HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ZCA 03-01t DECLARATION OF FEES DUE
(California Fish and Game Code•Section 711.4)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
FILING NO.
Project Title/file number: Zoning Code Amendment, ZCA 03-01
CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:
1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
(X) A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
O B. De Minimis Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption 0
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED A�1� l
�u
O A. Negative Declaration BY�Q� fJ.GRUB n �� p
$1,250 State Filing Fee `tJ_
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee Ity
O B. Environmental Impact Report
$850 State Filing Fee
.$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
3. O OTHER (Specify)
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
PAYMENT l NON-PAYMENT OF FEES:
1. O PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid.
See attached receipt(s).
2. (X) NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid.* County project
Chief Planning Official
By: Yvonne Christopher
Title: Director - Development Services
Lead Agency: Butte County Department of
Development Services
Date: July 8 2003
TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED
WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING.
ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH
THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Butte County Planning Division
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 7 County Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95814 Oroville, CA 95965
X County Clerk
County of Butte
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Project Title:. Zoning Code Amendment to Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other conservation purpose.
Assessor's Parcel No.: N/A
Applicant: Butte :County Board of Supervisor5s.
Project Location -Specific: County -wide
Project Location -City: County -wide Project Location -County: Butte
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
Name of Person or Agency Approving Project: Butte County Board of Supervisors
Exempt Status: (Check One)
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071(a))_
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c))
X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15308
General Rule Exemption
Reasons why project is exempt: To assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment
where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. "
Contact Person: Craig Sanders. Telephone: `(530) 538-7603
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. . Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? . .
Yes No
Date Received For Filing:
Sig ature, Y44ne Chris �er
Di ctor. -
DE
lopment 8ervices
l `DECLARATION OF FEES DUE
(California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
FILING NO.
Project Title/file number: Zoning Code Amendment, ZCA 03-01
CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:
1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
(X) A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
O B. De Minimis Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED
O A. Negative Declaration
$1,250 State Filing Fee
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
O B. Environmental Impact Report
$850 State Filing Fee
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
3. ( )
OTHER (Specify)
$36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES:
1.. O PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid.
See attached receipt(s).
2. (X) NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid.- County project
fry M Chief Planning Official
0 1/ By: . Yvonne Christopher.
Title: Director - Development Services
AUG 1 4 2003 Lead Agency: Butte County Department of
Development Services
CITY OF CHICO Date: July 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED
WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING.
ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIORTO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH
THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE.
�.
IX A
APPEND
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: _ Office of Planning and Research FROM: Butte County Planning Division
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 7 County Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95814 Oroville, CA 95965
X County Clerk
County of Butte
-25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Project Title: Zoning Code Amendment to Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other conservation purpose.,
Assessor's Parcel No.: N/A
Applicant: Butte.County Board of Supervisor5s: -
Project Location-Specific: County-wide,
Project Location-City: County-wide Project Location-County: Butte
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: ,
Name of Person or Agency Approving Project: Butte County Board of Supervisors
Exempt Status: (Check One)
Ministerial (Sec: 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071(a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c))
X Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15308
General Rule Exemption
Reasons why project is exempt: To assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of 'the environment
where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
Contact Person: .Craig Sanders Telephone: (530) 538-7603
If filed by applicant:.
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?
Yes.' No
Date Received For Filing:
Sig ature, Y ne hris er
Di ctor Dev lopment ervices
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9I'
10
11
121
131
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
231
241
25
26
27'
28
Ordinance No. 3849
ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOOD HAZARD PREVENTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT ZONE II
LEVEE AND BUILDING REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 26 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE
REGARDING CONVERSION OR RESTORATION OF LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as.
follows:
Section 1. Purpose: The purposes of this ordinance include, but are
not limited to the regulation of specified activities for the purpose
of protecting people and property from flood hazards and protecting
man-made conditions on farmland within .the unincorporated area of the
County which is adjacent to land upon which a conversion to natural
habitat is proposed.
Section 2. Section 26-22.1, entitled "Review pursuant to CEQA", added
to Article IV, entitled "Flood Hazard Prevention", of Chapter,26 of
the Butte County Code. Section 26-22.1 is added to Article IV of
Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code to read as follows,41'4
"Section 26-22.1. Review pursuant to CEQA. ;YA.
An application for a permit pursuant to this Article,. except a
building permit, shall be subject to review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act."
Section 3. Section 26-27.1, entitled "Notice .of proposed permit
issuance", added to Article IV, entitled "Flood Hazard Prevention",
of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code. Section 26-27.1 is added to
Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code to read as follows:
1126-27.1. Notice of proposed permit issuance.
1. Prior to issuance of any. permit pursuant to this Article,
except a building permit, notice shall be given as follows:
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9I'
10
11
121
131
141
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
231
241
25
26
27'
28
Ordinance No. 3849
ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOOD HAZARD PREVENTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT ZONE II
LEVEE AND BUILDING REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 26 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE
REGARDING CONVERSION OR RESTORATION OF LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as.
follows:
Section 1. Purpose: The purposes of this ordinance include, but are
not limited to the regulation of specified activities for the purpose
of protecting people and property from flood hazards and protecting
man-made conditions on farmland within .the unincorporated area of the
County which is adjacent to land upon which a conversion to natural
habitat is proposed.
Section 2. Section 26-22.1, entitled "Review pursuant to CEQA", added
to Article IV, entitled "Flood Hazard Prevention", of Chapter,26 of
the Butte County Code. Section 26-22.1 is added to Article IV of
Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code to read as follows,41'4
"Section 26-22.1. Review pursuant to CEQA. ;YA.
An application for a permit pursuant to this Article,. except a
building permit, shall be subject to review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act."
Section 3. Section 26-27.1, entitled "Notice .of proposed permit
issuance", added to Article IV, entitled "Flood Hazard Prevention",
of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code. Section 26-27.1 is added to
Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code to read as follows:
1126-27.1. Notice of proposed permit issuance.
1. Prior to issuance of any. permit pursuant to this Article,
except a building permit, notice shall be given as follows:
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
}
(a) Notice shall be mailed by .first class mail to the board of
supervisors, the applicant, and all landowners owning real
property within two thousand' (2,000) feet of'the boundaries of
the property.on which the development is proposed, not less than
thirty (3b) days prior to the proposed issuance date.
(b) Notice shall be published' in a newspaper' of, general
circulation in the County.of Butte pursuant to Government Code
section 6062a."
Section 4. Section 26-27x.2, entitled'"Protests", added to Article IV,
entitled "Flood Hazard Prevention", of Chapter 26 of -the Butte County
Code. Section 26-27.2 is added to Article IV of Chapter 26 of the
Butte County Code to read as.follows:
"26-27.2. "Protests..
(a) Protests to the issuance of a permit, except a' building
permit, may be submitted in writing. to the clerk by any
interested party or by.any member of the board of supervisors.
Each protest from an interested party, .other. than a member of the
board of supervisors, must include:.
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the,,person
protesting;
(2) A clear statement of the grounds for the protest, based
solely on flood control or environmental concerns; and
(3) An,explanation of how the person protesting.will be adversely,
affected by *the . proposed ,prof ect .
(b) Upon receipt of a protest theclerk shall, notify the
2
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12"
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
department of development services, which shall then refrain from.
issuing the permit.
(c) Within ten 0) 'days of receipt of a protest, the clerk shall'
set a hearing on the matter, shall mail notice thereof to the
applicant, and the person protesting, and shall publish.notice
pursuant to Government Code'sect,ion'6062."
Section 5. Amendment of definition of "Development" in subsection (2)
of Section 26-29, entitled "Definitions", of- Article IV, entitled
"Flood Hazard Prevention", of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code.'The
definition of "Development" in subsection (2) of Section 26-29 of the
.Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
"Section' 26-29 (2) Development. Any manmade change to
improved or unimproved real .estate,. including but' not
limited to the placement, construction, reconstruction,.
removal or abandonment of any building or -other -structure
or. encroachment, or agricultural practice, mining, dredging,
filling, grading,.paving, excavation,'drilling operations
or storage.of•equipment or materials,' except agricultural
practices in any A-5, A-10, A-15, A-.20, A=40, or A-160 zone
which ,can be demonstrated not to increase flood levels
upstream or downstream."
R '
Section 6.. Subsection 2.5, entitled "Encroachment"-; added to Section
26-29,•entitled "Definitions"', of,Article IV, entitled "Flood Hazard
Prevention", of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code: Subsection 2.5
is added to Section 26-29 of the But"t"e County.Code to read as. follows:
"Section 26-29 (2.5) Encroachment..' Any obstruction or
physical intrusion., including, .but not 'limited to those .
3.
1 caused by a building or other structure, by a levee, or by
2 the planting, abandonment or removal of'vegetation (except
3 planting or removal of vegetation in any A-5, A-10, A-15,
4 A-20, A-40, or A-160 zone, for agricultural purposes and
5 which can be demonstrated not to increase flood levels
6 upstream or downstream)-."
7 Section 7. Amendment to Section 26-42, entitled ."Permit -required",
8 of Article V, entitled "Special Permit Zone II Levee and Building
9 Regulations", of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code. Section 26-42
10 of the Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
11 •
"Section 26-42. Permit required. 'A permit is required for
12
the placement, construction, reconstruction, removal or
13
abandonment of any building, any levee, or any encroachment
14
in Special Permit Zone II. No county permit shall be
15
required pursuant to this article pertaining to any levee
16
over which the Reclamation Board has retained jurisdiction
17
or pertaining to a levee repair,' as defined'in section 26-
18
41. An application for a permit pursuant to this Article,
19
except a building permit, shall be subject to review
20
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.."
21
22 Section 8. Amendment to Subsection (e), entitled "Encroachment", of
23 Section 26-41,.entitled "Definitions", of Article V, entitled "Special
24 Permit Zone II Levee and'Building Regulations", of Chapter 26 -of .the
-Butte County Code. Subsection (e) of Section 26-41 of the Butte
25
26 County Code is amended to read as follows:
27 "Section 26-41 (e). Encroachment.`. Any obstruction or
28 physical intrusion caused bya levee or building or by the
planting, abandonment or removal of vegetation (except
4 ,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
planting or removal of vegetation in any A-5, A-10, A-15,
A-20, A-40, or A-160 zone, for agricultural purposes and
which can be demonstrated not to increase flood levels
upstream or downstream)."
Section 9. Amendment to Section 26-46, entitled "Notice of proposed
levee permit issuance", of Article V, entitled "Special Permit Zone
II. Levee and Building Regulations", of Chapter 26 of the Butte County
Code. Section 26-46 of the Butte County Code is amended to read as
follows -
Section 26-46. Notice of proposed permit issuance.
Prior to issuance of any permit pursuant to this Article, except
a building permit, notice shall be given as -follows:
(a) Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to the -board of
supervisors, the applicant, all landowners owning real property
within two thousand (2,000) feet of the proposed work, the
Reclamation Board, the Tehama County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, and the Glenn County Department of Public
Works, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the proposed
issuance date.
(b) Notice shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the County of Butte pursuant to Government Code
section 6062a.
Section 10. Amendment to Section 26-47,, entitled "Protests", -of
Article V, entitled "Special Permit Zone. II Levee and Building
Regulations", of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code. Section 26-47
of the Butte County Code is amended,to read as follows:
"Section 26-47..Protests.
5
1
2,
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Protests to the issuance of a permit, except a building
permit, may be submitted in writing to the clerk by any
interested party or by any member of .the board of'supervisors.
Each protest from an interested party, other than a member of the
board of supervisors, must include:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person
protesting;
(2) A clear statement of the grounds for the protest, based
solely on flood control or environmental concerns; and
(3') An explanation of how the person protesting will be adversely
affected by the proposed project.
(b) Upon receipt of a protest the, clerk shall notify the
department of development services, which shall then refrain from
issuing the -permit.
(c) Within ten (10) days of receipt of a protest, the clerk shall
set a- hearing on the matter, shall mail notice thereof to the
applicant and the person protesting, and shall publish notice
pursuant to Government Code section 6062."
Section ll. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason
held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision shall be deemed severable; and the invalidity thereof shall
not affect the remaining provisions or other' applications `of the
Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid -provision or
application thereof.
(Section 12. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall
6
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
•
take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage. The Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors is .authorized and directed to publish 'this
ordinance before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its
passage. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the -names of
the members of.the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it, in
the Chico Enterprise -Record a newspaper of general
circulation published in the County of Butte, State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the,Board of.Supervisors of the County of
.Butte, State of California, on the 22nd day of April
2003; by the following vote:
YES: Supervisors Houx, Josiass.en, Yamaguchi and Chair Beeler
NOES: Supervisor Dolan
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
R.J'.. BEELER, Chair of the
Butte .County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL McINTOSH, Chief
Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board
C:\Documents and Settings\mreeves\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\CONVERSIONORDcln.wpd
7
Conserving California's waterfowl, wetlands, and woterfowling heritage.
February 12, 2003
Mr. Robert MacKenzie
Chief Deputy Counsel
Office of County Counsel
County of Butte
25 County Center Drive
Oro --611e, CA 95965-3380
RE: Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring Permits for Conversion,
Restoration, or Enhancement for Habitat Purposes
Dear Mr. MacKenzie:
The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) continues to have serious concerns
regarding the proposal to require a use permit for any conversion, restoration, or
enhancement of land for wildlife conservation purposes in Butte County. In particular,
we believe that the proposed ordinance would not only negatively impact private
landowners who voluntarily participate in conservation programs, including many
landowners currently engaged in agricultural activities, but would also directly contradict
certain provisions of the Butte County General Plan. Other provisions of the ordinance
are simply unworkable and would effectively impede important conservation efforts that
provide substantial benefits to Butte County.
Although it seeks, in part, to protect agriculture, the currently drafted ordinance would
severely limit the financial options available to growers by impeding conservation
easement agreements, set-aside contracts, and similar conservation programs. As you are
aware, in recent years many growers—particularly rice farmers who participate in
wetland and waterfowl habitat conservation—have been faced with both falling crop
prices and increased operating costs. By providing reasonable financial incentives for
farmers to return agricultural land to habitat, conservation easements and similar
programs—many of which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture—
provide a critical economic option for financially distressed private landowners.
Typically, the lands enrolled in these programs are the most flood -prone or marginally
producing properties available. Thus, the programs allow farmers to derive some income
�from land that otherwise represents an economic liability. Unfortunately, because the
proposal would restrict the use of these important economic tools, it would effectively
inhibit the ability of many farmers to maintain financial solvency.
California
Waterfowl
Association
4630 Northgate Blvd.
Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95834
TEL: (916) 648-1406
FAX: (916) 648-1665
www.calwaterfowl.org
It is important to note that the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General
Plan supports these conservation programs. It lists the following goals:
CWA is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization (94-1149574).
I
Goal 4: Encourage environmental resource protection measures to ensure the
continued agricultural use of the land
Goal S: Seek and support preservation policies and programs to protect long-
term agricultural production.
Conservation easements accomplish both these goals because growers typically use
easement monies to maintain other more productive portions of their property for
agricultural purposes or to retire farm -related debt. If the habitat areas are leased for
hunting purposes, such income also may be reinvested into the farm. Although some
easement restrictions do require the protection of habitat in perpetuity, many conservation
programs again allow landowners to farm the involved portion of their properties after a
specific time period. As with fallowing, these areas are typically more productive once
they are returned to agricultural uses.
The proposal would additionally create a major disincentive for private landowners to
conserve and protect critical habitat because of the onerous requirements and financial
costs involved with seeking a use permit should they wish to take marginal land out of
production. We believe that placing yet another layer of bureaucracy upon private
landowners and essentially interfering with their private property rights would dissuade
many from seeking habitat improvements. Easements and other set-aside programs are
important wildlife conservation tools that, in contrast to public fee -title acquisition,
maintain land in private ownership, keep property on the tax rolls; and place the annual
operating and maintenance expenses on private individuals, not government agencies.
Voluntary and highly popular with private landowners, such non -regulatory programs
have proven to be a cost-effective means to conserve California's wetlands, which
provide critical habitat for migratory and resident waterfowl,. as well as a whole host of
other wetland -dependent species. Ironically, by hindering the implementation of these
voluntary conservation programs on private land, the proposal could actually encourage
more environmental regulation as the state and federal governments would likely seek
other more stringent measures to protect and conserve wildlife populations in Butte
County.
It is important to recognize that restored waterfowl habitat, in particular, requires
intensive and active management... a landowner cannot just let his or her property revert
passively back to nature and, at the same time, maintain waterfowl values. Still, the
proposed ordinance does not just apply to the conversion or restoration of land, but also
to mere enhancement efforts, which includes "flooding, grading, planting, and/or the
removal of vegetation." But such activities already constitute standard wildlife
management practices! In the absence of such activities, noxious weeds and pests
proliferate while wildlife values decline significantly. I hope that you would agree that
landowners simply cannot be burdened with requesting a permit every time they wish to
carry out these normal management activities.
• 1 •
The Butte County Department of Development Services correctly, notes the following on
its website: "State law requires that zoning and subdivision approvals be consistent with
the General Plan... all Elements of the General Plan have equal status and authori, ; no
element is more important than another." We infer from this statement that any element
of the General Plan therefore takes precedent over a zoning ordinance, including this
proposed ordinance. That said, please note Policy 6.6.a of the Land Use Element of the
Butte County General Plan.
Encourage the creation and expansion of natural and wilderness areas
The.Butte County General Plan specifically cites Gray Lodge Wildlife Area, a major
waterfowl and wetland management area administered by the Department of Fish and
Game, as constituting such an area. The management practices applied at Gray Lodge
are also, not coincidentally, carried out at the numerous duck clubs and other private
waterfowl habitat areas in Butte County that the proposal attempts to regulate. This leads
to the following question: How does the proposed ordinance, which obviously seeks, in
part, to restrict the spread of wildlife habitat projects in Butte County, not conflict with
this longstanding General Plan Policy of supporting wildlife habitat areas?
As mentioned above, the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan,
although critical at times of certain wildlife protection regulations, does recognize the
importance of voluntary conservation programs on private land. Policy 5.2 compels
Butte County to
Actively encourage the use of voluntary agricultural and open space easements
with the County or appropriate private land trusts as a means of preserving land
in agricultural and open space use.
Although not specifically mentioned, state and federal conservation easement programs,
many of which rely on the assistance and technical expertise of private conservation
organizations, certainly also accomplish such goals.. Yet, the proposal would again
inhibit the establishment of conservation easements in Butte County by providing
financial, bureaucratic, and other disincentives for landowners to enroll their properties in
such programs. Does not the proposed ordinance also conflict with the existing policies
of the Butte County General Plan?
The proposed ordinance would also require the establishment of a buffer between
agricultural uses and habitat areas subject to the use permit, ostensibly to minimize
supposed conflict between the two land uses. The buffer would be required to be located
entirely on the land subject to the use permit. Unfortunately, most easement contracts do
not allow for the establishment of a buffer, since such land practices are incompatible and
contrary to the objectives of easement programs. The required large size (300 feet) of the
buffer would furthermore make many small restoration projects impractical. We urge
Butte County to provide scientific or other appropriate justification—other than what has
been used in the past for unrelated urban development projects—for.the extensive size of
the proposed buffer.
The requirement of a buffer similarly seems to contradict the Butte County General Plan.
In order to "support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient, economical
manner, with minimal conflict with non-agricultural uses," the Agricultural Element of
the Butte County General Plan endorses the following program:
Utilize mitigation banks, environmental mitigation sites, wildlife refuges, and
other natural resource preserves, within or adjacent to land designated or used
for agricultural lands, to allow the continuation of standard farming practices.
The above Butte County General Plan statement is clear: wildlife habitat protects and
facilitates the continuation of farming! The Land Use Element of the Butte County
General Plan even lists "environmental preservation activities" as "Secondary Uses" of
"Orchard and Field Crop," "Grazing and Open Land," and "Agricultural Residential"
areas. The proposed ordinance's implication, however, is that agriculture and wildlife
habitat constitute distinctly separate, often incompatible land uses. But this is certainly
not the case for waterfowl habitat and rice acreage. Historically, much of Butte County's
current rice acreage consisted of wetland habitat. Overwhelming biological evidence
suggests that contemporary rice fields, which also function as surrogate wetland habitat,
provide important rearing and feeding habitat for waterfowl and other wetland -dependent
species. Conversely, many rice farmers derive significant income from hunting leases
that is greatly enhanced by waterfowl migrating from nearby wildlife sanctuaries and
refuges. In fact, private properties directly adjacent to wildlife areas typically garner the
highest rates for hunting leases. With strict acreage requirements in place on rice straw.
burning, farmers must necessarily flood their fields post-harvest to minimize rice straw.
Studies by the University of California, Davis, have recently demonstrated, furthermore,
that foraging waterfowl greatly aid in the decomposition of flooded rice straw.
It is also important to note that the current proposal would hinder the expansion of
hunting and related wildlife -dependent recreational uses in the County by inhibiting
habitat restoration and enhancement. Unfortunately, this would have serious economic
implications for the County. Recent studies, including several commissioned by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, confirm the substantial financial contribution of wildlife -
related recreation to local economies throughout the United States. A 1996 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service study found that hunting generates 704,600 jobs in the U.S.,
representing almost 1% of the entire civilian labor force and contributing $22.1 billion
annually to the national economy. A subsequent survey in 2001 entitled "National Fish
and Wildlife Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation" found that
American hunters spent $1,581 each year on such items as equipment, transportation,
lodging and meals. Still another report, Banking on Nature: The.Economic Benefits to
Local Communities of NWR Visitation, found that National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
visitor spending alone—much of which is driven by hunters—generated $401.1 million
in sales at the local level. Because most easement properties, including those managed
by duck clubs, facilitate and encourage wildlife -related recreation, we believe that the
considerable local sales and tax revenues generated by sportsmen and others would
decline significantly as landowners lose interest in conservation programs.
CWA has long supported efforts to address impacts on local communities related to
wildlife habitat, for example supporting substantial in -lieu -of taxes payments in past
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) bills in the U.S. Congress. We have also
strongly urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceof Fish and
Game to work cooperatively with neighboring. landowners to address concerns related to
new wildlife areas and refuges in California. Furthermore, during the 1999-2000 State
Legislative Session we successfully sponsored Assembly Bill 299, a measure which
designed and funded a pilot program to modify wetland management, practices in order to'
reduce mosquito production while maintaining targeted wetland and wildlife.values.
