HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 11 OF 15C�
J
h�
665
ni
V t O PFYtlM
i - NL'r41PY TC]'AL I�
. _ —F7ZGGI
, eNv aY'Ir�:N
!ua t IluLlap rgNo `
ftlh I+:it I7MI7e VAfl1ANVi4.G D77CUM.IXNYtl HdALV
APPi,1CANT'
- '
CAT t; 116 "rict;IVIX.6 WOMAU
.
RECEIPT 9113
OF'F'ICIAL RECEIPT
COUNTY 'O� BUTTE
STATlt 4F CAL'IrMINIA
6F FICE nr FiLANNING
155 udb 11v
based in part on soil excavations throughout the
site reviewed by Health Department petsonn l and
actual percolation tests for the subd'iwisions
already approved within the project boundaries.
The project's sewage disposal will be
handled in two ways. Individual lots Located
on suitable sites will be served by septic:
tanks. Cluster areas and lots with inadequate
soils will be served by community septic systems
which will be, located in Butte County Health
Department approved; areas. Thus, during
subsequent tentative subdivision map review,
Lots shall be designated as served either by
on---site septic tanks located in soils having'
I'
percolation capabilities which meat County
standards or by connection to transmission
pipes connected to a community septic system
which meets Stage and County design and
monitoring requirements.
As further assurance that sewage and water
quality impacts will°.be insignificant, Condition
2.5.2 of the Specific plan conditions land use
density upon demonstrated soil data for
M
proposed projects in the Chico area is An Unsolved
question affecting any subdivision anywhex in Chico.
t As indicated in the Bidwell. Heights fiscal impact
study, school operations receive a fixedLevel of
funding throughout the state which is generally
sufficient for ongoing operations. Funds fo,r school
facilities expansion represent a statewide problem
to be addressed by the Legislature: This impact is
addressed in Conditions 2.3.1 and 2,3.2 of the;
Specific Llan. This will Cover any cumulative or
g
s. nifcant effects in the future in light of 'the
County's adoption of a School Facilities Ordinance.
Further, the developer will participate with the
F7BIDWELL HIEIGHTS LAND PROJECT
17INDIPIGS FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN
Having reviewed and considered tier final environmrrital 'impact repo°rt,
1 move we make the fallowing findings;
(�) That the level of sp(�cificity of available informLiniwi in the
EIR is sufficient 'to serve as a rational basis for a decijlo wth regard
to the 'Specific Plan.
That the environmental impact report divides potTntialenvironmental
impacts from anticipated buildout of the Bidwell Height$ project into
the categories of "significant
,11 requiring mitigation whore feasible,
and these impacts which are expeCudetexposureo be sto'nseismic: itaxardacar.falling
i n the "si gn'i fi cant category
pollution, alteration of natural scenic views, removal of native vegetation,
wildlife habitat reduct°ian, traFfictonfireShazard es at annocrea.se ins Way dservice
y
increased fire danger and. exposure
load on police and fire agencies, energy use try homes a'nd commuting vehicles,
expansive soils, and erosion, Individually, these potential significant
effects are addressed as fellows.
Ex osure to seismic hazard, This impact is mitigated to a 'level
of insignificance by Condition 3:'2.1 of` 'the Specif6`c flan.
Air p211ution. This impaG;t is regional and cumulative in scope,
with the degree of impact -from this project very minor in comparison
to the pallutio
n yields from agricultural burning,, industrial production
and vehicular travel throughout a,he Sacramento Air. tla;sin. The effect
of approval ' or disapproval
of this
tip•Qirlationsoct is 1with nregard �tonagompultuQal
to tho effect of state and federal g
g practices, industrial pollution control and emission standards
for motor vehicles, While this project will contribute a minor amount
t air pollution problem, the problem
to a cumulatively signfican
itself is so large that approval or disapproval of this project will
not affect' i t to a measurable degree, and the degree of benefit from
avoiding this additional contribution is not large enough to justify'
caval of the project. other solutions to the air pollution
disapp '
problem exist requiring implementation by state and federal regulatory
agencies. Approval of this �protaitact
nimeasurerseashouldythed-Statehe
effectiveness of these 7mpi�.mcn
Legislature, Congress, or the appropriate regulatory agencies choose
to imploment 'them.
