Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-62 SPECIFIC PLAN & REZONE 9 OF 15Dan 'Hays January '31, 1983' Pace 2 Tha Eastern Tehama Deer Herd is composed primariJ y of Columbian back -tailed deer co, Pus bgzL2nu-5 C01.WAWXnUs) and includes both migratory and resident populations. This -leer herd is the largest in the state With a total range Of apProx-• Pop imately 2,250 square miles and crlyurentewiln�ehama ation of 51,000 animals. The herdLS rangelies large County, but includes portions of Butter Plumas, and pod's ly Shasta counties. Migratory deer eomprise'the majority of the total herd. The herd's summer range lies primarily above, tWintea00angetocrurs elevation and covers roughly 920, .from the 2,500 to 3,000 foot they£©��hillWbelt.the 7.'hevalley tcital Winter. an area often referred to however, not :all of range covers approximately 520,000 acres; the area is useable or high quality winter range habitatbecause development (such as the town of Paradise) and vegetation of urbanagriculturalr ,grassland) . Specific acreages -oyez pine forest, of valuable winter range are unreported, tion bins: early °September with most deer arriving on _ mid --October. The major ;goals of the draft management 000 animals (curtentease the total herd size fro; approximately 51, three year average) to 55►o00ltion�by033toanim a56�pezcentSeand edouble post hunting season buck p p o ulata.on and hunter success. These the current spring fawn P P goals ;targeted For 1990.. A number of objectives are presented g x 0,1,•ectives include range in the report -to, achieve the goals, Ree/ 500. to 111000 acres per I �.provement through prescribed burning year on winter range and 1,000 acres per year', on summer ranger and rcel to obtain from County Planning, Departmen�intering�areable sabased designations (development densities) a n key ' A �a we on deer w,n,-er' range requirements (nos ecafic Parcel sizes wti.re discussed)'., %r, aO' A number of., issues 'rave been raised wring tZe public and g Y ng ationaonddeerausend ainith �r of the project re y a enc revie e cabl , by of some .of the existing nfoea most often in come- p,oject area. The documents that app spondence and' comments are Assembl.y�BilLeo�ola�tand lAasmann ey Herds by Longhur r P California peer.... r �' ' , .,.;s�1 Bidwoll Heights $2-6 _ APPENDIX S List of Persons Commenting on the Draft EIR Ju`la+ 29, 19$2 Planning Commission Dan Ilay, 5, Jr Earl Nelson August, S, 1982 Manning Commission Alan Burchett Kelly Meagher Earl Nelson Roger Cole September. 1, 1982.Subdivision Committee Dan Hays, Jr Earl Nelson September 15, 1982 Subdivision Committee Dan Hays Jr. Earl INIelson September 23., 1982 Planning Commission Dan Hays, Jr. Jim Snowden Earl Nelson ; October 7, 1:982 Planning Commission Jim Snowden Tom Alden Dan Hays, Jr. Roger,Cole , Earl Nel,s Nelson Keanly Meagher , October 28,1982 Planning Commissi`onx Earl Nelson Bill Collins Kelly Meagher Dan Hays, Jr. Ha'rI. Cuzae, November 4, 1982 'Planning Commission Bidwell Help lYts 82-6 l eceml�C�� 1 A , 1982 Boarel of Su ervisors Far] Nelson Ji)jI Snowden Kelly Meagher Ron Imhon, John LLvaa.S Don ilunhne Richard Redmond Docember 21. 1982 Board o1' Su ervisors El len Sanders Bill BtIrch Earl Nelson Art Gilman Kelly Meagher 'Lantis Roger Cole Dave John Luvaas i8nuary 11; 1983 Board .of Supervisors lathy Ivey Ellen Sanders Earl Nelson Kelly Meagher Roger Cole 4Tohn. Luvaas Harry Cozad l:ebruar y 8, 1g83 Board of Su Ervi sots Earl Nelson Flo O,patrn), Gary Simmons T'a Bumke Roger Cole Margaret Speer Eva Incau'do Bill Collins Shelton Enochs .john Luvaas hell). Meagher Ellen Sanders Mary Ann Hou x Ma ch 1983 Planning Commission Earl Nelsen, Ke11Y g Mea her Roger Cale . John Luvaa E11en Sanders ?larch l7, 1583 Planning Commission Earl Nelson Kelly► Meaghe{r Roger Cole March 24, 1583 Planning Commission