HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-50 REZONES 6 OF 227777, 1)' }• 4 i _
��GgUTYr�r��LANI T�
L�PAIi�
SIT'
i si,onaj i Vivax nnrnker�tal
��
iew
Exoense�Aci�ount�'nq Fofrm
Far E,I.R. Pro arati�an ands 5uad�v 'sicir� Initial
'Studies
,.
8350'
PRO�JEr,TCanyon Park Estates Of46-3504,23, etc.
_.._..�.
40 83--09-26-03
SUBDIVISION INITIAL STUDY EXPENSES:
Prof essia.na1 & Spec;alizest Ser.vices:, i
Staff work completed : hours @ $
@
hours
hours @ $
I.nitll Study Total X
$,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION EXPENSES:
-
Professi`onal' & Specialized Services: g�
F
9 i'14
Staff wok k completed: 7 ours
4 1/2 @ $ 157&-� 258.97 '
_hours
16_1L2 hours @' $ 18.76
309.54
._._
E.I.R. Total X 2
$ 68�=$ L, 37.5.30
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES:
yp ng s @ $1.82 per page (Initial StStudy)$
T cost
Printing casts (Initi°al StUayj 9x3x.08
9.10
$
Typing. Costs is 1.82 per page (gra`t EY.R.
Printing costs ('Draft E.I.R,)
$�?;:Z-
Typing costs @ $1.82 per page (Final E,,I.R.)
$_._.�...�.
Printing costs (FinalE.I.R.)
Legal Notices
Circulation - (Initial Study, Draft or Finai Ei1`R)
$ 15.40"
$.__.2.�31
Total M!isc Expenses
$ 289.78:x$ 28 .78
ADMIN. 0/H
166.51
$ is31.59
ACTUALTOTAL DEPARTMENT EXPENSES,:
�- AL.
Total E,I.R. Expenseg $ 1,831.5'9 t%ru�
31i9/85
Total Initial Study Expenses $
TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITEp TO DATE $ ,.1,520.00
Amount to be Refunded $
.----�-
�imount Owed by APpI i giant. 311 59
thea case of subdivisions, ioc:1udes actual cost
of initial stur.+yj
Date :.. tlir 3/19/'85
lis11; tti S`t'ate 4'lea;Xi!
c `;I� NOTIC
1. Project Title
It t:, VU%7-,,t*-,
�W1��0lf r -#p r�iu{' 9PYwigv'W+4
rk'Estates
¢e h11TE belrnr
P
� .Rs+• . ..«•"., v rsett.i 1 4J ,1 .;i1w.F�+Y.•.�.'N4' `,�G .w•;yRA IM,.p '.
z. lead Atencq:" Butte County Planning 3. Contact Person: 8tentien A. -.Streeter
3a., Street,Address. 7 County CeritdrtEDry 3b, city: Oroville, 'CA S, 5,i��
34-. oounty: i'iYltte 3d Zip: 95965`aur Phone:._ (916 534-4601
EiIOJE I I1:i mmI r'''county ; iUt te' _.t ' 4a. City/ConuAinftq; Chico
•
435-04„ 23
4b; Assessor's Pa%agl,ldo. LY/,1 q i y'Q s'4c Oct 11-Y5 (ptn lbrp. 22N Raags .
fi:e2E?a ,�,.p
-` r��
ft. s Streets• 5b.' :, Per Rural, Nearost
CO -
state,
State; Air- Rai i- Fater -
6. Within z miles:. .� 32b c: ways . ,.M. ,,., $ tl. , Little Chico Creelc
-- ,. ,..
'DOCUM '-'TSPS' 8. ,LOCAL Amaq TM 9 DEWY-- ,TM,
CMA "'f °L " °01+' ti "General;Plnn'Update 01. X Residential! Unit's If -ct ;yr cres
A1. nP 06, , IdOE• , 021 Nem Elo6ent
02..___�•Office; sq. C r,
r-.
