Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
83-50 REZONES 17 OF 22
TRIP GE;NET2ATxOYd U T'0complete the trat.f c, analysis a'`tentative map was' obtained from your 'firm, AS indicated earlier this pri�pos'eti development is for 1Q:9 housing units, At a density' of agpro?timately 10 acres per uns't. The proposed land use Afio� ' Viable trip g nerat:%pn for Canyon Park Estates is shown in .` I.r. The trip generation rate used was obtained from seven's];`'`, data sources: studies conducted by CalTranse District 4 in San Francisco the Institute of Transportation Engineers, ` and TJKM. The peak hour trips app estimated 'to 'be 12$ 'of 'these the daily Butte Coun�t7 guide lines and ly trips {.using figures are .also shown in TableII. Tt'e~trip split and distribution of traffic for the proposed (1,ariyon Park Estates is shown in Table III`. it was estimated that 97� of the Canyon Park Estates traffio would exit southerly, on ,,:State Route 32.' It was estimated that t'he remaining 3* of traffic from Canyon- Park Estates would' proceed northerly on State Route 326. TRAFFIC , &NALYSlL5' :the traffic analysis portion of this report includes the impact that would be generated by the proposed Canyon Park Estates subdivision along with existing traffic and `ric�` the cumulative impact from the EIR for the State Route 32. dorridor. towa:�cds Chico.. Reference is made to Figure, 4;' which 'made' shows the cumu'lati�e impact areas and reference is also to Tablio.IV Which shows the' cumulative impact VolUm S generated. A capacity analysis was,conducted for severlal roads that would be, affected by the proposed project and the results of .this analysis are outlined in Tab] a V;;' Fare of Service B and Level of,Service C, capacities are shown for a county two sane road`, and also for State �tolltr. 32. With;_ Canyon (Pack ,Estates, traffic. none of the, count roads is exceed. of, Service 9. State Route 32� noiv ope'rat`:14 M -Level. at 'Level of service B and , iemdin's at Level of Sbr!vice `B with the addition of Canyon Park E states traffic. ; J The destinations of project residents will disperse project-generated traffic throughout the. Chico u.rba.rt ares.` f Since project traffic :(1,090) will amount to approximately 6*-118 of the total t affic volume (1f),i00 -� 16y700 ADT) on State Route 32 between, Bruce Road and 8Eate 'Route 99 !by the year, 2000f an increase in traffic hazards to other motorists, bicyclists ;and pedestrians should be minimal. , w t When the cumulative volumes are added in tho leve]; t of service on Sate Route 32; changes to a. borderline LOS C at Humbcll'at, Forest Avenge. State . Route 32 is :also LOS -C near Road: There are some areas of special concern iff'i EE��o`'' analysis. The first has to"do with a southbound left turn pocket : ort State ° �tou.te:.3� at.:iiurnbo] dt t Road'; ���ip Tg�enerata oii` indicates that xaa is accessing ;t:he pro j c� Byrom `sbu'thk ohH State' " ;Rout,e a2 wau'1c 1:t a so ,Logia r as`� to: �iiat' u"Sit ' striping ,o a legit tu;rri° l ane,,.-, poeket,, in they `southl otand' direction ora Mate, Route: 3.2? at thea an;teks'ection o--•H_m oUt A econd area •of c�. Cernr, deale with 'the .need dor a 'seco ida e as A cess `, to 'adthe I, pro jaet e s st;ryeet .net•�iork.. l:t ` ris , recommer}ded that a:,M_,seco rdaX acces,s3 rand ltbe .,don`s 4ere to`= allow for the access pxo3ect'.in''� the event that raffic'.access, is blocked( along the main erit,rance.; Theprimary , acxess .goad for Canyon', Park. Estates is iiutt�bal'du' Road 6 1,u woq scum .appropriate , to, widen �th°is toad ta' sti accept able ,two, . lane , stan,ciard :,Rambo"lc�t�.�toad"s ` cz+oss,,-6.edti+�ti r rear the access road to the pro,jt?ct'�i"s. 1s' �+�'et' G�iilder ;�rhich'a in the opinion of the consultant, is too narrow. A minimum roadway width of 24 'feet is suggested with a desirable width of 28 feet to accommodate two way traffic, it'd ,ring tit `iii to county standards, - The gecesaary mitigatttiora mOaouYes tbopzovide, % adequ'ate` trad service, dor., t�►e ';Ca�ynn,- 1'�rtik,a��3s.tatesj ,dcvelopmeh,i ;xr'epo'rts �` sWgMa;r, ed',be pw rom lisq, -signs earlier ,in-b 1 a�den, the, .�,uzept c.�assG�seati:ona.on.Aiumb.oldt Rdad' tr5a„'� a , cou,nty jotandard. aidt'h aif to ..accommodate . two Ways : tr a f3a.,I C�ansi er, the ,po sible'u' iced°A o _hair irrg W access routes; to the 'projecst ta;.accommo'date for' 1tdrhate, access"td thea o .. .. o px ogee ,arse ;a n _rage ff.Inemergency; if you have any questions; cor,cerni.ng this study or i£ ' Y , yo . additional �, ormat,�on � � is neerled,� . release a 'vase°- at Conven�enee, ;j Very ,tri.y yours► �n• Job 0011 e,Y 11 'r + '^ .ki xf•"'p. '' j .: r + c , 'P►SLJ; i E1r1 STING' 2'-00R T'itAF'RTCLbY9 ' PeakB= (,AUTj Annual state Route 32 Forest Avenue 280 30010 State Rou te. 32 Humboldt Rand , + 360 $ou e: 1982 Txak1iq volumes on California State HighWay;sr CalTrans TaIpN 11 r, f } irk 4A 11 iP90POSED L441 ,TRlP%'jr4"u 1TXON VM C ON "PARK ESTATErt TYPE OF USE TOTAL NOW DAILY DAILY PEM Ply ACRES UNITS TRIP. TRI)PS AOOR HOUR RATE TRIPS C nXon Patti saes 105U , 4-t`'j -109 p10 ' 10 1090 12. 131 Singlo Family l , 1 r b ViKIA V/S9 „ TABLE III ':J, lmt AM ;P.':'' Hs � �P�TC �'Hw� DISTAXEOTTON, L(=TloN 91% SOUTH 3W NORTH TOTAL rnC&Tym. , ON 9 R'j' 3:TRIPS anyc� ?ark J 057.' 33 1'09:0 Estates (127) (4) (131) r .ti �aCEIVD • :. 