Kell% Meagher s Bi(hycI1 }1c'i9ht? 82-62 7.98,3 i 14tnnin f1^1� Co 11,111 i s ion " _ Roil 1m}7o f C }��].ly A1o�t,gher �Fx9.1 13 1983 i'1annins.on Barg. Nelson �jaral 19, 1983 Boarci of Su,)ervisors Earl, Nol.san John Luvaas Dan Hays, Jr. 3(013.y n}eagher NI(I ' 10, 1983 Board n C �u Dery i.sol1s Earl, Nelson Michael ,IacRson 1Jelt� kath r Heti, parian Barbara Roden Ke�ll�a 1�}eagher Roger C010 � Lev e Evans Richayd Roth }dill Burch Richard Redmond i Ine Moeller B1.11 N�.chol.s June r1artn DonN.imme�` john Luvaas F Fred j�hitehurst B�.rr %ie1 Y Vers Ron 'Talo , 1`'fa�r4, 1'$3 13Qard of Su ]er�isQrs Cl intoll C'aywood earl. Nelson Bill Burch heliy Meagher _.1;19ra:nda David J00 Smit} RobertROSS, ,John., Luvaas 110 Oi)atlny B4trr)t b1e'0r;, }iarvy Co --ad Jut1e 7, 1�Jiia Board acrv3_ sons ;clx'1 NelS0l1 Robert Ross Bill Burch �e11y 1`1e:a�TT 'BurRO Barry pat Richard Roth John Luvaas _.saUNARM + )3a llvo'I,;f lici g1jt; 82-cit APPENDIX T Corre$Pondence Letter Of 2/9/85f TOM Jon Anderson Memoo f 4/13/83 to Planning Cc it1mi ss i r9emo of :5/6/83 to Board f Letter o S, L@tteo 3/8/83 fupealtisox•5 Molno rom A9Ilry F. Meyer o:f 5/20/83 to board o 5��J7e^v.sors Lotter of 6/3/83 :from 11'E,L5C0 Memo of 6/3/83 to Board of Su�;c+�•vasors Memo Of 7/6/83 to Board of 3U]J1'v1Sor5 Letter of S 24 / /8 y from Barry Letter of A1eVors S/1,8/83 fxom Forest }:tine] Acts 011 C vmm i tto o a w 4� Board of Supervisors Bidwell Heights Specific Plan Page 2; May 5, 1983 action on this project would not be withheld pending the results of that study. One provision of the Specific Alan was amended' by the Planning Commission to ,address its relation to the area - wide study. Policy 4.3, under the heading of Phasing and Imple- mentation, states: "A density range shall be defined on the Bidwell Heights Specific Plan map. In the event that an area wide study determines that a density adjustment would be appro- priate, the Specific Plan can then be modified". The area study is due for completion in early August 1983: Response to the letter from James D.: Jokerst:, California Native Plant Society, dated February 4, 1983. The f'irs't part of Mr. Jokerst'81 letter encourages that another rare plant survey, be conducted during late April, through June. The reason for this request is the date of the original rare plant survey in October 198.1 In dealing; with Kingsley Stern, the botanist who did the original rare plant survey, we have found he is able to perform detailed botanical surveys at nearly any time of the year. In order to remove all doubt that his findings are accurate, a follow-up rare plant survey would need to be conducted by, the end of June 1983. We would defer to the Board of Supervisors for direction on another survey. A comment is 'made that a detailed discussion of how the proposed project Will effect, or alter, vegetatio°n of the parcels is not included in the EIR, The Specific Plan„ as amended, includes a provision for a resource management plan to be prepared and implemented, for all the open space areas, as part of the land trust, to protect and maintain the property's biotic resources and minimize impacts of the development. (Policy 1.6) Further, policies 3.1.2 through 3.1:.4 require that a, map be prepared identifying riparian corridors and major open space areas, including wildlife corridors. We believe the preparation of- these fthese maps will be a step towards retention of the open space' areas. The wildlife corridors have been identified on the Specific Plan reap. It is 1�,ke1y that the applicants will stipuu late in their deed restrictions, that removal of vegetation is to be limited to the2 actual areas of physical: dovelop7nent ,or as needed for fire protection. Whether an individual property owner would be accountable to such a resitit n tio'remains to be seen. Hoard of Supervisors Bidwell Heights, Specific