Thus far, the program has been deemed a complete success and we look in the future to
emulate this innovative approach, as necessary, on a statewide basis. Nevertheless, we
believe that the current proposed ordinance, although well intended, would place
unnecessary burdens on agriculture, wildlife, the economy of Butte County, and the
rights of private landowners.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Mark Hennelly, Deputy Director
Government Affairs
cc: Members, Butte County Planning Commission
Members, Butte County Board of Supervisors
Members, Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Management Board
Mr. Dave Smith, Department of Fish and Game
Mr. Craig Isola, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Alan Forkey, Natural Resources Conservation Service
r1A
Central Valley Habitat
Joint Venture
Implementation
Plan
-lilt
Sol
A.MOn.— ent of the North American
Waterfowl. Management Plan
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Central Valley of California is the most important waterfowl wintering
area in the Pacific Flyway, supporting about 60 percent of the total
Population. In pristine times, four million acres of wetlands, mostly
surrounded by grasslands and riparian areas, provided ideal wintering and
breeding habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife that flourished throughout
the region. These wetlands provided a wide variety of benefits including
fish rearing and passage, groundwater rechar
others (Appendix III). ge,'and sediment control among
Since the mid -1950's, duck populations have shown sporadic fluctuations
related to weather and land -use changes. However, in the late 1970's
populations started to decline, and by the mid -1980's, fall flights were
approximately 30 percent below long-term averages. Much of this reduction
can be attributed to habitat loss (including drainage and intensive
.agriculture) that has reduced the quantity -and quality
etlands and
surrounding upland nesting habitat. This loss was greatly waccelerated in the
1980's when a severe, prolonged drought in Prairie Canada and the north -
central United States aided widespread wetland drainage for agriculture'. In
the Central Valley, 95 percent of the historic wetlands have been lost'.
The primary focus of the NAWMP and the CVHJV is waterfowl. However,
achievement of the CVHJV objectives will benefit a wide array of other
wetland.species including shorebirds, wading birds, amphibians, reptiles;
fish, mammals, invertebrates and plants. Fifty-five percent of the
threatened and endangered species in California are associated with wetlands;
so implementation of the CVHJV will have major benefits to this group of,
organisms.(Appendix IV.) In addition to benefitting plants and animals, the -
protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands through the CVHJV 'will
also provide many environmental and public values as well (Appendix III).
Concerned over the decline in duck populations, the.United States and 4
Canadian Federal governments developed and signed the-Nbrth American,
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) on May 14, 1986., The NAWMP provides a
broad framework for waterfowl conservation and management based on
Populations and habitat goals needed to meet public demand. The NAWMP
established a continental'breeding population goal of 62 million ducks,
including8.7 million mallards and 6.3 million northern pintails, and,a fall
flight of 100 million ducks during years of average environmental conditions.
These goals are based on average continental duck populations from 1970-79 in
surveyed areas.
Implementation of the NAWMP is the responsibility of designated joint,.
ventures, in which agencies and private organizations collectively pool their
resources to solve waterfowl habitat problems. The California Central Valley
Habitat Joint Venture (CVHJV) was formally established.by a working agreement
signed in July,.1988. The'CVHJV is guided by an Implementation Board
comprised of representatives from the California Waterfowl Association,
Defenders of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, National Audubon Society, Waterfowl
Habitat Owners Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy. Technical assistance
and -advice is provided to the Board by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Department
of Food and Agriculture, and other organizations and agencies._
At objective level, the CVHJV's annual contribution to the continental
breeding population will average 490,000 breeding ducks, including 300,000
mallards, and.a fall flight of 1 million ducks. Upon completion of the CVHJV
objectives, the Central Valley will support 4.7 million wintering ducks,
including 2.8 million pintails. Because they are so dependent on the Central
Valley, wintering pintails will be 'given special attention in the CVHJV.
The goal of the CVHJV is to "protect; maintain, and restore habitat to
increase waterfowl populations to desired levels in the Central Valley of
California consistent with other objectives of the NAWMP. Six objectives
were developed by the Implementation Board to.achieve this goal:
1. Protect -80,000 additional acres of existing wetlands through
acquisition of fee -title or perpetual conservation easements.
2. Secure an incremental, firm 402,450 acre-foot water supply that is
of suitable quality and is delivered in a timely manner for use by
National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's), State Wildlife Areas (WA's), and
the grasslands Resource Conservation District (GRCD).
3. Secure Central Valley Project (CVP) power for NWR's, WA's, GRCD,
and other public and private lands dedicated to wetland management.
4. Increase wetland areas by 120,000 acres and protect these wetlands
in perpetuity by acquisition of fee -title or conservation easement.
5. Enhance wetland habitats on 291,555 acres of public and private
lands.
6. Enhance waterfowl habitat on 443,000 acres of agricultural lands.
This implementation plan was developed by stepping down'the six specific.
objectives into detailed chapters, which are summarized below:
Habitat Acquisition Objective_
In -1985, only 291,555 acres of wetlands important to waterfowl remained in
the Central Valley. Of these,'118,900 acres were unprotected. To accomplish
this objective, the CVHJV proposes to protect 62,060 acres through
conservation easements at an estimated capital cost of $38.3 million and
17,940 acres by fee acquisition for an estimated $45.0 million (Appendix II).
Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated to .be $1.55 million for
easement lands and $1.79 million for fee acquisition lands. Priorities will
be: 1) habitat with high waterfowl value based on -historical waterfowl use
� 9
C�
patterns, 2
wetlands wi
wetlandsth lower waterfowl use but adjacent to restorable
, and 3) wetlands with lower waterfowl
wetlands. Any acquisition, either fee or easement use not adjacent to restorable
supply, , must have a firm water
Water and Power Ob ectives
Because the objectives for water and electrical power for wetland
are closely related, they are treated collectivel
and implementing actions, management
WA's Water and power objectives are limited toState
ms's, and the GRCD where a total deficit of 4020450 acre feet of
water supply presentlyexists.
pater s o Severe water shortages also exist on manylrn
actions for the acquisitioneSthose in restorationheandCD.
These needs are included in
, enhancement objectives.
Eleven strategies.have been identified for accomplishing these objectives.
The preferred solution is to initiate legislation to re CVPt
include wildlife as a project purpose, authorize CVP to
and direct U.S. Bureau of Reclamation BOR), legislation would also authorize
Power Administration to (BOR), and the Western Area
development costs under contract -with neededCDFG, USFWS, andwater , including Ert
already begun to initiate this legislatiion on. and GRCD, Y needed
objective are estimated at' Total capital costs fforsthise
based on a
alternative. Annual operation •and lmaintenance cost
delivered surface water is estimated to be full ground water
plus the cost of
$6.9 million.
Wetland Restoration Ob'ective `
Since 1986, when the NAWMp was initiated
been restored in the Central Valle about.ch ar acres of wetlands have
Y''
easements or fee -title purchase, 7,300�of which are protected by
additional 112,700 acres of wetlands uneed otoebe et this red a objective, an
About 75 percent (84,525 acres) of the restored and protected.
private ownership usinga proposed acreage e
perpetual acyl conservation easements lastincentivesr
remaining 25 percent (28,175 acres) will be acquired in fee title b US
and CDFG. Firm water suppliesThe
must be available before an Y FWS
eitker fee or easement, will be considered.
for restoration is 315.0 The total estimated ocapital cost
$ million and the annual operation and maintenance
cost is estimated to be $6.90 million:
Wetland Enhancement Ob'ective
Of the 291,555 wetland acres remaining
private ownership, 43,745 in State ownership, Central Valley, 204,790 are in
ownership. To achieve this objective, p' and 43,020 in Federal
enhancement using ety291,555 acres are targeted for
existing operationaandrmaintenanceof aprogramies su
including: 1) supplementing
payments to private landowners; 3 disease control;4)
incentive
and 5) coordination with other agencies and organizationscsuchaasassistance;
county
10
agricultural departments and irrigation districts. Total_ estimated annual
cost for this objective is $18.9 million ($65/acre).
Agricultural Lands Enhancement Objective
Wetlands in the Central Valley including those proposed in the Wetland
Enhancement Objective will not supply adequate food and cover for the desired
populations of wintering waterfowl as set forth in the NAWMP. If the desired
numbers of waterfowl are to winter and breed in California, 332,300 acres of
privately owned grain fields and 110,800 acres of upland nesting habitat must"
be enhanced to meet resource needs.
This objective will be met using a variety of.strategies.including:
1) existing programs under the 1985 Food Security Act; 2) incentive payments.
to cooperating landowners who conduct various'land use practices favorable to
waterfowl; and 3) outreach extension and education programs to the
agricultural community conducted by various agencies and organizations. The
total estimated annual cost for this objective is $7.2 million to be:paid by
the federal, state, and private sectors.
Conclusion
1
Overall, the CVHJV is targeted for completion by the year 2000. When
completed, 80,000 acres of existing wetlands will be protected through
perpetual easements or fee -title purchases; 120,000 acres of historic
wetlands.will be restored and protected; 291,555 acres of existing wetlands
- will be enhanced; 402,450 acre feet of water will be secured for existing :.
Central Valley NWR's and WA's; and 443,000 acres of private agricultural land
will be enhanced annually for feeding and nesting waterfowl. The estimated
capital investment for attaining all objectives is $528.7 million. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $29 million. In
addition, meeting the water and power objectives will require new federal.
legislation.
The CVHJV Implementation Plan will be updated with scheduled NAWMP revisions
or as otherwise appropriate. Such updates will occur at least every five
years.
Ob ectives r$
Based on historical and current situations, a primary goal and six supporting
objectives were developed for the Central Valley. They are:
GOAL; Protect, maintain, improve, and restore habitat. to increase waterfowl
populations to desired levels in the Central Valley -of California consistent'
with other objectives of the NAWMP.
OBJECTIVES• k�
1. Protect 80,000 additional acres of existing wetlands through acquisition Iwo -
of(
fee -title or perpetual conservation easements.?
2. Secure an incremental, firm 402,450 acre-foot water supply that is of
suitable quality and is delivered in a timely manner for use by the
NWR''s,. State WA's, and the GRCD.
3. Secure CVP power for NWR's, State WA's, GRCD, and other public and
private lands dedicated to wetland management.
4. Increase wetland areas by 120,000'acres and protect these wetlands in
` perpetuity by acquisition of fee -title or conservation easements.
5. Enhance waterfowl wetland habitats' on 291,555 acres of public and
private lands.
6. Enhance waterfowl habitat on 443,000 acres of .agricultural lands..
After the goal and objectives were agreed upon, specific Working Committees
for.each objective were formally established in a working agreement signed in
July, 1988., The Waterfowl Habitat Technical. Committee and the Working
Committees provided the main technical support for the development of the
CVHJV Implementation Plan.. This action plan presents background,
implementation strategies, and administrative and coordination
recommendations for the six objectives relative to the nine drainage basins
of the.Central Valley (Figure 4.) These basins are all small drainage
components that feed into either the south -flowing Sacramento River or the
north -flowing San Joaquin River. In turn, these two rivers meet .to form the
Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (delta) where their waters commingle before
flowing to San Francisco Bay.
Description of Basins
California's Central Valley consists of the Sacramento Valley in the north
and the San Joaquin Valley in the.south. 'The Valley extends approximately
400 miles from Red Bluff in the north -to Bakersfield in the south (Figure 4).
18
The Sacramento River flows south and drains the Sacramento Valley. Within
the valley are the Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, and American Basins.
The San Joaquin River flows north and drains the San Joaquin Valley. This
valley comprises the San Joaquin and Tulare Basins.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge at the Delta southwest of
Sacramento where the commingled waters flow west past the extensive Suisun
Marsh to San Francisco Bay.
The climate of the Central Valley is typical Mediterranean; cool and wet in
winter, and hot and dry in summer. Average annual rainfall is 15 to 22
inches in the northern part of.the Valley.and only 6 inches'in the southern
part. Most rain falls between November and March. Below -freezing
temperatures occur less than 15 days annually. Summer temperatures regularly
exceed 100°F.
Butte Basin
The Butte Basin extends from Red Bluff in the north to the Sutter Buttes in
the south, the Sacramento River on the west and the Feather River on the east
(Figure 5). The Basin contains nearly 1,000 square miles (80 miles long and
about 12 miles wide).
There are 11,363 acres of publicly owned and managed waterfowl habitat in the
Butte Basin, including the Butte Sink NWR (Bean Field, 733 acres), Gray Lodge
WA (8;375 acres) and the newly acquired Upper Butte Sink unit of Gray Lodge
WA (Schohr Ranch, 3,750 acres). The Gray Lodge WA is natural habitat in a
complex of wetlands and associated uplands whereas the Upper Butte Sink Unit
and the Bean Field are mostly agricultural land that will be restored to
natural habitat in the future. Hunting.clubs maintain more than 30,000 acres
of habitat in a normal year. Of this total, about 18,000 acres are natural
wetlands and 12,000 acres are harvested rice fields flooded for hunting. A
large proportion of the hunting clubs with natural habitat are concentrated
in the Butte Sink (42 clubs with a total of 11,130 acres of wetlands and
associated uplands). Currently, 5,350 acres of private duck clubs.are
permanently protected by USFWS Conservation Easements in the Butte Basin.
The National*Audubon Society owns and manages another 500 acres of wetlands
at the Paul L. Wattis Audubon Sanctuary west of Butte Creek.
Significant wetland habitat in the north Butte Basin includes the Vina Plain,
an area of native grasslands north of Chico. The Thermalito Afterbay near
Oroville also provides important resting habitat for waterfowl. The upper
basin includes extensive land interspersed with levees, irrigation canals and
drainage ditches.
Riparian habitat occurs along the Sacramento River and Butte Creek, and
scattered natural wetlands occur on Llano Seco (Parrot) Ranch and along Butte
Creek. The Sacramento River NWR has been approved for as much as 18,000
acres of riparian habitats lying between Red Bluff and Colusa. Negotiations
for acquisition of approximately 60 parcels are ongoing..
20
'- ".'Hine`_"._'
MAY
9Iu}f
z®+ .
r Kp
Area
Enlarged. �
SonK8enmanto
w,
k�
so
a
VINA
PLAIN
Chico
T��rnsa/!fp
Aftw eij, Oroville
I � -
LIPPER BUTTE BASIN
,62 N
UPPER BUTTE
SINK UNIT c L
�� ' c Gridley
TIS AUDUBON
ICTUARY r ,
i `-- 'GRAY LODGE
_ 1.. W.M.A.
BUTTE SINK• - J - �-
Private Wetlands -
Federal Easement ;, .r �•.�
Acquisition Area ,
,�� ^E, • SUTTER �i�•/�
M BUTTES Figure 5.
co _ Butte Basin, Central
!•�., . '
Valley, California
21 3
The Butte Sink is located in the south portion of the basin. Land use in the
Butte Sink has changed from its original condition. Federal and State water
development projects have reduced flooding, and large areas have been
converted to rice fields. The Butte Sink consists of a complex of natural
and man-made levees, channels, and seasonally flooded bulrush marshes and
woodlands. The land is low, with rise and�swale topography typical of
sluggish flood plains. The remainder of the south Butte Basin is mostly rice
land.
Water used to flood wetlands in the Butte Basin is primarily from diverted
rice -field surface drainwater in summer and fall and often from flood over-
flows of the Sacramento River and Butte Creek during winter. In addition,
portions of the Sink receive water from the Feather River from mid-September
to mid-February. The Sacramento River flood control system overflows into
the Butte Sink, which often inundates 30-150 square miles during flood
periods. The Gray.Lodge WA and some private hunting clubs supplement
drainwater with groundwater wells. Marsh management on Gray Lodge WA
includes summer irrigations,.prescribed burning, and mechanical control of
vegetation to enhance habitat and produce waterfowl foods. Similar* (�
techniques also are'used by some private clubs, including many that
participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Water Bank
Program. I■
Colusa Basin
The Colusa Basin extends from Red Bluff in the north to Cache Creek in the
south, the Sacramento River on the east and the Coast Range on the west. The
Basin contains over 1,600 square miles (110 miles.long and about 15 miles
wide). Most of the waterfowl habitat in the basin is.south of the.Stony
Creek drainage (Figure 6).
The Colusa Basin is drained by a natural depression called the Colusa Trough.
Historically, overflow from the Sacramento River joined.with streams draining
the east slopes of the Coast Range in the Colusa Trough and flooded the
Colusa Basin marshes in winter and spring.. -The Trough drains the entire
length of the Basin and re-enters the Sacramento River near Knight's Landing.
Flood -control projects on the Sacramento River-ind the Colusa Basin Drainage
.Canal have eliminated severe flooding, except duting'extremely high
precipitation years. Even so, about 26,000 acres•of natural wetland habitat
still remain in the Colusa Basin within a few miles of the Colusa Trough.
The Trough is also the primary drain for an extensive system of rice fields,
many of which are flooded and 1eased',as private waterfowl hunting clubs in
winter. Meteorological conditions are essentially the same as in the Butte
Basin.
22
WETLAND RESTORATION OBJECTIVE
i
Statement of Objective
Increase wetland area by 120,000 acres and protect these wetlands in
perpetuity by acquisition of fee -title or conservation easements. Because of
the elaborate water delivery system in the Central Valley, this wetland
creation could conceivably occur on lands that were'not formerly wetlands;
however, most restoration is anticipated on sites that were historically
wetlands.
f
�
r
This objective is derived from the biological needs of waterfowl and is based I
on realistic expectations of the potential for restoration. The objective is
broken down by basin in Table 8 and priorities established by.a habitat
deficit.index, a measure of relative need:
1
Table 8. Wetland restoration objectives by basin for the Central Valley
"
Habitat Joint Venture, Borth American Waterfowl'Management Plan.
Basin- Priority Habitat Deficit ($) CVHJV Objectives
' Jndex(Acres)
Sutter 1 275 11,000
American 2 250 10,000
20,000
Delta 3 200
Butte 4 131 34,000
Yolo 5 111 10,000
Colusa 6 55 15,000
San Joaquin 7 .17 20,000
o2 0'
Tulare
0
Suisun 0
120,000
TOTAL.
'The habitat deficit index was calculated'by dividing the total wetlands
needed by the.current wetland acreage in each basin, resulting in an index
of relative need. `
ZThe Hacienda Ranch and South Wilbur Flood Area are considered existing
wetlands and are addressed under the wetland protection objective.
„
S6
Background
Past Efforts and Activities
Wetlands preservation and restoration programs have received increased
attention in California in recent years.. In the late 19701s, the California
Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 28), which directed CDFG
to develop a plan to protect,•enhance, and restore California's wetlands.
This document, "A Plan for Protecting, Enhancing and Increasing'California's
Wetlands for Waterfowl" was completed in 1983. Over the past five years,
California voters have -demonstrated continued commitment to protect wetlands
by approving General Obligation Bonds totaling nearly $61 million to purchase
interior wetlands, The USFWS identified the need to protect additional
wetlands in California in its "Concept Plan for Waterfowl Wintering Habitat
Preservation" in 1978 and again in the 1987 update. The wetland restoration
chapter of the CVHJV Implementation Plan was developed from these CDFG and
USFWS documents'.
The starting point from which wetland additions will be counted toward the
stated restoration objectives is January 1, 1986. ,By July 1989, a total of
7,300 acres have been permanently restored by the agencies and organizations
of the CVHJV (Table 9). - , -
Included are 4,000 acres of rice fields on privately owned duck hunting
clubs in the Butte and Colusa Basin which were restored .to native marsh
under the USFWS's conservation easement program. Additionally, 2,300 acres
of the'Upper Butte Sink Unit of Gray Lodge WA were restored from rice to
native marsh by the previous landowner prior to acquisition by'the CDFG in
late 1988.
Table 9. Wetlands restored in the. -California Central Valley,' 1986-89.
Purchased fee -title or.conservation easement.
2 Privately owned and not within any State or Federal easement program.
57
Restored Acreage
Basin
CVHJV
Protected'.
Unprotected
Remaining
Acres
Obiective (Acres)
1986-89
1986-89
To Restore
To Protect
Sutter
11,000
0
40,,
10,960
11,000
American
10,000
0
483
9,517
10,000
Delta
20,000
500
440
19,060
19,500
Butte
34,000
4,900
1,020
28,080
29,100
Yolo
10,000
0
255
9,745
10,000
.Colusa.
15,000
1,900
110
12,990
13,100
San Joaquin
20,000
0
20
19,980
20,000
TOTAL
120,000
7,300
2,368
110 332
112,700
Purchased fee -title or.conservation easement.
2 Privately owned and not within any State or Federal easement program.
57
A SINK - DUCK_Clu(3S�WETLANOS
GIZIOLEY-COL1�3A RCI . �� tr ea��lr -
SMacit lo.\ I,�QI�T- ' R; c e
'VVI-IITNCY
rebRel FAanrs G �^"'° fiancl,
P: es O
5"6.,APQTCk Ct.b
Club'-
°e 1
�jchrtul7 �ilncf, ie i% 833 UAP 04
� � q T le GmJr
Ir"
G RAY
r tJh,Fe 1 I SrR,g Mrs
- LODGE
' X./c«� l W I Id
7tl�I:el r tt Geose GargveHTa REFI/CgE
JJ
Fa1CW5 PoAzl r , r PenlnsvlA
J , -hgn _C_ t _.. —...
r Co. line
.', Beeley PgfrGl
FlyWAYCALF. 6�Nr ulcbb I GdyeHAen
jQAr1C{I Qu<k QAJIH R,�H CIt ( I 1
I
I,Rbe[ -- I�--- ;-
O � Iv Field i -; - •• - - -
f/oKHy SvHe Creek
NOAkelU Q --, 1 •♦
' N• Ovffe wlHcAtjYclz �
Creek SvN(K f ♦ .
I-0cl3e
I r ovF�n9
29eK OL4 ny 1 d. �Rc �ufrNp , 4'r�ril'
e r EI -
betz
y � _ B�ikLnnd
i� µ/e$4- Nonaluly 1541':;_
�i
O - �•
13,.He S',n k%1 /f5Nk
i 1' SF.ck ,;--- -
1
' CaIVSA
9hadirn9 ��I
N
cAAHce
Parcel,., Acreage,' Value, Tax Analysis
parcel,acre jax
fp
r`3
F
Total
BCMVCD Share
Tax .
BCMVCD
Tax
Parcel Owner
Parcel Number
Acreage
2001 value
Calculation
Factor
Collected
Last Chance
021-030-001-000
54
$119,636
$1,196.36
0.017028
$20.37
i Wild Goose
021-030-002 & 003
594
$714,048
$7,140.48-
0.017028
$121.59
Wild Goose
021-030-008 & 009
810
$981,350
$9,813.50
0.017028
$167.10
Sprig Meadows
021-030-006-000
76
$240,467-
$2,404.67
0.017028
$40.95
Tule Goose
021-030-005-000
228
$999,482
$9,994.82
0.017028
$170.19
Hang Town
021-020-009-000
169
$471,371
$4,713.71
0.016705
$78.74.
4 Butte Sink Farm
021-020-010-000
.40
$153,294
$1,532.94
'0.016705
$25.61
Sanborn Slough
021-0200-020 & 021
261 '
$321,270
$3,212.70.
0.016705
$53.67
Lamantia -
021-020-023-000_
219
$444,960
$4,449.60
0.016705
$74.33
W. Crim
021-020-029-000
92
$93,513
$935.13
0.016705
$15.62
Pipers Patch
021-020'=015-000
351.
