Butte County General Plan 2030 Planning Commission Study Session - Long Summary | Short Meeting Summary

Butte County General Plan 2030 Meeting #2/3-3, the Planning Commission Study Session, was held on September 28, 2007.  This meeting is part of Meeting Series #2/3, which is focused on the development of alternatives.  Four Planning Commissioners were present; Commissioner Harrel Wilson was absent.  Butte County Development Services staff Tim Snellings, Dan Breedon, and Pete Calarco attended, as well as Joanna Jansen and Tanya Sundberg of Design, Community & Environment, the lead General Plan consultant.  In addition, members of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the public were in attendance.

At the outset of the meeting, the agenda was revised to end the meeting at noon with time for public comment prior to the meeting close.

Tim Snellings provided an overview of the General Plan 2030 process, addressing concerns regarding the development of land use alternatives before the development of policy alternatives, as well as concerns about incorporating preliminary development proposals into the alternatives.  Snellings also highlighted a terminology change from the phrase “change area” to “study area,” to help clarify that the areas are identified for study, but that they will not necessarily change.  The Commission raised several questions and comments related to the process; these questions, comments and staff’s responses are summarized below.

Commissioner Nelson was concerned that during the policy discussion, participants may realize that the wrong study areas were considered.  Joanna Jansen noted that, based on DC&E’s experience, participants typically make decisions about land use based on ideas about policy, but that most laypeople find it difficult to articulate a policy suggestion without having considered specific land use examples.  The geographic mapping exercises help them to work through these land use examples and to formulate policy ideas, so that during the subsequent policy discussion phase, there are not likely to be significant changes to the policy ideas that guided their decisions about land use mapping.

Commissioner Leland was also concerned that not all development interests have been represented in the process.  It is possible that some landowners and developers have not yet brought plans before the County.  Snellings highlighted the outreach process for General Plan 2030, and noted that the Commission will be providing input on the boundaries of the study areas during this meeting.  Snellings also indicated that the alternatives analysis phase may reveal the need to study additional areas, and that the process is flexible.

Commissioner Leland asked about the process of choosing the study areas, and felt that that the selection of these study areas should occur through an analysis of constraints conducted on all parcels throughout the county.  Commissioner Leland also questioned how the general input provided at the workshops and meetings directly contributed to the formation of the study areas.  Dan Breedon used the Durham, Dayton and Nelson Area-Wide Workshop as an example, describing how public input identified a need for revitalization in town, which contributed to an alternative providing higher densities in the downtown area.  In addition, some specific development proposals in the Durham area are included in the study area so that they could be a part of the upcoming Task F analysis. 

Following this discussion, Jansen provided an overview of the meeting agenda, and Breedon reviewed the Guiding Principles.  Breedon also summarized additional input that was submitted since the packet was mailed to the Commission, including correspondence regarding the General Plan 2030 process and the alternatives, comments from City of Biggs staff regarding the study areas around Biggs, and comments made to the General Plan 2030 website forum.  Staff recommended the expansion of the Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan study area based on this input.  Other comments about the alternatives were minor and requested changes to the land uses within existing study areas; in such cases staff recommended that the alternatives not be changed, since they had been reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and will already be studied for possible change under the existing alternatives.

Tanya Sundberg then presented an overview of the process to date, and reviewed the land use alternatives. Commissioner Lambert raised a question about Study Area 2, the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), and its compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) under the Existing General Plan and/or Character alternative.  Snellings responded that although the NCSP is not currently compatible with the ALUCP, staff will ensure that General Plan 2030 will be compatible with the ALUCP.

The Commission then invited public comments, which are summarized below.

CAC member Jeff Carter felt that the process is problematic and that communication between County staff, the CAC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors is inadequate.  He suggested that the policy discussion should occur before the land use discussion.  Carter has heard policy ideas raised through the workshops that are not reflected in the alternatives, such as the desire to maintain a rural character.  Carter also felt that the CAC has not had a real opportunity to review the alternatives, in part because the three questions that the CAC was asked to consider don’t allow the possibility for any study areas to be eliminated.  Furthermore, the CAC has not had any consensus on these questions.  Carter felt that the CAC should lead a citizen-driven process.