Plan Page 3 May S, 1983 Mention is made that large scale removal: of chapirraa, vegetation can promote the growth of poison oaR, Ile would recommend that herbicide application not be utilized as a method of poison oak control. The suggested alternative would be to remove and burn the poison oak where it occurs in areas adjacent to dwelling units The impact of vegetation removal and' corridors on the migrating deer, herd is discussed in the WESCQ report; letters from the Department of Fish and Game and staff re-sponses There is a definite relation between the number: of dwelling Whits and inr provements proposed and the magnitude of the hab:i:tat loss for migratory deer and other wildlife. As indicated earlier, staff continues to support a reductio,n 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. - Ile cannot comment fully at this time as to what changes, in the vegetation and ecology of Poe 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 lased or whether this vegetation would include obnoxious introduced species that might outcompete native vegetation. A recommendation. that will be included as a proposed mitigation measure is the> following: "Retain resident vegetation except in the areas of physical development as shown on, the open spacemap and replant 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`, 19$3 regarding the General Plan comments for the Pidwell Heights project (Appendix Q) and °the fi,°rst page of Appendix N regarding the :fire hazard and appropriate means of fire prevention and fire protection. SAS :lkt Msuroh Bo 1-063 1l1r. tepen. A. Streeter 713utte Cou,ity 1 1ra�nY1a71t. Co;` -s i+inion 7 County Oent:hr Drive Oroville, Cu 95965 Re.. "3id,,sell HeiLhts '`n:vironment,:l Y�pm.ct Rcq,ort-Specific 1.lart x naive 5f'vcxl _oester;nts I notal. like to oto triisrropased fro jeet. I have reviewed ttir BIR and al so visa ted a i. ortiorl of tail jrojtot sever.. weeks Seo Upon viewing the xain acceso road between Hwy.' '52 and Bidwell Heights, T ran appslled Att the overall condi tj t� , of t:1P royd itself, out :s;nd fill portions, rock quarry and m.djaa.cent lz".nds. Severe erosion is o^currinF over a lar8e potion of the roadway. The worst portion Ajar loobteid within 500 yards of Little, Oxiico Creek. Olij&bing out of this drainage to the . at;th, tree ro44dcut itaelf clixibs at 4 steel, angle of at lest 2006. Ir&anense A ,xourtts Of soil .nd rack art ero,iing along this steep cut and the whole hillside is- sluxaping. 1n reviewing, the BIR, I was unable to find an%-, reference to the ia}.,a"..cts of this road on. these ] rands ax.a watersheU adjacent to theE,roject site. EJitia.tiane Zroosed in 6enexal to control erosion include (le 21) " roVT road cuts... A"e:, roa,os conforn to natur&l contours... kddeJ A"e` ,co rj osit: on of fill are..;.' These e tik,*otions uc .lot to be },eirtg izple- terited on tnip road. Addition:,l mitik,.AtIori,, xeP sures i.nolude. rr aromIt rev�-Let;jAion of e-onstruction it -s and roA Crading". I observed no klteu pts at revet.etata.on occurring:. *lon an of tri ro&d,z waich" ore p.rrt of t its 1roPsed develoj,trent. ra8e 5 of the specific Ilan, Appendix K discusses trim. storm d�� ,. na, p system And sta les tne- s,� steer " rri7:l inclur e rej �.a.nt`4..€,/sl0S e stAbilization on all exl,osedcaits a� Ad fills, if zlece�s,xry , to lrpwrnt o C tl �' erosion." Yet there a s nb dI Uss.ianii�. trip BIR of h.ov-r su reve�ctw�ta.on will: be accos}s 1isled aan�z vrha•4 1*"vm•� s of cro :�­n will re wire at,&bilizaation. I, t xLve zk,dditional con.cerzis abotat the s toxo*, ,3rl 3inage s,�steza. � c 5, Alai endix K, st .ten tl•is,t " 'no re&.5e=4 ru�Aoff... Will be as*I idal...Vi'herever ipossible, roliofi will be directec :kcro'ss existing; nmtur:cl vegeta `ti:on areas to help Tiltcr' riot the cont,�� inants tti:*,t collect olj iAj erviovs sUr '11Aes.'