HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 10 OF 15T
I The record discloses the county planning at�jf F consis--
2
tently recommended- the specific plan not ,be approved, and other
3
,jurisdictional agencies voiced 'their concerns a,; wel..l,. Overall,
4
Petitioner Lakes the position the specific plan era's "pretnaturelyu
5
opproved without sr.fficient'detail in violation or the Government
6
Code and the general plan. The County and t:he 'Birt;wel,l Heights
i
Land Company y (Respondent and Real Party in Interest;) take t"tie
8
position the specific plan is consistent with the (ieneral plan
9
and to any extent tfle Specific plan lacks definable standards the
10
specific plan does by attached conditions and other legally
11
imposed requiroments, insure general plan consistency to
prior any
12
actual development,,which development is contPmpla:ted to take
Ito
13
up
ten to fifteen years prior to "build -out,."
1.4
The Specific_ plan at issue encompasses approximately
la
twelve hundred acro, and contemp.lotes in excess of three hundred
16
units. a
17
xT
18'
STANDING
;19
Tho' Court finds P,et:atif)ner Iirt strancJinrj tri arise the
sr 20
1 sues CneomPaseed wii.thin the tfisi.f of f{foridra tc, with the
exception
'ttaG +,tlletjed illogaliLy or tho apen Spnor., Rlotpont di.soussejr,
'
22`'
her'cxafter. - ,
2
26
a
1, 1 environmental review arguably envisions a. specific jijon which
2 assesses all potential environmental impacts �t U,inb time, rath'er
3 than later..
4 It is the CouWs view that While PeLitiori,orls arguments
5 have particular merit within the context of sound plonning,
6 contrary considerations become leg;31ly perSLIE]siVe. ror exomple7
7 Within the context of planning the legislature han (.1irectod
8 certain specific conduct without any ambiguity or "necessary and
9 convenient" phraseology. G. C.. §65300,'65302. Within this same
io context if the legislature had intended a specific plan approach
-11 What is arguedthe detail of a subdivision map there is certainly
12precedent For using much more clearly defined language. A, I s o,,, it
1-3 Would seem tha'tl the language of other statutes mandating compli-
14 ance withon earlier specific plan may bon
e id to relate not to
15 the contents of a specific plan, ,but rather to its significance,.
16 The same statutes also, dictate' there be compliance With the
11 general plan. rinally, while the instont osporiric plan is teqUired,
18 by law) the leoirjIntive, body, may itself initiate a specific plan
19 as a useful planning toolif it feels such would be necessary or
20 cori
,venient to implement the 'fie
qonornl p1nn. t'. C6 �,65450.1 .
21 In Stich -8 cost the contents of the speoiri:o 1) to n w 0 ul 0 be
22, 0, n c 0 m pri s s., e d within e s a in q s:tntute, which, govorriq th'd contents
23of On intrrn t n Cly
, I requitbd SpOripIn 111 h Thi)0 s mhy n I lncon,s.i,s� e
24: w 1, C h ronpott to n ototutqry t.w1w6le which Lvii Lho, o n e Farina t e n,(Jqt0
a leqltqlative h 0 dy t o I n, v a I o 1) 11 n 0 FJ o plon' w'hich it
26� o ri ct) u r ri (I o
-�6` finds nacew,)nry or convenient t o i tn 1) 1 o m ant tti u (I. o i vo t,,, i ri n- a o d
I Initially, the Open -Space Element When passed was not
2 arbitrary or capricious due to the absence of an inventory map
3 or other partioular reference document fixing loQ0t.iona ;of
protected open -space. Also, this argument is r,a.isccl by Petit io,ier
5 for the first. time at trial. City Of Walnut Creek_v. t;ount
6 of Contra Costa ( 1980) 101 CA 3d 1012, The oppbrtui ity was
administratively provided for such an argument and hnd it been
V9 advanced it would not of necessity had been futile Also, the
9 narrow grouYrd raised as purportedly fatally defective itself has
10 on insuffica;snt nexus or particular relevance to this specific
11. pI-an, Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984)
12 156, CA 3d 1176.