7�-Eaux 1057 .. - Peak goer (127) t T+7KM '8104, r 17 , li TABLE IV 1/1/1111 .. ijt VNJ�VC3GiF7 .fJ I 1 DY .A]ZEA/PROJ ECT OM ROUTE• 3 2 CORRIDOR,* `i i el"1'' �",L�.,d1�..,.1'.. �1� ,w ..,itu��.ivz �..r�'�w 4, '+�-•city . ,.,;." .. Cumula ate 7rP ak HourTowardg Dwellilvg Trips Chico at 12% ---7r,M���-�i .d,' t3T?s, Forest Ranch (existing) 2,o200 Forest Ranch (additional) 100(1) 700 34,8,/ 2-,900 14 Mile douse Zl 1.41 366 /,31047, Parr -Terrill 12 84 376 / 3,731 °107 St, Rte. 32 Rd. 749 4661 / 3,$80 Public 'Connection, r Other Potential Lots (Not. Included a.hftta1s Isom-Hall110 7'1G 'x'.,,558 .,'x`4,650'": Bidwell Heights 385 ZLLU 881,/ 1045 TOTAL 5,145 (*Butte County Planning Department es'�imatesr 2/19(34) a r i l A— $3-� 77 t Y ,, ' u.xe. 111F...� w ,rk .-.c• tiart'- °x M ' 1 TABLE V w PROJECTED TAW= VOLUMES pfb�yt��+t1}p * riff E +�E1 rE fIST. DAILY,p�OF:A DAILY VOL. 40S TOS �4?N14i+ S.R.32 atoresti Ave.** 3.000 4057; 9;202 °000 9300 S.R32 at Humboldt Road 2,200 3257L 8x.402 6000 9300 t Humboldt x btwn S.R.82 and Pzoject Access Rd. --• 1090 1090;, 3300 6000 Project Access Rd. near Humboldt Rd. - 1,090 105,0 3300 6000 **Approximately] mzle e/o State Ro� uto 954' ourceS: 1 TJKM h Ur R , i p r' P 1 Ola IKE PROJECT SITE IC�� CHI (� Lake bs Orcvlod 1rI M r .I y • ;; • Ckoville > rS4Cf��j" Y R I1 Grl`dley Y � CANYON. PARC ESTATES TRAFFIC IMPACT STORY, NITYpFIGURE ` t r {,1 r+• i f ,. �1 _ i r // f /1 ` Y• •`«_�` ' ,1 .i`" t ! I ��'1• r'( i ���. � t 'f. •• rpt i� !r . ,, � 'tl . � � ��r� � r ' i�}' 1 � �j s -` , � .. , 71 */• ' � Y � r, �� t . \Irl 1 r+i ! tt+�{�y �•. 1{i •• � !+4 fA .! , •�, 4' ? 4 .: ... `�(" y .... �:. ,.,. .. M+ .... .. r'}e •.,. .: .... �_ 1 ` •� P Aa /.. •:-'rh, ( �'_i •i rr.'n.,, l�•/,� i �.Y .(.'�. , .r �IY1 '1 „� ��r �. .,.� 1�aY`}iJ��I,�y« y�q�, ti.ia.i t.��• Yt i� ,,.. /i `ri .l j•f�' ALi , . •���.V •�� \ 11 tl; 'i, ',''f!a,'T•1 .1'�,l «,,.'*„•,rjr•�.«! ;{ r 1 �•qt... is ad • � d•{.,, { lY �..:: .d' ••�ii�','• ,1., 'I f, ���' I't 1yn,�� /•. � /' •, t { ' i , r 4 ` . /��`►, k � ' � ��„ + :/ l . d « �,« « � 4 • X14 u � a i,'%Ipd P 1 , ..e�r�C �1(yr /"" ' pry •� '� � ��{'��: / r I1,,�M�. rrJ. r �� yt.� i t i1i ♦ � .�.1 , i. a }i'�' 1`�p��( �j � 1� .i• ei%= •p�'� � �� « b'• ',i `�{~ `��i • �' !r»�«�`' Sn . H, iiJ`�f i�' i' (� p�;i 1` ' 1� � �t:� � •`� , Ih .!' �� '�� ill, u�x ... r •" o � �,� i i` /"� 7�;� Y �{'. `. -. „ r', ". -', -" ... ;, • � ".. i � r „� ^ s ,, - •. : o� �0. � �•�i lr+`... � �{ `[� • , �� � 1. 'IMrly°+ �� � � � � , Ab ����t. vIt t:'� ��'� � � ({� � � r !� ` �•F r• • � \t, � � 1 .�' � t.tr�• ,� � �!� ,•• � •, � . 4 1 411 �r b ✓ iiir+��' r �'}� r �� 1I 4�1t.,r ,!'Pts ,e���� 'L'��e.�� �'t}" ♦�i�' •F,� 1 { if s 4 t t " 1,` 'r+ i 1Z�'i"�/G �� � ',e"'��:74'. '•'. \+Yt'•i {`\fi'+r�.�` � ,r', ' Yr.^,.. � ; r w .7M� � ►..••� �` iy \ � !w `\1 \;�}1' ,r �! • + r{�i�r h• illy T1. "r + � s sae+\ � f t;� � ..«,. ra' '' .j, •! ': ,` •,{ � P ►ii �!' � I S F .011 E. PROJG T,' .. r RC�Y �� PARC= ,5 `AT 1`RRF STUD'" IGt1RE 3 ' i. i SOY AGENCY MIWJT9§ i BUTTE COM ADVISORY November 29, 1.9 82 Mr. ioXster said liie ••t�ad�'rio prral�lemS With an b� th4i 16 i'u���t°°S �` 1 1� egard3 ng the street sect! on. The S ecif c, conditions except far � 'cahi. by the"'Board af,"Supers "sox's' hes 'd erenb road br@aT;, Paan I teas, adopted standards,' i.11corpor'atea wit y� �. �y'�pra' xoatt crbs`s �etC�`i�ahti shd i�ers�ed_ tf♦ �i ih9", and cine Dlt.th 7 to , ..the Board. The app�,ioants Woul.id request tnad9.t'l.catiara he With 1.6 ^ �t F o E pane B That tans 'adopted by so that they can `continue r, aceoxdaricq With the for the road standard Specl,i`ic Plan Mr t eadans that the raarlway section Would be as per the Sped' `.Supexv ,said data t;ht3t eras , app b've•d by' the P,oard C& sere': Mr.Bol:gter se.id that regardl.n'-g stent J __' n the"I fiat' tit conditions- B,eport(of Nott. g2, 1982), regarding in,clnd.es- with the planning Director's `ponda,o the Whtoxj�t�a�.�ty :Cant�a� Bte�d' aui�e'��ed the setanae oxidation that the either• be located` outside' or bo_} protected itti ;�.eik li�� the ,ponds That broadens flee' condition' a'�itt e'Uit,' 'Tho ap,rp:�icant wtouli! CdntxcZ Board requirement to appy X'$'�lier i,han the Wager quality colditiQn•as I�ow Vritttect, N[r.Stre'eter �sald that woUld' be accepta'b ' � -. Vie• 1� theft r Bard ng the., ad i tl on l mi ;ata on m a �,, 3 y N1r. Bolster said the school. board and c ii jtsse- ovet�erowditig 3h thr. he- has met with area ebncerned, in' reepar�se tos the school. 'boaxt�'s J ec hest that `din the schools, subdivUioh not ate 'apprbVed because ot3' the impact ter: name mi t� pati an measure, (�c th�rt; The applicant: has developed an al ' `.t;he' rte Dep `as s iotas b PlAh6 suggested y er alp to S for residences �.n�1�8t1t7.�t7�1' Shl�a,�. ;'Biallaing p cat n 'orc sY! seance be tb 't to any schaa- g , enacted pxa.or `tothelZing p"sczch'°pp�.3eatiors' �irxless'"rt`Couuit }pur$tiat�� tc �e'Zi�orri�a ' o 2 tistiiet Is create Fac fit es Act'A08 n1dYlt: Code Section $,33Veril� e+ seCla :°eavering theira�ect.rzrea X"�O.k; �rh£'1'} u�aUallC: w C�'A�► j3L1arcat5r#+�i.`� ' file sii6divl s3 an Mr. Bolster ,aaici this ,^would povice a mschax}exg : p , , mit;x te`,the 3mpact3"tfh.s °sxbdttrision would: :the tRZne; work ' . artd'� a t° ."saint` . : .. 