! I visit6d p0`7tion.s of the suboivi ioit ourrently beim arvolol est. An ex trttsive s��stes},oi deep tt,ench6gi Was observed; c,,rrrin& lmrEequ.«n,titi�es of surfacd runoff and dust' i;n� it into an inter>,ittent 4tre6,aa: }3y no aiGa�ns was this runoff "" rainiaaa r". I found no disous 4ion,' of ,the itn'paa,cts gifts Co. Planning r,mm 90 MAR 10 ©rnsV Ila, (�°lifarniq 2 tna-t ncre�.,e<i: toxic 1,1111of on ta'� yr L tbl. tiar, of i11tP,i Hi Gtellt 9 (.r�"raYC'a. Irtrireu;;c'd :,,nti tie,.s of wa,"t,!r bov nor �.�.l minter levels Twill result iii dest,�bilizd,ti on Of th'O" root s;'st"xt,s cf trris vel-,ett i.on d: continuous l ops of vel r i;,i;i an, :.rt,icul,rl� lu.r&t trees a.;Id s,Yirubs, (till occur, resultin. i.a>: , r.or a erosion? 1088, of veLete.tivv» ►► filtrrs;" and ;L disruption of the proposed drainat s.: yarn. The WIR try.ils to addr-ss an,7 Of tnese i;�1,�c ;s aancz t. air effects ox1 a.cij�.e,en'>a 1 nas s+ id rv:�tcx �r�r•tia, g 1 ort ttre contention in ` ric wildli.°e 1,ortion ks an ecolo t, null Y C► the a. of the ElR tll&t the >~AAQOJ°i'tre roil L ost m.s 'e Til- life h:.bi'tct p�:rticul -r1Y fol' la'xtter 51.ecievi.e'tr the rk 'i�:i- ;� : ani.mzls g,r►cj tIot aljoiv n� I e;ztcep. Lotion 3' prohibiting, free- roa+ 1L Tri ldli i'e , ill �x`t� are. s &Ls corpA.ete7.,y unwork:Lblf. leopl_ rrho drive oBil ae to live su:,xi area will n6-ve dOE,s. DO&,s m _ ait atter norl auny corridors &.rrr provided. T1�'ws�� merssurezi are enforcible :end unrealistic. Overall I fi �.d arse EIl� on this 1.,3,-oposed pro.' ac t� to bc: exta°P�,��l,ur vtgue and iYi Aan;y areas inadequate, p�.rticLil�rl�. wi.t�� resp:ct tv ve et,d.tive, vrildlife, ter 01mlit• and erosion i la�cts. x j'ce:I person_11, , th�+.t d elope, teatt in this looPj.tJ01*1 4nd of tt-ais dell it,' ;is nrappropria�te for Butt,, co=tY. aut U•}� far the l�i,E;.�es `t roule>s, Z ha,,,-e will t1lis s whO10 pro jcct is t lir i'`,a.il.ure of it acrid other �:rojects to address the cuitul.,21.'ti.ve iwlI"t�j of all Lkles s foothill develQperaents for thj, Doe JkUll Ridge- ' ,i Ale. Cnica Greek vrstershed. 7 ux, e, the lylan.t n� t eparte'.en.t to continue at Vi6orous sujtprk, of & cu-:ul<ktiv,s im.psrot study for �h�n before �kny furttxex' p O jec'ts �,:re a,1 proved lino ,rely ► I::ry E� lrie r - 1424 Bidwell' Ave Onico, Lakli orn k 95926 _ -- _ :-anti„�►r���er,��ts�e�s��ad169�I1i��V11�11�1®1i�i ��� WrESIVRI4 EC0'L0G1CI"! S"VICE� C;�NIPANY° OEM June 3, 1983 HAY 8301; OU146 Co, Planning Comm. Mr. Dan Hays P.O.Box 3040 JUN 6 1983 Chico, CA, 95927 0rovllle; ;0011tornic , Re;: Bidwell Heights Deer Herd Impacts :Dear Mr. hays: As requested, this letter is intended to clarify que$tJons and comments raised by Mr. Del Siemsen, County Counsel for Butte -County, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regarding our January 31 and March 4, }98.3 letters concerning the potential` impacts of the Bidwell, Heights Land Frojec on the East ,Tehama Deer Herd. Our understanding is that Mr.Si:em Heights tsen has two basic problems with ourstudy reports; (1) he feels the findings of our study would allow Bidwell, o proceed at the expense of development potential on adjoining lands, causing risk of an inverse condemnation lawsuit, and (2) CDFG comments that a 40-acre minimum parcel size is the only mitigation measure acceptable, to them for the project. The CDFG has also stated that they ' consider the recommended deer migration corridors to 'be too narrow to allow deer passage. With regard to Mr. Siemsen's first concern, it is not the intent of our report to r:;estrict or advocate any development in the area. His primary concern appears to be with the last paragraph on Page letter. Our .intent with this statement.;is to poi ntg out oto the County thaf out March 4, t if developni;ent occurs on ad linin P j- g presently