The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 7 OF 15A a.. }t 46 b \ 1\ i Appendix `flemorariclums Ii and letters of Sell7tember November Z , 1982 with Planning Depart'. A a.. }t 46 b \ 1\ CALIFORNIar-RESOURCES A �•�r4�`'+��+ur STATE OF GEWN DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I j1N .�,rr,,e'l'� �' Bu4teCo• Planning Comm, ►,,�i_ �i��+��r< SEP 20 1982 p1elPnr'nJ P6p ' Urovillai (;alitnrud D -&r r e� n B�� c� .�hti•{"i o �� G. r� ��, � l'Gr>� �� ^ C.. c� YL Dor7 /'%,1, i ) � l�� s " ``•'$ "l'l1� SGc.,lvt�- �L'.:�:}'' l.�9,�G't"�..1^ i^civ�r'' l" �`4Glt'.yafs .�'+')ir:.!}�1'uF�t �•��: fi't 7�AG° cr3c�%- 7j '\ the- ,Bid wa ll lief J 17l -,S f,Y,�� ,c':2`', 7rlt,`5 p'+"c��jeco r ) e--, r 4: e 'was ,J'717 {Y ` Vltr/ • �.G �^�M� j` �� ae -.s ` r & y t'n j CL In 14% r -a. �'o 7 G � ,- r•, d o r, � 1, � � � `�Lc.r e y:.0 �.��r P � �% z � a � c. 'r iti� �•n ,: yr �'.,z �a ra.� ext, rcwrl 5 i' ;�, � �', �:r.�.,� c� �� a ria -•• ^' r e } r, f'L y G� a kt A e �.� L"G it �l C 1' ��i C`. -(5x a > � ?- rd,as a 1f+77. P&r k �-t-rte s , � ��,zt f . � l�.- -�, ,; -�kc.. � � pe&41 �,".1 r lL&44- S -o;t 7'k•t �-► �G �Gr C �i,, d d.� 11 tc,;, 1 G, •�' , �a� ��'�� G` � ca yt (b v e it �� c� b t� Gc„�`'-Y � -� m �f�` �' 4"c 5_`l+' �r'�.d�1 C.� � t Q d �° E: k l W w �.�'� .�- � w� 7 a� . �4 re -u d :;)o I �:-c C' ,C� f":, *0 e c.� j a t r,,1',� C, r;,. ," �• v w ti' l l t^.> >° �� - �� w � `�'�i c ` .3 s �.�� 4 �� r,�.'�`�. �, J' •�.�� i e: �c't' /,c lit j c. � .� �-�� 1zG c�r� 4F 3. 07 � i3 nit �',:, ef; ;�"%t:�• Y J '!sr i' u't G � �� ` ��.� G: '�' ,; � tip k? { r 1 Obv4mcc8?`y, r «n1 afi,�'r wi icQ1�7~c :; pr' s wi �l b�� ac�iJ,��}•. �� G.dur:�af''y key CMi� �. V -it Ym d ,r' e- 5 ,)'� it �v C; " � l,l a;,tczM /f a u h,av •�'�y, N1'Lryi i. 11mll IS, Nekon & A.St O.11 > aid ("Iles, Telephone WitII Slrccl CillirorUitt (916) Sults 6 9$06 893.0491 ... r 1.11[)(1 Uw Planning nvlrannicnutl Studies h I ertim Assistance fc IstbihiyStudies MEMORANDUM TO Butte County Planning Commission FROM Earl D. Nelson, °Planning Consultant RE, Staff Findings Regarding General Plan Consistency DATE: Se,p�ember 23, 19821 in the staff memo of September 17,; 1982, pertaining to General Plan application to the Bidwell Heights PAC's., conclusions were presentedregarding whether the project could be interpreted as consistent with the General: Plan, in reviewing staff's conclusions, it would appear that the recommended conditions of approval: eliminate some of the concerns raised. our comments are as follows[ 1. Scenic Highway Element We concur with; staff 2. Noise Element We. concur with 'staff 3. SafetVElement Staff comments do not acknowledge the applicant's considerable efforts and'willingness to provide' for the fire protection needs of the area: Access is addressed in Conditions Number 10 and 16,, and fire protection is covered in Condition Number `9. This Condition could, be more specific, to provide for the Community Services District or other, entity tp :fund and 'operate the fire fighting equipment,being donated by the developer: Soil erosion is: covered ' -under Conditions., 21, 24, 27, and 31.: Inter-Departr 6fifilMemorandum Steve Streeter Page 2 September 17, 1082 Fire Hazard The "fire protection plan" does not incorporate the mitigation measures containe(l in the EIR, These Safety Element, mThe Draft Plan Ilan ,polic,ies >' Y does not discuss the bridge on 'the access road and the Plan n1rip door not identify emergenc), routes. Multiple access for ft develop- Ment of this size and density would be rcgliirod by Policies contained in the Safety Element. TO be effective for both emergency access end normal c1rcul ti.tion t)iis access should be developod to sufficient standards and regularly maintai*i,ed. A connection to Hoey Run 'Roast or I the development of nDoe Mill Road to Bruce Rokd would be desirable The Safety Element (Fire Sub-Elemont) establishes policies which make the consideration of fire hazards a. part of the planning process. Considering the lack of fixe pro- tection .Facilities (both existing and as indicated. in the Sr,-,cific Plan), high fire hazard and. constrained access, the PAC development does not appear to have taken the fire hazard potential into "consideration'. Zoning which would expose the inhabitants of some 260 dwellings) an estimated 385 overall at a density of 1 7 ac/du (3 ac/du overall) does not appear consistent with the intent of this Element's purpose, objectives and Policies, This conclusion is supported by the Fire Hazards policies of the band Use Element which, {guide development to areas with adequate fire protection services,!. - The Safety Element also contains policies to insure adequate road access including ";multiple access where feasible''. While emergence