Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-50 REZONES 20 OF 22Lei " �f Parkytdw Sch V ty ^ 4 8�Y stud6nts � Parkview enrollment 1982-83361 students a Add 1 taona7: �.aP cl�`ty+ 124 students' Parkview;;School Quail.Canyon 25 -students Bi dwe17' Hei t�hts .90studants 14 Mile* House 5 tstudents Southgate a e Ac�Ps , So, uthgate,Acres 2 9 students Country'` Club Oaks, 10students Skansen ' 2 Skansen 3 28 student, Stilson Ranch 67students 234 Total' Z'34"" '34s Lu'derfts 124' Student stations available F 1.70 over ;caps°city i w .1 1191+. ._.: . . :.... '....:. ':, _ •' r FINA-iL ETR for CANxON PARS 'ESTATES Butte Cs►Untyo, Cali ornia Rezone From $,'H',,Scenic, C3ighway 'and IJP Ur�classiEied to R -C (Resource -Conservation- ') an -R (Agricultural Residential), or A --SR (Agr.cultural,-Suburban Res.deritia1)' or SR -1/2 (Subuirban FZesidential - 1/2 Acre Parcels), ar FR -1/2 (Foothill Recreational, 5Excluding Hobby Mining Provisions) Comp ,led-, I,y: Butte County Planning Llepartmenb Reviewed By: Butte County Planning Department 7 Count Center. D v e y ' Orovalle, CA 95965 July, 186 File x£33-,50, SChf# 0012"2311 f �y APPENDIX XUh Board r�:s,ponse� to comments contained in letter from Mr. John Iuvaas to Butte County Planning Commission dated May 20, 1985. f , First Issue: Approval or this project prior to the "Overall, Foothill Plan" and "Deer Herd Study" completion., Response: The Butte County Planning Commission has held numerous hearings on and recommended that this Board adopt the "Cohasset-Forest Ranch Planning; Area Plan" whose boundaries include this project. Mr. Stephen Streeter, Senior Planner, in a memorandum to the Butte County Planning Commission dated'5-25-85 (attached hereto and made a pari hereof) conclusively shows that this project will meet or exceed" all standards suggested in the Cohasset-Forest Ranch Planning Area Plan. Respecting the Deer Herd Study, this project was directed to the Department of Fish and Game for comment relative to its -impact on the resident and migratory deer herds in this area, By letter dated 3-11-85 from said department, this project design will'.avoid any deleterious effects that rural: resident;%al` projects' have on idoer herds. Second tissue: Lot Sizes Less Than l Acre. The second supplement to the ETR addresses an alternative plan layout making individual luts 1 acre in area, and restricting most of that area to be retained in its natural'state. I'f this alternative is approved, alllots would` be the appropriate sizei Third -Issue: Scenic Highways Res onset, Proj'�ct conditions require that homes be located but of the view of Highway, 32, or that they, tie 'architecturaly compatible" with the native vogetation if located within 35U feet from the centerline of Highway 32 ('the extent of the existing 5--8 zone and scenic Highway element). These homes would then be in° character with and in harmony with the numerous rural homesItes that dot the landscape between Chico and Forest Ranch« Contrary to Mr. Luvaa ' implied interpretation that the scenic highway element: is to preclude all "changes" to the. existing environment, these two planning tools are designed to foster the types of highway development that has; occurred in_ 'this. corri or as well as promoting planned, orderly, well located commercial service for the motoring publico Fourth -Issue-: Discussion of Cumulative Impacts Res onset Mr. LuvaasI _Lotter would indicate that no consideration has been given to cumulative impacts on 7. Water quality, 2. Flooding 3 Wildlife 4. views from Highway 32 5. Traffic on Highway 32 near the projects and in Chico` 6.' Erosion 7 Fire Hazard, 8. Public services 94 other problems The original 8111 contained a discussion on cumulative impacts from four other projects,' as well as the complete,buildout of the area designated for foothill development within the region (shown on'theButte County General Plan as agricultural residential area, see letters dated May 28, 1982 and June 22, 1982 - transmitting both discussion and mitigation measures to the county firom the applicant). Although one of the projects discdssed was subsequently denied by a recent Board, action, the cumulative impaots discussed are still pertinent. Those impacts were: 1« Wildlife habitat reduction 2. Erosion 3. Highway 32 traffic 4. Loss