'b ;bra C costes, asir `t;1 e have on, the School attendah" area., lE% firm, tllC'` `lrr641-b W'il].Cf1 the- --are two stlba9�f�clexs -lsalri and bralie�--are aCk.noWledgztig studied ways mitigate: t;het problem. it ct faces andhaVe, „to feasible and, equitable to handle `it "d;ts'Friot 'vlde `so st at sJ1 saeais mast a to dividers. dere be effected equally. A oom=nit y facilities aasesatnent The detielapers' district should be established to 'PrOV160 the foes. di.rbx� which is Pr sent be:fere the Board and the t e support the n strice`e mt;ittititss�ire' abate this � partidu'ta `� Op is re txosted to, ,ropJ.ace4 t #Uggestc by the -,riat�`h Actf Ss' tksat,t elightlyd3fi'ez�ezit .ta�vsthc`;+mtz.t'oa3ites which• Vddld *0e an, a�sessmenfwdirtt�'�ct� it cot�.d be c�ist�c,�.ct Wic�e Aori jttst I 19C�; �e ki t`i t l�ti i 1;"' iStTa fah@" S4'}t0"o`Z l?ditrC.j 7G' ki+kC'5e1�1 -1iHd CyNex' "the sub' v meeting and ma. Wish to a-pealt� Nov. 29 ¢ 182 A-62 BUTTE COUNTY ADVISORY AGENCY MINUTES, Page; 5 F ,E November. 29, 19 Mr. ;,Mendonsa said that. for, this. pP'aject, emergency ,a:ccesa, to ,the„north 16 being requIxed. 'hero might be a xeciproca] arrangement made, with other projects. A ]ot depends on what ,sort of:'doe ent :is. oht;a ned Mr. .Streeter said that the emePgercy access would be.to the RS-�M-I stand and Mr. Mendonsa said:,that` is a 24 :ft.. wide , gxadei, gravel1. road It must be maintained to a certain extent.'or a Pp e P nt of. tkxis 'size, tlt is strictly emergencj{. access. Mr. Meagher said it ,might be difft ult,to;het easements at a,.?nte� este, but, There might be nothing. but emergencyaccess connections bet weea;these developments. Since Isom to 'be involved in . two proj ets, it woWA not be too difficult, t; obtain, ,some kind off' document: That kind 'appropk of connection °would. b'e ate, and it would hopeN11y not li,e o the emergency standard only. Mr, Mendonaa said Chert they property tothe north might possibly .have access onto Hwy. 32 further north and; not even connect frithhe',squtherly project,. Mr. Meagher said it i a ,his unders tancti ng that the state; does not °reel that„the A-2 zone is an a ro riate zone p. p . He asked, if the state has Y, position a osition on that zone. Streeter aaid he did not know; .'but thatt,it is a zona that.- a,be ng' ;phased. out; I is, di.fficu]t tq :inepref,;xthi+oughau,the ;,count `::orad xe3A tion to the Gener' a Pla' y ; in ` i. That,.�;�� . .-, ... ,r- �w".s ane;�reason�rhyr,pxojects=,��speeaLY,y'' r` subdivisions., are asked:.ta rcpp;ty' for , ro riate;,,zotiin Inca p_ .. p e area ,Wide .rezoa. ng might . not, ;'occur dor ;same .tima; r , g9 , Mr. Meagher asked i the,,applicant opliea ,for -rezoning, blit. in. the des ntfine the pxo�aertyis� ws,t 11„zoned A�4j, ixt whose „hands ta'oulri the > aide range, o possibilitea,raysilt�t�le dn,Mthe zone_ UO the ind$:hiduel ,.property o�rners orhe�”. homeowners association? ' !wYi.i t. F 4 � i:R 'i N. •"C'T/'. ...t. :... yr f .S i -, M f• a ' w, , M .,r.i.vu. .... r,:,.fT� .�+.' M Y ' - '.l sMqtx•„thaught,�that tkaeSpecii'ic;>41an woixd place a ; ;]im�,bation�' .. the p0ssit?i�.ttist%ilat• COuIC�QCGt thA„ 2�xdp@. . HG, 4w« <r ^nv3 s3 on t.Iiat they Hoard. would •:not ;apL?r. vie i� otne. sax ; of specific ' l it ma w� nods g h ,, S► ,,. w a the pWlicant ;reques"ts e asked if. the, Specif ,c' Plan wouid take ,precedence .over the A -p zone,, and, an individual property owner could;. not.change' hasher" lot i it Caere not, ;in accordance with the Speciiic;;Plan' Mr. Streeter thought that was ,basically true., r Joha Lurraas, o% Gh:cn, said trhat� , »nfa p hy'w peo le in• Bul to Ctiuntjr are concerned, khat the, i scat.«y impact a �proeets1 "the todttti�.� is `- cons�idered.b the s not; ;being y y count . at,.'he schoblst can . cern .s ,hh plata. r Nov. 29, x982 .s rnsata,...irV�.Yw+wWri-,:+�e.mw, 7777777�,-W a =n 77—J, BiJ-11-E COUNTY ADVISORY AGCY MINUTES Pale 6 November 29, 1982 fir. 'T,uvaas said 'tFi�t " thi a concern is'' n at bappea ng dor o k er ptitl is services,;' suc}x 'as' .f'fre prot;eotion or sheatrf s ser�rieea ", oaf any ,6 her public services which wii ,b°e arequired, especially eox pzajeets `of this sire. it has been asked that; the county undertake a fiscal analysis for the 'entire area-'-Inot tot dust this project;, It its' not �a ix �oz� °'these burdens to be placed upon the tixpayers in the future. Mr. �uvaas requested the Advisory Agency to, ask for a G"omprehensive and eumulttive. study, an how` much it v, uld cost t;he county for ,pub�.ic, :ttnproiremente3, dor, on -gang services for all of t;he projects off' 1rhich th#,s pacojeot is.,a pert: He asked this Agency. to ask the Board of Supe c is ors'to undertake such a study before acting on this subaiVisi.on request, Once the door is open still be too','late rni fact "' Then the Board approved Aiie,`zon�ng for the project,l it seemed to Mx. Luvaas' that Choy agreed that 'a `etu4,''needed to be made, iiut that 'sometiirie'f keeps going 3;nto the �Puture indaction is being taken `nog,►. Mr tuvaas feats that' the'study' indefiftitely wild, prevent the county from `getti.ng I hille on ttie situati-on and will come back.to haunt the county, such as happened'in Swedes Flat. this request is being reiterated although the Board has done nothing about it, He wauld like no r anon to be taken by thi Agency` iuiti'1 they love Informa.ti on av�.ilable that Vi ll satisfy th'e'm% that the 'ta�cpayers will. not have : �o pick up the bill. later. ;Xr. :Luvaas, said; his, second concern wag,on the cumulative anvirbximental impacts. The deer herd has been mentioned. Suppoaedty thtis,pxaj'ect will not effect the deer herd, but yet the experts at the state hare, said that the; expect this project to be inducive , of growth $n thg,,r rear to "have a cumulative impact on grWth and to be the ' irst'of a nusilier of projects;.,aWL1 that is"the 'case, thisn p ojeA;alang Twit `,UOQ"6t*s will ha"ve rrx°•dletnotgting impact `ori the wiJcllife `par Iculaxly the de�r�he ' �^d. Y.60`tii3 s projeet 'keeps getting viewed a7:1.