HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 REZONE 2 OF 7BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND PROJECT
FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Finding that comments and recommendations from the public have been
attached to the draft environment6'1 impact report, that Writtcrt responses
to the significant environmental points raised by the comments have been
prepared and attached to the draft environmental impact report and that a
list of the persons, organizations and public agencies who cominen'.ed has
been attached to the draft environmental impact report, I movq to certify
the final environmental 'impact report as having been completed in compliance
With the California Environmental Quality Ac ;the State EIfZ Guidelines and
the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN
Having reviewed and considered the final environmental impact report,
I' move We make the following findings,
(1) That the level of specificity of available information in the EIR
is sufficient to serve as a rational basis for a decision with regardto
the Specific Plan,
(2) 'that the environmental impact report divides potential environmental
impacts from anticipated buildout of the Bidwell Heights project into the
categories of significant, requiring mitigation Where feasible, and those
impacts which are expected to be "insignificant." Impacts falling in -the
" igitificant" category include exposure to seismic hazard, air pollution,
alteration of natural scenic views, removal of native vegetation, wildlife
habitat reduction, traffic increases at Santos Way and, Highway 32, increased
fire danger and exposure to'fire hazard, increase in service load on police
and fire agencies, energy use by homes and commuting vehicles, expansive
lolls, and erosion individually, these potential significant effects are
addressed as follows
Exposure to. seismic hazard. This impact is mitigated; to a:'1eve1
of irrsignif�cance by Condition 3.2.1 of the Specific `Plan,
Air pole This impact is regional and cumulative in scope,
with the dof impact from this project very minor in comparison'
egree
to the pollution„yields from agricultural burning, industrial production
And vehicular travel throughout the Sacramento Air Basin. The effect
of approval or disapproval of this project is insignificant in comparison'
to the effect of'state and with federal regulations regard to agricultural
burning practices, industrial pollution dont
^olonrdbutesa,tninoraamount
for motor vehicles. While this project will
-o a dumulatively significant. air pollution problem, the problem itself
pp p affect
is so large that a r:oval or, disa proval of this project will not
l
D R
g
it_to a' measurable. degree, and the degree of benefit from avoiding this
additional contribution is not large enough to justify disapproval of
theproject. Other solutions to the air pollution problem exist requiring
implementation by state and federal regulatory agencies. Approval of
this project will not measurably reduce the ,effectivenesss of these
implementation measures, should the State Legislature, Congress, or
the appropriate regulatory agencies choose to i'mp'lement: them.
Alteration of natural scenic views,. The degree of adversity of
this impact is somewhat a subjective judgement, since aesthetics are
in the eye of the ;,beholder. The visual chaeacter'of the site is eXpected
to change from undeveloped to rural residential. The affect is limited
by the relative isolation of the property, and the distance to Highway
32 and Skyway, since the project is visible from segments of those two
roads. This impact is deemed significant and unavoidable.
Removal of native vegetation. While some native vegetation will
be removed for roads and homesites, as much as feasible will be preserved
through Specific Plan Condition 2.6.4. Since 50% of the chaparral vegetation
in Butte County is protected by 40 -acre minimum parcel zoning, the
vegetation reduction at this location is relatively insignificant.
Wildlife habitat reduttioni This again is.a regional cumulative
impact which requires a regional cumulative solution which is beyond
the scope of this one project. Testimony at the hearings indicated
the greatest wildlife concern involved preservation of deer winter range.
Aocord,-Ing to the January 6, 1983; Department of Fish and Game letter
from Paul T4 Jensen to Steve Streeter, 33 acres of chaparral habitat
are required to support one deer. Using this figure, the 1,000 acre
Bidwell Heights project site could potentially support 30 deer. The
January 31, 1983, letter from Paul T, Jensen to Mrs, Bettye Kircher
indicates the East Tehama deer herd has a total population of 40,000
to 60,000 deer. Since 50% of the project area i`s anticipated to remain
undisturbed, some of the 30 deer would be eXpected to, use the site even
after full buildout, Testimony at the hearings indicates in other deer
w adise, Lake Almanor, Marin County and similar places,
areas _suc,h as Par the comparison
deer remain lent' even after development. In any, case,
p
ifu
of 30 deersupported by the site) to40,000 deer, (tr)tal herd) supports
the position that the reduction Of habitat onsite contributes to a pgtenti(lly
significant cumulative trend, but cannot rationally be considered a "substantial'"
loss for purposes of section 66474.61 (e) of the Subdivision Map Act
when mitigations are considered; Conditions 3,1.1 through 3„1.4 of
the Specific Plan are wildlife mitigations, providing for reduced effects
on Wildlife through clustered housing, retention of riparian corridors,
and continuous brands of open space coordinated with adjoining lands.
