HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-50 DRAKE/ISOM SPECIFIC PLAN FILE #2 3 OF 5L�
BUTTE COUNTY' ADvJSORY AGENCY MINUTES Page 12
Noveinber 29, 1982
Mr. Streeter said he was not at the meeting last Wednesday, so he did not know
the outcome of that. Looking at the whole Doe Mill Ridge area, something
that comes down might effect it. That certainly should be taken into
account. One thing, in any fiscal analysis, there is some difference in the
0
schools versus the public services. The schools are something the county
doesn.'t have direct control, over. There are almost two different fiscal ,
analyses in a sense. it will never be seen, unless the properties are very
high priced, the covering of every public service. In this economy it is
hard to pick up those extra costs. With. the property. 'taxes now, it will:
be rare to see a project completely cover all its effects on :public sez-vices.
®
That is almost a given. If it were expected to be the other way, then the _
county would never approve a project. That is a little beyond what would happen.
A further fiscal analysis couYi be asked for: The v5sults would'be challenged
one way or the other. it is a new area, and somethiiig that shouldf'be done for
the whole ridge. Statements have been made. not eo rauch by staff,, but by the
Commission on -Nov. 4,',that they think -that any pro je�cts.'going on now should be
allowed to go through. Mr. Streeter sympathizes that this project cannot be
looked at as an isolated. situation. There are certainly interrelated effects
on wildlife and growth inducement and so forth. With the history-of., this "
particular project it-would have to be'recommeneted that it does go forward.
It would be i.mpor tacit to keep in. touch with the 'Board' s s Ludy of the whole
area, so a better handle canbegotten on such issues as access, and parcel size.
Density in the foothills is certainly something that is being looked 'at. In
this case there is one dwelling unit per 1Q acres, which wary acceptable to
the Dept. of Fish and Game. With the alternate sewage disposal design, it;
appears that it is going to work. What,,precedent this will set, is unknown.
The .other; applicant-is on different properties have different islets •for their 'property,
which conflict with provisions of the Specific Plan and the County General
Plan.
The motion was cz;rried unanimously.
,
Mr. Reid stated;I farther move that based on our own knowledge and•
research arid-,on Iftformat .on predented to us concerning this project ;
a
including the-i;nvironmental Impact Report which VAO cons'ideied in arriving
at a decision T move, that' we; find that project, the Quail Canyon ryect, could .have
�
IY �
a s3gni ficant effect,
s ons the • env3ror ment'.$ut will not have ,a ,s .gnificant
effect'-fn'this case' because bf the`'adopl eci tLtti'gation:measuxes a,ttacheci 'hereto
* _ and'"by this xekerehde maae° "part Hereof, more specifically the
inii Ligation 'measuresaS previou3ly. ci.i sed8sed and included in this Meeting
.
be part:of the Enviro=g#`tal ,Impac"t report.
*i Reid stated: X further move that we reject the alternatives to the
project at this time for the follUwing reasons;
The t:irst altdrnutive.;"NO PR=CT i,stbeing rejected because•the;present
project;"does comply with the'General Tan and the applicant,ties ox will
antxgate significant impacts.:`
+ Nov.; 29, 1982
I I
BUTTE COUNTY M
ADVISORY AGENCY �=Ec Page 15
November 29, 1982
Mr. Mendonsa said that the Public `Works conditions shall be the same as
those developed at the. subdivision Committee meeting, toting that the
interior road structure is to be, as provided in the Specific Plan, and
also that the circulation routes are to be developed, to t he RS-8�01
standard, also that the weste ' rly interior road that provides :emergency
access to the north to its terminus at Humboldt Road be offered for
dedication as a 60 ft. wide easement, but not to be accepted at the time
of filing,the final map.
Mr. Streeter asked if Public Works condition #11 could be clarified.
mr. Meftdonsa agreed to$hat. There should be a period after the word
circulation. There should be the right to use both of them across
private ptoperty. ., "Emergency access roads to the north to be to the
RS -8 -LD -1 standard,,," should be the second part of the conditioft.
Mr. Streeter said that regarding, Ptiblic Works condition #9, the Fire Dept.
had an extensive list of very'specific conditions.,
Mr. Mendonsa said that those conditions are available for the applicant
at the Public Works Office.
Mir, Streeter seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
mr* Mendonsa said that this item would go forward to the Board of Supervisors.
�
Anyone not approving of the action taken today, should make an appeal to
the Clerk of the- Board. Mr. Mendonsd did not khot4 if the Board would consider
it -as 4 normal d peal. The Board op.suporvisots, would be notified of this
ip
action and the Board should set- a hearing date.
n�T� $%JLOWS IS M MOTION WITHOUT OoMRNTS OA INTERUPTION8,.:
Mra' Reid, stated�. 1 will4mhke a motion oh the quail Cahq�ot To ntaitive
envir6nmental,document f,
iv pi Tfie,Xitst-'��mAioft ja' on the'
Subd , iiion �%j e or
the� j;;Juai'l, Ca , hy I on , 'T" tdtive, Six _jvjs on, a,projectjo deVe16p'. 109" lots on
e.n.
V
make a,, mp J
apa,that
AP 4&,�5-04 6rid; 93, And 46, -1! ?tfi-..)