02. _Early Cons 07. _6yr 03. General Plan Amendment Acres Eimloyees
y
03. WNeg Dec 08. -_ NOD 0.1: " d�sYer Plea = 03', ' Shop 1py/CorrmerciiU : a 3q' PL. r
04. Draft EIR O5 -- Aanexatic�n. ;Acmes �u T7�loyees �r
Prior SCHo
pH(m:eat/ .. 06 ��Specffic PI
04. 04 -Industrial• Sq Ft._-,
05. X Subsequent MR�v c
f 1 -Bt A `r iLi �,uy XV .A k3F.._, yap • it �1
. �..�� q .Plan..
07: c7oatdnsi�
801223'11 } oa; _Redevelolb6nt 05. Water Facilities ti.
NEPA 09 -Rezone 06. _ _Transportation Type
:Trait,, - M
09. NoI' E1. EIS �'s a. '10.x'. r taud��Division,.., Q7. bliaingfdlaeal 11L,::t. ` ti• 1,.h.`i _. ,,,,:.
it 4 �r
r.
Z5""Bdivisioa Parcel
10. F=I 12. _E& ?lap k Tract ►dap, 'etc.) 08. Power:
�TYPe_..___;.r .,,�- �a .,< .„,7. ....,
OTBh1l
Permit 09. x. Waste Treatment: Tye
11 Use � . „
13: Joitit Documa'at 12 r iRaste t t Plan 30: QGS Related ..a.;
* --
14. �Finil bocubent 13.; Cancel Ag Preserve, 11. Qther:
15.,_otber
144 Other
►, to n eas natzs ,:f,.1.050 I. MM Joos amim;
lt. PRDJZs1Cf ISSUES DISttwgD n boQAtad 15i water Quality
ten.>� v .A ' 1 , r �', :.a,�. ,cy.'.a't �p 1 l'. ;:a •!° ,
�.. h' jDrainage; 18 X $ewer capucitY ' 23' X @later Supply
. O1. Aesthetic laud 08 X Flooding
02. Agricultural Iantl 095 e G,d-17. Social Zb' Wetlans!/Itipa4ian' .,
r,
3.,_Air Quality I0. _. Valance le, X Soil. Erosi06 26. X 1911 Iife
0 lag
Jobs nus '
04. X ArcbueologkoA- iistorical " It. Miferais _ ,..
/R
19. Soliii Waste 27. Growth nducing.
05.. Coastal Zone, ,12. Noise. 20« Toxic/Ra=Irduus�,28.^�lacompatibleaLs
n., n
O6. Ecanoinic 13. X Public Services
1 X"
Txaxic/Circulation 29. Cumulative Effects e
07. Fire H.rd 19., X 9chcols 22 Yegetatiou
i 30. X Other Various zQriirig
tate
._.__
1 r �"r
13. FUhbI1Qi a
S ._, Total S
14.PMSEK oskacro zoRnuG rr�y Agra cultural Et di,desltial des��nation per General
;Land ,'• : -Foothill land' in dr' near Little Ctliab Creekcanygn.
1&. 3iOJBCP`D IiPTIONr M , ,.x ... i ; :e �,� , w 4".. �„i
RezoAe from A 2 (General] and SAH (Scenic �Lighway) to
S R (Suburban Res3dent�aal) wand Tt C (Resource Conservation), }
34 ,M ,r ..
a£ 1;050 acres for
th'e� development'"'"of'�0� loi oni�e"
east side o f Highway
� 31' at ,iiumboldt Road, Chico area
.00
DM
ear en re er enxor anner
NOTE:. cienri8ghouse will assign ideatiflcation stun s for ail new projects.- If a saT dumber already racists for a projecr A�
biotite.ofnl?repn;raLion..,or.,pre��lous �;,
POftl! BEVYSED 184 MnA�S CUSS ilARB DI
f sira�o riON as mylgai
,. r
1.l{VI'f�tD�SFAi��FflST611.5�R11�C , `Ca•
Cairiplete i{etp►s 1,'Z, 3 a dd 4. ..
5: $n Che F'.FCE FL1 Rt4 'f fj'r spate'0p the
^1
i
6
To.
State, Clearinghouse Attn: "'P d6' Walker
Steve Streeter, -Butte County 'Planning
SUBJECT.
