2.1 INTRODUCTION

REGIONAL SETTING

Sutter County lies in a portion of north central California known as the Sacramento Valley, approximately 40 miles north of Sacramento. State Highway 99, which extends in a north-south direction through the County, defines the principal transportation corridor connecting the County to the region. State Route 20 is the principal east-west corridor between Highway 99 and Interstate 5. Figure 2.1-1 depicts Sutter County's location.

COUNTY BOUNDARIES AND PLANNING AREAS

Sutter County's jurisdictional boundaries are generally defined by Yolo and Colusa Counties to the west with the Sacramento River and Butte Slough forming the western boundary; Butte County to the north; Yuba and Placer Counties to the east with the Feather and Bear Rivers forming the eastern boundary; and Sacramento County to the south. The County encompasses approximately 607 square miles (388,358 acres), which can be divided into two general topographical areas: a valley area and the Sutter Buttes.

The County includes two incorporated cities (the City of Yuba City and the City of Live Oak) and several unincorporated rural communities. A distinct "Yuba City Urban Area" exists which according to the U.S. Census includes incorporated Yuba City, the unincorporated land area immediately surrounding the incorporated city limits (the urban fringe), and Tierra Buena. As noted in the Population Chapter, the census tracts which delineate the "Yuba City Urban Area" are generally bound by Eager and Nuestro Roads to the north, the Sutter Extension Canal to the west, Oswald Road to the south, and the Feather River to the east. Table 2.1-1 identifies each of the incorporated cities and rural communities by size. Table 2.1-2 shows the growth in area (acres) of the County's two cities between January 1985 and January 1996. Figure 2.1-2 shows the location of each city and rural community in the County.

2.2 EXISTING SUTTER COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN HISTORY

Sutter County's first general plan was adopted in 1964. This general plan contained only land use and transportation elements and was a result of two planning studies by Mr. James Campbell in 1954 and 1958. These early contracts were joint efforts between the City of Yuba City, the State Department
of Finance and the County of Sutter. Sutter County's adoption of its first general plan was delayed in 1956 due to the Yuba City Flood of December 1955. In 1958 a second federal "701" joint grant for planning studies was awarded and the effort resulted in the adoption of the 1964 general plan.

TABLE 2.1-1
INCORPORATED CITIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES BY SIZE
(As of January 1, 1996)

Source: Sutter County Community Services Department

TABLE 2.1-2
CITY AREA
(As of January 1, 1996)

Source: Sutter County LAFCO

FIGURE 2.1-1
SUTTER COUNTY LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2.1-2
SUTTER COUNTY PLAN AREAS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES MAP

The City of Yuba City adopted its first master plan (later called a general plan) in 1956 which was later amended in 1958. The City of Live Oak adopted its first general plan in 1962 which substantially mirrored the County Master Plan Reports prepared by Mr. Campbell in 1954 and 1958. Sutter County's 1964 General Plan did not provide guidance in the way of development density and intensity of land use for those areas immediately surrounding the two incorporated cities.

Sutter County's 1964 Plan did reflect a large urban area around the City of Yuba City and smaller urban populations around both Sutter and Live Oak. The early plan also identified a rural community of Riego which centered on the intersection of Pleasant Grove and Riego Roads. The Plan showed Riego as containing a small residential population with a large industrial area. Other rural communities identified by the plan were East Nicolaus, Meridian and Robbins.

Modifications to the County's General Plan were proposed in 1968. A Recreation Element was added which contained a survey of existing County fishing access points and comments on the potential for hiking and other recreational activities in the Sutter Buttes. A new Rural Communities Land Use Plan was proposed but not adopted. The Rural Communities Land Use Plan proposed specific land use designations and boundaries for each of the rural communities contained in the 1964 Plan, added Trowbridge, Pleasant Grove, Rio Oso and Tudor as rural communities, and modified Riego to eliminate the residential area and reduce the industrial area. Though not adopted, the 1968 Rural Communities Plan appears to be used as the basis for later General Plan revisions, particularly the 1972 Riego Plan.