13 vi
V ,
14 THE F'INDINGO PERTAINING TO THE FNVSRONftENTAI. IItrACT REPORT ARE
NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIRE(4ENTS OF CEQA
15:
7.G Unlike a specific plan, compliOncG it•h',the requirements ,
17 of the California Environmental Quality Act i,,a d0torinined by the
18 less flexible doctrine of substantial evidence. In reviewing,
a.9 an Envir,Onmental` Impact Report o p,arameUni consider13'ta.on is the
20 right or the put,lic to be Irif6pmed in such owuy thnL IL oon
21 intellicJtantly weigh the environmental cbonsoquonent; Of ony contem-
4
~✓ plZ;tad r and hnve an appropriate voice in the f(,rirrul1tior1
2 c.rf` r:ii7y cfk;t Ys a:cn. NoSW0Vert the Envitonillan i;T Tint��rrr,.por at
011 rt00Ll Wrti�t. its (�urtjra�;e is tri wt:wTt7ill c nt
2C1rcKzw,ican-rrtnlerr;r'tarl to foGu; tl�e tatl..i ti.rr I truvv;m Upon ran t'Ire:1,r
rrilian :;ftc:c>inri f:he envtr:onrnent. 14rrr;a,can V. firf:'}'*ryf Crrriirrr<i1:lra
r �7�
t PlS.t1r this in mind, C`EI A regultttiona rag rrtl:i.rat)
or Rea, parY
findings are quite clear.
No public agency shall a�,5provo xi project
af-icant
errviacntertraJ
R. which identifies sign
following an Ee
for or7ch r3 ,lcJna�fiCant '
effect's Unless ° the agency makes a finding
fmpanied by
brief explanation o
of f`
eCt , acccathe for
r�rt:l:or74rla 14Cal. Admin.; Clado, ,ccti.on
t, each `finding
(in mitigation)
Finding (3) reads as follovrs_
a All
other imeacts which are distµlose
Oct
aare
laEitherrd
OF proceedings relate to t orative his
fforJevaluation, Biel -
insignificant, too sp ti wi11. be reduced to a
9
nficant but not adverse, riitigation measures
level of-.nsignificenr:e by project approval.
10
included as conditions of p J
11 finding is inadequate has ,7 matter of law because
12 This
13 'the C
our`t is unoble to determine what impacts REspendent .consd-
l,ci eyed signifiosnt and which -L . did not.
� ,� e �ardinc� increased fire donger and exposure
tr`lb The finding r, g'
as well as the f indinJ rregaxdinc Graf f is increases
�6 to fire hazard,
�
,:a �� end Santos 4Vsy rsr.e anadot�u�,rte a�a rr mallei: af' law in
7 at I -lights Y
lg
that
they lack the requiP'Od exlalar ataon as 'Lo the r<ttion��l.e t4or
' finding. There is an a 'lyt cal gap
1 each ds a "ttcr cif late
20 bet.Ween the: subject ,adclrr~ssed rand_ the; 'ultimate matit,lrat'konon
tJr<t �rtarl,1Li
The finding on oe lag tinct �r�at .r qutrl a ty 7
in�rderfurrte because of cin intorno, I inions "toncy
2.
din i. z� btaa�ad uTaU�a cvidemce vlfiich nin anrrtr ON 1, cl
Tha
fin�l
24 udequn! e ka
e,rc+otrrtirrn crrk�<�akailty on portinnia t7 k` 117 c7 rr,>to' LC ta�rL.isfy
�r - la (fie ra:'trn_cnt r��rtntlt`kr,tls fcr ;calxti;.z� ltar�al�tr 2() 1* tl'ar titin^nrtea
15 I1ra].t {
N rl rr,ithtktt t*rsus.i.nt') uft'atrntl-�ttr-0,[.t In
In �rrct, tkrc�rc
ter
26 laronc�
1 is evidence that the soil is inaderlu"t,e (Withr.
prese.nL, densi.Ly)
2 to prevent ground-weter pollution on tf e rest al' the :;it
e.
3 Presumably, on
adverse effect is intendedto be mti.gatecl by
4 Condition 2.5.2 which requires adequate �ot1
,e �
I dotrl to, be Submitted
5 to the Mealth Department to insUrc : tl�o Feasibi.:l. i L
Of dwellings y Or the nu►nlaer
8 g profa,osed For eachp arce,l. fl o w
s
ever,, the finding
7 Coil to resolve or shojq how the se wa e disci
g osri:l on o portion
8
Of t'he site equates with adequate percolation on the
9 the site: The Health'Dremainder of
epartment tNnu.ld indicOtO
the contrary i
10 true, and by s
reguiranc� additional sail in Formation at some future
].1 point it Would appear on tf�e other ha.nd Respondent
12 the Health Department contentions: has accepted
The C: I.' R. identifier,
,, cumulat.ive imparts of the project
4 to be significant, but there is no finda.nt, e their
to<5 significance or whether or hot dr cumulative
g o degree, OF significance is
la determined thonce the
ere are cc�ndxtions in ma.txci
ration, mitigation is
17 unFeaible, or the` imp6r.t is unvoiclable.