Review Period for Second S-uppleftnit, to Final tIR fore Canyon' Park Estates
;SCH 861223111l
DATE:
February '13, 19,8,5
Since this is the thit& or, fourth time through the Clearinghouse on
A �
some -aspect of this project, we believe., a 30 day review period would
be appropriate rather,'�than,45 days. Thesupplement mainly addresses
issues pertinent to the. rezone 'though soina information of interest� to
state agencies has been. Added.
Please contact our pffirte (534-4601) it you have difficulty' with the
shortened review period,
9AS.,.Ikt
5 iic�' ombgaza 6e iixe
:,
So�rameno, dalifbia Chaco'�'
, �
�< Chic(
o'pC �S c .
�, � �
,� •` 9581-
State Cleatin$'hpuse 1 "'
�� .,
Cho Area Re reat3on Dista:•.
}
Cal. State iv.', :C1�ic#p
,;
P caf a.c Gas & ,Electric
Okla f . Water Serve c4�o. Gil Sta`t'euni�r Chino
350 Salem Avenue
�
40 Salem' Stre "'r
"Bxoloy� Dept. M. Aaithcn, .
,ca,
Chico Ca. 5926 .
Chi co, 3w+,`9 926
7, 95929
pacific Tel ephorte too.
A.gricultur. �l Science, Ser, 0a.11.' :,St,at0 ' Uhi�v. , Chico
460 Rio Land :wkV "nue,
Rt. "�3 Box; 73,..,(Ko.rining
Avy3r ,vFeoga^aphyrDepart;ment
r
RM. 10,7rA
Chaco, C. •,"95926
Cha:ao,, Cay_ 95929
Chi •,`'"CA 95926
Chico Planning &WPublic
~'"•� s V � � � � Oal., !;3tate Univ. , Chico
Butte Go. Mosctua.,to '.bate;.
T�orks Departments
Dost Office.Pox 20' `
s
5117 Larkzri»..Road
ILibra�ry n
Chico, Ca. 95,1)29
Chico, ,CA 95927
Orovi], SCA 95965
i
F
Butte College Libra:
'P ` ?Ca7 �a ISta'tE Unay. , Chico
Route 11 Box '183-0
' Physical. Science.Dopt
Oroville, Ca. 95965
'`
Chico;,.Ca 95929
r
i �
Chico Unified School Dist
Patrick Porgiws ' ;.,w '`
s Cal. 'Stat'e Univ: , Chico
'1'16313. 7th ,Street
,
Poet Of£-�c�a �ox�'1731
`'c/d! R. Davis
Chico, Ga. 95926 ,Chico,
1
;Ca:M"" x5927 '„"';C
; m RpsearcYi Center for BueV-
,.
ness & Economics
C ha.co,Ca. 1
9 9 n
159�
Dept. of Fish & Game iE
`" CA. DDept Forestryy+ &
Rt. 3, Box 551CSno�rden)
*. Butte j moo. Fire Dept.
Chico, Ca. 95926 '
176 Nelson Avenue y,E
;.
Courier -- Oroville
Alta Cal Audubon Society
Fdchavd Slavish
mtVirencnental Roalth Dept”,
P. 0. Box 3671 (Ximberly..
California
Butte College`j
c/oAgricutu
lre" Dept.
Courier Orovi le
Chico;
r
95927
Rt. 1,Bok 183A
°Oroville, CA 95965
w
.11'ix�P llut� on Cc ntrol`�&
� ` TAE.CO' "Planning` f
Sierra C1u
P 0. Box 2012,
Agri cul tural, ,Oommise";oneJ Attnek'""=""B,::;'Titr 7
pin. i
Chico CA 95927161e��
son Ave.
hW,� ...
