minimum parcel sizeof 2.5 acres). In brief summary, this letter explains how the County’s failure to comply withstatutory notice requirements deprived ‘Bell Muir Extension’ landowners and the general publicof their rightful opportunity to participate in the 2012 General Plan amendment proceedings. Thisalso explains why many impacted landowners first learned of these changes nearly two years later,during proceedings related to Tentative Parcel Map 14-0005, a proposal to subdivide a 12 acre BellMuir Extension property into a four unit subdivision.

We first detailed these issues in a November 17, 2014 letter correspondence to the leadplanner for project TPM 14-0005 (with copies to the office of Butte County counsel) and have notreceived a substantive response. (The previous correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ). Thisletter notifies you of this issue directly and supplements our previous correspondence with theresults of Public Records Act requests propounded on the Butte County Department of Development

The Honorable Larry Wahl – Butte County Supervisor, District 2The Honorable Maureen Kirk – Butte County Supervisor, District 3Re: Deficient Notice of 2012 Amendments to the Butte County General Plan and Zoning

OrdinanceMay 1, 2015Page -2-

Services. The purpose of this letter is to initiate a reasonable conversation concerning viable non-litigation strategy to grant Bell Muir Extension landowners the opportunity to have a say in the landuse designation of their properties.

1. 2012 Amendments to General Plan Land Use Designations Changed the ‘Bell MuirExtension’ area’s zoning from RR 5 to VLDR 2.5.

The ‘Bell Muir Extension’ consists of 32 parcels just west of Chico city limits – lying northof Bell Road and west of Jones Avenue. A map depicting the area is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. This area has been located on the ‘agricultural side’ of the Chico area Greenline since the Greenlinewas adopted, and had been long identified as a ‘buffer’ between the large agriculture-zonedproperties immediately north and west of the area, and the smaller parcel sizes to the east and south. The Butte County General Plan 2030 Map, adopted in 2010, shows the relevant land usedesignations existing before the 2012 amendments took effect. An enlarged section of the map isattached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Bell Muir Extension’s land use designation changed from “RuralResidential 5”(minimum 5-acre parcel size) to “VLDR 2.5" (minimum 2.5-acre parcel size) as aresult of 2012 amendments to the Butte County General Plan.

As detailed below, the County failed to comply with statutorily-mandated requirements tonotify landowners and the general public of the proposed changes. This failure not only violatedCalifornia statutes, it also made it virtually impossible for Bell Muir Extension landowners and thegeneral public to comment upon, or appear and be heard at the Planning Commission and Board ofSupervisors’ hearings at which the issue was decided.

2. California Law Required Adequate Notice of a Public Hearing Prior to Amending the Bell Muir Extension Land Use Designation in the General Plan.

Prior to amending a General Plan, California’s ‘Planning and Zoning Law’ mandates certain safeguards be employed to ensure members of the public and affected landowners have anopportunity to participate in the process. Specifically, a County must: (1) convene at least one publicPlanning Commission hearing before approving a recommendation on amendment to a General Plan;(2) publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation that includes a description ofpotentially affected real property; and (3) when the proposed amendment would affect the intensityof use of land, mail or deliver notice of the hearing to the owners of subject real property as shownon the last equalized assessment roll.1

1 California Government Code § 65350 et.,seq.



As outlined below, Butte County’s notice procedures were entirely deficient with respect tothe 2012 General Plan amendments to the ‘Bell Muir Extension’ land use designation.2

a. Section 65353 (a): The County shall publish notice of the PlanningCommission hearing at which General Plan amendments are considered in at least one newspaperof general circulation at least 10 days’ prior to the hearing. The notice must include – “the date,time, and place of a public hearing, the identity of the hearing body or officer, a general explanationof the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the locationof the real property, if any, that is the subject of the hearing.”3

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is the Notice published in the Chico Enterprise Recordadvertising the Planning Commission’s September 27, 2012 meeting. To be clear, this was themeeting during which the Planning Commission considered and recommended for approval theamendment to the Bell Muir Extension area’s General Plan land use designation. As you can see,the Enterprise Record Notice informed the public that the Commission would consider General Planland use amendments affecting a number of areas, including the Stilson Canyon Road Area, the ElMonte Road Area, the Spanish Gardens Area, etc. . . , but the Notice included no mentionwhatsoever of the proposed changes to the land use designation for the ‘Bell Muir Extension’area.

In summary, the Notice published in the Enterprise Record did not comply with the statutoryrequirement to identify the location of real property affected by a proposed General Planamendment. That failure deprived Bell Muir Extension landowners and the general public theirrightful opportunity to participate in the Planning Commission’s process.

b. Section 65353(b): When a General Plan land use amendment affects the“intensity of use” of real property, notice of the Planning Commission hearing at which suchamendments are to be considered must be mailed or delivered to the owner of the subject realproperty, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.

In this instance, the proposed amendments doubled the allowed development density of theBell Muir Extension. Yet, Butte County never sent the required notice of the Planning Commission’sSeptember 27, 2012 hearing to affected landowners in the Bell Muir Extension. This omission hasbeen confirmed by the Department of Development Services – through its staff’s acknowledgement

2 California Government Code § 65353.

3 California Government Code § 65353 (a); Government Code § 65094.



of this fact during the Planning Commission’s November 13, 2014 meeting; and by theDepartment’s failure to produce such notices in response to Public Records Act requests for “noticesmailed to individual landowners” relating to the Bell Muir Extension amendments.

Neither the general public, nor directly-impacted landowners received notice of the proposedamendments to the General Plan affecting the Bell Muir Extension area in advance of the PlanningCommission’s consideration of those changes. Moreover, even if Bell Muir Extension landownershad signed up to receive notices directly from the Department of Development Services – thoselandowners still wouldn’t have known that changes to the Bell Muir area were being considered atthe September 27, 2012 meeting. The notice sent to the members of the Department of DevelopmentServices listserve (attached hereto as Exhibit 5 (highlighting in original)) also failed to mention theproposed changes to the Bell Muir Extension land use designation.

In summary, the County’s failure to follow statutory notice guidelines applicable to theGeneral Plan amendments to the Bell Muir Extension land use designation made it virtuallyimpossible for landowners or the general public to have a say in the proposed changes to this critical‘buffer’ area.

And to be clear, the Notice deficiencies did in fact prejudice landowners’ ability toparticipate in these proceedings. A review of the agendas, staff reports, minutes, and availablevideos of each of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings during which theBell Muir Extension land use amendment was discussed reveals that the only Bell Muir Extensionlandowner to ever appear at a hearing was the same individual who proposed the change from RR5 to VLDR 2.5 in the first instance. This individual first advanced the proposal at an August 18,2011 Planning Commission Zoning Ordinance workshop, following previous denials of similarrequests during the comprehensive proceedings leading to the 2010 adoption of Butte County’sGeneral Plan 2030. That individual did appear at a number of the 2012 public hearings at which theBell Muir Extension issue was discussed, and voiced support for the amendments he himself hadproposed. In other words, due to the deficient notice provided in connection with these proceedings,the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors heard only the voice of the one individual whoproposed the change in the first place, and who now seeks approval of TPM14-0005; a project whichis contingent on minimum the 2.5-acre parcel sizes adopted in this flawed process.

Conclusion:

The County’s failure to follow statutorily mandated notice procedures deprived landownersin the Bell Muir Extension area of their rightful opportunity to participate in proceedings related tochanges in the land use designation of that area. Impacted landowners did not receive direct orpublished notice of the properties that would be impacted by the proposed changes. This notice

Butte County General Plan 2030 – Second Draft Zoning Ordinance -Map

August 18, 2011 Page 1 of 28

Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneralplan.net

Butte County Planning Commission AGENDA REPORT

Butte County General Plan 2030

Second Draft Zoning Ordinance – Zoning Map Meeting Series #8

August 18, 2011 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA Subject: Second Draft Zoning Ordinance Map

(Butte County General Plan 2030 Meeting Series #8) I. BACKGROUND The Butte County General Plan 2030 process involves three main components: 1) the Updated General Plan 2030 and Land Use Map; 2) the General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 3) the Updated Zoning Ordinance. On October 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted the updated General Plan, Land Use Map and certified the associated Final EIR. The Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map implements the General Plan’s land use designations and incorporates policy directions provided by the new General Plan. A variety of benefits stem from updating the Zoning Ordinance and Map including the following:

Brings the Zoning Ordinance into consistency with General Plan 2030;

Implements several new zones as created by General Plan 2030;



Streamlines permit processes and procedures; Makes the Zoning Ordinance easier to use and more effective; Improves language, procedures, definitions, tables, graphics and

illustrations over the existing ordinance; Updates all zones to address changes in land use practices, business

types, local conditions and issues, new industries and technology, and evolving trends;

Ensures that the permitting process fits the proposed use (e.g. uses appropriate for over-the-counter permit do not require a Minor use Permit; uses that are appropriate for a Minor Use Permit do not require a Major Use Permit);

Ensures that County staff has clear guidance in serving the public; Provides landowners with additional certainty about uses and

development potential; Provides businesses and landowners with clear direction on required

permits and project processes, applicable uses, development standards, and appeal processes; and

Provides clear standards for parking, signs, landscaping, renewable energy (solar and wind), non-conforming uses, clustered development projects, wineries and olive oil production facilities, accessory uses, outdoor lighting, setbacks and height, lot-line adjustments, and others land uses.

Meeting Series #8: Draft Zoning Ordinance Meeting Series #8 is devoted to the Zoning Ordinance Update. The meeting series began with a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting held on March 11, 2010. The Citizens Advisory Committee provided direction on a variety of issues considered under the new Zoning Ordinance. Over 1-year ago, on July 2, 2010, a first draft of the new Zoning Ordinance and Map became available for public review. The Planning Commission was tasked with performing a comprehensive, page-by-page technical review of the first Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map. This review took place over eight all-day workshops held between August 5, 2010 and November 2, 2010. The Planning Commission edited many sections of the Draft Zoning Ordinance at each of these meetings. Additionally, many members of the public provided oral and written input concerning the Draft Zoning Ordinance text and map. Staff reviewed all of the public requests and followed-up on the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Additionally the Board of Supervisors held a Special Meeting on April 28, 2011 and provided staff with direction concerning: the use of a Zoning Administrator to facilitate permit streamlining; the permitting of accessory uses; and the policy issue of permitting solar energy projects in agricultural zones. The Planning Commission’s work and additional direction



from the Board provided the basis to complete a Second Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map, which incorporates their edits and address public comments. The Planning Commission will review the Second Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map over several meetings as shown under the following table:

The Second Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map was published on July 8, 2011, made available online at www.buttegeneralplan.net, and distributed to all Butte County Branch Libraries. A 30-day review period was provided prior to the Planning Commission meetings to allow for public review. The first set of Planning Commission meetings to be held on August 18 and August 25, 2011, will be focused exclusively on the Draft Zoning Map. The second set of Planning Commission meetings to be held on September 15 and September 22, 2011 will be focused exclusively on the Draft Zoning Ordinance text. This staff report focuses on the Second Draft Zoning Ordinance Map. A separate staff report will be completed for the September meetings focusing on the Second Draft Zoning Ordinance Text. The Planning Commission comprehensively reviewed the Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map during the eight meetings held in August through November of 2010 as shown under the following table:

Meeting Series #8 – Draft Zoning Ordinance

DRAFT ZONING ORD. TASK Timing

1. Publish 2nd Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map 7/8/11

2. Planning Commission Meetings -focused on 2nd Draft Zoning Ordinance Map

8/18/11, 9:00 am – 4:00 pm 8/25/11, 11:00 am – 4:00 pm

3. Planning Commission Meetings -focused on 2nd Draft Zoning Ordinance Text

9/15/11, 9:00 am – 4:00 pm 9/22/11, 11:00 am – 4:00 pm

4. Review of 2nd Draft by Board of Supervisors October/November 2011



Previous PC Meetings Held on Draft Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting

Zoning Map Review -Locations

Zoning Ordinance Review - Sections

August 5, 2010 Durham, Dayton, Nelson, Richvale

Part 1 –Enactment and Applicability Part 2 –Zoning Districts, Land Uses and Development Standards (Articles 4 – 8)

August 19, 2010 Chico, Nord, Cohasset Part 2 –Zoning Districts, Land Uses and Development Standards (Articles 9 – 10)

September 2, 2010 Forest Ranch, Butte Meadows, Jonesville

Part 3 –General Regulations (Articles 11 – 17)

September 16, 2010 Paradise, Concow, Yankee Hill, Stirling City

Part 3 –General Regulations (Articles 18 – 24)

September 30, 2010 Cherokee, Butte Valley

Part 4 –Supplemental Use Regulations (Articles 25, 26) Part 5 –Land Use and Development Approval Procedures (Articles 27– 29)

October 7, 2010 Oroville, Palermo, Bangor, Honcut

Part 5 –Land Use and Development Approval Procedures (Articles 30 – 35)

October 21, 2010 Berry Creek, Feather Falls, Clipper Mills,

Forbestown Part 6 –Zoning Ordinance Administration

November 2, 2010 Biggs, Gridley Part 7 -Definitions Parts 1 – 7 Adjustments



During each of these meetings, the Planning Commission received public input and provided direction to staff concerning the Draft Zoning Map. Summary notes for these meetings are provided under ATTACHMENT D.

II. ANALYSIS The focus of these two (August 18 and 25, 2011) Planning Commission meetings will be the review of the Draft Zoning Map. General Plan 2030 staff has received public input and direction from the Planning Commission on the Draft Zoning Map during the previous eight Planning Commission meetings and has received additional public comment since that time. The Planning Commission’s directions were incorporated into the Second Draft Zoning Map. Staff has also conducted further review of the Draft Zoning Map and is recommending additional clean-ups, now reflected in the Second Draft Zoning Map. In the case of individual requests to change the Draft Zoning Map, each of these were reviewed for consistency with General Plan 2030, to determine whether it was appropriate to change a zone or General Plan designation. Corrections to the Draft Zoning Map may be considered during the review process, since the Draft Zoning Map has not yet been adopted. In addition to requests concerning the Draft Zoning Map, staff has received requests to change the General Plan 2030 Land Use Map, which also affects the Draft Zoning Map. The Planning Commission will review all proposed corrections and make final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Staff relies on a set of criteria to determine whether a correction to the General Plan Land Use Map and/or Draft Zoning Map is warranted. These criteria are outlined below, including the criteria used to establish the Agriculture subzones (AG-20 through AG-320):

1. The correction must be consistent with General Plan 2030. 2. The correction must be consistent with the Preferred Land Use

Alternative selected by the Board of Supervisors and included in General Plan 2030. (Please Note: Disagreements by property owners over the Board’s previous decisions made during the General Plan adoption process are not considered errors or mistakes needing correction.)