access .is available from surrounding un- improved roads, the project°including PACs (2;60 potential dwellings) remain dependent upon one source of access, Wilder Drive, Single access development becomesTulnerable in the event of fire, accident or Other emergency and is why County limits the number of dwellings to 20 on a cul-de- sac. ias actions are.difficul.t and often costly to sin the case with the Upper RiUge and its dependence on the Skyway. Soil Erosion Where the proposed Specific°'Plan would es'tabltish several requirements (i.e. dissipaters, use of Erosion Contxol Handbook techniques, etc.) to control ero;STR an preserve` water quality, the imple�ienting PACs do riot appear to reflect these cancerns ;and policies.' The Lana Use Element also states that it is the policy Of Butte County to s AWA Ml ROM Inter -Departmental Memorandum ro: Planning; Commission FROM, Hill Turpin, Senior Planner suwEct: Fiscal rAna1 sis for BidwellItights am September 17;, 1982 The balance sheet contained in thn bottom line on this is on page 110 and constitutes a cost revenue cc nlpahisoproiect The following limitations should be kept in mind then considering this cost revenue comparison, 1 P First of all, the cost of a f4y,- g station anc} t•he cost of fire eauipiiient were not included in here because it is assumed that thest will be donated bf, the developer. These are. large costs and any chance iaa the si.tt nt.iot Would d veloper. greatly afkec t this comparison$ In addition art � capital :improvement such as (:ottrity a.�surnp"no o;C}t}�eher major roads in: the subdivision, etc. would greatly p7'ilratt comparison. g ) afc t this 1cautionary s a costljrevenuer mnari'so, �v��t�lc} be in order when considering i soII ' hich comes out this, cl;o;;e, and tiatis that the lots, and scanstrt;ction of dti�ell:ings upon t..}ie lots, wi:t], occur over a lung pej•i.od of times to predict *hat revenues and, cr;7ts It is impossible other over this period of both .eataattn equal with each expectfaith to :it a:l o takes. a great leap Of services ,i]?1betdemanc it Will be reIquired and s i to the amount of addit :oval y re^venue'new Sthat�Y tho rincre,I.man tt equal Q contribute, i, �vill Finally, 1 information on page 11 does not a.rscltid�; a17 associated 'with schools. ThO._e oosta follow, I y costs When these costs are taken into cons, derati��n,�1�th�gsub�l7, and 13. as proposed loses a considerable amount of me,,1 - lavition, Way, h'oulci require a substantial c* 11tri%uta�r�tt o 9subs Put another exist County taxpa.��ers. y from $T •sb i=gym{:R R, ,;M)INS - Skansen 2 - 97 unit Skansen 3 - 21 units Parkview/Chico Junior/Chico Senior 118 units; X .43 elementary students = 51 students K-12` 51 students X .54 elementary ;students = 28 students K-6 51 students X :46 2 = 12 students 7-9 12 students 10-12 Parkview School Capacity, - 522 students Parkview projected enrollment 1982-83 357 students Additional capacity 165 students Parkview School Canyon Pari: Estates 25 students Bidwell Heights 90 student 14 Mile House 5 students Southgate Acres' Southgate Acres 2 `9 students Country Club Oaks ]0 student 167 Total Skansen 2 Skansen 3 28 students -165 Student stations available 167 students 2 Over capacity i Chico Junior High Skyway Ranch 1 4 students Skyway Ranch r2 12 student Chico Creek Commons Community Park Commons Housing Authority -County 6 students Springfield at the Villages 12 students Almond Creek IY 10 students Canyon Park Estates 11 students v'Bi dwell Heights 38 students 14 Mile House 2 students Southgate Acres Southgate Acres 2 4 students - Country Club Oaks 4 students Skansen 2 12 students Skansen 3 Cliff Johnsen Condominiums Acme Condominiums 1139 Capacity Ellen Subdivision -994 Enrollment Cherrywoo Payne 145 Stations available Lowell Pierce 9 students -124 Students Greenwoods 124 students 21 Stations still available Chico Senior High Skyway Ranch l 4 students Skyway Ranch ;r2 12 students Chico Creek Common Community Park Commons Housing.Authocity-County 6 students Springfield at the Villages 12 students Almond Creek 11 10 students Canyon Park Estates 11 students v Bidwell Heights 38 students 14 Mile House 2 students Southgate Acres Southgate Acres 2 4 students Country Club Oaks 4 students Skansen 2 SEansen 3 12 students Cliff Johnsen Condominiums Acme Condominiums Ellen Subdivision Cherrywo,od Payne Lowell Pierce Greenwoods 9 students 1700 Capacity Sun Meadows 4 students -1004 Enrollment Shasta Bay Estates' ` students 795 Stations avai ab i e Eisfelt Subdivision 2 students -132 Students 132 students 663 Stations still available ED�AIl1'll1 Co. 'agoYIN JR l.lVafrlgr AND WELFARE AGENCY PORNIA--HEALTH. --- r STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 714 IP 5TREE January GJa �.