` by itsd1f';-`because `;J* maz y respects it is -a vel].-plAnned pzo jest, 'blit 'yit' wit 1."not be°'a`�. 'by 'itsei f'� It is not 'being realistic to view it as a one-ofµa-kind project. W. Luvaa'sr requested that the eixmu7at3.ve`` imPa is be stuciie'd of i:his;' �rc'Mct on ttia entire° aarea, 'not 'assuming that it would„be` theorxly one;” unl,essi s a { , y pp cammi.�G6M to the ,public right .:,this Agency vtould be wxl,l`i..ng to •make '�t;hat, " nock.-rthat there would-be t ftit�herPa rival. o '-any,suiid ris a = 'n`w he axes:. This commi.t;t;ee of the Board ,vouj obviausly not make that commi,ttuient. l se ., .t ie carltrary'Must'{ be `a"ssumed--�$hia; +,th .'s�F�pxvjecta %ril],c acre ,) +' i 9 e, w k� s r gxtowth4i.nduaing..finpact, thai;'lt will be�,the P�xst oP man'y,and that` r4 is $lo e h �h* Scclu c theeaac That; being; th'e case, '1.x. not bet: a ee 'gmpstc'�''n s hf this- p j o: all °impacts' `rt;h�er~a'xea est 15'e la`oked at for this project and aach ether projdot,ab it is considered'.;., For, that puucpos.s, Mr..Lt;vaas requested that t incorporated with' ft the` r,IR oxo phis project be .included all: tha izratexidl received in: 'the way of public &nd agency response on the Dtdwell "Heigh't's E , l uva;as would espe iz 11 y, W 'like to be included in the EiR for this su'odivi.sion, the lette�fxgm`tha Dept. of Pith and Game that refers Uto the ciun;Ui] aiii46 ' e�rast,ati.iig: ilii fart .� on the deer herd vhiah is ,pax*t of the Bidwall Hoights EXR,' as ven gs: allothert.public comment .on the Bidwell "'Heigkrts pr8 pct:.', Acrt;ia lly`;"'°'Mx uvaas felt's neV:, x1# is needed,,for this pro,�ect.,thata• rrco�rporcites rl.l.`•the' nforuatia ,. , , as 1, in., one , comprehensive. readable document: ° ,The, purpose " br, tlie, doe uaent 'i s foe !.A''6 matinr , not paper work. At least thoother information should be attached, but preferably, it should bd readable. T. I R[JM 00ttNTY. ADUIS0RY A.rENCY M7. fkES ° Pa�gc; ,4 November 29, 1.982 Mr. Meruionsa agreed that ran offered oP dectiaation cntild bo'rec�uirecl'`but it need, not be accepted. He asked 10i.,Bolster, if, the applicant.;V0,11 .d be Willing to'' aP�ex a 60 Pt; right-"oP way fbr ilecli,catiori `but riot tQ be accepted°, This would,'allow the county to posq,', ► at some tUtdt, date accept the road i f it' dere biiiit to county standards, xt wat�ld avoid having to get a,,&gain every home, owner « "Thisroulde °`oi road to the noirtWdovm the main road that goes out to Humboldt d: and . Niro �Idndon"sa indicated on the 'map to Ntr: Aolstor where this•roan would be. Nir. :Bolster said that would have to `be discussed with ih.e 'applicants, They want a private road system with no through acoess .L'hey want to avoid the, itpacts associatecl with: traffic. Mr. Streeter said he'would like to propose a`one"weep continuance to look at that question and to think about the, alternate school. m�tlgation measure which looks acceptable,' but atpp gently `will `tie app 3.ed, to o•thex projects in the Chico area. Alsd County Coildsel and "the planning D rector" could be. consulted about the zon!ng :ques+Aditr-whe.thdr ,it would be appropriate to consider changing the wording of "apply, for and diligently pursu,,q to something else. " 1ii'. 1361 ter said that unless theth/EtsBtrOYg Compul&4 tCl"delay the`°project, he would nattier it not he, continued and to ahead and " u oil gn . p aoncl,tion'about' offering for iledicaton. , Mr, Reid stated: I,will, make a motion on the Quail Canyon Tentative a. F SuidivsiozA'Map: Iiie f2itist motiois'on the'env'iri�nmental doclwierxt,fot`, the Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision, a project to develop 105 Lots on �AP' `4&--35` '0 and 23 - and ` 1' 6 : »l� 'aid 1$ �(p{;n.') : I' vi,1I )rake a niot on Chet because aha"ve t rjoVdd `the cgntents�'`of the?Dz"aft Envirotuneutal Impact' Reports comments received tlierecin, and responses to those comments9 l I `that ire `certif`y that5;tii6 finax°�l z�y onmerita�.�Ympact Rep'art has t�eer� completed ompl5.ance with the Cali ornia.•Environ�zental: Qui4ty#ct,';' State Eav�iran�erital. Rem ew ° Guidel fiVs And ' tHe� tA'6 "Cottn�ty Envi'r©zimerital Review Guidelli.nes. �filie''eompleteii report is to' ine�ud"e'""♦ikre °JuJ;y 1982 V''' revision of the Canyon Park l states Envi 01 datal Impact Report' also to ineludez'the" supplement b 3,ho` Impac ' tepoxr :,tega d5ngie;+.�5`e`�al"ge ireat�nient ;%M`a�`to iiidbide lla the r'co nnients and respoi ses x o ` hone commeni,al" regarding the 'report and those portions �of the miAOes of this meeting directly relating to the report, mox+e specifically, the pioposed"mitig tion ` measures and `xeVi si bris to ' the idt'JgA, iii tneaslires�, Mr. 'Streeter said,' i► ,e 'was that' 6hd l tienti�oned earlier, about masqu to abatement at the outset of the.+Meeting- Thad •Would be mitigation measure 'preceduiree `by 36L�A11' pond design aria ma' "i tenanee Gd "be review d the butte County Mosqu3"to Abatement District. Vegetation_control� for the ponds and"l:ivestock"„a�in xacttices` 11 ���ppp1 cj�, , to "be followed as described` ons°*page 19 of the °EIR Supplement: ; A-70 f r'. h BUTTS COUNTY ADVI SQRX A GBNCY MINUTES t ; Page a.8 ; : ° ,af"7p m•c y ,., November1982 Mr Streeter said the Planning inept. conditions are as listed in the i?lahning Dl:rector's Rdport'Jdat'01 Nov. i.22 Vzbh the d ,:hahments `the'rctisc�ge� 'about to #321- (nowt 3110 #34 (now 35)' ,and ` the addition of436 (now 37) mosquito abatement'-,,�f Mr b%ndansa• sa d , that the.