HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 BIDWELL HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN 1 OF 2Clu•yq CO, P�nrirngnr»ir►.
August 20, 1985
t ,r
I
Qrovil�� G`. t�lrfurnt4
�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS,
2
COUNTY OF BUTTE )
3
TRANSCRIPT OF MINUTE ORDER 85-545; REPORT TO THE 00AR0 ON LETTER
OF JOHN L. LUUAAS CONCERNING BIDWELL HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PIAAN AND BONN
4
REQUIREMENT.
5'
MINUTE ORDER 85-545
6
Chairman Fulton: Alright, go back to, ah, 4,08, report to the '
7
Board' on 'letter of John L. Luvaas concerning Bidwell heights Specific Plan
I
8
and bond requirement.. Um, this is, okay, this is a.
9
Supervisor McLaughlin: What, what are we supposed to do with this
now?'
1G
Supervisor Dolan: Well, I don't know. I get this letter from
].2
the f re warden that Ite believes that the, ah, the bond amount called for
13
is, is in line which answers one of Mr. Luvaas's questions and it may not 1
14
be any more and then the planning, planning says it would be appropriate
15,
to clear ;a proposal and amendment to your commission for the 1^ecommenJation,
uhm,
. .inaudible..
1718
- ;
Supervisor' Dolan: What amendment? When what's really called
]9'
for is to set anti de, a Specific, Plan foron-compl ti ince Yj7 th its conditions. i
20
What ' are we are amending, I don't want to amend down any fire
,
inaudible,
2
Bettye Kircher: No, ah, since the request to your Board was
2
to, ah, remove` the S pacific Plan on the asstmpti u,n that was gai ag to be
z4
your consideration, yoU would' require that you hold a ,public hearing the
2S
same as you wouldli the adoption. of a plan and they, call, that an amendment
26
or, a 00ge, ar whatever.
Supervisor Dolan: So the amendment goes right to the whole set
;2
aside,
Bettye Ki.^cher: Goes through the whole process, My recommendation
4
to you was there was no question to the conditions of the Specific Plan
have not been adhered to. It's Counsel 's opinion that, in that event the
5
Specific Plan should be modified or should be lifted or should be whatever,
6
.r
I think before your Board took that actionor that direction you ought
to refer it into your Planning Gommission for their recommendation to you
$
9
inasmuch as, I believe that there is more involved there than just a Specific
Plan. We have a General :Plan, and several other things that may come into
10
_ I
play, Admittedly, the Specific Plan is not the best, ah, in Staff's opinion
11
it could have occurred but at least it is a requivement that some things
12
will' happen for the seventy lots that are up there.
13
{{
Supervisor Dolan: But they, alright. So what we are going to i
].4
refer to the Planning Commission when we know that, that the bond hasn't
15
been posted that was' required two years ago.
16
Bettye Kircher: I would suggest that your Board refer, the
17
consideration of the `Specific Plan and/or General Plan in the area of Bidwell
18
Heights, ah, Specific Plan, repeating myself.
19
i
Supervisoe Dolan: Just let them discuss it?
20
BettyeKircher: Yes, let them bring a recommendation back to
2].
you because then all of this information funnels dowh it says not just
22
I
23
the issue of the bond itself.
Supervisor`McLau Klin: We could actually 'add this onto the consent
D y '
24
25
agenda with your recommendation, could n"t'we? I
Bettye Kircher: Could have, .yes.
26
t N rrer;Qc,���r;s� rr�� N rraL ME_��rar;r�NUlJr1
0 •+' = + r LAW 01-TICCor
jaziN L,
Via,•4
Butte Co. Planning Cohnn A TOI l Kr uw '
-a; NMi525 WALL sT. -l:o, ucx 3270 � � JUL' 16 1985
J
r Q �.,
JUL 9 3 1985 C111co, CAGIFOfINiA 95527
(ale) 853.1758.
oroville, Cnditatnus onpV1i44e
' �AUF,��N�q
July 31 °1985 %11)4.9
004% _1985
a�SupE�v�so
Butte County Board of Supervisors Rs
2,5 County Center Drive
O.roville, California 95965
Re: Bidwell Heights Specific Plan Fire and Bond Requirement
File No: 82-62
Dear Chairman Fulton and Board:
This is to follow up on my letter of May 8, 1984, on behalf
Of Friends of the Foothills concerning the Boardls condition
number 2.7,3 of the Bidwell Heights Land Company Specific Plnna
This condition required the applioants to ost a bond "withi3Q
days of the approval of the specific plan" to guat^antee the
fulfillment of your fire protection requirements. The applicants
were to have posted the bond by October 200 1983, but failed to
me so. In he opinion, they have faa.led to meet your require-
melts, so the Specific- Plan has been violated.°
it is our requeat that You
Heights Specific Plan, both beoau:Seritohas re sbeen violahedBbdWell
l'a,ilure post of the applicants to a bond, and also becauseofthe
numerous grounds of illegality and violation of Count
ani raised in the pending latjouit chal.len Y procedures
(Paulsen vs County of Butte).ging the specific plan
If the Board prefers to let
the legal proceedings 'take their
course and not to set aside the specific plan at this tame, then
it is our request that you require the Opp)ioantS to meet the
bond requirement by informing them that they must immediately
Post the overdue bond.