�1_ SACRMAEN10' CA61FogN1A 9581.1 (glg) 445-4408 Vector and Waste Management Section I Mosquito Prevention In Criteria For Mosq - r amation Dr. Disposal Projects Wastewater Reclamation I, Background Statement. California water pollution regulations and current; Recent changes in astewater have serious prospects runoff sor��Go emphasis for reusosa1'sof wfar reusing effluent and surf productioni prop directly int« estuaries or water preventing these waters from f1;osou Kinds of' Proposals under courses can create new mosquito sources, ion, O recharge diversion and reuse of wast' are. re consideration for the (2) agriculture �rr�ga. imp r reclamation; oundments for 4} development of marshland :and we habi�t:at; an • of ground water,ro als. (5) industrial p P laces" in published " and "mosquito breeding P a uatic life "Mosquito breeding referred to as the developing 9 literature are generally depressions, sites `c tapes are 'round. A site earidps stages of the mosquito and aquote 4�ater-holding development or containers in which the . a source when it holds water suitable for mosquito at some time produces holes mosquitoes if left uncontrolled. control is accomplished b one rocahntrol; and (3) -three on of Mosquito con use of chemicals; (b� biological methods (a) of physical features. Chemicals recommended f;oruj fconsistent manipulation control, but are no mi tient or emergency concerns and i inhere ud tQes�Pment use because of cost, environmental the mosq common biological control a unt 7S of physiological, resistance to the chemicals by P e best known and most Perhaps thfi h Gambusia off chi s, This species is found widely keeping, the small ,_mom-- a sitoateo►�s is help The throughout the state and in certow de $uCh factors as density population s of mosquito larvae down to moderate levels. d y is production and the avail - effectiveness °ve stat vegetation, ratenOfularval e fish. Manipulation or of the aquatic 9 referred by th ability of other or P prevent a source from developing design of the physical features top the, fact that this goal' term solution. Recognizing is the best Ong ,9* ult and eXpensive, alterriatiVes containing aPpro maJi be both diffit Water management and biological control priate physical features, enc lored. possi bi 1 i ti es should- he real i stical1y P is known to inhibit im ortant that local MOS gUitatuDepartment The following criteria are based on ecological ac to mosquito, to, production . It s P e ent Sect? ori, . agencies and the Vector aril Waste Maria9 m with the Gal+ifornia Mosquito &Vector oritrol lI prepared in cooperation. pssdc'iatiO E Storage Pon;ds; , I. Ponds may be any ,shape but should not have small coves or irregularities around their perimeters; 2. Ponds shouldbe designed to be emptied by gravity or pumping for cleaning or drying and have graded hottonis so all water can be removed: S. Side slopes of excavations and levees should be as steep as possible, consistent with soil characteristics and risk factors. 4. Where steep side slopes cannot be economically adhieved, the slopes should be lined with suitable material such as concrete to 3 ft. below the water line or sterilized to achieve weed control. 5. Minimum top width of embankments should be 12 ft.: and adequately constructed to support maintenance vehicular traffic. 6. An access ramp should be provided on an inside slope for launching a small 'boat for midge control. 7. Ponds designed for long term storage should have' a minimum storage depth of four ft. 8. A maintenance program for weed and erosion control along inner slopes is essential, 9. All accumulations of dead a gae vegetation and debris should be routinely removed from the impounded water'' surface and properly disposed, of. C. Water Conveyance Facilities. 1. Ditches must be maintained free of emergent,_ marginal and floating vegetation; 2. Ditche should be sized and graded for adequate flow and must not be used for Water storage. 3, Onpressuriz'ed and low pressure pipolines, commonly used 'in irH gatiori distribution systems, should;be designed to be emptied When not in use and should not be`used for water storage because ;of the mosqu�ita breeding potential in thepartially filled pipes. X1 1` of GOVERNOR'S OFFICE u, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARG:M 1400 TENTH STREET 14 x+ , SACRAMENTO 95e. Mawr+ G October 28, 1982 Stephen A. Streeter Butte county Planning Department i .,Lit „ 1 v r, 7 County Center Drive Orovill.e, CA 95965 SUBJECT: SCH# 81102702 Bidwell Heights Land Company Dear Mr. Streeter, impact reportpattached y hed,. agencies have commented on your draft enviNonmentendansplease (see the i State g If you would like to discuss their concerns and recomm staff from the appropriate agencies. the final -IR, you must