of open, space 5: increased demand for public services 6. Fire hazard These ,impacts could potentially be significant in a cumulative sense, but the Board of Supervisors can impose suffi:ciht and reasonable mitigation measures or condi 'ions to project approvals to avoid the significant -2- , Fi€th issue: Sewage Disposal System � Responses The Canyon Park Estates Sewage Disposal `System was designed in accordance with the requirements of the California Water Quality Control Board (see First Supplement to EIR). The Regional Board issued Waste discharge requirements and has standard reporting requirements to 'ensure non"polluting operation ration of the system (see Item 5, .Supplementary Information incorporated by reference into the First Supplement. to the ESR.).' The Superior; Court in acting upon a lawsuit brought by the Friends of the Foothill , found the system design, the EIR' covering it, and the !dater Quality Standards sufficient to protect the Lexisting erivironmenta� quality of the area. Mr. Luvaas has brought forth no facts to cause us to doubt `the viability'of tQ system nor the truthfulness of the assertions put" forth by the Regional Water Board. His questions about who would be responsible to rectify any, future unforeseen failure are answered by the formation of: the ,CSA ,'#84, the, County Service Area formed to accept that responsibility. Sixth Issue: Wildlife Reduction Res op nse As stated numerous times, :this project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Garro. I.ts impact upon wildlife has been carefully and thoughtfully mitigated through previous design changes required by this Board, Mr. Luvaas presents no new evidence] either personal or, from experts in the field,'that the Department of Fish and. Game has erred in its determinations on `this project's efi~e'iss' These comments shall be supplementary to those prepared by the staff` in zlespbhs' a to Mr. Luvaas' letter. 5- 7 7777777 77 ,, TABLt 0I' :CONIrIKNTS PACS' SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 General Project 'System 7 Sewage Treatment ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Topography 11' Geology, 11 ; Soils 2 112 Hydrology Water Quality 13 Climate- 14 Habitat 1 Wildlife 15 Archaeology Access 16. utilities xe Electricity Water Supply 16 16.. Sewage Disposal 18 Vector .Product�.on 19 Safety 19 Aes tYetics 20_ ADVERSE UPAC.TS WHICH CANNOT BE: AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ' 20` GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS` 20' A'LTERNATLVES Wastewater Alternatives 2� Water Supply A1ttr, nativd's 22 APPENDICES 1, Persons and Organizations Contacted ��'` 2. References .r8' 2�J 3. Soil, PitLogs Arid Location Map ', Climate "Data and :Engineer's Water 37 Balance Calculations 5. Co�uinehts on EIR Supplement and; Responses 6. List of those , ommenta ng on ERfor` Quail Canyon Tentative Sizbdivieon 7. ItemsIn;corporatcd by Aef0r6nce a tF w`PPENDIX 7 ITEMS INCORPORATD,D BY REFPRENCE (available for review at the Planning Department, 7` County Conten Drive, Oroville) 1. Geotechnical deport for.Canyon Park Dstates Sewe Storage Consultants, Inc: ; Ponds-'- Anderson. Geotechnical June 1982: 2. Review of Fiscal Information; Canyon Dark Estates Recht 14ausrath.4Associates, June 28, 1982. 3. Fire Protection Requirements for Quail Canyon Tentative Suhciivisia'n Map`California Department of Forestry, Octobor 1982. 4. Letter from 'Ed McLaughlin, President = Butte County ''Farm Bureau, November 8 1982- 982.5.' 5 Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements for, Canyon 'Park Estates California Regional Water Quality Control. Board, November 18, 1:982. 6. Planning Director's Report for Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision, November 22, 1982, 7. Letter. with ,Advi;Sory Agency Conditions,, December l,. 1982_, li i z t�k ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS. ALTERNATIVES SZ GROWTH INDUCING EMPACTS 3S APPENDICES 1, PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED 36 2 REFERENCES 37 J 3. GBOLOGISV S REPORT 39 4. GROUNDWATER REPORT 56 S. PLANT SURVEY :REPORT 64 6. WILDLIFE SURVEY REPORT 74 7: ARCHAEOLOGIST'S REPORT 79-° 8. MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS 85 9. PROJECT INITIAL STUDY 87'' 10. COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES ii.- PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 12. LIST OF THOSE COMMENTING' ON PR1 ,,mc'h - 13 _A.ANALYSIS 14, SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON PARK ESTATES 15. COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE JULY 20, 1982 BOARD MEETING AND .PLANNING DEPARTMENT , RESPONSES 16. SUPPLEMENT ON CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, LETTERS FROM SPATE AGENCIES, RESPONSES,: SEVIAG D!,SPOSAL SYSTEM UPDATE LIST OF FIGURES I. REGIONAL LOCATION 3 ', 2. PROJECT,AREA 4 3.' SITE PLAN 5 4.` SITE TOPOGRAPHY' 7 5.- PERCENTAGE OR EMISSIONS FROM MAJOR STATIONARY AND AREA;SOURCES` WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY i1 6. PROPOSED DEVRLOPMtNTS IN THE PROJECT AREA 15 ii - 7777 CosTAEVENUL APPLNn:.�.�3 .ANAhYSS Canyon Paz•k Estates Specific pian, County Service Area, PA -C Rezone (8;1-31) and: Tentative Subdivision° INTRODUCTION The following very basic, 'Cost -revenue: analysis is limited in severalrespects. 1. Inflation. There is no attempt to estimate future inflation rates in estimating costs and revenues. The analysis assumes full buildout, 2. project' completion.and those costs and revenues associated with full buildout in - 1982 dollars. In reality, the project may not be fully completed for several years; unimproved lots may be, resold several time's before son, actually builds' on them; Howover,; in some categorids, eg., schoo'ls, both 'costs and revenues would rise and decline concurrently, maintaining similar cost -revenue ratios for analysis of a phased develop mens, or full buildout. 3 Marginal vs Opportunity costs. Many analysts .contend that marginal estimates for public sexvic.e Costs marginal incremental consumption or use of reserve capacity); is moxe.vali,d than overall pep capita or, pet unit -averages. The latter ostens- ibly continue to recount initial investments.., or phantom." output/investment which doesn't actually occur. Other critic's maintain that opportunity casts for future expansion of facilities and labor must be included, since use of an incremental amount of reserve capacity is denying that amount to another individual.`;' Per capita calculations mare closely approx ''mate these costs. `r'a'ge . A related problem concerns methods of data collection and sto g Data is often stored ar categorized in sucha manner that precludes :1w a; CanyonPark estates; r S'«F #80122311 APPENDIX 15 I . May 2181, 198:2 & Su l e;ment on Cu PPinulative; Impacts - June 22 1982 IT. a. State Clearinghouse letters with.letters front the Depart rent of Conservation, the Department of Fish and Came aftd Caltrans Divis'-of Aeronalttirs b,. Planning Departiient respot�ises' to the three letters from Stdte 'agencies , ITT. Memorandum from Anthony J. Landis, Regional WS ter Quality Control Board, entitled "Update on Canyon. Park Fstatos Setivage Disposal System, IIatte County" July 16, 1032 - 1U. Leiter from �llis C, Rolls of Rolls, Anderson and Rolls to tie Regional Walter Quality Control Board - July 21j,1982 r Infor- epartmento I,, Memorandum TO. Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: planning Department su r�cra DRREZONE 63-5© (DRAKE PATE" July 31, 1986 Attached for your contnued,hearing on August 5, 1986 are the following,. 1. Copy of motion of intent - June 26, 1986. 2. Addendums 'to EI'R ,for Second Supplement, First Supplement and original EIS. Staff has reviewed the minutes and meeting records between November 1.982 to present to determine if 'new significant environmental points were raised' which required.a written response (Section 1.5132' of the CEQA Guidelines). We did not"find new issues that had not been adequately addressed in writing in some part.of the EM In some cases, the minutes of meetings for the Advisory Agency and Planning Commission Contain verbal responses by County staff members or Planning Commissioners to issues raised These, verbal "responses augmented_ written responses or infoYntation included as part of ;he FIR, SAS:jmc cc: Adr,ain .strative Office County Counsel DrakeHome 77-7 Fi IC � tr" Lx �9;y 1 J 8"b ADDVNDUMS TO'EIR AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR CANYON 'PARK 'ESTATES SECOND SUPPLEMENT Introductioin: 1. insert new Title page, Table of Contents age and Intro p duction to front of document: Remove '£asst two yellow pages between final -second Supplement first page and Index page, 2. Insert Appendix XV. Update with recent meeting dates and persons commenting. 