,ba«,
Cou�ip,r- 'Oroyille
*
Courier Oroville
Eco-.Analysts
Butt°e County Sheriff Dept;
P. 0: Boxrier, 1187
Cout�raVille
Chico, , Ca. 9592,7
P xblic WM?ks 16epart hent `
Courier Orcva.11e
Ca'1. Native PJ ant Society
Butte County Library
U C.,_ Fa± Advisor"
C/o J''. Joke rstL
Courier - Orovi lle
2_79D°elm t7ro`'
Rt. 4, Box �507a
Courie-r `0'. 1e
Chico', CA;u959Z6
Drake Homes
Johri 0. Drake David 0, Jeffries:
1550 East Lassen MeAU T44$, Chico �CA 95921
04 Suitt. 7 r -I RO� BOX tj Telephone 9116 895.39311
December t4 1984
Mr. Stephen, Streeter Senior Planner
Butte County Planning DepArtmeht
I County Center Drive
Otoville CA 95965,
REO SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THE CANYON ;-�-%RK ESTATES EIA. FILE
A 83-50
Dear Steve:
I.transmit herewith twocopies ofthe above noted
supplementi With respect to your',comments in letter, dated'
November 5, 1984, 1 have: ('numbers correspond to.those in
your letter,)
1,. 'Provided a w,3,:,ittenI statement about the roadwork, -
2. Listed 'appendices;
3. Listed Planning Commi8sion;
4 Xncluded the requested ,,6iscus,s i4on,- of the SAt! tone
in the projec-E,alte'rnatiVe 'section i'
5-1 1 e:kpect,,-Lo hear from the'','S'dhool District if the,
89-1 gone is approved, re !4xing,a,revised tentative
map;
1 h4ve,incorporated, the appr,r.. changes, in Table
I I I
of the Fiscal Analytis I
I I
7. i have expanded, the, 4iscu-s8, �*,aas : r
ette
Comment 417i
8 have revised the di;so, siiori regarding LuVaLat
US ar
Otter COmMent,#25;
9., 1 have include d Vlqtxte�,7-
5L
.4
-10 1 have in the Boarc, dan:,iiftplemen't
that 'I
appropriae mi. i�tjationsthrpucjh theuse of
conditional 21,
11. h ave indicated in 3. that the emergency,, access is not
dedicated 'to, the public;
Real' Estate beveloprrldht
„
Tj3 COUNTY PLANNING D
on of Dnvironmetal
Expense Accounting Form.
For E..I*R. Preparation and Subdivision �Initial
S,tud'ies
PROJECT: Canyon Park D'stato s AP# 46-3S- 04,23, etc. Log # 83 -Q9 -26-Q3 d
SUBDIVISI0N INITIAL, STUDY ,EXPENSES:
Professional & Specialized Services:
$
�rewr
Staff work completed: hours @
hours @ $,
= $
hours
Initial Study Total X 2
$=$
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION EXPENSES:'
Professional & Specialized Services:.
$
Staff work completed:7, ours 1.7.OZ
9
14 11� hours @ $ 17`.86^' 2
B. 214 @ $ 1.8,
7C '$
,-hours
hours @` $$
�Mi1uI 5 @
r
E.I. R`. Total 2
$ 532.88=$ 1,065:76
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES:
Typing costs @ $1.82 per page (Initial Study) 5
$ _ . 9.1.0'
Printing costs (Initial Study); 9x3..08
$6
Typing Costs @ 1.82 per page (Draft
Printing costs (Draft E.I.R.)
$
Typing costs. @ $'I.82 per page.(F'inal
Printing costs (Final E.I.R.) "�
$
Legal Noti ces
$
Circulatcion (Initial Study, ;Draft or 'Final EIRE)
$
Total M,sc Expenses
$ 11.26=$, 11,26
ADMJ N . 6/14
, 7 U—
107,7U—
ACTUAL TOTAL OCPARTMENT EXPENSES:
ACTUAL
$ 1,184._72 .
* 'Total E.I,Rr'Expe'nse5 $_- 161.84.72
thvii 1,x/15/84
Total Initial Study Expenses $�
TOTAL AMOUNT AEP"'TE' TO DATE $ 800 Oq.+.220.00
I.5,
Ammoaht to be” Rafun,ded $
Amount Oi,►ed by Applicant $ 154.7„
On the case of subdivisions, inclU'des actual cast
of initial, stud+.)