1$ Fxnalay, Respondent recognizes t17,lt thea
e remain with
19 pro jest Opp rova ]. s:ign.i fi cant adver, se envaronmen tsa l efFe n
20 thus has found ciarae!
''ove;rriding consider7L,iona: C r()A requires
2.1 Respondent to t.�I.,�rnce the 6eneritq of a
projoct rlr),iinst its;
2
u un
avoidst�lt anv'
I r 0
0MOntal, ri;lrs xn rtetesm: nanr
L the D whr then to-1pprove
pZ ,)ect anyway. RO.spondont must stai:e' in tyr.� tJn th
r°'24 rens�7 e specific:
leen,, to r,Lipportro�jort ��I'sf,rrt�1�<!l Uhdcr,L,fe ,°a.rr��rr
tfs�o n tslNranr.o r and
ovorr%dinl� INLfs�t I �x i�,•�:1r�r) nr`� Cf t� f .i.nti
oL11,o r .in;fernrata_on ars Ll�fc� �rorortl. "MG C�.
71 • A to qt l n , C o
t,.
1 Additionally, quos-,]udcial findingsrequirethe agency which
renders the challenged decision to set forth findingt in such tt
to bridge the analytical gap between rani evidonce rind
wny
V4 ultimate, decision:7°�s_n9a assn.y: County of Loo; Angeles
11 C 3d 506. If the findings" are themselves) concl-usionoty
5
(1974)
g r
the reviewing ;Court is left to searching :a le'ngl by ndrO-istrotive
7
record for evidence in support of the Findings without being made
in some way what the decision makers themselves relied upon
8
aware
g
in reaching their conclusions.
b"" a
The findings of "overriding concern" number two, four,
and five are conclusionary, Number two; does not disclose any
1?
r.ational.e for a finding of "needed housing" , nor ';does it
1,3
reference any material in tht~ record which discloses an impetus
build residential units in prime agricultuIto! Innd. Number
14
to
15
four is conclusionary 'becouse ony project anywhere at, anytime
lg
would provide jobs. Also, there is no reference wherein one �
determine when any actual construction or improvements ax'e
17
could
to betlin, and 'to what extent. Numbor, five is Gonclus; onary
1.8,
likely
ig
as it presumes a need without any reference or other rotionole
p
o,tl7rr cilic.le.a in other parts 0
disc.losr~ci. The record disclose, ` p r, t
"21
the general flan whtc'h it i,s GrgLled do .not ouraport the px'oj0
22'
Respohdent may will find Nuc:h othet mnt'ters inItpplica.blo or of
�*
insui^facietn wexrg ht to I)p of oor7so,rluonr."e uhd(Ir t:ltise' cireumsinncc ,,
but CF(JA t'r0LlId r(t(IQir`0 Irlo1n0 rYltiGnnit car rt?Fi.3�Yn 1) t-, �;.tFltad wLtll
�,'
suh(,�4rt', tri tahr�: y i .Il, rte c:.i,otvr7orr� nn 1 17e rtstyt,rr�r1i�n Ir�t lsincng
' 6 ', b nel',its versu:a Tit1 14 F)Oction
flv
.` A
,.,r"J'.•i yi• r••F My77,p, ���.f�Lwa.. .r.:"'?.'��' .;;,,✓"' i
r «'?"y.,yl dd,' .,..+G4'"�..Y°U''• L •,I. rl :J_. '. '. .i
_4 DEPARTMENT Of= PU01,I0 HEALTH
I71V1SION ar ENWRUNM, .NTAL HEALTH
H
Ad�coai 0 196 Momoriel Way ? County Canter orive 0 747 El Ikoit Rood
R'epiy-to Chico, Coltfornlo 95926 oroville, Colifornic 95965 Porodiso, Cnl,furofo 95139
Telephones 914/891.2727 Telephortet Ext, Sy
Sept Mbe
i
Dar oafs, Jr.