On September 26,, 1984, County Fire Warden Bili Teie reported
'that the bond should be in an amount of at least T
believe that amoutnt is u n an X125,000.00. We
of fire M • tidally l.ow given the high costs
protection #'acilities andstaff, and that a far higher
bond will be necessary an order~ to guarantee
is particularly true in light of the County'spdifficulty�inhis
collecting even the small amounts requested from the applicants,
for ls'rR u
Preparation. The applicants should be reqs;i,red to demon-
strate their good faith and financial responsibility by posting a
bond now. As noted in my lett ;
er of 1�1ey 8; 1984the
rla>i also
equires that an amount be adcled to the bond %Urftaient, to cover
the County's potential legal fees in later enforcing the bond.
AMBoard
of 'SuperyisorU
July 3; 1985
Z would
speci-fics.of
most appreciate your staff's written resrionse to the
`this request. My clients
the threat of
fire in the
.are very
✓ u'oneerned `abou't
project area and i'ts
sut'roundings,
If there
procedures for
is anything
setting aside
I can do to assist deirig
the
ainount of the
'bond, pleas•.,
specific planoand/o�setting
feel free to call_
upon MC'. Thank you
Since <ely,
r,rw UHiJ L UVAAS, JR.
At
aey at Lai
JLL/cc
11)2.62
z
y �
,.w jonN L., L VVAAS, ]11.
AwORNLY All' LAW
525 Nk?A1.L Sr.—tion, 13c3x 3276 ' r
Crlla ; CALIVORNIA 95,,927
(910) 8931758
HN�q
July Jct X19
's[ip�gVry��s
Butte County Board of Supervisors
215) County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Ret 5idwell Heights Specific Plan Fire and Bond Roquirement
•ii
e -
Dear Chairman Fulton and Board.,
This is to f'ollovi up on my letter of May 8, 19.84, on behalf`
of Friends of the Foothills, concerning the Board lo condition
number 2.7:3 of the Bidwell Heights Land Company `Specific Plan.
This condition required the applicants to )os,t a bond 4wit-hin 30'
days of the approval_ of the specific plan" to the
fulfillment of your Lire protection requirements. The applicants
were to have posted the bond by October 20,_ 1983) but failed, to
do so In my opinion, they have failed tomeet your require-
ments, so the Specific Plan has been violated,
It is our request that you therefore set aside' the Bidwell
Heights specific Plan, both because it has been violated by
failure of the applicants to post n bond, and alno because of the
numerous „rounds of illegality and violation of County, procedures
asraised'in the pending lawsuit challenging the specific plan
(Pauisen vs. County of 8utte') .
if the Board prefers to let the: legal. proceedings 'take their
course and not to set aside the specific plan at this time, then
it is our request that you require the applicants to meet the
bond requirement by informing them that they must immediately
past the overdue bond
On September 26, '1981, County Fire Warden Bill Tel e reported
that the bond should be in an amount of at lorast, $125,000.00. We
believe that amount is unrealistically loci given the high costs
o ' fine protection facilities and staff, and Mu. t' a far higher
bond will he necessary an order to guarent•eo per formanc;e. This
is particularly true in light of the -County's d;i.ff;i,rulty in
collecting oven the small'from tt1e applicants
ants 'should bo to emo
demon-
for EiR preparat�o. lhe applic
strate: their good.faith, and financial ro8ponsibi.l.i'ty by posting a
bond now. As noted in my letter of may 8 t 19,8 4; the law also
requires thiat a,p amount be gadded to the bond, sufficient to cover,
the C-014 potential legal fees in later enforol n. the bond.
,,; `w., �,; .�
�.
Inter-aepartmentaa, Memorandum
LAW gr1143 Op-Buiio Co. Planning Comm,
JOAN L, LUVAASl JR. JUL 101985
X110 t4LY AT LAW
525) WALL ST—IW. Dox,1276 " rovillo, Caofornid
Culco, CALIFORNIA 415927
(11101) 8934758 QpQ
Vl�� �AUFn�NIq
July 3, 198 eo ..91985
416 SoPFf1Vlsd�s
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Re Bidwell Heights Specific Plan Fire and Bond Requirement
File No: 82--62
Dear Chairman Fulton` and Board*
This is to follow up on my letter of May 8 i984, on behalf'
of Friends of` the Foothills, concerning the Board's condition
number 'I2.7.3 of the Bidwell Heights nand Company Specific Plan,
This condition required the applicants to post,a bond "within 30'
day of the approval of the specific _p].an" to guarantee the
ft,)l.fillmer.,t of your Fire protection r� uerements. The applicants
y October 2,02_1-983t� meet -�your require-
ments,
were to ha�.e posted the bond b, October but failed.
do.so, in my opinion, they have 'sated t
meats, so the Specific Plan has been violated,
it is our request that you therefore set aside the Bidwell
Etegilts Specific. Plan, both because it has been violated by
failure of the applicants to post a bond, and also because of the
numerous grounds of illegality and violation of County procedures
a,;; raised in the pending lawsuit; challenging the specific plan
(Paulsenvs.; County of Butte).
