HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 8 OF 15I
systems. Two other projects, Isom-Hall and Qdwel.:l, Heights,
are stili, A the design stage. The Isom-Hall land project
propose, 110--125 hots With access to Highway 432 via Santos
Way and presumably will also hive community wator and scWtn
r
ai •ee•..b.� •'
.. IY
1
1 f 1 it •
I � TV
` I a 1„:
.A�'� I � i � • ., ,J ' rv�a Hlws. � ,'
Oft k
1�
, ; rl PROJECT SITEV. V
a
14
V �
,t
r Pourleentgllu N t; J Cmf ,
15 41tsr pllttttnhdw ,p
4 . C 6.N 1 ` 1 •t.. r r+. r; r , r i �'�.:: - '
I J-• i " r ,
R • ; ; y lgtlt t.'
t 14 t I b r
a t NICNOLS117
•{ I '6H 1770 j r 2 «r 26
30
� �.. i �l r � 1 ! � 1.. t� t r f � \ i YK"�.•t,; �Y,1i, 7.' ' ,.
l M^
- -- � •� �,C. J �»�:.. •1r1 .�p{��c. +�E11t11�i'n l Giro ,1 r {��,yjsYR I .
. y+ r) , 'c..y ,`•u1Jlt Y, J 1 .�V`��y (Srq} I " 11 i7? 1
•1
n:F' 1
. � .?enmik:N +F.;� 1 ! .�•�� J 31r „«1 e I ��2 ' 1, l I r, .. �'� . `+�, ! + • � r
° _ ...a,+,. .35✓.�srt � 9>:i { ' .'° I {L� •` iP#� ,,�� i tivW � r• t ' ,_
3d �➢ '� ))�'�.. +, `•'� «+• j '�� 4t{^. +, I 1� • • ..�i ~ I �...���iii"'� ," �a' , r. i , �• '. +` 1 r(� - r �-..
j !CY 1 'r. • I I A p � a R :
ai i+ � � � 1�'� 1 .�.: I i�� " �. 1�' �wmti•1� .-...W{ S�k�. ,�•
q$�'Y11 lox
,a:: •+ .,�'4" tts,, ktlM' 1 t P J • _ .f{r ,r' 1 ' I„ jf �. ; l '
1 ,� , �"�;, { � 1 , r �.y X11 y.�� 1 � • 1 �' , 1 „a
1°
'ttJ•';;J ' do �r �� I .t. 1
ire
N..w
1 �1�Y�r �• K,
-NT'
7' `:J `"r,Tt
� •
�, P'RoJE
ECT �,R
1fY Y �. r �r i b wknyl 1•Y�q 1.+.` ye!
1
J . vats. J
1177 ` �#, a �^„�rl " �T� .• _,��
V 1 1t 4 `N � 13 Y � •° '1
�," ° I� ? 'r �"`� °.�•_ �i�ne x t t �`. J � „✓vlli�illllll963e!
fiMJ 4Pn�d 1 1 '.-t V'�'.,.'?'��`f�°pta• r:3'' Y� •1�,1': M{LES.
•
r18�
4
z }r 1
1 •( �td+ hnr 4 <
cms
1.1 1 ji 1 Lr..rc4u1 (1 r r
as l, . ISM
ea,• 3�1 i`• r •' *• , 1 +t .
Al , '�. r✓ r MSI, ,. ,..
rhy ; a � ,�!�� ''n• (-r• .Ile 1� JI
,PnU[Uro1r114r Hilo J ,. a ` « ;t`"1 ✓ `.
i }' , • 1 it + ! ai.1 �� � t i t cn r S
ty or
.tkt A '� i G •.,n frier , { . •" , � � , � •tl
104 1t➢p iI ' I �+ r 241
3Q' a 1
.tV? i..-A. i+•ai 1^-V � ' ?i 1 {4 f , y,. + r ! J, \�, «J i
.5 t! • ; .1 i l '• •• e 1 (,. i ' ,(fin . 1 f+iJ'. ,
"i.;,e, : }' ' �`+^ ` t,).. �, iJ..r ,�. 1+ ��t..l- Ile�itG•+Y it j _ ��'" _ . / ,tia ,, ,
.h mi .r - , .•:may 'r ls.al ! ' t yc� f r .b�
ie
i
. iii j •' � `
;jil.