$1,464,643
$14,646.43
-0.016705
$244.67
Pipers Patch
021-020-030 & 031
472
$1,703,701
$17,037.01
0.016705
$284.60
Garaventa
021-020-016-000
99
$361,763
$3,617.63
0.016705
$60.43
Simmons
021-020-026 & 028
110
$258,242
$2,582.42
0.015705
$43.14
3575
$8,327,740
$83,277.40
$11401.02,
parcel,acre jax
fp
r`3
F
{
r' L, � � ]
F M
n .! `'
-
-
M+
i
- �
�
w
•
♦
_
}��
t
.
..
4
t:
_{r
"�
`
-
-
i
- �
y
a
�'
�
}��
t
.
..
4
t:
_{r
"�
`
t
�
� i
!
-
-
i
- �
y
a
�'
�
}��
t
.
..
4
t:
�
`
�
�
=
.. • r ..
.♦ ! - � fes, i
1 i
Mober 1, 2002 LOCAL Enterprise-i�2cordc -
w:
to 11 f t f l d bcl
ll It the EwR
43=6000-
ny topic of Interest Is welcome in "Tell It to the
ieday, and your comments will be record-
fbllcation. Just keep It legal and in good
210et preference.
inexcusable lack of focus
man using marijuana for medical reasons and
ig marijuana sales, etc., had nothing to do with
nan who was murdered. So the man went in to
e has nothing to do with the other. How dare they
i this article? I can't believe that the reporter's
ich slander in the E -R. The entire article was full
rmation that was no one else's business.
ile here — houses, or people?
the "Real Estate Guide" I'm on the verge of look -
ie area and I always get a kick out of ft. The last
ien the "Real Estate Guide" comes out, there are
,op there than are homes. I counted to date
ireMpeople, and only 28 of new homes. I said,
ealtors? Didn't they get enough coverage when
chool yearbooks, or what? Put some pictures of
in such a hurry to bail
)mment that it's unfortunate that Michael Jones
the Park Commission so soon. Fortunately devel-
so easily because no one would have a place to
I
inic group; different stan `lard
trence to the term "camel jockey" in a letter to the
3out a week ago, and there's been no p`i lic out -
another silent social policy?
'1
Financia oss rem convey ing arrn
to natural habitat could be $11.5 million a Year,.,`*-
BY
HEATHER HACKING
Staff Writer
WILLOWS — The Nature
Conservancy unveiled a new
study Monday trying to map
out and predict the financial
and social impacts of trans-
forming farmland along the
Sacramento River from Red
Bluff to Colusa ' into natural_
habitat.
The study was introduced
during an economic subcom-
mittee meeting for the Sacra-
mento River Conservation Area
Forum.
The $134,000 study was
funded through a Ca1Fed grant.
Committee members didn't
have a chance to read the report
but were given a briefing from
Marlyce Myers, who works for
the Nature Conservancy's
Sacramento River Project.
The plan, over the next 30
years, is to create a limited
meander zone on 30,000 acres
of land.
This goal would require the
purchase of another 9,390 acres
of ag land over the four coun-
ties of Butte, Glenn, Colusa and
Tehama. This land is now being
farmed and would be convert-
ed to habitat.
The report concludes that the
four counties could stand to
lose a total of $11.5 million 'a
year in agricultural production.
Yet because ag income is so
large in these counties, this rep-
resents only about 1 percent of
the region's ag economy.
This broke down $2.5 million
in lost income in Butte County,
$1.2 million in Colusa, $3.8 mil-
lion in Glenn County, and $4
million in Tehama County,
The study also addressed the
increase in recreational oppor-
tunities as the river's edge is
converted to habitat. However,
Jones and Stokes, the firm that
prepared the report, noted this
is very difficult to quantify.
The company was fairly con-
fident that increased numbers
of fish would generate more
money from- fishing enthusi-
asts. But its difficult to predict
how much more wildlife -view-
ing and hunting would occur as
more habitat is put into place.
However, the company esti-
mated the four counties could
bring in millions from people
who enjoy the outdoors.
When farmland is taken out
of production, there are direct
losses of jobs but also losses. in
other sectors that rely on farm-
ing, such as supply stores and
miscellaneous businesses.
Jones and Stokes estimated
that Butte County could lose up
to 49 ag and ag-dependent jobs
by 2030, for a loss of $1.66 mil-
lion to the economy.
Colusa County could lose 19
jobs (loss of $586,000); Glenn
County could lose 66 jobs and
$2 million in personal income;
and Tehama County could lose
96 jobs, at $3.19 million.
However, these losses could
be offset by more jobs catering
to recreational users of the land.
The company estimated 4 recre-
ation -related jobs could be
gained in Butte County, 14 in
Colusa, 3 in Glenn and 15 in
Tehama.
The study also pointed out
that there are benefits to society
as a' whole of knowing that
habitat is protected. Plus, if the
land helps to protect the endan-
gered Chinook salmon, society
could save millions by not hav-
ing to run the endangered
species program. If the fish
population recovered, commer-
cial fishing of the fish could be
restored, adding even more
benefit to the economy'
The report is avaitable.online
at www.sacrementoriverpor-;'
tal.org. Adobe Acrobat is neQc},
ed to access the report-,, A • , ,� ,,.
Members. ' of. the,.:'SRCA .,,
Forum committee did not have -
a chance to read the report yet
and are expected to ' submit ._
comments to the Nature Con-
servancy by Oct. 30:'
Myers said it .was difficult
estimating .the economics "'_bf;�'
recreation because _it ,As
unknown what -,type of Xecre- ;
ational infrastructure will.be
installed.
She said the goal of the
whole process is to minimize
the impacts and maximize the
benefits of ag-to-habitat the,.,.,
benefits
versions. She. said there., a> e,
many funding programs in the
state for improving recreational..
access, which could strengthen;,
the economic impact outdoor
k.
activities can have m this area,.. -
Copies of Enterprise -Record
local news photographs
are available for purchase. `. :
For information, call 896-7754
POLICE REPORT
• Corner of 6th S Plume • 949-0009
The following are among the incidents • 2:25 am. —An assault and battery Street. Two cell phones were taken. They ff BIG FAT
reported to the Chico police. was reported on the 1500. block of North are talkingto a woman on one of the ___ -_ FA
' 3
J Ordinance No.
2
ORDINANCE REQUIRING USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION, ENHANCEMENT OR
3 RESTORATION OF LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
4' The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as
5 follows:
6' Section 1. Pnrpose Legislative Findings and Intent: The purpose of
7
this ardinance Tncludes, but ±s not limited to the regulation of -
8 specified activ±ties for the purpose of protectilllj LUCLIi-Litade conditions
9 on farmland within the tmi.........-ated area of the ecunty which
10 adjacent to land npon which a conversion to natnral habitat is
11 . The Board of Supervisors finds that the potential for
12 environmental impacts caused by the conversion of existing land uses
13 for conservation purposes may include but are not limited to the
14 uncontrolled spread of fires, the spread of serious diseases by
15 competent disease -carrying vectors, including but not limited to
16 mosquitoes, and the spread of exotic plant species, predation of crops
17 by wildlife, property damage and a diminution in the ability to
18 control pests through accepted agricultural practices. Such impacts
19 have the potential to harm people, property and the environment within
20 the unincorporated area of the County. Mitigation of such impacts
21 over the long term are likely to evolve into a significant financial
22 burden for County government and taxpayers. Within the last ten
23 years, the number of acres of permanently designated natural habitat
24 within the County have dramatically increased. Further, it is
25 apparent that various federal and California State agencies and other
26 entities presently have plans to continue to increase the amount of
27 land permanently designated as natural habitat within the County.
28 In many cases, when property is transferred to a government
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
agency or a private entity, association or person engaged in or
facilitating conversions for conservation purposes, or a conservation
easement or similar deed restriction which limits the use of property
to those uses consistent with such a conversion is recorded, the
income-producing potential of such property is lost or diminished.
If the income-producing potential of such property is lost or
diminished, the ability and/or willingness. of the owners of such
property to pay the costs of future impacts may well diminish
correspondingly. Thus, the burden of funding future.impact mitigation
would likely shift to taxpayers unless such funding is considered and
provided for in connection with the transfer of the property and/or
the recordation of the easement or restriction. Entities engaged in
or facilitating land conversions for conservation purposes offer
property owners financial incentives to convert land for conservation
purposes. The amount which is adequate to fund future impact
mitigation should be considered simultaneously with such offers, not
at a later date.
It is the board's intent to ensure that future impact mitigation
be funded by the owners of the oronerties from which such impacts
emanate, rather than County taxpayers. A regulatory process which
evaluates foreseeable future impacts will facilitate informed choices
by property owners or potential property owners proposing land
conversions for conservation purposes and will ensure adequate County
oversight. In addition, a regulatory process which reQuires those
proposing conversions for conservation purposes to ensure over the
long term that adequate funds will be available to eliminate or
mitigate foreseeable future impacts such as those set forth above is
necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of 'the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
residents of the County. The puroose of this ordinance is to provide
such a regulatory process.
Section 2-. Section 24-291, entitled "Conversion or resteration for
Conservation'Purposes" added to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning",of the
Butte County Code. Section 24-291 is added to the Butte County Code
to read as follows:
"Section 24-291. Conversionor.restoration for Conservation
Purposes. A use permit shall be required in all zones for
t Te a Conversion for of any existing use of the land, or t1i
restoration of the habitat t
abheIPi-G'rr fisheries she"`vs�rrirr
wildlife presezves ut other Conservation Purposes, 'by
abandoning the existing use, grading, planting or removaa-
A buffer shall be required to protect
existing agricultural uses on adjacent land and to.ensure
that normal, necessary farm operations may continue thereon.
The buffer shall normally.be 300 feet between the use
established pursuant to the use permit and the agricultural
use, but it may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances
or features on the land, such as topographic features,
substantial tree stands, water courses, or similarly defined
features. Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer
area. The buffer shall be located totally on the land
subject to the use permit.",
Section 3. Section 24-292, entitled "Initial Review Process - Tiered
Permit System for Conversions for Conservation Purposes" added to
Chapter 24 entitled "Zoning", of the Butte County Code. Section 24-
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
+ 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• P •
292 is added to the Butte'Countv,Code to read as follows:
Section 24-292. Initial review .process - tiered `permit
system for Conversions for• -Conservation Purposes
The Planning Manager shall develop.an initial review
process for evaluating the scope and severity of
environmental impacts which are reasonably foreseeable
to result from a proposed Conversion for Conservation,
.Purposes. -As part of the initial review process, the
Planning Manager shall consult with other agencies and
County departments- as necessary, to develop impact
severity criteria, which will be utilized in the
development of an objective impact scoring system.
When a use permit is applied for pursuant to section-
24-291, 24-90(c) (8) , ..or 24-220(b) (7) , the Planning
Manager .shall employ .the objective impact scoring
system to place each individual proposed conversion
.project into'one of three categories. Depending upon
which of the three categories the Planning Manager
places the proposed Conversion project into as a
result of the point score received by the proposed
project, the proposed Conversion project may be
subject to the procedure specified in Section 24-40
(b) (administrative .permit procedure), or the
procedure specified in Section 24-41(b) - (e) (minor
use permit procedure), in lieu of the procedure
specified in Sections 24-45 - 24-45.65 (use permit
procedure).
H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
161
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
271
0
Section 4. Section 24-293, entitled "Exemption for impacts addressed
in other specified regulatory processes" added to Chapter 24, entitled
"Zoning", of the Butte County Code. Section 24-293 is added to the
Butte County Code to read as follows:
Section 24-293. Exemption for impacts addressed in other
specified regulatory processes.
An applicant for a use permit for a Conversion for
Conservation Purposes pursuant to Section 24-291, 24-
90 (c) (8) , or ,24-220 (b) (7) shall not be required to
mitigate impacts already mitigated through permit
conditions imposed pursuant to a regulatory process
administered by the California Reclamation Board or a
regulatory process administered by the County,
pursuant to the Flood Hazard Prevention and/or the
Special Levee Permit Zone II provisions of Butte
County Code Chapter 26.
Section 5. Subsection (c), entitled "Uses requiring use permits", of
Section 24-90, entitled "A-5 through A-160 (Agricultural Zones)" of
Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", amended by adding subparagraph (8)!
Subsection (c) of Section 24-90 of the Butte County Code is amended
by adding subparagraph (8) thereto, to read as follows:
Section 24-90(c). Uses requiring use permits. The following',
uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
(1) Public or quasipublic uses..
(2) Public tasting rooms in conjunction with a winery,
provided that such tasting room be considered accessory to
the on-site winery.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19-
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(3) Kennels, feed stores, public or riding stables, and
academies.
(4) Outdoor commercial recreational facilities on sites not
less than five (5) acres.
(5) Wood lots and wood processing plants selling and
processing wood not grown on site. Mining and commercial
excavationrequiring a mining permit and reclamation plan
pursuant to chapter 13 of the Butte County Code.
(6) Private airports or air strips that are not accessory
to an agricultural use.
(7) The segregation of a homesite pursuant to section 24-
285, the segregation of. an agricultural processing site
pursuant to section 24-290.
(8)Fisheries and.wildlife habitat preserves,
including but
not limited to the conversion fron, any en-isting agricultura-1-
ttse of the land, or the restoration of the habitat thereon -,-
for fishery or w±ldlife preserves or other conservation
purposes, by abandoning the . txng use,. gra-ding, planting
or removal pf vegetati Conversion for Conservation
Purposes. A buffer shall be required to protect existing
agricultural uses on adjacent land and to ensure that
normal, necessary farm operations may continue thereon. The
buffer shall normally be 300 feet between the use
established pursuant to the use permit and the agricultural
use, but it may�.be. adjusted to address unusual
circumstances or features on the land,.such as topographic
features, substantial tree stands, water courses, or
similarly defined features. Agricultural uses may be
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27-
28
permitted in the buffer area. 'The buffer shall be located
totally on the land subject'to the use permit."
Section 6. Subsection (b), entitled "Uses requiring a use permit", of
Section 24-220; entitled "R -C (Resource Conservation) Zone amended
by adding subparagraph ('7) thereto. Subsection (b). of Section 24-220
of the Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
"Section 24-220 (b). Uses requiring a use permit. -
(1) Preserves for nonnative wildlife species.,
(2) Establishment of rest stops, vista points, and bicycle,
pedestrian and equestrian trails, not including commercial
sales and services.
(3) Exploration and reconstruction of historical and
archaeological sites and structures.
(4) Permanent improvements needed for the protection of land
and resources from fire, erosion, floods, slides, quakes,
.insects, diseases and pollution.
(5) Stations to monitor .air-quality, water quality and
seismic activities.,.
(6) Mining and quarrying. This permit does not exclude any
other permits as required by other regulatory agencies or
from review by said agencies.
(7) The conversion of any existing use of ''Hie- land,' or the
restoration of the - abi-tat. thereon, for res and
wildlife presi�!rves or other cons ervalt -*L I_)II purposes, by
the existing use, grading, planting or removal
of vegetation Conversion for Conservation Purposes. A'
buffer shall be required to protect existing agricultural
7
21
3
4
5
6
7
8
MI
101
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
18
19
20
21
22
23 1
24
25
26
27
28
uses on adjacent land and to ensure that normal, necessary
farm operations may continue thereon. The buffer shall
normally be 300 feet between the use established pursuant,
to the use permit and the agricultural use, but it may be
adjusted to address unusual circumstances or features on the
land, such as topographic features, substantial tree stands,
water courses, or similarly defined features. Agricultural
uses may be permitted in the buffer area. The buffer shall
be located totally on the land subject to the use permit."
Section 7. Section 24-305.098.1, entitled "Conversion'for Conservation
Purposes"., is added to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", of the Butte
County Code. New definition section 24-305.098.1 is added to the
Butte County code to read as follows:
"Section 24-305.098.1: Conversion for Conservation Purposes.
(a) The conversion of any existing use. of the
land, or the enhancement and/or restoration of habitat
thereon, for plant, fisheries, wildlife and/or habitat
preserves, or for other conservation purposes. Such
conversion includes, but is not limited" to related
activities such as flooding, grading, planting, and/or
the removal of vegetation, but does not include the
fallowing, enhancement or .conservation of land for
agricultural purposes.
(b) Actions including, but not limited to the
following are objective indicators that a Conversion
for Conservation Purposes is contemplated or has
occurred:
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
•
1. A pending, proposed or completed recordation
of a conservation easement or similar deed
restriction or agreement•which limits the use of
a parcel or ,parcels to those uses which are
consistent with such a Conversion.
2. A pending, proposed or completed transfer of
ownership of property to a government entity or
agency or a private entity, association or person
enaaaed in and/or facilitating Conversion for
Conservation Purposes.
Section 8. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances.is for any reason
held to be ,invalid by a court -of competent jurisdiction, such
provision shall be deemed severable, and the invalidity thereof shall
not affect the remaining provi"sions or other applications of the
Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application thereof.
Section 9. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days after the date of°its passage. The Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors is authorized and•directed to publish this
ordinance before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its
passage. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of
the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it, in.
the *a newspaper of general
circulation published in the County of Butte, State of California.
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors -of the County of
Butte, State. of California, on the day of ,
2002, by the following vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
R.J. Beeler, Chair of the
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL McINTOSH, Chief
Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board
By
GAORDINANOCONV ERSIONusel wpd
10
_iv ies _r. �o
>773 � -
jZ6radzv,e�, G_,t 9 96'9
080) N77 -5-5A5
G' rnaiL��'ordc ao�coni
1/22/03
To: Butte County Planning Commission
From: Priscilla L. Hanford
Re: Proposed Permit Requirements for Conservation Easements
Dear Commissioners:
I have been informed of the proposal to require that conservation
easements granted to a land trust be subjected to a use permit review process
and fee imposition. I wish to express my concern over this proposal.
My late husband and I pursued alternatives over several years to place
our Paradise Ridge acreage in conservancy, removed from subdivision potential.
or commercial timber harvesting, but accessible for environmental educational
and recreational purposes by recognized public or private nonprofit groups.
We'd not received positive responses from national organizations, so we were
delighted when the Paradise Ridge Land Trust, in its formational period,
approached us to consider placing our land in conservation easement with the
"new" local entity. Subsequently, dedication of 83 acres was consummated
under the auspices of the Northern California Regional Land Trust, of which the
Paradise trust is a member. I'm particularly grateful to the Paradise Ridge Land
Trust for asking us to "take a chance" on conservation easement by'a local group
as a kind of test case. The finalizing of our easement was the greatest lasting
legacy of my late husband, John R. Hanford, whose dream this was.
Some years ago, Butte County itself attempted to_establish a land trust. I_
was on the first Board of Directors, which worked with the County to place a
fairly significant acreage associated with a major development on Hwy. 32, into
easement for the values of watershed protection and deer migration.
Formalization of this County Land Trust never happened, due to insurance
complexities. But I want to remind you Commissioners that Butte County
expressed then, and I trust still expresses today, a commitment to preserve
environmental values through "win-win" approaches like the land trust model.
I urge you to set aside* pressures of the immediate fiscal crisis, and to
encourage rather than inhibit the future creation of conservation easements in
Butte County by turning down, or by requiring more study of the current
proposal. Thank you for your consideration.
ii
BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO AND
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
Butte County
Planning Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
5117 LARKIN ROAD
OROVILLE, CA. 95965-9250
JAMES CAMY
Manager
Phone: (530) 533-6038
(530) 342-7350
FAX (530) 534-9916
January 7, 2003 RE_
JAN 8
BUTM cou'%ly
nEVEt o_�jj rt [��'ICEs
Re: Proposed ordinance requiring a use permit for conversion or restoration of
land for wildlife purposes
Dear Commission Members:
I am writing to support the need for a County Wide use permit for conversion of
property to wildlife preservation or Wildlife habitat uses.
While the District is not against the conversion of property to these uses, we
strongly, support the need to review such proposals and add appropriate mitigation that
may be necessary to protect public health from vectors of disease. One example of
why such an ordinance is needed can be seen in the mosquito problems created by the .
expansion of waterfowl habitat in Butte County over the last ten years. This expanding
acreage of waterfowl habitat is flooded several times during the summer and is
responsible for producing unprecedented numbers of flood water mosquitoes with each
flooding. This potential vector of encephalitis can fly up to 30 miles from its source and
has been responsible for severe mosquito infestations and. increased health risk to the
residents of Butte County from Gridley to Chico (see enclosed 11 year graph of District
light trap collections for this species). According to the Central Valley Habitat Joint
Venture there are also plans to further increase waterfowl habitat acreage in Butte
County by up to 24,000 acres.
Landowners of property recently converted to wetlands have claimed that they.
were not advised and were unaware of any potential problems and costs associated
with wetland development. The proposed ordinance would alert property owners
contemplating creation of wildlife habitat of their responsibility to prevent mosquito
problems through proper design and water management. They must also be held
financially responsible for any mosquito problems that they create.
The ordinance would also warn Federal agencies, which are at present exempt
from'State laws, that they will be held financially responsible for the cost of controlling
mosquitoes on Federal property.
It is also suggested that the ordinance include specific language that would,
require property owners to have a water management plan specifically designed to help
prevent or reduce the occurrence of mosquitoes. The use permit should require an
adequate endowment fund set up to pay for mosquito control in wildlife areas likely to
produce mosquitoes. Current costs for mosquito, control in wetland sources is $12.60
per acre, per flooding utilizing an insect growth hormone called Altosid. This bio
rational product specifically controls the aquatic stages of mosquitoes with minimal non
target effects.
Emerging mosquito transmitted diseases such as West Nile virus and the
introduction in California of new vector speciessuch as the Asian tiger mosquito will
add to.the already present disease threat from mosquito transmitted encephalitis and
malaria in California.
In summary we believe that the proposed ordinance will help protect Butte -
County residents by insuring that the creation or preservation of wildlife areas does not
result in new or expanded public health risks.
Sincerely,
James A. Camy
Manager
JAC:ds
planning ordinance
Gat-"i.'=G=[i�e=
Female Melanlmon
s
++wtvW ciAAtnNMM-4
N1 O t71 O t� O N1 O C� O tit O tit O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
'
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
IP
WA
WL '
fb
N
D
g
a
O
�.
WL
N
ID
aML
o
ML
Gat-"i.'=G=[i�e=
•
s
JAN -16-2003 09:19
Butte County
Planning Commi
7 County Center
Oroville, CA 95
Re: Propc
Dear
BTU HEADQUARTERS
January 15, 2003
530 538 7401 P.02iO3
ed ordinance requiring a use permit for conversion or
of land for conservation purposes.
Members:
In respons
to the proposed amendment of the Butte County Code,
Chapter 24, requing a use permit for conversion of land uses for habitat
restoration or for
nervation purposes, the Fire Department offers the following
discussion and
commendations.