vacant lands, a regional 'development plan, reflecting the needs of wildlife for suitable habitat should specify appropriate locations and nsure ,that adedensities; for,development, to. iquate provisions are made to protect deer winter range and to insure. that mitigation measures specified for such projects are coa%dnatetl from Project to project for' maximum effectiveness. that if development continues on Parcels t)ur Basic "concern is substantial acreages of winter range will belostor greatly ereduce d in, value even though habitat protection measures are included in each project. If only one or two projects in an area are approved, such coordination is of lesser importance than where }the potential exist. for many projects: in such cases areawide Pl,a,nning must occur soon enough; so later projects can be. integrated into the overs!!, plan. The cumulatiVa effects of future projects' has the,'potential; to significantly impact the deer herds, unless BUt'te County planning efforts address this cumulative conte"rn."5efore too many 'more, Prd�ec'tis are a planning P r .. LL pproved whale effective tannin o !,crus remain.: We. CONSULTANTS IN THE NATURAL ENVIROtvMENTAL SCIENCES noturci r Sfl43rCE' tr1+ Ctltcxjrl 9 " IM POCf yrC�l�l( #tL`, , IICa r s�°tr��r }r 1Ct1fQ? ►Y E;t fo(@fit 1% filpt1 studies • eNArCT)r110r)fol marre� e,11ert 5�V✓ d IIr r . ";� - frg��x��� ��r��a��tr� k�r4��, , w��t�r qu�I•r� fi 14 GALLI DRIVE, SUITE A NOVATOi CALIFORNIA 94947 TELEPHONE (.415)888,r6425 ® RC)CKY MQl1NtAIN {OFFICEF0Rr CGI:LIN$, COLORA[' TELEPHONE (3t J) d93 9776 inter-Departmento , M.e.-Motondum TOI I Board of Supervis.ors FROM Planning Dopartmont SUBJECT, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR'foT Bidwel.1, I-Icights Spocific Plan and -Rezone, 82-62 DATE: July 6,, 1985 Barry Meyers submitted a statement regarding proposod dcvolopmont of Doc, Mill Ridge dated, May 24, 1983. Comment 1: A pro rata share should be assessed for widening and improving Highway 32. A County Service Area should be imposed to force the developer or 'buyer of lots to pay the costs for off-site improvement to Highway 32. R, s p o n, Thee Planning Commission added Policy 2.1.7 to the -Specific Plan. The policy was in response to anearlier comment made about the effect of increased. traffic from the project area 'on Highway 32, particularly East 8th and 9th Streets in Chico. Staff has recommended consideration of a fee to be paid, at the time of building permits, towards L off-site road maintenance and any reconstruction of HiI i ghwa-v 32 and other intervening roads. The Commission, on April 13, 1983, a,dopted A policy reading "Provide that this area will be subject to any assessments, or fees, which :may be imposed for the maintenance and, development of Highway 5`211. The wording of the Commission could be fortified so that the polio is mandator), rather than permissive. The Board of Supervisors, in fee b conjunction with Caltrans, would need to establishs a sed on a pro rata share of thetraffic gene . rated from any particular project which. would add vehicular traffic to Highway 52. Without further stud), and coordination with Caltrans, it would not be possible to establish a dollar amount for the fee. The application submitted to the Local Agency Formation Commission is not complete as yet. 