''1++",J•' �,�«.. ;'`,. i 3144.•??S, !Ii +. •�Cl r+ i 1 _ � 'r�: / {,r1 ,41b •�J.. p�l � } „e � t
"wx' "fir e'/ 7hT � +e y +r, , +r � 1 �'` Y� � � �. � t.. � + i + � V� + r ` s r ' •
r �
r' 1 .L. , • 4 •_�. .«-�ii e•�_.•..• ok
+� a y„ .i-. �. �:.. � •• �•�,_ � µ� r+ i I+moi ., `�: • �T r
.,�, l�ll� 1I � , ��` i. `_ '(::_ ' .�., r •a.-r {;" ,i 1! ..I 1 r ; e'L. ` � I 'l i, + ' 1 ,. y i•
:P
rC, lo. �t�+ 1 r•�.1 K 7 t !+" \+ , 4 r
FIGURE 5
Fj
L,® �r �TVCC
i" �Vi �r�q
>♦ 7 J Yh' r i J R srrq 'P pq f+• 1 i ' �(�' �• //•�pp p+ pp � �f1
"! P' Ip�Jl j i./ H
tss:y� .t +I fi ,111 ' «.. rt».�.tl. ...: '1:+... � • , - ., ii
Fr � ; c � r j�x„u�rev+•w
r..
'V "r
r t ji+" li -.rte
r , 23;
Mawl
Appendix
Inter -Departmental Memorandum
'to: Stephen A. Streeter, Senior Planner
F.aaM: }lark Radab l,upit, Senior Planner
sueJECT: Analysis of ImPlicati,ons Betweeji the C}rico i:Jrba , /lresporta�
tion Study (CATS) and State Route 32 Corridor Development
bATM January28, 1983
Attached is an Analysis of Implications Between t1ho Chico Urban,
Area Transportation Study (CATS) and State itoUtr. 32 Corridor
Development. This memorandum is in response to
oiir' request
for i ti't regarding transportation; and circulation planningconcerns that are posed between the Bidwell lleip,�it,s project
on Doe Mill Ridge (SCC #31102702) and the CATS, Which was
released by the City of Chico during late l�Ioveml.c;)°� 10112,_
The CATS is clearly a critical planning document 'Ind will be
a component to the Department's current compr0}1e]tsivo revision
of the Transportation Element to tie General Plan.
Tile attached analysis shoiirs that the issues linking the CATS
and proposed developments along the Rt. 32 corridor - Doe ,i; 11,
Ridge area, involve long-range and cumulative circulation
impacts. These cumulative impacts will have the followi
effects•` ng
1. Them will be near-term impacts ort the .CATS traffic demand
and, financing requirements forecast w1lic}1 could negatively=
affect the study's financing pin�t,
2. Substantial traffic gr'otvth outside of the CATS will. .affect
Chico area voad capacities and create a financing inequity
problembetween the CATS plannill�r area and tllo;se develop-
ments outside the area,, but whic,}i impact it:
3. SR 32 corridor groirth in Count) jurisdictio1l' could requiregreater capacity' expansion than forecasted bj= the CATS.
Finally, .na.Y
A, background , ,- is also intended tdocurtetit for preparing o 11secas
tileupcoming revised
Transportation L'lenteTlt.
MR Sb
Attachment
cc 13111 Chbf:f: PiYblic 1�ari s
Tort Lando, City 0f Chic41 Planning i)ept,
a Steve Streeter
Page 2
February Z, 1983
with the mechanism(s) to achieve these policies/1,70gulations . In
addition, regulations should be adopted by orcl:i.nance which supple -
subject
meat the applicable provision of the County code affecting the
property. These conditions need to be incorporated into
the Specific Plan itself and not simply
a PA -G. attached 3s conditions to
The defects described. above could be corrected by re -drafting the
Specific Plan and incorporating these conditions as Policies and/or
regulations into the Plan itself. As a result, these responses
are predicated to the extent feasible on an app7+opriate revision
of the Specific Plan to accomplish tris necessati^* tr.anerevision.