7�5 Fa.3tGvood A- once
ch6 o , Cil 95,026
_ Soil analysis - N.F041 of VTC
Sectio2l 'IS; T22Nj R313', 8c K
D -a -V Din
.A.f er having visually examined -t he soil ev�.ILx� tio�� holes on this
ki♦JUe tL ,
and further re�Tievrin our previous soil. and percol.at iOrrl>,g
i t �0x, tion .n or thi; s area it appears that t'n� area � �x rec�tl ir, x f'ar. �;
or a;yr �e��:t� Off' `s' e- ,.raga disposal. to be utilized by
tt Ii?�;�
r; y feasible upon the 40 acre Parcel.
o ti ! L:i.c i_?'i� uz� .1 s ma be
Vito e tac r�u n' ^ �' of units , ho4.,JGvep caul d on1 Y b'ew determined z.�t
the, oa?col.^ tion tosts which ,-are required byatir Butbe
P 1 r�1 crrz �n�, p
Cotu,Lt�7` 0r_din. nice, rovie;vin the ] ayou.t ph s>, and review -and
accep anco by State Wxater quali-tyErol '3oard.'
T. i�opo this i �al^m tion v� 1:1 a in determining; the doffs Mies l
dor Your m vier
pi of this az
sincerer;
C � �ran?� a" ;L Director
ent
s o- o a l. kt gal th
-, v ' ro,nz�a
1
;�a, i�iv, anv. Health
C
r� ff
L\l � _NL �,
p
McDoNOTTox-r,
Iio.r.LnzvD 8r; ALLEN
,
is to determine what impacts Respondents con -
1 he .ou rt unable
2 dered significant and which it did :nat
The f`i,ndings x egardirag increased fire danger and
3 11.
well as the finding regarding traffic
4 .xposure to fire hazard, as
inadequate as a matter
j
Hi hway2 and Santos t�Jay are,
5 •ncreases at g
'`
that they lay: the required PMPlana'tian as to the
G. , �, A t
,,,.,
6 f law in 7 s a
finding There .s an analytical gap
`
7 at-ionale for each
subject addressed and the ultimate
�:atter tier of law between the
� degradation
9j itiaatidn. and water qua7,-ity
10 '12. TbEi finding on sewage
nate becaus e of an internal inconsistency• ,.
1i (3)(a)3•b• � iisinadeq - disposal on a
show how the sewage
12 finding fails to resolve or
he
equates with adequate perrolatiOn on the
13
1 ort�on of the site
14 •ema.inder of the site.
impacts of the pro-
15� 13 The E.x, 8, identifies cumulative
is no finding as to their
16� to be s.gnif scant, but there ;
of s: gni
�,oct
17umulaLa ve significance ranee ar whether or 'not ounce; the cl��gree
1811ficance is determined there are c,ondi Wions in mz Y,1ga tion; mitiga-
191 n is unfeasible; or the impact. is 'inavo° dable •
tic
,. s of. "overriding c.or�ce,r�n,, jumbos tato,
The finding
20i�1•
Number two does not di si�ltrge any
IL are conclusi.onavy •
21 11four and five
of "needed hous_ng 11, nor does It reference
2 z finding
ationale for
'discloses an impetus t,o build
23 materia, in the record which
material
n�►
4 units on prime ariculttzral land; Number four zs
It
% LL k
9
i
r
i
w
Court having, ,made a Statement of Deoision, which has been signed
1
and filed,
2
IT IS ORDERED THIN,,
I. Peremptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue from this
4'
Court,.remanding the
g proceedings to Respondents and commanding
5
Respondents to set: aside their ,decision of SrptemberC,98 32
approving the'Bidwell Heights Specific .Plant unless and until the
7
County of Butte adopts administrative findings to support ap-
8
proval of the specific plan, which comply fully with the requiro-•
9'
mems of the California Environmental Quality Act and are other -
10
wise consistant with the decision of the Count.
19
2. Except insofar as ordered herein, the Petition filed in
this action for, issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus on
13
other grounds is denied.
14
o
15
M
3. Petitioner, shall recover her costs in this action, to be
16
dotermined' at such time as any appropriate p
ri>:z;1;e mcat3.on for costs may.
be heard.
1
_
18,E
21.
72
23
%
24
it 1N'.111 illi art°
26
j
L, LV%AAS
27
Irt) ilnx'�uwf
".10V0, CA 9,1592,
2
��
19 16) 893'j 71AN