Recognizing the importance of protecting agriculture from suburban encroachment, Sutter County created a new zoning district in 1972, the AG (General Agricultural) District. A County-wide rezone was initiated over the next couple of years to eliminate the County's A-1 (unclassified) Zoning District and other non-agriculturally zoned parcels located in rural areas of the County to reduce land use practices which did not necessarily compliment agricultural uses. The changes were consistent with the 1964 General Plan and redirected urban/suburban type development into the established urban areas in the General Plan.

Other changes occurring in 1972 included the adoption of a Housing Element, Conservation Element, and a new Transportation and Land Use Element for the Riego area. The Housing Element was prepared as a joint effort by Sutter County, the City of Yuba City and then Sacramento Regional Planning Commission and was the first look at the community's housing problems from a systematic approach. The Conservation Element reduced the unincorporated urban/suburban areas surrounding Yuba City and Live Oak. The Riego Plan reduced the industrial area from over 1,800 acres to approximately 200 acres and eliminated the residential area entirely.

In 1974 the County modified the Land Use Element to include language clarifying development policies for the unincorporated areas. The document states "...Yuba City Planning Area will continue as the principal urban community in Sutter County." The recommendations of the plan were intended "...to reduce scattered or leapfrog development, preserve agriculture and reduce travel time and costs for government, business and residents." A revised land use map was adopted and specific detail for lands within the urban boundary were identified. The revised land use map contained the same urban boundary as the 1972 Conservation Element's land use map. Yuba City adopted the same land use plan in 1973.
In 1978, a joint Yuba City Urban Area General Plan was adopted by Yuba City and Sutter County. For the most part, this is still the plan in effect today for the unincorporated Yuba City Urban Area. The Plan involved a major reduction in development area from the 1964 Plan and recognized the need to provide a higher degree of infrastructure for new development. The boundary for Yuba City Urban Area expansion was reduced to match the boundary of the Gilsizer Drainage District and also included land area south of Yuba City along Garden Highway that is between the Drainage District and the Feather River. A delineation of Tierra Buena was made and together with the newly defined Yuba City expansion area, the first definitive Yuba City Urban Area boundary was established. This Plan combined in one document the land use, housing, transportation and public facilities elements as well as the environmental document. The following year (1979) Yuba City and Sutter County jointly adopted a Noise Element which was later adopted as the Noise Element for the Live Oak General Plan.

A new community plan was adopted for Sutter in 1980. The plan restricted Sutter's development to its present boundaries until full urban services could be provided.

Several modifications to the County's General Plan occurred in 1982. Sutter County adopted the City of Live Oak's General Plan as the County Plan for the unincorporated Live Oak Planning Area. New land use, transportation and public facilities elements were approved by the Board of Supervisor's for Tierra Buena and Measure A was approved by the voters to create the Food Processing, Agricultural and Recreation Combining (FPARC) zone district and area plan. The Tierra Buena Area Plan reduced densities and intensities of land use due to the lack of public sewer service and was later amended (1983) to include density averaging for larger development projects. The FPARC plan consists of approximately 1,800 acres, including land area on the southern flanks of the Sutter Buttes and land area between South Butte Road and State Highway 20, intended to provide agriculturally related industrial activities.

In 1983, the County adopted a new general plan. This plan retained and incorporated by reference the previously adopted Yuba City Urban Area General Plan, the Live Oak General Plan and the Tierra Buena Area General Plan. Additionally, although not specifically referenced and incorporated into the document, the Community of Sutter General Plan was also left in effect. The 1983 Plan contained the primary agricultural policies for development in the non-urban areas, redefined the boundaries of the existing rural communities of East Nicolaus, Meridian and Robbins, and added the rural communities of Nicolaus, Rio Oso and Trowbridge. The Plan also deleted the previously adopted boundary for the community of Riego and described Pleasant Grove as a general area, not as a rural community. This plan is referred to as the "Rural General Plan".