3. The correction must be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan.

4. The purpose and need for the correction must be supported by verifiable information.



Individual requests that are not considered an error in need of correcting may be separately considered pursuant to Section 65358 of the Government Code (Amendments to the General Plan). Such requests must comply with all rules contained within the Zoning Ordinance, the making of all applications necessary under County rules to consider a General Plan Amendment and/or Rezone, payment of all associated fees and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Criteria and Factors Used for Developing Agricultural Sub-Zones Several significant individual public requests discussed in the following section concern changes to the Agricultural subzones implemented under the Draft Zoning Map. Staff does not support these requests and provides the following information as a supplement to staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Agriculture General Plan designation provides for minimum parcel sizes between 20 and 320-acres. The Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map implement various subzones (AG-20, AG-40, AG-80, AG-160 and AG-320) for the Agriculture designation. The locations of the various subzones are based upon a variety of factors. The most critical factor to consider when implementing the Agricultural subzones is the General Plan itself. The General Plan states that the intent of the Agriculture designation is to protect, conserve, and enhance Butte County’s agricultural resources. In addition, the General Plan includes as a Guiding Principle that “The General Plan addresses agriculture as an important aspect of Butte County’s economy that will be protected, maintained, promoted, and enhanced”. Additional General Plan polices that support these directives include:

Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.7 Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline. Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.4 Allow Rural Residential land uses on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline only within those areas designated for Rural Residential use on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map shown in Figure LU-6.

Land Use Element Policy LU-P1.1 The County shall protect and conserve land that is used for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land.



Agriculture Element Policy AG-P2.4 As set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, rezoning agricultural land to agricultural zones with lower parcels size restrictions shall be minimized and allowed only if specific criteria are met.

The General Plan’s Vision Statement, states: “Agriculture and open space will continue to dominate Butte County’s landscape and be an important part of the County’s culture and economy. Existing Agricultural areas will be maintained and an array of agricultural services will support agriculture while providing new jobs to Butte County residents.” Towards this end, the various agricultural subzones were implemented to limit further land divisions in agricultural areas, and to maintain larger parcels where possible. The implementation of the Agricultural subzones recognizes the variety of existing land use patterns near Butte County’s unincorporated communities and strives to provide transitional parcel sizes as much as possible (e.g., AG-20 transitioning into AG-40). An equally important factor concerns consistency with all Williamson Act Contracts, supported by General Plan Policy AG-A1.1, which requires the maintenance of County policies to address consistency with the Williamson Act. All lands under a Williamson Act contract were reviewed for a corresponding minimum parcel size under a sub-zone. For example, a Williamson Act Contract, which imposes an 80-acre minimum parcel size, received a corresponding AG-80 subzone. Other important factors used to determine appropriate sub-zones included the State of California Farmland Mapping Program, mapping from the Draft Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), existing agricultural land uses and practices, existing parcel sizes, and community input received throughout the General Plan 2030 update process. The State of California Farmland Mapping Program in particular helps to identify prime agricultural soils and grazing lands, which are an important part of the Butte County economy. The smallest Agricultural Subzone, AG-20 (Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size), is limited to being implemented on the Second Draft Zoning Map primarily in areas near Durham, Palermo, Honcut, Bangor, Gridley, and Biggs, where previous zoning (A-5, A-15 and A-20) allowed smaller parcel sizes. While other areas of the county near Chico as well as extensive areas south and east of Palermo also have previous zoning (A-5, A-15, and A-20) allowing smaller parcel sizes, limiting factors as previously discussed warranted the implementation of larger minimum parcel sizes (AG-40, AG-80, AG-160 and AG-320) in these areas.



By providing a variation in minimum parcel sizes in agricultural areas through the Agricultural Sub-Zones, the General Plan, and the Draft Zoning Map work to recognize the varying existing conditions present within Butte County and promote the sustainability of all types of agriculture into the future. The Butte County Farm Bureau provided specific comment (provided under Attachment C) relating to agricultural sub-zones and the appropriate implementation of minimum parcel sizes in agricultural areas with the goal of making properties less desirable for conversion to non-agricultural uses. The Butte County Farm Bureau “encourages the application of larger minimum zoning in more rural areas to discourage further fragmentation of agricultural lands and subsequent drains on county services.” III. RECOMMENDATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION: The following section discusses staff’s recommendations to the Planning Commission for each applicable geographic area of the County as follows:

1. Staff Recommended Corrections 2. Individual Requests Supported by Staff 3. Individual Requests Not Supported by Staff

This information is itemized under ATTACHMENT A (“Second Draft Zoning Ordinance Table of Requests and Corrections”). This table is organized alphabetically by each community and lists each applicable Assessor Parcel Number, Name, Current Designation/Zone, and Proposed Designation/Zone. Each item is mapped for reference under ATTACHMENT B (refer to the first Column of Attachment A for the corresponding Area Number located on the map). Comments and letters from members of the public making individual requests and general comments are provided under ATTACHMENT C. Bangor Staff Recommended Corrections (Area 1) Various parcels were erroneously designated as right-of-way near the County’s boundary. These are recommended to be Agriculture under the General Plan with an AG-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size) zone. Individual Requests Supported Daley (Area 2) David Daley requested that an AG-20 zone be replaced with an AG-80 zone to match surrounding zoning. Staff supports this request.



Berry Creek Staff Recommended Corrections (Areas 3 and 4) Two parcels are proposed for a Public designation and zone to support public uses, including a fire station and community hall. Individual Requests Supported Keiser (Area 5) Mary Keiser requests that one parcel be zoned Community Commercial instead of General Commercial. The Community Commercial zone is appropriate for mountain communities where a residence may be coupled with a commercial use. Staff supports this request. Individual Requests Not Supported Clay (Area 6) Katherine Clay requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to FR-40 (40-acre minimum parcel size) on a 134 (+/-) acre parcel. This property is located in the 40-acre Migratory Deer Range. This property’s existing zoning is Unclassified. In determining the appropriate new zoning for Unclassified areas of the County, staff used the existing General Plan designation as the main criteria. In this case, the applicable General Plan designation is Timber Mountain. Other criteria used to determine applicable new zoning in this area included existing land uses and development patterns. This parcel is surrounded by other parcels designated Timber Mountain with the exception of the rural subdivision that borders the north boundary. This parcel is largely forested, and a Timber Mountain designation would be appropriate based upon use. Staff therefore does not support this request. Butte Creek Canyon Staff Recommended Corrections (Area 23) On September 30, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended that the eighteen parcels collectively known as the “Centerville Road Parcels” be changed from an AG-20 (Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size) to an AG-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size) zone. Individual Requests Supported McGie (Area 7) Nancy McGie requests a change to the General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from AG-20 to FR-20 on a 4.2-acre portion of a 7.6 (+/-) acre parcel located on Centerville Road. The subject 4.2-acre portion of this parcel is split from the balance of the property by Centerville Road. All of the area adjacent to



this portion is currently zoned FR-20 under the Draft Zoning Map. Staff supports this request as a more logical location (i.e. along Centerville Road) for the zoning district boundary. Butte Valley Staff Recommended Corrections (Areas 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 18, 19, and 21) The Planning Commission discussed and provided direction concerning the Butte Valley area on September 30, 2010. On November 3, 2010, Development Services staff held a special meeting to discuss Butte County General Plan 2030 and the Draft Zoning Ordinance with the Butte Valley community. The Butte Valley Coalition, a local community group organized this meeting and approximately 90 members of the public attended (see comment provided at this meeting under Attachment C). The Butte Valley Coalition and local residents were interested in land use and zoning designations, and water resources specific to the Butte Valley area. Requests were made that the currently proposed 20-acre minimum parcel size (proposed under the first Draft of the Zoning Ordinance map), prevalent in many parts of Butte Valley, be increased to reduce development potential, and influences to groundwater. Many of the comments presented requested the continuation of the existing zoning under the new draft Zoning Ordinance and specifically indicated that the larger Agricultural sub-zones such as AG-160 be maintained, and that another area along Clark Road, currently zoned Very Low Density Residential be lowered in overall density. At the September 30, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that all proposed AG-20 (Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size) zones located in a block east of Clark Road, including the Gunn property, be changed to AG-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size), and that lands owned by Habib currently zoned AG-160 (Agriculture, 160-acre minimum parcel size) and Resource Conservation (40-acre minimum parcel size) be changed to AG-40. Staff additionally reviewed the Clark Road area currently designated Very Low Density Residential, in light of the input received during the November 3, 2010, Community Meeting at Butte Valley. Because most of this area is zoned under the existing ordinance for 2.5-acre parcels, staff is recommending that the proposed zoning be changed from VLDR-1 to VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential, 2.5-acre minimum parcel size). This provides for a significant density reduction from the previously recommended draft zoning. In reviewing other parcels located near the Habib landholdings, it became evident to staff that additional corrections were needed, especially in light of the Planning Commission’s direction to change this area from AG-160 to AG-40. These corrections are provided to more closely match existing parcel sizes,



adjacent zoning districts, and do not allow further land divisions. Staff additionally reviewed areas along Jackson Ranch Road, Villa Vista Drive/Circle 4 Court. These areas have been previously divided into parcel sizes ranging from 2 to 9 acres in size, and are more appropriately designated, and zoned Rural Residential, instead of Agriculture. Individual Requests Supported Dunlap (Area 8) Tania Dunlap requests a correction from a Rural Residential designation and zone to an Agriculture designation and zone at a 40-acre minimum parcel size. This is consistent with the area and staff supports this request. Retzer (Area 9) Bill Retzer requests a correction from an Agriculture designation and zone to a Foothill Residential designation and zone at a 20-acre minimum parcel size on a 50 (+/-) acre parcel south of Cory Canyon Road. This is consistent with the area and a continuation of zoning applied to this subdivision area. Staff supports this request and supports this designation and zone for two other adjacent parcels. Individual Requests Not Supported Hight (Area20) Hillery Hight requests a correction from an AG-160 zone to an AG-20 zone on Williams Road. Staff does not support an AG-20 zone at this location, but does support a change to an AG-40 zone, which would remain consistent with the Planning Commission’s direction concerning the Habib parcels to the north. This area is also located outside of the previous Agriculture Residential General Plan designation, which was used to delineate the boundary between Agriculture and Foothill residential zoning, located to the south. Clayton Gunn (Area 22) Clayton Gunn requests a correction from the Planning Commission’s September 30, 2010 recommendation to zone this parcel AG-40 (located on the northeast corner of Durham-Pentz Road and SR-191). Mr. Gunn requests A-20 zoning. This request would be contrary to the Planning Commission’s direction, and is therefore not supported by staff. Lana Gunn (Area 22) Lana Gunn requests a correction to seven parcels totaling approximately 1,377-acres located near SR-191 and Durham Pentz Road zoned variously from AG-40, AG-160, and AG-320. Ms. Gunn requests A-20 zoning. Most of these parcels are subject to a 160-acre minimum parcel size under the Williamson Act, with one parcel subject to an 80-acre minimum parcel size. Additionally, the zoning is intended to preserve grazing lands in larger parcels to prevent further



subdivision. Due the Williamson Act Contracts, the size of the existing parcels, which are conducive to grazing, and the Planning Commission’s earlier recommendations, staff does not support this request. The Planning Commission provided direction on September 30, 2010, regarding two of the parcels, recommending a change from AG-20 to AG-40. Chico Staff Recommended Corrections (Area 24) A correction is proposed for three parcels at Entler Avenue/SR-99 that were erroneously designated Heavy Industrial. The new zone would be Light Industrial, to match the existing uses and existing zoning. Individual Requests Not Supported McClintock (Area 25) Bruce McClintock provides a request involving 91 parcels totaling approximately 1,068 acres in size located northwest of and adjacent to Mud Creek, and southwest of the Esplanade. Mr. McClintock comments that most of these parcels are already subdivided into smaller parcels and therefore it would be appropriate to zone this area as AG-20 instead of AG-80. This request is inconsistent with the preferred land use alternative chosen by the Board of Supervisors under the General Plan. The Board of Supervisors removed a nearby area during the General Plan 2030 process from consideration for future growth (“Chico Growth Area #1” – an area southeast of Mud Creek and adjacent to the Bell Muir area) during a meeting on the development of General Plan Alternatives held on November 27, 2007. The Board’s decision was recently supported under the approved City of Chico General Plan. This area is also adjacent to the Chico Area Greenline, which factored strongly in these decisions. Several General Plan policies support the protection of agricultural land specific to this area, and in the County as a whole:

Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.7 Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline.

Land Use Element Policy LU-P1.1 The County shall protect and conserve land that is used for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land. Agriculture Element Policy AG-P2.4 As set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, rezoning agricultural land to



agricultural zones with lower parcels size restrictions shall be minimized and allowed only if specific criteria are met.

While this request does not change this area’s Agriculture designation, a 20-acre minimum parcel size would result in the further subdivision of productive agricultural land. Staff agrees that there is a mixture of smaller and larger parcels in this area. From a zoning standpoint, a balance must be achieved that ensures that all of these properties are appropriately zoned, while still upholding General Plan policy that is protective of agriculture. Staff finds that in this area, singling out smaller parcels for the implementation of 20-acre zoning would be a detriment to the protection of the larger agricultural areas that the General Plan and Greenline Policy is intended to protect. The soils present in this area are classified as prime agricultural soils when irrigated by the Butte County Soil Survey. Two of the area’s larger parcels are subject to Williamson Act Contracts, and much more land is under Williamson Act Contracts in the vicinity. Further subdivision activity in this area at a 20-acre minimum parcel size would serve to exacerbate the agricultural and residential conflicts as discussed in Mr. McClintock’s letter, and increases the likelihood of converting productive agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Brown (Area 26) Don Brown requests a change in zoning from AG-160 to AG-40 on a 100-acre parcel located on the end of Thorntree Road, east of Cohasset Road in the north Chico area. Two General Plan policies support the protection of agricultural land in the county as a whole:

Land Use Element Policy LU-P1.1 The County shall protect and conserve land that is used for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land. Agriculture Element Policy AG-P2.4 As set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, rezoning agricultural land to agricultural zones with lower parcels size restrictions shall be minimized and allowed only if specific criteria are met.

This parcel is also adjacent to lands under a Williamson Act contract to the east. A portion of this property southeast of Sycamore Creek is located in the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the property is located in“Grassland with Vernal Pool Swale Complex” according to the Draft Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. The General Plan policies and the limitations imposed by the flood zone, biological constraints, and adjacent agricultural land are all factors that support the AG-160 zone for this parcel and area.



