Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 13 OF 15r 10 Sal m dtreet Ch o 0aj.1fornia 95921 Butte County Pi.a.nn.in oomIli.ssion Director Butte County offices 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Afto • addressing the Board. of ,�upL,rvisors &Lture of t;,e soils in the foothill } cone xtI .for the fraail re on the Bidwell 14einhts .Pro e t"'ons at a receht Public hearing thoroughly i.nvesta,,!kxte time lout Sunday h .l7pa ��� t sldanh, to ;loge Of the Little Chico Creek Watexshed4 snail eros' on hazards I "rould `vary uch like to re P P sent ,co ie � of f'hc i MY 'written comments, but will not, recieur� photon 1 took;, xloz U with � la=ter in the week. x ana also un�b]e to Y the do "Opod.Photos until at tend today's aet a t•r y i'ro^I work this ideH y public he<irin to s ors the BidwellHeights A O ject. Once the photos h,�ve been deva�.a and and. l h,let�d .,, qT wo';ld .lime t t a •titr?a'p �trr the �'�'eseiat �a7rd� h°` t �.E:,:e`7� ra'.av�, th�.:�tQntc�:`edents, .Luta 41°��. k ubl is record. I Nape these wish e may be aco,ommoda,ted l plan to .hrxve Or Submission b I MY materials y ondr�y of next week, ready Tha.nkyou for your %ttention to this matter Richard H. itoth 703 Salem street Chico, California 95926 Z inter-® past e1. � dl�� emorandu�o� Toe 1;:'t` ye rc� er, pial tLixig Director FROM; yrr vanbar`L , Director Of Brjvironmental Health su��ecr 13 ,.we12 I�e_i.g�'�`te Specific �1ar on7F-; May 1983 Page Two Re; Bidwell heights May 21, 1983 3, DoF.s CFQA require the Count, -Y to base its deca.sjoq on these; and all, other points, on su? st~antial e,xlaen.ce in the record, including facts and expert opinions? ev3. rsely, is s�u.bs tantial evidence in the record i ndtcates that thely may be sigixif, ant environmental , l impacts, is the oi.inty legally able to . gna:re this evidence � 1,d to base its decision an contrary personal opinions o' membersrted of the Board of Supervisors, when such, opi��nions are no(*. t;tappcirt by subs tantis.1 evidence in the -record? 1� Is the County legally responsible for Provi- ding any level of police and fire protection within the boundaries of the proposed subdivision? In other words, if the developers opex s and/or homeowners association are: un�oa.l.ling or unable to provide on --site police and file Protection, is the County responsible for providing it in an emergency sit-- i uataon 5. Is there a present binding, enforcable legal mechanism established in Butte County, applicable to this project which will guarantee that thedeveloper,-,and the buyers of lots in this subdivision will provide for or fully compensate the County to provide for an adequate bevel of / the following exr,� ce-s (a) On-site police ptotectiOn? (b) Off-site police protecti o�1 necessitated by increased traffic and cum,.lat.ive growth? (c) on-site :Ease protection? (d,) Off-site fire protection necessitated by traffic, increased numbers of people in. the area ct mul at:ivE: growth and/or fire spreading beyond the project boundaries? (e) ijew school facil i.ties , school transportation, and other costs of public schools' (£) Widening,of H ghwa,y "Z aiul East and Ninth S°trerYcts in Chaco to accommodate cumulatively increased' traffic'? Page Four Rel Bidwell heights .May 21., 1,983 (e) The location of solid and liquid waste dispo- sal facilities, (f) Regulations establishing Height, bulk and set -back limits for such buildings and facia- lities, and location of st,ich area, (g) The location of streets and reads, their names or numbers, (h) Tentative proposed widths of roads and streets with: reference to prospective standards for their construction and maintenance, (i) Detailed standards for populati.o'n and bu.i ing density, including lot size and permi$,- sible types of construction, (a) Details of sewage disposal, (k) Details of storm 'Water drainage, (l) Det -ailed standards for conservation of