HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4 OF 21Far) U Nelson JcAssoctalts
Wal street Chico,
916jpttonc
Suite 6 95426
893 0491
Lind Ux Planning
Environmental Studies
Permit Assistance
Feasibility Studies
September 17, 1582
Butte. County PlanningDepartment
7 County Center Drive.
Oroville, California _ 95965
Re: Bidwell Heights Land Project
Alternti3te Sesoage bisporal System
Gentleman: -
this is tv clarify the developer's. intent
nt wa
th regard to sowage dis=posal plans far the 814well Kei hts Land
Project.
Since submissioh of the draft EIP developers have decided to submit 'plans
Far a pondingsystem for disposal of sewage effluent by evaporation in
the portions,° be the project propo,�ed to be zoned PA-C.
Through attachment of this latter to the EYI:t :and specific plp:ni both
documents should reflect the following alternate seviage disporal concept:
each dwelling or group of dwellings will have a septic tank for primary
treratment and the :effluent will flow b gravity y 9 y andjor a low pressure
system to oxidation and evaporation ponds.
Calculations were based on Bb gallons O effluent per day per person,
persons per 60 y es p
of 71 .inches per yearfora1rr�tldisposalybyheva Q�year, total Pvaproatian
p p residence,
evaporation of 11 inches per
year• This translates to a pond size of one acre peer five dwrelling unite.
Pond location's shown on 'the project Map Disposal system design will
hle t requirements of the California. Regional ,Suter quality Control. board
Which will set t�,aste discharge requirements. The system will he maih-
ined and operated by a licensed treatment plant operator under direction
tF a community services disttjbE , r, o y
o n thor appropriate Spacial district
..
MODIFICATIONS TO THE BIDWELL HEIGHTS
LAND PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TO ADDRESS SEWAGE DISPOSAL BY OXIDATION PONDS
Page 3, Project Description: Change "Sewage Disposal will
be handled by septic tanks with leachfields" to
read "Sewage disposal will be handled by septic
tanks w;thl.eachfields or oxidation pones."
Page 3a:, third paragraph. After ""Sewage disposal would be
p
with individual or common septic tank 1,eachfield
systems" add or oxidation ponds."
Page 17 Add the following at the end of the page:
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Bec
ause',the existing subdivisions within the projec't
area, Sierra Foothills Vnits 1 and II, have been approved
by Butte County for leachfield disposal of septic tank effluent,
and further because preliminary soil excavations have been
made and examined by Julie Panattoni of the Butte County Health
Department, it is anticipated that leachfields will work sati.s
factorily in other parts of the. project. However, this cannot
be demonstrated conclusively at this time. Accordingly the
alternative of utilizing oxidation ponds to, dispose of septic
tank. effluent has been proposed. The f;ii-zi of Ro:tls, Anderson
and Rolls of Chico has bean retained to design the oxidation .
onds for the PA=C onion of the
p p pro ' ect srite.
According to Ellis Rolls, engineer, design calculations
were based on 80 gallons of effluent per day per person, three
personsper residence, rainfall of 60 inches per year, total
evaporation of 11 inches per year fear a net disposal by
evaporation of 11 inches per, year. Pond size will be one
ap-re per five dwelling units, or a total of 51.4 acres of
pond acre f.or the 257 dwelling units ' the PA -C areas. This
area will be divided into 11 pond areas (each with. two or
three ponds)r shown on the project map, Figure 3, as revised
September, 1982. Ponds will be three to six feet deep and
will be surrounded by compacted levees seven to eight feet
high and twelve feet thick at the top, .including two feet
of freeboard above the permanent water level to provide a
holding rapacity safety margin; A hypalon liner or other
impervicaus material will be employed to -seal the ponds as
required by the California State Regional Water Quality Control
Board.,
The system will :be maintained and operated by a Licensed
treatment plant operator under direction of a community
services district or other specialdistricti
u to O Rari tito copiru
SEP
k'm
OraYll�Cali�ornW
Page 23a, Sewage disposali insert ahead of "Water Supply."'
impacts related to Oxidation Ponds:
The oxidation ponds proposed as an alternative method
of sewage disposal provide the potential for the,following
environmental impacts:
1. Conversion_ of additional open space. If ponds axe
built in all�PA-'C, areas, some 51.4 acres of open space which
otherwise would have been 'used for subsurface leaching will
instead be covered with reflective pools. These pools, while
themselves qualifying as open 'space, will not support the
native vegetation which would otherwise thrive in the leach-
field areas._
2. Attractive nuisance. Since the ponds will be deep
enough for a small child to dxown in, the safety hazard is
a concern warranting mitigation. i
3i Loss of wildlife habitat. Ponds in place of chapparal
will eliminate an additional 51.4 acres of habitat suitable
for deer winter range. Migratory waterfowl may be attracted
to the ponds in lieu of terrestrial mammals. Approximately
440 acres are proposed for PA-C zoning, so 51.4 acres represents
11.6% of the: total PA-C area. The 257 dwelling units will
occupy approximately 15 acres (at 2500 square feet per dwelling-
unit) leaving over 15 percent of the PA-C area for natural
habitat v-`er eight percent is deducted for roads, driveways
and land" .taping. - -
4. Potential odor. Odor is not a problE-..- with oxidation
ponds as lany as they are properly maintained. If not, unpleasant
odorscardeVolo This is a p
l teWb avoided
. m sithrough mitigation measures�hohe teuff:Lci
ently
remote so other properties would not be affected, the: occupants
of the ad'acent residential units within the project boundarl.es
would object strenuously if odors were to occur:
5. Vectors, Both flies and.mosquitoes can be a problem
with sewage ponds: In this case; removal of putrescble
solids in the septic :tanks will avoid a fly problem, and
eiwth,n
mosquitoes can be avoided by contrbez
the ponds andaddingiesticdes asneedd�
6 Health hazard. septic effluent will be confined
to 'the pond areas, which will be fendedr so no health hazard
wi11 be created. While the ponds will contain high levels
of micro-organisms, the impervious' liner will insure that
pathogenic organisms do not reach groundwater.
a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY -
DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME
Butfe Co. Planningf `7 comm. C �- 17, sg
SEP20
3L ie a�uvc►r plar24s'49 Dept provills, c.:ett,zorai�
a-fyNS i+6:fy'7`oyz
)3fd"M1Ctt t4ec ;T S
u�. ct G�t�% i :'f5 c4: r [ r�r�n ct c p,7� fes: b� r�-r 'r � �.?���s c�E ''2rM Jl
z`cY"' mtCx5rr1cf
1 _
�. pt �� ci..►� �� ��. �.�e�cz i`S i �3 F�": � �.b � f r �'� �`o � �' �� r
�C3
WO l
1577,.
T'l1i`s Par -k j5s't"'atc` °., t3;du edt lle-i6 w j z�r�Q Jr— tz r r��. �s.�u
e r Will A&Va- c+
u
N t* -t e -y gtx ►ty- .� Li F'� A Se e r r cc, eal
c L
t
county
dl
')."ere � �,I'.� s `ti C}r ! f� t:rXi¢YL�st'i I v'x�%+2+µ= , e
„� "7", �' 6+C.f. � CGr-' r . C:►�L�/ � �C+�; � tl tri � � { E" �'c ��,': �' i�•c�Y� �+4 L°•`f '"' � a
w r
�-- -
Butte County Memorandum'`
Staff Findings
Page Two
4.