Comment: Comments on conflicts with the policies of the Safety
E-lement, fire hazards that do not take into considera�-
P uggested by � applicant and Commission conditions.
B Resiaonse : The original, general plan evaluation was based on the
draft Specific Plan which contained the references to the developer's
Proposals (ie. the purchase of a fire truck, reservation of a
fire station site and promotion of a volunteer :Ease ,
etc:). It did not specifically reflect conditdepartment
ions 9
County Fixe Department requirements), 10 (emergency acces's)Bande
16 (widen bridge to 26 feet and insfiall, guardrail. on bridge)
While these conditions may assist in mitigating the potential
fire related impacts of the project, the fact remains that theproject site is identified as a high fire hazard area surrounded
by high to extreme conditions. Thus hazards, about fire must
necessarily extend to the entire area
fishes 'the follown The Safety Element estab
g policies; (a summary)
1. fire protection, - a consideration
emphasis in high and extreme hazard,areas�y with a particular'
Because of the fare hazard present in this area (chaparral
vegetation with high Propensity to }burn an
te
undeveloped location, fire hazards are an obviol�srandim or
cans ix}dation The question remains as to whether the Plan tont
and conditions constitute adequate "tonsiderati,on''. This
could best be determined by examining the other more specific
policies of the Safety Element.
Z. encourage adequate fire .protection in all areas of.
growth Iinplementation - guiulation
de growth fio arees wthoadequate
protection.
Taken together, the policy seems to suggest that development
should be encouraged where existing protection is currentl`;
provided. The DIR and comments of the Fire Department also
suggest that the fire protection of the pxoject area is
Minimal at best, Whether the volunteer facility, e visioned'
p q p
remains unclear. Ua'te fire rotecfiion
�n the S ecific Plan constitutes ode'
Steve Streeter
Page
February 2, 1983
for
G. determine the level of water -Supplies fires},re�ection��e
protection - lmpl.ementatlOn
standards for new development:
The Specific Plan does not. establish, the detrra.ls and standards
(number of wells, storage facilities, di.sel it tatess system]
for the normal water supply" Tequirements much less for fire
prote<ctionneeds . Instead, -the Specific Pla37 defers water
out
suppler considerations to state and local codes wit}1nd
aTds
so sta
dent�f ring eh;E specific means
ca acitynOftr}tl 0 existing wells,
Although -the. EJR d.iscu se p
storage c ipaG t?r and total nee Cnle
ds willstuTe bet11101 �eTile 1Specific
fads to indicate how the
Plan relies on the Fire Department's Gonl�ti.c ass to prov •de
any dE�tai'.s on water supply delivery for. •fia,r(° protection
(three hydrant Q foo -t spacing at lo�cati,olls approved by
h , 80
the department) The Spt�cif.a.c Plan should 7��rt7vide Mline size,
ore
on water
supplies
dtflows,`
before ispolicy isadequa elyadressed.
pressure, etc.
eome
;T , ensure road access for new 'devint aevclo7�ustandardsifor
protection purposes implementation
emergency vehicles; require multiple access where feasible.
conditions and mitigation measures
The Specific Plan, with the toy Ears to moot the multiple
as proposed by the Comm�.ssion, app
access Provision above. y upoo�rth1e'iexpertciseuate for fire
and judgement
protection depends largely
of the Bzt�te County Fire Department . The specification Of
devOlopntent standards for these circulation'alterriatall would
1�E more useful in the evaluation of. their adequacy, all
weather; ytaar�round traversable means many things to many
people
lo. regulate; the Ilse of building materials in areas of ha gheT
than average fir e hazard
Neither' the'Specific Plan nor ,the Commission conditions or
mitigation measures address tho use of nonflammable building
materials (i.e. shake shingles, etc.)`. `hese r.estxictiOns
are addressed by the Butte County ,Fire Department in the
department15 conditions.
2,A. Comment,,. Suggests that the conditions will. address the soil
erosion problems incl thereby meet tl7,e .appropriate a`eneral Plan
policies. -
B }ZEspa—rise: The conditions and mitigation measures incbrparat'ed
n o •tile project which would; when implemented; probably redUGE
fife soil erosio,ti 'potential and "thus bo consistent faith policies
ofthe Safety a;rLd Open Space. Element addressing. this probletii.