If the Board prefers to lot the legal proceedings take their
course and not to set aside the specific plan at this time, then;
It is our request that you require the applicants to meet the
bond requirement by informing them that they must immediately
post the overdue bond.
On September 26, 1984, County Fire 4Jarden, Bila. Teie reported
that the band should be in at) amount of at least $125,000.00. We
believe that amount is unrealistically lora given the high costs
of fire protection facilities and staa'f, and that a far higher
bond will be necessary :in ordor to guarantee performance. This
is part;i.culartytrue in Light of the 'Count y is difficulty in
collecting even the small amounts requested from the applicants
for glFt preparation: The applioants should be required to demon-
st rate their good faith and financial responsi.bili by by posting a
bond now. As noted in my letter of may 81 198�1; the law also
requires that an amount be added to t`he bond sufficient to cover
the County's potential legal fees in !at h^ enforcing the Uoi7d.
IN
r
1H`ff
1 p, Board of supur'vi sore A
MOM county Fire Warden
Susoisc r.. 9270 Land tisd Pl, anni ng and Bond F4equi rc_menl:
Bidwell Heights Specific Flan
f: i. l e` 82-62
DATEt July 297 198
Cliff July :a , the
19S5 John L. Luva�cs, Attt rrrey _at I�aW hr:►l� rthr-, BidwelI
Fri ends Of the Foothills wrote the Board asking
Hei ght!a Speci�f i c Pl an be
be Set aside or the r Mr.Luwt t!; a slts that the
mrr�ctii+�trnot filed
'ly filed. In the attached letter,
as
Speri ir� 1�1an be voided because the Pira bonProte 7 d_ Ction �car7dI.je�'�also a.1loges
by gci;�aber' y0 .ti, as required by Sic
cert n illegalities egal i tS bonding n rue ui red . y He
r es and violations of Count Procedures.
gUesta cans the amount of g 'l
Section 2.7. provides "The Specific flan also provides a bond is t0
Set
Se ion i to guarantee the fu of these requirements within 30
days o�f the pproval of the Specific Plan- The bond must be i n the
amount Of $125,000; 4�� 15 )0() to cover the engine cost, $1.0,t7c:�0 to equip
the engine,. $15,000to outfit 15 volunteor fire'fight'ers and t-75,OCK), to
build and equip a fire station.... Our records Shaw that the
specific Flan Wtas apRroved by thO Board of Supervisors on September
20, 1982 . we feel that the bond amount i s in lino with what actual
fire protection costs would be.
We are presently closing paid fire stations in areas With much more
Papulation and development. Had we required a paid/volunteer fire
station, the costs wocald have been:
- $150,000
Fire Engine and Equipment
250,00v
Fire Station
Paid salaries and volunteer personnel costs9
and radio a.l erters X175, OCtO
protective; clothing $, 25 L9L2
Operating Costa` 600,000
t i s re
anent that the all -Volunteer bond of $125,0700 is muc
Ih
adi'y app
more, i n l i'ne with current. fire protect i an �
:needs than a �OO, 000 bond
covering a paid/volunteersystem.
As we see it, the real. issue is the pos,tin of he bend and that has
dope.
W _ G TETE
County Fire Warden
cc: Di vision Chief H;awiwins
tat talion, Chi -Of Freed
inter- eparfm6ptap MemoTandum
M Bettye Kircher- Planning Director
FROW John Mendonsa;- Dept. of Public Works Land
Development Section
su���cr: Current. and Proposed parcels Within Bidwell
p
Heights Specific c Plan Area
p
oAYEl August 15, 1985
Listed below are existing parcels by AP
Nos. and those parcels that have
cuYlrent, approval for further division:
AP 46-71-18, 26, 28, 53, 54, 55, 56
46-71-25, Doe Mill Vineyard TPM, 4 parcels, expires 12-18-8.6'
46-81-1 through 19, Sierra Foothi l is Sub. #1, recorded
AP 51-01-12T, 129, 131, 132; 133, 134,
135, 136, 138, 142, 151, 152, 153
51-01-128, Sierra Foothil'1s #2 TSM,
12 lots, expires 1-26-86
51-01 -137, Jennings TPM. 3 parcel s,
51-01-139, Jacob TPM, 4 parcels, no
expires 2-9-87
action yet - no, Env. Review clearance
51-01-141, ChappellTPM, 4 parcels,
expires 4-26-87
51-�01-143, Ludwig TPM, 3 parcels, expires
12-18-86
51-02-83, 98, 99, 1-00'
William Cheff
Director of ,Public Works
J' n Mendons'a'
Assistant Director
JM/ns
i
LAW o#-nCE OF
JOHN L. LUVAAS, JR.,
.
ATTORNEY AT LAW`
525 WALL ST. —P. O, Box 3278
-
CHMO, CAUFOIWIA 95927
(918) 893-1758
May, 8, 1.984..
