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 18 OF 22
a `SUGM r 9w Butte Cou,n`Cy Planning COMM issiPn" ` Butte County Planning Uepar.tmept Plage Five r;oads,some cenLets, latrdt~, rind the,roads; aria •-$ °t°a:,1Q �ai�res5 far sewage ponds and s`nr, yareas for which drainage must 'be pro�assumas, f vided. Assuming expensive homes, as _they.�Tk, they would cover at,least. ,1,500 square feetnd rprobably°> much'm-ore inG'luding garages rand outbuildings. laach house' would presumably. %niciude .at,].east 1, QQO, square.1,eet °f ora h . even the shortest driveways and thi.- also is conservative, given lot sizes and setbacks: At even 1X5000;squat`s feet per house, they would cover at +least: X72, 5QQ,s,gpa>:e, G.8 miles" of.. roads'. and �hovlders .0:,"feet,, wide wau7d',add 1,-2 250 square f:cpt.• Not including :swimmi tg. pa<crls .and'fi +; larger houses and driveways,, that :totals, more than: B5,,acres. Adding drainage requirements for tho•sewage area •and other- impermeable, surf aces we, may. have omitted9 gra e�timate,.at ; least 50 acres of 'total impervious surEaaes, r zoughly ,SQa times greater 'than; .estimated -in.,, the rorig,111A.7. ESR:: Ari ,erro>r of 50,00(x/ demands new EIR evaluation of drainage needs and the impact of a•:lternati,, drainage systems itpari, d t�nstr.eam flooding, in L l�t�:e Chico',—Greek, er,osi:,on;j Ota, g Air pollution► was aeri.o,usly under,es.tirria.ted.,n the original EIR and figures used weze: 'nteapingless toY _the decisionmakers. The EIR used county°�-wide° ,mpact fargur;es, but the most serious pollution impacts would be .on t.he, Chico Area, which already has the highest air pollution problems would• be, gretest .becati'se of down- , in the county. The, it'apa'at a ward_ aixfloW ,from the ro ecrt to GhLCo-,1d becaU,se of �,subst-aria p tial ;traf f.ic between Chaco, and the project.•+ We insist Cupa>Z meaningful calculatiots of impact ort; the'Chico a>~sa., on a cumu,la! i.ve basis. It appears there als,a may be a cumulative or meas hiII from' the.", � air pollution.,impact upon ,fup project. Human impacts in 'terms of `Yrealth, aesthetics, po- tential on:op damage., building, de,teri taW 04,1 and related cumulative impacts must be assessed: We request -a cbmpar,i-.: son. between such rump a!ti`�e, impacts of development in•, the canyon and, ridge area wa th development o the. same nutnberr-o>; . houses, it 'built in the immediate Clxico area, where £ar l.esr. mileage would be necessary in daily travel. h7 E�rcess,ive fuel consumption caused lay ,;cum, ulativ.E developments mist also be- consideredj:. especiAiy, as: compared ,if vloped I,n the, imine with, a comparable number, of, lots j dee diate Chico urban. area. i) Traffic• ; ern Ea Eighth and rNinth steets impacts Chico will be increased very. substanttia.11,y'' but his has .n must make not been assessed on a cumulat ve basis -.,:The, Eilt v Butte County Plemning Commission Butte GowntyPlanning Depaxtmeht Page Sir such an ;assessment and= do-te'tmine impact's ;L terms' , U> aa 0 safety; lowering o£ property 'values;'alotig these„ iiusy .atxee'tst immediate extrr,eme'le'veZs of air pu`llution' and n�ase� �ih'ach are. likely,' and the co's't of impr0'.1 the streetsas'i eces�ary � a to aha idle -the-, t a£`£id: �' �'he� rapacton an`d' Tc�OS� � of ��' am`p iOvin� Highway 99 must al,"so bo assessed- xn 'the. -same" way. s q the cost✓ of improving tYiese sFtee'ts rcmay 'be'eiccessaue for public entities; which should be arial.y'zed;- ands i:£ so, alternative means o£ financ`in " the imptovd' oats mu6t ,$e Goi1- sidered and made a pari~ o£``this' project:'"' Speci ic`aX;�Ly t11e only means a£ financing these Ar-nprovements ratty Lie" to ass;esp the develape� s atd/or users of the pe6pettie AXterrtatzv'e- iy, the LiMpadt of. <11,tfia6ishing the public's abs lity tii " rapt ve other streett-iiik,th& area must be,'considered, because° of ex- penses hese, developments dould eumitlata:veIk ''ca`tise. Since Highway 32' 6 a scenic. atea',, the Butte Cdun- ty Generdl Plan requires that `the view from Lthe _oad-"lie c`o i- this and other projec sidered in evaluating ts, cumulatively. Many o£ tete lots and their llghts, le'Lc: , Voul+d' be a n .clear„ view of Highway 32, °including lot's T on top, of"the `r'1.d'ge and`;` the lowet to is ea's t of Li tyle Chaco 'Creek`. This view be pr'o tec ted k} Many` bts .are located beneath, a. rcick'fall ' 4est' erly �of Little Chico Creek. I Although the EM and "subd��ras'ti:bn , coed tions' state, th6 peed to avoid,-, this',-°-maiiy' 1ot�s' Were, none- thelesn approved In .such 'haiaxdoUs areas, '-Oh, a Vigtt,t ie 6ite,,` you wily notk I'inany lot signs `located amongst encirmod:aa boulders -off only' a' little 'below`therti, 1.) The, General; Plan 'speaks of restricting deVaibp�ii, trent bo areas "with' slopes less than 1.5 percent: Itappeara that many o£ the lilts` bo th west and ,das t of the creek` ardv,6h ' ep'o s 10 '" Af a t least that: grade acid tha s must be 3 ricle�ien t assessed.. m) Erosion along the main road to the project and iii Che Tourer meadott areas has already been extreme, as a re - stilt of grading and preparatxori''for theproject. ' It a'ppa'xs that the ostial` "sf'andaird eroaioncontrol 'ineasures" wal`1 trot` ediaVe-_ suffice to prevent such erosion." We sliggdsitT that splµ rosioon control will be required, inc udiig immediate replant- .'g tet, e; 'di sti kbancmany rdoie culverts, at d restriction of sloped on whl:ch Tk64ds -are lloved. ,. w 111_ ; ,:, 777777-, Butte, County T. T?,annng Corrmissi,or h r i '^ , Butte County Planning Depar,tm,ent .. _o, Page Seven t � n) The Land Use'>E.lement of the Butte County General Plan defines "urban" development as development within setter and/or serv,ice.;areas� wiach, includes• Zats, smaller than ,water one acre. This precisely defines ,thiTs ,pr~•oject. The General Platt then states that such developments must be located