In 1989, Sutter County adopted a Recreation Activities Element to the plan which inventoried existing County recreational facilities in the unincorporated area as well as major private facilities. The 1989 Recreation Element established criteria for zoning compatibility for future recreational uses. Also in 1989, the City of Yuba City adopted a new General Plan. The City's new General Plan Land Use Map includes land use designations in the unincorporated Yuba City Urban Area. Though largely similar, the City's land use designations do not necessarily match the County's designations for the same area. The County has not adopted the City's 1989 General Plan by reference as was done in previous years.
The next change to the County's General Plan occurred in 1991 with the adoption of the South Sutter County General Plan Amendment (SSC GPA). The South Sutter plan replaced all previous General Plan land use designations and policies with new residential, commercial, industrial, open space and agricultural designations for the plan area. The South Sutter Plan was prepared in response to regional growth occurring in the greater Sacramento area. In Sutter County specifically, a request for the expansion of industrial development was filed in 1984 along Riego Road. The application was incomplete and in 1985 a new applicant took over the application and began the preparation of an environmental document. By 1987, the County had received interest in the development of over 4,000 acres in the South County area because of its proximity to Sacramento. Due to the limited (virtually non-existent) public facilities/services in the area and the need for such facilities given the type of development proposed, the County determined that it would be necessary to consider the development requests in the context of future plans for the area and the resultant South County Area Plan was prepared.

The South Sutter Plan would have created a new urban area consisting of approximately 24,000 acres and a potential population at build-out of 140,000 people over a 40 year period of time. However, after the Board of Supervisors approved the plan in 1991, a referendum to overturn the Board's action was approved by County voters. The applicants then filed a lawsuit to invalidate the referendum. On June 9, 1995 a Sutter County Superior Court decision determined that the referendum was valid. As of March 1996, the effect of the voter action and the status of the South County Area Plan is currently under appeal.

In 1993, the County updated the General Plan Housing Element. The purpose of the update was to bring the Housing Element into full compliance with the State's requirements. The Element incorporated many of the work programs and policies of the South County Area Plan. It also further defines and clarifies agricultural policies pertaining to housing and the creation of new homesites in the rural area as they relate to land use policy.

COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS

In 1993 Sutter County initiated a comprehensive update of its general plan. The update process was divided into two phases. The first phase was essentially a technical exercise designed to achieve the following:

* Revise and update all supporting documentation for the General Plan.

* Revise the format of the current plan to consolidate all policy information (goals, policies and diagrams) into a single integrated document.

* Correct any identified deficiencies with the plan to bring it into conformance with current state requirements.

* Strengthen agricultural policies where appropriate.

On December 6, 1994 the Technical Update was completed and resulted in a new County General Plan. With the adoption of the General Plan Technical Update, phase two, known as the Comprehensive General Plan Revision (CGPR) was initiated.

A twenty-five member Citizens Advisory Committee (Committee) was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to assist in identifying and resolving issues and to allow for maximum public participation.

On March 13, 1995, Sutter County initiated the "Issue Identification" phase of the CGPR process. This phase consisted of alternating study sessions (which included the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Committee) and Committee meetings. Study sessions allowed experts and leaders from their respective professions to speak and provide insight on five primary topics. Study sessions also provided a forum for public participation and issue refinement while serving as an educational tool. The five primary topics of discussion included: Agriculture, Industry/Commerce, Urban Development, Infrastructure, and Open Space. On intervening weeks between study sessions, Committee meetings were held to isolate key issues and build consensus. The Committee meetings also served to further public participation and discussion of community goals, ideas, and expectations. The "Issue Identification" phase consisted of 15 meetings and was completed on June 26, 1995. Approximately 115 issues were identified.

On July 24, 1995, the "Issue Resolution" phase of the CGPR process began with a series of five special joint study sessions attended by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the general public. The purpose of the joint study sessions was to address key policy questions and issues. Following the conclusion of these sessions, a work program was developed. The work program outlined the process through which issues would be addressed/resolved and provided time and cost estimates for completion of the CGPR process. Repetitive and similar issues were combined to create efficiency and eliminate redundancy. Other issues were identified as staff tasks that required development of policy language or modifications to existing policies. The remaining 32 issues were left to be resolved through Committee "Issue Resolution" meetings. Some of the key issues are addressed on the following pages.