•Publio, ilbtks 'cond3,tiohs shah be' `tihe°'same ae "'those developed at the Subdivision. Coomi,ttde rl eet, 90 `rioting thdt the irite�'ia�" y road struc:ttue, is tote as -provided 3n the Specific kla5 (coidit ori #3)y° �; and, also that the circulation routes are to b'e ° dev`elaped" to tfie� 1IS'=84LLlax Standard (condition #31),, also that the Vesterlyy interior road that pro Vides, vides emergency, access . tg;th'e north to its term iMi0i a.t IiumbolJrlt, ,Road•, r: . `� Yas a 64 t,.; aide easement but iiat�',ta bd`>a'c;:e ted w' be taffered- for,,,d edcatiors � � -tit}ie time of .gi,,l.ing the f.L al ,map (candid nn #l:l: Mr. Streeter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.,_ fiJ Gyp mhe l.],drig,, is the 1-#t; of,`condi.tions,'andS 'tigatiogi measures.,, Public Works 1:candiaions are, - e:1. 1.Indicate a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerline of .all interior streets. 2. ,.rStreetsigns shall be provided by the- develciperc at ill street • _ -intersectionsper County reclu3rettu`nte: (submit 5 alternate sta'eef:: , names for each street; to�the County';adt3ress eoordiiiator` fnx approval of street names.) 3: '` Cohhtxuct "ilzll street° s et on on niter .or atreats aq`1per,,Specif c 0 nsteddt� "u,,ll atreeb' section of '�T mboldt Id } rto� RSr,3 B road standard i'th 2" AC ' 8" • AB, 'SC'' 254 far` iuie ` C09 seal'and °� reiat ire, compaction. w, 5. Provide'jmanitmentation, as revired tib'the bept': of Niui.c darks in' R accordance with accepted standards. ,a d other .1 9 i d+ 6. �:r.Street� grades fatures shal]comply with t e Butte County € 9, r „ Ordinances'; des ga�µ''re`saltit ony grid vtiier accepted•erig nie.q� ng°standards. 4 7. Provide permanent solution for drainage. 8. All 'easements 'of r'ecotd t4 'be shown 'the 14riei° map; 9. Meet 'requl.7cemeiits i Butte'' Couhtye Ffr'e` beet. or athei' �resp�ansib].e #�agncy.- ,,7wu��atceYt7rAi0 ntymoi° MPG a�e4uSse tents,, accepted design cr�.ter3a �aand, recd ation's fi . 1, Bravidd citcUlat an.Emergehcy access 1road to fixe north to tae to the gtandard, , . 7 g Nov. 29� 1982 A-82. } CO[lNT7 ADVisOHY AGENCY MINUTES r, gage° BSJ"TTE November 29,;1882 Mr. Men�ian�sa eaid,, that ;deed restrictions are` a private *atter bettaeeri. the owners bhemse].ves, They ;cannot be enPoxced by °the. G:ota ty. , ,The 'restx3 chi ark prr�hib3 to rig °further .:divisi.oh of County cannot but on a .deed the property. Gary Lippincott, .engineM�. said A. cont"i„nuanoe wase okey tirith. him. - The , AP is basica1ly'objecti.ng to PIUStering.. The ether Issue is the proof of Water on parcels over. 5 acres Sri sizes Mr, Reid said that the standards have not changed. The complicating the must Also comply with the Genera]. Plan which factor.is that map requests that there be evidence of water availability W. Lippincott said here is a conflict between the standards and the General Plan and one should be changed. Nor,: nel,d agreed with that . Mr. Streeter said that ,proof of water didn�t necessarily mean dti" ing wells: Mr:.Meiadnnsa said. that the burden is ,placed on the IteaIth Dept, to decide if water; is, available, Mr. Read said that since the-Health Dept. must decide J. water is avai Sable, eal.th Dept'. must be. they must also decide. What ,pr6of is sufficient. .The ,� �= sure that water-:can be found aft each parcel; This may. require dril1=* g Wells, n 'parcels over 2.0: acres thic,dges,not apply. O There iwas more discussion of what "water generally available" means. s, Thee Vitas more discussion of clustering, and; deer herds, and whether tk e deer in his area are residents or migrants..., HEARINCr CTASED TO THE PiJBT;IC AND ,CQ1�IF'IN TO TAUVIOTiY,AGEi�TCY „ 7"he Stem was eontinued,for-one Waek: C. TEii7AR'lVE ,PARCEL MAPS -- APPEAW QFY.�REQUIR M NTS ,I`OR EiR FOR„ C�iP'n Tim: 3. Lawe11 V Smijh, AP "28-1.785, ' parce]s appxoit. 1200 ft. south of Swedes FJat,Rd. and Stoney Oarksr,Blvd: "intexsectian on we"st 8ele of Stoney Oaks Blvd., narth16f' Banger er nga,ne. nYn Bats.�Cardi (continued from Nov. 22; 1982) �TORINO OPEN TO 'TU' PUBLIC John Botsford, engineer, had no problem with Pubs.c '{forks condit3 ons., Mr. Mendonsa said the purpose of the hearing today wa8 to bear the appeal. dor an impact repo�rt� beset% upanr the. comments, Adm Lha lept.� oish .anti ,Game ' The item was continued to awai, a 'aleeting 'betwee'n the 'Board'of GupeOv�.sc�Os and the Dept, of F'i th and Game. At that rieeting; there were also two appeals of Advisory Agency action on ara�eCts Sn wtn3ch the, circumstances were.,Very''riear]y identi:ca1r, NoV, 29,1982 ; A-82. 774, • IPISCAB, ANALYSIS ` The fo •lc�w ng araly is..emphas ze's` tbe; "pok `capita" method requested by , the {Butte, County Planning' Staf f J Saiic'e th'i method, does naf; dis,tipguish. ,between ;'people-e1`ated grid; poext-xelted xevenues.,ant cas s; "Caa.0,Study",est dates' arc^::also 'included: Since the 98d�85 budget' has'`not beenin f�rial zed', "e txmates are based on data from the previous year's i3udget. The esti- mated increase in costs is while reven'ue:;`are expected to rise by 13. Population figures supplied by the State Department of Finance are 15,7,.10.0 dor -h el County ,total" aftd 86`1 0 0 for the un incorporated areas:: .Average 'household size, "`based on "the lRSO census, is 2.43 pe�sorrs/house'hold. 