only in or .adja4ent to existing urban are,as:, ,, The E772, should an- alyze "the project in l:ghG' o,f this .policy#., 1 o) The General Plan and , tu.tte . County Subctivi.sion ordinance both require' that projects of this description be developed only, if, a need can be demonstrated.' The previous EIR 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 i4lth County, SuCh,a,study,should particularZy,consider the exist policy. ng ,number. of _available lots `cin, similar terrain in this gen- the number: able Zots eral foothill area, as well as o£ avai county -wide. P Proposed mitigation measures for the subdva,sion mould cause ser,i,ou.s , envi ronmentaZ impacts i, none of which were is Court- assessed xn the original. ExR. Since this rezone a Ordered•iconditian for development, of the, .subdivision) rezon- ing the property is tantamount to re -approving the subdivi- ion.. Theref ore,., the full impact of the subdivision mus t :be s Y s considered at `this time, including all -impacts of subdivislon' improvements, conditions and restri.ctions,.„ These include the following, the' impacts o£ which mus,t,be; assessed i.) Visual, aesthetic An Other imps L.q) of placing, two 75`, OOO gallon storage tanks , on. Impact op native plants, by clearing i egeta" taan a;t least 30 feet from each structure;. especially impacts ,onr, ire °o andangered spe- cies,. which harrew not yep. been £u1l,y. ;stucied� any must .be studied now;; f: xnpact an health and safety of ,burning or,,,,y , oo remove poison tlier�aise attempting toak` the vicinity a£ 1�ousir�g9. iv) Impact of preventive burning or other con- ' trpl Moa,sutes to prevent wildfire from brush in some port3.ons; v) Introduction of non-native species may impact" the.diyers ty of species in"this area and r R C f S Butte County Planning Commissibh+ Butte County Planning Departmdnt Page -tight dlcea te,' nox101dS° est$ sh CTS ixs Vi),', Fet oin,g`, of'sec�rage ponds ' i itroduoes`' bait xers't to wil'd'Ufe ' ° v i) -Fencing' of Von, s, �xi:p' rappipg "of ponds; apyti' buildingld n$ 20` foot levees waulcl 'have &sigma i cant aesthetic impacts and may impact Little Chico Czeek ' and its wildli.'f e, °viii) Clearing 'vegeta'tion` For ewdge por'ds'VII �,Y'" dee ease native tre e'tat on'' e 41 Ado, rea; rr ik) Using 'the m6ado for `e£fIRIdnt` spry i 'r`ag'a tiara may be '�n[pcissxb1 because it a s '1z e' dy marshy' and ,wet most of 'the }fear` and`',ih sh must be assessed;' �a x) Adding additional Water: to the marshy Area may 61ter species- dxversItY,,I,,create Un�avoad.w� able mosqu> t�e brea xigg 'and"`tither vact'or' 'pyo- blem8 and, degrade "arid redude an Impot to 'i" dr, wildlifid area; x�).' Irrlgata.oii of tkie area may Crequ�.r;e chema:cal ,. spr'ayi rigs or otherwise a mpac b human's xr' �tlie' 9 area and "the qual,� ty' of `:wat'e�' *r `L`i t`tX'e '` FCaico' We' s t'x ss t�n'e° im.portand6 of +,revxewing, each of these m ac ts` on a cUrmu la .` � x `'five baQ�s. ` Fihall ,^ we object to° the P: opirsed 'S�-it' "zona ng, as i n&f, lis�'ted tz�' the Gene ai '''han? as' cons istel�t with the Agri- ctaltlira� wRes ideri"ti a� "laricl use+ ol:ass`i£a.ca don. We must insist that a dtifhg' 148tect As con:torming faith: the' Gerkeral Plan be adopted and that otihe'r°General Plain policies be strictly . hered ' to° with reg rrd, to this location and the type of develop". . men: t 'app A opt ate for � t o k Please provide us w3.th a copy of � the notice of corn-, pk6tion of the EIR , Yours a •JbH USAS JR A'ttory/a' 'I.aw JL Cr_ ,, 05 r _ quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision, 109 Ic?ts on ,t "d- si, `side vdf Y 32_ at Humboldt Rd 6iAco area. ' t �Palreel °anc� Assess-prIs >nutubert,' 46-35-04 and �23 ptn.- Engin��Rots 1 Anderson sand Rolls 3 : i " A � �. .n -=L 4. _ „lx-�. F Y�'t. x, Y• � In k 4u. � Nu liq ,Works conditions; aro: ". `kZndicate a' 50 ft biif ld'ing setback 1J ne frons "the^ cdAer line of d1.I Z-111" 2, Street `signs' shall„ be provided by the developer at all street; intersections p61 County reguirewtts (Submit 5 alternate street names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval; of s treot Construct full street section "on interior streets as per, Specific Plan. I. Construct t'ul:l."street aectibn on Humboldt ltd. to RS'43=B road, standard with 2" AC a 8" AB, SC 250 prime, fog seat, and 95 ',r tiv ,.:cokpacti.oni. 5. Provide monumentation aarequired by the .Aept. of .Pitblia: Wrla "in accordance with accepted Standards. 6. Street grades and other features shall comply with the Butte County prdinances,, $esign,�'sol.uton nzid:.other.accept.ed;,engneexiig'sVtandard's., "solution 7. Provide permanent for drainage. rAgEL 8. � own on, tha:?��'i'nal����p: � All easements oz xecor . to be; .gh _d,' 9. Meet requirements of But te Countji� "Fine': Dept► or'a `xes�ons� ole agency :L4. S'treet lighting shall be provided in accordanc6 faith Bt4t:te 'Cbunt�l requirements, accepted; design criteria, and recommendations of pG&R 11. Provide circulation. Emergency access road to the north to be to the RS-8-TU�i r stand��x?d, - 12. Obtain state encroachment permit' and, construct public road approach F at Runmboldt Rd. and Hwy`. 32 ass.as.s"mehts. , A, Meet the r'equireiments bf the utility compar es (3 . e �, PGSrE a Pac,� fic Telephone, water, sewer.) 15. Pay any delinquent taxes. 16: Developer' shall provide all required traffic safety sS.gns �.ncluding stop signs. Deleted by `. exicy the board of " .' T westerly etior r that pr eme acc6 a the Supervisorsr, n; . to be r or ion nor to s ter. 'n at k boldt de Dec: 2l� 1g8 but, to be a p-d, 'a t the �e of ' ling a incl „X.n,s��t�� (Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision) d 29. Locate and dwelling units so as. to minimize the amount ,roads Y 73 oP” vpgat61 �i xemQvea! or disrupted, arroidins }�ti,itat" interfeces Whenever possible., ' F�etain"r. pari an veget4ti�on Wher'ev r po�saible. Locate dWellings and roads 50 to 100 feet from streaivch4n'hels except at bridge or culvert crossings. Restrict fencing to hamesites to pr'61 dde corridors -for 141'l4',ife 31. a Limit the construction of dwelling un3 is w3 thn 356` £t. 