Tony Seamont, a member of the public, commented that he agreed with Carter’s concerns about the role of the CAC and the lack of consensus or agreement about the alternatives.  The CAC has only reviewed the alternatives, but not approved or rejected them.  The speaker noted Board resolutions regarding the functions and role of the CAC, which directed that findings from the CAC be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review.  However, there were no findings made at the CAC meeting.  The speaker was also concerned about a lack of open channels of communication between the public, CAC, Planning Commission and Board, noting that he was told that he should speak at the Planning Commission Study Session to have his opinions heard.  Without better communication between the CAC and the decision-makers, the CAC will be “window dressing.”

John Luvaas, another member of the public, noted his experience with a large steering committee in Chico, similar to the size of the CAC.  He feels that the process is defective, and his major concern is that the schedule is constrained.  The City of Chico General Plan committee with which he worked reached consensus on difficult issues, but it took a long time.  The CAC should be given enough time to reach consensus.  The speaker also felt that the policy discussion should occur before the selection of the preferred land use alternative, in part because some areas that are appropriate for growth may be left out of the alternatives evaluation.  He was concerned that the Guiding Principles lack the detail to guide the land use alternatives.  He also noted that rural areas will become unaffordable for housing locations in the future due to increasing housing and oil prices.  When asked by the Commission for a possible solution to correct these issues, the speaker suggested giving the CAC more time to determine the needs of the alternatives, staff more time to determine the housing types that will be needed, and additional time to consider policies.

CAC member Todd Hall felt that a process reviewing policy first and one reviewing land use alternatives first would be equally effective.  Hall was concerned about his experience as a CAC member, in which he has not been given a clear understanding of his role and tasks for each meeting.  He felt that some additional discussion about the policies and process would be helpful.  He would like to know what will occur during upcoming meetings.  Hall was also concerned about timing constraints, noting competition for time to speak among CAC members and the public.

The Commission asked staff about the possibility of the CAC working separately from the public.  Snellings responded that staff is developing plans to modify the CAC meeting format to allow the CAC to work independently of the public, with time for public comment at the end.

CAC member Bill Black felt that the process is adequate, and did not support Commissioner Leland’s suggestion to rank all of the parcels in Butte County due to the labor and expense involved.  He was also concerned about the amount of public input at the last CAC meeting, noting that they led the discussion off on tangents and decreased the time available for CAC input.  He supported a limited opportunity for public comment at CAC meetings.

Howard Isom, a member of the public, commented that the General Plan should offer quality of life, different lifestyles and proper housing costs, while being environmentally sensitive and improving transportation.  The speaker felt that the CAC should have more time to accomplish their tasks without interruptions, and believes that staff is working towards that goal.  The speaker also suggested the possibility of a fourth alternative that would be a blend of the three existing alternatives.

CAC member Mike Evans highlighted his experience working through a similar process for the City of Oroville General Plan Update.  Oroville’s General Plan Steering Committee also struggled with the process.  Evans found that when he set aside his concerns about the process, and thought about his experience and knowledge of each change area, he was able to develop his own range of alternatives and relate them to the range presented by staff and consultants.  He thinks of the land use alternatives as bookends on a range of options, which is needed before a preferred alternative can be selected.  Evans expects the preferred land use alternative to be a blending of the alternatives.  He emphasized the need to move forward; he trusts that the process will work based on his experience in Oroville.  Evans also supported more separation between the public and CAC discussions.  In addition, Evans commented that the process is landowner-driven rather than developer-driven.

The Commission asked Evans whether he felt the process of selecting a preferred land use alternative prior to the policy alternatives was appropriate.  Evans responded that when he reviewed the land use alternatives for each change area, he considered whether his policy concerns were represented in one of the choices.  He also noted that there will be different policy concerns and desires in different parts of the county.

The Commission asked Evans whether there were questions about how study areas were selected among the Oroville General Plan Update participants.  Evans responded that there were discussions about why areas were considered change areas.

The Commission asked Evans about the concept of a developer-driven process, noting the concern that there are some landowners who have not yet developed plans, and are therefore excluded from the process.  Evans responded that he is aware of some large landowners who have participated in the process without concrete plans; they are waiting to understand the community desires before they develop plans.  Commissioner Leland noted his concerns that there may be some landowners whose property is being considered for down-zoning, but they are unaware of this possible change.  Evans responded that the process has to keep moving.

A member of the public supported the process to date.  The speaker raised her main concerns for the General Plan, based on her experience as a resident of the Upper Ridge and Paradise.  She is concerned that the transportation alternatives are considering road improvements in the Upper Ridge area for emergency-only routes.  This area is growing very fast as a rental community, and roads are very important.  She recommended that the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) be directed to investigate State funding for pay/toll roads between the Upper Ridge and Chico.  The speaker also supported Alternative 2 in the Upper Ridge area.  If any growth occurs in this area, there needs to be assurances for water, circulation, and fire and police protection.