under- ground and surface waters. creeks and streams„ (m) Detailed standards for conservation of fish and 'wild life resources, (n) Detailed standards for prevention and control of-ol.lutions of streams, creeks and other waters, (o) Detailed standards for control and correction of soil erosion caused by subdivision roads or any other sources (p) Detailed standards for protection of water- shedareas, Detailed stat dards for' i.mpl.emen,taton of, the County' open space element, (r) `. Any other -mea I surl4sito insure the execution of the policies of the County general plan? 10o, To the extent that the proposed specific; 1,lan includes any of< the. required cletail,ed regulations, etc. , what �,s .our on�.nion. as to the aide ua.c of dei<ail s " y q y , tandards , To Gene Gran .. Dace 7'/5 Fru --� CWSC t Streete t. C p1 o arzn ing .....� f va1 .. /syfre R� eessnry action R~ ....,..P •Pre XO a reply $� Woil Heigh+s $2- p °'mens Please 6 2 •....Y}+Y�OtP. 'Ind return from'view Barry Meattex •••••11y`ote and File years tem .....,Investi at Anderso ter, from. Jo71 _ x e n pales ...,..Siggature z Ar gyp- end ries. ) 2Z- ,.....Conter vo t@ :3ttaC}le 4"".As re goard lea e YOU at quested 12 ri dthe :X,..',or infOrmatio. 3. P1 at 1 «3p on .�txy n as P.m:. ...,.^e� telephone Written Sub?n-t an `onve,rs,atAoe s 19comments, y jLay 14 �s. 6UrrE CDUNry TO Jerry rensch/Jack Linn, Dept. ;FFG O F P Lanning RATE TIME JPHONE 5/1/83 0 Telephoned "— Pledee coil �. Wes In (� Returned Call Will Call Again � wants to See Ya„ fnlofmation Note and Reply VVComnmont by 6,/700&mule Signature investigate 171 Refuen APP+pvat © Contact Me File Forwarded Per aectuest MESSAGE Mdwell 'Heights S01 081102702. Please review the attached letters from; jVFS'CO dated Jan. 31F�_ March 4, 1083 (conies T)reviousl 'sent March, —IL 83 �..Are your f ndinp ih,ytour letter of March 14 101 different as a result of 'the WESCO y s � 1 Atte rsTp�� . { 11,1014011 11bights f2 APPENDIX S Last of Persons Commenting on the Draft E.IR July 29, 1982 Planning Commission ` Dein Hays, it, hurl Nelson - August 5 ,, 1982'_ Planning Commission Alan Burchett Kelly Meagher' Earl Nelson Roger Cole September 1, 19;82 Subdivision Co`rnmittee Dan Hays, Jr Earl Nelson September 15 , 1982 Subdivision Committee Dan Hays, Jr. Earl Nelson September 23, 1982 Planning Commission Dan- Hays , Jr. Jim ,Snowden Earl Nelson October 7, 1982 Planning Commission Jim Snowden Tom Alden Dan Hays, Jr Roger Cole Earl Nelson Kelly Meagher Oct ober;28,.;,'1982 P1ann�ng Commission �._ Earl NOI on Bill Collins Kelly Moogher Dan I°lays; Jr.. a H rr y Cozad.. Noy.ember 4,.1982 Planning Goinmission Bidwell Heights �2 December 14, 1982 Board of Supervisors Earl Nelson Kelly Meagher Jim Snowden John Luvaas Ron Imhoff Don Hummer Richard Redmon December 21, 1982 Board of Supervisors Ellen Sanders Bill Burch Ear! Nelson Art Gilman Kelly Meagher Roger Cole Dave Lantis John Luvaas January 11.,_ 1983 Board of Supervisors, Kathy Ivey Earl Nelson _ Ellen Sanders Roger Cole Kelly Meagher John Luvaas Harry Cozad February 8, 1983 Board of Supervisors Earl Nelson Gary Simmons Flo Opatrny Roger Cole . Pat Burke Eva Incando Niargaret Speer Bill Collins . - Shelton Enochs John Luvaas Kelly Meagher Mary Ann Houx Ellen Sanders • March 3, 1983. Planning Commission Earl Nelson Roger Cole Kelly MeagherE11en Sari ders John Luvaas- March 17, 1983 P1anifin Commission_ r: Earl Nelson Ke11y Meagher Roger Cole' . N�arch 24, 1,091 ...,Planning .c0twission Kelly Meagher o,,.�,._..� ,,.';,itis t ,r;w'�� Board of Supervisors Bidwell: Heig} Specific Plan Page 3 ®®_ May 5, 1983 Mention is made that large scale removal of chaparral, Vogot'ation can promote the growth of poison oak. We would recoitimotld that herbicide application not be utilized as a method of1)0'*son oak control. The suggested alternative would be to romovo mid burn the poison oak where it occurs in areas adjacent to dwc)jing units. The impact of vegetation removal and.corgidors on the. imigrating deer herd is discussed in the WES'CO report, lectors from the Department of Fish and Game and staff responses. 