Alteration of natural scenic views. The degree of adversity
of this p chis sotttewhat a suhjeci. ve judgement; since aesthetics
are i'n the eye of the beholder; The visual character of the site
is expected to Ghany from utidevel6ined to rural residential The
effect is 1 i m.i ted by, the re ati`ve i ,ao1 a tion of tkic property and
the di stance to' H i ghw�ay 3? a�id-Skywaj , since 00,project i s vi s7 bl e
from segments of Chase, two roads. This impact is deemed significant
and unavoidable.
g�tt
-'2 -
Removal of native yL etatign. While some native vegetation -
will be removed forroads ,and homesi'tes, as much as feasible will
be preperved through Specific Plan Condition 2.6.4, ;ince 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 reduction.. This again is a regional cumulative
impact which rcquii•es a regional cumulative solution _which is Beyond
the scope of this one project, Testimony at the hear'irliis'indicated
the greatest wildlife concern involved preservation of deer winter
range. According to the January G, 1983, Department or rish and
Game letter from. Paul T. Jensen to Steve Streeter, 33 acres of chaparral
habitat are required to support one deer. Using this rigure, the
1,000 acre Bidwell Heights project site could potentially support
30 deer. The January 31,'1983, letter from Paul T, ,)arson 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
is 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 areas such as Paradise, Lake
Almanor, Marin County and similar places, deer remain plentiful even
after development. Conditions 3.1.1 through 3.1.4 of the Specific
Plan are wildlife mitigations, providing for reduced effects on.wildl.ife
through clustered housing, retention of riparian corridors; and continuous
bands of open space coordinated with adjoining lands., Enhancement
of alternate habitat off site can compensate for 'the onsite habitat
reduction, effectively mitigating deer habitat loss, To accomplish
this ':a new Condition 3.,1,5 is hereby added to the Specific Plan
as follows:
'!3:1.5
As a condition of tentative subdivision or parcel map approval,
c develo er to submit plans for off s7te or onsite ha.bitQl".
enhancement program ubject tette approval of the California
State Department of .Fish and Game."
elt«,t (deer Herd Study ;CoFglpjjtee - August 2, 1983).4
Traffic increases at Hi hwa2 and Santo. Wa
�, �,t ,,.. y .�._._...�, �� This impact
�yft�L �•d� is mi Ligated to a level Of insignificance by Condition 2.1 G of the
.,SRA
Specific Plan.
e,
Increased fire da� tiger
and exposure eo mire ham, This impact
mitigated to"a level of ins.igni�ficahce by Condition's 2.7,.1 through
4 ,
2.7.5 of the Specific Plan.
crease .in service lead on Jice and fire a cno�rs. Formation
of an assessment district` Or other legal entity to provide supplemental
funding for public services prior to the approval of.any subdivision
maps as specified in Condition 4.2 of the Spedf'c Plan will mit gate
is impact and reduce it to an acceptable level.,
� A.,
,7 Y
`"'i d�✓ h'
a
I• -3—
Enema use by homes drill comm��tin vehicles, T
dost feasibly miti ated Thh1-s impact is
m
9 ��f�raugh tic ener
or bu ldincgs as. cont��in+�d within the roy conservatiandstandards
standards for vehicular efficiency, Provisions for federal
extra insulation for dwellings, encouragement of or car-Pooling-
heating systems are a1.7 helpful, but not rent appropriate
Of an individual ro'ect,assisted domestic
P J In this case, du,ildingondardconditions
g ds are deemed adequate,
and vehicle design standar
Ex ansive soils,
—_11 iv—e soils A preliminary soils report indicated this
impact might need mitigation to avoid potential for found crack aver time,
Adherence to Building Code requirementstforsfoundations
should mitigate this concern 'in most cases, Additions=il
WI-11 be reviewing the site for lineaments pursuant t
of the Specific Plan and can also alert Potential Y� a geologist
agencies if expansive soils conflict with i Condition 3.2.1
1 builtlers and reviewing
at any given location, T Potential build�n
Th' can be verified in connection g7thtthe
approval of future subdivisions pursuant to t'he re uireme
Specific Plan. requirements of the,
Erosion,
of the pecifcErlarion control measures are requiredCondition
acceptable limits,, effectively reduci>ng this impactytoinZ b 3'
(3) All other impacts which are disclosed in t
related to this project are either insignificant, to
evaluations significant but not erin he record of proceedings
Of insignificance by mitigation mea ures o speculative for
adverse, or will be reduced to a level
approval included as conditions of project
ia)
Impacts P which are found to : nificant and the reasons insig
for these findings are as follows:
1•
NO, exposure or noise generation, No Si
generators or noise-sensitive receptors are Involved gn�ficant noise
d with this
2. Disturbance or destruction of ` re
resources exist within cultural
this project area, , No cultural
3, Water quality degredaton.