The conve sion of lands resulting in the abandonment of existing uses
such as farming,
rading, grazing, planting or removal of vegetation including
timber harvesting
could alter or reduce the positive impacts of fuel reduction.
Such conversionf
could result in an unacceptable buildup of flammable
vegetation. Con v
rsion of agricultural land uses could result in a reduction of fire
control barriers, such
as irrigated cropland or orchards. Each conversion would
have its own set
of issues and possible concerns.
During the
past eight years, the Fire Department has been working with
the Butte County
Fire Safe Council to implement the State Fire Plan. The intent
of this plan is to r
aduce the adverse- impacts of fire in California through
community stake
iolder involvement. Locally this cooperative approach has
resulted in the BL
tte Fire Plan. A key component of this fire plan has been the
development of
mmunity fuel reduction plans and the reduction of excessive
flammable fuels
n private lands. .
The Fire C
epartment recommends consideration, of a fire reduction / fuel
management pla
i requirement for use permits required by such conversions. it
should be noted
at such plans could be quite complex and would require a
case by case rev ew. Management plans for fuel reduction should include initial
treatment prescri
tions as well as ongoing maintenance plans. Components of
the plan might in
itconversion size (acres), adjoining uses, fuel types,
topography/slope,
past use of land, current use of land, intended future use of
land; immediate assets
at risk and remote assets at risk. A considerable amount
of work would be
required to develop a functional and reasonable matrix to assist
the landowner in
leveloping a workable plan.
Wayne T. Wilson
Battalion Chief, Fire
Protection Planning
•
January 15, 2003
Butte County
Planning Commission
7 -County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: Proposed ordinance requiring a use permit for conversion or
restoration of land for conservation purposes.
Dear Commission Members:
I am writing to support the need for a use permit for the conversion or
restoration of land for conservation purposes. I am concerned that without
planning and review, land conversion.could inadvertently worsen public health
threats. In particular, I am concerned that land conversion could create
conditions that would produce greater number of mosquito vectors, which can
spread infectious diseases such as West Nile Virus.
Recently Jim Camy of the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control
District wrote the Commission a letter insupport of the need for County Wide use
permits for the conversion of property to wildlife preservation or wildlife habitat
uses (letter dated 1-7-03). 1 support Jim Camy's assessment and description of
challenges created.by land conversion and its relationship to mosquito control.
The Butte County Public Health Department works closely with Butte County
Mosquito and Vector Control to respond to public health threats such as Malaria,
Western Equine Encephalitis, and the West Nile Virus. We expect that this
summer California will begin to experience -the next wave of West Nile
encephalitis cases that has been moving across our Country. Butte County
certainly has mosquito concerns that make control of West Nile Virus a
challenge. Mosquito control will become even more critical to the public's health
and well being as we face a probable West Nile virus outbreak in California
beginning this summer.
In summary, I support the need for a use permit for the conversion or
restoration of land.for conservation purposes since there can be public health
implications as outlined above.
by
Cordially
Mark A. Lundberg, MD, MPH ,
Butte County Public Health Department
202 Mira Loma Way
Oroville CA, 95965
530-538-7581
i
December 12, 2002
Butte County Planning Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Commissioners,
I traveled to Oroville this morning from the office of the Sacramento River Preservation Trust (Trust) in
Chico in order to submit comments concerning the "Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring Use
Permits for Conversion or Restoration for Conservation Purposes". According to the public notice
concerning this issue, the Planning Commission meeting was to begin at 9:30 am. Upon arrival, however, it
was discovered that the meeting of the Butte County Development Review Committee was running
exceptionally long, leading to the postponement of the Planning Commission meeting to 1:30 pm. Due to a
prior commitment in the afternoon, I was not able to return to Oroville, so I am submitting the following
comments via fax for inclusion in the public record:
The Trust believes that the proposed ordinance referenced above is not consistent with the
Butte County General Plan. Specific to the Agricultural Element, the staff analysis highlighting
Programs 2.2 and 2.3 is flawed due to the fact that the focus of both of those programs is on
residential and related development, not habitat.
2. The Trust believes the proposed ordinance is not exempt from CEQA as set forth in CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15308. The staff.has attempted to define the word "environment" in a totally
inappropriate fashion. This is best exemplified by the Orwellian statement that the ordinance "is
intended to protect the 'environment"' when there is a good chance that it may actually do the
exact opposite. I
3. The assertion by staff that there has been predation directly tied to habitat preserves is not
supported by any factual representation.
As a consequence of the above, and in the belief that the proposed ordinance may in fact put an additional
burden on the agricultural community as well as be a direct threat to private property rights, the Trust
hereby requests that the Butte County Planning Commission recommend that the Butte County Board of
Supervisors reject the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
John Merz
Chair, Board of Directors
to:
'fax #:
from:`
date:
subject:
4 pages:,
Yvonne Christopher; Development Services Director
538.7785
Jim Saake
December 11 '
Proposed ordinance A
Cover'plus 2
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL LAND TRUST
Butte County Planning Commissioners `
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA
Sent via facsimile transmission 538-7785
December 11, 2002
Dear Planning Commissioners -
The Board of Directors of the Northern California Regional Land Trust`(NCRLT)
respectfully requests that the Butte County Planning Commission continue the
proposed ordinance requiring a use permit for the'conversion of existing uses to
conservation pending further discussion and resolution of key issues.
Specifically we believe the use permit requirement should not be applied to
conservation easements. We ask that you focus your efforts on farmland
adjacent to the Sacramento River, as that appears to be your area of concern,
rather than requiring a use permit County -wide.
The NCRLT is a local non-profit organization that has a mission of assisting
landowners with voluntary conservation of their property. The primary tool .for
achieving this goal is a conservation easement, a transfer of property rights that
restricts subdivision and development to specified levels and/or, prohibits specific
uses. We believe the proposed ordinance is a disincentive to voluntary
conservation. The use permit requirement could complicate and add
unnecessary expense to.conservation of all sorts.
State enabling legislation provides for the use and conveyance of conservation
easements to qualified conservation organizations such as ourselves. It appears
that you are assuming discretionary authority over the exercise of property rights
in a manner that may be preempted by State law. Your recommendation on the
ordinance should be delayed until your staff has had the opportunity to report on
the ordinance's compatibility with state law relative to conservation easements,
and the NCRLT and members of the public have time to review that report.
We have no objection to the County exercising its land use authority over County
land adjacent to the Sacramento River, the understood point of concern
prompting the proposed ordinance. A County -wide use permit requirement isnot
the appropriate mechanism to exercise that authority. The use permit cannot
practically be used to prevent the abandonment of agricultural practices any
more than it could prevent the abandonment of other businesses.
167 East 3rd Avenue • Chicc, CA 95926 • 530-894-7738
Recycled Paper
a •
NCRLT letter re: proposed ordinance requiring
use permit for conservation. Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns. We would like to meet with
staff to discuss our concerns and determine whether an ordinance more
respectful of property rights can be drafted to meet County's land use planning
objectives.
We believe our request for the continuance is reasonable under the
circumstances. The item was noticed in the Enterprise -Record on Monday,
November 25. We called the Planning Division on Wednesday, November 27,
but were not able to obtain a copy of the ordinance from the County Counsel's
office until Tuesday, December 3.
Sind rely,
I ,
,dim Saake
Pres. Bde. of Directors
NCRLT
f
-JEAN.. CRIST, MAGALIA RESIDENT `
DARE*I USE THE, TERM ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST,
WHICH MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONHERE. 1'.
AM HERE ABOUT THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REQUESTED BY THE BOS �ON THE ISSUE OF AMENDING.
SEC. 24 OF. THE BC CODE .(ZONING rORD.)BY "ADDING THE
REQUIREMENT OF A USE PERMIT FOR_ � �I CONVERSION
OF LAND FOR ��CONSERVATION PURPOSE. IN f=Ak O
BUTTE COUNTY.
WITH THIS BROAD BRUSH YOU COVER ALL THE
AGENCIES, CONSERVANCIES, COMMUNITY
FOUNDATIONS AND LAND." TRUSTS WHICH ARE. '
CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING TO SET ASIDE LAND FOR.-,
CONSERVATION OF OPEN ' SPACE FOR HABITAT,VIEW . -
'SITES, ETC. THEY ARE -ATTEMPTING TO MAKE BUTTE
COUNTY -ABETTER PLACE TO LIVE. NOW THEY WILL Bl
4 . PENALIZED FOR THIS ATTEMPT. -
BUTTE COUNTY HAS DIVERSE TOPOGRAPHY.- ONE SIZE
t DOES NOT FIT ALL! FOR";EXAMPLE, PROBLEMS WITH
THE SACRAMENTO RIVER MEANDER ZONES HAS NO
RELATION TO PRESERVING LOOKOUT-, POINT ON
SKYWAY, .AND YET THEY WILI;-=BE LUMPED TOGETHER,,
IN THE NEED FOR USE PERMITS.
BUTTE COUNTY HAS SOMETHING -NONE ,OF THE -
COUNTIES TO THE SOUTH HAS, . AND THAT IS OPEN'.
SPACE:. THE SPEED WITH WHICH IT • IS BEING -
`GOBBLED UP,IS*MIND BOGGLING.,WHY SHOULDTHOSE
• _ F 1
i S
TRYING TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THIS "
COUNTY BE PENALIZED FOR THEIR EFFORTS ?
YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIR. DEV. SEVICES, --HAS
MENTIONED AN APPROX..USE FEE *OF $1500 FOR THESE'
SITES. NOT MANY OF THE SMALLER GROUPS WILL BE'
ABLE TO PAY THESE FEES. ,
I REALIZE THAT PRESSURE BROUGHT ON THE BOS HAS
NOW BEEN TRANSFERRED TO YOU FOR REVIEW. WHAT
REALLY IS. THE PROBLEM HERE??? IS THIS ANOTHER
WAY TO GET MORE MONEY INTO COUNTY COFFERS AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT? o� cog
WHAT I AM ASKING Is THAT EACH PARCEL OF LAND
BEING CONVERTED.BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS.
MORE WORK (POSSIBLY), BUT IN THE LONG RUN IT
WILL WORK TO THE BETTERMENT OF BUTTE COUNTY
INSTEAD OF RAMPANT POORLY PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT. r
t
'
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Ordinance No.
ORDINANCE REQUIRING USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OR
RESTORATION OF LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as
follows:,
Section'l. Purpose: The purpose of'this ordinance includes, but is
not limited to.the regulation of specified activities for the purpose
of protecting man-made conditions on farmland within the
unincorporated area of the County which is adjacent to land upon which
a conversibn to natural habitat is proposed.
Section 2. Section 24-291, entitled "Conversion' or restoration for
conservation ournoses" added to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", of the
Butte County Code.. Section 24-291.is added to the Butte County Code
to read as follows:
"Section 24-291. Conversion or restoration.for.conservation
purposes. A use permit shall be required in all zones for
the conversion of any existing use of the land, or the
restoration of the habitat thereon for fisheries and
wildlife preserves or other conservation purposes,,by
abandoning the existing use, grading, planting or removal
of vegetation. A buffer shall be required to protect
existing agricultural uses on adjacent land and to ensure
that normal necessary farm operations may continue thereon.
The buffer shall normally be 300 feet between the use
established pursuant to the use permit and the agricultural
use but it may. be .adjusted to address unusual circumstances
or features on the land, such as topographic features,.
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
221
23
24
25
26
27
28
substantial tree stands, water courses, or similarly,defined
features. Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer
area. The buffer shall be totally on the land subject to
the use permit."
Section 3. Subsection (c), entitled "Uses requiring use permits", of
Section 24-90,- entitled "A-5 through A-160 (Agricultural Zones)" of
Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", amended by .adding subparagraph (8)
Subsection (c). of Section 24-90 of the Butte County Code is amended
by adding subparagraph (8) thereto, to read as follows:
Section 24-90(c). Uses requiring use permits.. The following
uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
(1) Public or quasipublic uses.
(2) Public tasting rooms in conjunction with a winery,
provided that such tasting room be considered accessory to
the on-site winery.
(3) Kennels, feed stores, public or riding stables, and
academies.
(4) outdoor commercial recreational facilities on sites not
less than five (5) acres.
(5) Wood lots and wood processing plants selling and
processing wood not grown on site. Mining and commercial
excavation requiring a mining permit and reclamation plan
pursuant to chapter 13•of the Butte County Code.
(6) Private airports or air strips that are not accessory
to an agricultural use. y
(7) The segregation of a homesite pursuant to section 24-
285, the segregation of an agricultural processing site
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pursuant to section 24-290.
(8)Fisheries and wildlife habitat preserves, including but
not limited to the conversion from any existing agricultural
use of the land, or the restoration of the habitat thereon,
for fishery or wildlife preserves or other conservation
purposes, by abandoning the existing use, grading, planting
or removal of vegetation. A 'buffer shall be required to
protect existing agricultural uses on adjacent land and to
ensure that normal, necessary farm operations may continue
thereon. The buffer shall normally be 300 feet between the
use established pursuant to the use permit and the
agricultural use, but it may be adjusted to address unusual
circumstances or features on the land, such as topographic
features, substantial tree stands, water courses, or
similarly defined features. Agricultural uses may be
permitted in the buffer area. The buffer shall be totally
on the land subject to the use permit."
Section 4. Subsection (b), entitled "Uses reauiring a use permit", of
Section 24-220, entitled "R -C (Resource Conservation) Zone", amended
by adding subparagraph (7) thereto. Subsection (b) of Section 24-220
of the Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
"Section 24-220.(b). Uses requiring a use permit.
(1) Preserves for nonnative wildlife species. -
(2) Establishment of rest stops, vista points, and bicycle,
pedestrian and equestrian trails, not including commercial
sales and services.
(3) Exploration and reconstruction of historical andl
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
archaeological sites and structures.
(4) Permanent improvements needed for the protection of land
and resources from fire, erosion, floods, slides, quakes,
insects, diseases and.pollution.
(5) Stations to monitor air quality, water quality and
seismic activities.
(6) Mining and quarrying. This permit does .not exclude any
other permits as required by other regulatory agencies or
from review by said agencies.
(7) The conversion of any existing use of the land, or the
restoration of the habitat thereon, for fisheries and
wildlife preserves or other i conservation purposes, by
abandoning the existing use, grading, planting or removal
of. vegetation. A buffer shall be required to protect
existing agricultural uses on adjacent land and to ensure
that normal, necessary farm operations may continue
thereon. The buffer shall normally be 300 feet between the,
use established' pursuant to the use permit and the
agricultural use, but it may be adjusted to address unusual
circumstances or features on the land, such as topographic
features, substantial tree stands, water courses, or
similarly defined features. Agricultural uses may be
permitted in the buffer area. The buffer shall be totally
on the land subject to the use permit."
Section 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the
application'thereof to any person'or circumstances is for any reason.
held to be invalid by acourt of competent jurisdiction, such
El
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provision shall be deemed severable, and the invalidity thereof shall
not affect the remaining provisions or other applications of the
Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application thereof.
Section 6. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage. The Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors is authorized and directed to publish this
ordinance before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its
passage. This Ordinance shall be published once, with'the names of
the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it, in
the a newspaper of general
circulation published in the County of Butte, State of California.
'PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board.of Supervisors of the County of
Butte, State of California, on the day of, ,
2002, by the following vote: -
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT: {
NOT VOTING:
ATTEST:
PAUL McINTOSH,-Chief,
Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board
By, --
GAORDINANOCONVERSIONusempd
CURT JOSIASSEN, Chair of the
Butte County Board.,of Supervisors
5
0
Paradise Post
Declaration of Publication
State of California
County of Butte
Declarant Says:
That at all times herein mentioned Declarant is and was:
said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one years; n
interested in the within matter; that Declarant is now an(
times herein mentioned the Legal Clerk of the Paradise)
weekly newspaper, which said newspaper was adjudged
general circulation on November 12, 1946, by Superior
No. 22262 as entered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court
newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thus
Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that d
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONMSSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEGAL # 5 75 -02
Of which the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a tri
Was published in said newspaper in the issues of,
NOVEMBER 28, 2002
and that such publications was made in the regular issue
(and not in any supplemental edition or extra thereof).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is ti
Executed on NOVEMBER 28, 2002
At Paradise, California.
Declarant
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning
Commission that a public hearing will be held on
Thursday, December 12, 2002 in the Butte County Board
of Supervisors Room, County Administration Center, .25
County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the
following item:
ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
. 9:30 a.m. - Butte County Board of Superviors, Zoning
Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the
Butte County Code (Zoning 'Ordinance ,by
adding a requirement of a Use Permit for the
conversion or abandonment of any existing
use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other
conservation purpose, County -wide. (CS)
(ZCA 03-01)
The above mentioned application and map is on file and
available for public. viewing at the office of the Butte
County Development Services Department. Planning
Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. For
information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Comments may be submitted in
writing at .any time prior to the hearing or orally at the
meeting listed above or as may be continued to a later date.
Upon„ action taken by the Planning Commission on the
project and appeal may be filed with the Clerk of the Board
of'Supervisors. The appeal period is 10 days. If you chal-
lenge,the above application in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written corre-
spondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or
prior to, the public hearing.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, 575-02
DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Nov. 28, 2002
(SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE''
In The Matter Of
Notice of Public Hearing.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of California
ss.
County of Butte
The undersigned resident of the county of
'Butte, State of California, says:
That I am, and at all time herein mentioned n
was a citizen of the United States and not a party
to nor interested in the above entitled matter;
that I am the principal clerk of the printer and
publisher of
The Chico Enterprise -Record
The Oroville Mercury=Register
That said newspaper is one of general circula-
tion as defined by Section 6000 Government
Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796
by the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned was printed
and published daily in the City of Chico and
County of Butte; that the notice of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, was published in
said newspaper on the following days:
Nov. 25, 02.
Dated November 27, 2002.
at Chico, Calif rnia.
(Signatu
No.
a BUTTE :'COUNTYPLANNING COMMISSION
XE qF..' LIC NEARING
k t*
�� Notice is hereby.: given,,: by the Butte County Planning
,,14 C, is'sion;that a public.' hearing wilkbe held on Thursday,
December.12i 2002; in the Butte County Board of Supervisors':
Room, County Administration. Center; 25 County Center Drive,
Oroville, California, regarding the following item:,
E ; ENVIF
,.'.9-30 A.M. Butte Count
Amendment
.County 'Coc
requirement.
any"existing
other conse
(ZCA"03-01 )
The -'a'604; mentioned
!"available for public view
DeD66'omentt Services D
Center Drive, Oroville, Cc
760V (Monday; througf
Comments may be subrr
wnunuea to, a �ateroatE
Commission',on the prof
Clerk of the Board of Sup
if'Ou°challenge the ab(
limited. to.raising only tho
at, the "public • hearing di
`correspondence deliverer
prior to, the public hearinc
NMENTAL REVIEW
Board of Supervisors, Zoning Code • ,
amend Section 24 of the Butte
(Zoning .Ordinance) by adding a
a: Use Permit for the conversion of
>e to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or ,
Ston. purpose, County -wide.. (CS)
)plication_ and map is on' file and
gnat the office of the Butte County'
artment, Planning Division,'7 County,
Dana. For information call: (530) 538-
F,
38
F(day, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).
ed in writing at any time prior to the
ieeting listed above or as may be
Upon action taken by the Planning
tan appeal may be filed with. the
Visors. The appeal period is 10 days.
y� .
,"application in court, you may be
issuesyouu.or someone else raised
cribed in- this notice `or in 'written
o the Planning Commission, at or
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
A
O • VV
v 2 6 2002 BUTTE COUNTY' D 0
;1 . �•..-T DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION.
p�ANNINO0IVISION NOV Z 2 2002
City of Chico
FROM: Butte County Planning Division P(q /// OF Cy/c
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Butte County Board of Supervisors, IRYO/V
DATE: November 21, 2002 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders
The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment
sheet is to:
1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project
and submit conditions, if any; and to
2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as'well as to identify particular
environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated.
If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing
date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is
needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time'and efforts.
This is an application to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve or other conservation purpose.
Location is county wide on property'Zoned (All Zones), located at Butte County, identified as APN: (Various - County
Wide Supervisorial District No. ALL. ,
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one) .
X PLANNING COMMISSION - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON March 13, 2003.
COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED 'BY NO LATER THAN December 3, 2002. If no comments
or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
By:Date: !/16;2coep—
r
7County Center Drive - Oroville, California.95965 = 530-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785
' r ,
11/25/2002 15:01. 5305382426 CITY OF OROVILLE PAGE 01
CITY. OF OROVILLt
f PLANNING DEPARTMENT
:./ JO SHERMAN, PLANNING MANAGER
Phone (530) 538-2436, FAX (630) 53 -2426. '
FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: NUMBER OF PAGES (including thjs page): 1
November 25, 2002
Craig Sanders _
538-7785 ,
SUBJECT: Proposed ZCA 03-01 (use permit required for conversion of use).
Just a couple of brief questions. Is an'application for conversion likely tb be denied? If
so, what would be the basis of the denial, assuming the application conforms to the
described buffer requirements?
I think the criteria for approval / denial should be very clear, so decisiont aren't
"arbitrary." And if the criteria are clear enough (such as meeting the buffer described in
the proposal), perhaps,_ only the criteria and a minlsterial permit requirerient need to be
adopted. Unless some applications that provide the described buffer could be denied,
the use permit process is awfully expensive and cumbersome.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on this proposal.
HE V C.E0 E
F�OV 2 6 2002
Iii:; l'• E �ut;i•fiY
PLANNING DIVISION
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVIC
PLANNING DIVISION NOV 2 5 2002
TO: California Department of Forestry -. CM
TE U'i�i - C- -IY `-
-t�ui
FROM: Butte County Planning Division PLANNING DIVISION
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Butte County Board of Supervisors, ZCA 03-01
DATE: November 21, 2002 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders
The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment
sheet is to:
1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project
and submit conditions, if any; and to
2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular
environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated.
If the application is determined to be complete .within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing
date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is
needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and.efforts.
This is an application to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve or other conservation aurpose
Location is county wide on property zoned (All Zones), located at Butte County, identified as APN: (Various - County
Wide). Supervisorial District No. ALL.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X - PLANNING COMMISSION - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON March 13, 2003.
COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN December 3, 2002.' If no comments or
communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. -
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
By: C✓ Date:
7 County Center Drive. - Oioville, California 95965 - 530-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785
11/26/2002 17:37 TOWN OF PARADISE 4 5387785 NO.173 '9002
N 0= PABUTTE �ADi3�
DEPARTNT O DE'VELO�PI ENT SERVICES � �
MEFMEATpcPT
PLANNING DIVISION NOV 2 2002
TO: City of Paradise
FROM: Butte County Planniog Division
RE: Request for Comments on a Develop *nt Application: Butte County Board of Supervisors, ZCA
DATE: November 21, 2002 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders
The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below, The puipose of this comment
sheet is to:
1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the ptoject
and submit conditions, if any; and to
2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular
environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated.'