Date. Th.xu' 11/.1:5/84 ,
040P Cay, Planning Comm.,
'r 1984
Dl ak.e- Ho nes
CiIOArDa c@htQti 4
John D. Drake David O., Jeffries
� 1350 Sast Lassen Avenue, Su1Ke 7 P.O. Box 1448, Chico, CA 95927 Telephone 916 895.3931 P
August 31t 198-4
p ,Engineer
ali=ornia Regional Water Quality Control Boa
Central Valley Region
3201 S Street
y Sacramento, California 95816=7090
ATIfµJ.'a ��„
" "—S+1�v`x+�:y 1
^�� Nµ
Dear Mr. 'Henan
Pursuant to our telephone conversation this day, I here-v,
by adttise that Drake Homes, Inc., will, on or abou Sept-
ember 12, 1984, commence work to open, lenghten, enlarge
or otherwise repair all f.,xirsting blocked culverts: cros-
sing the main, road.. into Canyon Park. Further,, the road
Will be regraded and the inside drainage staale cleared
of all dsbx is
lily you when. the -above wor
? f y "u utb, r7, �,; ke r I Can no r k
lik
has been completed. Please let, me know if you need
additional, information.
Sincerely,
lore,/T3olster
ri
rnn.Administrator
'P3 ” g '
'.
;
sh
1
cc.: file
;{
Butte County Plannin 'Department ('
��ts�tt
� . t�i�loiin5ca�t
i7<<�� CJ
SIP,
� t/S3 �� �. ,j. .. � � a��-�.,3.F. ��� My�x..J �. t 'M1X� - K� � f i J �'..�. .y, 3j�j` .:',i�•
,?:i.A sSs(%'��..,! ry ^.Y Fj-cy,.s+.+ „yam: s^ �='_s. s^� �` .. -i" '_ +.wK•-a.«'- .t.'"� ;
�`'i- 3- i y,.w. rr ; i r: ,}7' {•r t a v y 4 r A- ' t b u� S t ♦ as ; z
T-30
- S e
•� ,•.; �'�,-� .a *,�i �`'. t�s_»�' ° � - .,••j�w#.i
'�-
�r
BUS., VJ7: t
`1f:.' �. i 1' +s �.;�5>"L-J� ''••ifC ix�•4'':-;-5 � v. Y.y^• Z {y�� � ,yylyst� '3 � r*.- a•tat tLt.... Y'� �I=r"•+'c','�..a9?C.i%.o.
r i A `` •s''f �c3t mss`-`"� yzr�'+-ti
,..yy-+cr' • �i fa:>`asi.f'i t,.R �- :r-�' ;'f.sG.='s�, i���r7..'ek'.rm�.,,-."r..✓:Lt�lr..a_
RESO-LU"TION, OF T[IF BART} OFSll'PERZ:'TSQRS
Ar ENDii�IG RESO"LU'I`109 y0 . 81-18?
On`Augusr 4, 1981, the Board of Sjlper rsors adopted
tid_.IRn. ,
ititian ; o: 81-1$2`, which Resolution adapted rnvirori.nontal Re�r�_e1r
Rene, _
Guideli ,-1es, and
ti�fEi.EREAS, it is necessary to reiris'e the Environiintnl Re�rie�V
Ines" relative to, responsibility for costs of preparation and
G.uzdel _
adrznistratio,� of Environmental Impact Reports _
(} t , T IEREFORE,; BE. IT RESOLVED, by the Board of StiiPeri sors
tha
Exhib:%t ''A'.� Page 1S to Resolution ho _ 31-152 Titled'
"P,roce�ures
for to Determination- o.�`.Costs for Preraaration of Fnitiron;�tental Impact
Re;oT-ts', is hezeby amended read:
RESPONSZBTI.1Tt' FOR COSTS OE
-pREPARriTION A 'D Ap�II IS.TRATIOti
OF ENV`IRO I�FFIVT_I. 1�fACT REPORTS,
lcan4
shall pay all costs" incurred
Private Pro ects The app =
fox zclminlstraton and preparation of.an erzuironmental impact report up #
' ncludin the £ding of all \rot�"ce,s of. Oete�mination related to
' to and' i
the Project.
osis for environmental impact report preparation and
The rintinp costs,
the County
aaminlstration shall include heblrelleuan expenses ncurred by 1, rate
consultant's fees, anal any el salary
The cost s rsf County p
ersonnel time tv?re arationeand eadministrat:ion ,of the
ia= ees ir�volv,ed- in the p P
Q£ County emp y
environmental impact, report.