Elizabeth Deveraux, a member of the public, participated in the Chico General Plan Update, for which there was a 41-member task force.  She supported the separation of public input from the CAC meetings to allow adequate time for the CAC to work, and she supported the allowance of more time in general to get the work done.  The speaker did not support the notion of a landowner-driven process.  Rather, the process should be driven by the needs of the whole community.  She felt that the most important issue when considering growth is the quality of life.  In Chico, they developed a community design to set the vision for development before they identified study areas and alternatives.  The speaker also noted changing demographics in Butte County, in which the population is changing to single people and retired couples rather than families.  Furthermore, global warming and fossil fuel availability will affect where and how the county will grow.  The General Plan should reflect these changes.  The General Plan should also consider sensitive species through an overlay analysis, as well as impacts to water supply and groundwater.  Overall, the process needs more time to develop a vision that is specific and to consider more information before making decisions.

Karen Lazlo, a member of the public, highlighted her recent cross-country trip in which she experienced urban sprawl.  She is concerned about the loss of small towns, and wants to ensure the county’s valuable farmland is preserved.

Robin Huffman, a member of the public, suggested that the CAC establish leadership, so that the leader of the group could represent the CAC.  The CAC members should have an stronger role in the process, and they should be more organized.  The speaker also supported the notion of considering the big picture through a policy-based process, and felt that policy should be reviewed before the preferred alternative is selected.  The speaker felt that the Butte County General Plan should address the entire county rather than specific study areas. 

Jan Sneed, a member of the public, noted her concerns about the aquifer, noting that wells in North Chico are failing.  The speaker is on a board for a special district, and was concerned that her district has not been included in the process.  She felt that special districts should be involved in the discussions about revenue sharing with the Cities and County.  She recommended that the process be slowed down or stopped until the special districts are included.

Bruce Hall, a member of the public, asked how the three alternatives were established, and whether the process will only allow the selection of one alternative and exclude possible benefits of the others.  Snellings responded that he expects the preferred alternative to be a combination of all three alternatives.

Following this public comment period, the Commission discussed the issues that were raised regarding the process.  The Commission felt that there should be some changes to the process involving the timing and order of decisions, as well as the operation of the CAC itself.                                                 

Snellings noted the comments about the CAC meetings.  He indicated that the Board had considered CAC leadership roles, but instead opted for a consensus-based approach.  This has been difficult to achieve due to the degree of public input at the CAC meetings.  He supported the separation of public input during CAC meetings to help achieve that goal.

When asked by the Commission about what will happen at the next Planning Commission Study Session, Snellings recommended that the Planning Commission review the material that was presented in the packet for this meeting.  Commissioner Lambert indicated that each study area should be reviewed during that meeting so that they can fully consider the alternatives. 

The Commission discussed further the methods for identifying study areas and the order of the policy alternatives review relative to the selections of a preferred land use alternative. Commissioners Leland and Nelson felt that the priorities should be established first, and then the study areas selected based on those priorities.  They also felt that the list of study areas should be flexible to allow the addition of new areas.  Commissioner Marin felt that is important to continue progressing.  Although slight corrections are appropriate, he was concerned that the process will lose momentum if it is stopped.

Snellings responded that we are still in the information-gathering phase, and that new information will emerge to inform the process.  Decisions won’t be made until Meeting Series #4, when the information from the alternatives evaluation is presented.

Jansen elaborated on the upcoming steps for the alternatives evaluation, involving constraints analyses to understand the impacts of the alternatives.  This information will assist decision makers in selecting the preferred alternative, which will likely include some study areas for which no growth will be selected.

When asked by the Commission about whether new study areas could be included in the alternatives evaluation after Meeting Series #2/3, Jansen responded that suggestions for new study areas will still be made during the next phase, but that the study areas identified in Meeting Series #2/3 provide for a more focused analysis.  Commissioner Leland was concerned that the areas not included as study areas in the final land use alternatives will not be evaluated during the next phase.  He recommended that the constraints analysis occur first to determine the study areas, and that specific development proposals then be added to the list.  This would avoid the exclusion of some areas that may be appropriate for development.

The Planning Commission Study Session was continued to October 11, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.  The Planning Commission will review the study areas at that time.