include all comments onsderedeinothesdecisio►i- When preparing Guidelines, Section 15146). The certified EiR must you to respond directly to L. making process for the project, In addition, we urge agencies' cormients by writing to them, including the State Clearinghouse number on all Correspondence. A recent Appellate Court de'cisiorwiQwcorrnnenCleary ts.C�Specfica!untY of ay,staescouatiindicated, requirements for responding to re i that comments must be addressetedn de The must show hfactorspo`ioverriding "s and suggestions were not accep suggestion, aesoonses to comments must not importance which justify overriding the er�menta data, be conclusory statements but must be supported by empi��ca1 or exp further aid scientific' authority or explanatory information of any r:�nd. T;ie court , t1i }�G•• the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis; C� tion ,100?!f� of the CEQA Guidel i+nes requires that a aoverninental aoencv tike s_G T � tial adverse environmental impacts :cold certain actions if an EIR shows substah f n eCt result from a pr(J;ect. .hese actionsorrtrd nancesgtoravoedpthP probiem�ssele�c d9� tions ,n the protect, adop.+ging plan an alternctive to the aro,7`ect, or disapproving she pro,lect, In Mhz event tna. the i� +ilitiQc�tiOn � sl'(�n�` �an� °(fr:rts� th'? laid Project i 5 appl•oved wl shout adZQUa �c _ ef'�9ct ; 5eG ;lot ";5N i and i agency ,twSt .Hake 4ritten tin,dira for aac; ,i�n;ti�.ant ager,. SUD S, itS aGaiOn$ Nlt;l d` written statement of irverrxding cD^Sid?roti0n5 i�Dr t,; �. d sicni r cant 2t:fect .,S+ycIt 0n eac;� unmi � ga�.e Ir ti18 roue t'requiras disCt'2t14ndr`/ dpDroval 'fr'."m aiiy tate agdnry, the �tci.�ce or �, G cei,ei,�ni hat' on must be �' � l ed tivi th the Secretary` for Resources , as 'reel l a s Coo �tlr Clerk.' Please contact Ana Polvos at (alE} 4a5�r61a if° v�ou have any ox�� Ci a es c. 3'an des pro iects , roorci i'nat' on Cwsputyi i•ec nor or ,•�';den 82-62 Comments received at the Bidwell Heights hearings o � Docron b 14 and 2l, 1982 and January 11, :1.983 ivitla. Darin is o i C7 to the S].gnificant Environmental L83 Wi. y Responses Lea fro Develo Ment w Several personshave project is an example of '"leapfrog dei, commented that til- and responses for the Canyoyt Pail; FstateS S;ubd visFefO to`rthetoco�mnents Pages 6 and 7 of Appendix 11 Which discuss timing, Of the project Fire Hazard t - Loss Of prope, , P life and wildfire were noted.. . Re er to t e iVovember 2, 1982 memo from Bill Teie. ,A residc77C fireman would be preferable to a totally volunteer fare department, A paid fireman could provide initial response until volunteismet. able to arrive. The second response would be -from tile tle Butte o r Fire Station on Fair Street County (30 minutes) or t}ie Forest Ranch volunteers (25 minutes). Station 23, Forest Ranch, (fire season only) is capable of responding in 28 minutes. Bill Teie, Coun'"y Fire Warden, indicates that the fire incidents on the ridge in the re have been Eery past to 10 years. most of the fires have occurred in th-e Butte Creek Canyon area, '}here will. soon be available a. map of all fares, 30`0 acres or larger, that have since 1939. This Information is being assembled by til, Count), occurred Department.} Fire oast an ;a No�Fember 2 g y. Tlr. Teie recommended eme enc 411 -weather access to the north and 1982 memos andurn. Doe Mill Road: to the north. needs to be traversable inthesummer initially. That pa:rticula road would need to be year -:round traversable once the volunteer. r � station is constructed and manned. The volunteer station would be the second response vehiclefires Doe 1`}ill Raad to the noxt}l would bethe to logthe ical Ranch area. to am s hate to respond fires in the area southeast of Forest Ranch. He further. ehpressed concern about road maintenance., not only for Doe ,l Road to the north and Center Gap Mill Road to the eastbut also for , Wilder Drive. The latter road is presently improved with a chip seal sturface. The road will require extensive maintenance �aitliin the next 5 years . ri CA County Service Area is the recommended mea to insure' on- goitlg maintenance of the project r 1 1 roads.) ns Concern was voiced about off-site fire hazazds that wo�ild be create` as a result of the project. Air tanker su ort as available e created the rluncipa Airport• Thio Butte County Fire Department�Californaa Department of Forestry maintains two air, tankers at the looatioi�. An air tanker can respond to the Dod e A9all Ridge area within fxtxe ml.nutes 'of bei h dispatched.; Actual, flight gime would, be about two' manures. With the avaalahi,l:Lty of air tanker support, a volunteer fare unit and support from the Forest .Ranch volunteers' the Fair f` season lar e scale 1V'p ,� the Forest Ranch station Street Station of the ire de artment and ( ire ), g - a.ldfires should not be a major fa Refer' to t}ie earlier comments about the effectiveness o a volunteer fire depar'tm'ent. in addition, the Ca]x�or has a controlled but program. This `proSramawiD11pry3ielen tooretnovestry some of the. volatile vegetation in the vicinity of the e future jreat7s, such burns would be diffic��lt as the propertyis 71y developed: It iaaul.d be important, at that stage, fie have an effect'` ly operating volunteer fire.;department to supplement the other ir•;Ivo protection available. C I a CSA vorsus CSD - Staff woul.d re,cov-mend a County Service Area (CSA) rather than a Community ServiceDi8tric ' t (CSD) . 