On September 18, 1995, the Committee reconvened to address the remaining 32 issues. A total of nine Committee meetings were held, with the last concluding on November 20, 1995. Committee recommendations on issues were forwarded to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Then, both recommendations were forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final direction.

Between October 2 and November 3, 1995, Sutter County also offered an opportunity for property owners with land located in the unincorporated portion of the County to submit requests for land use designation changes. The opportunity to submit requests for land use designation changes is a standard practice in the planning process when revisions are being considered to the land use diagram. A total of 38 land use designation requests were submitted.

In addition to issue resolution activities, this segment of the Comprehensive General Plan Revision also focused on the development of a "preferred land use alternative" for the County. Based on input received from the public, recommendations made by the Citizen's Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, as well as direction given by the Board of Supervisors, three land use alternatives were developed and reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 4, 1995, and by the Board of Supervisors on December 5. These alternatives are described below.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposed approximately 8,500 acres of industrial/commercial land uses in the south county area, an industrial/commercial corridor from Township Road to FPARC along Highway 20 of approximately 3,500 acres, and residential expansion of approximately 270 acres to the east and west of Sutter along with an approximately 40 acre section of commercial area south of Sutter.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposed approximately 6,000 acres of industrial/commercial land uses in the south county area, approximately 1,400 acres of industrial/commercial areas located adjacent to FPARC and west of Township Road, and residential expansion of approximately 100 acres to the west of Sutter along with an approximately 40 acre section of commercial area south of Sutter.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposed approximately 8,500 acres of mixed land uses in the south county area, approximately 1,100 acres of industrial area located adjacent to FPARC, approximately 1,100 acres of mixed use area west of Township Road along Highway 20, and an approximately 40 acre section of commercial area south of Sutter.

Following the December 5, 1995 Board meeting, a preferred alternative was developed. The preferred alternative proposed approximately 10,500 acres of industrial/commercial land uses in South Sutter County. However, the Board's final direction was to allow 3,500 acres of development for the 20-year planning period. Approximately 700 acres of industrial/commercial land uses along the north side of Highway 20 south of the community of Sutter, approximately 270 acres of low density residential and estates residential development adjacent to the community of Sutter, and several small parcels of proposed commercial land uses near the City of Yuba City. This preferred land use alternative was used as the focus of the environmental analysis, which served as the basis for development of the 1996 Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Some of the key issues that arose from the CGPR process and are addressed in the General Plan include:

1. Ranchette Development - One of the more divisive issues discussed throughout the CGPR process was that of Ranchette development. As part of the CGPR, the Board recommended creation of a new Ranchette (RAN) land use designation. This designation is intended to accommodate small farm/large lot residential areas in the agricultural regions of Sutter County. The Ranchette designation allows for expanded agricultural uses than what is allowed in the Estates Residential (ER) designation, but on parcels between 3 and 10 acres in size. Sutter County recognizes that there is a need to accommodate a wide range of housing opportunities and lifestyles, while still preserving agricultural lands. Therefore, the County will be establishing a process and criteria to allow this type of development with the least amount of impact on existing agricultural operations.

2. Economic Development - An often discussed topic throughout the "Issue Identification" and "Issue Resolution" phases of the CGPR was the need to increase employment opportunities in Sutter County and to promote Sutter County as a location for industrial and commercial development. As part of the CGPR process, approximately 3,500 acres of new industrial and commercial land uses were proposed in the south county area. Also proposed for industrial/commercial uses was approximately 700 acres of land along State Highway 20, south of the community of Sutter. The Board also directed that a ratio of 85% industrial and 15% commercial land use mix be used in these areas. This was to emphasize the goal of achieving higher paying industrial jobs.