Seismic Safety ,I-emen
The concern with fault lineaments is addressed
in Condition 22:
5-
., lement
Element tonservation
No comment
6.
open -Space Element
The establishment of "'need"' for a project
a determination traditionally undertaken'
is not
by the government of Butte County. The operation
of the zEtarket detcsrmines, to a great extent,
is "needed'", and this approach, -
whether a project
traditional i,n this country. The developer
is more
^
disputes the assessment of isolation attributed
developments have occurred
to this area, since other
on adjacent land and on up the ridge to Forest
Ranch with resulting effects on wildlife habitat.
Tonal project
Huta much additional effect one addi
have ---given the developments already approved---
may
is a matter of conjec ure
7.
jousina,Element
Development consistent with the densities
in Agri cultural -Residential. D:.stricts
specified
be inconsistent with the housing'Eleiitt
cannot
else the General Plan 1 T1C01185 StellcieS
or
which are not permitted, ihastinternal
g,
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element is intei'ided to provide
for the orderly movement of vehiclesin relation
by the circulation system.
to land uses served
if properties up the ridge do not have adequate`
access, densities ft r those properties should
This project is served by
be set accordingly.
a new road With at, all-wdathdr "surface; With
to Condition
provision, for upgrading pursuant
should provide adequate circulation
Number 15, which
for this project.
Butte County memorandum
Staff Findings
Page Three
9. Land Use 'Element
The property isconsideredto be an Agricultural"
Residential District by County staff. Regarding
conditional zoning and development criteria,
(1) compatibility with aq?-icul.ture is no problem,
(2) water and sewer are adequately, provided for,
(3) fire protection is adequately covered between
the developer's willingness to provide equipment
and the staff recommended Condition Number' 9,_
which provides for meeting the requirements of
the Butte County Fire Department, (4) road access.
both primary and emergency access, has been provided
to commercial services and schoola
is a sub accessibility
for in Conditions Number 10 and 15s ibility
and (5)
judgement.: A commercial area is proposed within
the project,, and schools are available wit)i.in
reasonable bussing distance.
The projoct applicant would disagree with the suggested
finding of it -consistency with the General Plan and would
oppose reduci_ions in density. (There is, incidentally,
a bill on the Governor's desk, SB20011, which would make ;!
it against the law to use density, reductions as a mitigation
measure unless both of the following findingscanbe Mader
!1) there tare specific threats to public health and safety,
and (2) that no other feasible mitigations are available.
If signed, this bill would become effective Llanuary 1., 1983.)
Turning to the memorandum of September 11, 1982, from
Bill Tdrr;in regarding fiscal analysis, the applicant would
like to Whentheserify costshe shool arecfund"
takennc�nconsderion. The statement
g
anon, the suhclivsion
as proposed loses a considerable amount of money,!"' is overly
harsh. This project is similar to every ,other new subdivision.
The culprit here is not the project; but .rather the state
laws regarding school funding. A solation is under discussion
in the form of proposed commuiiti
y --wade school £ees; which.
this developer would go along with if applied across"the-
board to all developments.
I;
is
Inter-KDe `-lA
party nfd: em®rnndum
TO: Steve Streeter, Current .Planning
FR0W. Charlie Woods, Advanced Planning
Review of PAC:. Associated with Bidwell Heights Specific Plan
General Play. CW m5istency, File No. 82-62 &AIII
DATE: September, 17, 1982
'This review is for the purpose determining the extent to
which the PACs associated with the Bidwell Heights Specific''
Plan, are consistent with the Butte County General Plan. It
is my understanding that the Specific Plan -which is not yet
approved is undergoing seg►eza1 changes. As :, result, this
review will not address the issue of consistency between these
PACs anU the proposed Specific Plan. To facilitate thio review
these PACs i -,ill be reviewed in light of each General Play
Element concludingwith an overview. While the review is
focused on these PACs it is not: possible to evaluate them out
of the Specific Plan contest in which they are proposed.
Project Descrip 4ion
The project consists of 16 separate PACs with a potential for
763 dwellings on approxxtately 447 acres yielding a Oensity o
1.7 acres per dwelling. (The overall Specific Plan encompasses
I
approximately 385 potential diaellings on an estimated 1709 acres
for -an overage density of 3- acres per dwelling,,) -pith the -
exception_ of one 87 acre parcel., each PAC consists of an
approximately 40 acre pwrcel , Together these PACS represaw-,
approximately 68 percent of the potential dtaellijigs for 1 h:
entire development, Each dwelling is to be located within,
a 6400 squa.re''foci, 10 yx 80 feet) exclusive building. area
and these are arranged along the streets and roads of the
develppment. Access to the -ite from SR 32 is provided by
Wilder Drive with internal circulation consisting of int,
connected loops and cul-de-sacs
i« Scenic Highway,.Blement
,Apart from a general, policy of protecting Butte County's
scenic areas, ;lone of the policies of this Element appear
to apply to this project
2 ♦ Noiso _Blement
None of the policies of this Element appear to be
applicable to this projeetY
i. Safety Eloment (high fire hazard Surrounded by high to ex-
treme, lilgh erosion potential and Seismic' hazara.$)
:
Steve Streeter
Page 2
September 1;, 1982
Fire
incorpoazard rate the thehmitiire ationomection la
P Plan" does not
These are .necessary to meet the uGeeralres tPlandpoliciesin the EIR.
of the Safety Element. The Draft Plan, does not discuss
the
enbridgemon the
eyaccess road and the Plan map does not
Multiple access for a develop-
men( of�this size and density would be required by
Policies contained in the,Safety Element. To be effective
,for both emergency acces.s._and normal circulation. this
access should be developed to sufficient standards and
regularly maintained. A connection to Roney Run Road or
the development of Doe Mill Road to Bruce, Road would be
desirable
The Safety Element (Fire Sub -Element) establishes policies
which make the consideration of fire hazards a part of
the planning process. Considering the lack of fire pro_
teetion facilities (both existing and as indaeated in the
Specific Plan), high fire hazard and constrained access,
the PAC development does not appear to have taken the
fire hazard potential. into Hconsiderationiti
would expose the inhabitants Of some 260 dwellings, ankh
Ostimatoverall) does- no585 t at a dens t;r of 1.7 acJdu
Elements .pp. ( ac/du '_$
a ear 'consistent with the intent of this
_ f purpose; objectives and policies, This conclusion
:is supported by the Fire Hazards policies of. the Land Use
Element which "guide development to areas with adequate
fire protection servicesh,
The Safety Element alsOk contains policies to insure adequate
road access including "multiple access where feasible".
MI- Iille emer enc access' Is available from surrounding un-
mpro led roads, the project including PACs (2,60 potential
Wilder Drive. remain dependent upon one sottrca of access,
dwellings) s rem `
P�
in the event ofSfiree ac cidenaccess tearlotetemer�enc vulnerable
�!hy County UMits the number of dWeilings to 20 on adculude=-
c6r'is
Remedial actions are difficult and often costly to
nrrLct as in the oase with the Vpper Midge and its
dependence on the skyway.
Soil. Erosion
Where the proposed specific Plan would establish several
q. as ti,e, e etechniques,
use of Erosion. Control
Hendbo
echniques, etc:) to control erosi11 on an preserve.
1r�tPr quality, the implementing PACs do not.appear to
reflect these concerns and policies. Th.e Land Use Element
also states+ that it is the policy of ButteCounty to
Steve Streeter 1
Page 3
September 17, 1982
"control development in watershed areas to minimize
erosion and ;cater pollution". This development located
in the Little Chico Creed, watershed and in the area of the
Tuscan fornat-i^n (Chico groundwater source), at the pro-
posed densis *..s does not appoar to be sufficiently con-
trolled to'pruvent these occurrences.