If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing
date indicated below. if a response cannot he submitted within the time fume given, or if additional information is
needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code(Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use ermit for the conversion of an e ' tin use to a ftsbe wildlife preserve or other conservation u ose.
Location is county wide onproperty zoned nes located atAg#&g9M identified as APN: (Various - Counnt
M�do, Supervisorial District No. ALL.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A NEARING BEFORE THE - (check one)
X PLANMNG COMMISSION - _ DEVELOPMENT ItEYIEW COMMITTEE ON March13.2W3 •
COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN December 3 2002. If no commenu
or communications are received by the above date, the aasumption.will be made that your agency has no comment.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
otr � o erar
By:
m �= .Data Ac A -Z
o war O f
'*V
t to v. f�i /rt-3♦°M
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 530-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785
Richardson, Lynn -
From: MacKenzie, Robert
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:48 AM
To: Richardson, Lynn
Subject: FW: Conversion Zoning Ord.
-----Original Message----=
From: • MacKenzie; Robert
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Richardson, Lynn
Subject: Conversion Zoning Ord.
ATTORNEY CLIENT/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain
confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering
this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use
of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments and (3)
requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message(countycounsel@buttecounty.net), fax
(530) 538-6891, or telephone (530) 538-7621. Thank you.
The operative language for the proposed ordinance is in the paragraph below:
A use permit shall be required in all zones for the -conversion of any
existing use of the land, or the restoration of the habitat thereon
for fisheries and wildlife preserves or other conservation purposes,
by abandoning -the existing use, by grading, planting or removal of
vegetation. A buffer shall be required to protect existing
agricultural uses on adjacent land and to ensure that normal,
necessary farm operations may continue thereon. The buffer shall
normally be 300 feet between the use established pursuant to the use
permit and the agricultural use; but, it may be adjusted to address
unusual circumstances or features on the land, such as topographic
features, substantial tree stands, water courses, or similarly defined
features. Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer area.
The buffer shall be totally on the land subject to the use permit."
Robert MacKenzie
Butte County Counsel
(530) 538-7621
1
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Ordinance No.
ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONVERSION OR RESTORATION OF LAND
FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
I
The 'Board' of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as
II follows:
Section 1. Section 24-291 entitled "Conversion or restoration for
conservation purposes" added to Chapter 24 entitled "Zoning" of the
(Butte County Code. Section 24-291 is added to the Butte County Code
to read as follows:
"Section 24-291. Conversion or restorationfor conservation;
purposes. A use
permit shall
be
required
in all zones for the
conversion of any
existing use
of
the land
or the restoration
of the habitat thereon for fisheries and wildlife preserves or
other conservation purposes by grading planting or removal ofl
vegetation. A buffer shall be required to protect existing
agricultural uses on adiacent land and to ensure that normal
necessary farm operations may continue thereon The buffer shall
normally be 300 feet between the use established pursuant to the
use permit and the agricultural use but it may be adjusted to
address unusual circumstances or features on the land such as.
topographic features, substantial tree stands water courses or
similarly defined features. Agricultural uses may be permitted
in the buffer area. The buffer shall be totally on the land
subject -to the use permit."
Section 2. Amendment of definition of "Development" in subsection (2)'
of Section 26-29, entitled "Definitions" of Article IV entitled
1
I "Flood Hazard Prevention"; of Chapter 26 of the Butte County Code. The
2 definition of "Development" in subsection (2), of Section 26-29 of the
3 Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
5 "Section 26-29 (2) Development. Any, manmade change -to-
6 improved or unimproved real estate,,. -including but not
7 limited to the. placement, construction, • reconstruction,
$ removal or abandonment of an buildings or other.structures
9 or encroachment, or agricultural practice, mining, dredging,
10 filling, grading ,
11 , ,
12 `
13 paving, excavation, drilling operations. or
` 14 storage of _equipment or materials-, except agricultural
15 practices in any A-5; A'=10, A-15, A-20, A-40, or A-160 zone
16 -which can be demonstrated not' to increase flood levels
17 upstream or downstream.
18 -
19 `Section 3. Subsection 2.5, entitled "Encroachment added to Section
r
.20 x•26-29 entitled "Definitions" of Article IV entitled "Flood Hazard'
21 Prevention",'
revention of Chapter'26 of' the Butte County Code. Subsection.2.5
22 'is added to Section 26-29, of the Butte_ County Code to read as follows:
23
24 "Section 26-29 (2.5) Encroachment. Any.obstruction or. physical'
%25• intrusion including but not limited to those «caused by a.
26 building or'other structure,:by a levee, or by the planting or.
27 removal of vegetation (except planting or removal of vegetation.
28 in any' A-5• ' A-•10 A-15 A-20 A-40,' or -A-160, for agricultural
y ,2.
IN
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
144
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
purposes and which. can be demonstrated not to increase flood
levels upstream or downstream)."
Section 4. Amendment to Section 26-42, entitled "Permit required"
of Article V, entitled "Special' Permit Zone II Levee and Building
Regulations", of Chapter 26 of the'Butte County Code. Section 26-42
of the Butte. County Code is amended to read as follows:
"Section 26-42. Permit required. A permit is required. for the
placement, construction, reconstruction, removal or abandonment
of any building, any levee, or any encroachment in Special Permit
Zone II. No county permit shall be required pursuant to this
article pertaining to any levee over which the Reclamation Board
has retained jurisdiction or pertaining• to a levee -repair, as
defined in section 26-41. An application for a levee permit
pursuant 'to this Article except a building permit, shall be
subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act. "
Section 5. Amendment to Subsection (e), entitled "Encroachment", of
Section 26-41 entitled "Definitions", of Article V, entitled "Special.
Permit Zone II Levee and Building Regulations" of Chapter 26 of the.
Butte County Code. Subsection (e) of Section 26-41 of the Butte
County Code is amended to read as follows:
"Section 26-41 (e) Encroachment. Any obstruction or
physical intrusion caused by a -levee or building or by the
planting or removal of vegetation (except planting or
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,23
24
25
26
27
28
V
•
removal of vegetation in any A-5, A-10, A-15, A-20, A-40,
or A-160, for agricultural purposes and which. can be
demonstrated not to increase flood levels upstream or
downstream)."
Section 6. Subsection (c), entitled "Uses requiring use permits of`;
Section 24-90, entitled "A-5•through A-160 (Agricultural Zones)" of
Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", amended my adding, subparagraph (8)
Subsection (c) of Section 24 -90 -of the Butte County Code, is amended,
by added subparagraph (8) thereto, to read as'follows:
"Section 24-90 (c). Uses requiring use permits. The following
uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
(1) Publicor quasipublic uses.
(2) Public tasting rooms in conjunction with a winery,
provided that such tasting room be considered.accessory to
the on-site winery.
(3) Kennels, feed stores, public or riding stables, and
academies. .
(4) Outdoor commercial recreational facilities on sites'not
e
less than five*
_(5) acres.
(5) Wood lots and wood processing plants selling and
processing wood not grown on site. Mining and commercial
excavation requiring a mining permit and reclamation plan
pursuant to chapter 13 of the Butte County Code.
(6) Private airports.or air strips that are riot accessory
r
to an agricultural use.
(7). The segregation of a homesite pursuant to section 24-
4
1 285, the* segregation of. an agricultural processing site
2 pursuant to section,24-290.
3 (8)Fisheries and wildlife habitat preserves, including but
4 not limited to the conversion from any existing agricultural i
5 use of�the land, or the restoration of the habitat thereon
6 for fishery or wildlife preserves or other conservation'
7 purposes, by grading, planting or removal of vegetation A
8 buffer shall be required to protect existing agricultural]
9 uses on adjacent land and to ensure that normal, necessary)
10 farm operations may continue thereon.. The buffer shall!
11 normally be 300 feet between the use established pursuant)
12 to the use permit and the agricultural use, but it may bei
13 adiusted to address unusual circumstances or features on the 1
14 land, such as topographic features, substantial tree stands,)
15 water courses, or similarly defined features. Agricultural
16 uses may be permitted in the buffer area. The buffer shall
17 be totally on the land subject to the use permit." !
18.
19 Section 7. Subsection (b), entitled "Uses 'requiring a use permit",
20 of Section 24-220, entitled "R -C (Resource Conservation) Zone",
21 amended by adding subparagraph (7) thereto. Subsection (b) of Section
22 24-220 of the Butte County Code is amended to read as follows:
23 "
24 "Section 24-220 (b). Uses requiring a use permit.
25 (1) Preserves for nonnative wildlife species.
26 (2) Establishment of rest stops, vista points, and bicycle:
27 pedestrian and equestrian. trails, not 'including commerciaL
28 sales and services.
-5
1 - (3) Exploration' and reconstruction of historical and
2 archaeological sites and.structures.
3 (4) Permanent improvements needed for the protection of land
4 and resources from fire, erosion, floods, slides; quakes,
5' insects, diseases and pollution. '
6 (5) Stations to- monitor air quality, water quality ands
7. seismic activities.
8 (6) Mining and quarrying. This permit does not exclude any1
9 other permits as required by other regulatory. agencies orI
10 from review by said agencies
11 (7) The conversion of any existing use of the land or thel
12 restoration of the habitat thereon, for fisheries and
j-
13 wildlife preserves or other conservation purposes by
14 grading, planting or removal of vegetation. A buffer shall
15 be required to Tprotect existing agricultural uses' on
1'6 adjacent land and to ensure that normal necessary farm
17 operations mav'continue thereon. The buffer shall normally
18 -be 300 feet between the use established pursuant to the'use
19 permit and the agricultural use, but it may be adjusted to
20 address unusual circumstances.or_features on the land,'such
21 as topographic features, substantial' tree stands water
22` courses, or similarly defined features. Agricultural, uses
23 may be permitted in the buffer area. The buffer shall be
24 totally on the land subject to"the use permit."
a
25
26 Section 8. Severability'.,'If any provision of this Ordinance or the'
27 -application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any,reason"
28 held to be invalid by a: court of competent jurisdiction, such.
6 ,
' 1
2
.3
4
•5
6
7
8
L. 91
10
12
13
14
-15
16
17
18
19
• 20
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
-27
28
provision shall be deemed severable, *and the 'invalidity thereof shall
not- affects the remaining provisions or other applications of the
Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application thereof.
Section 9. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take
effect thirty.(30) days after the date -of its passage. The Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors is authorized and directed to publish this.
Ordinance before -the expiration of fifteen.(15) days after. its
passage. This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of
the members of the Board of Supervisors.voting for and against it,' in
the a newspaper of general
circulation published;in the -County of Butte,. State -of California..,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board°of Supervisors of the County of
Butte, State—of California, on 'the day -:of
2002, . by the following,•vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT. VOTING:
CURT JOSIASSEN, Chair of the
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: .
PAUL•McINTOSH, Chief
,Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board ;
By
LEAD IN SHEET
-FILE NO: ZCA 03-01 AP# Various - County Wide
APPLICANT: Butte County Board of Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive,v Oroville, CA 95965
PHONE#:: (530) 538-7601 i
OWNER: Various `
REPRESENTATIVE: R
REQUEST: amend Section 24 of the Butte Cou ty Code(Zoning Ordinance by addin'g a
requirement of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve
or other conservation purpose. Location is county wide. -
SIZE: Butte County
Al
LOCATION: Butte County
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # ALL EXISTING ZONING: All Zones
ZONING HISTORY:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
SITE HISTORY:
GENERALYCAN DESIGNATION: All Desip-nations
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
GOuN CouNSF,`L
ASSIGNED PLANNER:
Date Application Received 11/15/02
Date Project Assigned 11/19/02 '
30 Day Complete' 12/15/02
Preset Hearing Date 03/13/02
"DRAFT" LEAD IN SHEET
FILE NO: A ��� - AP# C -wr 4, id -6 -
APPLICANT: B'J �T e �,�,•• r d�z/� c✓�v`t2,✓? S�Vl�zccsS 7 cow ry e-o�,-7i- r 4? -
OWNER: LA -del der
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSED REQUEST: (to be filled out by person taking in application)
. 07 • ��cY•t- Leys'.eitiu�(-icon! AW Aalv-Si l+�c.9-+i`i�o.✓ c1•
FINAL REQUEST: (to be filled out by project planner)
SIZE: QM.9,-s II u-a&z coati
LOCATION: l', ,,Ae �n v,✓T7
SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # A EXISTING ZONING: AU-
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ALL
PLANNERS INITIALS
J-
we-
COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPLICATION:
DATE:
County Offices and Cities:
Chief Administrative Officer
.-X...Develop =Services Director v/
X—Public-Works-Director,✓
X Env_ironmentilV'
-Health
� As sesor✓
_ Building Manager
Sheriff
=BCAG`
_ ALUC
FCo ✓
'�gs�/
_r Quality Mgmt.
tlley
� utte Co. Farm Bureau
�✓!!Chico✓
Y=Piaradise
,�910roville
_ Chico Airport Commission
_ Information Systems Dept
_ Animal Control
_X�7AgricUltural:Commis`sion✓
Irrigation District:
Butte Water
—Biggs/W. Gridley Water.
_ Durham Irrigation
OWID
_ Paradise Irrigation
_ Richvale Irrigation
—Table Mountain Irrigation
_ Thermalito Irrigation
_ Other
Domestic Water
— Butte Water District
_California Water Service Co.
_ Del Oro Water Co.
OWID
_ Thermalito IrrigationDistrict
— Other
Sewer
_ Butte Water District
_ Themalito Irrigation
_ Sterling City Sewer Main
Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21)
_ L.O.A. PUD
Fire Protection
_F,Califomia"Departmentof-Forestry ✓
n
_ EI Medio Fire Protection District
Recreation Districts
Chico Area Recreation
_ Durham Area Recreation
_ Feather River Rec. & Park
Paradise Recreation & Park
_ Richvale Recreation & Parks
Utilities
PG&E North - Chico
_ Chambers Cable TV
_ Pacific Bell
PG&E South - Oroville
_ Viacom Cable TV
State Agencies
_ CafTrans (Traffic) _ Dept. of Water Resources Z25Dept. of Fish and Game/
,Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol
—!Central Reg. Water Quality Copt _ Caltrans, Aeronautics Program. _ Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations
7"
Department of Conservation ✓ _ Off. of Mining Reclamation
DeptSocial Services, Comm.Care Licensing
Federal Agencies
S Forest Service ('Bureau of Land Management -Fish & Wildlife Service/
-J-10ZArmy Corps of Engineers ✓ _ National Marine Fisheries Sservice
Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc.
Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association School Districts
Drainage _ Butte Env.l Council
_
Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society
_ Butte Co. Mining Committee _ Forest Ranch Community Assoc.
_ Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. _ Butte Ck. Watershed Conservancy
_ Mosq. Abatement Oroville/Butte Co
K:\PLANNING\FORMS\DISTR.LI
Richardson, Lynn
From: Miller, Gloria
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:16 AM
To: Richardson, Lynn
Subject: Sacramento Conservation Area
I spoke to Dorothy Bell and she said on the 10/8/02 Agenda that. Marion Reeves had, marked up her agenda "Board
direction•to. County Counsel to prepare ordinance and bring back." This was Agenda Item 4.05 re the Sacramento River
Conservation Area.
Gloria L. Miller
Butte County Counsel
(530) 538-7621 * ,
ATTORNEY CLIENT/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE ,
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain
confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering
this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any,disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use
of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3)
requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message(countycounsel@buttecounty.net), fax
(530) 538-6891, or telephone (530) 538-7621. Thank you.
e
Richardson, Lynn
From: MacKenzie, Robert
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Richardson, Lynn
Subject: Conversion Zoning Ord.
ATTORNEY CLIENT/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain
confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering
this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use
of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3)
requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message(countycounsel@buttecounty.net), fax
(530) 538-6891, or telephone (530) 538-7621. Thank you.
The operative language for the proposed ordinance is in the paragraph below:
A use permit shall be required in all zones for the conversion of any
existing use of the land, or the restoration of the habitat thereon
for fisheries and wildlife preserves or other conservation purposes,
by grading, planting or removal of vegetation. A buffer shall be
required to protect existing agricultural uses on adjacent land and to
ensure that normal, necessary farm operations may continue thereon.
The buffer shall normally be 300 feet between the use established
pursuant to the use permit and the agricultural use; but, it may be
adjusted to address unusual circumstances or features on the land,
such as topographic features, substantial tree stands,_water courses,
or similarly defined features. Agricultural uses may be permitted in
the buffer area. The buffer shall be totally on the land subject to
the use permit."
Robert MacKenzie
Butte County Counsel
(530) 538-7621
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES '
PLANNING DIVISION .
TO:
FROM: Butte County Planning Division
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Butte County Board of Supervisors, ZCA 03-01
DATE: November 21, 2002 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders
The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment
sheet is to:
1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate. to allow your jurisdiction to'review the project
and submit conditions; if any; and to ;
2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular
environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated.
If the application is determined to be complete within, 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing
date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time'frame .given, or if additional information is
needed, please call 538-7601. Thank youmi advance for vour. time and efforts. ,
This is an application to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement
of a Use Permit for the conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve or other conservation purpose.
Location is county wide on property zoned (All Zones), located. at Butte County, identified as APN: .(Various - County
Wide). - Supervisoiial District No. ALL.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one) '
X PLANNING COMMISSION - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON' March 13, 2003.
COMMENTS,1NY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN December 3, 2002. 4f no "comments
or communicati s are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
. - t
n
By: Date:
1 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your narAe is called, please step 4p to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
(P
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
v
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date I2 Z
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your ,name prior to speaking.
Name: 1 ' a- C L �-� e- ^ .� e (� `� / CA �✓ a`T �2 f -f a cj l 4k S S O C ,d-�` �� Q n
(please print)
Address: q
O N) a
g o -c-4, ., CA 75$3ti
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
Y
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up'to'a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: L, /V V
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
3
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date z3 3/0-3
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: -- L9Ed26 f— lV / e c,
(please print)
Address:Ao
Agenda Item No. or Subject: 1v riy fl itil f ti� vvi�,�r /
0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand -it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is cc please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:
(please print) /� ^I Lo Address:�n �-t�i ��I �t a < • V-I-C�-r��� lLe ��- �� �
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself.. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject: (/l � � Y8c S `` 6^3 d
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date V - /,0 �,
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board.of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When .your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:"�lC l .
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject:WS-PE; ,ems kxt--k PdY 1d1h GL e—eml l/ -e ' lcl'�rc
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:
`(please print)
Address:00,
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
jv
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: 6�/,^/
(please print)
Address: '011� y '115 a� eo�I �✓L�3) ��; ��
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date 2 3/03
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting.. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this. meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: Sia C e, ® 1 I i e-,
(pleaseprint) 2 Q -
Address: J �Ze.
Agenda Item No. or Subject: rJ:�C (�n n
�5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date 1-23.(03
If you .would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: S CA ✓� �� r
(please print)
Address: .5(17 L ARk'JItl 9S.5;6 S
Agenda Item No. or Subject: Z CH 03-6/
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your -use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:
(please print)
Address:
67T lice S
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD 2,5 J,,,— 0-1
Meeting Date - Z
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please Te
p to a podium and state your name priror to speaking. .
Name:—Cil
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject: _
i
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk.of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to. a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
/z_
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date
I
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name:D
(please print) /
Address: P ��� ,C 3 j tP Fo-i G'S � c r
r
Agenda Item No. or Subject: C A -t ►^-+- __
fro
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CARD
Meeting Date /-Q3-0-3-
If
--Q3-03
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: -moi •� /V�c/C
(please print)
Address:
Agenda Item No. or Subject: A&
J Cowl
PUBLIC.PARTICIPATION CARD
15 lc�
Meeting Date . ( t
If you would like to speak at this meeting, please complete this card and hand it to the Clerk of the
Board, seated to the left of the Board of Supervisors. Completion and submission of this form are
voluntary; you may speak before the Board without identifying yourself. However, your use of this card
helps the Board better organize and schedule matters within the meeting. No identification is
necessary for your attendance at this meeting.
Where possible, please submit this card prior to the commencement of a meeting or during a recess.
When your name is called, please step up to a podium and state your name prior to speaking.
Name: L.4tJr-LJt: —,
(please rint)
Address: It L&49�� C. ., ►-tom 1-->097n�
Agenda Item No. or Subject:
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
FILE#: ZCA 03-01 PROJECT TYPE: Zoning Code Amendment
APPLICANT: Butte County Board of Supervisors ,
ADDRESS: 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
OWNER: Various
ADDRESS:
REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by'adding a requirement of a Use Permit for the
conversion of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve or other conservation purpose. Location is county wide.
PROPERTY ZONED: All Zones
AP#: Various - County Wide
LOCATED: • Butte County
TOWN/AREA: Butte County
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: All Designations
i
1, Application accepted: 11/15/02 Amount: $ (No -Fee) Receipt #:
2. Comments sent to: Environmental Health, LAFCo, California Department of Forestry, Development Services Director, Assessor,
Public Works Director, Agricultural Commission
3. Comments received from:
'4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked:
5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet:
6. Assigned To:�' ugtU CeuwJsG� ° "
7. Environmental Determination:
State Clearinghouse No: Categorical Exemption-CEQA# �
Negative Declaration
Mitigation Negative Declaration
Subject to Fish & Game: Environmental Impact Report
Gen. Rule Ex. -CEQA # 15061.(bx3)
Other`
8.
Staff Report: Project Video:
9.
Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No
Date Sent to SCH:
10.
Publication Notice Written:
Display Ad Prepared:
11.
Notices Mailed: .11A
Number of Notices:
- 12.
Newspaper Publication ate: /—"? K //-1� O TC 7YO
13.
Planning Commission Hearing(s): - Z,,2_ .> — O
Action taken:
Special Conditions:
Commission Resolution No.
14.
Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s):
Action taken:
T
Board Resolution No.:
Ordinance No: Adopted:
15.
Type Use Permit/Send for signature:
16.
N.O.E. / N.O.D. / APPENDIX G:.
Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No
17.
Send validated Use Permit:
18.
Assessor's Memo:
19.
Copy of Use Permit / Variance to Planning Technician:
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 4 ■
Butte County Board of Supervisors, Item determined to be categorically. exempt from
environmental review), Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the•Butte-County
Code (Zoning Ordinance)-by.,adding a requirement of a Use Permit for the, conversion or
,.` abandonment of any existing use to,a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other conservation
pur" ose, County -wide. .(CIS) (ZCA• 03-01) -
Mr. MacKenzie submitted.a•revised staff report and revised ordinance: He briefly described the .
changes. He submitted excerpts from the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan. ,
Commissioner Evans'asked if the'Planning'Manager is compelled by this ordinance to prepare the
enabling matrix'tier system and then is it the Planning Manager's responsibility to -go through the '..
review; make the assignment of the score and make the determination as to whether the project is in
the A, B, or C category. y .