)rAft 'E1jVjrpnme-Ata1--,tmpdc.
because ve.'-1AiVd rev1e,eW tjje� boritdiitso
' f'thei,j
those comments,, ','I
0 rede'ivedl'ifi'dribn'; an, spqnses, . 1
Repor q mment,,6�: received i_ � Ii
with t
movethat vp .certify that ,the iiial-"Envlj�ordneAtal�-ifnpdat,'"Reli.Ort :has beer
d6mPI it compilaridd �'
:: he Californiaodlifothia thvirottentdl q6aLt�y,,Actj
; V
State t4vironmenaAeview, !inesand # the
ButteCoun y Environmental.
nie4'
, a
Review "Guidelines. The dopp ,eted report" is.`to ifidluckthe July 1,982
revision ,of the
e CA, 1yo t Park Estates Er1Vito=ed,td1! Impact Report, also to
2
include the .supplement t� the
Impact Riep6A,regatdiog, the sewage treatment
..
.
n, 6 adjUde All comments resp6ftses to those coime'ntg
regarding the report and t 6$e, portions o:e the
rminutes' of
to the repo3Z imp e
PP� 8Pecif proposed
di.Voctly relat
measures -,tdm,Ls1o,n13 to tiie`m3.tigatirin�uieastzres, ;'
$ov; 29j 1582
4
t
BUTTE
COUNTY ADVISORY AGENCY MINUTES Page 19
November 29, 3.982
12.
Obtain state encroachment permit and construct public ,road approach
at Humboldt Rd. and Hwy. 32.,
13.
Pay off assessments.
14.
Meet the requi.rernents of the utility companies (i.e., PG&E, Pacific
Telephone, water, sewer.)
1.5.
Pay any delinquent taxes.
16
be,veloper shall provide all r1sgi1ired traffic safety signs including ,.
stop signs. _
17.
The westerly interior road that provides emergency access to the
north to its terminus at Humboldt Rd. to be offered for dedication
but not to be accepted at the time of ,filing the final. map.
Health
Dept. conditions are:
18.
Provi-le a community domestic water supply that complies with the
California State Safe Drinking Water Act and the Code 'of Butte
County,
19.
Provide community sewage collection, tveatmeat and disposal facilities
that comply with Califdrnia State Regional Water Quality Control Board) the '
Code of Butte County, California. State Health -and Safety Code and other,
applicable'codes and .regulations governing the designrconstruction,
and operation of the facilities.
20.
Provide a service and ma,i.ntenance district or, -other legal entity
or entities adequate to insure the construction, maintenance,,
repair or improvements of the domestic water aupp]y.systetri and the
community sewage collection treatment and dioposal fadfli.ties.
®
Planning -Dept. conditions area
21.
Record a covenant, running 'wth.tthe ,land,;, agreeinginclusion
�tit hin n Fir's Protection .A!sdssmenjtADistrict,wtYiich may be' established
'by the Board of Supervisors at a future time.
g°
'22.
Applicant ttitxst also comply r
pp ply with: all other applicable State and
1 oi:al statutes, ox^;iinances and regU
'lations.
23.
Applicant toapply for and diligently pursue 'Zoning that conforms
to. tieSpecii'i c Plan.
•
The following mitigation measures will also' be 'cbnditici'ns =of 'apiireval.:
246
Utilize standard erosion control and corjstructioq 'practices to
minimize erosion and other, construction; impacts.
Nov. 997 .1962
79
x
BUTTE
COUNTY ADVISORY AGENCY MINUTES Page 20
November 29, 19$2
25,
Design and construct the structures with adequate lateral reinforcement
to withstand an .earthquake with intensity Vill on the Modified
Mercalii Scale per the Uniform Building Code.
® 26. :Minimize potential damage, from rockfalls by; (1) Locate dwellings
and other structures awayfrom the base of steep bluffs. (b)
Avoid probably areas of future rockfall activity where concentration
of rockfall: debris occur. (c) Construct low walls of no stone on the
uphill side of dwelling sites where the area :shows evidence of occasional
rockfalls of small boulders,
27.
Mark the important archaeological site by survey monuments during
the road construction phase.,
28.
Grant an easement for archaeological site CV -1 to t he Society
for California Archaeology OR if preservation of the site is not feasible,
an extensive scientific investigation is required prior to filing
the fnal subdivision neap.
29.
Locate toads and dwelling t nits so as to miniiui.ze the,amoun{;
of vegatation removed or disrupted, avoiding habitat interfaces
whenever possible. Retain riparian vegetation wherever possible.
Locate dwellings and roads ,50 to 1.00 feet from stream channels
except at bridge; or culvert crossings.; ;
30,
Restrict fencing to homesites to provide corridors for wildlife
movement:
,31.
Limit, the construction of .dwelling unit; within, 350 ft- tron the
centerline of Highway 32. ''or dwellings prAposed, to be located
within that setback areas architectural design of the buildings aria
placement on'.the ;parcels to conform with the land'scape;.
32.
Obtain;streambed alteration permit from California Department of
Fish grid Caine for creek crossings.
33.,�
Utilize energy;,conserv✓ati on'measurez, of the Jifi .form Bliftaing Code
rand as required bb Sactiori 66
3"" 473:�..'of the 5'ubdji .sion Map a9ct.
4,
'The stabilizdtion, 'ponds shall be protected from ariy; washout or
erosion iot'Ieveea and from inundation which could'occur'as a„result of
floods having a ,pred,icted frequency o. once in 100 years .
35.