4. Sei.smi;c Safety Element
The seismic Sa-r,
Hlement protides t: at seismic safety
investigat onsbe undertaken and the information utilized
in planning decisions. The Land Use Element also contains
policies to incorporate seismic information and restrict
development accordingly: information on the location of
various lineaments (presumed. to be active faults) are
identified in the impact report. Mitigation measures and
proposed Specific Plan policies indicate that these line-
aments will be identified, by a geologist during the PAC
phase and the building sites would be so situated as to
avoid these potential hazards. This does not appear to
PACtherefore may not be
have been done for tconsistent with thishElements
of the Cenexal. plan.'
S. Conservation Element.
Mone of the policies of this Element appear to be applicable`
to this project.
6. Offen Space; Element_
levant to the Specific Plan and
The Open Space the assn
.appear to be re p dated,
. Element contains several poll
which
PACs. These l.nclude : "discouraging urban development
(creation or use of smaller parcels) isolated from existing
development and urban centers unless such need can be
detetmin0d"i The need for this project in this form ha.-
not been substantiated or,determine in addition, both
the Open Space and Land Use Elements establish policies
designed t' protect and preserve tutee County's deer herds
by regulating foothill development. This project, both
PACs and Specific .Plan, �Y-iII result in signa.fiearit impacts
to the deer herd. in this area and is not consistent with
the General Plan, (See Department of Fish and Game
correspondence;.)
7. Musing -,Element
The Housing Element contains policies which give priority
to housing in areas Which are lv, thin or adjacent to de'�eloped
areas rather t. s ..
han distant; isolated area
u
SteveStreeter
Page 4
September 17, 1982,
8. Circulation Dlemen't
The essence of the policies of the Circulation Element
and Land Use Element are that the street system should
provide the capacity for present and future development
and that routes should be designated and i
Steve Streeter
Page 5
September 17; 1982
Virtually all of the area: occupied by the Specific Plan
and PACs is the relatively flat portion of the Ridge.
The Agricultural Residential designation has a density
range of from l to 40 acres per dwelling. Zoning and/or
parcels of 20 to 40 acres are considered consistent with
the designation. Zoning and/or parcels of less; than 20
acres in sire must be measured. against the criteria of
the Land Use Element in addition to the other policies
of the General Plan. Also included are various factors
used to evaluate zoning proposals. The issue in relation
to the Land, 'Use _Element centers on the density and the
designation --zoning criteria.
Conditional Zonin and Development Criteria
1, compatible witha ricultural activities -
cattle rancng gRa2� ac.ent and a vineyard on-site
(p p or
The ro osed development will not likelycreate Significant
conflicts with neighboring agricul turalpursui is .
2. water and sewer -
i4-ater y community system supplied by a well; sewer on
to septic (the Specific Plan proposes on, -site septic
although several of the PACs appear to utilize some type
of collection system with evaporation ponds _ this aspect
of the development is unclear
n means and. ability is reasonably certain and secure,
1�rii1e 'the water
the bility of sewage disposal is unclear.
s; ade uate fire rotection facilities
eveloper
rom theoresidentseofttheoareanned by volunteers
drawn .f
Fire protection is a critical element of` the project,
' -in view
of
reliance on aI singletatt ance to
particularly
xists g cress. The
i future
P
devela'ers proposal fora fire station manned "b�
Project resident volunteers may be pore functionI.al if
full buildout Wore to occur over a very short period of
time. Hoigeyver; until. this is provided, the area lacks
,struc'tuxai fire protection services. The Planning Depazt
mens: does not believe that the fire totectlort facilities,
are or likely to be considered adequate for a development
of this intonsity:
Steve Streeter,
Page b
September 17, 1082
4. adequate. road access and capacity
the project, area will be served 5), Wilder Drive linking
the project to Chico via SR 52
Access as discussed above is confined to Wilder Drive,
a chip sealed road to SR 32. The department rives not
believe that a single access road for 263 (385 overall)
potential dwellings is adequate for this number of dwellings/
trips particularly with the likelihood of future development
and located in a high fire hazard area.
S. reasonable accessibility to commercial_ services and schools
driving at a normal rate of speed, the project is approximately
25 to 30 minutes from downtown Chico
ikhile "reasonable" accessibility has not been defined in
absolute terms, the department would question whether this
development in this removed and isolated location should be
considered reasonable. Unlike other existing outlying
communities in Butte County, the project area does not have
any convenience commercial facilities to provide some measure
of self sufficiency. The developer p isproposing to locate
convenience commercial facilities in the Specific Plan.
Here again. like the fire station, there will be a consi clerable
time .lag between residential -development and the ability to --
provide such. services. In addition there is no evidence
that the population of the project alone will be able to
support the proposed commercial services and if such services
are dependent on anticipated development from surrounding
properties then intta Ridge circulation planning beeome5
even more critical.
Ge
neral Plan - Ov`ery104
Taken together; the PACs and the Specific Plan in their present
form do not appear to be consistent with the Butte County General
Plan. Reduced to its simplest element, the project's density
is the principal factor affecting this conclusion. The Planning
Department does not believe that Butte County General Plan
envisioned a development at this density in this location under.
these circumstances; at this time. A conventional development
with parcels in the 20 to 40 acre range or a cluster development
with a density 'in the 20 ac/du to 10 ac/du range (depending upon.
design) would appear to be more consistent with the objectives
and policies of the General. Plan. Because of the interdependence
of the lands in the Doe Mill Ridge alta; an overall plan would
be advisable before considering development at this. density on
an incremental; piecemeal basis.
OW lkt
Ir-Departmenta e-rr�aratRdur��
TO, Planning, Commission
FRom, Bill Turpin, Senior Planner
5URJECT. Fiscal Analysis for Bidwe11Fbights
OATS, September l7, 1982,
The balance sheet ccntai edu is L n this project
n page. 11 and cons a Cost revenue comparison.
the bottom line o
is o p g ,
w d be kept in mind when considering
The followinglimitations shoul
this cost revenue comparison. First of al.l, the cost of a fire
station and the cost of fire equipment were not included in here
because. ->t is assumed that these will be donated by the developer.
These are large costs and any change in the situation would
greatly affect this comparison. In addition, any other major
capital, improvement such -as County assumption of the private
reads in the subdivision, etc. would greatly affect this
comparisori
A. Further cautionary nate would be in order when fLU �.dering
a cost revenue comparison which comes out this closer y anc� # �0
is -that the lots,, and a construction of dwellings upon tis
lots, wall occur over a long period of time. It is impossible
to predict that revenues and costs both remain equal with each {
other over,this period of time, it also takes a great leap of
faith to expect that County services will be required and
services will be demanded by new residents an increments equal
to the amount of additional revenue that their dwellings twill
contribute.
Finally,
the information an page 11 does not include any costs
associated Stith schools. Those costs follow on pages 12 and 13.
When these costs are taken into consideration, the subdivision
as proposed loses a cvnsi derable amount of money, or, put another
wa 1�ou1d require a substantial contribution or subsidy from
` existing County taxpayers.
8T so
STATE. OF CALIFORNIA — RESOURCES AGENCY .