3 Insert new Appendix XVI with 'Board responses to Mr.' huvaasr letter dated _:May ,20, '1985. FIRST SUPPLEMEN,I! 4. Insert.revised Table of Contents page, pages labeled Appendices 5f'6 & 7., 5 Items incorporated by reference into First Supplement A errdix 7j' given to Su exvsors an Jul 1, 1986. pp p y ORIGINAL EIR 6 Insert; revised, table of Contents page '].fisting Appendix 13 16. 7 Insert, Appendix 13 page for Cost/Revenue Analysis. 8. Take existin A` endix 13, let�',er. of May 28, 1982 and g pp discussion of cumulative ':mpact�5 and move it to Appendix 16r placing : it priori to the Junin 22, 1982- list of Mitigation Measures dor cumuiatIve impacts and after the page Labeled Appendix 16. APPF411DIX XV, 'Continued. March 181.986 Butte County Board,of Supervitors. April 9 J19866 Butte County P,_�inning,Commission, Aptil 23 119.06 ing CoMmission -Butte CountYk._,_,,.din.­ May 61 �,986 u County of Su p etvisors 13 tte do June 3 1986._'Butte-County Board of 8uporvisorq, june 17; 1986 = Butte County Board, of'SuperVI-sors, july 1, 19$6 Butte County Board of 8uperVisdrs Atgtj'st-, 5, 1.586 - Butte. County Board of superViqOts APPENDIX XV:C Board responses to comments contained in letter from Mr. John Luvaas to Butte County Planning Commission dated 'May 20, 1985.. First issue: Approval of this project , prior to the "Overall Foothill Plar►" and "Deer Herd Study" completion.; ., Responses The Butte County Planning Commission has.held numerous hearings on and recommended that this Board adopt: the I"Cohasset-Forest Ranch' Planning Area Plan" whose boundaries include this project. Mr. Stephen Streeter, Senior.` Planner, in a memorandum to the Butte Countyy' Planning Commission dated 5-.29-85 (attached: hereto and made a past hereof`) conclusively' shows ghat this project will meet or exceed all standards suggested in the Cohasset--POre st Ranch Planning Area Plan. Respecting the Deer Herd Study, this project Was directed to the Dei?artment of Fish and Game for comment relative to its, impact on: the resident and migratory doer herds in this area. By letter dated 3' 11--85 from said _ department, this project design will avoid any.__ deleterious effects that rural resideiitial project's have on deer herds. Second Zssuet Lot Sizes Less Than I Acre. the second' supplement to the HIR, addresses an alternative plan layout malting individual lots 1 acre :in area, and restricting most of',that area to be retained in itsnatural state. I£ ` this alternative is approved, ;all lots would be,the appropriate size. Third Issue.' Scenic Highways Res�ohsei Project' conditions require that homes be located o�tt`of the view o`f Hi;ghway 32,;0'` t=hat they be "architecturally 'compatible" with the nativevegetatioti, If located' within 3`50 feet: from the centez�line- of, 14i9h'wa;y 32 '( they, okt;.ent of the eakisting ;S- ' zone and scenic h=ighway element) . These homes would' then _'be in charact=er with, and in harmpolt with the �lr., s " : 4� numerous rural homesites'that dot the landscape between Chico. and Forest Ranch., Contrary to Mr. Luvaas' implied interpretation that the scenic highway .element is to preclude all "changes" to the existing environment; these two planning tools are designed to foster, the types of highway development that .,. {� N. 'well has occurred ix� this corridor, as .as promoting planned, orderly, well located commercial service for the mol or'';i. g public. Fourth Issue;,. Discussion of Cumulative impacts Response; ' that. no Mr.. Luvaas letter would indicate r consideration has been given to cumulative impacts on t if Waver quality 2`. Flooding 3.. Wildlife 4. Views from Highway 312 5 Traffic on Highway 32 near the projects and in ;Chico 6. Erosion 7o Fire Hazard S. Public Services 0. Other problems The original EIR contained a discussion oi' cumulative impacts from Four other projects, as well as the complete _buildout of the area, designated for foothrill development within.:the region (shown on the Butte County (3eneral Plan as ag:icultural residential area, see letters dated 'ay 28, 1982 and June 22, 1982 tram. fitting both discussion and mitigation measures to the county from the applicant). Although one of, the'pio3ects discussed was tUb8egUont3y denied:by a recent Board action, the cumulative impacts discussed are still_ pertinent. Those impacts were: I. Wildlife habitat. reduction 2.Erosion 3. _ Highway 32 traf f'ic 4. Lass of open space S. Increased demand' for public services 6. Fire hazard' _ These impacts could potentially' be significant in a cumulativesense, but the Board of Supervisors' can; impose sufficient and 'reasonable nitigation measures or cotlditio'ns toproject, a; provais to avoid the` significant �2; 77777 a y Fifth Issue; sewage Disposal System Respr�nse :.