Building permit applications for xeaderiees in thid subdivision shah.
be subject to any school. mitigation fees established by an ordinance
enacted. prior to,the filing of such. applJications unless :a Commm, y
Facilities; Act of -1982 Diatri.et.•is created -pit diidn� to Ca°lifor, is
Government Code Section'53311.et. seq.', covering the project area
prior to the .i'000WIce of any build°ing permit-'
"'A"80,Nov ..29,1982
F1SCAL,ANALYSIS
The.following analysis emphasizes the "'per capita" method
requested by the Butte County Planning Staff. Since this method
does not distinguish between people -related and property -related
revenues and costs, "Case Study" estimates are also included. -
Since the 198485 budget has not been finalized, estimates -
are based on data, from the previous year's budget. The esti.-
mated increase in costs is 11%0 while reventtes are expected to
e b y '13%•
population figures supplied by the State Department of
Finance are 157,100 for the County total and 88,000 for the
'tnincorporat:ed areas. Average household size, based on the
1.980 census, is 2.43 persons/household. The County's share of
property tax revenues is $0,2255..
The current market for homes of the type proposed is 15
units per year. This analysis accumulates data into two basic
phases of four years each, with construction of '60 homes in
the first four year period and 50 in the next four years. The
estimated average assessed valuation is $200,000.
RFMULS
Property Taxes
As indicated above, the average assessed valuation peri unit
is $2,00,000, with inflation and resales during the first ,f our
year phase. This includes each unIV6 share of the undivided
common areas. and utility systems. The first 60 Uri it will have
an assessed valuation of $12,000,000 with property tax revenues
of $27,060 per annti.m at the End of the first build out period'.
Loch unit will contrbute'an average of 451.00 per annum.
Sales Taxes
5a:Xes tax revenues from expensive units continue to be a
souroe of controversy in this County: A basic assumption by
some County staff is that' most, if not all, residents in. such
units ato purchasing such ,homes with accumulated funds. They
do not have, an.ancom that matches the,; usual criteria tiled -in
gttalifynganew homeowners for mortgage loans. xhere are, how -
aver $50,Q00
®M
ever sufficient numbers of,people with incomes of
County,' in the Chico area, to meet normal
in Butte particularly
lending ins itut'ion criteria,`, Based an .the. County's formula;
400 of income i disposable and subject to sale tax; 4Q% of
that amount is spent; in unincorporated<.areas, and with a share
of the 'combi ned 'total of .'I- the average revenue frofi households
in. -this project 3s $80.00. in the closest biaj0r retail area
by
are all within t '. the actual amount received
he c'�y of ha.c6
the County will,probabl,y be less than $40.00 per unit:
At84 _.
Licenses and Permits
The main source of income under this category would be for
building permits, planning and: environmental fees for projects
in unincorporated areas. The per capita amount is $5.12. County
wide licenses and permits are those unrelated to the construe;-,
tion and occupation of residential units, such as business
licenses, franchise fees, food vendor inspections, etc. This
would contribute $9.12 per capita with a combined revenue from
both sources of $$4,60 per household.
Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties
Monies ;in this category are collected irrespective of place
of residence of those paying. Income is estimated to be :$5.83'
per capita or $14.17 per, household,
Revenuers From Use of Money and Property
This revenue source varies with the County's reserves and
fiscal prudence in investing available funds, plus rental. of
County properties. While this is not directly a population -
related or development -related source of income, County staff
still consider it on a per capita basis. The per capita income'
would be $11i66 and per household income would be $28.33.
State Aid
•
State funds encompass a variety of -in -lieu and subvention
monies to cover specific programs or. categories. Welfare -related
monies constitute 55 percent of the total; the remainder are
divided into General. Fund and special fund categories. Welfare -
related funds are excluded from the estimates for this project.
Highway, users monies; motor vehicle in -lieu, and trailer
coach fees are all related to sales of -gasoline or use in unin
corporaied areas; These sources produce $57.04 per capita or
$138.61 per household.
Health and health-related monies from t;he State cover all
residents of the County, This source is expected to produce
$9.$9 per ca*
pita, $P4.03 pet household,
Monies related to agriculture including', Wil iamson Act sub- ,
accounts will. rodu
vepntion and pest and pesticide produce $2.4 per
ca ita, or $5.93 er household.
Miscellaneous State aid, including homeowiie�s`' and b,usi.ness
inventory subventions-' is expected to be'$24,85 pet calAta or
$66:39 per, household.
A -g5
Federal Aid
The major share of federal funds are. designated for 'welfare
items and are excluded from this analysis. Federal Revenue
sharing and 'CETA funds are major components followed by trans-
portatiori systems {:road) monies and mental hygiene. The; county -
Wide component is $22.15 per capita.Monies allocated for pro-
jects in unincorporated areas', including south Orovi;lle street
improvements, and Chapman Town CDBG are $13.31 per capita-. The
combined costs for households in the unincorporated area is
.
$87..38.
Other Government' Aid
This category includes road maintenance and County area
transit funds amounting to $18.85 per capita or $45.!81 per
household
Charges for Current Services
Revenues in this area come from, fees exacted for specific
services. While fees should cover processing and any inspection
activities, and•balance costs, the countywide versus unincory-
orated shares are difficult to separate. The fees paid by the
City of Biggs for Sheriff's Department enforcement have been
totally excluded„ Excluded from the countywide assessment are
fees related'to new subdivisions, planning, road and street,
a--
MPO planning and- transit administration and fire hydrant installa-
tion. The combined income is $36.6A.p;er household.
Other Revenues
This category includes sales of poison baits, water, miscel-
0
laneous items and library fines. The $185,202.00 is assumed to
be from countywide sources for a per household cost of $2.87.
COSTS
1!