a, Pollution of surface wagers b
p y urban runoff.
►s
expected to be insignificant for the reasons out
This impact
on Page 22 of the EIR (IOW-pro'efo dehe 1inpd
percolation, absorption'by egetatiun) Y' °Pen areas for
b. Pollution of groundwater or soil from ins
for septage. This, impact is addressed on a dequa a soils
of the EIR and in the Hydrological Recot�naissanc
dated 9 Febr L ar 1983 b P sah 22` and 23
indicate evidence of ad quon Anedorsori., P. E, e Report
Both reports
portions, of t`he site to satisfyP Both Capabili`t
for septic tanks far the densiies6lth Department standards
groundt�ater po1luti'o6., These conrl,u5ions are based
proposed without causing
on soil excavations throughout the site reviewed in part
Department ernr�
P brie) and actual percolation #estsbyorethth
subdivi•si,ons already a pp roved�.within the''pro'ect
j boundaries,
-4-
4. Hydrology; alterations in drainage patterns
in runoff quantity due to impervious surface and increases
is addressed on page 22 of the EIR, where it is hiSImpdcto
be insignificant because of the relatively large parcel sizes
(compared to urban areas) and correspondingly small amount impervious surface relative to the; size of the drainage bash.
Additionally, drainage impacts are mitigated through Condyt,n,
2.6.1 through 2, 6.3 of the Specific Plan.
5.. Increase in service load 'on schools. Page 16 of the indicates the schools piesenuly have sufficient capacity for
thus project with room to spare. The cumulative effects of
quest�on affectiut of all ngan5esubr��ects in the Chico area is an unsolved,
in the Bidwell Heights fiscal�impac'tsion nsvudy� schoo7co�erAs i
As indicated
receive a fixed level of funding th'rou out the state which
r�s
Is generally sufficient for ongoing operations.,
facilities expansion represent a statewide problem utosbeoas
ddresl
s ed
by the Legislature This imoa;ct is addressed 'inConditions
2.3.1 and 2,3,2 of the Specific Plan. This will cover any cumulative
effects in the future. Further.
the devthe oper'wi11 participate
With : the school district in enacting the .School Facilities Ordinance,.
6. Impacts on power and telephone systems. The
utility companies have indicated no problem with respective
service. h
ra '
v
id'
p in necessary
essary
7, Potential future lass of designated open areas. The S
Plan designates areas for large parcels (2 to 10 acres pecfic
requires that natural vegetation be retained in the areasnnot
needed for buildings or roads (Condition 2,6,
4), Cluster leve opment
is contemplated for areas proposed for PAC tonin ,
itself is an enforceable method of preserving ng,opeWhiczoning
Conditions 1.5 and 1.6 of the Specific Plan call for space. land
trust to manage the open space and a resource management plan
to insure the open space isro erl
p p y provided for in perpetuity,
8. Fiscal impacts and county subsidization of new
Through the special district formation called foil bgrowth:
4.2 of the Specific Plan, a legally binding mechanismCwilltben
created for funding needed levels of services by assessing, W! 1"' the
e h
'project property owners themselves, This, district must be in
place .before subdivisions can be aPP roved,
9. Urban developmentoutside Urban boundaries;
of development contemplated' in this project is Qree category
or "su'burban" rather than "'ur'ban" as alleged, b "rural
The most "urban'" parts of the project:aregwthnph�ecluspponents,
areas, and the densities are still within the 1 to 40 acres"red
allowed by the General'P1an in A -R dis'trictsy with substa
reqs of permanent) ntial
a
Permanently preserved open space.