Butte County Board of
Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, California
95965
Butte County Planning
Department
7 County. Center Drive
Oroville, California
95965',
Re Bidwell Heights
Land Company Specific P'lan
File No. 82-62
Dear Supervisors and
Planning. Department staff:
This letter is in
reference to fire protection condi-
tion 2.7.3 of the Bidwell
Heights Land Company specific
plan for its project
on Doe Mill Ridge, l.na`te the require-
Mont h'hnf' ftn I-,nnA i e
1-n hc. T,r,6Foa +^
��r
' R A �' T
Bfi17WELL }1} 1; GATS (Ar P 46-71-1L) _
(2.7,1) " re Protection Plan,
Piro protection for the Bidwell Heights Development is provided tay the California
Depart►trnnt of Forestry/Butte County Tare Department. The Depa.rt,ment plauvi.des tire,
rescue, basic life support --medical aid and certain public ass st-LypO rc:spanses within
its area. of responsibility. The Level o;f ser.vire provided will <�c�jlond on the develop
ment of the project. Initially, a volunteer ;:ire company will be roquired. As the
area develops and emergencies exceed a certain level, a partially }attl.d engine company
will be required to ;support the existing volunteer fire company.
(2.7.3).
As required in the specific plan, ,a serviceable, fully-equtppad fire engine shall
be provided prior to the issuance of the first building permit r►f:tet' approval of the
specific- plan. The engine most meet or exceed, those standards established in the National
Fire Protection Association Pamphlet 1901. The specific plan also provides that a. bond
is to be posted to guarantee the fulfillment of these 'requirements within 30 days of
the approval of the specific p2lan. The bond mw t be in the amount of $125,000; $25,000
to cover the engine cost, $10,000 to equip the engine,_,$J�,000 to outfit 15 volunteer
firefighters and $75,000 to build and equip a fire e� T}e Fire Department is
prepared to approve any fire engine proposed for the development.
Section 2.7,3 of the Specific Plan also, requires a fire station site is to be
dedicated and a volunteer station -constructed prior to the occupancy of 25 or more of
the living units. An acceptable fixe Station site has been dedicated by the developer.
At least two volunteer fire station designs are currently av73.J.ab.l,e from the Fire
Department.
As part of the station requirement_, a 15 person volunteer Ci.xe company will be
req'utired'prior,to the occupancy of 25 or more of tahe living units. The volunteer fire'
p y , volunteer assistant: chief,
com an will be organized to include one volunteer chef ane
two vo111iteex captains and eleven volunteer firefighters. The Volunteer company will
be part of the County Fixe Department otganiyation with the volunteer ,'fire chief'
reporEting to the local `ire p
De a'r'ttnent 'h-9ttalion Chief
cv '
1
LAW OFFICE OF
joiiN L. LuwAAS, jn,
2
ATTORNM AT LAW . .
525 %LL ST.--,P,O. BON 3276
3
Cfllco, CALIFoRmA 95927
(fl1G) 893.1751
4
Attorney for Petitioners'
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAL1:I ORNTA
8
IN AMD FOR THE COUNTY OF BU'1'.'1'1,
i
8
MARICA MARIE PAULSEN and FRIENDS )
OF THE FOOTHILLS,
Petitioners, ) Case No.
10
)
Vs ) PETI` ZONERS INITIAL {
11
) MEMORAN OM OF POINTS ,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BUTTE ) AND AUTHORITIES ;IN
12
COUNTY and COUNTY OF BUTTE, ) S'OPPORT OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
13
Respondents,
14
BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND COMPANY,
18
' Real -Party -in- In teres t
16
17
18
This memorandum is in support of Petitioners' Petition Cor
19
Writ of Mandate and Injunction: It is the first of at least
20
two such Memoranda) a further memorandum be, ng essential, due
?�
to the fact that Respondents have not yet prepared and submit-
22
ted the administrative record,. which must be analyzed.
g
This action is based primarily upon violations`by Respond-
24
ants, of state and local procedural requirements for the pxo-
25
cessang of a specific plan application and its related Er►virrl-
26
mental Impact Report EIR): This action is Curt`her base?1 upon
27
itvs uf f1 c; i e nq., y of the evidence it! support of>` certain f findings
28
adopted by Respondents in purported justification 61 their ap`-
tier
r
1
proval of the specific plan and upon failure or, the findings
2
to support the approval of the specific plan,,:'
3
Such grounds for a Writ of Mandate are Authorized by Public
4
Resources Code Section 21`168 and Code of Civil Procedure Sec-
5
tion 1094.5. SUCK proceedings are referred to ras administra-"
6
tine mandate.
7
Also within the scope of these pleading,t is anallegation
a
in the Second Cause of Action that two mandatory elements of
g
the 3utte County General Plan are incomplete. `Nis action
10
seeks to prevent this specific plan and all. other County activi-
11
ty which must comply with General Plan policies (specific plans,
12
rezones, subdivision snaps, and building permits), until such time
13
that the County fully adopts the required policies. Until they,
14
are adopted no such l . +. development can be deemed cons is ten t
15
with the General Plan and no such activity can be approved.
16
Save El Toro_ Ass' n vs`. Days (1977), 74 CA3d 64; Resource Defense
17
Fund vs. County of Santa Cruz (198.2), 133 CA3d 800; Chi vs.