'r©ra i he centerline of Hiway 32. For dwellings proposed to be located withli that's urea; architectural design o£ the buildingsand placement on the parcels to _coni`orra'witih the `land'seape'; 32. Obtain streanbedlteratian' permit fron Calfoicn,i4 pepaz•tment of Fish and Game for creek; crossings, 33. Utilize, r.ixergy conservation measures of the 'uniform BuilAing Code 'and its i6quired by° Section 6'&�F73.1 a tie `5rzbd3 vision 'Rap,''ct. 34. The stabilization ponds sha11 be protected fr6m- airy `washout or erosion of levees and from inundation which could occur ass. result of f1ads `havi ng a predicted °f`requen'cy c, 'once y in 3.00 ,years ,k ` 35• Building per applications for residences in this subdivision sha1,L be subject. to 'any,:,school, mitigation 'fees established by' an. ord1nance enacted prior to the filing of such applications' unlessa Coxbmunit�r Facilities Act of ;1982 District is created pursuant to California ` Govexnment-Oode Section 53311 et'. seq»; cavexing .the :project ,arei'a' prior to the issuance of any building permits. improve the levee 'system on,, Butte Creek` near,' its ,. juncture'4 t4i.:th the Sacramento River and/or pay, a proportionate sharer based on theamount'_oi' `r.iznoff,:generated., =tnward; dawns'tream;improveehts,t to ;alleviate' f'siood ng: and``,mir ibAze.,inundation . x'37. All pond. design and maintenance procedures to be reviewed by the 4 " Butte' CountyMosqu to�Abatement Distriot:4 Vegetation dohtrol, fdr the ponds, and h i.vestack: grazing practices to be tollowdd as:° descrjbed 'Q on..Mage '9 ox", t'he 9M Supplement`. - i i A 1081, i1 Air"' r 1/ ♦ 2 1 the pleadings, the procedures, the issues contended by the parties sand rauch, of the, record, In mAk';ng this decision the Court Fafinds 3 'that byaS h of the Judgment ordering theWrit to issue •the pet.i ti aster has reaa i l ed . � p h 4 .� ti � 5 of pri,maary concern,• however, .is whether or no't{� th e,rdecisior K a 6 - 'frill x herein resul•t,s isr, the' enforcement a'f .ani important ri ht° affecting g ,' 7 1A �• M1�'Y .. the public. interest and the conferring of a significant benefit:,, 8 on the general public or a largo class of persons. AS in''icated 9 by res ondents,.such a award' (pursuant to C.C.P.-1021.5) dbes not 7 10 apply when the litigation results in the enforcement of a. or all } 11 tatutoe rights, but rath,4 ti Y 9 �,_ i.mpar,t;anti xnd t,figniftca'ri`t, `rignhts in 12 accordance with the circumstances of the particular case,Ej 1 When the decision herein is analyzed one must r.ea.la that " 1� the Court ordered. the ;Writ: t0, is.s,Ue1 b•P.C'duse 'COtt,dit`.lah 0 17 apprOV L 15 al of the Final Map :wes. i.n'ade;quate. Tt canis>Jt be assumed thCat in r 16 stat h condition to ing the co d b i,rtadeq"nate ;the .hes�p.hdekt County was 17 , z t, either unmindful of or evading the requi'rernert,{of: z.on°ing and/or . 18 the, General Pian. To tile. ,can-teAryl,t.he° t0 hty recognized that M -the ext$tin .,proposed,„., g °;zoning was not they proper zoning for the 20 subdivision, ;hce, the requirement with respect to rezont!ng as ref°le'cted� by the condition. Further, the Court cannot assume p "that, the County Would not COMP IY with the law or the Generi�A P]`an 28Igranting ar de,nying any zoning change proposed by ',the 45ub� �27 dtvid;er pursuant to the condition♦ This Court ;simply found° that 'she, condition, whi'lo a., pPro- y pria.t'e was not sei:'f0rth in such terms as to re uire the actual rezoning as a condition of final approval of the map. k 2� � DIY � G . li : fr ^ N .� l u Tho decision does not mean tnat the subdivision, prop;anents n — 1 yVP 1 are fioreclosed' from eventual final a'ppraval` or th}a the County 2 .E{.!>`.`.I t.C.y."r�._, n cannot 's`t 11 `provfi 6 for a ':proper condi0oiial aippr,oval'. Pe.isi- 3 t'ioner s'e`eds to believe that the dcc'ision effectively termIOles 4 th'e whole 'sub'd'i'v:i'si'on a'pp1 ication`. Such issimply not the} lase. A'a,.'�•�n ". EL {{1�Z it 1`. ")"r p er amendment to a For example, tie law provides far titre rop , . 6 ' kinds o ging in general plan and for the creation` of 's`pe:c"lf c' f xon' 7 'conformit'y` W,it_h", -a denera`l`p1�in k.t 8 Now, while another Court may find th'at'other errors exist 9 or ex1sted in the subject proceedings underlying this action;` 10 thisCourt found none in substahc'd, = Thi:s.. Court is con`vinc"ed,� 11 �t"hat ; pet�i�t'ifioneirs herein took a, "shotgun"' approach to the Who"1 e' 12 :00,01'e0a�nd,'while"' successfull -'tb the, extent the judgment so pVo�- 13 vides,there was an inordinate amount of 'pleading, briefing', etc. 14 The Court is not stating or implying that, petitioner's cau-nse1' 15 was 'motivated other than that by sincere motives and a genui;rie' 16 concern for the underlying environmental concerns attendantG o 1? the proper and orderly development and use of property, in thy 18 best interests of the public. Such concern, however, often inanI 19 felts itself in such fashion as to cause one to perceive the ` 20 legal and factual- issues to be more extensivethan those which :. 21 actual ly exist. F . 22 Petitioner did serve a useful and beneficial purpose to` 23 the County and the public,' assuming` the, uhderlyi:n.qI decision ¢dere 24 to be correct. Had the condition of approval as stated not been 25 struck down bar the Court, the developer could concietn bly` have'' 26 comp'lied` with the condition without the re,quir,ed' result, i 27 'zoning in .conformity with the general plan, and subsequently;°` 28 ith ,ible contended that he satisfied the con'ditfon: wossc.ou�;t. 7 i action respltir�g: �;.h��� {.. a�t S.l.rlc �'1:A tl f a y cU'Y{ awat -al b���et� ►�.ot ,Of Such does�fe�es „7. �resu�1.t warrantsame oust ri,s of�:`Ytne o, ti dor as contended by,, pe er, The, �C; � z z ,.