'A feasibility study is the key item lacking at present. LAFCo will need a certified EIR.Tor this project prior to, its action on a County Service Area. TheCSA will addiess the question of! off-site road maintenance.. LAFCo may recommend the wording of the Planning Commission for Policy 2.1.7 or alternate wording to address this factor. Comment 2, Public deaic.,ation, or offer of dedication, of all streets and Boundaries in, the, subdivision -is 'recommended. Res onset As previously stated in. Appendix Nthe app,licantintends That the roads would be available foirpublic, use but they, would be, privately maintained.. Wilder Drive, the main arterial; Thad, runnjftl 9 east to West and the collector road,f extending southt cu- ar P. po T 3- larly key for public access. LAFCo,will have f1r, Meyers' letter and responses to consider as part of the CSA applicati :Board of Supervisors Bidwell 'Heights 32-62 Page 7 1,10), G, 1983 Comment 3: Access is recommended to adjoining p •ol)erties fog, future ro7d development per Section 20-132 of tho Subdivision prdi]Unce. Response The Specific Phan is an effort to colliply with SoL ti on 20-132. There are about two dozen property owrlcrs invol.\recl in the 1200 acts project area. Circulation is a concel,n as part Of the review of land divisions Right-of-1vay easements will lie recomme:ticled to property lines, whore topography will allow, ra-thwr than allowing ctrl. -de -sac roads. Compliance with Section 20-132 is not �)recluded by the current Specific plan. Comment 4': Designated locations should be reservej for a fire station, an)' reci,eational facilities or othe"r public uses per Section 20-1.44 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Response: The County cannot require dedication of areas for parks and- ec5 eational. facilities pending adoption of th.e Recreation Element to the General Plan, A fire station site has been set aside. it is identified by a 'P -Q zoning designation (northwest of the pond anal northeast of the vineyard area)i The fire station and other Public uses would be reviewed as part of the LAPCo application for a County Service Area./.Community Services District;, Comment 5 Bike paths and pedestrian war, dedications are recommended per Section 20-1.40 of the Subdivision .Ordinance: Response- Dedication of bicycle pathsis an option for subdivisions of 200 or more parcels. In this case, there is no one project in- volving 200 or more parcels; however,, there are 337 total. :dwelling units potential within the project area. Since there are numerous Property owners) implementation of Section 20-140 is Moro difficult.. l�omilient G Specifics about the drainage solution atYd the setivage aslcT'� )osall acillt'es should be included a4 p�irt cy(` the Sp oifxc Plan. Res olase: Standitrds for a drainage solution are specified in the SuMvision Ordinance and improvement standards. !any of the parcels which are a acres or, larger in site are not required to provide a anent g � ution The PA -C rezoll.e parcels ;would be, perm drama e sol subject to drainage requirements,T11ose parcels are being` set'asicle for action until further information; is developed abQut the soil capability for sewage disposal: The County has determined that extensive soil: information is not required as part of the Specific P lan: Such soil inf6rumtion is necessary at the sand division Stage, whether for tentative parcel. maps, tentative subdi.visi.'on maps,, or reaonesltentat.ive _%Ubd�;vIs on maps P - A_C `goard of Supervisors Bidwell Heights 82-62 Pago 3 J'ul.y 6, 1933' o re Comment 7` The County serviceAre," includeba f'ulll�rangedoopubl.iC any action on the Specific Ilan_ services: Res: The County Service Area/Community Services District �Lppl cat�c�n will PT oceed as soon as the applicailt,s submit sans- T stud This -required study is the main. infor- factory feasibilitj y• c� oration lacl.ing in the present application proc�oss- Staff ar previously recommended that action on the re.,o7�:i.y g �`lf the area ��� withheld pending action on the CSA/CSD by LAl (,',o, TheSpecific Plan could be adopted in tentative form followed by action on the CSA/ CSD: The possibility of the drinlding water sul.pl:y going day is subject to review by the County eaui Depa tmCInty. Rosponsibl.litytca Year, lowt,i than normal. fflows are q providing any supplemental water supplies Would be 'borne