< The Canyon Park iEstates. Sewage Disposal Systema was designed in accordance with the requirements of the California Water Quality Control Board (see First supplement to EIR)• The Regional Board.'issued waste discharge requirements and has standard reporting requirements to ensure non—polluting operation of the system (see Item 5, Supplementary Information incorporated by reference into the First Supplement to the 'ESR.). The Superior; Court in acting upon a lawsuit brought by the Friends of the Foothillsp found the, system design, the ETR covering it, and the Water Quality Standards sufficient to protect the existing environmental duality of the area.. Mr. Luvaas has brought forth no facts to cause us to doubt the viability of the system not the truthfulnoss of the assertions put forth by the Regional Water Board.His questions about who would be responsible to rectify any future unforeseen failure are answered by the formation,of the CSA #89P the.County Service Area formed to accept that responsbiltyo Sixth Tssue: wildlife Reduction espanse As stated numerous times, this project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Game. Its impact upon wildlife 'has been carefully and thoughtfully mitigated through previous design changes required by this 'Board. Mr. Luvaas presents no new evidence, either personal or from experts in the field, that the Department of`ish and Game has: Or"red in its determinations an' this 'pXa ject`:' s eft°ecks . These comments shall be supplementary, to those prepared by the staff in response to Mr. Luvaas' letter. J TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE' SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION General Project 3 Sewage Treatment System 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, 'IMPACTS.AND XXTIGATIONS rrop6gra,phy, li Geology Soils , 12 Hydrology 13 Water Quality 13 Climate. 14 Habitat 15 Wildlife Archaeology 15 Access 16 Utilitie, 1,6 Elettri-citY 16 Water. Supply 16 Sewage Disposal 18 Vector ,Production - 19 Safety 19 Aesthetics 20 ADVERSE IMPAtT$ WHICH CANNOT -B8 AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS 20 ALTERNATIVES Wastewate)i Alternatives 21 Water S upply Alte,rhatiVes APPENDICES 1. Persons and Organizations Contacted 2 N5 2. Reietences I 28 20. 3. Soil Pit t M, Lags and d Ldc a J0., 4. Climate Data and,, Engineer's Water Balance 87' 5. Commen�-.s on 2,T 'R, S' up:'eI m- en and;Responses L 6, List of thosecdmentinq 6ft EIRE far Guar !` canyon, Teri 'Subdivision ; 7. Items lnd6tpOrat0cby Itk rpace Ati P 5, TX END T 8CH 1 80.122311 AP 46-55-`Q4 231.46-7 1 -i7 8 (Ptn) Quail Canyon Tentative Subdtvislot Comments on. the Supplementto the. e. BT R for Canyon Pael( Estates;, and Respon.,ses to CoinmOnts Letter from 'the 8 ta t e Clearinghouse November 3;. 1982 II, Let'te'rs rqc-ei-ved.on the draft EIR supploment,' a. Butte County NTosqUito AbateM6nt Distvitt - October 15, 1982 b. Galifornia Department of Health Services - October 25, 1982 c. Art mid Faye GiI lman - October 26, 19$2 d.. Chico Unified School District - September 30- and October 8, 1982 III. Respopse5 to comments submitted by Eco -Analysts on behalf of the applicants a. Responses. to Mosquito Abatextont and Dept. of Health Services letters b4 Resp6n:se to letter from the, Gilmans. c., Response to letters from the Chico Unified School District 1. Letter, from Albert J. Beclt Pco- 11 Analysts - November 1.5, 1982 2. Letter from Jere Bolster, Dralo Homes Nove%ber'15, 1982 The. Planning Department has reviewed the submitted V e SpO n s e, s an d finds: that the informati.On presented is �uf,l icient to addrcqs, the issues contained in the comment lettdrsi.