18
Board of Supervisor's, 123 CA3d 334> Thus calls into play the
19
traditional mandate authority of the courts under C.C.P. § 1085`
20
to compel the completion of these mandatory General Plan elements:
21
At this point, no such order is requested, in that petit -
loners
22
are content to allow the County to prepare such elements without
23
a Court order compelling same. Petitioners seek, only to ,enjoin
24
such development activity under C.C.P. 1094.5; until the County
25
voluntarily completes` `these elements, If such activity is not
Or 26
forthcoming, action under C.C.P. 5 ,1085,.,will' be requested,
.. L,U3ko. JR.
5NNrN AT' Lk%l
The i'irst Cause of Action challenges t;he inadequacies in
[hoz 3278
1.8:A1sp:' 28
r3 sd�•i7se
q
required contents of the findings adopted by the Board of Super=
-2-
I
with Butte County Resolution 68-7, tilis law declares tillsJ.�and
2'
to be an agricultural preserve and requires that it be re Lt1,i,itt3d
3
in its historic grazing use,
4
The Seventh Cause of Action is based upon C.C.P. § 1094.5(e),
5
which allows remand for consideration of "relevant evidence which
6
a.n_ the exercise of LeasonaUle diligence could not have been
7
pro -
duced" at public hearings oil Lhe specific plan. The two
reports
8
shr.=, g critical. problems with thero osed
p p type o1 development
9
in this area were not produced b a County stud committe ,
' p Y Y - e and
10
a state agency until after the September 20, 198; specific plan
11
approval, and are both relevant and essential to Proper land use
12
planning in_ the area. TE the specific plan is not reconsidered'
13
in light of t11is new evidence,, the County will have irremediably
14
embarked upon a potentially disastrous course for the water
15
quality; wildlife and traffic in the project area and in Chico.
16
The writ should issue on each of the seven major gra -1s
17
and on each of many sub -points tinder most causes of`action.
18'
19
Dated: October 21, 1983 Respectfully submitted,
20
21
22
4-
r
23
JOHN L. LUVAAS,,' JR.
Attorney fo'r Petitioners;
24
25
-
a• rirYPr rir 26
. UYAAs, )n,
n
nnmArr.Au` 27
1V, l L 5r1
_
'Bok bvo,
tr, CA 0512 To
) 60344
1
6. Real-Patty=in-Interest BIDWELL HEIGHTS LANE)
2
COMPANY is
the applicant for the specific plan approved by Respondents,
3
which is the subject of this action /Respondent
I-,as applied
4
for the reg, wning of the subject property and atentative sub-
5
division ma to
p permit the development of thep Y.
p! o er t Peti,-
6
tioners may seek to enjoin any further proceedings on
said re-
7'
zone and subdivisio applications- pending Che;
t�utconte of this..
8
action.
9
SQMMARY OF EVENTS
10
7. The Real-Party-in-Interest applied to Respondents for
11
approval: of a specific plan; rezone, and tentative subdivision
12'
map to permit the division, sale, and development
of several
13
hundred residential and commercial lots, The subject is;
14
consi-
a "1at�d pro j under California law, in
that more than
15
50 1oect"
50 10 t,; are ;proposed,, wherefore County approval of a specific
16
plan for the area is a condition prlycedent to approval of the
17
proposed rezone and tentative subdivision map.
18
8. Upon initial evaluation, County staff determined that
19
project
the A.ect (which is the full � intim ate development, including
2Q
the spec�.fic'Plan. rezone, and subdivision) may. cause significant
21
adverse effects upon the environment and upon public services
22
to residents of the County. Based upon, this initial determana.-
23
tion,. County staff determined that the,' County)must
prepare an
24
Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter 111 order,
25
to
cletermine, and analyze these adverse effects. An 81A
was there-
"°"'nr6
after re
p pared for the specific late and' p
p ro,posed rezone) but
mnn dr 1,nty
.1WAL1't. 27
r. Bait �27tf
the adequacy of its content and its pre' arat arl procedure
are
28 challenged in thin ac ti on,
1(g)
rejecting al,ter.natives to the project;,•
(h) Determining that overriding justificiLionytist:,s
3
for project approval; and
4(i)
Determining consistency with the Ge ne[ia.l Plan
5
as
to each Pointofossi,ble
P inconsistency rai,secl in
6
the
review pY`OGG'SS ;
7
12. The Board procedurally erred on September 19$3, in
8
failing to adopt required written findings,
9
as f l.ow8
s.i
(a) Responding to each
10'
comment raised by the public,
by agencies,
and by County staff concerning ;significant.