'Phare is a definite relation between the number of dwelling; units and im- provements proposed ,and the magnitude of the habi,`tat loss for migratory deer and other wildlife. As indicated ca`rlier, staff continues to support a reduction of density to mitigate the 'im- pact to migratory wildlife., The cumulative impacts of all the proposed projects in this area are noted as being more important than site specific impacts. We cannot comment fully at this time as to what changes, in the vegetation and ecology of Doe Mill Ridge and Little Chico Creek Canyon, will accompany several "urban developments" in this area. The Forest. Ranch-Cohasset study will address this subject. Their report is due by August 1983. The findings and recommendations of that study will have a bearing on this project as spelled out in policy 4.3 of the Specific Plan, Comments are made regarding the new vegetation that would be. introduced to the natural habitat occurring on the property. We are not aware of the types of vegetation that would be used or whether this vegetation would include obnoxious introduced species that might outcompet'e native vegetation. A recommendation that will be included as a proposed mitigation measure is the following: "Retain resident vegetation except in the areas 01 physical-,development as ,shown on the :open, space map' and rep'1arit any,exposed soil surfaces with plant species suitable to the native habitat. Plant species for revegetation purposes should be of the. drought-resistant variety.'"' The serious impact of fire suppression has been addressed in Supplements to `the original draft EIR. Refer to memorandum of February 2 1983 regarding the General Plan comments for the i�idwell Heights project (Appendix Q) and the first page of Appendix N regarding the fine hazard; -and appropriate means of j fire prevention and fire protection. SAS . lkt U »» �... LAND GDF NATURAL WC,./�1'tH AND BEAUTY —_ OFFICE OP� Tile AWDIT011•CQNTRoi.LER County Administration t3tiddln(1 orovftLe, CaIII0111la7 t75JG5-3 p3 (916) 534,A07 March 17, 1983' Buf•fe 0a, Planning COMM. Memorandum � Director C1. �; T0; M1 . C Bettye Kircher, Planning `'"� FROM: James L, Johansen, Auditor -Controller OroY llo, C alltornha SUBJECT: Fiscal impact Analysis for Bidwell heights Land Project This is in response to your request that we review' trey fisewCwasilpimitedntoya15 prepared for the Bidwell Heights :Land Project. Our h as our time and workload do not permit a Very cursory analysis, inasmuc detailed examination. There ,4ere two areas which caused us some concern in the fiscal countywide;1andctwot,athetsi one, the designation of revenue as unincorporated or calculation of county share of sales tax. The division of revenues between unincorporated venUesUinIthe ecountyrbudget to Vto been made on the basis of allocaton of those reversthe countywide or unincorporatedonly servicescountyIorethehunincorporated areanonly. themselves were derived from the whole For example, the miscellaneous taxes other than sales or ro ert, category 1 des 336,63 of special' district augmentation m0nhen�intactach rtheyrare to U taxes, as unincorporated only revenue, W from property ' cOuntywilde derived on a countywide basiersThe t to effect Of trattributable o the eproject- ted only is to ov •- stales unincorpora d use tax computation causes us concern in two areas. First, The sales an -and use tax is divided between unincorporated ourttcobudgento countywidedorn the allocation of that revenue source in the c y unincorporated only services. However, in this case,.. the sales tax? which is b:' county government is collected entirely wlendorsthin hannpaidrporthed .:receivedY area. However, while sales