Enhancement of aiterriate h:itat off°ite can compensate for the onsite
habitat reduction, effectively mitigating;deer habitat losS plish
this,, a new condition 3't 1. is: hereby added to the Specific Plan as
follows
6. Impacts on power and telephone systems The respective utility
companies have indicated no problem with providing nec;es.sa.ry service.
7, Potential Future loss of designated open areas • The Specific
Plan designates areas for large parcels (2 to 10 acres) and requires
that Natural vegetation be retained in the areas not needed for
buildings or roads (Condition 2A.4) Cluster development is contemplated
for areas proposed for PAC zoning, which zoning itself is an enforceable
Method of preserving open space. Conditions 1,5 and 1.6 of the
Specific Plan call for a land trust to manage the openspace and
a resource management plan to insure the open space is properly
provided for in perpetuity.
8. Fiscal impacts and county subsidization of new growth. Through
the special district formation called for by Condition 4.2 ;of the
Specific Plan, a legally binding mechanism will be created for
funding needed levels of services by assessing the project property
Owners t;hemseives. This district must be in place before su'bdivi'sions
can be approved.
9. Urban pdevelopment outside urban boundaries. The category of
developmentcontemplated in this project is more ' ll "suburban"
rather than "urbaas alle ed b rural or suburban
g y project opponents, The most
"Urban" parts of the project are within the clustered areas, and.
the densities are still within the 1 to 40 acres allowed by the
General Plan in A-•R districts, with substantial areas of permanently
preserved open space,
10. Traffic hazards, funding for off-site improvements', and maintenance
of the access road. Traffic impacts are addressed on pages 86
through 38 in the EIR, with further clarification in Appendices
"0'" and "P." Mitigations of anticipated impacts are specified
in Conditions 2.1.1 through 2.2.2 of the Specific Plan.
11, Circulation to adjoining` properties,. Adequate vehicular circulation
to meet c''ounty standards is provided through Conditions 2.1.1,
2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5; and; 2.1.7 of the Specific Plan,
(4)' Mitigation measures to reduce and in some cases eliminate potential
significant environmental effects are included in the Conditions of the Specific
Plan. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts in the areas.
of ccmpatibility with adjoining land uses, preservation of open space, vegetation
loss, Wildlife habitat reduction, aesthetics, vehicular circulation, provision
of public services, maintenance of water ualt
q y, provision for surface Water
ruhoff,;erQSioh fire protecti:on, .an'd ge;blOgic hazards,
(5) Project alternatives are being rejected in favor ofthe original
pro
posal for the following reasons:
wo
1. The "no project'" alternative can nbeodivdededopme°tton thea tees,
the first being no additional building
"as
whatsoever, and thesecondsb being
sreJected becauseleave heitzdoesgnot
is." The first ofthese
cccor.�olish the project objectives of providing errprovisionnforl
a_
homesites at the site's true potential wit pr p e
mitigations. Additionally, to accomplish the "no zoningPWeuld
alternative, a zone change from the present "A-2" zoning o
category wr�ch prevents development.
be necessary to some zoning the county has been hesitant to
Except where clearly necessary, uestions related to
employ such restrictive zoning
use of of develo men rights with
"inverse condemnation. P P
' county money does not seem warranted since the pub l � cbenefits
the
are of limited value and would accrue eri.hercnstsowould rbelborne
living in the immediate vicinntY,.whilved any
by county taxpayers aaawhole,
combinateoneof��large parcelsr not they Ceclustered
benefit. In this case,
development and provision somoope space aS thanas�mply,nondevelopment
applicants' proposal seem
anywhere on the property. This is pard cularly true in view of
wthin
the existing development which has aitmery oferesourcesbehtonimprovemen'ts
the project boundaries, and the comm
to serve existing and future to
levels.