Steve Streeter
Page 5 l9$3
February 2 ,
omments that concern with, fault lineaments are addressed
5.I1.
tyn�... G dition 22.
ears to satisfy the pof ac'iCs of the
}2esponse: This condition app ,Ly -p came
The. comment regarding lincaratc��.}-s
Sci�'" smc 5.afety Element. and
be cause the impact report identified t}ef1�cccln:� Impact
about
proposed mitigation measures that were not r
Specific Plan document.
in the Open Space Element
4,A.
Comment Comments that "need" as used
Com---- projects which impact wildlife
market demand; that other p J act to
thati, imp
_xelates to
have been approved in the Forest Ranch area and
wildlife is a matter of conjecture.
B.
Both the Open Space .and Land Use Elements establish
Responsesthe en Space 'Element,
is
need. This'
Fol____ -ivies based on need• focuses on areas
'the
the policy ,specifically space areas, particularly
because the development of open sp watershed,
protection, habitat,
with other values (i.e. resource
significant individual aod or cumulativebl impacts -
it
. involves
etc.) of
In such situations, an assessment of th
ial to an
project.
xoval of the project. Thies
derive from the project 1 thsthetapp f the ment
''trade associated w involved in the sbe
offs" that
is essentially the same principle as
in CEQA. This need be-
of overriding consideration$ contained
in. this determination.
comes acritical element
beyond that wh ch can
An excessive number of rural parcels well,
conflicts with one of the basic planning
be realistically used ances
objectives -" orderly developmeso to sdcaner sconcentratettheir efforts
objectives
the public or private 'see 15
to provide adequateeneae5candes areduceSathe �level5 Of
sufficiently
in considerable inefficiencies
as well as future home
results
services enjoyed, b}'.existing residents to provide
braldservicesOccurs
supportinglrevenues
owners,, (One example is when
capital facilities and general since these
Tn addition,
the of scale.)
resulting in a diseconomy irretire=sible, the
Purposes mi
ial
decisions are for all practrcal
approval of an excessive amount of rr�hathe�att�n� ant serviceant
��
the public to future development
impacts) and forecloses land use choices which
environmental
might be desirable at the time.
en space areas to develo meat n ustified
Th p of j
conversion of op A Los Angeles Superior Court
The, uestsons.
by need can raise legal over and above what
in 1975 held that an eh�$basfssive aofuprojections and/ox foci`
case
was reasonably expected on en Spa
and intent a the Op
casts; coni1ai.cted Idth the purpose
the Court held:
Lands Act. Sp ecifially
7) The Open Space Lands Act `requires that a locaen
program governing P
go�rernment's regulatory
be consistent with the open, spaceeleinent
space
Steve Stxceter
Page 7
February 2 1983
Again the policy of linking decis:iolis on Tura7. ycsi:dcAll t rel develop-
meat to "need" is intended to determine the traclo o rr involved in
the conversion of open space lands; a policy con$ i ST011t' with the
purpose and intent of the Open Space Lands Act W111ch requires each
local 'agency to adopt an open space element, act°i,ot7 program and
local
p ,.
Open x011 5 ace Zoning.
S.A. Comment, Disputes the staff, description
appy}ovod�toll the,tcI as adjoining
noting that other development v
properties and surrounding area;
S. Res onset Major development in the Doe Mill 12tct�,.e area ha,s been
con ine to the lands d:ir ectly ad.j acent to SR 32 and the .area in
and around the community of Forest Ranch inclucl;i,ng the upper
portions of the Ridge.* Given the plateau ridge terrain of Doe
TJili Ridge., the area of the proposed Specific PIJIII is uninhabited,
Only marginally developed and well removed frons adjoining develop-
ments including those that share a common property line. Canyons,
steep cliffs and considerable open space '}presently separate the
project site from surrounding areas. In addition, no formal
existing or planned system of roads (between Chico and Forest
Ranch) integrates these 'areas into a cohesive land use pattern,
From these perspectives, the site is isolated, requiring ran
approximately 25 minute drive from Chico ;($R 32 and 99)
6iA, Comment: Questions the vildlife impacts in relation to existing
and planned developments.