.ter..,.—.._ .
10. Traffic hazards, funding for off-site improvement
maintenance of the .3GC�SS road, S, and
in pages 36 through 3F3 in the EIR, withcfurther�c
P �' are addressed
in Appendices 110u and "P." Mitigat, t of Cher clarification ication
are specified in Conditions 2.1.1 through 2;anti of the Specific
Plan. p impacts.
iecific
11. Circulation to adjoinin
circulatian to meet taunt standards
Adequate vehicular
2.1.1, 2, 1.3; 2.1-4, 2.1.5, and r�S7 �of pthe 1Sdad through
h ough Condi tions
is Mitigation measures to reduce and in somse cases eliminate
significant to
effects are irrr,luded in the Condit
Specific Plan. These ►nitigation measures w Potential
In the ;areas o'F compatibility with adjoining n r ions p the
will reduce potential impacts
open space, vegetation loss, wildlife h'abitgtlreducses, Preservation of
circulation,`p�^ovsion of public services, maintenance of vrater
Thetics, vehicular
Provision for surface water runoff, erosion, fire Protection, quality,
hazards. and goologic
(5) Project alternatives are being rejected
Proposal for the iollaw ng re'asnns In favor of the or
Ig nal
1.
The "rro project" alternative can be divided in
the first being no additional building or develo jet two categories:
site whatsoever, and the second beingsimply t P nt on the
as is." The first of these is beinrejecedobleave the zoning
not accompliSh the nrnject objectives of'.ause it does
hame_sites at the site s Potential with
mi ti ations Proper Providing rural .residential
9 � Additionally, to accomplish 4he '�na development,"sion f
alternative, a zone change from the 'present "A-2�'
be necessary to some x
A purchase of develop mentngcatsgoiy which Prevents�developrnent,
seem warranted sil7ce the Public benefits are money dries not
and would accrue primarily to t'he residenis living
value
vicinity, While the coats would be borne ng 7n the immediate
as a Whole, �►'hether or not they received any chnefitaKpiyers
case, a combination of large parcels, clustered eeit n this
and provisjon of open spac't� as contained within thea Pmen`t
proposal seems more reasonable than sne I, PPlicants'
on the property. Thi's is particularly t�rraenQnd development anywhere
development v�hYch has already been apprnued witl of the existing
boundaries and the commitrrleht of resources to afo the project
to serve ecisting and future developrncnt levels.
improvements
Leaving the zoning "as is°1
being rcjec ed bocaur (rota°fining the A-2 znrin
to the environment th nttf'lo CyJecofas PraPosed is 1Pss damaging
space permissible utde
1 r A 2 zoning. Hall parcels without 0pen
j
i
.