C GoYernor
DEPARTMENT OF ..FISH AND GAME,
Sihen A, 6 i r -e .te r• 9CIA,
s
k"St:fie u•!ej`V I ilejlt"'r N._ �G' i � gCia•�e `a � � s�'�� 7, dot
oop
l
AS propose] � 7` -Aa' pr-oje-e-`'� wi'�j
as�ci�
f s f41cLt•.7- i>^i>^tv► C��:1 F 6p li.�tfs ieze�
Ld, !;"�-h
�r �-�� fir ad�� r
!n� cL S ort
Pe—p&r7 ,rJ ej E 7'' of h='i`s i a,t1
J � � � J���.r�� �� azii'tc.c..��;� �z�� s J cvlr c"��� �x��-�t'y t'E�'.�»�►rt��e�r�
are -as e(lhJ
cin
as --hL}
r Y'Aeoicc- LOT?G•,5"' w6ulX
Sn oaM b e-
us
4 .
Y
t
R. JEn11In�s
.a 615 FOLsXiTH .crTCttf.T �. i+trts-F'"nr<;rdnL t AYl ^ u
COr3MNO, CA 9co�.i NVIU kODGEQ5 TC1 d.tplirardE
AT LAW
., ,y
,'.."4lLC:x�3'; *r 2 1982 - CIyjT E,4 r.'+x .t:i M.
Putto Ca my Planning
7 �"Cun,,—x`,17` Centcc I? 7t>G 11i' .tZt
CA
Parcl-11 Map
Vc 7" UllUernont
threo builclirie ` ' rorbrro."ci above and aro
1 '�uce7 s as IS PQ v shot"'n l,)y the Pro; ovc� tna Ig to clivi it info
U-uringrthe p.
��:cc"Is Of the work cl., this m�
r�� cn it lude-d in part of a ia?er plan, w have b�ert �
ights Projoct, rrz that our 'p o:0
I.oC ettJy esnr*.a
t as the nie11
tta.i i r
M3 Understand tY it-Itor rej,� Liar 'i y
1Si ti1� , P; 6,buld t
larc r 13x i:• . st that Our e P bc.� en the gro es, at this � r t.
exgh�s ro' ct P s tIsvxSion of � o art an
v have, eill;er 1::e scnali�r or �andlcd on an ir�diviautOPO Y be tkc,.n out of tk�c
=`;ate s, lnc, ; c . iec With th 5 cur Consulting cavi basis. �:e, beli.eve that
�:rr�1 of t 'axions r.s+st zecoht�ns�r►r',�xs,i;al-
z�sort am aPreciate it ve?r+ ai nests to c��i:ain ap-
Processed on this; bas', 1 !� �
4 tL P"'Inter tZLIld I'X'
r the:µ
s�µll Cron .r rf k ` .fr. fyi f.1,�o t
la Cl (" ' t. µ� r F'?�"i *7twta2l.E:S contact citsx`*, i.y
-ix t a at eri. r Thi s; in -him.
Thank � � R.�. or
youfor Ybutcezn
QTµtrll1y your
t
)3pj Cl
a Gg
n
IFIED
1169 EAST 5EVE.NTH sTREET
CH:ICO.'CALIFORNIA 9592..
AREA. CODE 9I6,0 991--3000
�a�te—mer 2, 19-82
,
Jcnn ."endonsa, Assistant. Director
'county of, �f, flutte, Dept. of public Works
tounvy`Center Drive
Orovi ; l e, California 95965 -
SUB* -"ECT-. Environmental Review Stage for the Bidwell Heights Subdivision
Dear Vr,. 1'endonsa
At the September 1 1962 meeting of the Board od vasionlanon d its potential, tine Board 1emed
p Heights Stab
the pcwen�ial impact o" the Bidwell
resented with data i t�di cati ng the
pace cr student housing. the Board was p
niaber o-F,5tudentswho would be generated by ,this subdivision and also date
for o ver subdiv'sions in this area whichbeen considered by
have previously be
. Enclosed with this letter it a copy of the data presented to the
Bcardwill note that in the case of the_Bidwell He ghts Subdivision that
Bba rd . You
i 1 tsubdivision,
view i ion, when
combined with ocher subd}visions
the students generated from kview inion tlary School two stuftnts beyond :heir
it the area, would place Park
caaacit�r.
Because of the potential impact on student housing, the Board Look a position
that it is recommending the Bidwell Neights Subdivision not be approved pend-
incl agreer.ent between Butte Counndith schois ol distr possible
ict on oss'able ways of
financing ,or she housing of students
Sincer'ly,
r
At,
^• . y
17
Ru.: n G. Thompson
Business Manager/Camptr011er
cc: Robert Jeffries
,,settyd Kircher
s nntn9C�
I%
0�'>'iile
Skansen 2,- 97 units
Skansen 3 - 21units
Parkview/Chico Junior/Chico Senior
118 units X .43 elementary
students = 51
students 'K-12
51 students X
.54 elementary students = 28 students K-6
51 students X
.46-; 2 = 12 students
7-9
12 sA.
tudents
10-12
Pa r kvi e ,, SchoolCacaci ty
_ 522 students
Parkview projected enrollment 1982-83
357 students
Additional capacity
165 students
Parkview School
Canyon Park Estates
25 students
Bidwell Heights
90 students
14 0111e House
5 students
Southgate Acres
Sauthaate Acres 2
9 students
country Club Oaks
I0 students
167 Total
Skansen 2
Skansen 3
28 -students
staions available
.� Student t
157 students
{ 2,Goer capacity
3
'
Chico Junior Hi oh
Skyway Ranch iff1
4 students
Skyway Ranch 4,2
12 students
Chico Creek Commons
COMMUni ty _ Park Commons
Housing Authority -County
6 students'
Springfield at the 'Villages
12 students
"
Almond Creek LI
10 students
j
Canyon Park Estates.
11 students
�6i dwel l Heights
88 students
14 Mile House
2 students,
Southgate Acres
Southga.Le Acres 2
4 students
Country Club Oaks
4 students
Skansen 2
12 students
Skansen 3
Cliff Johnsen 'Condominiums
Acme Condominiums1
139
Capacity
Ellen Subdivision
Cherry Wood
_gat
Enrollment''
Payne
145
Stations �vaiabla
Lowell Piet,ce
Gree-nwoods
9 students
-124
Students
i24 students
21
Stations stili available
'
fa
r
,R
ti
14
EDMUND G. 13ROµlN Jit Gorsrnor
STA�r rCAGCFOPltlA—•RESOUR.C.E5 AOE.P%.
==y OF FISt1 AND
DEPIAR- 1,, EN,F
1
70
1
t4VAe,.U9 ;LOAD, ;;UITE A
RAt4!.V i O SA• Cl+llFC1'tNl:. 75579
�Zr 355--7030
;PIjIust 10 r 1982
Stephen A. Streeter
x�e County Planningommassion
1 county Center Drive
Crresville. CA 95965
,,ear' mr. Streater . of our letter of el
r«a Game is in receipt your Dick Chappell,
The y)epart.4�_nt of Fisr'! and Special
n rt 2 in reference to the e�DevelopmentainfA1eas 0f
Augur_ µ and Policy for cluster
Biological P 14, Orj- —e y
k to take this opportunit to reaffirm its
t+ _ artmer t would 1i on doer Winter range or cluster
,Ya Deg parcel size polir-Y ace
ore minitum parcel per 40 acres with the open space
40^e
equal to one P areel size r>ould
development ey or etuity. Smaller' minimum p An
being pYesOr ed in p� p tions
taal. verse impacts on our deer resource.