NorthStar Engineering (Area 26) NorthStar Engineering, on behalf landowner Bruce Roe, requests a change in zoning from AG-160 to AG-20 on a 70 (+/-) acre parcel, located in the same general vicinity as the Don Brown request (above), about 200 feet east of Cohasset Road. This property is subject to similar constraints as the Brown property. The General Plan policies and the limitations imposed by the flood zone, biological constraints, and adjacent agricultural land are all factors that support the AG-160 zone for this parcel and area. Note: A two-lot Tentative Subdivision Map application for this property, TSM 11-0002, is currently under review by the Planning Commission. This application is legally subject to the existing AG-20, and AG-40 zoning. A survey related to this application completed by Gallaway Consulting, Inc. dated Mary 24, 2010 identified the presence of Butte County Meadowfoam, a plant listed by both the State and Federal Endangered Species Act. Brouhard (Area 27) Bill Brouhard requests AG-20 (Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size) on a 1,448 (+/-) acre area located east of Chico, east of Potter Road. The proposed draft zoning is AG-160 and AG-320. This area is also designated by the General Plan for a future specific plan with up to 1,500 homes and several acres of parks/open space/commercial, identified as the Doe Mill/Honey Run Specific Plan. While the General Plan designates this area for a future development, the General Plan also provides that in the interim period between General Plan adoption and the future development of this area, an agriculture designation shall remain in place. This strategy provides an interim use, and prevents additional subdivision of the property, prior to plan development. Development Services staff finds that the recommended AG-160 and AG-320 zoning for this area provides for on-going agricultural uses, and discourages further land divisions that would be detrimental to future development under a specific plan. The Preferred Land Use Alternative supports both a viable future Specific Plan, as well as sustaining agriculture until such a plan comes to fruition. Staff therefore does not support a change to A-20 zoning for this area. Other factors supporting this determination include the presence of “Grassland with Vernal Pool Swale Complex” under the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan on the western portion of the area, the direction to conserve agricultural areas pursuant to General Plan policy, and the adjacency of the area to other large holdings of agricultural lands under Williamson Act contracts to the east. Swartz (Area 28) Don Swartz requests AG-20 zoning on approximately 6,000 acres of property located northeast of and adjacent to SR-99, northwest of and adjacent to Neal Road, and southeast of and adjacent to the Skyway. The proposed draft zoning for this area is AG-160 and AG-320. During the review of the Preferred Land Use Alternative, the Board of Supervisors chose to designate this area for



Agricultural land uses over other more intensive development alternatives. Development Services staff finds that the recommended AG-160 and AG-320 zoning for this area provides for on-going agricultural uses as supported by General Plan policy, and discourages further land divisions that would be detrimental to agriculture. Staff therefore does not support a change to A-20 zoning for this area. Other factors supporting this determination include the presence of “Grassland with Vernal Pool Swale Complex” under the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, the direction to conserve agricultural areas pursuant to General Plan policy, and the adjacency of the area to other large holdings of agricultural lands under Williamson Act contracts to the southeast. (See also the discussion concerning the McClintock request concerning applicable General Plan policies and appropriate minimum parcel sizes in Agricultural designations; and Criteria for Developing Agricultural Subzones Section above.) Mr. Swartz also makes a request to remove the Scenic Highway Zone, along the Skyway below the 350-foot elevation contour because it would be below the height of the Neal Road landfill (Mr. Swartz’s original letter stated “below the 500-foot elevation contour”, but the 500 foot figure was later corrected to 350-feet). This would eliminate approximately 2,000 linear feet of this zone along the Skyway. The General Plan (Figure COS-9) supports the Scenic Highway Zone at this location. The General Plan indicates that the scenic highway zone supports expansive views of the Northern Sacramento Valley and Coast Range from the Skyway. Staff therefore does not support this request. Lambert (Area 29) Nina Lambert requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from AG-40 to a 2.5 or 5-acre minimum parcels size providing “Agricultural Transitional Zoning” (5-acre minimum parcel size) on two, 20-acre (+/-) parcels, located in the south Chico area. “Agricultural Transitional Zoning” as requested by Ms. Lambert does not currently exist under the General Plan or Draft Zoning Ordinance. Staff agrees that there is a mixture of smaller and larger parcels in this area. From a zoning standpoint, a balance must be achieved that ensures that all of these properties are appropriately zoned, while still upholding General Plan policy that is protective of agriculture. Staff finds that in this area, singling out smaller parcels for the implementation of a transitional zoning allowing 2.5 and 5-acre zoning would be a detriment to the protection of the larger productive agricultural areas that the General Plan, and Chico Area Greenline policy, is intended to protect. Staff therefore does not support this request. Lando (Area 30) Tom Lando requests a reconsideration of the General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Agriculture to an alternative designation, possibly as an Urban Reserve, on 15 parcels of approximately 185 acres in total size, located



southeast of Mud Creek in the northwest Chico area. The Board of Supervisors removed this area during the General Plan 2030 process from consideration for future growth (“Chico Growth Area #1” – an area southeast of Mud Creek, adjacent to the Bell Muir area) during a meeting on the development of General Plan Alternatives held on November 27, 2007. The Board’s decision was recently supported under the approved City of Chico General Plan. This area is also adjacent to the Chico Area Greenline, which factored strongly in these decisions. The soils present in this area are classified as prime agricultural soils when irrigated by the Butte County Soil Survey (NRCS). Staff does not support this proposal. It is contrary to the Preferred Land Use Alternative developed under the General Plan 2030 process. (See also the discussion concerning the McClintock request concerning applicable General Plan policies and appropriate minimum parcel sizes in Agricultural designations; and, Criteria for Developing Agricultural Subzones Section above.) Forman & Kromer (Areas 31 and 32) Bob Forman requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential (5-acre minimum parcel size) to Very Low Density Residential (1-acre minimum parcel size) on a 5.87 (+/-) acre parcel. Bob Kromer requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Agriculture to a designation that would allow the creation of four parcels on the12.69 (+/-) acre parcel. Kelly Brown also submitted a comment to county staff disagreeing with the Rural Residential designation and zone for this area and alternatively proposing a 1-acre minimum parcel size. These requests pertain to the Bell Muir area located in northwest Chico. The Bell Muir area was discussed extensively during the Alternatives Development phase of General Plan 2030. On July 30, 2008, the Board unanimously supported a change in the Greenline for the Bell Muir area, placing the Greenline along Bell and Muir Roads. The Board further instructed that the area south and east of Bell and Muir Roads be designated for 1-acre parcels. The Board instructed that the area to the north and west of Bell and Muir Roads, that is the subject of the Forman and Kromer requests, be designated Rural Residential (5-acre parcels), due to its adjacency to commercial agricultural lands to the north and west. For these reasons, staff does not support either of these requests. Cana Partners –APN: 047-100-197 George Nicolaus of Cana Partners opposes any increase to the minimum parcel size concerning a 120 (+/-) acre parcel located on Hamilton Nord Cana Highway north of Chico, currently zoned A-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size). The Second Draft Zoning Map implements AG-80 (Agriculture, 80-acre minimum parcel size) zoning for this parcel and the surrounding larger area.

dbreedon

Highlight



Several General Plan policies support the protection of agricultural in the County as a whole:

Land Use Element Policy LU-P1.1 The County shall protect and conserve land that is used for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land. Agriculture Element Policy AG-P2.4 As set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, rezoning agricultural land to agricultural zones with lower parcels size restrictions shall be minimized and allowed only if specific criteria are met.

While this request does not change this area’s Agriculture designation, a 40-acre minimum parcel size would result in the further subdivision of grazing land. Staff finds that in this area, singling out parcels for the implementation of 40-acre zoning would be a detriment to the protection of the larger agricultural areas that the General Plan is intended to protect (See also the discussion concerning the Criteria for Developing Agricultural Subzones Section above). Cohasset Staff Recommended Corrections (Area 33) Staff requests a correction to the Timber Mountain General Plan Land Use designation and zoning on 21 parcels located east of Cohasset. The proposed new designation and zoning would be Foothill Residential, at a 20 or 40-acre minimum parcel size, depending upon the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay Zone. This was brought to staff’s attention by several property owners, who pointed out that the previous Timber Mountain zone allowed parcels at a 20-acre minimum parcel size and the new designation would require a 160-acre minimum parcel size. Staff finds that this correction is warranted based upon the predominant size of these parcels (20 – 40 acres), the proximity of this area to the community of Cohasset and other residential parcels, and the need to remain consistent with land uses present in the Cohasset community. Individual requests were made regarding four parcels in this group, to receive 20-acre zoning (two by James Kutz, and two by Max Streeter). These are not recommended for 20-acre zoning due to the presence of the 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Overlay. Concow/Yankee Hill Individual Requests Supported Pyles (Area 34) Amanda Pyles requests a change from AG-160 to FR-40 (Foothill Residential, 40-acre minimum parcel sizes) for five parcels totaling 346 (+/-) acres in the Concow area. This area is zoned Foothill Residential at a 20 and 40-acre minimum parcel size under the existing zoning map. Foothill Residential



development is prevalent in the area along Granite Ridge Road. The property is located within the 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Overlay. At a December 8, 2008 Special Meeting held on the Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Concow area the Board of Supervisors provided direction that existing zoning will guide future zoning in Concow. Changing this area’s zoning from AG-160 to FR-40 is consistent with the Board’s stated direction under the Preferred Land Use Alternative. Individual Requests Not Supported Pitt (Area 35) Dave and Betty Pitt request a change in draft zoning from FR-40 to FR-20. This property is located in the 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Range. While this parcel’s existing zoning is FR-5 and FR-2, the 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Range requires a 40-acre minimum parcel size. A change to a lower 20-acre minimum parcel size as requested could only be accomplished with the removal of the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay at this location. Staff does not recommend the removal of the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay at this location, and therefore does support this request. Dayton Staff Recommended Corrections (Area 36) Staff recommends a correction to two parcels of 2.9 and 2 acres in the Dayton area. These corrections support a previously General Plan Amendment and Rezone. The first parcel will be corrected from a Very Low Density Residential designation and zone to a Public designation and zone. The Dayton Cemetery occupies this parcel. The second parcel will be corrected from an Agriculture designation and zone to a Very Low Density Residential designation and zone. Forest Ranch Staff Corrections (Areas 38, 39, 42) Several minor corrections were identified by community members concerning public uses such as the Forest Ranch Elementary School and Forest Ranch Volunteer Fire Station. Staff also supports changes for several parcels from Timber Mountain to FR-40 to reflect land use patterns and previous zoning, and Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to reflect existing zoning. Individual Requests Supported Crane (Area 37) Jim Crane requests a change in General Plan designation and zoning from Timber Mountain to Foothill Residential (20-acre minimum parcel size) on five parcels totaling approximately 134 acres in size located in the west Platt Mountain Road area. This would be consistent with the draft zoning placed on



the east Platt Mountain Road area and the 20-acre Migratory Deer Herd Overlay. This would be in conformance with the Board’s direction provided at the January 19 and 21, 2010, meeting on General Plan 2030 for the east Platt Mountain Road area. Forner (Area 40) Stephen and Linda Leeson Forner request a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to FR-40 (Foothill Residential, 40-acre minimum parcel size). The majority of this property is currently zoned Timber Mountain (20-acre minimum parcel size) with approximately 75 acres currently zoned AR-5 (Agriculture Residential, 5-acre minimum parcel size). While the majority of this site is steep encompassing slopes of 30 percent or more, moderate slopes (10-15 percent) occupy the AR-5 zone. A 20 and 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Overlay designation equally divides the property. This parcel is surrounded by smaller residential parcels to the north, east, and west, and is only ¾ a mile from the center commercial area of Forest Ranch. While most of the parcel would be inappropriate for residential development, the 75-acre area currently occupied by the AR-5 zone provides opportunities for residential development close to this parcel’s access along Scotty Lane. Staff therefore supports the requested change from TM to FR-40 for this parcel. Staff also supports this change for several other parcels adjacent to this area. These changes would be consistent with Board direction to reflect existing zoning in the Forest Ranch area as much as possible. Rath (Area 41) Gerald Rath requests a change from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to AG-20 on a 122 (+/-) acre parcel accessed by Royal Drift Way. Mr. Rath requests an Agriculture designation and a 20-acre minimum parcel size. However, due to the proximity of this property to smaller 5-acre parcels (Royal Drift Estates Subdivision, of which this parcel is a part) to the west that are designated Foothill Residential, staff recommends a Foothill Residential designation. While this property is not located within the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay, the currently applicable zoning requires a 40-acre minimum parcel size (TM-40). Staff therefore supports an FR-40 designation and zone for this parcel and not the requested AG-20 designation and zone. This would be consistent with Board direction to reflect existing zoning in the Forest Ranch area as much as possible. Individual Requests Not Supported Crane (Area 43) Jim Crane and others request to change draft zoning from AG-160 to AG-40 on 15 individual parcels totaling over 2,400 acres in the Big Chico Creek Canyon



area of Forest Ranch with a current zoning classification of U (Unclassified). The proposed change from AG-160 to AG-40 would pertain to the Draft Zoning Map. The change from Timber Mountain to Agricultural for several of these parcels would require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map. Staff Note: The Board of Supervisors, at a Special Meeting to address clean-ups to the General Plan 2030 Land Use Map on August 24, 2010, previously voted unanimously to reject a similar proposal to change land use designations from Agriculture and Timber Mountain to Foothill Residential. All of the parcels listed within the letter are under Williamson Act contracts (which impose a 160-acre minimum parcel size, for grazing uses) with the exception of three parcels (APN's: 056-130-011, 056-240-017, and 063-040-100). Zoning consistency with Williamson Act Contracts is supported by General Plan Policy AG-A1.1, which requires the maintenance of County policies to address consistency with the Williamson Act. As indicated previously, all lands under a Williamson Act contract were reviewed for a corresponding minimum parcel size under a sub-zone. With regard to the Williamson Act parcels, staff believes it would be inconsistent with State law and General Plan 2030 to change the Agricultural designation and 160-acre minimum parcel size. The zoning matches the use stated under the Williamson Act Contract as well as the stated 160-acre minimum parcels size. The request indicates that the agricultural nature of the area has changed in the last 50-years. However, the Williamson Act requires contracts between the landowner and Butte County to retain the property for agricultural use in exchange for a reduced property tax rate (these Contracts were first executed in the mid-1970's). As for the three non-Williamson Act parcels, staff finds that the Agricultural General Plan designation and AG-160 zone supports the land use patterns found in the surrounding area. Allowing 40-acre minimum parcels would be contrary to the General Plan 2030 Preferred Land Use Alternative for this area, including General Plan Land Use Policy LU-P1.10, which states the following:

The County shall limit development in foothill and mountain areas that are constrained by fire hazards, water supply, migratory deer habitat, or infrastructure.

The allowance of 40-acre parcels would encourage land divisions in a remote part of the County that is difficult and expensive to service, is in a High Fire Hazard area, does not have access to water/wastewater infrastructure, and has poor circulation and access. These limitations are also present on the parcels located within the Williamson Act. Therefore, staff finds that even if an applicable



Williamson Act Contract terminated, an Agricultural designation and 160-acre minimum parcel size would still be appropriate for this area. Gridley Staff Recommended Correction Representatives from the Housing Authority of the County of Butte met with Development Services staff concerning the Gridley Farm Labor Housing project, located near Gridley at 850 East Gridley Road (APN: 024-220-030). This facility has a long history within Butte County serving farmworkers and low-income families in the Biggs, Gridley and the Live Oak areas. According to the Housing Element, the facility offers 130 units of year-round housing and houses about 500 farmworkers and their families. The Housing Element also indicates that the facility is sufficient to meet the needs of farmworkers in the area. The Housing Element contains the following applicable Goal and Action, specific to the Gridley Farm Labor Housing facility:

Goal H-4: Collaborate with existing service providers to meet the special housing needs of homeless persons, elderly, large families, disabled persons, and farmworkers. Housing Element Action H-A4.9 H-A4.9 Rehabilitation of Existing Farmworker Housing: The County will support the efforts of the Housing Authority of Butte County to rehabilitate the existing Gridley Farm Labor Housing facility, including providing expedited permit processing, plan checking, and inspections. In addition, the County will assist the Housing Authority with support such as available data, letters of support, or similar assistance in the event that the Housing Authority requires County assistance in pursuing grant funding or other financial assistance for this project.