Mr: MacKenzie said,that is correct. He said he has spoken to the Director ofDevelopment Services,
the Planning Manager, as well as the Butte County Fire Department, the Butte County Agricultural
Commissioner, and Butte County Mosquito Abatement will be involved with the decision:. He said r•
the proces's will need to be reviewed by. multi agencies. ' 1
Commissioner Evans asked if the procedure, as outlined, would'c6me back before the Commission ,
before it is implemented? 5 �•
Mr. MacKenzie.said he believed the process would come before the•commission:
Commissioner Nelson asked if staff could give him a worse case scenario of what would trigger the
requirement for a Use Permit., ,' r
Mr. MacKenzie' said that he'could not answer that at this time. '
Commissioner Nelson 'said he has a problem with using- a scorecard to determine whether an
Administrative Permit is required over a Use Permit: * ,,
Mr. MacKenzie explained the process as outlined in the ordinance: He stated that the'ordinance was
consistent with the General Plan. -
• Commissioner Nelson 'asked,if the proposal was'presented to make the process exempt from CEQA.'
Mr. MacKenzie said the adoption of the ordinance as presented is exempt from CEQA.
Commissioner Nelson asked how does Counsel 'address CEQA in as much as the whole conservation
program is all geared toward a series of Federal and State programs that were developed to bring
- back the endangered species. He said this proposed ordinance is basically going in the opposite
-direction by saying that the conversions mayor may not be able to happen. He said it seems that
staff, is. going directly in the opposite direction. of CEQA and this would need to be addressed`in _
some way. He saidif the County is going to deny.someone the right to -convert their land, which is
in response to a series of programs that Have been implemented at the'Stat_e and Federal level, too
essentially bring back the salmon, etc., will this trigger a CEQA process..
a,
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003.■ PAGE 1 ■
-Mr: MacKenzie said_ the concern is when the income producing potential of property is lost or
{ diminished,- there is a•greater possibility for the`shifting of the'funding for future mitigation of
impacts onto:the taxpayers and the County. He said CEQA is concerned with a baseline condition
that may be compromised by significant impacts, this ordinance is exempt because it is a regulation",
and as part of the ordinance is geared toward manmade conditions, and as the man made conditions
are part of the environment, that is the reason this ordinance is exempt..
Chairman Lambert said even though the ordinance is exempt from CEQA, the Use Permit would not
be exempt.
.'Mr. MacKenzie said that is correct. `
The hearing was opened to the public.
Mark Hennelly, Calif. Waterfowl Association, submitfed a letter dated 2/12/03 which he read into
the record.
Commissioner Nelson questioned Bill 299 and.what it meant.
Mr..Hennelly said that Bill 299 was a bill that was sponsored•by the Calif.Waterfowl Assoc. and the
bill established a four year pilot program. He said the Association is into the second year of the pilot
program. He said the purpose .was to find.ways to maintain waterfowl habitat values through
certain wetland practices, but also to reduce mosquito production. t
Jim'Camy, BC Mosquito & Vector Control District, displayed charts -on mosquito populations and
diseases.• He said he is not against wetland projects, but the projects need to be well-planned and
Mosquito Abatement needs to be informed of these project. He said this is'a public health issue.
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Camy if he could•bill other agencies if there is,a mosquito problem
r because of,a conversion project. >„
Mr. Camy said he could bill state agencies, but not~federal. He discussed Mosquito Abatement
procedures and their cost. He said it is better to deal with,the problems upfront instead of billing the
owners after the fact. '
Commissioner Nelson asked,about setting up a MOUS (Memorandum of Understanding) with State
--
and Federal agencies to.pay for the abatement of mosquitoes; and wondered if this would work..
Mr.'Cam said itis' ossible a K4bU could�woik: He'said� 6i—'eds'to'talk about the r bl'ems'u''`
front and needs to,knbw whafis'being proposed'on property before it is conver't'ed:
Chairman Lambert said a Use `Permit•requirement would precede the sale' -of the land and the
situation that creates the problem. She said what the public is objecting to is the requirement for
Use Permit because of the cost and time it takes, but she did not know how they could accomplish
' Mr. Camy's getting notification before the project takes place without the UseyPermit requirement.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003 ■ PAGE 2 ■ '� -,z
_ .-'a"` •+N tet.. _ � �.•we!� 4i_". +�`.,�,�. � � f,:. ,'e{,.
Commissioner Leland asked what would be the least intrusive way to accomplish Mr.. Camy's ,
objective of interacting with the -landowners whenthe owners are planning their wildlife
rehabilitation? He discussed the County posting a brochure on the Web Site. He said another way
would be to require a management plan and require the plan to be approved by all the agencies
involved: He said they could have an Administrative Permit process with general criteria for certain
areas. He said he was reluctant to require a Use Permit process because he does not see-these
requests beingdenied.
Chairman Lambert said the Commission has an ordinance before them to consider, and asked if the
Commission was supposed to'discuss how:tolimplement the ordinance, to make a determination on
whether the Commission wants the ordinance that is before them, or does the Commission want to
discuss other methods on how to deal with the problem.
Mr. MacKenzie said the Ordinance is here at this body so the Commission can discuss the ordinance-
and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on which direction to go in.
Robert Capriola; Calif. Waterfowl Assn:, said that 20-25% of the cost of conversion is' in the
planning process. He'said the Association has increased`its invol'vement,with Mosquito'Abatement�
He said the 300 foot buffer is the biggest"problem and should<be"elirriinatedY-He`-said:management -
:plans are 'produced now before the projects are proposed: <He"said 1Vlosquito'Abatement'is already
contacted in advance. '
;Commissioner Leland, discussed-how to make sure all-land for conversion goes through the same ;
process as the California Waterfowl'Association does. '
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Capriola if there is any follow up after the management plan is
written and the applicant agrees to control the mosquito problem?
Mr. Capriola discussed the procedures for Vector control and the plan and practices needed to
- control mosquitoes.
Commissioner Leland asked if the 300 foot buffer was not needed oris it not successful.
Mr'Capriola said in rice fields the buffer_ will not control fowl from going into the rice fields'and
would not be effective. He said a buffer amount should be considered on a case by case basis.
AL
Commissioner
,
Commissioner Evans asked about the.language in the ordinance that states a buffer shall normally be
_ 300 feet between the use established pursuant to the Use Permit and the agricultural use, but it may
be adjusted to address unusual circumstances or features of the'landjsuch as topography features,; '
.substantial tree stands, water courses,.or similarly'defihed features. He asked if the language was
• case by case specific enough.
'Mr. Capriola said the language was not enough because it refers to a natural feature, if all there is
between agricultural ground and habitat ground is a levee, which is not a natural feature; there could `
be a problem. ti F - - .
{
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■FEBRUARY 13,2003 ■PAGE 3 i -
Commissioner Evans suggested the language be adjusted to state,"to address unusual circumstances
'or features on the land such as
Mr. Capriola said mitigations should be+placed on a case by case basis:' +' _ •r-
Commissioner Evans asked Mr. Capriola if he likes the flexibility `of establishing the size of the
buffer on a case by. case basis.
Mr. Capriola.said "yes"; but+why start with 300•feet:. _
Commissioner Evans said the buffer.is not set in stone, the 300.foot starting point,'can be adjusted
on a case by case basis. • He'asked staff what the cost was for the different -types of permits.
* Mr. Betts said•an Administrative Permit cost $300, a Minor Use Permit cost $405, and a'Use Permit
cost $1,078 of which $700 is a deposit figure that can be refunded if the cost of processing the UP•.
•' does not exceed the $700, or the applicant can be asked for additional funds,if the processing cost -
does exceed the $700 deposit.
'Mr. Capriola discussed•the cost of a conversion project.. ,
Johri Moss discussed'the income potential of rice. He said there_ is a lot of rice planted in the County
and tlie`farmer is spreading'the,rice profrt.margin out over a'lot of acres., He said the'less acres
planted in rice is better for the farmer, and better for the community. He said the habitat areas•are
producing hunting income. He said that mosquitoes are less of a problem today then they used to be.
He said heotates wild rice on his ranch, which -means that he can not use herbicides.. He said by
planting wild rice_ he enhances weeds that might be a concern, which he controls and does -not need a
buffer zone. ,
Break 710:50 to 11:08 +w
Mark. Magers-said he owns and manages 6 ranches in, Colusa County. He said, he -wants the
Commission to.recognize that economics are a concern. He discussed the economics of taking bad
ground for farming and putting it into a habitat area that can be better used., He said mosquitoes are
controlled by proper drainage practices. He was against this ordinance.
# ' Commissioner Leland 'asked Mr. Magers if there were any adverse impacts by having habitat next to
.. rice fields: • Y t. +
't Mr. Magers said there are no problems. He said in some cases the habitat draws coyotes which eat
the ratsand hel '.keep the rat population down.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003 ■ PAGE 4 ■
. �'r,n - ... .. � A- y �,�_a,e.-. +.F^.. ..-'._..-.-.. .. .x �'.de:+.- •"""'�.. _ ..--.•^,.:ice.. _...� -._ ,- ->-
Rocque'Merlo said he farms almonds, prunes, and is in the business of wetland development. He
said he is'farming'ducks as well: as crops and the County needs to look at the economics involved:
'-He discussed money coming from outside'the •County•into this County for hunting.
Barney Flynn; Sacramento River Partners, said he is'in the habitat'business'and that he'grows trees
` I along' the river: He discussed the economics of habitat development.: He said one thing that bothers
him about this ordinance is that it does not affect federal conversions along, the Sacramento River.
'. He said that there is already review of habitat conversion projects and this ordinance is not,needed.
He said that all his projects have direct access from a public road: He explained funding and how it
works to do•habitat conversion.
Chairman Lambertasked about the process in Glenn County.
Mr. Flynn explained the -procedures used in Glenn County, .i.e., boat ramps for fishing and duck
hunting.
Patrick ,Fitzmoi-ris, Ducks` Unlimited, said he works on wetland habitat in the, valley: He is .
concerned with the ordinance' He said the Bills he deals with are designed to'give farmers a use for
marginal farmlands. *He said he would be very happy to work with Mosquito,Abatement on their
concerns. _
-
Stacey Jolliffe,, Northern California Regional Land Trust, said she'; is against the ordinance.- She
submitted a letter dated 2/12/03 stating there are alternatives to this ordinance.. She said the `
ordinance is not based on environmental impacts. She asked that an Initial Study be done for this
ordinance. She said the proposed ordinance is a violation of fundamental property rights. ,She, said
`'the ordinance has government extending itself between sellers and buyers of property.
There was a brief discussion on conservation easements.
Commissioner Nelson asked if a conservation easement triggers a•conversion, and does it go under
41
this ordinance.
Commissioner Leland said the assumption iri the ordinance is that if there is a permanent dedication
• to a conservation. use, that it is going to result in a conversion and second that there is money '~ f
changing hands,;it would be appropriate time to impose the permit requirements. -
Ms.Jolliffe said the ordinance is extending land use regulations where there is no change in land
`use. She said that property owners have a right to conserve their land according to the existing laws.
She said if there is no physical change to the land, only changing property' owners; the,County
should not be putting a discretionary permit process on that land.' a. _
Chairman Lambert asked when there is a house in a residential area, and you're not changing the
house physically, but the use changes to a childcare facility; which requires_ a`Use Permit, what is
• the difference from farmland to habitat?
Ms. Jolliffe said that change would bring in more traffic, noise, etc. She was'against the Use Permit
process for habitat conversion.` -She said this ordinance is capricious and the ,County has not
4
■ BUTTE'COUNTY'PLANNING COMMISSION-■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13120034 PAGE 5 ■.
°' - - `- —, ". --- _ � �- ..•. - y €v...+..•,.:,.�.-:..�.-�----war.-'"_'. , ' ,
' . r t. - .r- _ r _'.!"`, A 3. .•. :'. ti _ . .. " rA• l�. t Y _ ren. -:w .r�Ra...... '�. -t+ •., - - _ -w r .. e _ '.. ... ..
• established impacts. She said this is going through an onerous and inefficient process to fix the
problem. She said this ordinance will not work.well.
Commissioner Leland said in the case of a child care center you can see when six children goes to 10 `
children, the County knows there has been a change of use. He'said if the County looks at a field
that isn't planted, the County does not know if there is a change of use. He said the ordinance has
some validity, not just a change in ownership, if there is a restriction on the property to a particular
use, the County could say that it is the same as establishing the'use itself.
W. Jolliffe said that the ordinance will help kill voluntary conservations. She said she agreed with '
Mr. Hennelly that this ordinance is not consistent with the County General Plan. She said this
ordinance needs environmental review. She noted that the ordinance will not apply to State and'
Federal lands. She recommended the Commission think about what the Board was trying to do to
gain some control over land use issues, to fix some mosquito abatement and agricultural
compatibility issues. She asked the Commission to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to
perform a thorough environmental -review for a balanced sense of what those environmental impacts .
are that the County is trying to fix, working with appropriate agencies who are concerned, to draft
uniform standards to address the real impacts. She said a Use Permit is time consuming and costly. '
Chairman Lambert asked Ms. Jolliffe if most conservation`easements were permanent.
Ms. Jolliffe said speaking for the regional land trust they, execute conservation easements on private
property and they remain in private ownership.- She said the conservation easement is permanently
taking away one of the rights of property ownership and saying this property owner does not want
the property used for development.
Al Beck, Mosquito Abatement, said' regarding CEQA, the preparation of legislation has been
categorically exempt since the beginning. He said you do an environmental analysis when there is'a
physical affect on the environment and not when there is speculation. .Implementation of this
ordinance might not be exempt. He discussed the cost of mosquito control. He found that
landowners do not understand that they -are liable for mosquito control and this ordinance would
inform the landowners of their responsibilities. He noted that an Administrative Permit would be the
most used permit process. He said the process would insure that the County, owners, and agencies
are notified of the liability. He said most duck club owners are from out of the area or state. He said
he has not had problems with a land trust. He said the 300 foot buffer is not necessary.
Josh Sheppard said he is a professional applicator in rice and the 300 foot buffer is not needed. He
said habitat concerns will not affect his rice fields. r
Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner, said the pesticide buffers are different from the 300'foot
buffer included in this proposed ordinance. He said the amount of the buffer is not set in stone. He
-said he did not want Habitat cove-rsion tto impact agricultural uses on adjacent' roperfy: He said his
agency would like to review the process before the problems exist. He discussed dii Adminisfritive
Permit and the need for set criteria, from each 6&&Y', to follow.
The hearing was -closed to the public. '
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003 ■ PAGE 6 ■
- F
Commissioner Evans'said it was not clear what the matrix or tier system is really going to be. He.
said he would hope that the Director would get the agencies'and Trust people together in'creating the ,
metrics. He suggested -two major things; 1) to restructure the three sections that talk about the
buffer. He suggested new language in Section 2 of 24-291, Section 5 (c), 24-293, and Page 8 would
read "The buffer shall be established pursuant to the Administrative Use Permit and shall be sized
and designed to address circumstances or features on the lands being converted and adjacent lands, _
agricultural uses may be,permitted in the buffer area. A buffer may be located totally on the lands
subject to the Administrative Use Permit or with adequate .easement agreements maybe;located on
adjacent lands." He said he wants the applicant to propose the size of the buffer. He would change
this ordinance from a Use Permit and combine the requirement for an initial review into just a
straight Administrative Use Permit.- He said the applicant will have to put forward what they are
proposing, and there needs to be a time line to respond to 'this application, and give people
notification. - He said the Commission can- move this ordinance forward, simplify the process, -
eliminate the buffer, and give the agencies the notification that something is going to happen.
Mr. Wannenmacher said the permit is called an Administrative Permit, and the review is much less
discretionary with an Administrative Permit. Delete the'word "-Use."
Commissioner Evans agreed.
Commissioner Leland said the Administrative Permit he is thinking of is discretionary and would .
come to the, Planning Commission for hearing on the Consent Agenda.
Staff said that would be at the Minor Use Permit level. r
Commissioner Leland said he would recommend that they eliminate the specific requirements in this
ordinance and simply have the agencies -adopt regulations applicable to conservation habitat from
CDF, Mosquito- Control, Agricultural _Commissioners, ,etc. He said with theJestimony here it
indicates there is less of a problem then has been assumed. The testimony has been about very little
problems at all, the testimony from the private agencies are all opposed to this ordinance. He said,
there was a lot of testimony about how good the conversions are for the County. ,.He said. Vector .
Control and the Agricultural Commissioner testified that they want notice and the opportunity to -
participate at a low level with the people proposing the conversion. He suggested either imposed'by
ordinance some restrictions on management of conversion ground or to comply with the notice
requirement of an -Administrative Permit. .
Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner Leland, but that somewhere within.this hearing -
process the Commission needs to generate some kind of MOU process when this goes to the Board.
He said he is recommending that the Board initiate some type of MOU process with the Federal
agencies. _
Commissioner Evans asked Mr. MacKenzie -what would he do, if he could, to get the State and
Federal agencies under.the County ordinance so that the concern gets addressed.
Mr. MacKenzie said the -ordinance is a useful step because it does make a strong statement on the
part of the Board of Supervisors that states the County has adopted a new law -'and everyone in the
_ ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003 ■ PAGE 7 ■
- mor.. ..- • r-...«. :z., .J. ..t� - .. � _-.r �.C..:. _�. - '4 4 �;'.'7�_"-+.t �...
. �!•f F4 f r F •1 , ' .. v. ' I- ' .. •�fi=•` •. y .1 ra . � a
County has 'to comply',with /it'except ,the.Federal- and State Government, so -why not have your ,
agencies comply'. ' r { r
" Chairman Lambert said she is concerned with the recommendation that -the buffer be proposed for
adjacerit agricultural land: ,
',• , ;�„ ,..Commissioner Evans said he was suggesting-an agreement with theneighbor forpart-of -the-buffer :`,.--------.
1 being on adjacent property. '
Mr. Price', said that ' the' County can, not take away' peoples right' to complairi': regarding pesticide1
spraymgwitli'an agreement on a portion`of-the'ajoimng land.-He-said')for some uses.the easemenil
: } `
might work; but.not for pesticides'
y • ;
Mr; MacKenzie said lie wouldtake the Commissio•n, s reeommendations,that were.made today totfie, ,
Board'of Supervisors:.
' '` . : �• 4 .+ • r , ` 1 ; � ... • - . , '`t• L Z is i >'' , t �" .. ... '
4 - " .-}_ ,y ' - ` .fit• -, � � A r .- ', •{ ... _
-
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■'MINUTES ■ FEBRUARY,1' 12003 ■ PAGE 8,■ y
"'•'�"+r..•�...r„j-.�.,,.���.�_'v*••=-.�-
.�_77 :> _ -'� - . " t -« } J _...',.. _ .. 4..... :1:. .. h a - .. . ..a. 4'' .i=-rte-- t..._,"".."•^"•....... r��^ya'+ .
Butte' County Board of Supervisors, Item determined to be categorically exempt from
environmental review), Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the Butte County.
Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a'requirement of a Use Permit for the conversion or
" abandonment of any',existing use to a. fishery; wildlife .preserve,' or other, conservation .
' purpose, County -wide.. (CS) (ZCA 03-01). "
Rob MacKenzie submitted copies of a newspaper article. entitled " FinanciaHoss from converting
farmland back to natural habitat could be $11.5 million a year." He discussed impacts of creating
natural•habitats next to other, types of parcels other than agricultural lands. He felt that Section 1 of
the proposed'Ordinance should be expanded. He said he would like time to make•the modifications
and bring this item.back. He said he.wanted to narrow the scope'of the ordinance.-, He said the
Problem is that there has been misinformation about this project, and that there are three impacts due =•
to'the conversion of land to habitat use. One is the lower tax value`of the land. Two is'the economic `
impact of a lost of productivity because of lost agricultural land. 'And, three is the impact to the '
' �• neighboring parcels, i.e., farms'suffer problems because of the introduction of plants and animals,
and a fire hazard. He discussed mitigating the three impacts by a buffer zone; -a condition under the ;
Use Permit for a Land Management' Plan, etc.
a
.Commissioner Evans asked Mr. MacKenzie if he can have the Ordinance ready,to come back at the ,
next meeting.
" 4 Mr. MacKenzie said"yes." He said he `would like to see a matrix chart like the one in the Wireless
Ordinance, for this ordinance regarding a range of Administrative Permits, Minor Use Permits, to
Use Permits. -
�• Commissioner Lambert asked if it would,be helpful to do a fiscal analysis as to the impacts the
conversions might cause? _
Mr. MacKenzie said they are working dna' fiscal analysis for lost income in the Cour ty He said
there is a companion ordinance•to amend Chapter 26 to change the FEMA maps"and flood plains,
and special,L•evee Permit Two Zone. `r `
Commissioner Evans discussed the use of an'Administrative Permit, Minor -Use Permit, or Use
Permit process: `He said in order to determine which of the three processes to use; there would have
to be a pre -application request: He said the County would be looking at the concept that monitoring '
of,documents that are recorded would be the trigger mechanism by , either change of ownerships; or
conservation easements. He asked if.these would alert the County that there is an issue and contact
would be made to request the pre -application:;
'Mr. MacKenzie said that is correct. He said it is possible that the County might not be preempted
from adopting a requirement that a permit be obtained prior to the recordation of a Conservation.
Easement. He said he needs to do more research. He'said it is the intent to convert the land which
• triggers the need for a permit.
' The hearing was opened to the public. t
- b Jack LaPant said'this application.is premature. He said the Fish and Wildlife "is" in the process of
setting aside 70,000 acres to protect it and this has not yet been .discussed.
` ■ BUTTE COUNTY. PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ JANUARY 23, 2003 ■,PAGE`S' ■ .
Mr. MacKenzie said he thought that someone who's property is designated by the State or Federal
Government as an area that needs to be p "reserved, but that does not go through the formal process of
recording a deed restriction or restoring habitat on the' land, is in the first category of individuals that
the ordinance may,not be intended to regulate. He felt if the County narrows the scope of the,
ordinance and limits it to only those situations where there is evidence of a formal dedication of,
property as a nature. preserve, then for those, individual who either decide that their land is not
economically viable to farm or are simply complying with the State or Federal directive and leaving
the property vacant without doing any restoration, and not making any formal intentional dedication,
of the property, then this ordinance would not regulate that individual.
Commissioner Lambertasked if there is 70,000 acres of land considered un -developable.
Mr. Alpert said that Critical Habitat designated by the State is separate from this ordinance. He said
the Critical Habitat is a State or Federal action and there will be separate rules from the proposed
ordinance in front of the Commission. He said the Critical Habitat has more to do with protecting
endangered species than with creating habitat by an individual selling property.to a trust or another
government agency that will put the property into a preserve. The Critical Habitat area does not bar
development.
Mr. LaPant said again that this proposed ordinance is pre -mature because the County has no idea
where -the Federal government is going to designate as Critical Habitat.