� i�irtia as, tok�the1 aregj al ,leg l�lf slues obtaining the resu' �+obatayin�d� Ore+bated 5 �Kthe>`peti,tioner's counsel is, w a a arded ttorney'.'s� � ik�'� 4 here r�La,U involved l ;;P 1 g fes e5QQ 0Q r' i n the sum ,ofd m I a r'�r.+� ��_ irto be e,;;batAp solely, y� th.e respo,ncle�n,t 7 The above fees 1' I $ County of BUtte ' �4 ry ^V 1 DO \I T DATED 1 X98 � u; Harold' F Wolters 1 „',Asst r►�e) 4A, ad"�h����!,P.,erialr�iCou �t ,,°.Hr` 1 f.;)tl 16 .i w ro �J�� ' �f 7 ` ,. M Yi- 1: "�"!Jl•t�'�c� iy ( r ii'-Y� li �1"1v ?,J 1. 6 xl '.,.6 , j �t { w 4� �� k� ti I MI t� IJ 1 A S i Ili k h 'i,j r f'. jj, CC 19. , ,,,°a ��� 'I�. 2a a PP r 1 r vt +{ 1 r 1 � Y 4 1 � m 2G.. N . � d '-T i G6� � "i�'Y.d� `'R f.� �'��:��� t+ 1 d:�r „�,r .'� '� ,�, ��•>!i:,�, t��r. 9i: .� �'� �.. i# A-11 3 ii k' ? 1 1 N p P4�j� 2. r 4 NOV 16 1904 V E fANOR' 4. RECKER, coo*a left. t, epu 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE �` 10 yi -000- 000- t l F ,,. FRIENDS RIENDS OF THE FOOTHILLS, ELLEN N0. 80050 12 SANDERS, JANET' BALBUTEN HARRIS ROGER." COLE, FLORENCE OPATRNY, RULING Petitioners,' 19 q, 15COUNTY OF BUTTE, BUTTE COUNTY' 16 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS} .,' 17 wa Re sponde.nts, Cl i8 JOHN D.. DRAKE. ' W. HOWARD ISOM aid DRAKE ISOM, a limited `a partnership, 20 Real-Parties-i'n-In to,res.t. 21 22 The Motion to Tax Costs filed by respondents came on reg- 23 ularly to be heard, Ws,argu;ed and ordered submitted. The'`ourt, 29 has considered the pleadings;, declarations and the? laW and ,ru` es 25 ,. as fol,Iows The Motion is granted With respect to items numbewed t 27 2,3;4''& 5s tet forth inpetitibnerS' Memorandum of Costs' � 28 u � 77MOM107 ---------- ..... d runnin 5a i d; �ir o a d N 6201, ax ig,ithence, up the center er �o -0 301, 00, E ft.; N 800 4S' it.; 09 �, it,,; 606.21 ,eft E 490:x.4 f t :N 45, N 3 '9 �t; i ft,,; N 600 50' E�� 467.9 , £'t.; N 86' 4&1 E, 610.5673.2 5 Q:01 265, 5� £t. N � 60,�, 4,5,�., 8 212 3,", 7 flt�-;12�, ft 9* N i2 to .1 point on the N 1 Ine of t, 256 47 ft 4 S911.4 S09 ?l n, � �,2 2 d _1�s tanc, 6 of 1 �;ftp 11 of ' the , NE 'toad, corner thereof; thence continuing on said N 26. beiginni:ng,.. f-.ot,,�. 301 Ho!, 7 53 .8 ft- to the: VrUe 1J, po int, vf� the line herein described* thence from, said tree poifit ,qf, beginning leaving said -road48%ol 1 ,3 814 r-.v,5 ry f t, to a 'point on the northerly dine of the Ian-- St ine,.i,.,i, Mel q4d� of aid pphen M I ine;i. 8 EXCEPTING TEiERBFR0,\I,thel,foX1014,'Lng des.cribecl propetty, 9 P A-portion of SectionSLIA; 15- 212',and 23 i,: In T22N� ZE� L MDB&M, more particularly described as follows: 0.- BEGINNING l',AT A POINT in the center of the Chico and 11 a d �S ction 22� Humboldt �Qad and, on ho - Y1 in e Of s e. a d i,s _S �of corner distance of'- 2 41 3,, -ft -,-of said, �g thence; Up: t1he c,eztdt.�,of said r Qd4 Section; and running - I '. t og� N N. 6 V �' 0'0 R 316.1 ft.'s N,.80° ,4r,5 E,j S46 61 ft.; E-'..t- 30, 501 B450 00, E 6060!2 R 300 i ft.; N 610-.$ ft.; N 6011 391 E, 673.2 467 �9 ft.* N S60 4 5 14� '2,6 5. ft., i i�,223, 7 ft ft N 661q. 4 E i N- 32 i PoInt an the :,N 1 ina '' of 2567, ft to 15 212, ta, d 11 �stancd o, f 1719 .3 ft of the NIE�, Section ,. I ,di "stance 11 . 61 Up' sa.,U ad� M,26 corner' the rea f - thence c o n.t,,j,,n.0 1 ng _ro, 'e -at t 3 ot E 7-$548 f t to a point; thence continuing nbrt', 16 said road ., 'a d of 0,' early along, t.,.h,d center sai £t,.tothe true of b,og:jforthe,, parcel ierp A q- 17 pEin't' .nn.Lng described; thenceX)OM satrlp p0inttbegirning Vunnjjgsout-hwe.ster j.y..along the,o£ saidChico 18 ,oe,fttdr. Humboldtand 'a distandaof6040,feet itoILpoint 19 distance o thence 100ing.40.'ad S48 the t h a' 0 f the or, j, In feet.t t, o n nQVI 3.o�a p,Qin 814 :;S lands of Stephen M, e thence, along th't", last M6ftt3,6,ned1' I ifte th g � - �Ll - I " I 0 4,54, E, 2700.0 mote. ox 1 10 S to the S it�e line N' 4 8_ g1l .0 Section 14. thence nor tliwestprly in a straight line to true point boginf or less, northeast. 0,� chico Containing IOSG ages more e 24 SECTION 2. Theuse and ct e va I opq. ntof skid pOpt g 5 shall3. _e be, L .4, accord.. Tit P pc plan 6 s b., �,,;t e i n-, �to, 4by, thol, applicant,; conditioned ,%04Awdorporated ht e 77MOM107 II ,; i �'.b}; reference°., Saa:d°:conditioned 'devel'opmen't plan and specific plan consists., of the. f,ol.�a.wing,dAcuments. , 3 i A. Canyon?ark. Estates° tVAA�,O UV�elopment showing'`<the I; 1 ,entire _prce°Y,'. natual fe.atux?es,' access to Highway 32 via Humboldt Road and two•°emergency access t, a,- 6 to the north- interior r.,oads." building ]ots see s r ' < •;. ponds;, common.a.use ax,e,.as, :ria;tural;s.open«arealsy -;and 8 r�evege:tation. area's', (pxhibit A) .. T 9 Bi A sp ec,ific Prxan ,.for Cain; o.n; park 'Estates- whidhl 15 �.0 adopted in, ac'cordance with Section 65450 et sea, br 7: the Ca;1ifo�ettiaGoenment'Cade°. �� ,.CExilib�it`'3)'•"t r 1,2 These 'doc;umeii.t and conditions. , area' located in the file, ., of :,,the uxte:County Planning 1.4 S'EcTt ON 3. Ss d" development pAti.Le.d`'tw"o`: teas° � :4.5 ",(l,a ,the area 1, identif`i.ed. ;a,� :'rPt�ktural' Open ,S`pace;:"� (.'2 the area ac ent if ied as ''numbered 14ots" shall ,be considered • the "Develppme'nta ;.. 1,8 SECTZQN 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of -Ch apt�er : 214 - 1c9. '12 �6 ,of : the Butte ' Caurit Code., the: following; provi,si oit's shallgovern 90 the' use and: de'Ve] oprrient of the.. naturax open .spac'e and' development 2!3 area: ' a (a.) Na, ural O.peri, Space ; - the' ;use arid'. developmsn't off �i a,t 23a .'portao'rt °off :said operty re£e`rred to as' the ,natural open Space shah belimited t'o; ',t;he fol.l©`wing 'use,s :l ' ' 'Op6n' s;pace''.it' whitG46Iidt-,require ;development 26;, .or ;impr;ovom`n't` o;f` a °p.erm'nent rry.r' °:s.tr,uctru'rlxwri:aur•e Ft :y r. i ,� ; i�a r a Y 1 4 T,he he< ght ;of al l , princrpa� s.tru.cttzxes r as° .shown 2 +I on the.