Housing Authority staff indicated that the current Public General Plan designation and Draft Zoning applicable to this site did not support the continued operation and rehabilitation of this facility. In order to address this situation staff has developed a Public Housing Overlay Zone (Section 24-39 of the Second Draft Zoning Ordinance) in coordination with Housing Authority representatives. The Public Housing Overlay Zone applies only to the Gridley Farm Labor property under the Second Draft Zoning Map. The new Overlay enables the facility to continue as a legal operation, complete the rehabilitation currently underway, and to pursue additional improvements in the future. The new Overlay also fulfills the County’s obligations under Housing Element Action H-A4.9, and supports Housing Element Goal H-4. The Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the County of Butte approved the language for the new Overlay at their regular meeting held on May 19, 2011.



Individual Requests not Supported Madare (Area 44) Mr. Jag Madare requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from AG-40 to Rural Residential (5-acre minimum parcel size) on an 11.9 (+/-) acre parcel located adjacent to Larkin Road near Gridley. This parcel is located just east of the large area identified for a change in General Plan designation from Agriculture to Rural Residential (per Board of Supervisor’s direction to further study a General Plan Amendment for this area provided on October 26, 2010); however, it is located outside of this area and would not be a part of that amendment. Mr. Madare requests to be included within this area. Under the existing zoning, Larkin Road provides the boundary between the A-40 zone to the east, and smaller A-5 and A-10 zones to the west. The area proposed for a change to Rural Residential is confined to the existing A-5 and A-10 zones. Staff does not recommend changing this boundary to include one additional parcel east of Larkin Road, and changing the designation/zone from AG to RR. This area includes many agricultural land uses and larger parcels. An agricultural processing plant is located adjacent to this parcel to the south. Orchards are also prevalent in the area, including on the subject parcel. Adding two, approximately 5-acre homesites to this agricultural area would negatively affect agricultural uses on-site and in the vicinity. The current AG-40 zone supports the General Plan’s Preferred Land Use Alternative for this area. Staff therefore does not support this requested change. Staff note: An “Agricultural Segregation” was approved on this parcel in 1985, which allowed a 2-acre parcel to be split off from the main parcel and developed with a residence (farm home) and devoting the larger 11.9 (+/-) acre parcel to agricultural use. At that time, a “Conveyance of Development Rights Open Area Easement” was conveyed to the County concerning the subject larger parcel. This conveyance restricts the larger parcel (APN: 024-040-059, Approx 12.2 acres) from being developed with a residence. This parcel was specifically designated to be left undeveloped (with the exception of structures accessory to agriculture), and left in agricultural production. Two important clauses can remove the restriction:

1. The rezoning of the property to any other zone. 2. If ten years has lapsed since the recording of the restriction and the

Planning Commission finds that circumstances regarding the property and area has changed sufficiently to reconsider the restriction.

With regard to clause number 1 above, staff does not support a change in the land use designation and zone (see above).



With regard to clause number 2 above, although ten years has lapsed since the original segregation, it does not appear that any circumstances have changed with regard to this area. It is still mainly devoted to agricultural production. Therefore, staff finds that land uses and circumstances involving this property have not substantially changed enough to support a reconsideration of the restriction. Other Comment Concerning Gridley Area Neighbors United to Protect Agriculture Land A comment letter was received from “Neighbors United to Protect Agriculture Land”. The letter objects any future change in General Plan designation or zone from Agriculture to Rural Residential in the Gridley area. The letter pertains to the directive provided by the Board of Supervisors during the adoption of the General Plan for staff to consider a General Plan Amendment from Agriculture to Rural Residential for several area of the County including areas near Gridley. County staff contacted several representatives from this group and explained that the proposed consideration of this General Plan Amendment is not scheduled at this time, but that additional community meetings would be held prior to further review of this item by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Staff also explained that the General Plan and Second Draft Zoning Map designated these areas as Agriculture and that no change to Rural Residential was currently being proposed or considered by the Planning Commission under the Second Draft Zoning Map. Magalia Individual Requests Supported Paradise Recreation and Parks District (Area 45) Mike Trinca with the Paradise Recreation and Parks District requests a change in General Plan and Draft Zoning from Retail/Office to Public on a 1.27 (+/-) acre parcel owned by the Paradise Recreation and Parks District. According to Mr. Trinca, this parcel will be used as parkland to access adjacent property that will be developed with a future community park. Stirling City and Magalia Cemetery District (Areas 47 and 48) The Cemetery District requests a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning to Public from Retail/Office and Timber Mountain to reflect the existing cemetery use and expansion areas owned by the District.



Individual Requests Not Supported Simmons & Wells (Area 46) Joyce Simmons and Wilfred Wells request a change in Genera Plan designation and draft zoning necessary to keep the AR.2.5 zoning, which he indicated had been in existence for over two decades. This request would change the draft zoning from Rural Residential (5-acre minimum parcel size) to a Very Low Density Residential 2.5 zone (2.5-acre minimum parcel size) on their parcels located along Nimshew Road in Magalia. Under the Preferred Land Use Alternative, the Board of Supervisors approved a Rural Residential designation for the majority of Study Area 5 (Magalia/Paradise Pines). While this area is currently zoned AR-2.5 (Agriculture Residential, 2.5 acre minimum parcel sizes), the Rural Residential designation was chosen over other alternatives to limit further land divisions. The General Plan recognizes that the Upper Ridge and Magalia areas only have a single point of ingress and egress (Skyway) in the event of an emergency evacuation and therefore further development was limited through the Rural Residential designation chosen by the Board. Staff therefore does not recommend a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning for these properties. Oroville Staff Recommended Corrections Staff recommends one minor correction for a parcel in Thermalito (Area 61) that was erroneously split between a Rural Residential and Medium Density Residential zone and several major corrections as follows: Custer Lane Corrections (Areas 49 and 55): Corrections to General Plan designations and Draft Zoning from Industrial to Very Low Density Residential on 26 parcels in the south Oroville neighborhood area along Custer Lane. This area was the subject of a previous Board General Plan Amendment (Ordinance #3439, July 28, 1998), from M-1 (Light Industrial) to AR-1 (Agricultural Residential, 1-acre minimum parcel size). This action was taken after numerous public complaints concerning an inappropriate mixture of residential and industrial uses, and resulted in the removal of a non-conforming tire storage facility from the area. The area was erroneously designated Industrial by the General Plan and received General Industrial zoning. Staff therefore recommends a Very Low Density Residential General Plan designation and zoning to comply with the original Board action. State Route-162 Corrections (Area 50): A number of corrections are recommended along SR-162 (Oro Dam Boulevard) west of the Feather River at SR-70. In most cases, draft zoning was developed to follow existing zoning and the City of Oroville’s General Plan. However, numerous existing residential uses, including subdivisions and mobile home parks received a commercial



designation and zone. Staff recommends a change in the Retail/Office designation to Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential or Resource Conservation (for State lands near the Feather River) designations. State Route 70/Rio d’ Oro Corrections (Area 54 and 59): A change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Resource Conservation to AG-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size) is recommended for six parcels adjacent to SR-70 and Power House Hill Road in south Oroville. While this area is located in“Grassland with Vernal Pool Swale Complex” according to the Draft Butte Habitat Conservation Plan, the proposed minimum parcel size will not be changing from 40-acres. This will not allow any further land division activity or residential development. The use would change from Resource Conservation to Agriculture. The agricultural uses that take place in this area have traditionally been grazing and pasture. This area was originally identified as mitigation land for the Rio d’ Oro residential development across SR-70 to the west, and was consequently designated Resource Conservation in recognition of its operation as a land trust and/or in conjunction with a conservation easement. However, the Rio d’ Oro development is not including this area in their project description and has no plans to develop mitigation at this location, but will provide mitigation on lands adjacent to and south of this area. Staff supports this change in land use designation, finding that the AG-40 designation and zone would adequately protect vernal pool habitat, while at the same time providing for an agricultural use. Individual Requests Supported Coots (Area 51) Bill Coots requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft zoning from Resource Conservation to Medium High Density Residential for three parcels occupied by a 37-unit mobile home park. A Use Permit was issued for the mobile home park in 1977. Mr. Coots’ parcels, along with several other parcels in this area were erroneously designated Resource Conservation. Staff supports changing Mr. Coots parcels to MHDR with other parcels changing from Resource Conservation to Rural Residential. Additionally staff recommends that two other parcels south of this area currently designated Industrial be changed to Rural Residential to more accurately reflect land use patterns and existing uses, and due to the presence of a flood hazard zone (Wyman Ravine) on the majority of these parcels. Herbert (Area 52) Gary Herbert requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Retail/Office to Industrial on a 1.92-acre parcel in the Las Plumas area of south Oroville adjacent to Lincoln Boulevard. In addition to this parcel, three other parcels in this area are recommended by staff for a change in General Plan designation from Retail/Office and Mixed Use to Industrial. Various Use permits have been issued for wrecking yards on several of these parcels and industrial



uses continue to operate on all of these parcels as they have for many years. Morse (Area 53) Glennda Morse requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Mixed Use to Rural Residential, and requests to be included in the Unique Agriculture Overlay zone. Ms. Morse’s parcel is 4.78 acres in size and is located on Feathervale Drive near Miners Ranch Road. This parcel is adjacent to the Unique Agriculture Overlay zone and a Rural Residential General Plan designation and zone. The property operates as a commercial citrus farm and is a member of the Sierra Oro Farm Tour. The requested change would more accurately reflect the land use present on this property. Additionally the property is contiguous to other similar uses located across Feathervale Drive to the north. Wedin (Area 56) Sharon Wedin and others requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre) to Rural Residential (5-acre parcels) on six parcels located within an existing subdivision off Oakdale Avenue in eastern Oroville. The area is adjacent to Low Density Residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre) zone to the north. Four of the six parcels are developed with residences. This area is located within the Lake Oroville Area Public Utilities District and therefore received the higher density designation of Medium Density Residential. Due to the existing larger-lot residential development and landowner desires, development of this subdivision at higher densities is unlikely to occur. Friend (Area 57) Amy Friend requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential on a 1.53-acre parcel in Thermalito. Under an order from Butte County Superior Court, a Lot Line Adjustment (merger) was executed combining a 1.5 (+/-) acre parcel and a 17.7 (+/-) acre parcel into a single 19.2 (+/-) acre parcel. This action resulted in a parcel with two zoning districts (17.7 acres of Medium Density Residential and 1.53-acres of Rural Residential). The requested action will provide a single MDR zone for the entire property. Staff supports this request, which would be consistent with the Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Thermalito area, and would eliminate a split-zoned parcel, which is discouraged under the General Plan. Runge (Area 58) Ted Runge requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from a Public to Medium Density Residential designation and zone on a 15.43-acre parcel in Thermalito. This parcel was erroneously designated Public due the close proximity of the Thermalito Power Canal.



Individual Requests Not Supported Mayer (Area 60) Leon Mayer requests a change in Draft Zoning from Mixed Use-1 to Mixed Use-3 on a 35 (+/-) acre parcel located in the eastern Oroville foothills near Miners Ranch Road. Mixed Use-3 zoning is the more intensive form of Mixed Use Zoning, allowing up to 20 residential units per acre with up to a 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial uses. This contrasts with the Mixed Use-1 zoning allowing up to 6 units per acre and a FAR of 0.3. Staff does not support a change in zoning from MU-1 to MU-3 for this property. The MU-1 designation, which allows for the least amount of development, was implemented in areas that are further away from commercial services and major transportation corridors. The higher density MU-2 and MU-3 zones are located in areas closer to or adjacent to the Olive Highway, other commercially zoned areas and the existing and proposed resort facilities at Lake Oroville. This provides the ability to provide an appropriate level of public and private services to the higher residential density provided by the MU-2 and MU-3 zones. Paradise Individual Requests Not Supported Boyle (Area 62) Robert Boyle requests a change in Draft Zoning from FR-20 to FR-10 on a 38.55 (+/-) acre parcel on Pentz Road, south of Paradise. This property is located in the 20-acre Migratory Deer Herd Overlay and a change to a 10-acre minimum parcel size would be inconstant with the Deer Herd Overlay. Mr. Boyle also objects to the Scenic Highway designation’s change in allowed density. The Scenic Highway zone is proposed to change to an Overlay Zone under the Draft Zoning Ordinance. The Scenic Highway Overlay’s intent is to preserve the natural aesthetic qualities of areas visible from roadways designated as scenic by the Board of Supervisors. The updated Scenic Highway Overlay zone is not intended to allow additional development intensity, or modify the proposed base zone’s (FR-20) land use regulations. Staff therefore does not support this request.



IV. NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission will continue with the review of the Second Draft Zoning Ordinance, with public meetings scheduled for August 18 and 25 devoted to the Draft Zoning Ordinance Map, and on September 15 and 22, devoted to the Draft Zoning Ordinance text. Upon concluding this review, the Planning Commission’s recommendations will be provided to the Board of Supervisors for consideration later this fall. Sincerely, Tim Snellings, Director Butte County Department of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS: Provided separately to the Planning Commission:

A. July 8, 2011 Second Draft Zoning Ordinance and Map (in both “clean” and edited versions)

Attached to this Agenda Report: A. Second Draft Zoning Ordinance Table of Requests and Corrections B. Second Draft Zoning Map with Mapped Areas for Requests and

Corrections C. Public Comment and Requests on Draft Zoning Map D. Summary Notes from Series of Planning Commission Meetings (held

August 5, 2010 through November 2, 2010)

Summary Notes: August 18, 2011 Butte County Planning Commission

Special Study Session on Draft #2 Zoning Ordinance Morning Session: Second Draft Zoning Map Requests and Corrections for Bangor, Berry Creek, Butte Creek Canyon, and Butte Valley Areas Introduction Dan Breedon, Principal Planner, provided an introduction of the meeting and an overview of the items covered. Staff Overview of Requests and Corrections Set-forth in the Staff Report. Identification of changes from the first draft zoning map. Commissioner Nelson asked about the prior Planning Commission recommendations and the prior Board of Supervisors action that set direction on the map. Mr. Breedon described how those previous actions compare to the list of requests and corrections on today’s agenda. Commissioner Kennedy mentioned that the history of the Butte College location. It was intended to be in a location where the City of Chico and City of Oroville would grow toward. Commissioner Nelson stated that there is a problem of not much water in that general area. This was the area of a possible General Plan 2030 study area but the Planning Commission concurred that it was not the right time and area for growth. Commissioner Becker asked if any of the large property owners filed for non-renewal of their Williamson Act contracts. Mr. Breedon answered yes. Commissioner Becker, if the Lana Gunn property was out of Williamson act, what would be the zoning designation? Mr. Breedon answered that an owner can request a rezone with Planning Commission action and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Becker stated that any of the agricultural zones would be consistent with the General Plan.