'The County s` share of property tax revenues is $0.2255, The current market for homes of the type proposed is lh U111 per Srear.: This;+analysis'accumulates data into two basic phases of, lour ydars .e", h, with• construction of 60 homes in ; th, f i asst, four year:p,eriod arid 50. in the next 'four ysaxs . The estimated aVex•ae assessed valuation ,is $200, 00.0. REVENUES AOL P p ty Taxes xo er - ,, • x� •' As indicated above, t•he average assessed' valuation', f�per� unit is $2p0;,.000- with. inflation-, and `tesal'es dui .i Ing =thy: � xs four year, phase.; . This ,includes each ub"it 16 sWwO raf' they ''undivided common areas and util ity' systems, 1, The ' first '60F tidi is wall have an assessed valuation of $120000,000 Wath property tax revenues of $27, 060, per an'nium` :at the end o=f -the f list built taut period. Each unit W'ill contribute an, average 6f 451, 00 ' per iihf um, Sales Tates Sales tax.,revenues-from expeisive units continue to be a source r of 'controversy in this, {County A -basic' >ass� mpt, ' n by ` some County staff is that most,Af not a:11, residents,ih such units are purchasing such ,harries with accumulated funds: They, , do, •not haVe' an Ihc6mo . that 'snatches the tisu'a1i' crateria used i'n qua7.ifyang new homeowners : mdi>tgage loans .; These 4 art , how- '6t ` � ever cuf f ;c ens nuai.bers of peop 'e" -With incomes of 6 $�50, 000 in: 'Butte County, particularlyin the Chico area, to meet normal lending institution ;criteria.;,.°Bas" ed on the County`s formula:, 40 ; of Income is • di spoeaiile .a ndc sub,1 ect to sales tai; 40% of" that amount is spent in iunincorpo aced axe`as;^and Wath .a, share of the <combined total of l%, the 'average reventite from households in: this project is $80.00. Since the ` closest major retail areas; are all Within the city f' Chico, the actual amount received by y p y than $40 , 00 per 'in it . the Count will robabl be less A-� 8 9 Licenses and Permits �,.,, .0 1`, The m:'in ;source of ,.3nc,Otne'' under` this 'cat"egory WOU ld be for b la � w ,� p . wilding pertnits,, p nning and• ens x,ronme>atal fees for xo ' eets ..., Xn unncorpcirated areas. The per capita umou'nt s $5:{1:2. County - wi de licenses and, perm its . are. thosd unre7+ate`d P to t',he-� construe- tion and occupation of'residential units, such as business licenses, franc ise ; fees j, ;food' ,vend6r' ixlspdC't� on's etc . This would contrikrute $9,12.: per' capita with a` combined re-V6nite from both. soux ces o . 34 6 ,per,,,, house ho ld:.. '�� �•`� 4,: Pipes,, Forfe%ures` and Penalties Moni cs. in this category are collected irrespecta;re of place of residence of those paying , Income is e4stimatod, tri ° bd $5.83 a p.er c.ap3 tai ter. $14.17 ;,per household. ; Revenues From Use of Money and Property This .rev eni e,.squ?rce varies with: the; Coun�ty,',s ,rese ies and fiscal .prudence in; xnves•ting available, funds �pIXIW rental. of County properties.. Whzle this : S "no't �direc.tl y' a popul�tition- related or development ,:source. 'of ', income, Cou'nt'3 s to f still consider it on a per capita basis. The per. capita income would be $11.66 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 'dategoties,' Vyelf'are-related , Monies constitute '55; nercentt of,,.th.e.ota7 ; the remainder a;x�e div.ided7 into .Ge .erml Fund and f speoi:4- . fund. cat.ego;ries, ' Welfare-- re.a.ated funds;,are 'exc,luded fxom the. estimates: for; this{',ptQjOct, ; ighwasersmon °es,; .motor weha.cle:, a.n�7ieu,���� and tt�aia-er u coach tees are all' related ta. sales. ,of° gatolJ.Ae or use i n upin' corporated areas. These sources produce'`$57.04 per capita or $138.61 per household: Wealth and heal.t,, -relatedmonies from .t ie S.ta'Ge cover all resident: of the County. This'souree is expected' t'o produce " $0A89 per capita; or 3', household.' ' Monies related :to, agriculture including Wil,laiimson Act sub- , vention and pest and 'pesticide' accounts .wall produce $ZA4 per capita or $6,03 per hausohold. MiscElxaneonls-S�'tate' aid,. i.ncl:uding .-homeowners" ad' business inventory`, subventions ekpected to be .$24.85 per oap.itti or $60:39 per household.' , 4 , Public Protection AWL Thnis budged category 'includes a variety.,of,- depar:tments,,-4fid ultn.e functions 'associ:ated, with protectionp Judxcals s ser'vi ceoi include, costs associate,dL Lwith;munxcip;a<11: an4 supetko�rq courts : :.,Costs are, ,x0lated , to,! the location of an i„n.ci:de,nt, Out, reference to locat?Lon ,o fw ones' ;res,idence;i .-assi*iin°g, tha;;t;�-!a:Yl . casts `axe assx nable _to �, reside,nts� and�re$ ,d0nt;ial uses�;1 the per capita_dosts are,,$29_, 14,`w.ith !bdu. gehoI0 costs %f' one assumes that 25% of court costs are associated vri:th, out of"area resi.dennts or commercial uses, then the per household costs 'would be $53.11: The Shexiff.'s, Department, has, both . countywx,de,., .and un3ncor- porated are aL ligations. C,ountyWide fun;cti:ons i.n;clude• operation and maintenance of the jail which incurs a per capita ,cosi:.::oi'a,9 , $24.54. The patrol, main administrative: operations and furyactions are assignable to residents outside of tIxe xn;corporated Eve easr r.. with a cost of $25.21 per capita. Combined they 'produce a cost of .$120', 89 per household, ,�Assagnxng ,Z5,% of ',the, ,budget.,wto, commercial tcoszt of,$90. F7 per-° users and property;; provides an, adjused household. y. The costs .associated• wa th. m i,ntenance -an doperations ol, ithe County's Juvenile H41 and Probation po-19• Capita. or x.31.2, per. 4ouseho,ld:, ..Assigning 20% o f these ,costs .-to no.n-resi•derftial uses, provides an adj,u8ted cost of $2.4.