B. Response: Both the Land Use and Open Space Elements contain
policies d.esigrled to protect and preserve Butte County's deer
herds by regulating foothill development. The Department of
Fish and Game has elaborated On the potential impact on deer,
herds Arid habitat in th,e project area (see Department of Fish
and Game 5-21.82 Letter and map). Two factors combine to give
this issue its present consideration: the Legislature's specific
charge to the Department of Fish and Came to manage the state's
deer herds, a response to the decline in deer popu'l'ation brought
about by past development within the habitat of the migratory
deer'; and the project site and surrounding area, which contain
(according to the Department of Fish and. Came and EIR) high
quality habitat. This habitat is much less impacted than other
areas in he SR 32 corridor, Upper IOe Mill Ridge and area around
Forest Ranch.' The utter two areas have vegetation which: is not
favored by migratory deer.
7A, Come: taff t
commentshat the
Comments on sproject is not a
priorat�r for meeting the housing needs of Butte County as
P kr. t
established by the Housa.nC,Eletnen
B. Res
on In the memo Of September. 17 , _1982,, staff Cf s>�.mply pointed
out 't at the County's'Housiilg Element in of 'ect discounts the
SR 32 State Route 32
SR 99 = State Route 99
Steve Streeter
Page g
February 2,, 198
contribution that these types of developments will ma' e t:o meet-
inl the County's -Future housing needs, particularly in ().i,stant
remote areas, The Housing Llement's policy (prior t.), g.:von to
housing; in areas which are within or adjacent to developod areas)
is consistent with that or the .Land Use r3lement (13 7, e
encourage development in and around existing commuii..ties with public
facilities), The thrust of these policies is efficiency. For
example, approximately 8'0acres of land with sewers would at a
five dwellings per acre accommodate the same population as the
proposed pro ject. At such densities the developor's capital. costs
ro
may be higher due to higher standards but the on-going maintenance
and often hidden capital costs supported by the taxpayer (including
purchases) tend to be substantially Tower (eg4 existing facilities
with capacity vs new demand requiring new cOnstruction, adaptation
to existing service patterns; and economics of scale associated
with reduced street mileage per dwelling -public or private).
In general, the proposed project is unaffected by the goals,,
policies and objectives of the Housing Flement.
The Agricultural Residential land use designation is iturrently
applied in rural areas for rural residential development. By
i tself there is ,no conflict or inconsistency. However, because
the designation ,spans a density range of one acre to 40 ,acres
per dwelling (20 acres and greater consistent, less than 20 acres
conditionally consistent)'' consistency can only be determined in.
relation to' specific development pxoposal.s and even then such a
determination can only be made in the context of the entire
General Plan not just one element of the General Plan.
_8.Ai. Comment: Believes the Circulation Element's policies have been
satisfied by condition 15 (upgrade road after 1:.00 dwellings are
constructed).
B. Response: Conditions 1S, 10 and 30 certainly go a long` way toward
meeting the circulation needs of the project. Assuming they are
adequate ;For normal as well as .emergency circulation, properly
maintazneO and available 'for use by other properties in, 'the area
(assuming, similar development), the proposed circulation system
estahl.i;shed by these, conditions appears to be consistent with
the Circulation_Element. The status of the road system (public
vs private, oxclusi.ve private vs non-exclusive pri'vate), and,
standards for t}e northerly extension of Doe Mill Ridge and
easterly to 'Centerville Road :in Butte Creek Canyon remain unclear
however. (Not.e This Element is, currently being revised; The
broad density range of th Agricultural Residential designation
anal large arca of` rural Butte County` already subdivided into
parcels of less .than 40 acres makes it difficult., to est;iinate
future clrcuia,tiomi. needs in theses areas)
Steve Streeter`
Page 9
Febr•-nary 2, 198
g;A. Comment: Believes that the proposed, project is cc`�7si.stent with
the Agricultural Residential criteria (compatiba.'l.l'ly, sewer-water,
fire protection, access and accessibility) .