Leaving the zoning "as is" (retaining the A-2 zoning) is being
rejected because the project as proposed is less damaging to the
t than the type cels without open space permissible
environment e of small
under A-2 zoning.
2. Development of the same number oa'eseof�clusteringunits 1would bethout uster ng
is being rejected because the adrant g
lost (e.g., shorter roads andhUte til -he adversemeffecore tsnonpthe visual,
W1
habitat' retention)
s• tent and magnitude, f� habitat
physical and bintie environment
vryroa Erte tent an, increased rduef, to more
reduction) would b 9 '
roads and widespread grading and development. Additional
reasons
for rejecting this alternative 'listed at the tope of page
the E,IR are incorporated by reference
3, Substantially reduced density, either with or without clustering,
hts and,
is being rejected because the cost Of sercreasednand theereduction
mitigatiorns per dwelling unit would be nn
i n dv�el l i ng un7-t would have to be dubecia �umbe;ri�Ofrdwelling nuni tsn cant
environmental tal benefits . At thn s re
some of they"same disadvantogom�°a theicabl�,reoandytheseconomicnpres.
development alternative b PP
to further develop some other portion ofathreciabletenvironmentalure
time would become greater, To gain any pp
benefit from this alternative, the overall density would have to
be in, the neighborhood of 2Q to 40 acres; viddiper aaraffordablewhomesites
not achieve the Or objectives of prcwi ng
in a rural chaparral env`ronfient and.wou7d place the costs of:lneressary
ti anon$, servicot and -improvements beyond the realm of fiinancial
feasibility.
,._ _. _ ...��es�wuw�'B6►a41i\i*6. {1�.��®��s17awn
im T
4. Increased density of dwel°ling units is being rejected because
the rural character of the developmentwould be poi+ontially affected,
it is questionable whether septic tanks Mould `be feasible at a
higher density, and the onsite impacts to biological, visual and
physical resources would increase and be more difficult to mitigate,
including exposure to fire and seismic hazards.
(6) Although there may be significan�: adverse environmogf;al effects
resulting fromtheapproval of this project, there are overri(ling considerations
which justify project approval. These overriding considerations include:
1. The project as proposed is environmentally superior to development
which could occur pursuant to the present A-2 zoning, The project
under consideration provides the advantages of cluster development
which 'include. fn addition to shorter utility lines,. fewer lineal
feet; of roads, easier provision of public services, and the retention
of a substantial portion of the project site in open spare including
deer migration corridors wildlife habitat value would be severely
reduced if A-2 type development covered the entire property, and
septic tank pollution problems and traffic hazards would be greater.
2. The project as proposed appears to be the least environmentaWy
damaging project alternative capable of achieving }project objectives.
3. 'the project, will result in the provision and finadncing for
fire suppression resources which will be available to fight fires
on surrounding lands,, all of which lie in a high fire hazard .area..
4. The project will fulfill -the intent of the Butte County General
Plan Land Use Element as stated on page 33 in making available'
''a diversity of housing sites varying in size, density and location."
5. The project will establish :a precedent in this area for making
e m
wildlifitigations such as deer migration corridors an integral'
part of project design:
(7) The adoption P specific p "' conformance with all elements
of the Butte County General Plan.
on of the s e.ci fi c 1 an i .� i n
I,
Having made the above -Findings, I move for introduction of Ordinance
No._ adopting the Bidwell Heights Sp8ci•ric Plan as amended by the
addition of the previously described Condition 3.1.5 and further move that
we w
aive the first reading.
v ". 1 ',. � 9i.,e.., 1 �- ,,,,�' � \„�` % w! /+ � �f"'..� I .rr' r/ � • � a+r Com,.. t �, � '
AIt"
�.lit'���°:�/ r �r��` 4 _ r\° �a�,.+a:I t S.� � .-.""�� r; � �\"+r�`�•'", ��e"n'�I � C<m�i�}!��
<s*� 4
i `i r"J�j +( /„ i,,r >r l (s) !',r'rt� t4'- �pf/ ��° f !rj .-4+tAnt 5 '�
. > p� 4..✓ . 1 r �� a ""„�.r /' ] 4.4i Lrl'Rt "J� r i.t t y fl , f `+ �+ t, ✓.,-. : t r� °wr
H,=G"ii+x G'Ji t ��`' �.",�- '+'. " �' } l � �1 / � !'I ! [ � �' r ` { � f ' � /,,.i �r, � In a.•..
a '
4a o ti
k c, i 1
;"-
:,
.�0 �i� -..