1,iii r i til with property, residents on the propertya CSD would not be a woj4.]r arrange- ment. A CSA would be the appropriate mechanism to ().01d and provide services until, such time as there were a sufficient numbor of resi- dents to allow a CSD to properly function. JAFCo has yot to review an application for either a CSA or a CSD for this projoct, it i,s recommended, as has been mentioned before', that a GSA bo formed prior to final action of the rezone and further subdivision of the property. In the absence of a CSA, it is difficult to judge, witl), certainty, that the provisions of the Specific Plan will be folly met. Loss of Open Space A discussion. contained on page 2 of the June 22, 17.8-2submittal. regarding Canyon D'ar'k Estate.-, has some, bearing on this project. This discussion relates to mitigatlon measures for cumulative impacts -for the proposed development projects i,n the vicinity of Canyon PaTR Estates. The third paragraph begins as follows: "Canyon Park Estates was designed to reduce visual and wildlife impacts by using only So percent of the possible 220+ buildiiig sites on the property". It goes on to say that "Bidwell Heights; however, is both a convert - tional rural subdivision, with division of the property into lots of va-rying sizes, along with some areas proposed for PA -C development". There has not been an effort to date to !reduce the visual and wild - ,life impacts for Bidwell. Heights by a similar reduction. A 50 percent reduction. of the proposed 330 to 385 dwelling units would yield totals closer to the maximum recommended by staff using the general plan criteria as a basis. For discussion purposes, a 50 percent reduction. of the 330 to 385 dwelling -unit total would yield 165 to 193 dwelling units (a density of I dwelling 'unit per 7.3 and 6.2 acres, The lower figure OT 165 dwelling units is closer to what staff—believes the general plan would provide for at this location. If, at a later date, the population demands increased to the point that additional housing is needed to the cast of Chico, increased densities could be reviewed accordingly, prolijnity to commercial Services and Schools Statements are Made --n-E I R t tilproperty lies approx;mately I in t h e and sped plant e miles from CIAC6, Actually, the project is a minimum, of 9 to 10 miles to the downtown area of Chico. An on. -site commercial area is proposed to offset the travel distance, The viability wi' the commer- cia-1 use, at this location, is questionablej Further info.rmation is provided that a commercial area closor to Highway 32 (On or neat ' the t'*1iute for the Comm -rcialre a on Isom and Hall property) might subs 0 1 a this site. Bussing for students woul.Odefinitely b,.e, o factor. If cj number I , of the residents w&`rRed in the Chico atroal gthbo,1 children Bussing to this - ly., remote could. be dropped by thei=r scho6l,h his 'rolAtiV0 ca )ion would 4 uld not accvtT until a sufficient number or students 'r 0 - 8,ided, In the area. id'ing for the bus service would question uesti,on that must be tesoivodwith the Chico Unified School � Primate versus eYsus, Public Roads A 'comment was made that right -df -way easement should be rather than., private. The applicant intends that the rao CIS wouldbe available for,public use but they ,!would . be privately maintained. 82-62 Domestic Animals - At the first hearir),r in kDecember, stta.tclments ��arc ma-� cls �,we gad di n domcsti c dogs as a threat to migrator dent anal ra.ttl,e, It is difficult to restrict pet ownczsll��i,nasucl� al c avert., keeping logs on leashcs 01,in fenced areas re good measures that are only as good as the }People who would 111011ts enl"grce phase require - of such a Even 1Vxth a COunte r la, ,q 1aa; 110nitQring the cffoctiveness nlcasure Would be d� ff' cult. 