. d d -
lead to u;acc;ep to protect
e in i5 specific case would leonsibil tyher eycep
excpgt�.on m `zrrorlise of the Pepart cnt` s resp
and total C-01 - -
he staf e` s Qildlife resources.
Canyon Park Estates
our, comment,: r.egarding therbve of the broject
in regard�to y or'..�or 'app
pro3ec,t, she Departmen table" not oral of certain
. t�aCcep he prop
but did find it gutte County•
mitig�tt on measures by Gest on we do not reel. that.
aro srj�Lifically
answer your la q' average arcel)� would be consistent
h t,er den4ties (5-7.5 acre top�attrientt s mandate to protect c�usc deer resource.
+ititn the Del Y gensdh r
l rte can be of further assistance, PI contact. Jerry
En a�ro;�men�ala S_r��ces Super.
visors
telephone 1916)55-030.
j
Sincerely,
pegional
Manager
Vp.closure
lot
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- RESOURCES AGENCY
oyeroor
DEPARTMENT Of: FISH AND GAME
4 - �'
au l y a.7l 0 9 cP;.
7 C ion y cckl*&-r Dx1 v
r�z Ice-, �uL,
� �� i�e.�z�.r'�"�,�.�tii a� t=,'s�i. ��,�. �'��e 1��s l�SS���s�.�� �lc�': ���'Jt`�3. �'k'•C.tFtf`� �'I��Ini�S
611y 8,2,) rcoa-r p-= the reSpa v df �-k G��4i Gbit �'
„ r z C7 °
f&-r StAl I er' Af cis $itpa o�.) �� 7 otcr le'
� ►. "F';'L�� � uo �'�d: C.c�.Yrc »z� .-a'�'.; c+"� D Y^ � ..�.c2�r`� � e �i•t�'�'1`ai7
hast � a�.r �� mrd a , Igoe... l t R C,8
&,o eoo ae?^e.s o �1-ia i t r' 6 i� 5
Yp�� I�.��.r �,�� PP• Y
fm � �:�'e- t�o r�n�• W c� ,del � ��� �'h.�zt' � �.Y� i s � I a #� ��� ��yt?`Jr 1 �� s ��,.�z:,->; %v o, ��+a
G%rzfr Y't'tt cLS opeh Stz
Lka, &tYlt ba,61t4t-r'na
7'1"�re , `fes last Doe NOI Rr'd�y
tc �vz�'ic i3rt` ►� c�rz y
i �a �'t� s a.�r� ��.�4. r� Int �'f ear i �+.z�re,�vr.•>.rneyuk �d b %h. e. !1 � c� r�rK ew s �
iti � ! L e. FrL 1 Yf i fi U?rt
ical�t Y e Y' r � W ►Ir j'e't i1 b,~ C:o�1 1' raLpper ony aAA '*fro,I( net 'i��yLr i�c> v} tit, ii
)ctb
GGvyt 5 i crYtx'�1 �' C:rc,trt.�! t 5 G' YtCFr�CY.'
j%orz. c you �c7� ��� e�����+Y`i"Grr9i`�✓ �c� Yevee�..e�,r "�"it� �e�rert�r a-l�t� ti��lc°�trr�°� Y� �Saxs�5,
r,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARIE AGENCY -
-� EDMUND G. BROWN jR., Currrhor
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
714 1' ST$EE T
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA $5814
-u
(916) 445-4400 January 25, 1978
vector and Waste Management Section
Criteria For Mosquito Prevention In
Wastewater Reclamation Or Disposal Projects
I. Background Statement.
Rerr_.nt changes in Californii., ,nater pollution regulations and current
6;iphasis for reuse of wastewater havo serious prospects for mosquito
production, Proposals for reusing effluent and surface runoff or
preventing these waters from flow ng directl ,
y Into estuaries or Water;
courses can create new mosquito sources. Kinds of proposals under
consideration for the diversion and reuse of wastewater are:
impoundments for reclamation; agriculture irrigation; (1)
of round water; o(�� ag` (3) recharge.
9 (4) development of marshland and wetland habitat; and
(5) ihdustrial proposals.
"tosquito breeding" and "mosquito breeding pl-
aces" in published
literature are generally referred to as the developing aquatic life
stages of the mosquitoand to the water-holding depressions,, sites
or containers in which the aquatic „stages are found. A,site _becomes
a source when-it holds water suitable for mosquito development and
at sore time produces mo quitoes if left uncontrolled.
Mosquito control is accomplished b one ora combination of three
methods, (a) use of chemicals; (b biological control; and O
manipulation of physical features: Ghemicals are usefulfor inter_
Mittent or emergency control, but are not recommended for consistent
use because of cost, environmental concerns and inherent development
of physiological resistance to the chemi`Grh1s ,by the mosquitoes.
Perhaps the best known and most common biological control agent is
the small fish Gainbusia affin'is. This species is found widely
throughout the state andin certain situations is helpful in keeping
populations of mosgUlto larvae down to moderate levels. The
effectiveness of this fish is influenced by such factors as density
of the aquatic vegetation, rate of larval production and the avail-
ability of other organisms preferred by the fish. Manipulation or
design of the physical features to prevent a source from developing
is the best long-term solution, Recognizing the fact that this goal
riate Physical features, Water management n 9 t of
may be�Poyh difficult and ex ensivngaemete�nnd�biologic 11contralo
poWlbi11ties should be realistically explored.
The following criteria are based on ecological facts known to inhibit
mosquito production.. It isimportant that local mosquito' control
agencies and the vector and Waste Management 5ectiboi State Department
Preoaced ,in coo eraE-ion 4th he California Mosquito
4`ector ControlAssciation
,
E
x
W
2 -
t
of Health, be notified about impending wastewater use projects.
Coordination and cooperation among agencies is vital in order to avoid
creation of unnecessary conditions conducive to mosquito production,
Certain projects may require a contract arrangement between the owner
and local mosquito control agency. The contract would provide for
surveillance and control measures that may become necessary.
These criteria have `trot been developed to limit or discourage the use
dairies and feedlots. Sone of the criteria are
of animal waste storage ponds commonly used for temporary storage of
animal wastes on
applicable, Lut animal waste storage, ponds present additional problems
p .
beyond the scope of these criteria
II. wastcwatzr Management.
.. i
A. Water Use
1. All sites designated for wastewater reclamation or
final disposal (cropland, marshes, etc.) should either
be graded or ditched as necessary for proper drainage.
2. Sites for temporary impoundments used for waterfowl.
feeding areas or for production of food should be
flooded according to time intervals and seasonal
schedules adjusted to prevent the emergence of adult
mosquitoes. Contact the local mosquito control agency
or the Vector' and Waste Management Section, State
Department of Health, for specific details.
3. The use of wastewater in crop irrigation requires
mentrto i 9e-
care�ul hand preparation and ,judicious water mana
vent excess static water areas.
44 establishment of wetland habitat requires areas of
deep mater (four feet)i land grading or ditching to
allow remoVal of all water from the shallow areas; water
tc.,
control structures, pumps,,e, for complee water
management and access provisions for marsh management
equipment such as boats and aquatic or terrain vohicles,
5. Excess water at the low ends of sites used for marsh
flooding or crop irrigation rust be either recycled,
utiliziiJg a return sy$tem, or disposed of in a drainage
facility.
6. Water control devices such as pumps, Weirs, and flood
gates should be of proper oapacitY to draw down the
temporary impoundments Within a time designated by
local mosquito:conteol agency or the Vector and Waste
management Section, State Department of Health`
Generally a 24 hour draw down period is sufficleh' for
most areas of the State,, ,
3
5; Storage Ponds.