The applicant,�r 11 be notified tOf1tilehe sElRated costs
associated, zrith the preparation and administration
ual costs far County'empla}ees' time ateofess monevashall
if the act applicant, the remaining artoun
the amount deposited h the app. licant
returned. I£ the casts are greater than the estimate the SPP
be 2D0.0(I �t=iLhin ID days of notice
shall pay 'the additionnZ amounts exceeding of
na, tal reg=iew coordinator by Te°�st�otints1in. excessl o event
by the eav- o.
men.t is not received for the additions a•
t}=s.at pay ,r ro.n^zer�_ta? evi:ez: coordil ,ator-=i•:is 1 it{zrlec� iatel cea.sP
$',7 Qo,, the ._n
processing the EII2'and no
t.iEy time Cal�ection 1�;enc}
PASSTD :i�ND ADOPTED bt: the lit:t e County Board o"E St�pet'�-isot,s
4 .o:n the 1G tri, day of APri 19?` b," the fol Loz,ring Grote
AYES': superviscr� Iar.., Fulton and U� x x
oan Saraceni ;
ti01iS : .c yerciscrs R7,selz anci :�hFei er
r j fiihnC? / ✓,trL�C�xL.GI
n t �� e ! mss/
i , r At:'C t t J Y UJI01, re ' `I c o � — Z'Z t I , (� I`R` :T'+ ¢:
r I ST ' t i ;r _ off r� t' n cam, t �
BLx t rL .,wC:��zin¢ cs f Sai��er� i
ti
5
LAWOFF(CE OF
JOHN L. LuVAA5, JR,
ATTOiSNbY AT LAW
025 WALL ST, -4,0. Box3279rrC11T►111s
Butte Gn. Inanning
Muco, CWFOPNIA 95927 �+
(916) 693,1758 �I `` 1� q 1 4
April 41 1984`fQm14,`
UfoYiU9b -
Butte ;County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning Department
7` County Center Drive
a
Otoville, California 95965
Re: Canyon Park Estates S -R Rezone EIR
Dear Staff, and Commissioners:
Y am writing as counsel ,for Friends of the Foothills,
a citizens group concerned about environmental effects ;of
Ridge area.
development in the Little Chico Creek - Doe Mil]
I recently suggested several items which must be in-
-luded in this new EIR ,as significant new information. You
are undoubtedly aware that CEQA requires the preparation of
a supplemental );IR whenever such significant new information
g
arises.
There is, aaditionall.y, a highly significant. sturdy
concerning deer her in the foothills which is nearing com-
be includ-
must
pletion. Upon completion, that document also il
Each
e'd in and analyzed in a supplemental EIR for the rezone.
upple-
of the, indicated studies is sufficient to require a supple-
.
mental EIR and all must be included.
This letter is also to insist that a full new )JIR,
the related
bewritten in connection with this rezone and
subdivision. A full new EIR is essential for the following,
reasons:
1. The foregoing supplemental materials ate so sub-
stant'ial and relate to and revise so many items in the ,pre�-<
viaus'EIR that a meaningful reading of the new and prerlous:'
information requires a. new, integrated document. The new'°
formation cannot possibly be corelated with the pl!V.iom
in >;
information by mere supplementation.
2, The previous EIR assumed "'PAC" zoning would be
used ;for the proposed develoL pMeiit of he property., Since that
mitigation
.t
zoning was rescinded., along with its, restrictions,
l'
measures proposed by the original EIt have not been met.
note that several, mitigation measures which had been included
i
Butte County Planning commission
Butte County'Planning Department
Paga Two
in the PAA conditions were not included in the subdivision'
conditions, so the absence of those restrictions must be
analyzed for the S -R zoning,
3. Because the original EI.R was written so long ago
and so many things have cyhanged since then, it is impossible
to tell now what is current information and what is not, so
it all must be pulled together in, a current document.