County services are ':provided on both countywide, and incor-
por'ated area only basis. Tn many'#sta cosi itis not possible
to establi.sla .the separation of serve ccs and tiie popuIati-on being
received, or are eligible: to receive, service. Eco --Analysts and
County, staff disagree on allocation of costs and this report
includes bath unadjusted and - Q "tod :cost,calcula'tions,
General
This ;budget category` includes, Oxp.onditures for th.e central
administrativeunctions of county government. :if the entire
budget item is assigned. to residential uses for all, resa:dent'
of the County, thenthe prcaptcostsa58.8with house-
hold costs ofc)ur, case study estymate`is $�72 41 piar
household' with the assignment of 44% of the budget to non-
re'sidobti.al uses and to residents of un -incorporated areas.
0
-8,7
I
Public {Pays and Facilities
This category is a countywide function, although most of
the'maintenance and improvements are designed for residents of
unincorporated areas. Many roads, bridges and drainage chan-
nels serve agriculture forestry, and rural residential uses,
providing only marginal oroccasionalservice to residents; of
unincorporated cities. The countywide per capita: cost is
$41.38, or _$1..00.55 per household. Reducing costs by 25% for those
structures which serve agriculturalandforestry -areas only,
produces an adjusted cost of $75.41.
Health Services
This budget area includes a combination of countywide and
limited area Services Countywide components are, preventative
and mental health problems, education and laboratory services.
Functions which are specific for unincorporated areas include
septic tank-leachline and well: inspections. Th.e health services
budget is $36.08 per capita or $87.67 per household. Adjusted
costs for countywide services are 2500 per household.
Public .Assistance
Excluding welfare and CETA., which are unlikely to apply
to residents of this caliber of subdivision, the budget allo-
cation is $0.67 or $1...63 per household.
Education
The primary component in this area is the County/city
librIary system which serves all residents for a per capita cost
of $8.66 or $21.04 per household.
Recreation
This budget area includes xnai,ntenai ce. and operation of the
memorial halls in the county. They are a countywide resource,
with costs of' $1.05 per capita ar $2.50 h,r5usehold.
per
TABLE l ,r
REVENUES BY SOURCE
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Armunts
Per Capita
Per
Adjusted
County-- uninc.
County-
Uninc. ;
Household
(Case Study
Wide Areas
vide
_Areas
pROPERTY TAXES
;
Residential
451, 00
��51, 00
SALES TAXES
80.00
40.00
HI OUSEHOW RET5ATED
531.00
491.00
LICENSES AND PERMITS
804,650 802,'620
5.12
9.12
34.60
34.60
FINES, :EORFEITUTiFS,'
915,063
5.83
14,17
AMID PENALTIES
USES or, MONEY AND
1 ;,831, 823
11.66
28.33
-0-
0-PROPER`Y
PROPERTY
STATE AID
Highway, M.y:
5;01.9„507
57.04
138.61
MOM,
`Trailers
Health
1,553937
9.89
24.03
24.03
Agriculture
382, 628
2.44
5:93
-0-
Mxscelxaneous
3,904;174
24.85
60.39
60.30
®
MERAL AID
Countywide.
3,479358 1,215,577
"22.15
1381
87,38
87.38 N
LITH R GOVII�NMi� NT AID
65880
1, 1
,
1 8:85
45.8L
45 , 87:
C— -W SERVI CSS
1, 726, 980 3% S
7.17.99
4, 09
36,6
185, 202
1.18
2'.87
2.87
R ®
POPUZ�ATTON RELATED
478.76
499. 26
TOTALS
11009 76'
920.25
y., 1
` s .
tK i
TABLE 2
COSTS By SOURCEPER
�
S
PER CAPITA C.
LININ
IiOUSEHOLD
CASESTUDYAMOUN`T'
COUNTY- LINING,
ARk;AS
COUNTX-
WIDE AREAS
�VIDZ;
53,86
130,20
72.91
General Administration
8,4711064
Publi.d Pm0tection
70.81
53,11
29.14
�'udici. a1
,G07;5i5
2,:218;88
24,54 25,21
120,89
gp,; G7
3�880,,255
Sh;eri.f
31.20
2496
�
c' Derent:i:on and
2,02�J,GGO
l2, $4
Correction:
r;51_4., 4.89..,
29.26
i l . 1.0,
63,09
Fire
..
542 X11.3
5
2 . 52 6.16
,.r n�
11
2� , 87
39P i 100 ,
Other ,
Protecti,uel,
r�
speicti.ods
v
adliWVis..,
87-61
Health. services1,05
5,-1,04 07
36 08.
B'3 �
D.67
P,tiblic Ass,a.stan0e
r 855
8 66
21-0 4
I,brry5;
1; 36$,50 2
2.50.
2:50
g'ec0-6
zeatIQn,
OTALS
MINI�
d
A=9 2
Bu t t County PI,, nn.it7g Department
Pgo_ Two
that this proposal is the subject of your in-
itial review and a possible new or supplement-
al EIR. I call to your attention the factthat
the initi;.al EIR did not consider the impacts
of an SR zone, particularly since a PAC zone;
was anticipated. The initial EIR anticipated
several mitigation measures and conditions as
part of a PAC zone, to mitigate impacts of the
project. " Since there is no PAC zone and since
some of the mitigation measures and conditions;
_which would have applied "to a PAC -zone no lon-
.ger apply to this project", those, mitigation
measures and conditions are no longer in effect.