11
adverse effects of the project and
12
concernin g proposed fur-
ther study of some
such effects;
13
(b) Stating s`pecifica;ll Y, factually why it deemed
14,
curtain effects to be insignificant;
15
g what (p) Statin at levels of significant effects it
1G
deemed acceptable and why. -
17
(d) Stating why it rejected several mitigation—
g ion mea
16
f8
-
sures Proposed during Pxojeet review, and,
19
not responding
to some such proposals;
20
(e) De term. ning whe her' and why it found theaccept-
,1
ed and rejected mitigation
22
measures tobe F.casb 1 e
f: ) Responding to all reasonable'alternati ves to the
4'
Project and stating sgeci f is f actual grow; for.: reject . .
ng
each in favor of the Project;;
5
(g) Statin fo each unmitigated s
g �� g s-nif iaant
wamotor 26
tNATL:•1f�.
ad-
verSe effect, the Countyi v
s Over concerns 'usof
mn4Y 6r wi��
ON3�i 27
�
ing project aPPrgY
val, and
aCA ;ASfl27
�)8�31756 28
h
DetC.'rit1�X17ng COi1S1Stt'11G wit Y h eachelemen t
of the
1 17. Petitioners have exhausted all adrr�ni,strativ
2 dies available to them in that, the i3ut to Coun L e re111e
f
Subdivision
3 Ordinance, California Subdivision Y
Map Act,
anal all other i:ocen
p
4 du -res o,£ California and
couttY law 's
provide that the Board
5 approval on September 2d, J.983 of the specific Plan
was ,£in al,
6 without further right of administrative
appeal
7' other redress. l , rehearing .or
8 18. Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
9 in the ordinary course of law to require revocatio
n of said spe-
10 ci.fic plait, irr that no administrative
11
remedy is available;
that a complain t for_ damages, , in
12
p
theproject; ' �� available, would not prevent
and in that...a
18
Writ of Mandate is the only proce-
dare available to Petitioners
14-
to compel Respondents p nts to .:set asicl
approval of the
15
specific plan. Petitioners are informed and
believe
and thereupon allege that, unless the
16
specific plan
p an is
set aside by this Court, the Real -Pat ty-in-In.
17
terest will. s
divide the land uU-
f Sell lots construct
18
f dwellings and conduct
Ifrajor alterations
to the land; Prompt relief as required in
19
order to prevent irreparable damage to the land, the
20
environ-
meat, society, the i:scal interily of the
Count
Yan21
e qua] ->available public
services
_
22
The relief re u�+st,ed 15 necessary, will result
23
in the
et�>Eorcemet
nof t he Eutte County General; Plan, The
24
California
lnvirot�menta.l Rualit yAct
25
,arid s to to and county guidelines far
zts implementation,
state 'an, &,,aunty subdivision,
,t,kE,E,ur .26
L t,�a�Am,Ill,
procedures,
and other; import
p ant rights affectin the
g in
�n4 ; �-�.
0t�x821. 27
public
f a"nd wi l l
confer significant benefits
uUx028
,o, Ca�JS9»i ��
On al.l. residents o £ Butte Count
Cl.tldlil Y f ln'-
g protecting the
environment and the cost and level 0f
r ,
.t
1
public services. The financial burden of private enforcement
?
4
b y Petitioners herein is substantial and necessary in order to
3
obtain these benefits•, but this burden should not be borne
ex`-
4
elusively by these Petitioners, considering the broad benefits
5
to be conferred on the public and the inability of Petitioners`
6
to bear this burden. Moreover, the ctons Of Respondents
are
7
arbitrary and capricious and constitute wilful violation of the
g
law :and of the constitutional and statutory rights of the res -
9
dents and voters of Butte County. Therefore, Respondents should
10
be required to a attorney fees and costs incurred by Petition-
11pay
ers as provided by Cade QE Civil 1?rocedure, Sections :1.021 and
12
1021.5, Government Code Section 800,, and the California Common
13
Law Private Attorney Ceneral Theory.
14
1 20. Petitioners have requested and will further h _r reques t
15
that ;the County prepare and submi t to the Court and all counsel
16
a complete copy of the written administrcztive record and tram
17
scripts of,tape recorded hearings on the specific plana A
18
written analysis thereof` will be submitted for the Court °s
19
guidance.
20
Wherefore, Petitioners pray for the relief set Jr orth' in
21
the prayer herein
2
SECOND CAUSE QC ACTION
23
INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
24
21. Petitioners refer to the allegations of paragraphs I to
25
and 16 to 20" and incorporate the same herea t ;
26
10.u;n
22. The Butte CoZvvkA6, ty General Flan, `mand'a ted> under the Cali"
ahn')'xr Sr.27
14d�4r,
fornia Gavernrnent Code cQntalns
, approximately nine elements,
))8'J3,758 28
each dealing w th categorie^a of polzcies which must be f0114We_d
r
P
1
by the County in its land use and growth planning decisions.
2
The Government Code prohibits County approval. of tj spetALi,c
3
plan, rezone or subdivision map, if they are not rons'isten't with
g
the policies of each and every element of said General. I'latl.
5
23..Respondents° approval of the specific Galan is incon-
6
sistent with the following elements of the Gen4ral, Plan;
7
(a) The 'Safe'ty Element requires caution and proof of
-
g
adequate fire protection, on-site and off-site,and pro-
9
vision of adequate access routes before specific plan
10
approval in this high to extreme fire hazard area. It
11
requires special care to prevent erosion inthis highly
1,2
erodible soil. It requires that hand development generally
1`3'
be prohibited in such areas, or be severely restricted=
14:
The specific plan: allows the development, without providing'
15
the required protective measures:
16
(b) The Seismic ;Safety Element prohibits project
17
approval in areas with seismic damage risks. Not with
18
standing the presence of; active fault Lines on the, site,
19
the specific plan was approved without prior i.dentifi-
20
cation of density limitation and building restrictions
;
21
which wall be required as a result of such faults.