�+ i \ �9
r 1�.�`.�' ,r ! /r. .✓" 1 yl' � ty � . � • W 1� �% j� ( 1 i. Y )ry is
�`� �. a r y,N (' .�0�� i '�''�\l�f ' .y ✓`" ��t{„�^'-y-^ ..r-' ..r•Os�J ��. ♦ Ea`ti'1{vlic y /_.'.EHjfb •.�� l e ;� r
!''" ...r .`y �) �-'�� l" `'�,."'♦� y ��"' ', � a' -c «._'z r'c�� / n. y �'* ' f`�,%� /,•�,�r' ' � ��` FS�� � �-�yMa� J,
f+- s71
�'.Oj
'[,"r
' v i r i � Q ,,,_ �.J a. T �1 � � ti�� A' 9� `.�i{ ' z .�'.t/f''"�'� ��.P,} �. ; v 1,! t t''") A 5 J, +/ 5 � R` v° i n r�./e t r ))✓ j' .; rr'.'i��'Rti :1,.�,v
li/ tt.,, '-.-'� +,..4 �) �,�',r(l� ••' f rJ % {���f � Y !t �,'f �' tv) � r(
�%�i�„ rP�y^' eM )rJ �.`A,.l"n/,,/r.'.�.,,r,. 4i�� �1'' {..✓•' t...
32 ;{1�.. 2`5,.���,5+/1 P=^»iz¢p���+"��.'�'�r �� "�,..� '�,!'•S�
"110.f.r s r.Pt '� r+L'y ra d) ('`'-s``�j; r.lt�;y r a,,:�„/t/✓'r �'.S l: it +. �!•''M 1
4�� a�
44tt i t r
,.,.�`�',� 'v � [ �. � ,'"'� !'. �,�„""; G„^ wv,. � ,„.r�,,J � +•' ar} ��5�+ � �r ,�� 1 u r d, J;,. /x� � > �, Jj{� t•.c r, T•-�s
A..!' in �.. I �' fr r r-C,r�+"r,,,; 1 t . ,r'n `49 rt Y r f"r' }`"> f✓ f 9 t.,.
At
..'+.,�, IfiY],`�',7r7np ((. ' : i P. �. `' °'' /r' / yl++• yy1 -,1'y 7q % qtr / +„ 'M +fit f "S' „'.'.a--IBU Y
t! � •• r � � �! �p�+°.at13G9 t''/} y!' t2 �,��r �� ry� r TM� �;..+�t tv�:° (�� {)a."
( r"" � lr,r �. r/ +.,a, � ; I � �, °+y Fn� 1 �� v � �r .r ::. 1 � _,.• � ` � ^'�� t ( i �
i00tri � � p E �..+. w,,.e-e � � �;�r."' a "` �'��� ` /,�Sij'r� � . « �./7' -KII. • ��', +\."�,4 [� � , + r,�'s M.;�'.p.�r� ��,�r ?�.'�;�t `Nr� ^ �
ET { V, nw++µ[ye ♦ t,��r-rrr+? .Y .' / )rrt� . / '"' h Y^S'4` ���'�, •- p1 ti ti 4'..+I»
nttrt � +:"i1 �'�.d [, ! f' , � � .. ~. .+. +'!' .)♦..... r°:h e1 t +1,++ rd': lr� .:o." E� „i'.Wa'/F ) ,.......,..,ri"�-r"� h/��"w✓ r—.:.t ��
;;,' , .� Lis:, w... + a , �' ' �..-. -.+.•' ,a't�.,.,s.'n.,..
Fl LEI Nu:
BUTT OOUNTY PL�NI'► NG COMM88-1
HEARING DATES siaY`,O) 102
wo
AIS ' .IQANT= $Ior� tL k lG#8' 4016 ca OWNER, SA. A " fr44.