The impact of 'the project without th m must be
considered in the EIR,
2. The State of California, in conjunction with
®
the Butte CouUty Department of Environmental
Health, has issued aninitial study of nitrates
in Chico groundwater. We refer you-, to the. rem
port,which is in the hands of your- health, de-
partment and presumably'of•your own department
by now. Dnp- of the prmigry, findings. of the
report is that a majd'r,�'au'ce of deepwater "wAll
contamination in the Chico area is ground dis-
posal of sewage in the foothills east of :Chico. '
This is the area in which the project lies and
I s a'major groundwater recharge area for Chico.
The report- concludes that additional ground
disposal"of sewage in the foothills will, in-
erease nitrate contamination of chico's deep
wells. This project proposes etaporat,i,on in
ponds, spraying of effluent onto adjacent land
for absorption into the soil; and some ab-
sorption into the soil through the bottom of
the storage tanks. It is clear that an seepw
age of nitrates from sewage down ittto the ground
is likely to enter' the deep well recharge. area
o.f Chico "and, to contaminate, Our wells:
we mus t insist that either the storage tanks
be. completely and impermeably linea and all
spraying of effluent onto the, ground prohibited
oir. that other means be proposed to totally 6,u,
minute all soepage; of sowage into, the ground.
Alternatively,, the project should Uedenied:
The ETR Rust fully` consider these is ,ues,and
'be
d%
we insist upon careful. consultation tWeeo ,
-3
13utte County Planning Department
-Page Three
your staff and the staff of the State Water.
Quality Control Board who are studying this
problem as per the indicated report.
3. The Forest Ranch-Cohasset Area Study Committee
appointed by the County Board of'Supervisozs
his recently released its report, recommending.
careful restriction of growth is the foothills
east ;of Chico, large parcel sizes, and strict
conditioning of projects to protect ground-
water, wildlife, habitat, esthetic anal other
values, etc.. This report is in your files and
we refer to it for inclusion iTl 'the new or sup-
plemental EER. It is imperative that this pro-
ject be conditioned and restricted in.accord-
ance with those recommendations or be rejected.
if this is not done; the FIR must carefully ex-
plain why, with detailed factual analysis.
4. A multitude of insufficiencies was briefed and
analyzed in detail in lengthy memoranda in the
Butte County Superior Court file of Friends of
the Foothills,, et al, vs. County of Butte, et
-
awl, Superior Court No. 80050, We refer to those
memoranda and analyses, in, the hands of your .
County Clerk and county attorneys, and incor-
porate them by ` this reference°. The ,new or sup";
plomental EIR must fully deal with each. of the
points raised therein - which were inadequately,
adr:essed in the initial project EIRs. These
particularly deal with inadequacy of the cum-
ulative impact analyses, impact of light and
Boise, safety and traffic impacts, ittadequacy
of county police and fire°protection to ser-
vice the area dilution of police and ;ire
protection' to ,other, partso-f, the county if the
project i s- a' rovod, etc. One of the. most. sig,-
nificant impacts completely ignored in the ins
i tial EIRs is the impact: of drainage 'from im-
pervious surfaces. The EIR underestimated
drainage from impervious surfaces by several
thousArid ��erce t, at least, included ;no d s-
ctissi.o'n of methods of drainage dsi�osal add
failed to analyze the environmental i:mpacs
of any drainage disposal sy's:tem.
Itis imperative that each and. every one of
&-99
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning Department
Page Two
in the PAC conditions werenot included in the subdivision
conditions, so the absence of those restrictions must be
analyzed for the S -R zoning.
3. Because the' original EIR was written so long ago
and so malty things have changed since then, it is impossible
to tell now what is current information and what is not so
it
all must be pulled together in a current document.
4. The original EIR was prepared by the developers'
own consultant and there is no indication in staff records
of any independent investigation of the facts claimed by the
developers' consultant. Therefore, the original EIR was not
"independently" prepared or evaluated by your staff. Nor
do they have the resources to do so. A new, truly independent
EIR would eliminate this problem.
5. Because of the bias of the original EIR toward
the project and because much of the information discussed be-
low was omitted, the iIR has been assailed in a pending law-
suit.. The adequacy of the document was not resoled at trial
and an appeal is anticipated. It is probable that a court;
will ultimately order a rewriting of the entire EIR, perhaps
as long as one to two years from now. If iL is rewritten now,
many months of delay will be. avoided for all concerned.. if`
it is, not; rewritten now, but merely supplemented;' such sup.-,
plementation would not Ileal with. a17 of the earlier defects
and the rezoning would be subject: to the same challenge oh Jho
EIR.
6, This is also to 'demand that the new EIR and/or
any, supplementation be prepared by a truly independent conte
s'ultant, not chosen by the developer. We object to any other
procedure and will challenge it by all available legal,means.
7. Finally, this will emphasize additional points
which must be covered in entrironmental analysis of the re-
zone The need for these studies and for of them
With information from the previods Elias further demonstrates.
the necessity o.f a comp`letel.y rewritten ESR. Nearby all, of
these `additional points, were brought' to the attention of the
County in the pending lawsuit over the subdivision, but we
restate them now'sa that you wall have the information direct-
ly. The fallowing '3.nformation must be included:
a)'` In ;addition to, the deer study ;mentioned above,
I refer to and incorporate bore%n and ask that you specifies
Ai
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte Cautty Planning Department
Wage Four
b) Increased night lgand dtis glare
woulc besignficant, asthe ambient lighting virtually
zero now; Impact on at, least wildlife and aesthetics would
be significant and must be studied. Aesthetic other
.and
impacts on the Chico area and all along Highway 32 would be
significant, not only from house lights, but also from street
and intersection lighting, since these areas would be within
view of such lighting, whereas there is presently no ambient
night light or daytime ,glare. Cumulative impacts would be
even greater.