•96 ” The California Departimnt of F0restry--33utte County Fire' Department provides fare protection for residents. an.d,,property, in the unincorpo,,vated areas. Per capita costs are-$29.26__With. costs of ,1�:0 per househol:,d, if. on;l�y °10.0 oX, ,this. budget area' Y$7 as assignable to protQctxar�=of ,industrial] commercial{, #,mbe,rf and:o°cher ,agxi,cul,turai pxope;rtxes, ;thsn., the a.d�us,ted, costs ,,axe, $63.99 per household. Other protect:ion services,i,nclude a'variety of functions. The budget for the Public Guardian, Civil Disaster, Recordeir and the at'her ,eounty,cva�de, functions is, $252 per, ,capitaY Ser- vaces; .that are more speei.fi,a foil: uninCorporat,ed, areas, suck, as Y the hl anning' Commis'„i.on. - Animal, Control and bA CO° incur . costs , $2of 6;16 xta, for acomb5nedcost of 1.09,pex Nos hold P: i protective inspectionqinclude L those L, services; related, to_ . ui'lding inspections,; environmental review subdivision and b the budget of the Agricultural Commissioner's office. Thc'per capita cost for this area is $10.62; the per household Cos t,xs? Thoseexpenses,:_ related.:to. , the-Agricultura.1, Commissioners s Office, while mpartant,,.to .the County as.,a whole,.. :are utire.7ate.d tQ residential development,. -prad: Ing an, adjusted, ;co$t,' of :12,x89. per hqusehod., + „...v. , A- R 7 7777777 777. J, Pub'1ic YXays and Facilities, u Y` This category .is,—countyan de, uncti�aa although most o the maintenance arxd improvements are des3.gned fox residents of unincorporated Rare as. Many roads, ;bridges and drainage chap,- nels servel agriculture, garestrp, and rural. residential uses, providing only marginal. or occasional service to, xes;dentsy,of unincorporated-ilties;" ' 'The countywide; per capita cast is ' $4L;, 38, 'or $100. S5 pox.,ousehold. Reducing; costs by 250 for those and:'•�orestr�� are a.� ,on,,,,ly" g Y sxoduces'ean • P.. adcusted�costxoiu"$'75x4,. Health Services This budget area includes; a combin ation of countywide ;and limited area services. Countywide components are preventative and mental health problems, education ::and labor atoxy,ser��nes. Functions which are specific for unincorporated areas include septic tank-`leachline and well inspections.. The health services budget is $36.08 per 'capita or $'87:67 per household. Adjusted :QO household:' ,, x costs .for countywide sere°ccs. are per Public Assistance Excluding welfare and CTA , which .areun 13 ke ly :ta Sapp 1y to .residents of this caliber o3 subdivisi'on, the budget alla- cation is $0.67 or $1.63 per household.. Education The primary cowponent in this area is the County city _ library system, which., serves: alI residents dor n p*er. ;capi;ta cast ehold.o $8.6or$2 Recreation_ This budget area includes maintenance and operation'' of the memorial halls in the county. They are .a countywide resource household. with costs of $1.,05 per capita or $25 per i - 88 �::r TABLE 1 v,H 'J. a $$��;77 ��jf7�TTT pg�) i1EVVI.NUB,S , A l SOTJR, y k •` 4 p} '- .e • aV S,t; `a 3;n �"��1°.i pix .,�.U� 6 ;�' �•�'-7 .. ,.� ch 'n.., IV SOURCE° 07+ "FUNL7c ' nb ants �`° t:rta v.yr Per° 3ta � x'.�a,� �r't9k Pei ' Adjusted hunt - Codrit Jr�i nc,.; , o ise 1 Case Stud i de.Ai^e Q: , We'd Ar _ .. RT PROPEY TAKES - Residential 451 00`, 451.00 SALES TAXBS 000 40.00 H0116E'H4�D� t�ELA2`I1 °' SSS; d 491.00 - i JGTCE'NS - F�N1J P 14tI'I5 $ , 6$0„' 802; 620 ., ' 5:12 � �r 12'}. , � X34. -GOLF” - 34.60 F7:NES, FOk�'Er"TURES,: 915 06 5.83 „14".1`7.. 14.1.7 , USES OF MONEY AND 1>331,82$` F: �Y.65' 28,33, -0- PROPERTY STATE AiD • •' �HjY, 5, 01 9; 507 " ` 57 04`_. r `~ .138 61ry r ` 140.00 Trailers:... <. 4 1` 7. .�. Health 1,553,93? 9.89, 24.03 24:'03 Agriculture 3890628: 2:44 Miscellaneous 3,904,174 24,85 50.39: 60.39, FMOAL AMP Countywide 3,479,358 lj215,577 22,115 13.81 87.38 87,,38 . C7rHER. GOVERNMWr AID. 5 1, &58 861 18.85 45.81 45.81 CUBREgr SERVICES -, 1,726,980 359,908 10,99 4.09 36.54 90,00 0.THER 185)20'2 1. l$ 2:87 Z, 87 POPULAT,roN RE'LA'1`ED �8. '7c 499 TOTALS- 1, 009.76` 990.`25 ADLE`, 2 COSTS BY F;0URCL AMOUNTS RE CAPITA, PER PER _ COUNTY- UNINC COUNTY- UNINC. HQUSEHOi D CASE STUDY }VIDE AREAS W IDE AREAS General, AdministTat:Lan 8,471,084: 53.86 130; 20 72i 91 Public Protection ,Tudidia] ` ;'G07, 575 29, 14 70'; 81 53:4 1.1 Sheriff 3; 880, 255 2, 2181888 24:54 95,. 21, 120.89 90.67 c Detention and Correction 2',029,660 12.84 31.20 24,96 Fire 2f514,489 29.2.6 ?1. 10 Othex 398,;100 542,41„3 2.52 G.16 21:09 21,87 Protective' �. 6`77 U12 { 10.62 - 2578 12, In�p�ctians F'ublic Way� Faci] tiffs& 6;541,555 41 38 1,0,0 ,55, 55- X5.41 Health Setvxces 5`.7041487' 36.68 87.67 25.00 Pub ia%ceUaric 105,859 0.`67 1163 1:6J I,ibrar ,: 1,3f$902 8„66 21.04 21,`04. 'Recreation 2. 50 2.50 TO ALS 684..46 465,98 ,. v t Butte. County Planning De`par,MEr nt Page Two tl,Iat this proposal is the subject of your in- ial: review and a possible'new or supplement�� al glR. I call to your - attention the .tact .at the initial. BIR did not c6b8iderr the �.mpacts.