4. The original EIR was prepared by the developers`
own consultant and there is no indication in staff records
of any independent it„vesti.gation of, the facts claimed by the -
developers' consultant. Therefore, the original. EIR was not
"independently” prepared, or evaluated by your staff. Nor
they have the resources to do so, A new, truly independent
EIR. would eliminate this problem.
5. Because of the bias of the original EIR toward
the project and because much of the information discussed be-
�?;..
low was omitted., the EIR has been assailed in a pending 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 EIR, perhap's
as long as one to two years from now. If it is rewritten now,
many months of delay will be avoided for all. concerned. If:
it is not rewritten now, but merely supplemented;; such sup-
pl.ementation would not deal with all, of the earlier defects
and the rezoning would be subject to the `same challenge oh Az
EIR ..:..:. -
6. This is also to demand that the new Elan and/or,
on.-
any supplementation be prepared by a truly independent con. -
c; U1,ta,n,t,
sU1ta.n"t, not chosen by the developer. We object to any other
I rocedure and Will: challenge it by all available regal` means,,
7. Finall", this will :emphasize additional points-
which must be covered in °environmental analysis of the re-;
zone. The need for these studies and for integration of them
with information from the previous EIRs further demons44.rates'
the necessity of a completely rewritten EIR: Nearly :all of
these additional points were brought to the attentiCn of the
County in the ;pending lawsuit over the subdivsi.on , but we `
restate them now so that you will have the intormati.on�'directw
"tY
;
ly. The following information must be included:
a;) In addition to the deer study mentioned above,
X refer to and ii' -corporate herein and ask that yo, 'pecifi-
7777771
777771
33ti` te, County Planning
Planning
Commissiori
Department,
i{ Butte County
I( Page Three
caly attach to
the -new EIR the following fetters from the
California Department
f Fish and Game:
i�
March '22, 1983 letter concerrnizig the Bidwell
thaHeights tother�tneat-
sublative
d�v Se7ol Haat' ahts and
(Bides $,
impacts of
by projects... may destroy the Little Chico
habitat and wild-
Geek Do e Mill Ridge area
,i_
1?Lee.,
Their letter of May 21, 19$2 relative to Bid-
states "the cumulative
well Heights, which
impacts of this project, and other planned
be expect-
projects in the general area:, can
of the wildlife habitat
ed to destroy much
with corresponding reductions of dependant
that obvious-
populations." :.he letter adds
other. wildlife species will be ad--
ly, many o lden,
versely affectedi Such species, as g
turkey are even more
eagle, cot;gar, and wild
sensitive to human impacts than are .deer."
Letter dated September 17, 1.982, concerning
states
another project in the area, which
"this project? Canyon Park Estates, Y3"e
ptOl
' and the upcoming Imhof€Stone pro-
HeigYts ,
e
Chico Creek Cany2n.w00
jec.t it,' Little acresa Of
a devastating effect on over Stan Area 01
'kange;
East Tehama Deer Winter
Biological Importance. Other projects,
Speaal
past and forthcom ng, e n segmenti Forest Rofcthe
and Chico, will wipe obuLt
herd unles's the County establishresource
conse-MItion zones n the area, or somEi other
form of' -protection. 11
iv)
iv)
The significance of these letters is the cum -
and,
development on deer a
ulative impact of'develo
d1�e
to an even greater extent, other wildlife
this
species. As'indlcated- the a.mpacts of
be mitigated by pxnJect-'
project alone cannot
bud must be resolved
speca-fic measures, impacts
area -wide: basis. These cumulative ;
ai
have not been ass, dabd D &G�nandSothers
menu on y
ti.gat.ing them
een assessed in the psisaarid'mjOUP "
have not bre
Ana ly
We insist upon cumulative
tigat7b.1 for all affected wildlife species:
a
va,te
TIME
PHONE
4f��/84
n,Tolep6ned
Ploosa Call
['J Wag In
] Returna:d Coll
r] Will Coli Asoln
r Wants to $au You
Information
Note and
U Reply
I j Comment
! Rg.route
U 51gnaluro
Investigate
Return.:
U Approval'
(�Contaaf MoLj
Pt)o
X X,17otwurclod
_: _
Par' Request
r -
L
'
1 ordinances,
2
The "record" here is OYtenslve consisting -of written ma -
3
tenial and the "taped t` recorded proceedings of the various meet-
r
i ngs . This "Court has reva ewecJ all of these materials and trade
5
an effort to consider all the mater ia1 in the context of what
G
are perceived to be the i slues . It i s felt rather, strongly tlt
v
n
7
a great deal, in fact, most ofwhat is objected to by petitipner .