Bi Res once, As noted Paxl.ieti•, the land use des i g ,.,-tion. and -criteria
are ut one aspect c � the General Plan. Thore a 1`e nine oilier
p
Elements of the Gen ral Plan and other policies 0`.(" the land Use
Element �.,o be c.rnsul ted. These issues aside, se;a.f'l' has expressed
concern over the vat iou.s sewer -systems that liavo leen proposed.
Little information on, the water supply system leas been included
in the Specific Plan. The situation regarding sewage disposal
as even more confus,Ing - both septic systems and Oxidation ponds
are propos ed. Nox��formataon has been included which would
permit anyone to judge the adequacy of eithor, system.. Thus ee
these issues have been
seems somewhat premature to suggest that
adequately addressed. Questions regarding the adequacy of fire
protection, not only for the project dwellings but for the entire
area„ also remain (see Comment=Response 1).
Assumin that Ole "all-weather" standard is sufficient for actual
year-round regular circulation, the road system proposed through
the conditions to the Specific Plan appear adequate for the project
itself: Because Of uncertainties as to the surrounding land uses,.
status of the road system(public vs private, exclusive private
vs non-exclusive private) it is impossible to assess whether this
road system will be adequate for anything but this development.
(See Comment-Response 8)
Staff would concur that the Agricultural Residential designation
"criteria" for "reasonable accessibility" is subjective. The lade
of coherent standards renders this aspect of the Agricultural
Residential criteria too ambiguous to be useful. Similarly, the
consultant's conclusion that "schools a,re. availably: within a
reasonable bussing distance" is also subjective.; The purpose of
the "accessibility criteria is to relate density to distance to
normal centers of caPployment, commercial services and schools; the
greater the distance the lower the density and, vice versa. This
approach is necessary if the General Plan's objectives of orderly
delrL "lopment are to be achieved
10 A. Comment: Disagrees with staff conclusion that project is incon
` —t with the General Plan; also'.notes recent law prohibits
sx�tent tai
° lo.caS govexnnneaits from reducing the density of projects as ameans
of tiating impacts unless there are.'no other feasible mitgatiari
Steve ,Street
Page 10
h'ebruary 2., 1983
B. Resp Anse: ,Although the conditions - mitigation Moasures recom-
mende- y the Planning Commission assist in reducing soil erosion
and perhaps improving all circulation,
staff observes no changes in the project which would alter' the
conclusion contained in the September 17th memo. Impacts to wild-
life (deer herds), unresolved concerns about overall fire pro-
tection, water' supply, sewage disposal, and the relatively intense
development of a remote location appear to substantially conflict
with the policies and objectives of. the Butte Coin.ty general Plan
generally and the Land Use Open Space and Safety Elements
specifica;ll.y
At 1.587 authored by .Assemblyman Bates limits the authority of
local governments to reduce density as a means of mitigating
impacts except as a last resort. Government Codi: Section 65451:
requires specific plans to be consistent with the general plan
Section 65451.(e) specifically requires consistency with "all
applicable provisions of the open space element as provided in
Article 10.5". Both the Open Space and Land Use Elements have:
clear, unambiguous policies which protect the County"s deer herds
Government Code Section 66474(e) requires local governments to
deny subdivisions where "the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
or their habitat".
The Department of Fish and Game has indicated that the proposed
project which will involve the subsequent subdivision of land, will.
significantly impact the Bast Tehama deer herd habitat. Both the
density* of the project and the proposed design are cited as the
cause of this impact. The Department of Fish and Game have gone
so far as to recommend another alternative which in their judgement'
would successfully mitigate this impact. The Department of Fish
and Game alternative appears to fall within the 20 ac/du to
10 ac/du density range for cluster development recommended by
staff an the September 17th memo.
Notwithstanding AB 1387, the only fearible means of mitigating the
deer habitat impact appears to be a TQductian in the proposed
project's density (more reduction if conventional development than
if clustered) because it is the density which is the source of the
,impact. Without a feasible mitigation of the deer herd habitat
impact, the project would be inconsistent with the Butte County
Geeral Plan a finding that shoti'�d result in a denial n
than `a reduction in density. Thug the staff remains of the opinion
that the Butte County General Plan'did not anticipate this type of
de
veopme'nt in this location at this time and under these circum-
stances
CW:1kt
ff