'The CUMS for the project. could include language regarding colttro:i of pets. Though the County can recognize the potential problem, thcre, is litte done to legislate corrective action. lthat can be Schools - In place of the present wordiwordinng for condition 3, t}te forlxesicglences 1n this is subdivision Bux,lding permni.t 11appj:icat ons suUditLs�,on shall be subject to -any school mitigation fees established by an Ordirlancc enacted prior to the :filing of such application or a Community Eacilatias Act of 1982 District 1vj,11 be created pursuant �o Cal, i`ornia (;overnmont Code Suction 53311., et. seq., covering the project area prior tothe iss- ' ua;nce of any building permits. Water SU /Quality - Information is provided in the enti,ironmental x;<ivact report on � ^� Pages 7, a 2 25A and Appendix 1. Additional infer Madan is to be provided by the a.ppli,cant via .Jon Anderson, hydrolo- gist from Chico. His input i,s expected to cover off-site impact, that are potential to both the watersheds of Butte Creek and Little Chico Creek, The feasibility of septic systems for up to 3$5 dwell- ing units needs'to be assessed aspart of his response, Timin-Q of the Prolect - Refer. to the discussion, in the Canyon Parks Estates supplement under Timing of the Project,; page of one oC the appendices. Refer also to th.e comments regarding the General Plan Elements, particularly the proposal. to require a market analysis such project S. Fiscal Im acts - The methodology n�xs rave been and conclusions of the Fiscal has been asked, by questioned, Bob �tlEeoPQsc,al at CSU Chica, P. An a ly s i, s These comments will, be attached for review by the I3o;ard. The conclusions of any fiscal �7nalysis will be inadequate 11.. such ea -wide fiscal analysis is completed. LVit}totat a document tomcoverathe �yentire Count_ a Y, r at least a planning area as defined by the Housing. Element of the General p1anficult to evaw , it a;sdif luate the fiscal effects of a particillar prof act . Soils Data and Selva e Dis asal - Tile only detailed ava:Ila le Is that developed fol. the lots y of the ��i.arralpaot��llstion Siabdivisian units 1 and 2 and several tentative ,parcel Maps !in,the n.ortherly Project area: Soil. exploration holes have been randomlY over the site. These sails indicated a some areas had trrec tc four , ; mi,Xed situation; ieot of soil, Wlile pthe s l,. ,; Very little soil. T asi.cally, }le i.nitia l commerl.ts Of the Heal. � h Depart Ment are still, pertinent. Refer d.o pages Z and' 23a;.of the EIR. Refer also to the October 26, 1.982 letter front Lynn Van}tart, Env3ran- Mental HPa1th Director; the teat of the'l<�tter 1;s rerrpduCed n October 8, '1982 planning Commission minutes. the _ ,3 82-U2 N l;otanact�] Survey - A question was r ised as to �l:llo coverago, of the batan;lcal. suxvey. It is claimed that the su7vey covered a limited aroa, rather than the whole site. Dr. Kingsley Stern, in a telep11011e c:o»versation, indicated that he had covered tile' entire 1.200 acres amrcl not just porti.ans of the project site. Unless further inforMtlon comms forth to the contrary, the results of the botanical survey arcs as noted in Appendix P. 1.mmt7act.,on Butte Creek Canyon Water cltmality e;fi'at.ts will, be discusscc} y ,Ion An erson. Access Via Center Gap Road tivill. 1e limited to emergency access. A break away barrier should be exected to assure thmmt the road will be used only .foT that purpose. We agree that allowing Center Gap Road to be continually open 'wotild raise questions a$ to traffic impacts on Centerville Road and elsr„where in Butte Cl,oek Canyon. Center Gap Road, at presen'>, would be dif:ficule to utilize even for emergency access. It would rcgta'i,7 e considel`ablo tmpgrading to be usable, The applicant of this project should cooper ate with the property owners along Center Gap Rono to upgrade the road. in a timely way. Staff would recommend that the road be improved to a year-round traversable standard and an emergency breakaway bdrriex be erected prior to the time the final su})cjivision maps are :filed for Bidwell Heights, Fault lines, - In reviewing the fault lineaments shown on a map of Appendix bo it appears that some of the dwelling units would be located on or near fault lines. The mitigation measure developed to address this factor Toads: "Verify with a geologist that no lineaments traverse any of the proposed building'stes, particularly those in the central, and southeTly portions of the project area."