GO
c) Increased noise would be from an ambient level
near zero to over 1:00 families, ' plus an unassessed cumulative
impact. Machine noise from lawnmowers, chain saws, automo-
biles and other domestic sources must be con8idered. Impact
on wildlife and the open, quiet space experienced by visitors
on Highway 32 must be studied.
I
d) The county --wide impact on public :services 'must
be considered, °, as this project and ethers; cumulatively, wouil.d
dilute the level, of existing police and fire protection and
other public services, as only vaguely suggested in the ori-
ginal EI'R. Since there would be a county -wide impact, that
must be assessed. _ No mitigation measures, were included in
the subdivision approval for off-site fire danger and for se-
a0rity needs.
e) Open space land must be protected, as indicated
iii the. earlier EIR and as acknowledged by approval of the
Canyon Park specific plan. However; that: approval lacks en-
forcement, in that the subdivision map does not contain a
land trust requirement and the specific plan has been renes
dered unenforceable. ThaieEore, the,,potential 'loss of all
open space within the project must be considered In ithe
EIR., if the Count/ does not wish to lose that open space,
an enforceable means o,f, protecting It'must be accomplished
concurrent with the rezone. Otherwise, approval of the rezone
will allow the s0bdivision to proceed,;, without the open space
''
protectiart requitement.
f) Drainage problems and re7�eted erasion and down-
stream flooding were not adequately assessed in the original
EL, 'This is bas>ed upon a gross understatement of the drain-
age needs: The developers' consultant stated `that'.01% of
the !..and would ,be covered by impervious 'surfaces. Of the
1050 acresinvolved; that means only .1,05 acras vbuld be,
covered by impervious surfaces. 4 ever. the `SIR indicates'
109 houses=and driveways, many scaimming pools, 4.8' miles of
An 9 9
I,
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning 'Department
Page Six
such an assessment and determine impacts in terms of traffic,
safety, lowering of property values along these busy streets,
immediate extreme levels of air pollution and noise which
are likely, ;and the cost of improving the streets as necessary
to handle the traffic. The, impact on and cost of improving
Highway 99 must also be assessed in the same way.
The cost of improving these streets may be excessive
for public entities, which should be analyaed,'and, if so,
alternative means of financing the improvements must be con-
sidered and made a part of this project. Specifically, the
0-
cnly means of 'financing these improvements may be to assess
the developers anti/or users of the properties. Alternative-
ly) the impact of diminishing the public's ability to improve
other streets iii. -the area must be considered, 'because of ex-
penses these developments could cumulatively cause,
j) Since Highway 32 is a scenic area, the Butte Coun-
ty General Flan requires that the view from the road be con-
sidered in evaluating this and other projects, cumulatively,.
Many of the lots and their lights, etc., would be in clear
view of Highway 32, including lots on top of the ridge and
the lower lots east of Little Chico Creek. This view, must
be, protected:
k) Many 'lots are located beneath a rockfall west-
erly of Little Chico Creek. Although the ETR and subdivision
conditions state the need to avoid this, many lots were none-
theless approved in such hazardous areas. on a visit to the
site, you will note many lot signs located amongst enormous
boulders or only,a little below .them.
1). The Gendral plan speaksofrestricting develop-
ment bo areas with slopes less than 15 percent. It appears
that many of the lots both west and east of the creek are on'
slopes of at least that grade and this must be iodependentl
a'8sessed. '
m) Erosion along the main road to the project and
i.n the lower meadow areas has already been extreme, as a xe-
s Lilt of gradingr�and' preparation for the project.
��it+appears
that the usual; standard erosion control measures wall not
suffice to prevent ,such erosion. �We`suggest that special e
vision control will be .required, including; immediate replant"
..
ing after disturbance, many more culverts, and restriction of
slope- on wfidah roads are allowo-d.
__.. A -101
BuL.to County Planning Commission
Blit to County Planning Department
Page Seven
n) The Land Use Element of the Butte County General
Plan defines urban development as development within sewer
stud%or waterservice areas, which includes lots smaller than
One acre. This precisely defines this project. The General
Plan then
states that such developments must be located only
in or adjacent to existing urban areas.
The ETR should an-
alyze the project inlight of this policy,
o) The General Plan and Butte County Subdivision
Ordinance both require that
projects of this descripti.o;r be
developed only if a need can be demonstrated. The
previous
E. IR indicates that no need has been demonstrated and that a
study is necessary to determine the need. We insist that
such a study must be
done now, in compliance with County
Policy. Such a study should particularly consider the exist-
ing number of available lots on similar terrain in this gen-
eral foothill
!,
area, as well as the number of available lots
county-wide.
P) Proposed mi.tiga.tion measures for the subdivision
would
cause serious environmental impacts, none of which were:
assessed in the original Since this
.ETR. rezone is a Court-
ordered.;condition for development of the subdivision, rezon-
ing the property is tantamount to re-approving the subdivi=-
sion. Therefore, the full impact of the subdivision must be
considered at this time, including ,all impacts of subdivision,
improvements) conditions and restrictions. These include
the following, the impacts
,of which must be assessed':
a) Visual, aes`theti,c and other impacts of placing
two 757000 ,gallon storage tanks on thesites
ii) Impact- on nativepltants by clearing iregeta-
tion at least 3G feet from each structure;
especially impacts on rare or endangered spe-
cies, which have, not yet been fully studied
any must be, studied now;
impact on health and safety of binning or
otherwise attempting to remove poison oak
in the vicinity of housing;
iv) impact of preventive, burning or other con-
trol measures to prevent wildZire:from brush
in some portions:';
V) Introduction of noxt-nativa species may impact
the diversity of species in this area and
\J
Quail
Canyon Tentative: Subdivision,; 109 lots on the cast side of Hwy. 3
at Humboldt Rd. Chico area::
Ass.cssor's
Parcel number: 46-35..01+ and 23 and 116-71-17 and a8 ptn
Engineer:
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls
Public
Works conditions are:
indicate a 50 ft building; setback line from the; centerline of all'
interior streets.