taxes are, collected from v aid by entities within whose boundaries they7anesuondostheiryshopping;are mthusy we consumers who obviously cross entity believe that the sales tax calcu1anBoarddofEqube alization data wfor 'fiscal year A calculation we have done Using State 1981-82 indicates that the per capita sales taKeravenuehose sales taxes�amoo t,04 to County was $51.80, and that Butte County.s shat 35.5% of the total. Thus, to determine 'Butte County's share of'sales tax b ari' new development (population), i+ would be appropriate to mu1tiplY generated y ny ------ C r ....... res +.saw azsr..._. .• .Y.+ _F 3 du SR -€2 4 {� /+ Fft2. PiC 0, I -A ot {i • a E j - =< e It f Odu 30th,hl, z GXIs 23du r; `�'� �� 30du p RL 3 PROJECT ESA? a 30 du malas,.•, �� 25 tfu' - `c f j P"C S<tYt:c L..vYY s •d Z -+r<. - � : '" - - - - 'a��2 4i9 CGS�T� a it p � '-` i c rat '.`• x alNc6 f.L{ F' �� ..r L 1 . Fn.c;fnS7{ tfECF... "Ch ] G h tV IcrslR ?-F-1L>a rzs.,_ �i � �4t��•. 1R 1 :F b i<w ita d Rfl t- - _ rw bad., i a ..s P1C fti...& 6 i • b 6• � - - f f Y<T < Sdu ;V !'!hila. {iw.�l p..h.14 .. <.•.. � - _ C s.. t;', FILE Iva. 2 PLAPI ►` E R I IN G DATE— = 3 1"O-. .�..� 8G.62; ne'i ,Siernsen' M---- .M tO.Ve Streeter' - -. OF P a.nnxn . _. DATE TIME ��. PHONE relephar,od Q Returned Coll Please call Wfu Call A rt Was In q CommahfRapl 9pin SYants tp Note and C Investivoia Q l?a'route Y S Return 1pnptute �CottiattMeAPprovai U Pile Per +de MASSAGE ` Hei its -p?ecific an _o r Piciwell and version �.,. ) Reva it�ris are, re-flected in 4/].3/x Plannan Comm�ss: minutes sent to, Yau 1st Week, be at Vour at arida � `iq s..ri, en ray ` Y, 27 to dis cuss Byitem. _�-liss �, above BIDWELL HEIGHTS SPECIFIC PLAN for a total of 988 acres. Proposed zo.ning in 4g SR. — cl4icit2 (Suburban Residential, two—acre minimum parcels), SR.') (Suburban Residential, three—acre minimum parcels), SR -5 (Suburban Residential, five—acre . minimum parcels), SR -1q Residential, ten—acre minimum parcels), PA—C (Pl.AA14ad Arean Q (Public, Q) Cluster), P— ' uasi—Publicand N—C (Neigh1g)'Ilcod Com— mercial) as shown on the project map (Figure 3 in the I,;CII), Upon full buildout, an estimated 860 people will occupy Ullu project site (2.61 per residence based on 1980 census data COV TV.act 16):. Individual owners within the project art),t may sell homesites; finished residences or acreage :.attittible for development to predetermined densities as approved in this specific plan. Improved access, overhead elects c�tt and cable 'TV, and underground domestic water seGw clewho e` ultimately be provided throughout the project area. The individual homesites will be landscaped and maintained by the property owner except where clustering maintenance arrangement,. permits el Except for planned landscaping, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) will restrict grading and removal of native vegetation on building sites to a,ny extent greater than that necessary to accommodate the dwelling, incidental accessory structures, driveways and the firebreak a:rourd' structures required by County Fire Standards unless replaced by native plant landscaping. Parking for each building site will be provided to meet County requirements of two spaces per dwelling unit. No street lights are proposed. The, proe�'t j will be developed and built over the next ten Ca ;fifteen years at a rate commensurate with market absorption of newly—created dwelling units. If we assume 80 percent of the parcels will. have homes in 15 years':; a straight line projection would indicate an average of 17.6 homes will be built each year (5 years 88 homes, 10 years =,176 homes). PROTECT SPECIFICS LAND USE Design ,Ob�ective The objective of the Bidwell Heights Lan rud Project is to establish rural residential homesites which enable people to enjoy country living in har'm6ny; with the characteristics- and constraints of the natural setting To this end, develo. is proposed only in the more 1eve1 areas where slopes pmentare 'less than 30 percent. Densities have been set to, achieve a reasonable` balance 'betwe'en anticipated adverse environmental impact -s and the' development capabilities of the site. Compatibility with Nborin Parcels While the Bidwell Heights project area is relatively leve]., it is physically isolated to some extent front the sur.