is without foundation. 5or eXaMple, petitioner has requested.
G
the Court to make a Statement of Decision and "decide" or 1. find
10
on to marry minute issues that Oe whole process would become un-
�Y
11
ma'nagea'ble:
12
12
The Court - finds and decides herein that all of the pro-
ce,dural requirements of the law have been met by respondent rt the
14
process oW consideri'ng the Tentative Map.
15
The<,Cour"t further find's that this is nota proceeding in
t
1G
which 'th` Court should or can determine the va1idity of any par-
is
t
classifcation in effect iri the County of'BUtte.
ticular zoning ,k
g
13There
are only two tZ)' iss;ues pre�s6nted° whM the COWrt
19
w
finds are of immediate concern to the validity of the action taken
20
by respondent in the appraval of the Tentative Map.
21
The first issue is whether or not the finding by the� re ,
A
22
s Pondent thrat the subdivision is 'con s7scettt with, Genea1 plan
t3
Density- policies is valid and supported by su'b8ta.ntia1 evidence.
;
24
p p'ear s to the Court `that the finding is valid in vieW o; f the
I t ,
25
h
terminology utilized in the general plan vis-�a-vis the part``cula�r
2G
location and as related, `to t:he consideration o1' same. as revealed
27
by the conditional approval of the tentative map. Thai' is,"the
2
subject property Under the Generali�lan in referring to re��idpntial
�, a S9
�i h
1
uti11zes, the phrases 'C . , .at rural densities, :.. +" and "
2
regplated to main'tairi_ rural character ....". Certainly inr
3
applying: the use requestedby the character of a particular, pro-
4
jest as related to a given area the interpretation of the parw>
5
ticular definition must be left to the gover ing, body and the
6:
Court cannot subs, ; to i;e its interpret ton, if, indeed 'i tri be di ff-
7
erent.;
8
The Second Issue of primary concern is that 'related to the
9
conditional approval of the tentative map, The Court fljnds ,that -
'l()
all of the potential problems of environmental concern. 6w c�h+
11
are at all evidenced are covered by the conditions of apprnv'-a1F,
12
save one. The respondent in conditioning ,the approval of the
13
Tentative Map requires the developer to Apply for and diligently
14.
pursue appropriate zoning of the subject property: t 4,
15
1trer� js rho debt but that ihe'drdit;ion does nater fl
a... �..r
16
iii°a�nap raprrate zoning be esi+ablis,hed It is a requirement of
17
the taw that in this instance appropriate zoning be established
18
in conformity with General Plan zoning consistency tequiroments,
19 �'
and/or the specific findings of respondent vis=a -vis the use,. of
20
the property in question as related to the subject project (sub -
21
division).
22 `
Tho requirement has not be;ei met here. The d;evelop�er is
23
required to do no more than apply for and pursue'zo6ingi,:
24
The Court is of the opinion that ,tile co"rYd:7ttiarl:t`tachd"'
25
mustbeiandatohy �nfi tkrat �t 'r eq the ac�arpl7shren ofr
r
2G
app"ra,r'ate zaln� r� n confornr� ty Irl tit the Gene41,
ral Plana
27'
Therefore,, uho Court orders, a Wri t to issue gommandi ng'
28