22
(c) The Open Space Element mandates protection of
Z3
deer herds and other, wild,7.i.F.e and its habitat , protection
24
of 'watershed areas dor the va'U;ey,and proh;i.bitiott of
25
. The spific plan
development on highly, erodible landec
26
was approved without requiring such protective measlres
Y0,,Gxhr
Lu4AASA jnr
MkVATLAW
27
This element discourages :creation.: of smaller parcels in
NYu4 St:
ti0x.92i0
I. CA959J2i
t
28
such isolated areas unless areal. need can be determined.
n� 890 k759,
.g..
LQU
J
1
No need has been determine The element
2
VeClUires si u-
dies to determine the development
3
capabil;i. ,
l,y of the
footh ills, but Respondents
approved this spec�f.lG pan
in the foothills just prion to the release of
5
a Stu
udy of
development potential and limitations
6
in the nrett , The
element generally mandates
7
protection of this area's open
Space, but the
specific l.a
Plan. was approve(l Without
8
spa.-
cified standards for such potection,
9
(d) The Housing .Element requires th„Tt the
to
County -
give priority to housing in
areas with adjacent developed
areas, loped
rather than distant, isolated
12
areas such as this
massive housing7s
t,,
' Project.
13
(e� The TransportatioElement
14
en
r quires that high
standard, interrelated street:
15
routes be planned fo:
16
ca acit _r
P y to handle present, and future deve loprnen t a
n
the area, both within and near this project, T he
17
spe-
cific plan does not p rovde routes capable:
18
of handling
tra'f f is generated in the_area
1J
by all f'u Lure development.
(f) The Land Use Elemem:t prohibits creation �.on of
par-
cels smaller tliatl 20 �.
a�c.res each, such as
21
in this project,
without clearly adequate
z2
p rovsion for sewage treatment..
No
23
speciEi.c treattne,nt, sysl,em and assurance of sake treat-
menu is provided 'in, t11i specific plat, and
24
lci such SYS-4
tem has been a pprovea by o trier
25
responsible agenciess
required, This element
further req u`
Cres availability of
r,lj%,A-As, JR,
ANCYA, Ltw
�►dequa to fire' pr o tec,jon facilities, l ly
a�ler ua to
GtG445r. �7
> rA 9si;
main-
tained road r1CeS5 Wi.'11 adequa to ca ” t
pac Y� and
28
reasonable
accessibila. ty to sc-hool.s and
comme rcAaL areas.,The
1
specific plan a't this site provides for no of thUY aa.
2
This element requires that the quality of wat•ea: supplies
3
be maintained'and that development in watershed a etas,
4
be controlled to minimize water pollution, wlii,ch tho spe-
5
cific plat; fails to do. The element requ:i,ras pi:omotlot1 '
6
of energy conservation, which is incons;i-,3tont tgith the
7
thousands of miles ' o f daily auto travel W the nearvs .
8
towns, as encouraged by ;this project. The element re-
g
_g
quires protection of valuable ride top scenic areas
P 1, _
10
vis ible from Highway 32, which this specific plan fails
11
to do. The element requires regulation of development
12
which may harm rareor endangered plants and animals,
13
but the specific plan was approved without a detetmina-
14
tion of impact on such plants and without pro tec ?,,, ng
15
endangered animal habitat.
16
(g) The Scenic Highway }clement also requires protec-
17
tion of the Igoe Mill Ridge view from ;Highway 32 and the
18
Skyway; but the specific plan provides no such protection.
19
24. A. specific plan cannot be consistent with a General:
20
flan if a mandatory element of the General flan fails to:contain°
21'
the contents mandated by,`the California Government Code:
22
utte County has failed to adopt an Open Space Element and a
23
Circulation Element which meet the requlremel�ts of California
24
' law, particularly in that' neither of said elements contains
25
maps: or other dia.graM depicting the: ldcation8 of lard uses
26
described in the elements, as L ,,., =.fired by the Government. Code.
l.VVAAN, Jai:
WAL
27
Said elements further fail. to inc:lu.de the requl.red ,fiction plans
PC3«iti
;a{ c31 59 '
' 28
to implement: their policies . Based upon such General flan. in-
1:f
adequacies, the specific plan cannot beand is not consistent
2�with
the General Plan.
Wherefore pray Petitioners for the relief s et forth in
the prayer herein.