`roundl;�g properties by the steep canyon Ovalis df Little Chico Creek :a 0d Butte Creek Canyons. Where interfacing doves occur,, building sites will be a sufficient distance from the property line to prevent conflict with adjacent livestock grazing. Interfacing occurs along project boundaries in the southwest and northernmost portions of the Bidwell Heights project, Applicability of General Plan The project area falls within the Agricultural Residential land use category. The Agricultural Residential, policies therefore apply to the project. The Gond;itionol zoning and development crita is which apply to the entire project are the following: 14 Compatibility with neighboring agricultural, activities. 2. Evidence of adequate water supply and sewage disposal capability. 3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities. 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area. 5 Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools (P. 49). There is evidence .of water supply with a mutual water system Already in existence. Fire protection facilities are being provided, including fire fighting equipment:. Access exists on an R8-7 standard road, and an area for commercial services (when demand is sufficient to warrant construction) has been designated. Satisfaction of the above criteria can be verified and/or guaranteed at the subdivision map approval stage, through application and enforcement of appropriate conditions of "o;ject approval. FACILITIES/SgRVIdEs Water , A pressurized community water system will provide potable water to each dwelling site and each cluster: area in the project. The completed system will be owned, operated and maintained by Buzz Tail 'Water' Works Mutual Water Company, which currently, serves !Sierra Foothills Subdivision Units 1 and Z. The system will be: expanded as, needed to sere other developing ,portions of the project area.' The ;rater system will consist of we11,8 storage tanks, mains and service laterals, and a will be designed and constructed in aeco e.ance with California Safe Drinking Water Act, Laws and Standards -relating to ;domestic 'water supply, 'sections 4010 through 4037, and the California Domestic Water Quality and 'Monitoring Regulations . 3; MMM M dab •' d* will be reviewed and approved by ;the Butte County Health Department as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map review process. When the system expands to serve 100 residences, responsibility for review, approval and enforcement of standards will pass to the ;State Health, Department, Water Sanitation Section. This system will include the existing wells on site wl,tclt provide water meeting all standards for potable water supply-. Additional wells will be drilled as needed. (For additional details on well capacities and specifications, refer to "Hydrogeological the Reconnaissance" of 9 February 1`983 by Jon Anderson, P.E. The Chico office of the Butte County Health Department maintains complete records pertaining to the water system.) Sewage Disposal The project's sewage disposal will consist of collection and treatment in individual septic tanks on lots and in community sePrie systems in cluster areas. Septic systems will be located in Butte County Health Department approved areas, designated in the project map as "Septic Leachfield Areas". Feasibility of Leacbfields for septic effluent disposal: has been generally demonstrated through preliminary soils excavations by project applicants which were reviewed