• developmenx . plant; ;shall 3,O �.° exceed .,a, lies flit .r,af two- 3 stox IP4 or '3S feet;' :and ;. 4 5 The keeping :;of 'live tock except horses sh;A .be ; 5 �prahbted;: and 6. Hone occupations As°, defined In Chaptex 24M,2 ,,o£ 7 the Eutte Cduht;,y Ccfd.e ;shall: be p 'ol%ibato and _, . 4" g. r 7 :_ Signs S.h4ll 'fie :1imit7ed t.o an,identifE catxon.,bf,;.the 9r de:'vel.opmenrt not to exceed: two (2)r.in number .w.t-h -a maximum size .of 10 50 square feet, each5 e.`xcep�,.that• -:signs advextasing the developrnen,t i 11 and sale o� r units maty be�pertaitted, until $�5 percent � of;the , bu;`! ding 12 sites. Tee, so1.d. or., until a perxod ,Of five ;.ydarsl has:', � l3 whichover is £first: The `de�re�op.o sha]_]; lie res.pon;s?.b1,e ,£oz°;, thd� 14 removal of all signs associated with the 'sale o£ said, pfrop'e:x.ty;` and, 15 ExcepLa' :-for, an ornamental fall,,, f`ericing or securit 16 gate nt the entranc;e;s, t,o; the devel;apirient anal fencing rie:atr. `the. ' ; 1.7 dwelling units,' no extensive fencing •;'anjdj,or. walls around, the is periphery rlats shall be, ptieXtitted .: , i'he, Ponces; ,,and% o,�c walls above.0 , 19 shall not exceed six (6)' &e't :in height„ 20 h dev'elo p 'er shall establisrh ;a. homop�wner SEC TION 5 T s .. 21 association to be responsible for the maintenance ;and, upLI �C.eep o£ the 22 ut`i7 hies, roads, and al":1 other realM;rop:erty owned an` common.. 2 The deueJopefy sha1.T assume,'' espansibilxty for the unsold, remaining 24 memberships untilM such t'tire° .as, the, rho'ineowner.s 'asssocaatan. dan;,'. „ ` 23 reasonably` assume the financial respo:nsiblitaesY dor the maintenanc 26 and upkeep o.f the. Utilities,>,xo`ad , dpd,�1�1r al§'1P 0'', owned +in;, w 122 `"— I Submit" r d` and d'r' ainaei; an to t' pepa rtnent of'ubl is . I4orks fo app'rova an`c`` iri.5,ta11 -'t}ie '; squired facilities, �2.,; i Lnditate �a 20 ft. b�iilding `setback 1Ifte roM thA, edge of the �.� xoadw�a�ys 5,treet signs shall be Prov ded by+ the °d ve7opera at.. ill street intersectio'ps per County requirement's .r (SOM't 5 alternate pet names for each street to the County ad`dr`ess coordinator dor approval of street names. 4, Construct; full street sect on'dn''Hiinpoldt' .,E�'oad 'xantage to RS_3-8 geometric standard, ttiztinti,'n! sttuctural section to be 2" AC and 81" AB, SC 250 prime, ,fog seal ,and .s 4 Com'PA'It ion. S' b?n t d.es�.g t to County Npartment ,of P xbli,c- 1'lorks for approva; va1 tie determinations and other data nay be requa red to, support section design. pxovj de monutren.tation as., rqquixedbyy , the Depa`xtment o "P'ub'lic , - V16-r in; accordance with aCcepted,.s:tandards; <, �r u 6. Street .grades and , other ,e'a,tuties shall: '-'com � with the Euutte p,Y � g,. alution,and oth-'' accepted Count Clydinances des nx'xes Y engiieerirg standards ?• Provide permanent solution for draI age. 8. All easenen'zs of record to ,be shown on the final map. x .., 9 . ;deet: the 'requirement of theButte 'County' F z'ef 'Do ,`arten t or other``respansib-Ze agency.` 1,-1,0 ' Street lighting shall `beprova:`ded in accordance wxtit Rut:t?e County requirements, accepted design criteria and -xe�com�nenda� tions of PG&E,fox" the area` between t'Yie p; bj ect entrance on : Humbald-Raid arid'°'Highway2. ll. Provide circulation. (Access road frora Humboldt, road plus deeded right, ; io. use: tv o emergency access road's tri the `north. , ] Z'. Obtain state vricroachment perm�.t aid cor�strzo.t strandard public road approach on Humboldt � Rdad at Ha.g'#'�way' 32 l3. Iiee4:. the `;requ'ixenents :of the iitili)r camlian�esPGg, • p t •�, Pacifid Tele hone`' water, serer 14 , Pay any, delinquent 'taxes . ` l-S.. File a fetit'ative and final` 'siib'division dap and pay appropriate fees' 4'5%Yx ' 1 x f �'RM ',-a •� !' i %', z '0 it >0 va;Iyau Sg � 1� �I'� t�t�x S���Ei� ���I�aL k����� 5��i e�y s l; 4s xTic Iudi- stop signs ., �. ;:,� F'e 7:� �' �Wf �ar3.. !s� d ist ii'fi ,� il� sx •: ;�i t+i <i F(F fS 17 , ;;,Prov,zde,,a• ,carjr�uni�y�td'ome&t�c�`4 t i. su p` y� fihat ,.c'arplies with x the,C�aI¢,q.o1•t�a, S(t tb, 5a£erin>kiSg�It;`ate Act' a`hd the Code iA.QJrBN 1s. S�`xovade community sewage collecti n, treatment and disposal afacil;itLes �h ;t comply r Y.h�-,CA1ifo'rn%a State P.p��ana HJa'ter r Qiiality Control" Board', the Code of Butte Co'Unty California Stave Health and Safety .Code and other applicable ca;des and regulations',, avye n"�,n• `th`e' design; p. {i OVhRRTDII G CONSIUgRATfONS 1. The 'project, as .proposed, is environmentally superior to de��cloprnerit which can occur pursuant to t}ie'prev.ous "A. 1 21 Oeneral) and (Sceni,c�Aighway) zon;ingi There are advantages provided by the, cluster developmer.,t which include less utility line extensions, fewer lineal feet of roads, easier provision of public services, and the provision of oven 700 acres of open space design;atea for wildlife }xnb tat 2, The project, as proposed, appears to be the least envivon- mentally damaging, alternative capable of ,achieving project objectives. 