2-.
Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street
intersections per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street
names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval
of street names.
3.
Construct full street section on interior streets as per Specific
d9
Plan:
�.
Construct full"street section on Humboldt Rd. to RS -3-B road standard
with 2" AC, 8" AB, SC 250 prime, fog seal and 95% relative compaction.
S:
Provide monumentation as required by the Dept. of Public Works in
accordance with accepted standards.
6.
street grades and other features ::Ball comply with the Butte County
Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering standards.
7.
Provide permanent solution for drainage.
8.
All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
9.
Meet requirements of Butte Cbunty Fire Dept,: or other responsible
agency,
10.
Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County
requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of PG&E.
•
Emergency access road to the north to be to the
RS-x�sta dardn.
12.
Obtain state encroachment permit and construct, public road approach
at Humboldt Rd. and, Hwy. 32.
13.
Pay orr assessments.
14.
Meet tae regUireterits of the utility companies (i.e., Pdo, PaG�fic
TOlepholie, Ovate , sewer'.)
,ay any delinquent taxes.
16.
Developer shall provide all required traffic safety signs including
sto_o signs. '
Deleted by
the Board of 17
T westerly er;ior rthat peme ency acre o the
ter
Supervisors
onnor
..to s n at bold t to be a r Wor de ion
bee, 21$
198`
bum to be a' p' d at the ame of ling e i 6
' A-1.0 6
i (Quail
Canyon 'Tentative Subdivision)
Health
Dept. conditions are:
1.8.
Provide a community domestic water supply that complies with the
California State Safe Drinking Water Act and the Code of Butte
County,
19.
Provide community sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities
that compiy'with California State Regional Water Quality Control. Board_, the
Codeof Butte County, California State Health and Safety Code and other
applicable codes and regulations governing the design, construction,
and operation of the facilities.
20.
Provide a service Arid- maintenance district or other legal entity
or entities adequate to insure the construction, maintenance,
repair or improvements of the domestic water supply system and the
community sewage collectiontreatment and disposal facilities,
Planning Dept. conditions are
21.
Record n covenant, running with the land, agreeing to inclusion
� !
w t - y
within a Fire Protection Assessment District which may be establisherl
by the Board' of. Supervisors at a future tame.
22.
Applicant must also comply. with all other applicable State and
�.ons,.
local statutes, ordinances and regulations.
23.
`
Applicant to apply for and diligently pursue zoning that conforms
to the Specific Plan.
The following muiiga'tio4 measures will also be conditions of approval.
24.
Utilize standard erosion controland-construction practices to
"
minimize erosion and other construction impacts.
2.5.
Design and construct the structures with adequate lateral reinforcement
to withstand: an earthquake with intensi-ty VZTZ on the Modified
p .
Mercalii Scale per the. Uniform Building Code
26.
Minimize potential damage from rockf'aUs by (l) Locate dwe17-irigs
and other, structures away from the base of steep .bluff's. (b)
Avoid probably areas of future xockfall,actvity where Concentration
Op, rockfall d6btisloccur: (c) Construct :Low walls of native stone On the'
uphill side of d'rJej.l i llg site',s 'F7ktere tf�e area shows evidence of oc'agiorial
-
rockfalls of small boulders .
7.
Mark the important archae,ilogical site by survey monuments during
the road construction.phdse
28.
"rant art eases ftb for archaeological site CV -1 to the Society
�.
PGal3forri'aa Archaeol 0 0R if preservation. df the site is not feasible;
g3'
ar extensive seientifie investigation i:s req#red; prior to filing
the .final. subdivision ,ttap:
A
(Quail
Canyon Tentative Subdivision)
29,.
Locate roads and dwelling units so as to minimize the amount
of vegatation removed or disrupted, avoiding habitat interfaces
whenever possible. Retain riparian vegetation. wherever possible..
Locate dwellings and roads 50 to 100 feet from stream channels
except at bridge or culvert crossings,
30.
Restrict: fencing to homesites to provide corridors for wildlife
movement.
31
Limit the construe,ion of dwelling units within 350 ft from the
centerline of Hight7ay 32. For dwellings proposed to be located
within that setback area, architectural design of the buildings and
placement on the arcels to conform with the la•ndsca e
P P p `
32.
Obtain streambed alteration permit from.California, Department of
Fish and Came for creek crossings.
33.
Utilize energy conservation measures of the Uniform Building Code
and as required by Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act.
34.
The stabilization ponds shall be protected from any washout or
erosion of levees and from inundation which could occur as a result of
floods having a predicted frequency of once in 100 years.
35
n p pp for residences in this subdivision shall.
ge
bef
beto any school mitigation fees established by an ordinance
enacted pr ?.or to the filing of such applications unless a Community
Facilities A,ct of x.982 Distract is created pursuant to California
ing the project area
Government Code Section 5331]� et. se .� covering �
praor tothe issuance of an buildang Permits.
36
Improve the levee system on Butte Creek near its juncture with
theSacramento River and/or pay a proportionate share, 'based on
the amount of runoff generated, toward do�rnstream improvements
to alleviate Flooding and minimize inundation.