REQU ES T�
�XI;STINO ZONEi A--2' Armes SCALE
NOTICE
4: For the purposes of this agreement, the decision
of the owners of a majority of the parcels to the effect that
is specifies' repair or maintenance work is necessary shall be
conclusive on the remaining owners and the decision of said
majority as to the .e?sonableness of the cost of any such.'
repair or maintenance work shall be conclusive on the remain-
ing owners provided that said cost does not exceed the average
of threeindependent cost estimates secured not more than, 60
days prior to commencement of the work.,
'
5 The owners of a majority of the parcels may author-
2e the creation of a maintenance and repair account in a
savings and loan association or bank. monies deposited therein
shall ` be expended. only for :maintenance and repair of the above
referenced works and the number of signatures required to with
f;i ed ;at
draw monies shall be specitze time said account a
authorized.
6 e Receipts for all monies received, and of all
e>;penditures made shall be preserved and made available for
inspection and copying by any otin, person or .by agent, for
a period of one year.,
_
i. 2"he word ',::owner", as used herein, shall mean one
t
personin; whom sole title is. vested.. :It shall also mean two
or more persons who hold a, unity of interest as joint tenants,,
as tenants in common, as partners, or as husband and wife with
title Ve _ed "as their community property." For the purpose 0.
Zeteritining if the oi-mers of a majority, of the parcels are in
favorof a proposal,, the affirmative vote of any spouse, joint
tenant, or ter -ant in common,shall constitute approval, by that
-parcel, irrespective of the number of co-owners of that parcel.;
S. This. agreement ��suy, be terminated at any time by the
o
_
U
votes. of the owners. of two thirds of thee. parcels. on tennina--
P
R
tion of this agreement,, any monies remaining unexpended shall
Thence North 50"49'29"
West a distance of 286.79 feet„
Thence North. 4126 `17"
West a distance: of 141.5!9 feet;
Thence North 1729' 22"
West a: distance of 56.4 feet;
Thence North 06°`58`00:"
West a distance of 38.45 feed,
ice'
to 'a Point on the North line of said Parcel. 3 said line
being. also the -South line
of Parcel 2 as the same is
shown on that certain Parcel
Map .filed December 29,, 1978T.
(; in Book' 70 of Parcel claps
at pages 9 and 10, records of
m
(" Butte. County, California,
which point bears South 69°36'06"
C -n
East a'distance of 3:63.72
feet from the Southwest corner
`.
- of said Parcel 2.
Page l of 1'
EXHIBIT "B"r
x
P -eject
.�1z
$iT: rGr s%Ctib :e
' iter` Rec6rdiag` _; F 1 a Z
Returcz �o : -,
'NSr'g37�
FES
County of Butte 3 fl.R.1a)
Dept. of Public Works EtE�2if3rs r= n
7 County Center Drive
:LERiS-RECGgD �'3 Yi9i t (;akiT01.144
40-=
oroviiZe: CA ' 45965
� FE
_ 193—
388,) o
-
R 1U IIAINTENANGE A REEiIE NT
each cf the parties 1ereto oirrns a portion
of a Marcel of land-. described in Exhibit "A` that will -be
benefitted ;by the roa&7ays and drainage facilities
on ease-
ments - described on:.3E hib:; t "B °' attached hereto and incorpor-
ated herein;
�TOT7' THHRREFQitE, it is mutually agreed by the, Parties'
hereto as follows o
3. For so long as the above; mentionet works shall
exist in griv°ate Ma ership, the Parties hereto, their
4
suc-
cessors and assigns, shall bear the expenses of maintaining
them in.good repair. It is agreed that the cost of Maintain -
Ing said works shall. be ;paid by the Parties hereto, their
successors 'and assigns, in. proportion to the number of land,
parcels owned by each chmer and/car their successors and ,
asssgns, and each owner °wiltE upon 'written demands contri-
-
bute and pay his proportionate share Of any monies paid out
by any of the several owners or of any obligation incurred.
for 'the reasonable maintenance or repair of'said works.
26 "Reasonable maintenance or repair" shallnot
include the enlargement of said works ;and, this agreement shall
not be. construed to require any owner to contribute to the
cost of any -enlargement of said works,;
3.1 Any owner, may bring actions in any court of compe-.
tent jurisdiction, in the County of Butte to; enforce collection
r-
of any monies due from any owner as their proportionate share
Of, the cost of. the reasonable maintenance or repair of said
works, and in, any such action or actions; the prevailing
w
party
oL parties shallbe ent%tled to recover aL reasonable attorney's
fQe td be fixed by the court in such actions;
Cm
h�
b
rn .
cn'
dl_
LD 14.10 (Rev. 6-80)
{
40 For the purposes of this agreement, the decision
<of the owners of 'a majority of the parcels to the effect that
specified repair or maintenance work is necessary shall be
conclusive on the remaining owmers and the decision of said
majority as. to the reasonableness of the cost of any such
repair or maintenance- work shall be conclusive on the remain-
ing owners. provided that said cost; does not exceed the average
of three independent cost -estimates secured not :,lore than 60
days prior to comattencement of the work.