• If this measuxe is implemented, the project could be viewed as con forming to the ,Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan,, Air quality- Comments were made regarding the amount of vehicular taial f c ants smog problems that j��ould result. Butte County Air Pollution Control District has reviewed. the air quality information lad the EIR' for a second' time. Their findings were that air quality -moo be significantly affected by this project; it would rel,")res,ent a cumulative impact on air quality .n the region; Refer to attached comments from Air Pollution Control District. }�tstst��i- plan for development - Several, comments lxave occurred that ail area -w l," e plan 7s ncc.e�c =for thproposed e Ridge. County Staff- such a plan in August, 1981. There is again consi.;deYation for such a plan being considered. Scpervisors l�ulton and Wheeler ate; exploring the possibility of doing su h a plan which would include a fiscal analysis panership of the Bidwell Heights par'ccls =This information i.s available in the County xecoids. Thzs•anformatiotl does not con- stitut,e a substantive environmental issue that requires ares -response. P Rundiri mechanisms for services - Asindi,catea ,previously, an SSA would,,.be t e appropriate ody to i: Open space preservata.on - R=C zoning and a la.zld, trust would proV'U1 assurance that open space would be maintai`ncd, in perpetuity 32,/Santos Wa Way intersections - `fhe public 5,rQt)and trS f L`1C 1Ii ah�5�ay � > mp,acts at that intersection, woTo mentioned. StOtMs which mp'�c.t kllo ridge and ;Cogs which reduce v;tsibi lity were noted. Sight dist0lice at the intersection is a potezitia7. problem becauso of its loctltlon near a curve. Caltrans and Public Works requirements fox provision of adequate sight distance, a part of an encroachment permit, would alleviate such 'concernso if eight distance is not adequate Coy' the amount of traffic generated, off-site roadwork to improve sight di.s Lance would be appTopTiatci Such measures might include remov ilig portions of the cutbank.nearthe curve or removing some vegetationnear the highway that obscures sight distance.- Preparation of the fiscal analysis - 'The analysis was prepared fusing methodology from an economist, Dr. Bob Fischer of Chico. Sale of lots Staff, understands that: most of., tlh;is project will be A "bare lot" offering: In the case of the PA�-C units, some of "the applicants may construct units. In any event;, architectural controls would be retained for both the PA -C areas and the conventional sub divisions. bt Cost of residences ILLim . rovemonts - Thd imsrovementsAnalsisTssuchec. a on �glxre o 7,'25,000 Or more or land an p figure is not reached, the revenues generated would be less than projected A question was raised as to the means to guarantee that there will not be ''mobile homes or log cabins" on the parcels. There are no assurances as to the type of construction that may occur. P off ernzg in Bidwell Heights ranged from $85,000 Recent developed lot to $110,000. Status of community facilities: act district The Chico Unified School District is working towards tiat end, according; to Robin Thompson of the school district, districformation s may occur W1 ai d strictsh n the next 12 months', The legislation providing the time took effect on January 1, 1983: It may be Pebruary 1984 by a distl,ict isset up with a, mechanism to collect funds. Bonds - Comments were made that bonds slzouid be posted for roadort ma ntenance and for water quality protection. Staff would supe an CSA as the means to accomplish w road maintenance and for ater quality protection. Setting the amount for such bond's would be articularl in the case of the water quality effects to difficult, p y the creeks. Weag1•ee that road maintenance is important, nit only for yeal-round access by residents of the project, but for emergency vehicles that would re>>spond (beyond rany such vohicles available on the site. Yearly inspections. An improvements are deeded to insure that the roads are maintained to their ori inai standard. g. Downstream effects - The s,amo comments received on th�n(�"uolthsya%n u a.vlsaon Caxxyan Park states) were noted as `apply g c1p V .aiV project as well., 11 mtxgation.measure to address downstream pro- tection of bath Little Chico Creek and Butte. Creek sloulcl be considered, The following mitigation measure 1rceks near�theljunctiresewithethe system on Little Chico and Butte G •-w tom` l,i. '. . r "ra CoAtIFORMA NATIVE Y 450C11 Illy DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE F[C)RA Department of Biological Sciences California State University, Ch.i.ety 9x3925 F'ebruar'y 4.,' 1983 Mr. Stephen A. Streeter, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive "d Co. Planning CWMIt Oroville, CA 95926 FEB a 198 Ret Bidwell, Heights ,Environmental Impact Report p�•ol,, C.�difaWth AP 46-71=18 etc, Log# 82-03,02-02, Planning # 82. 