3. The project will result in the constructionof a paved road linking Humboldt Road with, the Little Chico Creek Canyon area. This roan r:ould be opened up .for ptitblic' use during art emer- ,gency, providing an alternate escape ,route for canyon resi� dents to the 'north and east 4. This project Will provide up to 105 additional residentIa, units in ; an area that' does' not have ,pr:i.me agricultural soils, thus. reducing the impetus to build in the areas of the, County with prime agricultural soils, 5. The project J.tiil1� Qrov c:e jobs dux•ing the construction phase. and :project residents 'will, contribute to the local Economy. =128 1 L rr Cr i fl , 4 APPENDIX XIII to comments -tor the Canyon Park Estates Supplement Responses SCH # '80122311 AV 46-35-04, 23 and 46-71-'17` and 8 (ptn) Canyon Park Estates Rezone the ;second Supplement to the E112 for. Canyon Park Estates Comments ,on and responses to comments' I, Letter from State Clearinghouse - March 18 1985 II, Letters received on the second draft EIV supplement a, California Department of Fsi1 and Game;- March 11, 1985 o, :Butte County Fite. Department -march 12, 1985 8ut,te County Department of"Public Works - March 6, 1985 c. III. Responses to comments submitted by Jere Bolster, Drake Homes on behalf of the. applicants a. Responses to Department of F. sh.and Game letter dated: Fire Department letter march ll, 1985; Butte County dated March 12, 1985; Butte CountyDepartment of Pub1 is Works letter dated Mareh 6, 1985. b,; Letter from Rolls, Anderson and ;Rolls -arch 22, 1985 IU, Responses to comments by the Butte County Planning Department a. Responses to letters from the Department of Fish and Butte County Game, Butte County Fite Department and Public Works' - M rch 1,1, 12, and G., ],985. Depattment of "' iKE+k �4qstiksua.�.x ��str�wp Sts+► of �aliorti�~ , 4, x ru a `a,t1 �aqe.m 0 a n d v y �y r = Pf•1pl ml, Gorldon F. Sylow, i'rojecto Coordinator Date March 11, '1985 Resources Aocney DUOa Co. Planning, S,OP1166 A, butte County i'l;rnarfdj t7epertmen"E t County ConLor Dt1Vc rrrav l,le , CA 95965 ' z Ftbm Department of Fish and Gama tubj"ft Second 'Supplement to the Filial ElR for the Canyon Park Vntates, Butte County aFi t�rJ l2^ 31:i � Tho Da a true of ,. s and Qa, e has mwiewed the second supplement prepared thG<�anyd tar1'Fsth�t a ]0 ot'4eeraai�dav`p►tenf 'bre `1r�Q(�"dGrs' in.U� ora vE oti Cnyr��i:' `the"prq�oct° x: 1x� atec� obut1-11 Ili # wFay 32.E p t l c ,iil;�td'ly Fptlr r�i,1Cs,.���rt'#Ie;CYs`t tli" Ci#11CO� a1i3��ia�'Ct]lifj�.'� .s� _t i s tl,, '"tet x '`a� r, The Department, is pleased to ace that the, plan adcr ti f xed as Fig ur 4" Cai yip • #'trl Fsf rtes 5rcifi'G E�Xan ane.} reflects the development plan agreed, to 'r�ur i vs �►ric�a'.Lhe; pro k=tiet ;l�o't `sr'sor�. llndvelc�perd l'�ntie rflllG°� J C'11ii1r7 Opr'n, J i*G hr tuG i� t1 �.Fand tl?�IS �'i ll�.`h 4/1� � 17G1 C1 rll C��1k3(GfI�C;f1t perpP ui to er r t(1u4 p > "t!�pit p the prepertY t Oppro iniet'aly '90b ac ) ,� li Ez th e tune and the r�ataget nn `me s�at'a ent »nr:r#F aji p�ge`�,2'I�ec`onf&4;b h o s of the visf, pvrmit•, nur vlildlliro cnn(,orny will ba roigol,vad .,.., , �•:� ��"�'� ti ' ��e . Departrman ± on"p t� �` # ur they 7�:; �tanco pl eav ,_eohai t �G�u' l ' J'eEtn } Rs9�zor�al tlan�a,�.e�_:E,�c4ry�araa ��` �l':rC)l I�i,mhusu,`Rtlw�fa �E1tlCilii C�t,ddVnl;'•CA �Ja�7l), �' � ` tlephana la �. cel E;, dw r , pp ,hack C. Parnell. P Ditppcto 2CE r,x, loter-Dopurfmpmal Mirmor811ilpdoin Buffo CO. : planning comngo Yc, Butte County planning Commission M A 13, 124 1985 FOOW Butte Countyd Fire Departmdnt "' C?Povillb� Cb1tf` tt toil: iam,, Q'. Tei;e, ,County, fire 4iarden: s susxeszm: Project: Canyon Park Estates/AV, ,446 35-0.9-2;3';` '46 7i -'VT, 18-' ' Drake Homes, Rezone Fite OATH`'E 'r March 12, 1:9'85 Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report Fire Protection Requirements.- equirements:Dedicate Dedicatea I acre site.forsa 'fire station within the area marked,"B"r.9n tent- ative subdivisionmap: Developer to construct a fire station upon completion of 20 dwellings on this project. ,Fire protectioi.•will`be provided"by formation of a 15 member volunteer fire company using "Pttidreall'Firefighters" on 'project site. Volunteer fire Company will become a part of the Butte Count!/ Fire Department system.' Develop P "de fire apparatus in the form of a 'Ofast-attack" type of provide will er fire engine,. Developer to post•l'ond for fixe station and £ire engine which includes equipment necessary on Ifire engine to outfit it. Waver for Eire protectone 'Developer will provide two 75,000 gallon storage tanks on project' site, fire hydrants will be required at a distance of 800 feet apart where land' is developed. Hydrants will require at least 1 ;- ki'll`N.S.T; connection, wet barrel type. Hydrant .locations wilt be determined by Cbr/ BCFD on subi.divsion map. Water mains G'' minimum :size. Water flow 500'>CPM for at least 2 hours duration, pressure no less than 20 prig nor more than 125 p'sig. Recommend all structures have non-flammable type 7:ooft. All bridges must be able to withstand a minimum ;load limit of 80,000 lbs, which Will support a fire transport and bulldozer unit, Bridges should not be narrow_ et than the driveway portion of roads serving each end of bridge.' toads to be all --weather with a minimum of 2' ingre'ss-egress routes to safE>> y. Handle evacuation and allow ready, access to emergency equipriient. Stagger a+: 90 foot diameter islands to be established along :roadside an strategical spotted on map by CDF BC�'D'for the purpose of relieving g p p traffic congds P % Burin arty, ,evacuation, 9 AA All toads to be named and clearly marked so as to be visible from travell,% roads. To fao'ilitate .100.ating fire or other emergencies and Avoid delay,. response time, a11, structures should be clearly numbered so as to bel visa,•; Y from travelled roa6s, 11 6. fii.'..L••tS ViJtyY�1,./Y, t312, 4 E� if Taij4�i r,TWGxrvU 4.��'�f^3 G,�76CC 41 f.J Gr ll� All A.Ial able vegetation roust be cleared- a minimum of -30 "f sets in, diameter from, �^ each structure. Ref:. 'CaliforniaPublic Resouxce,s Cqd egtion-,9291,. Not . in- cluded are .ornamental trees/plants.wn hich will not rapidly trasmit fire to:,arlj_ t structure. All constructionequipment on site will require approved type4spark,a,kzestors on exkaust systems. Ref. Califotnia Public, Resources Code Sections 4331, 4142, 4442.5 and Ca,liforniij Healthand Safety Code section 1300$. All welding operations on project site shall: be conducted in accordance with - California Health & Safety Code Section 13001.' This' area r.s classified,-ae-art- extreme ;and high f%xe jhazard areas! r. WILLIAM C. •TErR. a} + - , q County °Fixe :Wardene^ By' He,ctar i�ee`d Battalion Chief tl I } A r r l : j v r Y o :45 Responses to comments received during review period. : � m t rtY+^igfl t P, la•,� } Yr{t tr �f 'SPP+�[ 4i 1101 kllM,x .Fr y�J4 .