S, The owners of a majority of the. parcels may author-
ize,the creation of a maintenance and repair account in a
savings and loan association or bark. Monies deposited therein
11
shall- be expended only fork maintenance and repair, of the above
-referenced works and the number of signatures required to with-
°.
draw monies shall be- specified. at the time said account is
r
authorized
6, Receipts for all monies received and.of all
e�Tenditures made shall be preserved and made available for
inspection and copying by any owner, in person or by agent, for
t
a pericd ` of one year,
Theword ��'o4,mer��, as used herein, shall mean:-one
person in whom sole title is vested.t shell also mean; two
or more persons who hold. -,unity of interest as joint tenants,
as tenants in common, - as partners, or as husband and, wife with
title vested Has their comrmnity property*" For the purpose of
dEtermin ng if the o-imers of a majority of the parcels are in
favor of ' a proposal,. the affirmative vote of any spouse, joint
°tenant, or, tenant in common shall constitute approval by that
parcel, irrespective of the number of co-ozmers of that paz _-elo
8, This agreement may be terminated at any time by the
vote of the owners of two thirds of the parcels Upon termini--
a
o
I
tion of this agreement, any monies remaining unexpended shall
C
IV'
C.?
_2_
�8an
P P~ojecG _
f currE. ccq, ._
_ ,r
Afg ter Recording, t .s�Ku
C:ZC3':f LE'iiPE-CC
Return, To•
Covnty•of ButteE8; �� Act ,
tldhg cd,_
Dept., of Public' Worke 41OR L i;r K�r i
,
7 County Center Drive. CLERK -RE K 1 -: v
Oroville, 'CA 9595 - FEE vCC,
ROAD f4A NTENA_NCF ,€iGREEMENT'
'PREM each of the parties hereto owns a ,.portion
of a parcel of l and described in Exhibit "A" that will he-
benefitted by the roadways and drainage facilities on ease-
mentsdescribed on Exhibit ,,iv,, attached hereto and incorpor-
ated here-zn;
}
NQ'I SRU E, it: is mutually agreed by the Parties
hereto as follows:
For so long as the above mentioned works shall
exist in, private ownership, the Parties hereto, their suc-
-'
cessors and,assigns, shall bear the expenses of maintaining;
them in good- repair, it is agreed that the cost of M aintain-
ing said works shall be paid by the Parties hereto, their
successors. and assigns, in
g proportion to the number of land
-
parcels _r.-ned by each oz,mer and/or their successors and
asssgns and each owner will, upon written demand, contri•-
scute and pay,his proportionate share of any monies paid out
by any of: the.,several owners or of any obligation incurred
for the reasonable maintenance or repairL of said Tuorks.
20 Reasonable miaintenance or repair, shall. not
anclude the.enlargement of said works and this agreement 'shall
not be construed to require civ owner, to contribute to the,
cost: of any enlargement of said works.,
3'. Any owner, may bring actions in any court of-c0ape-
- tent. urisdiction in the^--- _
!! _ County of B.ztte to enforce collection
V
t _
I of any monies, due ;from eny ,owner as their proportionate share
=
Iof the cost of the_ reasonable maintenance or repcj r of s- d
%1OekS, a_ -rid, in, any such actionor actions the prev-all =rg i
or parties shall be entitled. to recover a reasonable attorney is,
x
£ee to be.fixed by the court in such,actions..
-�
C _
m.
Mi
I,D 1410 (Rev. 6-80):
J
4a Eor. the _u,ores of this agreement, the decision
of the owners of a majority- of the parcels to the effect. that
specified repair or maintenance work, is necessary shall be
conclusive on the remaining owners and the deciscn.of said
majority as t. the reasonableness of the: cost of ani` such
shall be; conclusive on
maintenancerrork tYe remain-
repair or
rovcost does not exceed the average
owners p ided that said
ing.
of three independent cost estimates secured not more th60
days prior to commencement of the work,
5. The owners of z ma jority of the ,parcels may author-
ize the, creation of a maintenance and repair account in a
savings and .loan Assoc ati-on or, hank. glomes deposited therein
;
shall be. ;expended only for maintenance and repair of the above
referenced irorZts and tlhe number of s i -9natures r ecraiied to Y��-th-
A
draw, °monies shall be specified. at the time said account is
authorized.