Development of the same number of dwelling units without
clustering is being rejected because the advantages of clustering
Would be host (e.g,, shorter roads and utility lines, mare open
space and wildlife habitat retention) while the adverse effects
on the visual., physical and biotic environment (,erosion, increased
,. runoff, habitat reduction) would be of greater (extent and magnitude,
Q�?due to more roads and widespread grading and dc:uLlopment. Additional
reasons for rejecting this alternative listed at,, the top of
page 50 of the EIR are incorporated by reference,
0 3. Substantially reduced density, either with or without clustering,
is being rejected because the cost of services, 'improvements
and mitigations per dwelling unit would beincreased and the
reduction in dwelling units would have to ,be substantial to
realize any significant enIvironmentah benefits. At this reducod
number of dwelling units, some of the same disadvantages of
the previously described "no development's alternative become
applicable,, and the economic pressure to further develop some
other portion of the property at some future. time would become
greater, To gain any appreciable environmental benefit from
this alternative, the overall density would have to be in the
neighborhood of 20 to 40 acres Per parcel which would not achieve
the project objectives of providing affordable homesites in
a rural chaparral environment and wo:ild place the costs of necessary
mjtigations, services and improvements beyond the realm of financial
feasibility,
4. Increased density of dwelling units is being rejected because
the rural character of the development would be potentially
affected, it is questionable whethler septic tanks would be feasible
at. a higher density, and the onsite impacts to biological, visual
and physica'1 resources wouldincrease and be more difficult
to mitigate, including exposure to fire and seismic hazards;..
(6) Although there may be significant adverse environmental', effects.
resulting from the approval of this project,, there are ov.erriding,eonsider,ations
which justify project approval. These over,►iding considerations include:
1. The project as proposed is environnental,ly su orio t
l� o development
which could occur pursuant to the present A_Z zoning, The, project
nt
under consideration provides the advantages of cluster development
which include in addition to shorter utility'lineseet of, fewer luteal
retenti rands' easier provision of public scr.vi.ces, artd the
onof 'a substantial portion, of the pro,iect :site in open
ing deer
space includmigration corridors. Wildlife habitat
value would be 5everely reduced if A-2 t development covered
the entire property, and septic tank .ollut, problems: and
traich'a.zards would ,be greater.
:w - ..; �: �a a r
-n 0 scNOt:R, Ca
' mpleie ems It1;2, 3. and'A, ,
Add your at,
!n_the "RETURN TO"
space on reverse,
(CONSULT POSTMASI ER FOR FEE
c 1. The following service is (aquestod (check one),
Show to whom and da(o delivered a e
Show to whom, date,_ and address of delivery r 4
2. ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERV r: t
(Tla rosrrkfed dorrwy 110-7 is cheeped to 40160
to it. rotum l rpr roeee)
TOTAL S
3, ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO
13a4yell Heights Land
Co'Mpany'
4. TYPE OF SERVICE! ARTICLE NUMBER
❑REGISTERED DINSUREO
RICERTIF10 OCOD, 11
0EXPRESS MAIL )97,1977
,(Aloe s obtaln algnetum 01 addresseo'or agant)
hat recely the article described above/
SIG
PtATURI OAddressi� I=I Whorizad agent r
5' r U CtV RYPOSTMARKa
((, foe en MA;
ADDRESSEE'S ADDRESS (Onyttregpasted)x^
i, UNAgI,E io DELIVER BECAUSE: 74;. EIClP4eY '5
M f
A GlPOt 1082,979.693,'
RrtcCgPT FOR CRTt Irk MA6L.
tilt IraSORAM COVER AGt "ROV'DED-
NOT f0� IrITIoOIIATIOIJAL MAIL
13iel,Sve�.T: iiC:i.�lt�s I
82-62f
t
R I 11'
TOiALP938aA(GB1;,!#17���"3 0� 4
q
N
"'�57"�nTr`1.L.�C 'itl ,eq .Wlaij�y�•N ti4
j•u+''�iZ .---' •c t:r/yw"'L'�r,.K' •, �1. , (/r`fA.k ,StY' q!''1
A L 1ti
AUK r,EA1,li Ar'vj� jtltgE���•
PLANNING (1C)MMISsI'ON
7 COUNTY CCNTER UPNIq t11ti7��l.f:, Nr1i,l�0.t�N1�1 �1l1`P(ifi
December 14, 108; PMONP' ;44,1601
13idivell flo7.ghts and Conipany
P 0. B-
3040
C xco, CA 95927
R11: 13 i.tltive1l Heights
Financial Accounting and Bi:ll:in
File # 82-62
Log N 82-03-02-02
Centl.emen
At Your r cnucst; this Office processed tilt enva; i olt� .