_--
1.
Ponds nay he any shape but should not have small coves'
or irregularities around their perimeters:
2.
Ponds should be designed to be emptied by gravity or
pumping for cleaning or drying and, have graded bottoms
so all water can be removed.
3, '
as stee
slopesex,�ava"ClbnsnleveesQep
bo
aspbssle,consistentwith soilharacteristicsand
risk factors.
4.
Where ste11 ep side slopes cannot be economically achieved,`
the slopes should be 1 i ned ,with suitable rcateri al such
7 i
as concrete to 3 ft. below the water ne or sterilized
to achieve weed control.
5.
Mini;uaf top width of embankments should be 12 ft..and
adequately constructed to support naintenance vehicular
traffic,
6.
An access ramp should be ,provided on an inside slope
for launching a'smallboat for midge control:
7.
Ponds designed for long term storage should have a
s
_mini -t um storage dal th of four f t.
8.
A mainiaresloresra Weed and erosion control
en P
along nn _ p s essential',
9.
All accumulations of dead:algae, vegeta.'Ion and debris
impounded water
should be;routineiy removed from the
surface and properly disposed of.
C. Water Conveyance Faci 1 i tf es:
1.
` Ditches most be mai.itfJned free of emergent, Marginal
and floating Vegetar. an=
Za
and graded for adequate flow
shot lbeb�
for water storage.
and must used
3,
p ized and low pressure' pipelines, coMonly used
Unressur
in irrigation distribution systems, should be designed
to be etaptiod when not in use and should not be used for
ter storageof the hosquito breeding potential
.because �il�ed pipes..ecause
11 _ partially
;.,
� 1,trMuc+lt
k•. z+r,�rwt, a+l.. e. •�r ,•+�t
.trar t eta:ax a�rtn. Rt'` -r ttF.CES IGrNCY
�+ �, ;,,rk CC ,�'�i_ WATER CONi GL BOARD -7—
CAU ORMII liC., t
CENTRAL. V LEY REGION
.';A.rk.�Pl'�tETOt tt�,riCy1�1J; QSD18
ISJFii "?lbu t.E 0774
k
5 0 toba, r 01 -9
Ellis 'tolls
Roll f.nd eson u Rol l s
g6pt� .i± i r treyLi t
-.
( nS
Cti� n y fell- 5926
ESIUWLLL HEWITS SUBDIV:SIO;9
Inrest�nrrst' t ynttr letter dol ed 2 September 1582, con+erninn tll�
`l the ,ate ri a l to line the pt�tti�'s at
possibility
tni s i�ro
tyr al owi till the Use of hynal on its
Wui airfi s nn: we knave nn obireotiot� to your prnposel ��°t��ri�led
that t at the
time of deNelnping the plagS J, .0 Submit a proposal for leak detection
11 leek,�s or'
trtpsi tor-+
klt' kiynalvn
i1nC ,>VStF11;i5. An rllternati7i solttt nn, t $ Ca Se pond
t)1` >r� a siiflltl,i a ; ; . iiir,c (sSed. ' tq,s ktjve not reoei ed vopl
e� of -tile
cieti u'1 , �w (
proposed, tkiSk� Sal pond A °r y SJu r)l JIS V' 14h Copies Of Ln tTlan
dr7 xti{el1 ;as
r y1 s'�5rhenythe become ava l.atyl er,S
J
k� results n+ your sai 1 �.ra 1 Y
�' to Call tate et (91�
(`Y' Y fly ee. ^ )..
snoolxi you have et�y 'moreque ions, feel fr
322-11592, � 1
jL,SEP1j J, HEMO,
kr#` a Engineer
iii., ra r
l:r:' Lt.tt,:te t:�l,1i16,� k:lt+a1 i•kr i.'�ao :i#; ^x. rynt, �tut3vi l l e
County Planning DePal""en ,, Orovi l l e
Butte
Du>tfe CO. Planning
Corm t
0
droVl��Gr �if�OtyT14
.�..rs� Eai(D. Nelson R A-Mciatcti
33Q Chic), Telephone
\Vy11 Street Califomia 19161
Sttitc G 9S926 893.049(
Land Utc Pianning
Environmental Studies
Permit Assistance
MEMORANDUM Feas6ilt,r Studies
TO: Butte County Planning Commission
FRO14: Earl D. Nelson,, Planning Consultant
RE: Revisions to Conditions of Approval for Bidwell
Heights Land Project
DATE: September 23, 198:2'
In reviewing t
" he 34 recommended conditions of approval
for the Bidwell Heights Land Project proposed by county
staff, we find clarification and/or revision is necessary
in several cases. On behalf of the project applicant, we
respectfully request that the Planning Commission revise
the list of conditions as follows:
Condition Number 4 add "at the time of developrxtf nt.
Condition Number 1.0, add "as follows: primary access
shall be from Highway 32 via Wilder DtIl.vej with emergency
access along Doe Mill Road."
Condition Number 14, begin the condition with. "Af
the time of subdivision ..,"
Condition Number 15, is unfeasible as written because
of cost. Change 100 units to 185 units.
Condition dumber 20
delete t� allow; ►'
Condition Number 30,r change to read as follows: "dontri-
bute a pro rata share as determined cooperatively by the
Public Works Director and the. applicant toward Cori strucytion
of a left turn lane in the downhill (westbound) lane o
highway, 32, to be collected at the time of building permit
application.
Condition Number 32. Since this is covered under cordition,
Number 10i as revised, it can be deleted.
Condition Number.33, appears to single out this protect
to 'Solve a community -wide problem. The applicant has no
objection to paying his -fait share of a community -wide funding
effort for new schoolsy but objects to this piecemeal approach.
The following should be' added to the condition: ii ..if
required by ordinance throughout the unincorporated area
of the Cotj- ty +�
r
M M
I/
Inter Departbiol taI" Nlem®randam
TO: Planning Commission
FROM John.Mendonsa Land Development - Public WO
xks
susaecr: Revisions' to Conditions for Bidwell Heights Land Project
DATE: October 7, 1982
We have reviewed the proposed revisions to conditions of a royal
for Bidwell Heights PA -C submitted to Your Commission on September
23, 1982, and offer these comments:
First it is important that the Commission be aware that when t
Subdivision Committed reviewed the proposed ° PA -Cps that thhe
e cnn
ditions'both final and tentative are applicable to each PA -C"
i.nd'ividually, and..separately. The Subdivision Committee review
accomplished collectively to assist the developer, but in
'no
ment
A. implied a blanket of conditions for the he PA=C
wa
are this in mind prizases such as -"at the time ofpdevi�lopmentS.
tk
are ambiguous i,e., should the PAC located furthest ,fram a
constructed and approved 'road attempt to ttdevelo t x
connecting roads may ;not be approved. Pp�� he necessar
It is my understand,' that the zoning code does not. define
"development. so it remains tinc:lear whether rough road grading;
septic. permits, -building Permits etc, imply "developm6jltt',
Building permits should not be issued until the required improve-
Ments have been completed or bonded.
There is no objection to removing condition 10"pby Staff as it eircula-
tion , but condition 32 should."remain as
accomplishes the circulatiproposed
on requirement,
Condition 1S should remain and be applicable after 10 units have
been. constructed., The 100 units would include any residential
development of the specific plan,
The rtqu rement Of a tentative and finai map should remain as
recommended to astute the conditions of approval dr .00mpl:eted
or bonded.