5
p
l)
THIRD CAUSE, OF ACTION
PROCEDURAL INADEQUACY OF SPECIFIC PLAN
f
25. Petitioners refer to the allegations of paragraph
1 to 9 and 16 to 1.9 and incorporate the same herei n,
10
26. The California Government Code required the Respondents
11.
to prepare and adopt a specific plan for this development pro -
I2
jest, due to its remote' location and its proposal for more
131
than 50 parcels.. Government Code Section. 65451 requires that
.�
l '
P etailed regulations, programs and
such a s ecific plan include d
lei
Proposed legislation for the systematic implementation of the
,�_
16
County General. Plan in regard to
1i
(a) The location;.of housing, business, open spade,
15
recreation facilities, and solid and liquid waste cdis-
1 Y4
posal facilities;
?()�y
(b) The location and extent of streets and their
21
names or numbers
92
(c) Standards for, population and building density,
hj
including lot size, and provision for sewage disposal,
storm waster drainage,and solid waste disposal;
2
(d) Standards for conservation of natural resources',
26
im luding underground and ''surface water, vegetation, soils,
h7
6 streams;' fish, and wildlife; and procedures for flood
28
cont,r61,: prevention, and control of water pollution and
:.12-
7-7.7
T 7
r r
1
such impacts which, will result ,from deciS.Ions deferred,
on September 20, 1983, to the judgment rj;4; other agencies
as specified in the Fourth Cause of Actjon, incorporated
4
herein by this reference. In that none of trre actions
5
of said agencies have been taken to this date and i,n that
0
the impacts and mitigation measures which will result
i
From their actions are not ascertained, the EIR did not
state and Respondents did not determine ;the significant
effects which will remain from the projoct asa result, of
10
the actions of such agencies
1T
(h) The final E1R lists several put ported "alterna-
12
tives to the project, bait. omits realistic alternatives
13
and fails to provide a- fair,good-faith, objective eval-
i
1l
uati.on of an of the alternatives. The discus
y sign of
I
I
151
I
alternatives is merely conclusionary and constitutes
Justification of the project, rather than a fair and
17
complete evaluation of the merits of the alternatives,
1S
as required.
1�l
36 The said. Fx omissions cannot be more specifically''
20
plead at this time, in that such detail: would be evidenciary
21
and not a statement of ultimate facts, and in that the County
20
11tivo,
has not yet submitted, to Petitioners a copy of the administra-
93
record as requested heretofore. Upon receipt hereof;
2
petitioners will provide Respondents and the Court with a writ -
25
lien analysis of such error's, prior to the hearing on the 'Writ
�G
o.f Mandate; The said administrative record is incorporated herein
by t,ilis referctice
1
37. The Board's approval ,and certifica in�� oC the final �
2;
EIRI on September 20, 1983 constituted procedural (,.I I:or, in' that
,j
the County erred in the manner of preparing the draft andthe
final EIR, as Follows
ti
(a) The Coun ty was required to preptjj,u the final
(�
ETR itself or to contract to have it ind opendently pre-
i
pared, but failed to do so, and failed to objectively and.
8
independently review it for accuracy and adequacy.
(b) Prior to determining whether to prepare an EIR
10
for the project, and again after decidi g to prepare one,
11
but before preparing it, the County was required to notify
1`?
and consult with responsible agencies-„ trustee agencies,
and other agencies listed in Appendix I of the County's i
14
Environmental Review Guidelines, and to provide such
j'
1511
agencies with sufficient opportunity to submit informa-
1Cji1
tion for inclusion in the draft EIR at the earliest 'pos-
sible title: The .County failed to provide each of said
Y
agencies with each of such notices and with sufficient
t
opportunity to comment on the project. The County failed
a
o
to consult with each of said agencies'at
t any time.
21 !
(c) Upon cam 1el.an of the dr
p p aft EIR and each sup•n
92
plement thereto, the Country was required to notify the f
23
i
agencies indicated in subparagraph` (b) above, to cir'cu- j
24
late each such document: to ,
-. � t.�ien to consu].'t' with them
�
before Preparation of the ;final. EIR, to provide them with
26
r
the opportunity to meaningfully comment on the draft`
0
EIR, and to include their rsponses. in the f iria] M:
`
1,
The County failed to notify and cA.rculate the draft EIR
v.
I
and all; supplemental. EIR materials to each of said ager-
F)
cies, fail edto consult with each of them, and ;failed
3
to provide those to whom it circulated sai,d dog ument8 wlth
F
sufficient information and response time to permit (110,111ing-
5
ful responses.
G
38 . Respondents are under a mandatory duty to deny .specific
7
plan approval where the Environmental T.mpraet Report identi,J:i,es
8
one or more significant effects:, unless changes, or alternatives
0
in the project have been required which mitigate or avoid each
10
of the significant environmental effects, or unhcss specific
11
economic, social or other considerations' make infeasible the
12
mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the
13
final EI:R and: elsewhere in the review process. In the event
IFJ."
{{
of such infeasibility � Respondents are nonethcless under a duty
i
to deny the specific plan approval., unless sufficient overrid-
ing concerns exist and are identified in the J✓xn
li
39 Significant effects aero. identified In the record,
�"
which have not been mitigated, for which mitigation was not
i
IJhfound
to be infeasible, and for which n,o sufficient overriding
,concerns exist .
Wherefore, Petitioners pray for the t:el -ef set forth in
y
i
22
the prayer herein,
i
`3
�
h�
81XTH CAUSEO;V ACTION'
VIOLATION OF WhLLrAMSON ACT
9
40 o t,i tioners refer to the allegations Of paragraphs
27�
1 to 9 and 16 to 20 and in.corparatc the same herein.
r�
-20