c]ocuments regtiirecl in connecti.on tivit}i 0nt.aI
approval. a:C the above project. your aPpl; i.ca1 i.on for
s'ignx:;ficGtrtt amount oC staff tiln �v�i5 expended as a
o:t` YOM,' xec]uest, anti the sala •:ias o:f; the st�i,f C rtte�ttL � result
tivere pa c]. Crom the Count ►s crs i:nvolve,
Y GencTaI } u ld which i s
b)r ,he taxpayers In general. stippvr ted
Board of- Supervisors t polxc�F �tipu`1.atcs that en ri.ti.or
proaessi:n irnental
k casts s}taII lie poii.cl .fo j J rom user Fcrvs, that i s,
the person receiving t�oncfit prom pro �] ect e nova
bear tile - costs. A stEtasirly� to sped Fe c1app,fo monmttsi
Pram the tcixpqy0xs in gcncrnl a.s not ata Z��G;
pr000dure urtclex eptallc 1":i.sco opal:
4 pr.esont poli Acrorclin l r
i s required to take tlI e not. cY. g S, t}�i sQ G F:i.ce
ire clue and y stops to co1l. ct lees; that
p aya U .`l, c
r t ,T3 u it ty c
processing erases .jI1c.uri eel
r
request amotrxlt: to � as �� re131:1It o,r y0ur
l"l;id, j .7.� fJecXictang the a.11i�.�unts of
,., and w1283� �:1rea�iy. p�„ri.cL letltirws 4 the'
c]�re.: a-F` ��10' 128'`)Oi).1�1 ,
A. eciuc st dor payment vO,s �,r+ �r;• .`
100
Son
Our ro ors]s shotiv rio r(~cor cl5o F pa r7�ent ,to You oil NO-v inher 14'$
this PaIance ;�xon)P tl.y Or adv!s;e us rt4 t�vhox, P-1 case remit
xpoc ocl. payloont, he
Hc1;,ght s,, j,"In'd Compa.aly.
p a g o
J5
if we do not; 11cal7' from )"pU CJ,1 this nI,' l vc (1), CI01)�b y 'loll` h.aW
�I_ plc Ll 11 w t � 1 t� re 'en-i-o'd i o th
C olltt l.y Co;l f vt"h :i on. on c y
folc np;pl-opr" 1t c loll ow-up 111cusu v a-s
'lY3at111� YOU fol' Your j)1-ollipt 'LittoJ)'t:
7
l 11}";a*- . 4 `+'` ,�KVcti krr*rt jtf "N, '"'�i,w..11. "',�.!er:GV�N. %A��IISCfaf,M�t4F'„k1..v'��.rte?+ a^;,�� ����+)(9i✓( . �.Ae
Is
f 4 pQyAjlll%� ll��hN
71.1
,r`�..- ur s ► LAI'l C hJitTF,1RlYI _,_...AI. 'H 'Ar�r".
e..
, v� r. 7
PLANNING GcgA'IA15SI0N
7COUNr'fGF:NTrRMOVE = ORQV11.6G,CAI, IFORNIA'?ti'J0
PFitlNF:; 53A-4601
Uec;cltil:lo'r, 1'A, 3.983
K,'
Accouit.ta.11 G
Bi(IIvo�,1, llc fights Land Co.
1). U. Box 4417
ch'.1co, CA 95927
TZr,i 13achvirll fielghts Acca1,111tin
Dear Ms. McCual.ar,
Than}, yore fr. yowl' 1 ot�t:or of November 16, 1.Q8� t'�;lr7,ch was
occ;ived by this of.fic(,, on Novemllcr 23, 1983.7
At yctur recluest, t'tc have made a lis' ilicy of the time POVIa':l,
Persotls 1ghc) worked on t:hc TI1 Oj ec;t, rheas }lotus and xalue
of pay and an Cxplanati.on Of what they did on the project.