Condition. 30 should be modified only to thi-"That after
100 dwelling units are s "tent constructed, no further dwolling un`
permitted until the left turn. lane i11 jy its be
32 is constructed,, Recommend that the developersngorknwiof th thehf�a
County to setup a mechanism where the developer's of the first
, y fair uction of the left
turn lane.. r share far. the constr
'0 units a _.,,heir fai.
This is a school. districts ��equirement, It appears recent court
cases support the school's positiono
Jfiit �, r ins~~, SnMoa
Puqlc Works, IancDd"v"e`1�O—P—
ment
,
"
r
a coal nLANG OF
DEPARV30IT nF PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISIONOF ENWIROMAENTAL HEALTH
Address Cl 196 Mvmviol Nay $7 Coc:tty Center Drive 0 747 Elliot Road
Reply to Chlca, California 95926 Droville, California 95965 PoradisaCalifornia 95969
Telephoner 915/391.2727 iale.phone 91Si5344M T e I e --ne:,916/fi72.2961, Ezt, 53
Octobers 26, 1982
hlr, Dao. Hays
?5'1 Eastwood Avenue
Chico, CA 95926
RE : Bid%7e11 Heitts
Dear Tr, Hays
You have asked whether cur department could approve the
Rid-yell .Heights Project on a conceptual basis, final approval
being subject to satisPying the requirements of our department and
those oL the Water Quality Control Board.
Ordinarily where sewage disposal -s the only issue to be considered
our answer would be in the affirmative because-.,
1. We cannot issue permits for sewage disposal unless we and the
Control
socoiwinted that
the
proposed
sewagedisPoalm methods adeQuatetodisposeof e ge
properly.
2. In order to achieve the above it is quite possible the project
Would have to be scaled do th by a reduction, of the number Of
units prior to approval by our departlent or Aster gaality
Control Board;
With such conditions; 3.t is our belief that there could be no
project until our department and the Water Qaallty Control Board.
were convinced that a satisfactory method-of se;"rage disposal was
being proposed.
Hot ever; as a member o. the Advisory Agency and./or the Subdivision
Committee, we :must respgc - the concerns of Planning and Public Works.
Furthermore � Vie are advised by County Counsel that once a3 project
is, given approval; no further information can be requested.
Given.: these factors; we are unable to give our approval
for a specific plan., as in a PAC, such time as we have all
the necessary, in£ormatlon and are able to make a determination: that
the proposed sewage disposal, syute;n 'is satisfactory
a . • 77�
r
-' 'GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
:e'', OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
EptituNrs G. F3Rotrr Jit.
u+o�$rtiyort
Stephen A. 'Streeter October 28, 1982
But e CountY
Plannind
7 County CenterDrivg Department
Oroville, CSI 95965_e
SUBJECT; SCRA, 81102702 Bidwell Heights Land Company
Dear fir. Streeter,
State agencies have commented on our draft envi
i� you would time to discuss lyonmental impact report
_ ., y " p
their concerns and recommendations p t (.t66.attached,,
star; from the- appropriate agencies.
9 please contact the"
When preparing the rival cIR, ,
Su.ldeiines, Section ISl o fou must include al`'; r, {
��rl►ents and responses C A
The oertiTied tIR must be considered in the decision-
making process for the Project, p. In addition, we ur
contents by tvritin to ge you to respond directly to `he
agenci�s' o
all correspondence. g 'hem, includin the State
pondenc,, 9 Clearinghouse number un
A + racert- appellate Cour4• decision` in Cleary A,. Count i f 5tanisla
r=cru�recments r"or responding tQ reviewus c1ali�ied
that cor�rents must be addressed ilk deta�69neQnVin Sra 1>itne court IndcatQd
Pecif�cal
and sIlgQettions were not acre t�d, s _asons why he L
17ivU1'tdnce which p � the i'eSDOnseS must show -,-a''$Pp�iiilC MQrrinen,.s
3ustify overriding the suggestion: oter;ruing
be conclusany statements but must be s ;,esoonses to co t
5r1�'�tiric authority or eX la ato riBnen;:s ruses not
-upported by ztnPit•ical or' ex eri
,har: the ` p n ry informati'on of any rind, Thepcourtnial data
responses must he a good raith
h res , ' easoned analysis; Irthp.r sa "d
SeC�.,o1+ .i500�2rfj Of the CE
certain actions if an °�iit`�� Cuidesines re ujres 4
nest I t fir ' _ Lila w a Qaver�njrtcn; a acenrt, i
holds subs,ant;ai adverse , aka
�m 3 i7rQ.ieCt. i : nt lrOhmen _a I impacts C
tions Q inJ L Ould
n tihe oro1ectf adoops al�nssornard��ricns`
�he pro,act, «mbo5ing
:n' alternative to the pro,' ovoid "the cendi�
Project �S ao01'U , . + )act, or, di LO ti?Q I'o%IEmf electj,.g
_ p, s
V.tl Ui1.hfjUi; a ,equat .nitinatlon f3, 'Sit3tlrn"'t.817`
pro ee.. If: he av
agency must Ynake ;�r i tten r ., rt`�, e t' that L
iili�''� sub or' .L nd1:>:t3 4or_ a �, �_ s,nt�10 1QA he
_a Cc �1�1i'; r jCz3t#i. �s"r C� '�SeC ':�3Jti aJ`8,q and
�.
p � itis act.ons grit. a � d _
aaCil unnitz a.;ed r•y ra written sLstemen�. o � e
iahi� ricanu c"ffectSec y i ' v ,rrWdiPg CQI:s1QoYrt'a'�!�n.5 i+Lr
tQn � �089 ) w
i' the prt,„ect -
Oewer�tindtwon r:l15� +, r�tl'15CratiOnar aaprova
frsm any awash 0 o r+ y
�31J i1 i+ L . 0 v filed led wi ull the,S tar tC n . I he IC t ick of
C7U�t r r btT5.er C: lease CQl!`,ltt rend pn P os or ... �t,u. rix 3a 'vel l Zg = th I ,
.. , V �t ►�`31�.+� 'tci�;..-fiil"1�.5 1 s :��CU 1'e any i2e
Sine✓f
Char es c: Aran es
viI'P :Ur . rQj
u2y ctar octs CoordwnGtori
+�t.:� `.eh r?31�t'ras4 v4lR
H
'Appendix N
82-62.
Comments received at the3id1vell Heights hearings of December
14 and 21, 1982 and January 11, 1983 with Preliminary*
to the, Significant Environmental xssz.ies Responses
Leapfrog Development - Several
Persons have co Inertted that this
pxaaect as an example of "leapfxog development ,i Refer to the comments
and. responses !'or the Canyon Park Estates Subdivision,
Refer to
pages 6 and.7 of .Appendix 11 which discuss timing of the proiect.
Fire Hazard - Loss of property, life and wildfire were noted.