Commissioner Nelson most of these Williamson Act lands are in the 160-acre minimum, right? Mr. Breedon answered yes. Mr. Breedon identified other requests that had been received but were too late for inclusion in the staff report: Brian Manning, comments from Butte Creek Canyon residents, Cimino, Burkett, Collar, Wylie, Posie, Simenc, Smith, and Fricker and others. These comments generally supported the AG40 designation; Gore request for Nelson Area for Ag Services. Staff review will be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting. Public Comment Chair Wilson announced the Public Comment section of the agenda. Robert Boyle – Paradise area. Mr. Boyle referred to a request that is not supported on last page. FR-20 and concern along Pentz road with the Scenic Highway designation. General Plan got rid of U zone and dual zoning. SH zone allows an 8,125 square-foot parcel size. Now the area is FR-20 to FR-40 and some five-acre designations. He had submitted previous letters that would like consideration for these smaller parcel development rights. He suggested a FR-10 designation. There is inconsistency with the deer herd migration zone and he objects to zoning being connected to the deer herd zone. The setting does not contribute to the habitat of the deer herd. The existing parcel sizes and road contribute to the detriment of the deer herd. He stated that the property owners are loosing our rights, losing 50 percent of value of the land. Tania Dunlap. Referred to a letter of October 2010. There are real water issues in Butte Valley. She has lived in this area for 35 years and the water level has dropped. The Gunns would like to develop and believe in property rights but there is not enough water to support development. We should not decrease parcel sizes until there is a water and sewer district. The area should stay 160-acre minimums. There are wetlands, no soil and no water. Commissioner Nelson had a question for staff about previous and proposed zoning. Mr. Breedon gave a general overview of zoning designations. Ms. Dunlap referred to the corner of Butte College and the commercial business. Commissioner Kenney asked how large her parcel is?

Ms. Dunlap – it is 40 acres and she runs an agricultural business, a horse operation. Notes that there are no proposed 80-acre designations. The area goes from 40 to 160-acre minimum parcel sizes. Michael Evans – is a property owner and represents several other property owners. Mr. Evans stated that the purpose of code update is streamlining process. He does not agree with down zoning legal existing parcel – this is not streamlining. Lenders are more favorable to a conforming property. The whole point of private property is to finance it. The proposed zoning sizes damages the ability to finance the property. Mr. Evans referred to the Habib family request where they have owned the property for 45 years. They are the last parcel that would allow a privately financed escape route from Paradise. This property went from a 40-acre minimum with cluster process provision available in the old General Plan to an Agricultural designation of 40-acre minimums. He is requesting to go back to a 20-acre minimum designation. This would give the opportunity of cluster development and provide an escape route from Paradise. The Gunn property would like a 20-acre for estate planning. There property owned by Van Gooden near Pentz road with a previous division on the property. They would like RR-5 and will follow with a letter. Her deceased husband had asked not to be included in the deer herd designation. They sold property that is now designated with a 160-acre designation. Under the current code, a lot line adjustment cannot make something more non-conforming. Why are we doing that? If sideyard setbacks change, you may not be able to add on to house. Lenders now consider all of these non-conforming issues. Potter Ravine and Simmons Road areas are all 40-acre minimums. Mr. Evans’ properties are now 20-acre minimums. Chair Wilson asked Mr. Evans for a summary. Mr. Evans: the Cole Canyon area supports the Unique Agriculture Overlay. Why is Bangor designated 20 and 40-acre minimums? Mr. Evans referred to the Habib letter submittal. He noted that Butte Creek canyon is no in a 40-acre minimum area. The upsizing of zones is inconsistent with streamlining. Jeff Fricker – employed at Butte College for 35 years. There are water issues in this area. If farming continues, they will pull ground water out. Mr. Fricker referred to radioactive isotope tracing in the aquifer. He stated that he would focus on the Butte Creek Canyon area. Most of the land along the creek is tied up. What is logical for mapping may not be logic for the biotic community. A bear lives between road and the creek and deer cross the creek. There are not many corridors for habitat. We need to keep the corridors for animals. Clayton Gunn – indicated that Michael Evans represents him. Does not see why his 1,500 ac went from 160’s to 320’s.

Mr. Breedon indicated that Williamson Act contracts existed in the area with 160-acre contract minimums and the proposed zoning is 320. The concept is to retain large parcels of agricultural land. This approach is supported by GP2030 to support agricultural land. Gunn stated that he is a cattle rancher. What if we have to sell something to survive? John Scott – Butte Valley resident. Mr. Scott commended Tim Snellings on his efforts with the solar energy ordinance. The large parcel areas of Butte Valley were never a 20-acre minimum area. The County should reconsider the arbitrary zoning in Butte Valley. AgriTourism brings value to the area. Water resources must drive development. Water resources were not considered in Butte Valley zoning plan. The 40-acre minimum designations are arbitrary and not based on science to evaluate the aquifer. Butte Valley Coalition position is that no new 40-acre parcels should be created. The area should be a 160-acre minimum. Butte Co Farm Bureau requested 80-acre minimums on prime farm that have ground water. Increasing wells in the area will deplete the shallow aquifer in Butte Valley. Until we know how sustainable the aquifer is, it should be 160-acre minimums. Commissioner Kennedy asked what size parcel he lives on. Mr. Scott answered that he owns the last 5 acre parcel in Butte Valley. Commissioner Becker asked if Gunn’s property should be 160-acre minimums? John Scott – yes. Jim Stephens – representing the Habib property. He supports a 20-acre designation. He understands arguments about the water supply. Streamlining should remain as they were, leaving the designations at 20-acres. At the time of subdividing, they can evaluate the water status. He also stressed that CC&R’s allow grazing. Sean Horning – bought land in 1988. The existing zoning is Unclassified, with a 20-acre minimum parcel size, to A-5. ¾ of property is in Williamson Act but a few months away from rolling out. Since they are months away from being out of the act – can the proposed zoning change? There is a development agreement on the Pentz and he was told this agreement is unperformable. The Williams Road area is changing to a 160 and 320-acre minimum area. Mr. Breedon stated that staff will look at the request and provide a review at the next meeting.

Mary Bailey – 31 year resident of Butte Valley. The needs of the few cannot outweigh the needs of the many. There is a water scarcity issue. Her well has gone down and nitrate level has gone up. She had to deepen her well. The needs of the many are those that are currently living there and those that may live there in the future. The corner of Durham Pentz and Clark Road is the heart of Butte County and Butte Valley. Any development at that location is a growth inducing impact. Marcia Abram – Kimshew Cemetery District. The district operates four active historic cemeteries and several inactive cemeteries and burial sites. In late 1990’s purchased land and donated land from Sierra Pacific. Kimshew would like to expand some of their facilities. Support staff recommendation for changes to zoning to support their cemeteries. (10 minute Break) With not further comment, Chair Harrel closes the Public Comment section of the agenda. Planning Commission and Staff Discussion of Recommendations Regarding the Second Draft Zoning Map Bangor Area 2 David Daily request – AG-20 to AG-80 Commissioner Nelson motion to approve, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 Berry Creek Area 5– Keiser request for change from General Commercial to Community Commercial zone Commissioner Nelson motion to support Keiser request, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 Catherine Clay Area 6 – TM to FR-40. Staff does not support. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff, Chair Harrel second. Discussion: Commissioner Becker – is it logical for development, slope, access? Mr. Breedon indicated that the proposal for FR is not a logical pattern for development as this is a very large parcel of land and FR is not prevalent in this area. Chair Harrel Wilson – what is the topography, does it support timber? Mr. Breedon – yes. Commissioner Nelson – this is a timber area and large parcels. Mr. Breedon stated that this proposal does not meet criteria for a correction. It would require a General Plan change.

Commissioner Kennedy – is there any commercial? Commissioner Becker – they are not asking for commercial Vote: 4-0 Butte Creek Canyon Area 23 and Area 7 – Centerville road area combined with McGie parcel Area 23 Ag 20 to Ag 40 Commissioner Nelson – move to affirm past recommendation amend motion to include McGie, Commissioner Becker second Commissioner Kennedy asked for clarification of the request. Vote: 3-1 (Kennedy dissent) Staff Recommended Corrections Clark Road VLDR 1 to VLDR 2.5 Area 18; AG-20 to AG-40 (Directed by Planning Commission on September 30, 2010) . Chair Harrel – are there many 1 acre parcels? Mr. Breedon – approximately 30% are in 1 acre size; input from Butte Valley community at the meeting for a higher parcel size in the area from 1 to 2.5. Staff supports change. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 Area 19, east of Clark road to Ag 40 including Clayton Gunn Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation and reaffirm the previous Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Kennedy does not agree in changing someone’s property and noted that a water evaluation could be required at the time of application. Commissioner Becker – clarified that Area 19 is at 40 acres. Commissioner Becker second. Vote 3-1 (Kennedy – no) Dunlap Area 8. Staff supports change. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Becker, second. Vote: 4-0 Retzer Area 9 – 3 parcels (near Williams Area 9) AG-160 to AG-40. Commissioner Nelson motion, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0

Habib Area 17. Staff supports AG-40 (As previously directed by the Planning Commission on September 30, 2010) Commissioner Nelson – motion to support staff recommendation, second Kennedy Vote: 4-0 Staff Does Not Recommend Support Hillary Hight Area 20– AG-160 to AG-20; staff supports 40. Commissioner Nelson motion to support AG-40; Kennedy second. Vote: 4-0 Clayton Gunn Area 22 northeast corner of Durham Pentz Road AG-40 to AG-20; staff supports AG-40 Commissioner Nelson motion to support AG-40. Discussion Chair Wilson asks if the property owner can request a zone change at any time. Mr. Breedon – yes. Commissioner Nelson, this was once considered a study area, the 40-acre designation keeps the land for the future consideration when it is appropriate, not now. There is no infrastructure to support this request. Chair Wilson – second Vote: 4-0 Lana Gunn Area 22 – 1377 ac area, 7 parcels. Request AG-20, staff does not support. Commissioner Becker – does not support 20’s but does support a 160 not a 320. Commissioner Nelson – confirm statement to turn 320 to 160 Commissioner Becker – does not support 320 in general. Commissioner Nelson – considers 320 to be appropriate at this time Commissioner Kennedy – three properties being lumped together? Asks for clarification of the proposal. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation Commissioner Kennedy – does not support AG-20 Chair Wilson – second Commissioner Becker, can I make another motion regarding to change the 320 to 160? Mr. Breedon clarified that this is the Butte Valley area only. Commissioner Becker – yes on this motion. Commissioner Becker noted that he would like to make another motion after the vote. Vote: 4-0

Commissioner Becker: motion that the AG-320 south of Pentz, both sides of Clark, north of Highway 70, north of Highway 149, designated as AG-160, Kennedy second. Vote: 2-2 (Nelson and Wilson dissent); motion fails Mr. Breedon, this concludes morning session. Chair Wilson – Break for Lunch until 1:00 pm. Noon Lunch Break (1 Hour) Afternoon Session: Second Draft Zoning Map Requests and Corrections for Chico, Cohasset, Concow/Yankee Hill, and Dayton Areas Staff Overview of Requests and Corrections set forth in the Staff Report. Questions from the Planning Commission Commissioner Kennedy – Chico map question, Lando, Kromer. Why does the Greenline go there? Mr. Breedon gave some background on the Board of Supervisors direction to change the Greenline in the General Plan 2030 process. Mr. Breedon provided clarification of the map and designations on the map. Commissioner Kennedy regarding the Lando property that is zoned Ag. Is that where Eaton Road will come out when it is extended? Mr. Breedon – it could be. Butte County does not have any plans for that in the County General Plan. Commissioner Nelson, this extension has been discussed by the City of Chico for many years. Commissioner Kennedy, why does the Greenline go there? Mr. Breedon - the Board was deliberate about the change in the Greenline in this area. Commissioner Nelson, questions asked to confirm the designations on the map. Mr. Breedon gave a description of the designation and examples of parcel sizes.

Public Comment Jim Mann – Rural Consulting Associates. Representing William E. Ralph with 13 parcels. Will T Road. Five and ten acre in size. This is not an agricultural area. It is small ranchettes. He expressed concerned and cannot understand proposed designation. Project was filed in 2002 and waiting for things to move forward. This is not AG-160. Does not make sense to place large zoning on small parcels. Commissioner Nelson – how big are the smaller lots? They are already existing. Mr. Breedon the smaller lots are roughly 10 acres and 5 acres in that area. Mr. Breedon apologized that request was not in the packet, but we will take it forward for the Planning Commission at the next meeting Commissioner Becker – what is request? Jim Mann – would like at least AG-20. Nelson, they would still be non-conforming lots. Jim Mann – you can’t do lot line adjustments; there will be other things. Commissioner Becker – don’t understand the difference if it is 20 or 160 if they are still non-conforming. Mr. Mann – 20 sounds better than 160. Commissioner Kennedy - how does rezoning affect legal lots? Mr. Breedon – the minimum parcel size does not affect any of the permitted uses on a lot that is non-conforming in size. It only affects the ability to split land. Commissioner Becker – are there any parcels larger than 160 in that area? Mr. Breedon – yes. Don Swartz – property south of Chico, 28. USDA says that smaller agricultural parcels are increasing. Larger size zoning hurts agriculture in Butte County. This property has never been in the Williamson Act. Suggestions have been made today that changing zoning might be easy – that’s not the case. Mr. Swartz gave the example of a parcel map in process for ten years and it is still not before the Commission. Minimum parcel sizes in residential areas make sense. There is no benefit to the County or property owner for any parcel. Commissioner Kennedy – what is the property currently zoned? Mr. Swartz – the property is zoned Unclassified.