37-
All pond design and maintenance procedures to be reviewed by the
butte County Mosquito Abatement District. Vdgetation control for
the ponds and livestock grazing practices to be follOWed as described
an page 15 of` the ETR S ppleaii nt.
A-los
I
I
are foreclosed from eventual final approval or that the County
2
cannot still Pro,vid'e for a proper conditional approval. Peti-
3
tioner seems to believe that the decision effectively terminates
4
the whole subdivision application.Such is simply not the case.
5
For example, the law provides for the proper amendment to a
�. 6
general plan and for the creation of specific kinds of zoning in
7
conformity with.a general plan.
Now, while another Court may find that othererrorsexist-
9
or existed in the su,,bjec;t proceedings underlying this actiyn,
10
this Court--found none in substance, This Court is convinced
® 11
that petitioners herein took a "shotgun".approach to the whole
12
problem,and; while successful to the extent the judgment so pro-
13
vdes,there, was an inordinate amount of pleading, briefing, eta.,
14
The Court is not stating or implying that, petitioner's counsel
15
was motivated other than that by sincere motives and a genuine
16
concern fo,r the underlying environmental concerns attendant to
17
the proper and orderly development and use of property in the
1'3
best interests of the public. Sucl cohcerh, however, often mani--
19
fe°sts itself in such fashion as to cause one to perceive the
41
20
legal 'and factual issues to be more extensive than those which.
2;1
actually exist:
22
Pet `ti6ner d 'd serve a useful and beneficial purpose to
23
the County and the public; assuming the uiderlying' 0e.Ision here
2to
be correct. Had the cond�tioit at appravaI as stated; not been'
25
could co
struck down by the Court, the devel 4►' o r ndievably have
?.G
complied with the co,nd.ition without the re,auired result, i.e.,
27
zoning in conformity with the general' plan, an,d subsequently
28
contended that 'he satisfied 'the cohdi tion,, wi tfi possj ble court
A� 3.12•
r
U
4 .
' 1
action resulting,
2,
Such a result does piarrant some;
award of fees albiet-not
3
petitioner.
as contended b ettioner. Tite Court
p' t for
is of the opinion that
4
obtaining the result obtained' as related to the real legal issues
5here
involved the petitioner's counsel
is awarded attorney's
G
fees in the sum of $4,°500. GO. -
7
The ab ovel fetes are to be bornesolely
by *ho respondent
8
County of butte,.
10
WED 1984
e
Harold F. Wolters
12
(Assigned)
Judge of The Superior Cout
t
13
P
14
15
1
17
18
i
19
2t/
2`1
22
23
24'
2,5
26
28
A 1.3
t-"
C
l
-
III
II
i
I'
andrunning thence up the center of said road, N 62°
i
00' E', 316.1 ft.; N 800 4S' E, S36.6 £t. N 51° 30'
2
li
E 490 .4 ft. ; N 45° 00' 'E, 606.2 ft_; N 30° 391 E,
1
{
467.9 ft.; N 560 45' E; 6.10,5 ft.; N 600 30' E, 673.2
3�
ft.; N S9' 001 E, 265.3 ft,; lit 66° 45' E; 223.7 ft.; a
N.32- 08' E, 2 -56,7 -ft. to a point on the N line of
h
said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 £t. 11 of the NE ;
corner thereof; thence continuing on said road, N 261
5
30' E, 753:8 ft. to the true point of beginning for €
the Zine herein described; thence from said true point
6
of beginning leaving said ,road, 8,480 11' E, 3814,5 ft.
to a point on the northerly line of the lands' of
7
Stephen Meline and the end of said line.
8
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Following described proper
9
A portion of Sections 14, 1s, 22, and 23, in T22N, R2F
MD1301, more particularly described as follows
10
BEGINNINVAT A POINT iTi the center of the Chico and
1l
Humboldt Aoad and on the W line of said Section 22'
a distance of 2413 ft. S of the NIV corner of said
12
Section, and running thence up the center of said road;
N' 620 00f E, 31,6.1 ft.; N 800 45' E, 536.6 ft.; N '51°
13
30' E, 490;4 ft.; N 459' 00' E 606.2 ft.; N 300 30' E,
467..9 ft.$ N 56° 45t E; 610.5 ft:; N 600 391 E, 673.2 ,
14
ft:; N 590 00' E; 265,3 ft.', N,660 45!,E 223.7 ft., 11
N'32° 08' E, 256.7 ft.; to a point on the N line Of
1
15
said Section 22, a distance of 1119..3: ft IV of the NE
cornea thereof; thence continuing up said road, r; 260
16
30'' E 753.8 ft. to a point; thence continuing northeast-
erly along the center of said road a distance of 60.0
17
ft. to the true point of beg inning for the parcel herein
described- thence from said true point of beginning
18`
-running southwesterly along, the center of said Chico
and 11t4aboldt Road a distance of 60.0feet to a point
1.9
thence leaning said road S 48° 11' E a iTiS.tance of
5$14 .5 feetto a point on the northerly lime of the
20
lands of Stephen Meline; thence along the last mentioned
ling N' 48° 45' E 270`0,0 ft: more ar 1ess; to the 8 line;
M
of,said Section 14; thence northwesterly in a. straight
line to the true point of beginning:
u2
Containing 10$0 acres; more or, less, northeast of Chico.
2
24,
SECTION Z The use"and development of said property
215 shall be'
in accord with the development; plan acid specific plan
6 submitted
by the applicant,, as coitditioried and incorporated herein