6 Dear Mr Streeter; Upon reviewing the subject EIR I was pleased to mote that,a rare plant survey Was conducted. This survey was necessary because as the docu- meat reports, two rare and endangered species could Potentially occur on the Project site, Although the report does not specify which species were surveyed for, T assume they are Juncus leios ermus and Sidaloea robusta. As the EIR states, the rare plant survey was conducted in October.. This is unfortunate because adequate surveys for either species are difficult if not impossible to perform at this time of year. Although some leaves and dried inf7ore8ences of the rare Sidalcea occassional.ly persist until October, the situation is quite different for. the Juneus. This plant is A. tiny, ephemeral annual that flowers in, late Apra.l, an( Ma<yj sets seed by late June, and soon after begins to disappear, By October p an dr remains Of this plant would be indistinguishable from the other numerous diminu, tS.ve annuals mown to occur in the same habitat. Juncus le OStsermus is currently known from Kunkle Reservoir (near Pentz-Ma, a.l;ia Hw g Y) and Coh ss a met R�.d e from vegetation types Arid at elevations the s g Bidwell Heights. It ame as those present at g alp ass reasonable to suspect its Ooduranee here. Given these circumstances, an October rare plant survey could not ricer= Iain the presence or absenc of either species. Recently, ��; has came to my attention that a population of Sidalcea robusta 'does occur within the boundaries of Bidwell Htights. Because a rare and endangered species is known from this site and the there has not possibility of a second species accuri-ng yet been determined., I must request that another rare plant survey be conducted during Late April through dune before -the EIR can be c.on8lred adequate by the California Native i'l ant Society There are other impacts associated with the proposed project that are not addre Oed in the EIR, Tile rnost obvious ommission< is a �ietaile�a discussion Of haw, the proposes??r4ject' Will effect, or alter, the �'egeta��ian of the paroel, s, A deviiiopement of this riiagnitude would be ex' Bated to have sig, - impacts, on the vegetation, but any comments a oitg tries±e lines 1-6 PLANIS ADIROMW yti, 0 N'T Y 9 CAUFORNIAMA TIVE DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA Page the followin"tohthemscale and distri�utioneoftdevelop ion :are restricted to g: develop- -en removed would be directly related inept end also 'to the foresight and care ta)!:en iri the con; G1"uoton process 11 and also a paragraph stating what types of vegetation will be removed.. Although measures to mitigate impacts to vegetation are suggested, there is no mention of how much of what types of vegetation will be removed and where. Without this information, the effectiveness of the proposed miti- gations cannot be determined. These facts should be included in tk=e EIR so that the impacts to surrounding areas can be assessed, Too much vege- so that ion removal could cause such serious impacts as increased soil erosion and stream siltation if attempts at slope stabilization and revegetation are not made: Large scale removal of chaparral vegetation can promote the growth of poison oak. How will this problem be taken care of? Sur-z1y somel methods of poison oak control such as herbicide application, can cause impacts to adjacent areas. No discussion is provided, on what _is believed to be the impact of vegetation removal and corridors on the migrating, deer herd. Even more important than these site specific impacts are the cumulstive impacts of all the p3,~opo8ed projects in this area. What changes in the vegetation and ecology of Doe Mill Ridge and Little Chico Creek Canyon will accompany several urban developements in this area? This information should be analyzed and considered in conjunction with project approval, but it cannot be if it is not included in the EIR. in addition to describing how the vegetation will be changed by the project, the EIR'shou7.d also describe how the "new" vegetation, assumed to be present upon completion of the project,; will effect the local environment. The projects new vegetation will include plants introduced onto the buffer zones that will surround each dwelling. What types of vegetation Will be used, and will this vegetation include obnoxious introduced species that, once established, can outcompete native vegetation? Another seriou's impact not addressed in the EIR is the effect of fire suppression on the various plant communities present on the project site, In ,particular, chaparral stands not periodically burned accumulate large amounts of dead and 1 iving material . 'This material is very flainable and the possibility of fares occuring increases with the Stands age• Fire in, pnsi.ty and ability to 'spread also i.ncrea;se with stand age and the pro bab'ility of man -induced fire will greatly inorease when this area is set fled. Considering these factors it seems reasonable to address the in- cr-eased fire danger associatedwith the unb'urned.chaparral remaining nn the project site and'stirr'oundng areas, and how' this fire hazard will be managed,