Mr. Alpert said in his view, one is not dependent on the other.
Commissioner Leland said this ordinance is not going to prohibit conversion into wildlife habitat.
He said another way could be without a Use Permit and just say if someone converts,to habitat they
need to have an endowment for. mosquito mitigation, need •300 foot setback, etc. He said
eventually the County may not have a need for a Use Permit, but at this stage people will need a Use
Permit. He said this ordinance will not prohibit conversion to habitat lands.
Mr. LaPant said the County needs to.know where the critical.habitat is going to be located before
going forward with this proposal. He said the State regulations do add another layer of review. .
Sharon Wallace, League of Women Voters, said that this proposal is pre -mature. She said people
are dropping out of.agriculture now. She said the County should spend.time on the General Plan
update instead of a process of requiring a Use Permit. She said the Commission should look at the
benefits of not doing this ordinance. She said this ordinance, will make it more restrictive for
farming. She felt that this ordinance was a step backwards to the farmers.
Jean Crist said she had to leave for a meeting in Magalia and was upset at being kept waiting for two
hours. She agreed the scope should be narrowed. She.said there needs to be some other way to
handle the situation than with this ordinance. She submitted'a letter from Priscilla Hanford, which
Chairman Lambert read into the record. ,
S
George Nicholus discussed the possibility of loss of revenue. He said his property is flooded on
occasion and he still farms. He said this ordinance would have significant financial impacts to him.
Richard Wright, farmer near the river, said he supports the County asking for a Use Permit. He said
there is a problem when farm land is let go with no conditions to control drainage.that can affect
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ JANUARY 23, 2003 ■ PAGE 4 ■
a
fie' ~�•• �• � y •'.,. A. -�-'. .• • • +.i - ..*• p�y"1 �. s •� -. ,
' neighbors. He `said unattended land can also be a fire hazard if the growth is not controlled along the
river- - r
Larry N endonca, property at the washout; said the Nature Conservancy owns land next,to him. He
said they need the ordinance,to say what needs totbe`done to protect the neighbors:' He noted,that
` once the land is converted from agricultural' -land, the County will never get it back.
Donald Mendonca said hefarms at�River•Road and he leans more to keeping the land in agriculture.. ,
He said the County needs to. support -the farmers.., He said there are• problems with drainage if,
property, is allowed to go' wild
Commissioner Marin was absent at this time. ;
-
Carol Wright said she works wrth-Sacramento River r Parthers and that they P e have uta lot of taxes . F
• t r ,
- back into the .Butte County coffers. She said, the, Sacramento River Partners are not taking
productive agricultural land out of pr are taking �land•'that .is no: -longer -,viable ' r,
agricultural land: • She said people can store flood water.; She said that her organization and many`.
people participate in the Sacramento River Conservation Committee and for the Commissioners to
attend some of the meetings. She said the requirement for a Use Permit would mean a double permit
for her organization because they already have to get a permit from the Reclamation Board:
Commissioner Nelson asked'if there was airy -communication between the Reclamation Board and
the County?
Ms. Wright said that they do not communicate very, much:
Chairman Lambert said that maybe some of the information could be presented to the County,from '
her°organization.,
Ms. Wright said she is with a non-profit organization. 'She discussed their source of income.
John Carlon said he was thePresident of the •Sacramento River:Partnefs ,and' a farm-er and is
r disappbinted!that his personal property rights will be harmed and this proposal will limit some of the `
options he would have on his farm. r He. did'not.feel. a Use Permit was necessary.' He has had rio '
complaints' regarding his restoration projects.'He did not -feel the need for a lengthy reviewprocess:'
He briefly discussed his board members:and employees
Chairman Lambert asked`'Mr. Carlon.how he would feel about a buffer being unposed.
Mr. Carlon said he was not opposed to a buffer if it makes sense, but did not think one size buffer
.fits all. He talked about working out problems 'with neighbors. -He said the goal is to transfer
-property
rinto habitat and he discussed grants that are out there:''
Commissioner Evans asked if this process started at the Board level and who supported the proposal.,.' `
• Mr. MacKenzie said that this did startat the Board�and the'support was unanimous.'He discussed `
the interface between the Chapter 20 ordinance and the Chapter 24 ordinance., He•said there is an
agreementwith Reclamation Board for the 20 year'flood plain, He said'the County;
regulates'land outside the 20. year flood plain and under the 100 year flood plain.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 23, 2003 ■PAGE 5 ■
-Stacy Jolliffe, Director of the Northern California Regional Land Trust, said she is with a small non-,4.
profit organization and they voluntarily protect the land: She supports the preservation of open
space through conservation easements. 'She'said they have to consider;the property rights of the
-farmers and of the non-farmers. She said the Use Permit would be a discretionary permit putting the,
Countyanto the buying and selling of land. She discussed liability-of the County setting mitigation
measures, i.e., flooding, etc. She said a Use Permit is not the solution to some problems and a Use ,
-Permit allows the Board and Commission to deny a project. ' : s
Chairman Lambert said she did not think the County intended to step in and design the plans.
Mr. MacKenzie said the policies would preclude staff from becoming a consultant on how to
develop the property. He discussed the Countyhaving immunity:to liability. '
It was moved by Commissioner Evans to'continue this hearing for 30 days and begin again.
The motion dies for a lack of a second.. '..`
Lunch Break from 1:00 p.m. to 2:08'p.m.
Commissioner Evans was absent at this time.
- Al Beck, Butte County Mosquito Control, said there is a concern with artificial wetlands; especially
when the wetlands are purchased by a State or Federal agency.' He.said artificial wetlands flood-in { .
the summer and create hundreds'of.mosquitoes. He .said there is a liability if someone causes
mosquitoes to breed. He felt that a permit was necessary, but he would rather see an Administrative ;
Permit over a•Use Permit. He said there should be a, condition to require a Management'Plan,
because it informs'the land owner of their liability. `He noted that establishing conditions.is on_ e�
• ' thing, enforcement is another. He said that maintenance of the drainage is important.
Commissioner Nelson asked how does anyone deal with inspections and monitoring on a piece'of•
property that after it is converted is turned'over to a Federal or State agency such as Fish and Game.
Mr.-Beck said that turning over the land can be a problem. He said you would need an endowment
�'to insure that the land is monitored. He' said it is important for the County to -specify who a
(independent monitor) does the monitoring if required.,
Commissioner Evans was present at this time.
Steve Mendonca said people need to be notified of the hearings because this is an important process.
He mentioned a rezone similar to this process in Glenn County where the people were not notified of
the hearing.
James;Camy; Manager of Butte County Mosquito Vector, said he supports the need for a County
wide Use Permit. He said he has seen what can'happen•without the control. He discussed the
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- mi MINUTES ■ JANUARY 23; 2003 ■ PAGE 6 ■
;potential increase in the mosquito population: He`displayed graphs showing the increase in' 'e
mosquito population` existing now.'He said people need to be`aware of the poteritialproblems.'He
said,there.are: a,lot•of-out- of- town fown ers`and`the'County tries,t&iinform.people. He said people
need to.beinfor-med that;they could be chargedCfor•mosquito abatement. 4He'said`mosquitoes`are a
-public.health concern.
John Nock said he spoke to the Nature Conservancy and asked about his options concerning his
` property. He said he is a farmer and was concerned with conversion of neighboring lands impacting
his agricultural land. He said flooding is a problem. He said the creeks• are not maintained such as
Mud Creek and it causes a flooding problem on his property. He said the City of Chico is growing
and the City drainage water becomes flood water outside the City. He said what he would like to see
happen, is that the Commission direct staff or hold a meeting for local land owners to publicly get
their concerns out into the open. Among those concerns would be addressing how much flood water
will be the capacity for our neighborhood so that he is not put into a position of having to receive
any 'amount of water that is put' into the creeks. He .said there needs to be an enforcement
mechanism to keep additional water.from upstream diverted or retained. He said he would like to
work on a plan to clean the creeks because the creeks are being used as a natural drainage channel'
for the City of Chico. He said it is clearly the intent of the proposed ordinance as a flood control ,
measure to keep the water flowing and the primary place'the water should be flowing is down the
creeks. He said the Jay Levee on the Hamilton City side has plans that would raise the water on the
Butte County side. He said the County should be cognizant of creating a thoughtful process locally
where they can work on land conversion issues within the County., -
Steve Mendonca said he knew the land flooded when he bought the land and fie knew the risk when
he bought it. -
Don Mendonca said that one issue being brought up at this meeting is to protect property rights as a
theme, but it all comes down to where is the most money.going to come from. He discussed the
work done to establish the Greenline to protect farmland. He was in favor of having the Use Permit
_ Y
• process. "
Mr. MacKenzie said he can have the revisions to the ordinance back at the next meeting.
Commissioner Nelson asked if staff needed direction from the Commission on what the Commission
wants to see in the ordinance.
Mr. MacKenzie . said the Board of Supervisors' wants the Commission's input on' what will
accomplish the goal regarding conversion of farmland to habitat.
Commissioner Leland said the ordinance does not cover habitat that is not a conversion. He asked if .
the Commission wanted the ordinance to cover maintenance of the wildlife areas, maybe where there'
is a parcel of pre-existing habitat next to farmland.
Commissioner Nelson said that staff wants a say on potential problems that come up, and he is
hearing that they do not want a Use Permit for all cases. He discussed having an administrative
process with comments from other agencies.
F
Commissioner Leland said they have to come up with standards whether it's for an Administrative
Permit or Use Permit procedure..
ki BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ JANUARY 23, 2003 ■ PAGE 7, ■
,Chairman Lambert asked "aboufdisclosure if they go`,with.the Administrative Permit process. '
Mr. MacKenzie said'that staff and,County agencies will do a pre-assessmerit,based'on.criteria in
place for either an,Administrative Permit,,Mmor,Use Permit, or We -Permit. ` ' ..a • „
= Mr. Beck discussed a scoring system, ranking low impact as Administrative, middle as a MUP, and _ . .
significant problems needing a Use Permit.: He said the difficulty is establishing a threshold. ;
Commissioner Evans said the Board wants. some'level of review. He agreed that staff can come up
. with a scoring system, that they can go in a direction where it doesn't have to be expeinsive or time
• consuming. He said he would like to have the scoring system and have the Commission see a new . f
:s
proposed ordinance. �.
t Chairman Lambert:said-she would like to see a' map ,of where habitat conversion has already '.
occurred. • -
Mr. MacKenzie said he'had some information he could bring to the' Commission.` -
Commissioner Leland, said they need criteria to mitigate the problems of!flooding, beavers, and.
mosquitoes. ' .r
Chairman Lambert said at the last meeting Mr. Price•said the buffer would help control'beavers, -
• squirrels, etc. and the danger of fires:
Mr.-MacKenzie said he would put-in language on scoring and.add a,matrix chart. He said he�will
bring back the scoring chart at the riext meeting. _ - •'
It was moved by Commissioner, Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Leland, and unanimously-
carried to continue the hearing open to.February 13, 2003. • .' ;
_ tt
i• BUTTE COUNTY•PLANNING COMMISSION i`MINUTES ■ JANUARY 23, 2003 ■ PAGE 8'• ■
7
Butte County Board' of Supervisors, (Item determined to be categorically exempt from
environmental review), Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the Butte County
Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement of.a Use Permit for the'conversion or,
abandonment of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or -other conservation,
purpose, County -wide. (CS) (ZCA 03-01) Y
Mr. Bruce Alpert; County Counsel, gave a brief summary of the project. He said the
proposed ordinance has generated a lot of controversy within the County, and, in fact, within
many counties along the Sacramento River. He said there was evidence introduced at the ' -
numerous public hearings before the Board, which are incorporated into this hearing, dealing
`with the financial loss of converting farm land to natural habitat, dealing.with problems of
habitat existing next to continuing agricultural practices and the consequent pesticide issues,
pest issues, and squirrel issues; another issue.dealt with business loss within the community -
from taxes that these lands have previously produced. He said numerous, representatives
from organizations came forward, including representatives from the Nature Conservancy,
the Sacramento River Trust, the Family Water. Alliance, the Sacramento River Conservation
Area Forum, and the Sacramento River Reclamation Board. He said the County has tried to
incorporate all. of the comments into the ordinance, and tried to put a measure of public .
scrutiny.and oversight to the conversion that is ongoing within Butte County, specifically
and mainly along the Sacramento River, but also elsewhere. He said the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently designated 70,000 acres within Butte County that
are deemed to be critical habitat. He said the County is running scarce on area which is
developable, even for recreational opportunities. He said much of the area that becomes
habitat is less accessible to the public. He said many people came forward at the public,
hearings before the Board that indicated numerous instances where areas where they had
previously gained'access were closed off with signs of "No Trespassing". ' This problem has
been brewing in the North State, in Butte County, for a -number of years and the Board
Direction was to find a vehicle not to stop the formation of areas of habitat, but to have some
public oversight, some -monitoring, acid some -ability to capture what is going on in Butte
County with areas that are being deemed habitat.
Commissioner Nelson asked if most of the sites are actually being turned over to government
entities and, therefore, Butte County regulations would not'apply to the sites.
Mr. Alpert answered "yes," if the land is turned over to the State or Federal Government,
''Butte County regulations will have little or no effect on the property. He said, however, the
land is often not turned over to State or Federal Government; --many times the property is
purchased by a non-profit organization and then turned over to a State or Federal agency at
some later date. He said if an area is purchased by a non-profit organization or individuals,
this ordinance would allow Butte County to review the process under `which that
organization or group of individuals is going to go forward; what plans they have for the site,
how they intend to maintain it, and how the County has a say in how agriculture will or will
not be affected.by it. ,
Commissioner Nelson asked what percentage of property is being discussed, and isn't this
ordinance mainly concerned with the Sacramento River.
■ BUTTE COUNTY, PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ DECEMBER 12, 2002 ■ PAGE 15 ■
Mr' Alpert said the ordinance is primarily dealing with the Sacramento River, but the Board
wanted'the County to include the ordinance in most zones within the County. He said her'
t does not know the percentage of property that would be affected bythis ordinance. 4
Commissioner Leland left the hearing at this time. • .• y, r
,Commissioner Nelson asked a hypothetical 'question, about a farmer who decides to sell,
' waterand wants to convert his rice land to a fallow'state indefinitely and set up a duck'-club;
would that farmer need a Use Permit in order to do that. .
Mr. Alpert said it would depend if the land conversion by the farmer is permanent or semi- • .
permanent whether a Use Permit would be needed. He said it does not apply if a farmer.is .
going to sell water and leave some of their land fallow and hasnot declared the intention'of, .
k r 'creating habitat: He said, to a degree, the County was talking about a policing mechanism. '
He said cufrently, between the Agricultural. Department and .the Larid' Development
Department, sometimes they are told about land uses that are happening, and sometimes they 4
z ' : are not told. He said the County is looking at the land use and-whether that use would come "
- within the County's Use Permit process. He said when people purchase land in certain areas
or the intention is clear that the land will be habitat; the County would have a chance to look
.' at it with this proposal.
Vice Chairman Lambert said she;went on a farm tour a�few years backaround Pine Creek
•'
on a 250 acre site, that was farmed, taken out of production, and replanted with trees, bushes
` and grasses. She added that since the replanting, small animals now inhabit that area.. She
said adjacent to this 250 acre site was a productive farm property and questioned how those
�yrodents would be kept from impacting the orchard. She said in this example; because it is .r.
4 already done, the County cannot require a buffer; and, if the County did; it would have to
• ' come off the agricultural property. She wondered what the County would-do with the 300
foot buffer to prevent the rodents from impacting the agricultural property. She said she sees
the Use Permit as a tool for the County to use to make recommendations regarding the use of
land and how it may impact adjacent properties. -
Mr..Price said typically what happens when converting their orchard's; people will take their
,.. trees out of production and leave stumps that are ideal habitat for squirrels. He said a large 't
-population of squirrels will strip an orchard and chew-up,irrigation'systems. He said the
County has had to go in and rriake the owner,clean up the orchard and fallow out the ground
_ '
and keep it fallow, until the 'problem goes'away.' _
r Commissioner Nelson asked if the non-profit organizations are not taking care of the land '
that they own.
~ : Mr.-Price said most of the times they do. He said there is also an issue of endangered species
when land is gradually allowed to,become habitat, because the•farmer is not able to apply i
--chemicals to his crop if an endangered species becomes established in, the adjoining
• property.
-
y ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-m MINUTES i DECEMBER 12, 2002 ■.PAGE 16
a -,
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Price to explain the habitat buffer and what is hithe 300
foot space. ,
't Mr. -Price said he would like to see low growing vegetation and grasslands. He said it would
be manageable. habitat.
Mr. Alpert said right now the County has no ability to manage habitat and no way of asking ;
' for review. T '
Commissioner Nelson said he needs to understand this•proposal'better. He asked what
would happen if he bought apiece of property and wanted•to put it into habitat; would he
have to address the County or could he'just do -it., -
Mr. Price answered that Commissioner Nelson could put his property into habitat without
any recommendation or input from the County. t
..
Vice Chairman Lambertsaid that with a Use Permit, the County wouldhave an opportunity ;
- to review.the land use and perhaps Condition it depending on the circumstances.
Commissioner Nelson said he would like to revisit this proposal at anothentime.
Vice Chairman Lambert wanted to know if it would be appropriate to delete #7 at the bottom
" . of page 2 of the proposed ordinance. Y "
Mr. Alpert said the County. did not omit material and was not looking -at any policiof
' homesite segregation and said the Planning Commission has the right to make whatever
decision is appropriate. : • _ ;
Commissioner Nelson said that there maybe some standards that the County needs to put'on
land use in -regards to conversion of land to natural habitat, but there is probably a better
method than requiring a Use Permit. He:said if the property, owner can satisfy a certain «
number of requirements which .. address some of the _ concerns of the . County, then the .
Commission could move forward: He said if problems did arise, the County would then ,
-have a way to get back to the -land owner and tell them that their land use is not working.
" Mr. Price said that as an agency, that is the biggest concern; right now they have no way. of
reviewing land use practices.
t Commissioner Evans commented that Section 2 of the Ordinance says "all zones," Section,3 "
.talks about "A-5"through A-160 (Agricultural Zones)," and Section 4 talks ,about "R -C
(Resource Conservation) Zone.' He .asked .why. Sections 3 and -4 are necessary if the
Ordinance is talking about "all 'zones" yin Section 2.
Vice Chairman Lambert said the County,is•probably putting it in all sections" f the Zoning y
l Code so a person reading the Zoning' Code, would know it applies in each section_.
■ BUTTE COUNTY. PLANNING.,COMMISSIONL! MINUTT ES-■ DECEMBER 12,'2002 i PAGE 17 '■ t . A �`
Mr. Alpert said the zones written in the Ordinance were the zones that would be affected by
habitat.
Commissioner Evans commented that this project was started because the conversions of
land use,, particularly, along the Sacramento River, were happening by outside agencies and
entities and there was no way for the County to review the actions being taken by those
outside agencies and entities. He said by requiring a Use Permit, the County would have a
convenient way to review land use and impose conditions if necessary. .
Mr. Alpert said it is a workable way, not a convenient way. He said within the structure of
the Butte County General Plan and what uses are permitted in what zones, the County
thought this proposal was the best way to get the desired result without considerable delay
and General Plan issues. He said a big concern, which Commissioner Price stated, is the
.30,000 acres Meander Zone along the Sacramento River that runs through numerous
counties. He said there are about 20,000 acres that have ,been converted to habitat, and
' !another 10,000 acres to go.
Commissioner Nelson said that is not a Use Permit issue, it is apolitical issue, which is what
he is afraid of. He said this proposed Amendment isn't about a Minor Use Permit where the
County•is.really concerned about habitat, but more of a concern about losing agriculture.'
Mr. Alpert agreed that the. County is concerned about losing Agriculture, but at the same
time, the idea of what is happening and what needs to be done about this habitat issue has
been around for a number of years.and many counties have struggled with this issue. He
said some counties have required General Plan Amendments and Rezones to put iri a habitat.
He said the Butte County General Plan is not set up that way because our permitted uses are
different, and so this is how we have approached the issue of habitat. He said the County is
trying to make the best of a situation, where people feel strongly on both sides, for habitat.
He said this is a way to allow the habitat process to continue, but with a little scrutiny and
input that will address the concerns of a lot of other members of our community. He said
from his standpoint as County Counsel, he does not see, it as a political situation, but as 'a
way to assert some level of scrutiny and review to something that is happening. He said the
County does not intend to stop habitat restoration nor is that the objection of this proposal:
He said this proposal is a way to look at habitat and deal with it in a sensible manner..
Commissioner Nelson said throwing out a number bothers him, but the concerns do, not
because 'the concerns need to be addressed.
Mr. Alpert said the point of the numbers is a lot of this has happened unregulated.- He says
Butte County is behind the curve, as most counties are. He says 20,000 acres have already
.been changed in.some significant manner that has been unregulated for the most part. He
said it is worth trying to get some control over.any amount of acreage that remains. He
repeated that this proposed Amendment ,was not meant to stop habitat, but to get some
measure of control; and to the extent the County can make it compatible in the future, try to,
stop this interface where people have been at odds: He said itis not a healthy situation to
have habitat next to an ongoing farm and the respective owners are fighting or at great odds
over what each owner is doing with their -land.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ DECEMBER 12, 2002 ■ PAGE 18 ■
Commissioner.Evans found it interesting that the Sacramento River Preservation Trust'is ,
against this Zoning Code Amendment.: _
- r Mr. Alpert said to be fair; there are many people that farm along the river that might want the
opportunity to sell their land for a high price to create habitat,'so it is not like there is a solid
line of people on one side or other of the issue. He stated the goal of the County is to create -
„ some manageable system. where the County has some input -from a local government
' regulatory perspective. '
b' � •
k Commissioner Evans said other counties are doing, similar things, some with different ,
vehicles, but there is a movement afoot for some consistency in this whole conversation
along the river.
' -Mr. Alpert said "yes" and Butte County is actually on the'cutting edge'of some of these
--proposed changes.' He said a lot of counties are beginning to'model.potential changes in 4=
- their ordinances upon what Butte County is *doing here. He said, again, where situations
exist similar to those in Butte County, with permitted uses in certain zones, the County will
want to look for some type of Minor Use Permit or Use Permit'vehicle rather than go to the
General Plan and start making'major changes in policy in issues that can be convoluted, very
prolonged and expensive. f
'
'Vice Chairman Lambert commented that it can be tempting to land owners, in lean farming
years, to convert your land to something that will be more profitable.
Mr. Price said there are agencies, such as Mosquito Abatement and'a few others that would ;
like the opportunity to review some of these land use plans. i
_ Commissioner Evans said if a metropolitan area developer needed -off-site mitigation arid' ,
• came'to Butte County and found some cheap land and decided to convert.it to habitat, he '
' could just do it. He said such a person might be able to get a•development credit. elsewhere,
and Butte County would not have had an opportunity to"say anything: This Ordinance would .
provide the County an opportunity to see that is what, is, occurring aria also to have some
conditional review over it.