�'�. 1: Department o£ Fish and Game letter dated March 11, 19850 ResponS;e :a -' k. ...i y 4 ��4..r : .. ,� �•v :'T < s� y I.. P.1 JdY With mitigations suggested on Paye 12, the Department of Fish 1 and Game concerns are addressed. .Butte County, Fire Department let,'ter dated March 12�.+ 198. Response, r A17. corrimens/recommendation`s w� 11 kiene.,5 t b� praiedt`"jdesgn ., and improvements with the exception of "Aevelopor to provide fire apparatusnx tke fa,rz hof a ' iast�-attack' type of fire engine. Developer to past bond forfire station and fire engine; which includes equipmeInt necessary on fire engine to outfit it,'" and ,tDe d op .r to_.c g0t'tuct a £ire station upon complo;tion of 20 dwellings on . c4tils+ pr.oJect" . These reciuest s made by the County` Fire Department are inconsistent with the adopted Specific Plan for this project. In pertinent pert, said Specific plan states "Canyon Psrk Bstate's, by itself, cannot support the development of a fire station: At this time; fiscal consteaints also preclude the development of':a station to ,service this area by t o County.,", In order' to mitigate an ,impact that would occur if thin` d.evelol?ment and all .foothill: development were approved Without making some provision for fire protection, "A covenant will !be recorded agreeing to inclusion within a Doe Mill Ridge Fire tion Assessment District, which may be established by th�� ,tion Protec Board Of Supervisors at a future timelf 3. Butte CountyDepartment o£ Public 4�oxks lettez dated March 6, 1985. CtuHo M. Plowing CMM � (11A r Ile s po n s e (arQv1110„ Coti#otnia' See Attachment No, 1 From Rolls, Anderson, a!id izolls: III"a. 0 i Y 4esponses to comments; by the Butte County 'Planning Department to the t� t P eters cei+�ed on the second ESR stppler►ent for Canyon Park Estates t. Pile�'1183-5-0 SCH #$86122311 I 1. Department Of' Fish and Came Letter dated March'U,,", Response: The Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates proposed the maintenance of open space "aria a land trust for all the area except the specific parcels as delineated on the plot plan."Tha pteservation of open, space through a land trust is still a part of the project:, The,`mztigati'an 5 g ".p measures, mentioned on Page 12 will, be eonditions,.�of the, 2bn�.n ursuant to section 24-29 of the Zoning,Ordinance:: ° 2. Butte County Fire, Department Letter dated March' 12, . 985 , Response: The, aiipdt iron. the Butte° County Fire Department will beTfollowed to 'the dkten't,• possible. The fire pprotecti� vegUix�ements were salre"sdy adopted as a condition of the tentative s,Obdivision map action by the Board of 46-i'visors. Thos prior conditions and :the Speeifyc Play _ di s.ussion of fire protection are the binding'requ remen sat ;this. time. .7 and° 8 from the adopted Specific Puri.; Refer to attaohedpages, 3. Butte County',Depa'rtment of Public Works letter dated March 6, 1985 Response: Tte letter from: Rolls,'Anderson, and Rolls dated .March 22, 1985 provides an adequate response to the, mem6randum from,�he Department of Public Works dated Itazch 6,:' 1985 SV:a: IN d1 STATE' W CALIFORNIAA :TRANSFOVATION AGENCY OMUNID G. tl i�WF� JR r Governor , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .DWRICT.' gyp' NO. WX 911„ MARYSVILLE 505001"1: Teiephone, ('916) 741-4277 Pebruary 1, 198 Qua h :"Canyon S�!,bd'IVision TM'ir:: l� i o'�e R �►d x . cep - , Hutrte� Count T Pla.nril-ne. Qepairtttlent' 7, ;C6unty ODriv'o oroville, CA 95965 ;1 Gad rn 1�,, `I io-trT6t �, haq �evieW d the ta~nrn ate e subdiv�ibi.on map fog; ut i Gsz-Iyo.tr'n dark Esu s; " 10 .=1 bt subdivision on Humboldt Road east of"Highiiay 52. Ori Eebril�.r'y I 1W ` ve i"eviewe flit;: `draft `ETR fox`'Ct�hyon Park t t€r"", nt fila:�it i,a.'tn gad adv"a sc'a aagains t the use of A, t e, 20 �fiaot coes� ,open�_'ng to sbr'vee this bubd VILsion Pr II nkty access told q bv111 Hurnboi,av,Aoad' at f gh,vay '�21• t 'isoux uftders'taEldiz� r rr.0TA Sub cc�tonh review 4 .tho `xka "i,TH h Jute of _ 1 982 t�t':'�t the sacondary .r�oce6o'. tri � not be, utili�ar�''sncl .;:that access be. solely vii, Humboldt Road. An enor,oaef�rnent acrm ..ap fl at,a.ch:�i, ��zbje°ct `i;o `fxe�ld revi'ow by C:i r s Pcir lit; '`L1 in6or,, mixt be 'fi i ed in the c a Ct; Or the necessary improvements to the Hi8h-WAY 9f Humbdlft Road' intersect an,, Approval by the California �'ranspoxtatioXi Co r' Mj cion t�crt b'&,neces'sary `pr Viva ngthe:pr:4�6be .road ° Ct pp>~oah' 'i s nod tp�rOVO a Sincerely, L80 d'. TROM,18ATORE Distrit w ifi,rt)--tor of Transportation Y R: D. kidmore Cha.of, �nvi rot�m:ent;al Brsfioh guitaCo. Pidnnin��nn�. ' bravill©, Cali�ortl� I '. Butte County Planning Commission 1`1aJ , 2Q 198 page Twig A:ri inventoriy, map is, however, in the advanced stages of prepara-I tion. A rezone under, these circumstances Would be contrary to the Government. Code and subject to legal challenge The inven tory should be completed first. The Land Use Element of the General Pian states that development in this area can be on lots no smaller than one acre, Up to 40 ocres for each lot:. However, the stAbdiv�sionl previously approved fo.r this property allows a number of smaller lots, which is one of the subjects of the pending lawsuit challenging it. The General Plan does not say that parcel, sizes can be '!averagedrr over the entire property to come up with on alaveragell min muan parcel size of one- aorei That would defeat the General Plan's-` intent to limit small parcels in sensitive areas, The text plainly calls for individual parcels no smaller than one acre each, Any new zones approved for this property must be limited to zones which prohibit any lots smaller th,An one acre., 1 The Scenic Hi y 'hwa s Element of the General. e_era7, Plan also concerns us, We object to this project on the ground that this element requires that areas with prime views and tourist poten- tial be regulated to protect those views. This project would create traffic, grading,, night lighting and other changes in the immediu`Oe vicinity of Highway 32 and would severely diminish the quality, f the views from the highway. This mould include changes I.n canyon and ridge topography due to grading, roads, utility lines, drainage structures, fenced sewage ponds, and the light and ;glare necessarily associated with residential struc- tures all:l in plain viota of the highway. 