by representatives 'Of the Butte County Health Department (J. Panatoni, L. VanElart) in and the "Hydrogeological Rec;onnaissanceit engineers report dated 9 February 1983 by Jon Anderson, P.E. Site-specific percolation tests were 'completed for theportions of the project site already subdivided: Additional soil tests may be necessary at the time additional subdivision maps Ate filed. ApprovIl by the County Health Department of leachf`iel.d design will occur it connection with the issuance of Buildi g Permits: The sewage disposal system: o will be designed in accordance with the waste discharge requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. will be reviewed and approved by Ghe Butte County Health Department as part of the Tentative Subdivision Map process, and will be'subject to continuous monitoring and correr' by the Butte County Health Department under provis.J1113 of a Sewage Maintenance District to insure :prbinp' arn: effective maiinGenance: Fire Protec ion Development plans will be formulated to meet the, requitements of the County Fire Warden. The system wi k] 4 IMM G Piarini• np Commi'ssa.on` Fh,,, S'tev.d Streeter, Pl?rrning f r r Floari cgs on March 3, 198.7 Nut T; 2/28/83 PA��' 82 2 rtti , Ilcase, Inc. ,, A cont ,t1uczrtcP of 2 wee'ks is request 'd 0r ;Cor the following rcsOns : /18/33. 1. Ile ncsd to republish tor 26 he JanuaL 5 } C,i 1 X83 meet ngdN ased 4t Cc�f2 loti; ti ere. The "legal notice dor t Y were 7 other lots on the original, plan one shown, as "'lot a part- orae for ag-rictiltural use. 2, The fiscal analysis has been :Eorya,rrded to you, i�ttt it is not completely finalized. Refer to the 2/24/8;7 letter a l� has beer the /asked83 mtoarevie 1.1 B=ill .'Turpin ,Tim "ohar�sen County F, > the -fiscal am l)-si;s; his report is expected after March 3 but prior to March 17 Copies of the revised PA -C have been se��t .no new��rsxzvisedlocal ai.dS�onses agnc es Ivith a request that they submit � _Y by March 14. t Ravenwood PAC 82..1 1. continuance til march 17 or April. 7 i.s recommended to alloW time for t} -ie pity Of Chicu to evaluate the rovi.secl PA -C plan and submit their s title are particularly concerned that the option of written comment �� sever system is thoroughly pursued. connecting to the city sanitary [ C the costs jor such a sewer service conncc'tion are viable in cOUI p rison to tlic proposed oxidat oal/txeatrftont Pond sy34nm dv�ntage�t'orY sewer alternative is etadoxsen�as be�n52i�acras�+��pla`nned For ox:i,dation/ the applicant trotticl b b treatment pons, for residreLil use at a density of up to 1 dwelling treatment t per acre` ) " zoning for the land. north of Sy�:amo re Crc;ek) , 'fiscal analy5i�s a.5 due to���e�tstplfnxeadcquac'y� ��17xaary ?3 and biaxc� r 3 providivg little time to re. Bj,dwell heights 82-62 continuance to Ma_pc 1.7' is ��ec:uMMendodl oil the xezone roferral Cxa�n ' e''13oard . ,de,c"s� oz� :is needed 1�v that date ort the neva sed xezos�e, s ecd`aca 'the SR -S aird`1() zoning in t}�o nartlierl'y area and the p wildlife corer I dors . 2 , yet by the Rev,i.sions to the Spec:i-Cic Plan have not hetr� sutaxn�tted � _ . .�ummnrntn�nr PaI,I:1.Nels2tidtAss2ciA(t; Ctl+ ty, Talehlionc Vail street: ('ulErornia (9161 Suite 959;6 893,0491 C 111)(1 Use Plaitting I nwtrantuental Studies I'prnili Assizince i �ttsiCillity Studies �uf fn Co. Planning Comm. JUL June 30, 1982 Qravilly, C til�rrt Mr. Stephen Streeter Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Dirve Oroville, California 9596 Re Bidwell. Heights Land Project - 82-62 Log No. 82-.03•-02-02 Dear Steve:' Enclosed are responses Draft ETR are to comments e a comprehensive fiscal received on the Bidwell Heights - impact analysis. Z hope this is helpful toward project there are questions. Thank For review. Please let 'me know if you coopb'ration on this project; your continuing assistance and Sincerely, Carl 0. Nelson SDN/kj