6. Receipts for all monies received and of all
expenditures made shall be preserved and made available for
inspection and copying by any o�•mer, in, person or by agent, for
a period of one. year.,
jibe word"otmert, as used herein, shall mean one
person in whom. sole title is vested_ it shall also mean two
or more persons who; bald a unity of intenast as joint tenants,
_
as tenants in common, as partners,, or as husband and wifewith
title vested as their community property." For the purpose of
"as
determining if the owners of e majority of the parcels are in
favor of a. proposal, the affirmative vote c� any spouse, joint
tenant, or -tenant in common shall constitute approval by that
parcel,, irrespective of the number of co-ovmers of that parcel.
-
8. This `agreement may be terminated at any time by the
o
vat° of the oVmers of two thirds of the parcels, Upon termina-
Co
tion of this agreement, any monies remaining unexpended shall
i
m
CA ;.
_
E
HALE-ISOM INVESTMENT' CO. ,F a
General Partnership
By artner
�=
Partner
Elrrler R. Jennings
- Dee Jennings;
DOE MILL BLUFFS, a Limited
Partnership;
e e s a
Z. r 7»E" i-
fPartnershipa`
STATE` OF CALIF IA
j
COUNTY OF • C L c. *
)SS.
)
On 1
state, personabe�orre me, the&2 er i ned, a ;nota pi=07
in nd for- said .�_ Notary l -c
lIy
r
appeared i cry
`ry
Personally known to
me
Proved to me on the
basis of satisfactoryevidence dente
-
to be�Mq
partnex�of the partnere hip that executed the within
ns;truknowrledged Lo: that
�
same.,
me such pa% executed the
WITNESS mand of
nd% ficial
seal.
OFFICIAL SEAL
tfi�: DAD?.AI�1E
,
NOTARY AIiB_iC - G'.L[r�,2t�iiA ' ♦ " � �', � � R
BUTTE courinr �
MY comm. expires JUL 23, 33E4
(Notary Seal)'
�wr '
All those portions of Section 12, Township 22 North
Range 2East, M..D.B.&M. and Sections 6,17 and 18 f
Township 22 North, Range East, M.D.B,&24 described:
as 'follows:
Parcels: 1, 2 and 3 as shown on that certain p -reel
map filed in 1 -he Office of the Recorder, County c: Butte,
State of California, on January 11, 1978,, in Book 63 of
Parcel 'Maps: at page 74; and
Lots: 1 through 17 as shown on that certain map
entitled °SIERRA FOOTHILLS SUBDIVISTOW' which map was
filed October 30, 1980 in Book 80 of .baps atp ages
10 and ll, records of Butte County., Calfiornia; and
Parcelso 1 through 15 as shown on that certain Parcel
Map ;filed December 29., 1978 in; Book 70 of Parcel :daps
at pages 9 and 1'0; and
(a) The Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of
said Section 7
(b) the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of
said Section 18.
(c) The Southwest quarter or the Northwest quarter of
said Section -18
(` (d) The Northeast.quarter of the Northwest quarter of
aid Section 18
(e) The Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of
said: Section- 12
(f) The Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
said Section. 12
(g) The Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
said Section 12
MT
m: .
