Comments on behalf of the Butte Environmental Council delivered verbally by
Advocacy Consultant Carol Perkins on October 25, 2012.
The effort to uphold the ambitious environmental and social goals of the General
Plan starts here at the Planning Commission. The GP has been in development
since 2007; let’s not be exposed today to decimation of the GP before it is complete.
Let’s not learn today how weak it could be…
On July 11, BEC submitted comments regarding the Zoning Ordinance and GPA
and supplemental EIR. Central to these comments are the fact that there are no
plans in place for mitigating land conversion and offsetting increased Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions.
The Butte County community was assured through the General Plan process that the
purpose of public input was to ensure policy driven holistic planning not planning
driven by the individual interests of landowners and developers. We were ensured
that the County would make decisions in the public’s best interest and in line with
the policies developed throughout the five year General Plan process. We were
assured that the GPA process was to correct mistakes and repair unintended
consequences that have come up in the last two years since the General Plan was
completed. Unfortunately what has occurred is a landslide of requests made by
individuals and developers to change the zoning of forest lands, agriculture lands,
and resource conservation areas to allow residential development, as well as
reducing the parcel size of these lands. The Durham Villas project appears to be one
such project.
BEC opposes cluster development in unincorporated areas because it
contradicts the goals of the GP. (Land Use Element goal #8 and #15, plus
Agriculture Element goals #2 and #5)
This project sets precedent for more rural and scattered development and goes
directly against the county’s goal to direct development to existing urbanized areas.
This project will exceed GHG emission goals. It results in residential development in
an area where the groundwater conditions are not clearly understood and is
designed such that impacts to a declining supply cannot be mitigated or reduced.
BEC requested that the County not recommend rezoning that allows for
increased development, inevitably contributing to the increased GHG
emissions until solutions have been identified. The General Plan directs the
County to prepare a Climate Action Plan, however at this time, as these rezones are
being recommended, this plan is not in place and the impacts to GHG emissions
continue to exceed the County’s GHG reduction target and it is unknown if the
county will succeed in achieving AB32 targets.
Understanding the groundwater in this area has proven difficult at best and by
putting this burden on developers makes it unlikely that cumulative impacts
will be fully recognized.
While the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not require proof of water supply
or identification of impacts to neighboring wells, the Butte County General plan
does. At a minimum, this Resolution must uphold GP Policy W-P2.9 requires that
Page 1 of 2
applicants for new major development projects demonstrate adequate water supply to meet the needs of
the project, including an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts to surrounding groundwater users
and the environment
Commission Wilson asked about surface water supplies… Durham has been experiencing a
declining groundwater supply. In 1994, during a drought groundwater was pumped and sold
from this region that had a significant financial and hydrologic impact on this area… while the
County does have surface water rights out of Oroville, we don’t have the infrastructure or the
funding to supply that water where it might be required. But much to my chagrin, the County is
looking to pipe that surface water to Durham, because we currently have a severe water
problem.
The GPA allows a greater extent of development that would reduce areas available for
groundwater recharge and increase areas dependent on groundwater supply.
BECs comments call for no new major developments until the county fully understands the
impacts of new development on groundwater. It is incumbent that you do not accept this
project at a time when our regional water resources are so poorly understood and completely
ignored as a serious limitation to growth.
Water supply: I direct you to top of page 111 of the application. LAFCO indicates: (go to
Mendeley)
Whereas this project application is the first step in for permitting a development project, it
is incumbent upon the County to ensure that Article 40 Zoning Ordinance is upheld if you
should approve this Resolution. It is your due diligence to mandate enforcement of …
Article 40 Zoning Ordinance: Development Agreement Section 24-285 Purpose
A Development Agreement is a contract between the County and an applicant for a development
project, in compliance with Government Code Section 65864 et seq. The purpose of an Article 40:
Development Agreement is to:
A. Facilitate development projects for which there is significant applicant contribution toward
infrastructure, public facilities, open space or other amenities, or other programs of benefit to the
County and its residents.
...
C. Encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and provision of public facilities,
including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation, potable water, schools, and
utilities.
D. Provide a net benefit to the County and its residents not otherwise obtainable through other
processes.
Regarding Ag resources: This project fails to meet Article 17 Zoning Ordinance.
Agricultural Buffers
An agricultural buffer area shall be 300 feet from any property line that abuts Agriculture zones.
I do not believe the letter of intent in 1996 was to evaluate the agricultural buffer based on
developers needs at the time of application but to protect our historic agricultural environment
and protect our farmers and their economic viability.
Before this Resolution is approved, at a minimum, it should be mandated that the remaining ag
land be placed into a conservation easement.
Page 2 of 2