Butte County General Plan 2030 Planning Commission Study Session Summary

The second Planning Commission Study Session for Meeting Series #2/3 of the Butte County General Plan 2030 was held on October 11, 2007, following up on the Planning Commission Study Session held on September 28, 2007.  The focus of this meeting was the development of alternatives for the General Plan, including land use, transportation and policy alternatives.  All five of the Planning Commissioners were present for the meeting.  Butte County Development Services staff Tim Snellings, Pete Calarco, Chuck Thistlethwaite and Dan Breedon 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 (CAC) and the public were in attendance.

At the outset of the meeting, Chair Lambert reviewed the goals of the meeting and the process for reviewing the alternatives.  Commissioners Leland and Nelson noted their concerns about the process identifying study areas before establishing goals and policies.  The Commission discussed the issue, and agreed to move forward with the review of the alternatives.

Dan Breedon continued by describing recent correspondence between the County, members of the public, and others, relating to the General Plan process, as described below.

• Commissioner Harrel Wilson suggested including a health and youth element in the General Plan document. 
• John Luvaas requested that additional information and clear guiding policies be established prior to the identification of study areas. 
• Dr. Armeda Ferrini expressed her concerns about the planned development of over 2,000 homes north of Chico, noting possible impacts to groundwater supply and traffic.
• Scott Perkins requested that the boundaries of Study Area #15 (Eastern Oroville/Oroville Foothills) be expanded to include the east side of Miners Ranch Road.
• Roger Cutler suggested extending the boundary of Study Area #30 (Berry Creek) to incorporate a larger expanse of the Berry Creek community.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Study Areas by geographic regions, including the Gridley/Biggs, Oroville, Paradise, Chico, and Unincorporated County regions.  In regards to the Study Areas, as discussed by region, the Commission recommended the following changes to the land use alternatives:

Gridley/Biggs

¨      The Study Areas and the range of alternatives provided were agreed upon for submission to the Board of Supervisors.

¨      The Commission noted that the boundary between Study Areas 22 (Biggs Area) and 23 (North of Gridley) are for the General Plan analysis purposes only; the Planning Commission is not approving an ultimate boundary between the two cities.

Oroville

¨      The boundaries of Study Area #15 (Eastern Oroville/Oroville Foothills) should be expanded to include the east side of Miners Ranch Road.

¨      The boundaries of Study Area #16 (Stringtown Mountain Specific Plan) should be expanded for a comprehensive study of the area.

Paradise

¨      Study Area #26 (South Paradise/Pentz Road), Alternative 3 buildout should be increased to 420 units in response to a landowner request.

¨      A new study area J should be considered between Study Areas #27 (Paradise Urban Reserve) and #8 (Nance Canyon/SR-99), in the area between the Skyway and Neal Road for a comprehensive study of the area. 

Chico

¨      The Commission discussed the addition of a new study area for the Stanley Avenue area, near Study Area #5 (Chico Growth Area 2).  The Commission did not reach agreement on whether this study area, which would be outside of the Greenline, should be added.

¨      Study Area 10 (Hamlin Canyon/SR-99), Alternative 2 buildout should be increased to 9,000 units in response to a landowner request.

Unincorporated County

¨      Study Area #30 (Berry Creek) should be expanded, as suggested in the letter from Roger Cutler.

¨      Study Area #31 (SR-191 (Clark Road)/Durham Pentz) should be expanded to include all four corners of the intersection.  In Alternative 3, the commercial uses should be expanded, and the residential density should be increased.

¨      Study Area #32 (Durham) should be expanded to include the area between Jones Avenue and the Midway.

¨      Study Area C (Upper Stilson Canyon) should be expanded west to Highway 32.

In response to the Planning Commission’s discussion of land use alternatives, the public attendees were invited to raise questions, comments and concerns. This input is summarized below.

Grace Marvin requested that the County recognize the importance of the Habitat and Conservation Plan (HCP) in sustaining Butte County’s environment.  Ms. Marvin suggested that decisions concerning future development should not take place without the knowledge that the HCP will provide.  Furthermore, the community should be responsible for determining which natural resources to preserve.  There is more to learn about sustainable building practices, and planning with sustainability in mind will result in long-term economic savings.

Scott Huber, a member of the Altacal Audubon Society and the HCP stakeholder group, noted that any decisions about proposed study areas are premature.  Mr. Huber agrees that the information provided by the HCP is necessary to go further with this process. He commented that the Audubon Society doesn’t oppose or support study areas now, but does regard the timing of the review as inappropriate. He strongly urges the Planning Commission to put recommendations on hold until the process is informed by HCP.

Jay Oman, a representative for the landowner of the Lago Vista development site, commented that the Alternative 1 land uses for Study Area #26 is inconsistent with the County’s existing General Plan.  The landowner is considering a buildout of 420 units.

Tony Rushing, a member of the CAC, requested clarification on current agriculture policies at the next CAC meeting.  He commented that the General Plan 2030 process needs to address agricultural issues, such as flooding, in the next phase.  Mr. Rushing noted that he is interested in redefining the alternatives because they are confusing; for example, development around Biggs wasn’t included for concentrated growth. 

Mike McLaughlin, a resident of Paradise, raised his concerns regarding development along the Skyway between Paradise & Chico.  He noted that residents, like him, have been involved in protecting that area for a long time and now there are two Study Areas directly adjacent to the Skyway.

Noel Carvalho, a professional planner involved with visioning for the parcels in Study Area #10 (but not representing the landowner), commented that the alternatives don’t accurately represent the landowner’s vision for property. Alternatives 2 and 3 are very similar.  Mr. Carvalho suggested that additional land uses be included.  Specifically, 625 acres should be designated for a commercial/public/industrial mix, and 1,875 acres should be designated for a mix of residential densities.  Under these designations, Mr. Carvalho expects the development would generate approximately 9,000 new dwelling units.