The v�i,l.l. 1tg tivas sent to B:i.chvel:l: Hoights },anO, Company as
they a7~c l :tsted its the a.ppl::ic, atld arc E>1tt eo Aunty
;I.ror>ntc'nt�t1 Rov:i:etiv Cu'tclell.ncs indicate the ,lr��a fierier is
ves1)onsibIc for re:i,mburs-i.ng the, Cou'llity foie ritly cosh �'rh i c11
atia arca :GT thaii the in tial dcposi.r`. for the EIR
�7ncc�ral,y,
B, A. K I lt,Cl B tt,
11:i.raGto:C Planning
Stt11hon A, Sti'OOUIt'
8,A, 1b!t
1;11
73.TDWIaLL HEIGHTS
Accountability Of Time Spent on !?reject
`:l`hrol.t�It i is/4/8,2
S'l`(.vveStreeter
i}31F, 4oui-s at $16.22
Review dra. , ,
`t 1 :[R mod i,:Cxc �.t; ion i:o la.T,.R consult'
wi s
stiff of P1�7n'ni,rtg, Ill) , rmv, Health and
state � onc�.e s abo
agencies about, dy,-1, �' 111R
� t process CIr'af'�
LTR
to State Clea.x inghotlso; tlleet With E,1r'l
Nelson; discuss lvxth Dept. of .Fish incl. Gi1111C1;
2 SubdiVLsioll Committee 111cot1.ngs; correspondence
to Bidwell Fle-fights Land Cry, 2 field trtipl
(one witil I)IC'uming Comlll,issIon); staff fin.li.ngs;
Planning Conuni.ss,%on hear:l'r) s between '7/29Incl
11/4/82; alltendnlelxts to sta.f •f. findings rev j.ew
supplement on oxidation pmlds; process draft
BIR supplement to State Clearinghouse- discuss
praj ect lvit,il Calanty Counsel ; °prepare responses
to
COmlllents on :raft BIR.
Charlie Woods
16', hours at $16.22
Memorandum dated 9/17/82 - Review of PACs
Associated ated with Bidivell Heights (GP Consist
13il.T Turpi,ll
]4z hours at $17.02
Memorandum of 9/17/8`2. = Fiscal Analysis
11/6/82 thrnua}
Steve Streeter,
43 3/4 hours at $17. 02
EI7i and attr1Ci1711071ts to Bd: of SupexvisOrs; .13 C1
of Supervisors meetings and preparation with
followup; responses to Comments on env`ir onl cnt�l
concerns raised at heari,ogs; Panning 'Comm ss .on
meetings and preparation/'followup;; meet lvith
Earl Nc-lson about Specif].c Plan; review 1VESCO
study on wild:lifo/deer nligr,ation patterns
habitat; review
,Ion Anderson's ixytlroge!e.�oga.cal
report,
Chaxlie Woods
30 hours at 1:6.22
W $
M,etnorandurn o.0 2 � 2 83 l2,es orl se
// - p to General. Plan
Comments.
I` 4Tk itadabauglx
16 hours at $14.69
M+1100ranALI1 Of 1•/28/83Analysis of Tmplic,a.taons
betiveet the Chico urban Area Transportation:
Study and Statetoute 4 CorridorDevelopment.
j,
l3 CB4V1 1.,1„ 111"IGHTS - Accountability of Time Spent on Ri, o j ect
Pago
3/25/83 through 9/28/83
Steve Streator,
72)2 hours at $17.02
Review revised Specific Pl,qt1 o wc,,)r1� on Specific
Plan 113.; responses to SulaoIt I.;sor Tien Pul_ton's
comments Of 2/83; Planning Commission and Bd.
of Suporvisors meetings r lici 11-roparation/follow-
tip; listen to hearing tapos),, v0sponses to
comments raised- at hoaz':ings al lcl subid .t ed in
wr ta.ng; meet with Super'v'i,sor 1li.lda Wheeler'
meet with County Counsel $ l:)ol S:i.emsen; contact
wi tll property owners, local and. state agencies
about Specific Plan; iu1 ther rovi'ew of Specific
Plan and densities; rdyiew tentative motion
and resolution ;dor Specific Plan approval;
file Appendix H (Notice of Determ nation)