Commissioner Kennedy – what kind of agriculture is on this property? Mr. Swartz - there is winter grazing cattle and two bee operations. Commissioner Becker – does the City of Chico have any plans for this property, is it in their sphere? Mr. Swartz – it is not in their sphere. Commissioner Becker – is the area around landfill a 20-acre zone? Mr. Breedon – yes, there is a 2000’ area around landfill. Commissioner Becker – does it restrict residential? Mr. Breedon, yes. The designation encourages compatible uses with the landfill. Chair Wilson - is there a parcel map in process on this property? Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager - yes a nine-lot parcel map. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue of the parcel map that had been filed and had several questions for staff on the review of that map. Bob Kromer, request to split parcel his parcel into four lots. One way is to create a 2.5 Rural Residential zoning in the triangle where his property exists. He stated that his was the only residential property on the agricultural side of the greenline. Commissioner Nelson - we would go from 2.5 acre designation to a 40-acre designation on the adjacent property. Kromer – the previous zoning was 5-acre. Commissioner Nelson asked if we would have to make a recommendation for a general plan change? Mr. Breedon - the General Plan 2030 RR designation is minimum of 5 acres. A new zone of RR-2.5 would require an amendment to the General Plan. This could be added to a list of fixes – whether this is a fix is up to the Planning Commission and Board. Commissioner Kennedy – is there a RR 2.5 anywhere else in the County? Kromer – There is a VLDR 2.5. Mr. Breedon, this was a simpler fix because the General Plan 2030P VLDR allows a range down to 1 acre. So, a 2.5 VLDR did not require a General Plan amendment. Bill Kutz - South of Oroville area 51. Found a mistake and staff has recommended MHD zone to expand mobilehome park. He supports the staff recommendation.

dbreedon

Highlight

Mr. Breedon - this is in the south Las Plumas area of Oroville with an existing mobilehome park. Bruce McClintock – Area 25 involves 91 parcels, 1,068 acres. 90% of the parcels are under 20 acres in size. He farmed this area in the 1960’s. He would like to provide a rebuttal to the staff analysis. There needs to be common sense – consistency with the area. This is not the same as Chico area 1. The total number of parcels would not be increased by much. The area is almost gone for the ability to actively farm with the existing restrictions and requirements for setbacks on agricultural sprays. He stated that the Agricultural Commissioner did not have a problem with the A-20 on this property. There is some influence from the City on this. This area makes an excellent buffer until you get to Meridian Road and the town of Nord. The area is not in the Williamson act. Bill Brouhard - Special Plan area 9. This is the Doe Mill area of 1440 acres. The site is unique from other areas today. The County has adopted General Plan as prime growth area. It is past the environmental questionnaire. There is proximity to existing roadways, topography and adjacent development. He disagrees with staff analysis. The proposed zoning would make it possible to parcel into 8 parcels. A full project on this site could get approved but referended by the voters. Grazing does not pay for one-third of the taxes. He provided an example of a horse-ranch on 20-acres that provides more economic benefit than this entire property. Somehow this proposal is to down-zone the property to 8 parcels. Underlying zoning does not prevent the ability to pursue a specific plan. If a project does not get approved or gets turned over, we ought to have some reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Nelson - the County recognizes that this is an area for a project but come up with a plan. Without a plan, it is nothing but grazing land. That is what it should be without a plan. The area should grow as an urban area. 20-acres zone is not appropriate for this location. Commissioner Becker - does it make sense to change 320 to 160 or 80? What is the purpose of smaller parcels? Mr. Brouhard, there are areas that should not have development. We can sit down with staff for a modified recommendation. John Starr - owns 3 acres on Kelly ridge that was originally commercial. In 1989 zoning changed without notification. There were plans for 11 condos with commercial up front. This is a prime location for condos. He would like commercial for a small shopping center. Mr. Breedon - suggests a request in the record with a parcel number for the Planning Commission to consider on August 25.

(10 minute Break) Bruce McClintock, large parcels ties your hands. This is regarding the area west of 99, north of Chico to the river. A lot of 320 and 80’s in this area will drive the family farmers out of business. This creates problems for financing and estate planning. Forty acres is still a viable size for agriculture. This does not make sense. The General Plan contains guidelines to support agriculture. Colleen Cecil - Butte County Farm Bureau. Stated that there is difficulty of farmers getting into agriculture. A 20-acre parcel is no longer just an agriculture parcel. This size creates competition for non-farmers that want to build a house as a ranchette instead of actively farming the property. The 2010 crop report state that there was $622 Million to Butte County economy. Agricultural land is important and support County’s efforts to protect this. Commissioner Becker – what is Farm Bureau’s position on the 320-acre designation? Ms. Cecil – the focus of discussion was on the minimum parcel size in the General Plan. There are differing opinions among the members. The Farm Bureau recommends an 80-acre minimum on agricultural ground. The top number was not addressed. Closed Public Comment Planning Commission and Staff Discussion of Recommendations Regarding the Second Draft Zoning Map McClintock - Area 25 Request for AG-20 zoning. Staff does not support request. Commissioner Becker supports McClintock request for 20’s No second Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Kennedy, second. Vote: 3-1 (Becker dissent) Don Brown - Area 26 request from AG-160 to Ag 40. Staff does not support Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Kennedy, second. Vote: 4-0 Northstar - Area 26 request north of Brown’s request east of Cohasset Bruce Roe A-160 to A-20. staff does not recommend

Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Kennedy, second. Vote: 4-0 Brouhard - Area 27 request for AG-20. Staff does not support. Commissioner Becker requests more discussion with applicant and staff table for next meeting? Suggests some discussion for alternatives to 20’s but thinks the 320-acre minimum is excessive. Commissioner Kennedy motioned to change the minimum parcel size of 320 and 160 size to 80-acre minimums, Commissioner Becker second. Vote: 4-0 Don Swartz - Area 28 request for AG-20. Staff does not support. Commissioner Becker motion to change to AG-80, Commissioner Kennedy, second. Vote: 4-0 Nina Lambert - Area 29 request from AG-40 to for 2.5 or 5-acre designation. Staff does not support. Commissioner Becker motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Kennedy second Vote: 4-0 Tom Lando - Area 30 request to change the Agricultural designation to an Urban Reserve. Staff does not support. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Kennedy second Vote: 4-0 Forman and Kromer - Area 31. Staff does not support. Commissioner Nelson motion to change Greenline, if necessary, and change zoning to VLDR-2.5 on that area currently zoned RR-5 north of Bell and Muir Road, Commissioner Kennedy second. Vote: 4-0 Cana Partners - Area 32. Staff does not support. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 3-1 (Kennedy dissent) East of Cohasset - Area 33 TM to FR-40. Staff recommended Commissioner Nelson motion, Commissioner Becker second Vote:4-0

dbreedon

Highlight

Concow/Yankee Hill Area Pyles - Area 34. Staff recommended. Commissioner Nelson motion, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 Pit – Area 35. Staff does not support. Commissioner Nelson motion to support staff recommendation, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 Dayton Area - Area 36. Staff recommends a correction. Commissioner Nelson motion, Commissioner Becker second Vote: 4-0 This concludes the afternoon session. Mr. Breedon gave a reminder about the next meeting dates and times. There was additional discussion about the timing of the Planning Commission recommendation presentation to the Board of Supervisors. Meeting adjourned.

Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneralplan.net TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors FROM: Tim Snellings, Director Butte County Department of Development Services SUBJECT: Additional Requests for Changes in Zoning/General Plan

Designations DATE: December 12, 2011 Supplementing the Board of Supervisors December 13, 2011 Agenda Report includes the following additional requests received from individual landowners on the Third Draft Zoning Ordinance Map, since the distribution of the Agenda Report. For each request staff provides a description, staff analysis and recommendation. 1. Kromer -Bell Muir Extension Area On August 18, 2011, acting on a request from Bob Kromer, the Planning Commission recommended, on a 4-0 vote, to change zoning on a portion of the Bell Muir area north of Bell and Muir Roads from Rural Residential to Very Low Density Residential-2.5. In their motion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Chico Area Greenline be moved to include this area only if it was necessary to accommodate this change. Staff does not find that it is necessary to move the Greenline to accommodate this recommendation. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.4 states the following: LU-P13.4 Allow Rural Residential land uses on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline only within those areas designated for Rural Residential use on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map shown in Figure LU-6.

1

dbreedon

Highlight

In reviewing this Policy, staff discovered an error related to the term “Rural Residential” used within the policy. In place of Rural Residential, the previous General Plan policy used the term “Agriculture Residential”. That term has been discontinued under the new General Plan. However, staff finds that substituting Rural Residential in place of Agriculture Residential to be an error. The Agriculture Residential General Plan designation allowed minimum parcel sizes of 1 to 40 acres. To be consistent with this approach staff recommends that this particular General Plan Policy be corrected to Very Low Density Residential (VLDR), in addition to Rural Residential, since the VLDR designation allows parcel sizes down to a minimum of 1-acre. The correction of this policy would allow for the VLDR designation in this area as recommended by the Planning Commission, without moving the Chico Area Greenline. It is important to note that this policy does not allow additional changes to land use designations on the Agriculture side of the Greenline (e.g., Agriculture to Very Low Density Residential), it only directs that those areas so designated on the General Plan map at the time of its approval be allowed. There is another area designated VLDR on the Agriculture side of the Greenline in the Dayton Road/Stanley Avenue area. The correction to the General Plan policy would also serve to recognize the VLDR designation in this area as well. 2. Braunagel, APN: 071-410-018 Patrick and JoAnn Braunagel request a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to Foothill Residential-40 (40-acre minimum parcels size). The property is located in the Berry Creek area, east of and adjacent to the Oro-Quincy Highway (SR-162) and is approximately 28 acres in size. This property is located in an area of residential uses, Foothill Residential zoned lands lie to the east and south. It is located in Critical Deer Wintering Range under the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay, which would require a 40-acre minimum parcel size. Staff therefore supports a change from Timber Mountain to Foothill Residential-40 (FR-40). 3. Caput, APN: 004-520-027 & 004-520-012 William Caput requests a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) to General Commercial. The property is located in the South Chico area, at southeast corner of Pomona Avenue and Miller Avenue and is approximately 5-acre in size. The property is developed with two single-family dwellings served by on-site sewage disposal system. The property is located within the City of Chico Sphere of Influence and is located on the urban side of the Chico Area Greenline. City of Chico jurisdiction lies adjacent to the parcels north and east property lines. Lands designated Agriculture Services lie to the south and an established residential neighborhood of quarter-acre and 1-acre lots lies to the west, with a single developed residential lot in the southwest corner.

2

dbreedon

Highlight

dbreedon

Highlight

Mr. Caput indicates that it is his desire to develop a multi-family residential housing complex (14 units per acre) as well as a restaurant and bar with outdoor sports activities. In accordance with General Plan policy, Development Services staff consulted with City of Chico staff concerning this proposal. City of Chico staff indicates that this property is identified as an “Opportunity Site”, allowing Medium Density Residential Development (7.1 – 14 units/acre). Due to the site’s proximity to CSU Chico and Downtown, it presents an opportunity for increased residential densities. The City indicated that new development within this site would need to be compatible with commercial agriculture operations to the south, with a minimum 100-foot wide physical separation between agricultural uses and any habitable structure. The City’s General Plan, which represents the City's land use policy framework, supports a higher density residential use at the proposed location, but does not support a commercial use. The City’s and County’s review of this proposal was limited to the proposed change in zoning since no additional project details such as a site plan or other project details have been made available. Development Services staff also discussed the need to provide sewer service, particularly for the intensive uses proposed. Development Services staff discussed sewer service connections with City staff, and the City indicated that although a sewer service agreement could be provided to this location, such an agreement would go hand-in-hand with an annexation process. Thus, except for uses that could rely upon an on-site sewage disposal system, annexation to the City of Chico would be necessary to achieve the proposed development. Since the City of Chico’s General Plan supports multi-family development at a 14 dwelling unit/acre density, staff supports the change to General Commercial, which also allows for multi-family dwelling at a 14 units/acre density. This area is very close to many urban services and the downtown Chico area, and provides an opportunity for increased residential densities. Mr. Caput was advised that development of this site, however, would require annexation to the City, since the County does not provide sewer service. Mr. Caput was also advised of the several challenges to site development including providing an adequate buffer from the agricultural services uses located to the south, receiving sewer and water service connections from the city and local water provider, buffering residential uses to the west across Miller Avenue and adjacent to the south and east, and applying for and receiving annexation to the City of Chico. Mr. Caput was also advised that the city might not ultimately allow a commercial use such as a restaurant, since this use is not supported by their General Plan at this location. Should the Board wish to limit development to just the residential portion of Mr. Caput’s request (and thus be consistent with the City’s General Plan), staff would recommend a Medium High Density Residential designation and zone, which would not allow a commercial use. However, the County is not obligated to be

3

consistent with the City of Chico General Plan. Development Services staff supports the request, a General Commercial designation and zone is therefore recommended by staff. 4. Chandra, APN: 073-310-039 Dhirendra Chandra requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential to Community Commercial. The property is located in the community of Forbestown, southwest and adjacent to the intersections of Forbestown Road and the Challenge Cut-off Road. The property is approximately 1.3 acres in size. Rural Residential uses lie adjacent to this parcel in all directions. Mr. Chandra indicates that the property was once used as a restaurant and bar, which is not currently operating and he would like to re-establish the use to provide a service to the surrounding community. During the General Plan 2030 process, Development Services worked to identify many of the small commercial uses that serve foothill and mountain communities and provide the appropriate zoning necessary to support commercial uses. The Community Commercial zone was created specifically for rural areas, to provide zoning that would support small retail uses as well as provide a residential component for an owner/operator. The site does have a structure that has been shuttered, which appears to have been used for a business. Development Services staff therefore supports the request for Commercial (GP)/Community Commercial (Zoning). 5. Clifford, APN: 066-470-017 John Clifford requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential to Community Commercial. This property is located in Magalia, at the intersection of Skyway and Coutolenc Road, and includes the Magalia Train Depot. Mr. Clifford plans on restoring this building and to reopen as a restaurant and catering facility. Development Services supports this request and finds that the previous Community Commercial zoning was not carried forward into the new Draft Zoning Map. Staff recommends that this error be fixed and that the Draft Map be amended to include a Community Commercial zone to cover the area that Mr. Clifford will purchase from the Union Pacific Railroad. 6. Evans/Martens, 041-320-019, -023, -024, -025 Mike Evans requests a change in zoning from AG-160 to AG-20 for four parcels totaling 336 acres. This property is located in the Butte Valley area, north of SR-70 and east of Pentz Road, near the Pentz Road and SR-70 intersection. A similar request for one of the parcels (APN: 041-320-023) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2011, and was not recommended for approval. Staff recommends against AG-20 zoning and for these parcels to remain zoned AG-160. One of the parcels is over 200 acres in size and it is appropriate to retain larger parcels such as this one to protect its viability for agricultural uses. These properties are also located in 40-acre Critical Deer

4

Wintering Range, pursuant to the Migratory Deer Herd Overlay. Should the Board wish to support a smaller agricultural subzone, staff recommends that it be no smaller than 40-acres (AG-40) to be consistent with the Deer Herd Overlay. 7. Foster, APNs: See list below. Holly Foster submitted a request on behalf of Robert and Nancy Foster for changes in Draft Zoning for 11 individual parcels as set-forth below. The majority of these items are for a request to change from an AG-160 to an AG-80 zone and are located in the Butte Valley area. Other requests in Butte Valley include a change in zoning from VLDR 2.5 to Agriculture; Resource Conservation to Agriculture; AG-160 to AG-40; and, an additional parcel located in the Philbrook Reservoir area from a Timber Mountain zone to an FR-40 zone. Development Services staff reviewed Ms. Foster’s request for compliance with Williamson Act Contracts. Eight of the parcels located within or near Butte Valley are under Williamson Act Contracts for a Grazing use, which requires a minimum parcels size of 160-acres. The AG-160 zone was recommended for these parcels due to the parcel’s large sizes and for consistency with the Williamson Act. The AG-160 zone was additionally recommended by staff and the Planning Commission to ensure the viability of agricultural practices such as grazing into the future, consistent with General Plan policy. One of the parcels is proposed for a Resource Conservation zone (APN: 041-090-004) under the Draft Zoning. Development Services staff concurs with the request that this parcel receive an Agriculture designation and AG-160 zone, similar to surrounding parcels. Ms. Foster points out that the Planning Commission made recommendations to change neighboring parcels from AG-160 to AG-80, (Staff Note: specifically the Preservation Partners landholdings, Horning). It would therefore be appropriate for the Board to consider the Foster’s request for eight parcels for AG-80 zoning, and the one parcel requested for AG-40 zoning in light of the other Planning Commission recommendations for the Preservation Partners landholdings. It should be brought to the attention of the Board that the Planning Commission has previously recommended changes to zoning that was not consistent with Williamson Act contracts (AG-160 to FR-40 in the Forest Ranch area), against staff recommendations. The Board may wish to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations concerning the Williamson Act, when considering the Foster request for AG-80 and AG-40 zoning. With regard to the smaller 0.86-acre property (041-400-012) which was the site of the Clear Creek Schoolhouse, staff finds that it would be appropriate to zone this parcel consistently with the surrounding zoning, which is all AG-160.