�' o an SR zone) particularly sin�.e a 'PAC zone, >R anticipatez was anticipated. The in al several mitigation measures and couditioris ,as "the part of a PAC zone;, to mitigate impacts of project. S nce there •is. no PAC' zone and; since `c�and titins some of the m tigati"orl.'meastire's artcl which would have 'applied ' t , a 1�AC azbtie' do ion- which apply to >;his projects those mi,tiga><.ah measures and coaditi.on,s are no longer in et Sect . The impact of the pro j oct wi thou t t,hs:•a► Muc t be considered in the 'ETR. 2. The State of Cali tornia, ir► conjtn•�et iot uta th'", 6f dnmen -a : theButte County Depa-`'tmt Envi rY Health, has issued att' "i_nitial study , of $11 txa,��es �. ti Chico groundwater, We' rete:"y'au to. tie ae- dew •. rt_, which is ,in the hand's Of Your. kieal th partment and presumably of •your own' de'paa:t►nor►t y One of the primary, find ,ngs of tht'': b now.. z°ept�rt is that a majcrsiu ce cif dc4ypwater we 7 - ! d d ts- c:on�am��a�iWn: C�iicb.a��ea �s ''ruun g athe e a e n the foothills ea;at o Chaco. ' sewage- pos 1 g This is the area in Whi ch'.the ' pro j e; t ll es`` hh�tl is a major groundwater recharge area for Chico. The report concludes th'4t additi6na'1 ground y1 , the f oothil is �xill ins disposal of sewage in crease nitrate contamination of Chico's deep wells. This project proposes evaporation in ponds,, sprayi hg o effluent~ onto adjacent land for abs6rption into the s6i .7 ,and some ab- sorption into the soil. through the bottom of the storage tanks . Sir ;mss clear that any, seep- o'f ni ttates from, sewage dawn. into Lhe ground age is likely to enter the -deep, he'll z-echat;ge area of Chico'.and. to c;ontamingte our wells. We must insist that either the storage, tanks be completely and:imperrnaably.Mined and ai 7. •,< , u e e 14i1<iS! dFFtGE OF f, JORN L, LUVkMA l In, - ATt4RN FY ,Al LAW 52.5 AVAI:i tr C k A� 3178 Siitt'aS;Co, pi911l1�h�' m° PY Ctimu, Cnt.roa;ltF e (DI6) 8fl3.175R984 rApril, ,x!3.8,4 ; 001, 'C¢1�tarniq a Butte County 'Plannipg Commi.s.sion Butte, County Planning Department; 7 'CounG.y. Center Dr1ve Croville1 _CJ.forna 956'� Re: Canyon Park Estates S -R.' Itez:one .EI -t. Dear Stat and Commissioners: I am inti ting a s coups el , o 'rin ds of tff Faotltzllsr i g p environmental effect's. of a c' tizens, rou cancer;ned ebout development in the Little Ghic cq Greek,-, Doe KIIL Ridge AtOa. I recently suggested several',items- which .muse be in- cluded in, this new EIW as signxfy.c:ant;,new' �nf�ort anon.; kati are,undoubtedly aware that GHQ requires; ;the,preparations a supplemental, EIE w�lenevex such -sAnt :new nformaGaon arises. There is, additionally, a highly s�jgn,* f l aa,nt� study: ti coz�cernir�g deer e ds in.. the do.t zq. 1_ ct► _4h . s n. arin 1 com� pletioni. Upon completionos that document a�lsa, must be anclud� i -d i:n and analyzed in a suppAemental EIx pox ,:the 're,zo,ne.. ', Eaalt of the indicated studies is suff-ica,•ent ,to, require a .sbpp� mental EIR and all must be included.' ., This letter is also to insist,that a full new EIA be wr-itten, in , cannect;ion with this xez�ane ar�d the xel.a'ted subdivision. ,; A� full new.'EIR i's ; essential for, the- lo�.;iow�ng reasons: The supe .ementel materials ,ate so sub ,foregoing atantial -and ,reL4te to, .and ;revise so, many, tams, lei, the p"r vious EIR that- .a meaningful. reading of the new, anel,prev�..aus neer,' document:. new information r.equixes .a" -integrated .The information cannat1, possibly, be o_orrelaud with: the .previous informationby maze supplementation.': «' 2 Tl e previous EIR, assumed ','PAC" ,zon�,ng�; wo1.uld be used for the .proposeddevelopmopt .of, the ,p� bp�ez'ty ' .Singe ;that ; zoning was rescindedi along with its 7restrictionst mitigation ot been me. measures 'proposed by . the or:, g i nal BM 'have'. n_t ., dad had baen xnclu note that several mitigation measures wktch Butte County Planning Commission But Butte County Planning Page Two in the PAC conditions were riot- included in the subdivision, conditions, so the absence of those rest> i.ctions must be analyzed for the S -•R zoning. 54 Because the original EIR was. tiritton so' 1'0rig• ago and so many things have changed since then, it is 'i�npossib:'!,e to tell now what is current' information aind what is-,-Abt", ,:sq a:t all must be pulled together in a 'cur'rent document. 44 The original EIR wasprepared by' the develop6vs� own consultant and there is no indication in staff records of any independent i.nvestiga.tion 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- �thp resources ' to do so A t ew, 'truly in,depe"hdonr .EIR would eliminate th§ problem. _ 5- Because of ,the bias of the or EIR to,aard the projeot and because much of the information discus.sed'be•- low was omitted, the'EIh has been, assailed in a pen,ing law- suit. The adequacy of the document was not resolved, . At trial and an appeal, is anticipated. It is probable that a court' will ultimately order a rewriting of the entire EI'Rp perhaps as long as one to two years from now: If it is rewritten naw, �• many months of delay will be avoided for-'-all-concerned. If it, is not rewritten now'; but merely supplemented:, stick' si p plementation would not deal with: all of the eai,lier de;fec'ts and the rezoning would, sub'ect to the sarie-challenye on aIR. 6 This ie ,a1so to demand that the new E`IR and/or., any supplementation be ;prepared by,atrul,y,independetit conte sultant, not c�hose'n by the :v 1-6 We object to ariy''oiheti prg y legal' me'a'ns. ocedure and w11 challenge b' all available 7- rinally, this will e�npltasiz' additional points which must be covered in environmental; analys .s zone. The 'need foz these studies0and for integra>rion oi? them with, information from the previous EZRs turtkfe" di~mon'stratds the 'necessity of a completely' rewri ttOft t EIR :, Neatly - e'1] dwE these additrional points werebrough-t to the atteint;L bf-`ihe County in the pending, lawsuit over the subdivision, but we r.ormation, direct esta.te them now so that you wi'7.1 have the iii' ly: The following information must be included: _a a) In to the deeri is turfy mn;tiont�d above; refer 'to and ineorpo�cate herein acid ask tr`ia°t you specifi-•