Vice Chairman Lambert opened the hearing to the.public.
Stacey Jolliffe of the Northern California Regional Land Trust asked if the Commissioners
received a letter that was faxed yesterday from the Northern California Regional Land Trust. r
The -Commissioners answered "No.'' • .
{ ' Ms.. Jolliffe said the, Board of Directors of the Land Trust, which is located; in Chico, '
respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue this Ordinance to acquire a Use _
•
PermitTor the conversion of existing uses to Conservation, ,pending further discussion or,
resolution of key issues. She addressed Commissioner_ Nelson and said some of the people at'
the Land Trust, which is a small, non-profit, apolitical, completely market-driven Land t
' ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2002 ■ PAGE 19 ■
0.
}
Trust, are not aware of what.is,going on in the regulatory forum. She said'the Land•Trust
• tends 'to stay out of this sort of thing. She said the Land Trust asks that the Planning
Commission focus their efforts on the active farmland adjacent to the Sacramento River.
She said good portions of the County on the east side do not have row crops and orchards "
and applying the Use Permit ubiquitously in the whole County to protect farmland may not
•make much sense. She said the Northern California Regional Land Trust (NCRLT), has as
their mission to assist land owners with the voluntary conservation of their property. She
said the primary tool, the NCRLT uses to do that are Conservation Easements; a transfer of
property rights that restrict subdivision or development to specified levels and prohibits
specific uses. She said the Conservation Easements remain in private ownership and remain
managed -on -some level by combination of the Land Trust and the private land owners. She
stated that the Conservation Easement is a non -regulatory process that most people find non-
controversial and this wide net that has been cast to,address some concerns about habitat
probably aren't intended to address their conservation efforts. She said the NCRLT has
never had complaints from neighbors displeased with their Conservation Easements or in
any way dissatisfied with pests or other.problems. She said there are more opportunities to
' tailor the legislation in a manner that doesn't restrict property rights in such a profound way.
She added that leaving land in open space will, in and of itself, convert -it to habitat over
time; it is a natural process. She said to put a Use Permit on that process will create the
enforcement issues that the County Counsel mentioned. She said requiring a Use Permit also
creates a regulatory burden for local land conservation groups who operate on a local basis
and probably respond'to the local needs in a valuable way. She asked the Commission to
consider whether putting up roadblocks to conservation on the local level wouldn't simply
t encourage on State and Federal level, where the preemptions would apply. She stated that
State -enabling legislation provides for the use and conveyance of Conservation Easements,
which is primary mechanism of the NCRLT for conserving land based on the voluntary will
of landowners. She said it is the ultimate affirmation of property rights, and is certainly an
encroachment on that traditional ability not to use one's property to require a discretionary
permit. She said the NCRLT questions whether this Ordinance is intended to address
Conservation Easements and whether it can address them, given State legislation. .She asked
if the State -enabling legislation gives the County the'ability to then use its discretionary land
use authority in this particular matter. She concluded her comments by saying that she is not
questioning Butte County's land use authority to address its land use concerns. She said if
there are concerns about protecting agricultural land, she encourages the Commission to do
so, but the ubiquitous Use Permit requirement would not be the most graceful way to do that.
She said there are probably other mechanisms, such as specific zoning 'requirements, that
would enable the County to meet its legitimate land use concerns in a way more respectful of
private property rights.
Mr. Alpert commented that the permit process would only apply wlien a use is abandoned or
changed.
-Commissioner Nelson said` most. of the land in a Trust would not be affected by this
Ordinance. He asked Ms. Jolliffe if the NCRLT deals, with a lot of agricultural land.
Ms. Jolliffe said the NCRLT has spoken of agricultural easements to preserve agricultural
land, but none exist at this time. She said it is possible that the Land Trust would buy land
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■DECEMBER 12, 2002 ■ PAGE 20 ■
• and convert it in some stream side restoration project, so they do see the Ordinance as 4
` restricting their potential to meet their Mission Statement.
'Vice Chairman Lambert said if the County created a Zoning category, to deal with'the
conversion of land to habitat instead of the Use Permit, then the land owner would have to
go through a rezone. She said the County does not have any existing zone that would cover ,
this conversion of land use, so such a process wouldprobably not be any better for the land
r `
owner. `
Mr.'Alpert said a Rezone is a lot bigger process., rHe said in terms of the ubiquitous nature of
this proposed' Ordinance, this started out dealing with areas of flooding in agriculture in the
County., He said it was a specific Board direction that the County expand the.Ordinance to
include other zones based upon concerns of watershed and creek areas, and the'fact that so
much'of the land in Butte County is being deemed habitat either by.State of Federal or other.
agencies: He said the•County.is trying to get some-voice in what-other areas-in the County
will•be deemed habitat. - - �. • -
Paul Minasian, an attorney representing The Sacramento River Reclamation District, said he,
had four facts to give to the. Commission, then he would answer any questions the
Commission may have. He said the Sacramento River Reclamation District covers 18,000
acres between the Tehama County boundary and the M and T Ranch, going all the way
towards Nord and th_e Union -Pacific Railroad line. He said The Sacramento -River
Reclamation TDistrict has lands that are being bought by Conservancies, and those
Conservancies have a better_ idea; there is no Environmental Impact Report, no California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said if this is a political issue, there ought to be a
governmental entity that would condemn or buy the land, and that entity would have to do a
CEQA, NEPA report, and everyone would get an opportunity to comment about their plans
to neglect the levy and let it degrade. He said the public does not get that when an
individual, conservancy, or group buys the land. He said that The Sacramento River
Reclamation -District has land out there where the owners had an idea, or plan, and they
planted wind_ rows of bushes eight feet apart across the flood plain, immediately below
Highway 32 within the Sacramento River Reclamation District. He said there was no
CEQA, no NEPA, no public hearing; the neighbors basically suffer. He said now the owners
-have a plan to simply_ignore the levy, system. He said there are thousands of miles of private
levies; both on the river and in the farmland and we`' need a process fo bring everyone
' together to talk about this and figure out what the conditions are. He said the idea of a
process to regulate land use is not an obstruction; it is an opportunity for all concerned -
individuals and organizations,to communicate,to.the benefit of everyone.
Merritt Horning, M.D., of Butte Valley, said his family has been in Butte County since 1878,
• and seventy years ago there.were very,few regulations of any type in Butte County: He said
the County has gradually made more and more regulations for the protection of the citizenry
• of the County and the State and those regulations should be made to offer protection to most
people. He said when regulations or laws are made, there is a problem of educating people
as to what the regulation means, then the problem of enforcement. He said the people of .
Butte County are really not informed enough about conservation and wildlife preservation to
require a Use Permit for this kind of land use at.this time.. He said in a couple of .years the
' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION_ 7m MINUTES ■ DECEMBER 12_,2002 ■ PAGE 21 ■ A.
people of Butte County would be ready,for-this proposed Ordinance, but not now. He said.
the County needs to educate the people on the subject of wildlife preservation and
conservation programs and recommends the Planning Commission delay the decision about
this Zoning Code Amendment and give it further study, with more effort to get the taxpayers
to understand what the County is trying to do. He said he is vitally interested in this
Ordinance himself as he and his family own a thousand acres in Butte_County and have set
T up a rigid educational program on Butte Creek to reduce fire hazards and improve wildlife
habitat, and are doing so to make Butte County a better place. He hopes the Planning
Commission will give'consideration to how to best manage land use in Butte County in a
most effective way.
' Joe King, land owner from Butte Creek Canyon, said Conservation Easements are one area
he specializes in and is also a Real Estate broker. He said he agrees with Ms. Jolliffe, and
feels that a Use Permit is the wrong tool for the job of land conservation. He said there are
three methods of land conservation; one is acquisitions, where the land is bought or donated
u and held; another is a pre-acquisition, where a Land Trust or an agency involved goes to
another agency or organization, usually'a government agency, and the third method is a.
Conservation Easement which is a Deed restriction for conservation purposes. He said that
Deed restriction can be to protect agriculture. He said one of the largest land trusts in
America is American Farm Land Trust. He said another, large land, trust is The Nature
Conservancy, which the County seems to be attacking. He acknowledged that it is "scary
when a giant comes in and buys up land.". He said the problem with this type of proposal is
that it will do nothing to the Federal Government, will do nothing to the State, but it will hurt
the "little guy" and the little Land Trust, and that is fundamental to property rights. He said
the County should be looking at the overall macro planning of what is happening with land
use. He said the need for buffers has been discussed and offered that maybe what the Nature
Conservancy is doing next to the waterways is functioning perfectly'as a buffer, where less
soil loss will occur than on a property that has another use. He.said concerning erosion, it
usually occurs from human use. He said from a planning standpoint, there needs to be a
mechanism, other than Use Permits for regulation. -He said if willing land owners are
working with non-profit organizations for government approved purposes, and not taking our
tax money to do so, then those land owners should be involved in the dialog to see if a better
tool cannot be arranged. He questioned how legal this ordinance would be; it is a Use Permit
to not use land. He said restoring habitat is a reversion, not a conversion of land use. He
said the default of land is a natural state, and the County is proposing that a land owner must
get a Use Permit for the land to revert back to'its natural state. He said the Planning
Commission should deny this proposal and the organizations and people involved should get
together to talk about this issue. He said what the County calls agricultural land is
confusing. He said there are agricultural -lands in the foothills as well as the valley, so he
prefers to use the words "prime soils," because that is what is really being talked about. He
said the County's biggest concern is that too much of the prime soils are going to be
converted or reverted back to a natural state. He said if buffers and fisheries are created, if
f the reverted land improves tourism, there would be benefits.to the County, and the land
adjoining preserved properties usually goes up in value.: He appealed to the Planning
Commission to reject this proposal and move towards something positive, constructive and is
balanced.
•� `
'22
Ti`BUTTE•COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ DECEMBER',12, 2002 m PAGEi ,
Vice Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Kigricultural land.
ng what he considers.prime a
Mr. King said he prefers to use the term "prime soils," and considers prime soils to be Class
` I Vina Loam, but he is not a soils.expert. -
Vice Chairman.Lambert asked Mr. King if he bases prime soils on the class of the soil:' '
Mr. King said "yes," and the productivity of the land.
w Vice Chairman Lambert said her point,was that rice'does not,grow on prime soil and she -
likes to•know how a person determines what prime soils or prime agricultural lands.are. `
' Mr: King said the concern is the economic output of the land. He said Butte County does not.
' want to lose the.heart of its economy. He said grazing, for example, is a tough business and
it behooves many a ranching family,to do a Conservation Easement that allows grazing. He
said if this proposed Ordinance is passed; that ranching *family would have to get a Use .
Permit for that Deed restriction..
"• Mr. Price said "no," that'is not'correct,'because the ranching family would'not be changing
the use of the land.
Commissioner Evans said these opportunities to;put'easements on'*tions of property are
not subject to this proposed Ordinance because there is no change of land use occurring.
Commissioner Nelson asked if most of the problem is occurring in the conservation area and
isn=t that primarily what is being addressed today,. the conservation area:
i Mr. Alpert said the main focus has been along.the`Sacramento River and'deal.ing with the -
issues and problems that are occurring with agricultural practices along
habitat and flooding
the Sacramento River: He said the Board expanded their focus .because of the effect of
creating habitat-in different zones throughout Butte County.
'Commissioner Nelson said the creation of habitat-in other parts of the County is not a .
problem: t
Mr. Price said habitat will be a problem along some of the'creeks..
4 ' Mr. Alpert said it may not be a problem-in other parts of the County;'but the Ordinance,
would be there in case something does happen.
Ms' Jolliffe said she was asked by Jean Crist, a Magalia resident who was notable to-wait -
forthis issue to come before the Planning Commission; to provide these written comments to
fi the Commission. She read from the comments and voiced Ms. ,Crist's request that the Use
Permit process not be-applied-lo all conservation•lands,in all zones for Butte County and
submitted Ms. Crist's,letter to the Commission. She said Use-Permits are necessarily
reactivebut are-not the most effective way ofpromoting a' land use pattern in a proactive
' ■
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES i DECEMBER"12,,20024■ PAGE'23� "
fashion and she would like to'see planning used in a way that is not just reactive to the
' proposals, that go before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Nelson asked if staff is working with agencies that are buying land along the
Sacramento River. He said that"a'lot'of the agencies that are buying the land along the river
are not allowing people on the land because the°agencies do not have a plan. He said.the
Fish and Wildlife Service'probably owns the largest chunk of land and do not want to deal
with,access issues until they know what they want, to do ,with the, land that they have
purchased. He said other agencies, such as Parks and Recreation, are doing a planning'
process also. He said at some point, these agencies -will provide the land for recreation.
r Vice Chairman Lambert asked if those agencies.haveto do an Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Nelson said "no," but he knows that Parks and Recreation is looking at all the ,
..facilities, and how to deal with public access, and are writing a General Plan on everyone of ,
these parks. He said the plan is not quite as comprehensive as a County General Plan, but it
is a plan on how Parks and Recreation is going to use the area.
Mr. Alpert said the County has a lot more clout or more of a valid point to make with'these
• agencies 'to comply with the County's local rules and regulations and environmental -
concerns if, in fact, the•County is imposing those rules, regulations and concerns on its own,
citizens. He said currently"the County has nothing. He said the State and Federal agencies
and other organizations who own land in Butte County are supposed to cooperate with local
communities and local planning, and not 'do things so' inconsistent or .out of line that .
= problems are created. ,He said that is the goal of these agencies and organizations, but not a
requirement. - He .said when the County does not have a standard or -something that the ' -
County makes their own constituents follow, there is nothing for the State, Federal and local
agencies dealing with these parcels of land to look at as a standard to even try to follow, or
emulate. He:said this Ordinance would give the County.a basis for saying this is what the
County is doing, and these are the County rules and regulations where•the agency. might need, ,
to do studies, because the County is making its own constituents apply, and do'studies.
Commissioner Evans asked if this proposal was a Board generated request.
Mr. Alpert answered "yes." .
Commissioner Nelson said if the Planning Commission does not,want.to go with land use it `
_ could recommend doing something else instead. ,
Mr. Alpert said the Board has,wa'v_ the first reading ori the -Ordinance under Chapter 26,
and that will be adopted at the next meeting. He -said this Ordinance is the. companion
Ordinance to go with it.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the various State, Federal and local agencies know about the `.
Board's proposed Ordinance. '
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION`.■ MINUTES ■ DECEMBER' 12, 2002i PAGE 24 ■
. Mn Alpert said that the State, Federal and local agencies were noticed. He said people have
r
-come to the Butte County Board from the Sacramento River Forum, from'Reddmg, Red`
Bluff, from the Sacramento River Preservation Trust, people from the Family Water Alliance
out of Colusa, Glenn Counties, and Tehama' Counties; we've had quite a diverse, group of
people in front of the Board, which is a dilemma, because it hasn't been before the Planning '
Commission; but this has been widely known and people who have wanted to',participate
:-. have had the opportunity. He added that this proposal has been in frontof the Board for over
a year, and has -had 6 public hearings.
- •, <Vice Chairman Lambert asked Mr. Alpert if he thought this hearing vas at the point to make'
• �` - a recommendation for action.
Mr. Alpert said it is up to the Planning Commission:} He said if theCommi'ssion wants a full
` body present'to discuss this proposal and publicize it one more time, it will not unduly delay
anything. He said the County would not like to see any continuation of delays or hearings `
like have already been before'the Board because it could be disruptive in the regulation side.
\ .F- _ -
Comm'issioner'Nelson said he would like to continue this•proposal to the second meeting in,
January. a
.. Vice Chairman Lambert stated that she would like the'deletion on page two of the Ordinance '
referring to,homesite segregation.
t . Mr. Alpert said County Counsel will bring that deletion forward as a recommendation from
the Planning Commission and the Board can add it back in if it wishes or leave it deleted..
' • l - F -
It was.moved b 'Commissioner Evans seconded b Commissioner Nelson' and unanimousl
Y Y Y
carried to,continue this -open to January 23, 2003.•. •rt +• -
•4 _ -.... •r .. , I ••F- -• .. - •.- A � ,• •rte,• .r � ,' • _ •.
• t * ..
i
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ DECEMBER, 12 2002•■ PAGE 25=.■
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on page 2
APPLICANT'S NAME: (If application is different from owner an affidavit is required.)
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ADDRESS: STREET, CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE
FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE)
-25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any)
TELEPHONE:
Zoning Code Amenement
-
LOCATION OF PROJECT (Major cross streets and Address, if any)
County -wide
t.��M�1 •+Y�'�iA� y�,t,,.yT�.. � w '
i� "
sr6 31
kl-
y' GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIREDi }_er'. M,3 4 ' lt•
a`.,yI
.ii. f 3♦'
.v -�vY
.°7f.a.
J `1j �
OWNER'S NAME:
TELEPHONE:
Various
ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE:
ZONE
GENERAL PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE
SITE SIZE (in Square Feet or Acres)
EXISTING STRUCTURES (in Square Feet)
PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet)
(Check One)
(Check One)
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER
4,, a _, . • rs x .. �",l fr r:- APPLICATION;REQUESTEDyL •, '� >' , ,, �, 7
ia.3"
*r.1,:• 1 ; 1 1. . Jas j,Y i iL 'MwAa.ei..:ih4_ a' A Lf? N r r'�Z.^.`-'CY.:...at• _zi^, `'.Y � ..+�;F1w��- :Y:��'�`'d�_.'IYr��3-+a #... - - -ni !!I --Ly'
❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP
❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION
❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION
❑ MINOR VARIANCE ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN
/J
❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ® OTHERi,.�+�
T�
.fid, <..d _. '^`•a'.:. "A ...a� �' ilY" h�.iC' �F.'1•:Y r+Q, i< * I F��.t f
t
s,'� a..
.�'s H :«�. •+,.: u:t. !4... .
t� ,°.f W1-4'PROJECT,:DESCRIPTION
4-t...} t _.�-" bLX r I .,: ~..-�n.G , --C.•uar-�.�c ..1+�1� _ V da, -fi
FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division, describe the number and size
of parcels.)
See
Attached .
� ;, a - � �b:!3 i:n- ' .'T: Se. rr-cs ,.� "i= � z,•�': r ra «� K R � Wig. +$ rf`t; , P tr 7.: t� � %"d j
'NERC'
a}....n— <:.. sb r. :'�:``.E': x�—,�•s:�"�.r t . c. ars
a.. F: •"'.IS �.:. '--4�'71t1i4•gfc•-::1.GF:1... :+r�".Y.. ylf.�°..:x•Jif"r-•%Yh SA:.NLTJ:Ytih. J``y ..
I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE. (If an agent is to be authorized, execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit with this application.)
DATE: SIGNATURE:
K:\FORMS\UNIFORM APPLICATION
Page I of 3
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
TO: Butte County, Department of Development Services:
Print Name Phone Number
Mailing Address
is hereby authorized to process the application for
on my property, identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Number
APN# - -
This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings; appeals, etc. and to sign all documents
necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest.
Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name)
eu4R-r 3osiF}SSEIJ RlP.Mfiry
Print Napo L&Y* Co . 6,9,4i D of ; SAJO&.e ✓/So JeS
Architect and/or Engineer:
Print Name of Architect/Engineer and Phone Number ,
Mailing Address
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Verify:
Date Received:
❑ AP Number(s)
❑ Owners Authorization
❑ Project Description
Taken by: Receipt No.
Print Name
Signature
Total. Amount Received:
❑ Legal Description
❑ Zoning Requirements
❑ Copies of plot plan
E.H. LD. Plan FD
Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will
be returned upon final action.
Current fee for this application is as of
KAFORMS\UN I FORM APPLICATION
Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. .
BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION f
APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on page 2 '
APPLICANT'S NAME: (If application is different from owner an affidavit is required.) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
x
-Butte County Board of Supervisors
ADDRESS: STREET, CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE , FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE)
Gi4 e9-?
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965'
NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any) - TELEPHONE:
Zoning Code Amenement 38 - 760 l _
LOCATION OF PROJECT (Major cross streets and Address, if any)
County wide
•
ENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
. `b
,..°i. ..{._ axf Nr• r.: ti.-^L .
o-'OWNER'S
TELEPHONE:
NAME:•
(530) 76 0 f
Various
�S3f-
CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE: -
ADDRESS:
ZONE
GENERAL PLAN
USE
SITE SIZE (in Square Feet or Acres)A.
L�.
LL
�EXIIT�INGND
`
ca cn,✓ 7"
EXISTING STRUCTURES (in Square Feet)
PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet)
(Check One) (Check One)
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER
❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER
APPLICATION REQUESTED
s.J:. .i r....
5
❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP
MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION
❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION
❑ MINOR VARIANCE ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN
❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ® OTHER
yM1 t�,n::ri ` `+•K` _A:�'', tn9kw;� , '1'—'r .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
y.. ?4.r•w a ..i:v -.A -w.:... <..'..x9_
: ,.1_ 'l ,. �.. .:,.. :.�1 S. .= zy�; .. ..._ : a:n. .rd„_.t... � Yti�. ..� •Y .'.i. ..,.. r,... . _ .: ,: _..
FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division, describe the number and size
of parcels.) -
See
Attached
a � titi .t �. i ,y .. `1 F F f L t •\ i.;., r'^'yp y < ; � y� t , s`�y4 ' �.7�f,p ats� . e. � �.
; rxx 't OWNER CERTIFICATION'
,. . �".. x,....- - :., 3a..., ar;.,e,.. �...-. - .r..,..' ... _,- . , rt, . .rr-r.:i;.:.+�.:.y..... - ,•.1< .'.1 . ,. r .... _K... -rk' .ira�,..,., ., i..: x _ ,., .., t. ,i...{ : r.S,.a. ,
_ - >> . -. ... .�•......;,,.,
IC 6 ERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY,THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
(If an agent is to be authorized, execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit with this application.)
ACCURATE.
SIGNATURE: .
DATE:
K:\FORMS\UNIFORM APPLICATION -
Page I of 3 ,
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
TO: Butte County, Department of Development Services:
Print Name
Mailing Address
is hereby authorized to process the application for
► -
Phone Number
on my property, identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Number
APN# - -
This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings,'appeals, etc. and to sign all documents
necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest.
Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name)
Print Name
Signature
Architect and'/or Engineer:
Print Name of Architect/Engineer and Phone Number
Mailing Address
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Print Name
Signature
Verify:
Date Received: l Da- Total Amount Received: /-,0 FGs�
2 --AP Number(s) [3'0egal Description
[Owners Authorization Zoning Requirements
roject Description E"Eopies of plot plan
Taken by: Receipt No. E.H. LD. Plan FD _
Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will
be returned upon final action.
Current fee for this application is as of -
KAFORMS\UNIFORM APPLICATION page 2 of 3