5

Staff does not support the change in proposed zoning for the parcel (APN: 060-070-018) located in the Philbrook Reservoir area, from a Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to an FR-40 zone. This area is surrounded by mountainous timberland and a Foothill Residential or other zoning that would support a 40-acre minimum parcel size would be inconsistent with the General Plan for this area. Staff provides a recommendation for each of the requests made by the Fosters set forth below (The requests are provided from the Fosters letter, attached): AP 041-400-012-000 (.86 acres) Previously zoned as AR 2-1/2; Proposed GP 2030 zoning VLDR – 2.5. Request this .86-acre parcel is the site where the Clear Creek Schoolhouse stood and should be zoned as Agriculture to be consistent with the surrounding parcel that is Agriculture and is currently in the Williamson Act. Staff Recommendation: Support change to AG-160 zone. AP 041-410-008-000 (78.61 acres) Previously zoned as AR 2-1/2; Proposed GP 2030 zoning – AG-160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding zoning. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-110-077-000 (296.08 acres) Previously zoned as Unclassified; Proposed GP 2030 zoning – AG-160. Request that this parcel be zoned as Agriculture 80-acre minimums to be more consistent with surrounding zoning. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-400-013-000 (73.53 acres) Previously zoned as AR 2-1/2; Proposed GP 2030 zoning – AG-160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding zoning. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-080-018-000 (38.59 acres) Previously zoned as AG Unclassified; Proposed GP 2030 zoning – AG-160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding zoning.

6

Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-130-052-000 (298.82 acres) Previously zoned as AG Unclassified; Proposed GP 2030 zoning – AG 160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding parcels. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-130-036-000 (407.05 acres) Previously zoned A-5; Proposed GP 2030 zoning AG-160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with Planning Commission recommendations for surrounding parcels. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-100-003-000 (82.27 acres) Previously zoned Unclassified; Proposed GP 2030 zoning A-160 Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 to be more consistent with Planning Commission recommendations for surrounding parcels. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 041-090-004-000 (593.15 acres) Previously zoned Foothill Recreational; Proposed GP 2030 zoning RC. Request that this parcel be zoned AG-80 as it has 1) been used in a cattle grazing ranch that has been in continuous operation since 1888, 2) is currently subject to a Williamson Act Contract, parcels. Staff Recommendation: Support. AP 041-080-045-000 (213.57 acres) Previously zoned Foothill Recreational, 40 acre minimum; Proposed GP 2030 zoning AG-160. Request that this parcel be zoned AG-40 to 1) Account for the negative impact that surrounding development has had on the usefulness of this parcel for a grazing operation within the last 20 years, and 2) be more consistent with surrounding zoning. (This parcel is not contiguous to the rest of the Robert Foster Ranch and due to the impact of traffic accidents, trespassers, and vandals on the maintenance of the perimeter livestock fence, the liability has become excessive due to the risk of cattle entering Clark Road in spite of the landowner’s best

7

attempts to maintain the fences. This parcel is adjacent to the Paradise Airport and is currently subject to a Williamson Act contract. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. An AG-80 zone will be inconsistent with 160-acre Williamson Act Contract minimum. AP 060-070-018-000 This 97-acre parcel is part of a historical grazing operation (Colman Camp/Coon Hollow). The majority of the private ground was sold to Fish and Game in the 1970s and 1980s. Some grazing rights were maintained (that our family currently pay taxes on, but is unable to utilize due to regulatory restrictions). This parcel is the location of two cabins built in the 1920s and 1930s that are located on the east side of the property, and is bounded on the east by the West Branch of the Feather River. This parcel was previously zoned TM-40 and has been proposed to TM with 160 acre minimums in the General Plan 2030. The parcel is bisected by the Humbug Summit Road (far north end of the Skyway beyond the Philbrook turnoff), and the property owners rarely access the western side of the property. The timber rights are owned by Sierra Pacific Industries (purchased from Diamond Match Company in 1992) and immediately south of this parcel are several cabin properties on small lots of one acre. Request that this property be zoned at 40-acre minimums as it was a previously with a zoning designation that still allows for appropriate timber harvest in the area. As indicated, the parcel, which is less than 160 acres, is bisected by the Humbug Summit Road and the previous zoning of 40 acre minimums did not negatively impact past timber harvest operations. The property owners have corresponded with Sierra Pacific Industries (Brian Wayland, Stirling City Office), and the company has no objection to this request. Staff Recommendation: Not recommended. The area is mountainous timber land and the Timber Mountain designation is consistent with the General Plan for this area.

8

¬«32

W East Ave

Bell Rd

Nord Ave

Muir A

veBay Ave

Guynn AveRodeo Ave

Alamo Ave

Henshaw Ave

Carmack DrCatherine Ct

Jones AveLegacy L

n

Churchill Dr

Newport Dr

Bell Ct

Silver Lake Dr

Lori Dr

Sandy Cove Dr

Willow Bend Dr

Meier Dr

Aloha Ln

Indigo

Ln

Sheltering Oak Ct

Freigh

t Ln

Rebecca Ct

Chantel Way

Carpers Ct

Frances Dr

Roxbury Ct

Shadygrove Ct Elkwood Ct

Bell Estates Dr

Leland Ct

Tandy Ct

Abbot Cir

Langel CtDead End Ct

Middle Creek Ct

Santiago Ct

Rege

nt Ln

Jordan

s Pl

Breanna Ln

Kromer -Bell Muir Extension

9

¬«162

Oro Q

uincy

Hwy

Bell Ranc

h Rd

Canyon Creek RdNorth

fork R

d

Forem

an Cree

k Rd

Old Swayne RdRatchel Mountain Dr

Braland Pl

Little

Ridg

e RdSunday Dr

Scho

ns D

r

Laysier Pl

Sycamore Creek Dr

Braunagel, APN 071-410-018Timber Mountain to FR-40

10

¬«32

Dayto

n Rd

Oak St

W 5th St

W 7th St

Miller

Ave

Pomona Ave

W 4th St

W 3rd St

Chico River Rd

Ash StSanta Clara Ave Hickory St

Cedar St

North

grave

s Ave

Pomo

na Ln

W 6th St

Hahn Ln

Butte Ave

Almon

d St W 9th S

t

Sierrawest D

r

W 8th St

Maple St

McIntosh Ave

Camper Ln

Hickory St

Caput, APN: 004-520-027 & 004-520-012Very Low Density Res. to General Commercial

11

Forbestown Rd

Challenge Cut-off Rd

Big Fir Rd

Forbestown Rd

Buckeye

DrWalden Pond Ln

Kirsty

Cres

cent

Rd

Chandra, APN: 073-310-039Rural Residential to Community Commercial

12

Skyw

ay

New Skyway

Coutolenc Rd

Indian Dr

Glover

Ln

Ishi Dr

Granada Dr

Blair Ln

Dogtown Rd

Eley Dr

Pine Needle Dr

Sugar Pine DrGilfillan DrCanyon Dr

Rue Rosso

Bader Mine Rd Yahi Ct

Sioux Ct

Rorabough Ln

Depot Ln

Clifford, APN: 066-470-017Rural Residential to Community Commercial

13

¬«70

Pentz Rd

Cherokee Rd

Rockytop Rd

Cond

or Rd

Red Eye Rd

Lwr G

ulch R

d

Rich Gulch Rd

Smith Hill Ln

Sunv

iew R

d

Suel Dr

Trevor RdTruex Rd

Vinton G

ulch Rd

Hidden Mine RdMortar Rock Rd

Patterson Ln

Crys

tal Pi

nes R

d

Lime Saddle Rec Rd Explorer Trl

Miocene CirTrevor Rd

Evans/Martens, APN: 041-320-019, -023, -024, -025AG-160 to AG-20

14

¬«70

¬«191

¬«99¬«149

¬«99

Neal Rd

Durham-Pentz Rd

Pentz Rd

Skyway

Whee

lock R

d

Foster - Butte Valley ParcelsAG-160 and RC to AG-80, AG-40

15

¬«191

Addys Ln

Dulcinea Dr Lehi Ln

Echo Mt. Dr

Adobe Ln

Rattlesnake Flat Rd

Steamboat Rock Rd

Hidden Valley Rd

Yellow

Pine

Way

Minn

er Mt

Rd

Adell Ln

Jecosa Ln

Foster -Clear Creek School House SiteAPN: 041-400-012

VLDR 2.5 to AG-160

16

Skyway

Humboldt Rd

Foster - Philbrook Res. ParcelAPN: 060-070-018

Timber Mountain to FR40

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneralplan.net TO: All Interested Parties FROM: Tim Snellings, Director Butte County Department of Development Services SUBJECT: Brief Summary of Board Actions – December 13, 2011 Board of

Supervisors Meeting on Draft Zoning Map DATE: December 16, 2011 On December 13, 2011, the Board of Supervisors accepted the Planning Commission recommendations for the Draft Zoning Map, incorporating additional changes as directed by the Board and directed that staff proceed with the preparation and completion of a Supplementary Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Draft Zoning Map. The brief summary set forth below provides all direction from the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Zoning Map. The Board acted separately on the Text of Parts 1 through 7 of the Draft Zoning Ordinance, which was reviewed on December 6, and December 13, 2011. A separate summary memo will be provided concerning the Board’s direction on the text provided at these meetings.

Board Actions on Third Draft Zoning Map December 13, 2011 1. Draft Zoning Map: Countywide Agriculture Zones and Sub-Zone Designations Board Acton: The Board accepted the Planning Commission’s direction on the Countywide Agriculture Zones and Sub-Zones, and directed the following actions: All AG-320 zones EAST and WEST of SR-99, SR-149 and SR-70 (up to the

junction with SR-149) were directed to change to AG-160. All AG-160 zones WEST of SR-99, SR-149 and SR-70 (up to the junction with

SR-149) were directed to change to AG-80 (excluding parcels recommended to be rezoned from AG-320 to AG-160), regardless of Williamson Act Contract size limitation.

2. Individual Requests for Changes to Draft Zoning Map Not Supported by the Planning Commission For the each of the Areas identified below (Areas 1 through 28, refer to the attached Exhibit Map entitled “Third Draft Zoning Ordinance Map, Requests Not Supported by the Planning Commission”) Berry Creek Clay (Area 1) Katherine Clay requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to FR-40 (40-acre minimum parcel size) on a 134 (+/-) acre parcel. Board Action: Approved. Evans (Area 2) Mike Evans requests a change in zoning from FR-40 to FR-5 for 6 parcels about ½ mile west of the Oro-Quincy Highway. Board Action: Not approved.

Evans (Area 3, Simmons Road Area) Mike Evans requests a change in zoning from FR-40 to FR-20 for 60 parcels located in the Simmons Road area of Berry Creek to be consistent with their predominant size. Board Action: Not approved. Butte Valley Gunn, Lana (Area 4) Lana Gunn requests a correction to seven parcels totaling approximately 1,377-acres located near SR-191 and Durham Pentz Road zoned variously from AG-40, AG-160, and AG-320. Ms. Gunn requests A-20 zoning. Board Action: Not approved. Gunn, Clayton (Area 5) Clayton Gunn requested a correction from the Planning Commission’s September 30, 2010 recommendation to zone this parcel AG-40 (located on the northeast corner of Durham-Pentz Road and SR-191). Mr. Gunn requests AG-20 zoning. Board Action: Not approved. Evans (Area 6) Mike Evans requested a change from AG-160 to AG-20 on a 38-acre parcel adjacent to SR-70. Board Action: Approved for AG-40, including 3 parcels total (APNs: 041-320-024; 041-320-023; 041-320-019) Evans (Area 7) Mike Evans requested a change from AG-40 to AG-20 on a 36 (+/-) acre parcel south of and adjacent to Durham Pentz Road, west of Cassandra Drive. Board Action: Approved. Cherokee Evans (Area 8, Potter Ravine Road Area) Mike Evans requests a change in zoning from FR-40 to FR-20 for 25 parcels located in the Potter Ravine Road area east of Cherokee to be consistent with their predominant size. Board Action: Approved.

Chico McClintock (Area 9) Bruce McClintock provides a requests a change from AG-80 to AG-20 for 91 parcels totaling approximately 1,068 acres in size located northwest of and adjacent to Mud Creek, and southwest of the Esplanade. Board Action: Approved. Brown(Area 10) Don Brown requests a change in zoning from AG-160 to AG-40 on a 100-acre parcel located on the end of Thorntree Road, east of Cohasset Road in the north Chico area. Board Action: Approved. NorthStar Engineering (Area 11) NorthStar Engineering, on behalf landowner Bruce Roe, requests a change in zoning from AG-160 to AG-20 on a 70 (+/-) acre parcel, located in the same general vicinity as the Don Brown request (above), about 200 feet east of Cohasset Road. Board Action: Approved. Brouhard (Area 12) Bill Brouhard requested AG-20 (Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size) zoning on a 1,448 (+/-) acre area located east of Chico, east of Potter Road. The proposed draft zoning is AG-160 and AG-320. Board Action: Approved. Swartz (Area 13) Don Swartz requested AG-20 zoning on approximately 6,000 acres of property located northeast of and adjacent to SR-99, northwest of and adjacent to Neal Road, and southeast of and adjacent to the Skyway. The originally proposed draft zoning for this area is AG-160 and AG-320. Board Action: Approved for AG-40. Lambert (Area14) Nina Lambert requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from AG-40 to a 2.5 or 5-acre minimum parcels size providing “Agricultural Transitional Zoning” (5-acre minimum parcel size) on two, 20-acre (+/-) parcels, located in the south Chico area Board Action: Not approved.