;Page•. I of 1 EXHIBIT "A',r
Parcel A
An easement for road and public uitlity purposes
sixty (60;) feet wide over a portion of Parcel 3 as
the same is shown on that certain Parcel, Mar, filed
Tanuary 11, 1978 in Book 63 of Parcel Maps at page 74,_
-` records of Butte. County,,. California, being also a
portion of Section 12, Township-22 North, Range 2
East,: M.D.B.&N!_, said; easement lying 30feet on each
side of the centerline of an existing road described
as -follows:
Beginning'at a point on the Easterly, Westerly line
of said Parcel 3 which point bears South,00°58`33" East
a distance of 665 .feet, more or less from the most North-
erly Northwest corner of said Parcel 3 and running
thence Easterly along said existing centerline a distance
of 1,525 feet more or less to a point which bears North_
-
79°3_7.13I"' Went a distance of 126.55 feet from the South-
west ,corner of Lot 1 in the centerline of Wilder Drive as
said corner is shown on that certain map.entitlea
' "SIERRA FOOTHILLS 'SUBDIVISION" which map was'filed October
30, 1980 in Book 80 of Maps at pages 10: and 11, record's
of Butte :County, California
Thence South 79°37131" East a distance of 126.55
feet to said Southwest cornier of Lot 1_
_mac=
:
a _
rn
,tom
CA
Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT "B:r�
f^1J C� OG UmENT:
Supervisors
®aitni�•Comm�.ss�on�Board of
g
March 16, 198 `
Page Two
such inclusionu
Open Space and Land use Elements:
1. Need----Staff questions need for project in light of other,
planned developments in the Chico area, while acknowledging that
Butte County does not require market feasibility analysis to
establish "need." The critical issue here is That const,`Ltutes
demonstrated need. Representatiye.s of the project proponents
have testified that the need exists because this project Offers a
living environment of unusual character due to the chtip�rr.ral
vegetation, the adjacent open. space provided by ste-op canyon
walls, and the magnificent views: such lots are in very short
supply, in the Chico vicinity. If the opportunity is to be given
to a significant number of people to have a living ativi.r,onment of
this type, then there is a "need" for projects of ymzl.ar
character. The question of need will be further addresood in the
formulation of °'overriding considerations" in connection with
project approval by the Board of Supervisors. The applicants'
'intent to develop at this location is compatible with the
following policy from the Land Use Element (Page 33)`: r'Provide a
diversity of housing sites varying in size; density an,d
:location.,;
2. Wildlife Considerations--- SlItaff mentions that both the
Land use and Open Space Elements contain policies to protect deer
herds. The Bidwell Heights project design has been modified
pursuant 'to the recommendations of a wildlife biologist to
provide deer migration corridors and reduced density: in the
northern part Of the project to satisfy deer protection needs.
3. Agricultural Residential Criteria---The additional
information requested by sta£f with regard to sewage disposal
and water supply is contained in the Hydrogeological
Reconnaissance Report dated February 9,, 1983, by Jon Anderson,
ccnsulting civil engineer; and in revisions to the Specific Plan.
All of the criteria (compatibility, sower-water, fire protection,
access and accessibility) are therefore met as shown by
information contained in the project record.
Conclusion In reviewing all of the inforniati.vn in the
project record, there is support for finding this project.,in
corif'nrmance with all elements of the Butte County General Plan.
This judgement properly tests with the Planning Commission and
Board of 'supervisors as indicated in the _following telt Froin the
"'olic b itself: should
tans' Use Element (Page 27)� Nq one p y', y
always detezmine County action; decision-makers must consider
all.., adopted policies which are relevant to a particular
situation, The d,ogtinUAl interpretation a'nd application of
policy statements to individual situations will frequently result
in compromises reflecting balances and priorities among
eonflictibg policies.
.... .tea
PILE NO-., SZ. 62 - NOTES
Page 7"
should be provided between this project and adjacent projects; an
offer for (ledi'cation to the county should be :Made.. 1E1pergency
access - year-zound maintenance of two, off-si:e roads CDoe Mill
Road to the north,, and Center.Gap Road to the east); the ap-plicant
sould post a mond for road ',maintenance... Roads for circulation
should relate to the circulation element. 'Assess tliE. impact of
1
circulation for all three routes. 'Last $th and Last 9t1h Streets
in: Chico rriil receive traffic; theseimpacts have not been assessed.
Also, :fIighray 99 through Chico and IIghti�ay 32` near Forest Ranch,
✓Assess the impacts Cance costs of traffic to Butte Creek Canyon-
pacts
fiscal analysis is greatly inadequate,; it was :rot prepared by
an economist. It assumes resolution of school, fire and other
a:
issues:; evaluation :of the costs to the county need to be included.
If more police_ and fire protection are needed, for this project,,
less service will be available elsewhere in the county. This may
be the. last strain to, break Butte County's fiscal back. ' 'Tater
quality - shallow soils, raise questions about the effectiveness
of septic systems and the potential for-vrater pollution.
January ll, 1933