Todd Hall, a member of the CAC, is concerned with the concept of adding too much development around Chico because Mr. Hall believes that not many people want Chico to expand its boundaries.  Mr. Hall encourages infill development for Chico and boundary expansions for Gridley and Biggs.  He also requested that the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission ensure that the CAC has adequate time for the selection of a preferred alternative and the development of goals and policies during Meeting Series #4 and 5.   

Scott Perkins suggested expanding Study Area #15 beyond Miners Ranch Road.  Mr. Perkins thinks that the General Plan 2030 process has gone well thus far.  In addressing the comments from Ms. Marvin and Mr. Huber, he believes that they are misinterpreting the process by saying environmental constraints are not being considered.  He believes that they are suggesting slowing down or stopping the process, but instead they should become more involved to ensure the process goes smoothly.  Mr. Perkins was raised in the Berry Creek area and believes it is appropriate for rural residential development because there is not much agriculture; he also supports the expansion of Study Area #31 to reduce traffic.

Bob Kromer finds that the process has been inclusive so far and that the General Plan 2030 team had been doing a good job.  Mr. Kromer is a proponent of the theory of urbanization.  Looking forward he sees transportation issues such as congestion, and he believes that urbanizing around urban centers makes sense.  This method preserves “true agricultural land.”  He believes that Study Area #4 is no longer suitable for agriculture because of existing development.  He thinks the Greenline could be moved in certain areas that make sense, particularly around Mud Creek.  He would like to see Bell Muir remain as a Study Area. 

Following public commentary on the land use alternatives, the Planning Commission reviewed the Transportation Alternatives and the Policy Alternatives.  The Planning Commission agreed that the Transportation Alternatives were ready for submission to the Board of Supervisors.  In regards to the Policy Alternatives, the Commission recommended the following policy changes:

Greenlines and Buffers

¨      Question 1, bullet 9 should be revised to say “Follow the initiative process” rather than “Establish an initiative process,” since one is already in place.  Commissioner Nelson raised concerns about including this as a policy option, since he does not support “planning by initiative,” but ultimately it could be left in in the interest of considering a range of policy alternatives. Chair Lambert pointed out that the initiative process would be a legal option whether it is included in the General Plan or not.

¨      Question 2 should include an option to not modify the Greenline.

New Development and Housing

¨      Question 4 should include a definition of affordable housing.

Regional Coordination

¨      Question 5 should be modified to refer to other types of entities, and the policy options should include coordination with BCAG on the HCP/NCCP and with special districts and school districts.

Agriculture

¨      Question 6 should include an option to enforce and apply Program 2.2, and to adjust the buffer width based on natural features and the type of agricultural use.

Natural Resources and Habitat

¨      Question 13 should include a policy option to penalize developers for removing protected species prior to submittal of an application for development.

Water Resources

¨      Question 13 should include a policy option to identify recharge areas, as well as one to protect them.

Transportation

¨      Question 17 should include a policy option to re-examine County road standards.

¨      Question 18 should include a policy option to require that bicycle routes be clearly separated from the main roadway and 5 to 7 feet in width.

¨      Question 19 should include policy options to encourage residential development near job centers, carpooling and telecommuting.

Parks and Recreation

¨      Question 23, bullet 1 should be revised to include neighborhood parks.

¨      Question 23 should include a policy option to evaluate the collection of Quimby Act (parkland dedication) fees.

Airport

¨      Question 24, bullet 1 should be revised to eliminate the reference to the year 2000, so that the policy will still be accurate if the ALUCP is revised.

¨      Question 24 should include a policy option to encourage the Airport Land Use Commission to consider revising the compatibility zones.

Green Building and Sustainability

¨      Question 27 should be revised to reference AB 32.

In response to the Planning Commission’s discussion of policy alternatives, the public attendees were invited to raise questions, comments and concerns. This input is summarized below.

Tony St. Amant thinks that the second policy option for question 17 regarding development fees should be rephrased. Secondly, Mr. St. Amant thinks that the policy options should be presented to the public as a survey because it would reach a cross section of the county instead of just reaching people who are able or interested to attend community meetings.

Bob Kromer reiterated that a survey would reach a broader cross section of the county’s residents. Also, he has concerns about the wording used in the policy alternatives document. The phrase “How should the county…” implies that the county should undertake the action, leaving out an option not to do it. The policy alternatives should be reworded so that respondents first have to answer the question of whether or not the County should address the particular issue.

Scott Perkins mentioned that economics drives a lot of what happens in the county (for example, with public transit).  Mr. Perkins suggested creating policy about how the General Plan connects to regional transportation, and pointed to the example of Amador County, which has encountered difficulties because of a “disconnect: between its General Plan and Regional Transportation Plan.  In addition, Mr. Perkins supports the removal of the policy option to modify the Greenline through an initiative process.

In conclusion of the Planning Commission Study, Tim Snellings provided updates and reminders related to the General Plan 2030 process.  The Butte Regional Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) process will catch-up with the General Plan 2030 process and provide studies that can be used to begin the constraints analysis for the Study Areas and County.  The Board of Supervisors will meet in a Special Study Session on November 27, 2007 at 1:30pm that will conclude the Alternatives Development process (Meeting Series #2/3), an additional Citizens Advisory Committee meeting is being planned for December, and Meeting Series #4 is expected to begin in January 2008.

For additional information about the General Plan 2030 process, visit www.buttegeneralplan.net, or contact Butte County Principal Planner Dan Breedon at 538-7629.

For more information about the Project Tasks and Meeting Series, please click here.