Lando/Epick Homes (Area 15) Tom Lando requests a reconsideration of the General Plan designation and Draft Zoning of AG-80 from Agriculture to an alternative designation, possibly as an Urban Reserve, on 15 parcels of approximately 185 acres in total size, located southeast of Mud Creek in the northwest Chico area. Board Action: Approved for AG-40. Preservation Partners (Area 16) Sean Horning, representing Preservation Partners, objects to the AG-160 and AG-320 zoning located at Eagle Creek Ranch on land totaling approximately 7,405 acres, and requests AG-20 zoning. Board Action: Approved for AG-40 with Williamson Act Parcels at AG-160 Mann (Area 17) Jim Mann submits a request on behalf of his client William E. Ralph concerning 15 parcels totaling approximately 538 acres located north of Chico and east of SR-99. Mr. Mann objects to the AG-160 zoning under the draft zoning map and requests that it be corrected. Existing zoning in this area consists of A-10 (Agriculture, 10-acre minimum parcel size) and A-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size). Board Action: Approved AG-40 on 047-100-190 and 047-130-183; and AG-20 on previous AG-10 zone area (area of smaller parcels). Cana Partners (Area 18) George Nicolaus of Cana Partners opposes any increase to the minimum parcel size concerning a 120 (+/-) acre parcel located on Hamilton Nord Cana Highway north of Chico, currently zoned AG-40 (Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size). The Third Draft Zoning Map implements AG-80 (Agriculture, 80-acre minimum parcel size) zoning for this parcel and the surrounding larger area. Board Action: Approved AG-40 for all parcels north of Cana Highway between State Route 99 and Hamilton-Nord-Cana Highway. Cohasset Staff (Areas 19 and 20, Kutz and Streeter) Two property owners, Kutz and Streeter requested FR-20 zoning but FR-40 zoning is recommended to be consistent with Deer Wintering Range. Board Action: Not approved.

Concow Pitt (Area 21) Dave and Betty Pitt request a change in draft zoning from FR-40 to FR-20. This property is located in the 40-acre Migratory Deer Herd Range. Board Action: Not approved. Forest Ranch Rath (Area 22) Gerald Rath requests a change from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to AG-20 on a 122 (+/-) acre parcel accessed by Royal Drift Way. Board Action: Approved for FR-20. Gridley Madare (Area 23) Jag Madare requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from AG-40 to Rural Residential (5-acre minimum parcel size) on an 11.9 (+/-) acre parcel located adjacent to Larkin Road near Gridley. Board Action: Not approved. Magalia Simmons & Wells (Area 24) Joyce Simmons and Wilfred Wells request a change in Genera Plan designation and draft zoning necessary to keep the AR.2.5 zoning, which Mr. Wells indicated had been in existence for over two decades. This request would change the draft zoning from Rural Residential (5-acre minimum parcel size) to a Very Low Density Residential 2.5 zone (2.5-acre minimum parcel size) on their parcels located along Nimshew Road in Magalia. Board Action: Not approved. Oroville Mayer (Area 25) Leon Mayer requests a change in Draft Zoning from Mixed Use-1 to Mixed Use-3 on a 35 (+/-) acre parcel located in the eastern Oroville foothills near Miners Ranch Road. Board Action: Approved.

Evans (Area 26, Lake Oroville Country Club) Mike Evans requested a change in zoning for the Lake Oroville Country Club from REC-1 to REC-2 to allow additional development without being subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This request was later withdrawn by Mr. Evans as changes to the REC-1 zone text were made that accommodate minor expansions of existing allowed uses. Board Action: Not approved (see explanation above). Paradise Flournoy and Souci (Areas 27 and 28) These requests involve two parcels of 7.8 acres (Flournoy) and 1.23 acres (Souci) acres locates south of Paradise on Pentz Road. The property owner’s requested a change from FR-20 to FR-1 zoning. Board Action: Not approved. 3. Additional Requests for Changes to Draft Zoning Map Received by Staff For the location of each of the items set forth below, refer to the attached individual exhibit maps. Kromer –Bell Muir Extension Area On August 18, 2011, acting on a request from Bob Kromer, the Planning Commission recommended, on a 4-0 vote, to change zoning on a portion of the Bell Muir area north of Bell and Muir Roads from Rural Residential to Very Low Density Residential-2.5. In their motion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Chico Area Greenline be moved to include this area only if it was necessary to accommodate this change. Staff advised the Board that it was not necessary to move the Greenline to accommodate this recommendation, provided a correction was made to Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.4. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-P13.4 states the following: LU-P13.4 Allow Rural Residential and Very Low Density Residential land uses on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline only within those areas designated for Rural Residential use on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map shown in Figure LU-6. Staff recommended adding the Very Low Density Residential designation to the above policy (as shown), which makes it more consistent with the policy’s original definition. The previous General Plan referred to “Agriculture Residential” which

dbreedon

Highlight

is a discontinued designation under the new General Plan. Agriculture Residential allowed parcels from 1 to 40-acres. Adding Very Low Density Residential to the policy is more consistent with the original Agriculture Residential designation because both allow parcels to a minimum parcel size of 1-acre. Board Action: Approve correction to Policy LU-P13.4, adding Very Low Density Residential as set forth. Braunagel, APN: 071-410-018 Patrick and JoAnn Braunagel requested a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning from Timber Mountain (160-acre minimum parcel size) to Foothill Residential-40 (40-acre minimum parcels size). The property is located in the Berry Creek area, east of and adjacent to the Oro-Quincy Highway (SR-162) and is approximately 28 acres in size. Board Action: Approved. Caput, APN: 004-520-027 & 004-520-012 William Caput requests a change in General Plan designation and draft zoning from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) to Mixed Use-2. The property is located in the South Chico area, at southeast corner of Pomona Avenue and Miller Avenue and is approximately 5-acre in size. Board Action: Approved. Chandra, APN: 073-310-039 Dhirendra Chandra requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential to Community Commercial. The property is located in the community of Forbestown, southwest and adjacent to the intersections of Forbestown Road and the Challenge Cut-off Road. The property is approximately 1.3 acres in size. Board Action: Approved. Clifford, APN: 066-470-017 John Clifford requests a change in General Plan designation and Draft Zoning from Rural Residential to Community Commercial. This property is located in Magalia, at the intersection of Skyway and Coutolenc Road, and includes the Magalia Train Depot. Board Action: Approved.

dbreedon

Highlight

Foster, see individual requests below AP 041-400-012 (.86 acres) Request this .86 acre parcel is the site where the Clear Creek Schoolhouse stood and should be zoned as Agriculture, instead of VLDR to be consistent with the surrounding parcel that is Agriculture and is currently in the Williamson Act. Board Action: Request withdrawn, property to remain at VLDR. AP 041-410-008 (78.61 acres); AP 041-110-077 (296.08 acres); AP 041-400-013-000 (73.53 acres) ; AP 041-080-018 (38.59 acres) Request that these parcels be zoned from AG-160 to AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding zoning. Board Action: Approved. AP 041-130-052-000 (298.82 acres) ; AP 041-130-036 (407.05 acres) Request that these parcels be zoned from AG-160 to AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding parcels. Board Action: Zone north part of 041-130-036 AG-80, leave rest AG-160 and leave 041-130-052 AG-160. AP 041-090-004 (593.15 acres) Request that this parcel be zoned From Resource Conservation to AG-80 as it has 1) been used in a cattle grazing ranch that has been in continuous operation since 1888, 2) is currently subject to a Williamson Act Contract, parcels. Board Action: Change to AG-160 AP 041-100-003 (82.27 acres) Request that this parcel be zoned from AG-160 to AG-80 to be more consistent with surrounding parcels. Board Action: Not approved, keep at AG-160 AP 041-080-045 (213.57 acres) Request that this parcel be zoned from AG-160 to AG-40 Board Action: Approved.

AP 060-070-018 (97 acres) Request for change from Timber Mountain to AG-40.This 97-acre parcel is part of a historical grazing operation (Colman Camp/Coon Hollow). Board Action: Approved.

1 Katherine Clay2 Mike Evans

2 Mike Evans

3 Mike Evans/Simmons Rd

4 Lana Gunn

5 Clayton Gunn

6 Mike Evans

7 Mike Evans4 Lana Gunn

9 Bruce McClintock

10 Don Brown

11 NorthStar Engineering

12 Bill Brouhard

13 Don Swartz

14 Nina Lambert

15 Tom Lando/Pete Giampaoli/Epick Homes

16 Preservation Partners

17 Jim Mann/Properties of William E. Ralph

17 Jim Mann/Properties of William E. Ralph18 Cana Partners

19 Staff/Kutz

20 Staff/Streeter

21 Pitt

22 Gerald Rath

23 Jag Madare

24 Simmons/Wells

25 Leon Mayer

26 Mike Evans

27 Flournoy

28 Souci

8 Mike Evans/Potter Ravine

ST70

ST162

ST32

ST149

ST99

ST191ST149

ST162

ST70

ST99

Skyway

Midw

ay

Cohas

set R

dLa

rkin

Rd

Pent

z R

d

Agu

as F

rias

Rd

La Por

te R

d

Ne

al Rd

Afton Rd

Oro Q

uinc

y Hw

y

Colusa Hwy

Humboldt Rd

Lumpkin Rd

Nelson Rd

7 M

ile L

n

Richvale Hwy

Nelson Ave

Forbestown

Rd

Riv

er R

d

Ord Ferry RdDurham-Pentz Rd

Oro Bangor Hw

y

Dayt

on R

d

Keefer Rd

Foothill Blvd

Durham-Dayton Hwy

Linc

oln

Blv

d

Oro Dam Blvd W

Pale

rmo

Hon

cut H

wy

E Gridley Rd

Hegan Ln

Lwr Honcut Rd

Palermo Rd

Cottonwood Rd

Lumpkin La Porte Rd

Bruce R

d

Chico River Rd

Penn

ingt

on R

d

Ric

eton

Hw

y

Lwr W

yandotte Rd

E 20th StMui

r Ave

Ham

ilton

-Nor

d-C

ana

Hw

y

Tow

nshi

p R

d

Nelson-Shippee Rd

Gar

ner L

n

W B

iggs Gridley R

d

S 5th Ave

Ramirez Rd (Yuba Co.)

E Eaton Rd

10th S t

Glen D

r

Los Verjeles Rd

21st

St

Kelly R

idge Rd

W Hamilton Rd

Robi

nson

Mill

Rd

Oakvale Ave

Lark

in R

d (S

utte

r Co.

)

Stimpson Rd

Skyway

La Porte Rd

River Rd

LegendIndividual RequestsHighwayMain roadMinor roadLakes

Zoning November 2011Agricultural Zones

Agriculture - 20Agriculture - 40Agriculture - 80Agriculture - 160Agriculture - 320Agriculture Services

Natural Resource ZonesTimber Mountain (160-ac minimum)Timber Production (160-ac minimum)Resource Conservation (40-ac minimum)

Residential ZonesRural Residential (up to 1 du/5ac)Very Low Density Residential - 2.5 (1 du/5 ac to 1 du/2.5 ac)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)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 ZonesGeneral CommercialNeighborhood CommercialCommunity CommercialMixed Use - 1Mixed Use - 2Mixed Use - 3Recreation Commercial - 1Recreation Commercial - 2Sports and Entertainment

Industrial ZonesLight IndustrialGeneral IndustrialHeavy Industrial

Special Purpose ZonesPublicAirportResearch and Business ParkPUD

THIRD DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE MAPREQUESTS NOT SUPPORTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION

December 6 and 13, 2011 Board of Supervisors Meeting

®

10 0 105 Miles

NEW_AREA Name1 Katherine Clay2 Mike Evans3 Mike Evans/Simmons Road4 Lana Gunn5 Clayton Gunn6 Mike Evans7 Mike Evans8 Mike Evans/Potter Ravine Area9 Bruce McClintock

10 Don Brown11 NorthStar Engineering12 Bill Brouhard13 Don Swartz14 Nina Lambert15 Tom Lando/Pete Giampaoli/Epick Homes16 Preservation Partners17 Jim Mann/Properties of William E. Ralph18 Cana Partners19 Staff/Kutz20 Staff/Streeter21 Pitt22 Gerald Rath23 Jag Madare24 Simmons/Wells25 Leon Mayer26 Mike Evans27 Flournoy28 Souci

40

¬«32

W East Ave

Bell Rd

Nord Ave

Muir A

veBay Ave

Guynn AveRodeo Ave

Alamo Ave

Henshaw Ave

Carmack DrCatherine Ct

Jones AveLegacy L

n

Churchill Dr

Newport Dr

Bell Ct

Silver Lake Dr

Lori Dr

Sandy Cove Dr

Willow Bend Dr

Meier Dr

Aloha Ln

Indigo

Ln

Sheltering Oak Ct

Freigh

t Ln

Rebecca Ct

Chantel Way

Carpers Ct

Frances Dr

Roxbury Ct

Shadygrove Ct Elkwood Ct

Bell Estates Dr

Leland Ct

Tandy Ct

Abbot Cir

Langel CtDead End Ct

Middle Creek Ct

Santiago Ct

Rege

nt Ln

Jordan

s Pl

Breanna Ln

Kromer -Bell Muir Extension

9

¬«162

Oro Q

uincy

Hwy

Bell Ranc

h Rd

Canyon Creek RdNorth

fork R

d

Forem

an Cree

k Rd

Old Swayne RdRatchel Mountain Dr

Braland Pl

Little

Ridg

e RdSunday Dr

Scho

ns D

r

Laysier Pl

Sycamore Creek Dr

Braunagel, APN 071-410-018Timber Mountain to FR-40

10

¬«32

Dayto

n Rd

Oak St

W 5th St

W 7th St

Miller

Ave

Pomona Ave

W 4th St

W 3rd St

Chico River Rd

Ash StSanta Clara Ave Hickory St

Cedar St

North

grave

s Ave

Pomo

na Ln

W 6th St

Hahn Ln

Butte Ave

Almon

d St W 9th S

t

Sierrawest D

r

W 8th St

Maple St

McIntosh Ave

Camper Ln

Hickory St

Caput, APN: 004-520-027 & 004-520-012Very Low Density Res. to General Commercial

11

DBreedon

Text Box

Mixed Use - 2

Forbestown Rd

Challenge Cut-off Rd

Big Fir Rd

Forbestown Rd

Buckeye

DrWalden Pond Ln

Kirsty

Cres

cent

Rd

Chandra, APN: 073-310-039Rural Residential to Community Commercial

12

Skyw

ay

New Skyway

Coutolenc Rd

Indian Dr

Glover

Ln

Ishi Dr

Granada Dr

Blair Ln

Dogtown Rd

Eley Dr

Pine Needle Dr

Sugar Pine DrGilfillan DrCanyon Dr

Rue Rosso

Bader Mine Rd Yahi Ct

Sioux Ct

Rorabough Ln

Depot Ln

Clifford, APN: 066-470-017Rural Residential to Community Commercial

13

¬«70

¬«191

¬«99¬«149

¬«99

Neal Rd

Durham-Pentz Rd

Pentz Rd

Skyway

Whee

lock R

d

Foster - Butte Valley ParcelsAG-160 and RC to AG-80, AG-40

15

¬«191

Addys Ln

Dulcinea Dr Lehi Ln

Echo Mt. Dr

Adobe Ln

Rattlesnake Flat Rd

Steamboat Rock Rd

Hidden Valley Rd

Yellow

Pine

Way

Minn

er Mt

Rd

Adell Ln

Jecosa Ln

Foster -Clear Creek School House SiteAPN: 041-400-012

VLDR 2.5 to AG-160

16

Skyway

Humboldt Rd

Foster - Philbrook Res. ParcelAPN: 060-070-018

Timber Mountain to FR40

17

Documents

Bell Muir Extension - VLDR 2.5 Parcels · COOPER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1681 BIRD STREET P.O. BOX 1679 OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-1679