lye, the individual property owliers as part of t1je CSA/CSD to be established. Comment 8, A band should be required far e'r'osion, and revegetation managoment Resp____onse'0 This subject was previously addressed,. Comment 9: A. bond should be required :for downstream water damage ue to- tie failure of sewage or septic systems. ' COmpany has been contacted about Res Ise. California Water Service t e relation of this project and oth�'Nir. °Gr�nt,oe Mmanageill drgoftthe hChico Source of undergrolind� water supply.. office, has been invited to the July 12; 193 Board Of Supexvisors' ' nd to comments. Reference, Chi hearing:ng, to directly respnco Area Land Use Plan EIR, pile U 8(1-72, SCII # '80092314, Hydrology: pages 72-94. Comment 10: The S0 fnot setback from the edge of bluffs is anade qua e . �^ erase: "1~hougil a g,reat,er setback might bo advisable for geologic consadeations, a sufficient setback to eliminate visibility of home from Little Chico Creek, Butte Creek 'Canyons and any and all' scenic highways would not be feasible. � .'/; .... .. ,. .. �.. ......... ..al„.;... •.�,. . ",:1ii. :.,',.4t� d`:,,: � `v,','. 'L.:A�.b,'�'aC”'"Y'1 '�" °f , � ,.,\.-N.' Board of Supervisors Bidwell Heights 82-6 Page 4 July G, 1`93 Responses to _letter submitted by the Porest Ranch Action Comm'tteo dated Ma.y 18, 1983. Res ori `e to Comment .1 s Pipe protection is discussed 'or mentioned on pages 3a, 39 ana 40 of the draft EIR, pages Q and S of tine Specific Plan, page 1 of Appendix N of the EER and Policies 2;7.1 through 2.7.5 of the third revision to the Specific Plan. The fire Station was proposed ,for construction in the summer of 1.932 at oaie Point, Policy 2,'7.3 of the Specific Plan indicates that the fire station is to be constructed and operational prior to the occupancy of 25 or more dwelling units. There are presently 3 structures thtit have been completed with only one bei.ng occupied. (Earlier the firestation was to be built when 10% of the total dwelling units were constructed and occupied: Dire protection will also be addressed as part of the application to LARCo fora County Service Area/Community Services District. Response to Comment 2a Sewage disposal will be proven prior to Project approval. The _Specific Plan. stage does not allow for filing of building permits to construct dwellings. s. Land divisions and, for most of the area, rezoning are involved prior to any construction. alt: any greater density than 1 dwelling unit per each existing parcel. The permit process is not different, though the involvement of a Specific Plan does add, another dimension to the permit process Ronse to Comment 2b Favorable action by the County for the Specitic Plan evil], not commit the County to approving individual septic systems for each parcel. Even existing parcels must be able to clear the Health Department fol- sewage disposal: purposes; other- wise, a building permit will: not issued for the particular parcel.. Response to Comment 3ai The lot purchasers, as well as the under- lying Property owners, will be responsible for fare, police, road maintenance, and other services as port of a special service district. The current property owners 'w0ultl bear tile cost of the serv=ices re- quired until such time as those costs were shared among lot purchasers_. Response to Comment 3b; The assessments would start once the servfce id- s ct CSA CSD stabl i.shed. i;APCo will have Sortie control over the t mIn of the assessments: The ilced for seT' ces jvould not be, apparent until at least several dwelling units were occupied LAPCo,coul.d, for example, rewire that the fire station be built right away rather than when 2S dwelling �in.i;ts are occupied. ; Tn such a ease, the present land owners with]n'the Specific Plan area. would tota.11,y, cover the cast for constructing a, Station and making it epera,tional.