3. Enhancement and Preservation of Agricultural Industry - Agriculture was identified as one of the dominant industries within Sutter County. As urban development increases, the need for further protection of the County's agricultural industry becomes more and more important. An implementation program was proposed within the new Plan that will require the County to develop a buffering program to reduce conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The buffering program will include design and maintenance guidelines. Another proposed implementation program directs the County to study and facilitate, if appropriate, permanent agricultural preservation measures. Additional policies were suggested requiring that certain findings be made before allowing non-agricultural development of agricultural lands.

With regard to enhancing the agricultural industry, new policies were proposed that would support vertical integration (production, processing, and distribution) of agricultural industries within Sutter County. Also, the County will be making an effort to explore the feasibility of developing incentive packages that could be marketed to both existing and new agricultural industries.

4. Expansion of Rural Communities - The County General Plan currently identifies seven rural community areas with varying degrees of rural and suburban development. These communities have limited public facilities, services and infrastructure. These limitations present constraints to growth in these communities. Because of current pressures for growth, it was decided that the community of Sutter should be studied first, and that the remaining communities would be studied individually at a future time.

A Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting was held in the community of Sutter in October of 1995 to receive input from residents regarding growth in Sutter and the concept of expanding the community boundaries. The greatest constraint to growth in Sutter is its identified groundwater contamination problem, which may be attributed to the concentration of on-site sewage disposal systems on small lots, combined with the existence of individual wells. Residents of Sutter generally supported a limited amount of growth contiguous to the existing community; however, preserving the small town character was equally important. An emphasis was placed on completing infill development within the existing community before expanding outward. Because of the public health issue associated with the groundwater contamination, the County has restricted development at urban densities and the subdivision of new lands until such time as public water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities become available or are provided.

5. Residential Urban Services - Because the County does not have the facilities or resources to provide full urban services for new suburban and urban residential development, all new suburban/urban residential development within the unincorporated portions of Sutter County will be required to have full urban services that are provided by some entity other than the County. These services may include but not necessarily be limited to sewer, water, drainage, law enforcement, fire protection, parks/recreation facilities and programs, and public landscaping.

6. Land Use Planning within the Spheres of Influence - During the CGPR process, the City of Yuba City specifically expressed a desire to do all of the land use and facility planning within it's sphere of influence. The sphere of influence line functions as an urban service/boundary line, delineates the future expected jurisdictional boundary for a city, and often serves as a planning area for the purposes of land use. Just as the County has decided that it is no longer feasible for it to provide urban services for new suburban and urban residential development, it has also determined that land use planning within the Yuba City and Live Oak spheres of influence should be conducted by each respective city in coordination and cooperation with the County.

7. General Plan and Zoning Inconsistencies - The CGPR process included the redesignation of unincorporated lands throughout the County, however, concurrent rezoning was not conducted. California state law requires that County zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan of the county. Sutter County recognizes that various inconsistencies exist in the unincorporated area between zoning and general plan land use designations. Resolution of these inconsistencies will begin following adoption of the general plan. The "General Land Use (unincorporated)" section of the Land Use Element contains policies and implementation programs that address this issue.

AREA PLANS

The Sutter County General Plan contains one area plan, known as the FPARC Area Plan. An "area plan" provides for the ultimate development of smaller subareas or communities within the county. The purpose of the area plan is to provide policy guidance tailored to the needs and conditions of a specific area.

FPARC Area Plan

With the passage of Measure A in 1982, Sutter County voters created the approximately 1,800 acre Food Processing, Agriculture and Recreation Combining (FPARC) Area Plan. The original purpose of the plan was to provide a place for a food processing plant, powered by a co-generation facility which utilized waste water from the processing facility to irrigate a golf course. The voter approved plan includes land area on the southern flanks of the Sutter Buttes as well as area south of South Butte Road and north of State Highway 20. Figure 2.1-2 shows the FPARC boundaries.

Previous Area Plans

Prior to the update of this document, there were four other area plans (Yuba City Urban Area Plan, the Live Oak Area Plan, the Tierra Buena Area Plan, and the South County Area Plan) that provided policy guidance specific to each area; however, as part of the General Plan Technical Update, these area plans were superseded. Current policies and standards address all areas of the County.