'There is presently no nighttime lightingin the area, which this pro jest would severelychange. Thoro are alao no lights visible from Chico In this areal which would also be changed substantially« We remain very concernedabout the inadequacy of the EIR on this projoct. T}Ye report was challenged in couru and upheld at, the Superior Court x.ovel,, but its inadequacy will be resolved` later` by the appellate r;ourts. A court reviewing the adequacy of tile E; R for the zoning may also male a determination against its adequacy. O r primary concern is with the lack of information in this CIR onpern.irig the cumulative impacts of ,all existing and probable dev�.lopment in the area. The EIt contains a general s summary Iof the impacts of each of several proposed projects, taut there is no comprehonsi.ve, eumul.ativo information as to what the total impact of all,' the projects would 130 ora water, quality, floodi ng, uril.dlife, vistas from Highway 32 tra£f` e on Highway 3� kj d F The 'inade:quacy-of--the-=R, allegation, isst' ll at the appellate court level. The Supreme Curt decision in, November 1 84 said the; applicant must apply for and obtain zoning consistent with the adopted Specific plan. Thoughthe EIR was not deemed inadequate by the Superior Court, a second ESR supplement'was 'prepared in January, to April ;1985, as part of the rezone application. The feasibility of the sewage disposal and treatment facilities has been tentative�.y approved by the Regional Water Quality Control 'Boarc through issuance of waste- discharge requirements. County Service Area j#84 was approved ;by the Local ,Agency rorination Comrsa ssioil on , may 6, x ,982 , for the operation and maintenance of the , sewage disposal facilities. F I, iL r 4t k 4 l y: APPENDI'X'XU Continued March 1,8, 1986 - Butte County Board of Supervisors April 9, 1986 - Butte County. 'Planning ;Coro, a.ssion Apri1 '23, 1986 - Butte,County Planning Commission May 5, 198 -Butte County Board of Super�risor"s Juni 3; 1986 Butte County Board of Supervisors June 1719,g6 Butte County Board of Supervisors Tu1y i, 19$6 -.Butte County ;Board of Supervisors lAuq'u5t.5, 1986'- Butte County Board ot�Supervisors 1 APPENDIX XVI Board responses to comments contained in letter from Mr. John Luvaas to'Butte County Planning Commission dated May 20,, 1985. E°irst Issue: Approval of this project prior to. the "Overall - Foothill Plan" and "Deer Herd 'Study" completion.. I Respqntoi.i The Butte County Planning Commission has held numerous hearings on: and recommended that this Boa -rd adopt the "Cohasset-Forest Ranch Planning Area Plan" 'whose boitndarios include this project. Mr. Stephen Streeter, Senior Planner, in a memorandum to the `Butte County Planning Commission dated 5-2.9-85 ( attached' hereto and made a part 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 residential projects have on deer herds. Second Issue; Lot Sines Less Than 1 Acre. The second ,supplement to the ESR addresses an alternative plan layout making individual lots l acre in area, and restricting most of that area to, be retained. in its natural. state. If this alternative is'approved,-'all lots would be the appropriate size. 'Third, issues Scenic Highways Response. Project conditions require ithat homes ,be located out`of the view of Highway 32, or that they be "architecturally compatible" w'th-the native vegetation, if located within 350.feet from the centerline of Highway 32 (the extent of the existing S -H zone and` scenic highway element). These homes would then `be in character with and in harmony with the numerous rural homesi.,tes that dot "the' ' landscape between Chico and Forest. Ranch. Contrary to Mr. Luvaas! implied interpretation that the scenic lii.��.hway element is to 'preclude all "changea" to the'exis;ting environment, these two planning tools are designed to foster the types of highway development that has ocdurxed in this. corridor; as well, as promoting planned; orderly, well located commercial service for the motoring public. Fourth Issue.Discussion of Cumulative Lnpacts Response; Mr Luvaas' letter would indicate that no consideration has been given to cumulative impact's on 1. Wates quality 2. Flood i ng 3. Wildlife 4 Views from Highway 32 5'Traffic on Righway 32 near the pz ojects " and! in 'Chico 6. Erosion 7. Fire Hazard 8.'., -Public Services 9j Other problems The original EIR 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 the Butte County Csneral flan,' as agr cultUral'residential area, .°;ee 'letters; dated May 28, 1982 and June 22, '912 transmitting both discussion and tnitig'ation measures to the county from. the applicant). Although dne of the projects discussed was. subsequently denied by a recent Board action, the cumulative impacts discussed are still pertinent.Those impacts were: 1. wildlife habitat reduction 2. Erosion 3. Iiighway 32 traffic 4,: Loss of, open space 5. Increased demand for public services 6. Fine, hazard These impacts could potentially be significant in a cumu' lativO sens,s; but t; a Board Of Supervisors can impose' "sufficient and reasonable m-i.tigation measures or, cond'iti:ons to project approvals to avoid the significant _2,.