Refer, to to November 2, 1982 memo from Bill Teie, A resident
fireman +would be preferable to a totally volunteer fire department
A paid fire,nan could provide initial response until volunteers were
able to arrive. The second response would be from the Butte County
Fire Station on Fair Street (3J' minutes) or the Forest Ranch Volunteers
(25 minutest Station 23,_ Forest Ranc,i,
(fire
_ capable of responding in 28 minutesseason only) is:
Bill Teie, County Fire Warden, indicates that there have been few
fire incidents on. the ridge in the past Si to 10 years. Most of the
f=ires have occurred in the Butte Creek .Canyon area, There Will soon
be available a map of all fixes, 300 acres or larger, that have occurred
since 1939. 'his information is being assembled by the County Fire
Department .
lair. Teie recommended- emergency all-Weather access to the north and
east in a November2; 1982 memorandum,
oad to the
needs to be tra'V_Irsable in the suflimer initiallyoe ) RThat particularh
road would nE.ed to be year-round traversable once the volunteer
station is Constructed ;and manned. The volunteer station tvousd,be
the seco
porise vehicle for fires in the Frest Ranch area:,
Doe Mill nRoadsto the north Avoul,d be the logical oroute to
to an respond
fares in the area southeast of Forest Ranch. He further
s
expresses c.onL;,rn about: road maintenance not' only for Dt�e �til1.'
Road to the noth and Center Cap Road to the east; but also for
Wilder Dri:v& The .latto road is presently improved with a chip
seal surface. The road drill require extensive maintena ce within
the next $years. (A County % rvice .Area is the rerornmended means
to insure on- ,r'ltzg 'maintenance oC the project roads,)'
gr
as a resins voiced about off-site fire hazards that would be created
Concern wa
t Of the project, Air tanker support is available from the
Chico Wnici.pal Airport. The gutte County Fire Department/Call forn
Department of Forestry maintains two air tankers at the location. ,*
n,.
An air tanker Gan respond tothe Doe ?�til1 Ridge area tvithi,n five
minutes of beingdis atchedt-
With Ia , A. foal flight time 1vot1ld be about two
minittes. With Ie availability of air tanker support, a volUnte,(r
fire unit and support from the Forest Manch volunteers, the pair
Street Station of .tht fire depat�tinent 'arid the Forest Ran I station
(fire season), iarg,e=scale wildfires should not be a major factor.
Refer to tt,e earlier comments about the effecti.vene;4s of a volunter;r
fire department. Z11 add titin) the California Dr:pa.rLWnt of porestryy
has a Controlled burng
pia ram. This program wig l help to remove
some of the volatile vegetation in the vic e:.ty ,f the Project. in
future years, such butts would bo difficult as the ,property is
developed, It lvould be mporfiant. at that stage, tb have an effective
ly operating voitxnteer• fire department to supplement the other fine
protection aV&ila"tle
�lw
82-62
CSA versus CSD Staff would recommend a County Service Area (CSA)
•rather than a Community Service District (CS).)). Initially, with
.fesr residents on the property, a CSD would .not be a workable arrange-
ment. A CSA would be the appropriate raech°anism to fund and provide
services until such time as there were a sufficient number of regi
dents to allow CSD to ,properly function. LAFCo has ;et to review
ail application for either a CSA or a CSD for this project. I is
recommended, as has been mentioned before, that a CSA be formed prior
to final action of the rezone and further subdivision of the property.
In, the absence of a 'CSA, it is difficult to judge, with certainty,
that the provisions of the Specific Plan will be, fully met.
Sp
Loss of 0
en S ace -A discussioncontained on page 2 of the June 22,
1982 su mittal regarding Canyon Park Estates has some bearing on tiais
project. This discussion relates to mitigltion measures for cumulative
jects in the vicinity of Canyon
impacts for the proposed. development pro
Park Estates. The third paragraph begins as fol.loWs: "Canyon Park
Estates was designed to reduce visual and wildlife impacts by using
only 50 percent of the possible 220+ building sites Jn the property"
Tt goes on to say that ""Bidwell Heights, however, 4 both a conven-
tional rural, subdivision, with division of, the property into lots of
varying: sizes, along. with: some areas proposed for PA-�C development".
There has :not been an effort to, date to reduce the visual and wild-
life impacts for Bidwell Heights by a eimilar reduction. A 50 percent
reduction of the proposed 330 to ::335 dzYeling units would yield totals;
closer to the maximum recommended by staff; using the general plan
criteria as a basis, Por d.i.scussion purposes, a So percent reduction
of the'330 to 385 dwelling unit total would yield 1,65 to 193'dtaellin9
units (a density of 1 duelling Unit per 7.3 and 0.2 acres �) The
lo+'er figure of 16'5 b ening units "s_closer to what staff believes
the general plan would provide for at this location. If, at a late7,
date, the population demands Increased to the point that additional
housing is needed to the east of Chico) increased densities could be
reg~iwed accordingly,
Proximity to commercial Services and Schools y'Statements are made
In the E R an sped it plan that the: pro ertJ lies approximately 7
miles from ,Chico. Actually, the project is a minimum of 5 to 10.
miles to the dov-1town area of Chico. An ofi-site commercial area is.
proposed to offset the travel di.s,tan �. The viability of the cosset-
eia, use, at this location, i's questionable. Purther information is
prop ided that a commercial area closer to Highway 52 (on or near the.
Isom and. Nall prope)•ty) migitt substitute far the commercial area on
this site. Bussing for students would definitely be a factor, if
a number of the residents Worked in the Chico area school children
trl a suffi je t number remote
Could be dropped by th(-kir school... Bussing to this relat1kel
�� un � P of students re-
locati -n would not occur
Wed in the area Pund ng for the bus service would be a question
that )%-,st be resolved «itb the Cliico Unified SChoo bistrzct,
— .. � -rather -than , rivate, TheaapplicantxTight-of-way
plinbends
PtjNrato versus Public Roads A comment was made that
easement should e public ra l�
that the raods would be avasiabl for public use but they would
privately --qai.rrtained.
.2
82-62,
Domestic Animals At the first hearing in December, statements were
mad5 regarding domestic dogs as a threat to migratory/resident deer
and cattle.. It is difficult to restrict pet ownership in such an
area.Keeping dogs on leashes or. in fenced areas are good measures
that are only as good as the people who would enforce those require-
ments. Even with a County l.,:ash law, Monitoring the effectiveness
of such a measure would be difficult. The CC4Rs for the project
could include language regarding control of pets. Though the County*
can recognize the potential problem, there is little that can be
done to legislate corrective action,
Schools - In place of the present wording for condition m33,, the
T-0-1—Towing -,cording is recommended: Building permit applications
.for residences in this subdivision shall be,subject to any school
mitigation; fees established by an Ordinance enacted prior to the
filing, of ,such application or a Community F=acilities Act of .1982.-
District will be createdpursuant to California Governmw, t Code
Section. 535111 et. seq., covering the project area prior to the iss-
M.xance of any building permits;
'eater Supply/Quality. Information is provided, in the environmental
impact report on pages 7 22-:,3A and Appendix 1, .Additional i.nfor-
mation is to be provided by the applicant via Jon, Anderson, hydrolo-
gist from Chico. His input is expected to cover -off-site impacts
that are potential to both the watersheds of Sutte Greek and Little
Chico Creek; The feasibility, of septic systems for up to 385 dwell-
ing units needs to be assessed as part of his response
Timing of the ProJect - Refer to the. discussion in the Canyon. Parks
Estates_ supplement under Timing of the Project, page 6 of one of the
appendices. Refer also to the comments regarding the General' Plan
Elements, particularly tae proposal to venuire a market analysis
for such prof e,_:ts .
Fiscal Im acts The methodology and conclusions of the Fiscal
4-' ys her, Economist at CSU Chico,
Anal sas ave been uestioned;g Bob Fisc
has been asked, by the applicant, to review the riscal Analysis
These comments will be attached ft--ereview by the Board. The
conclusions of any- fiscaj analysis will be inadequate until such
time as an area. -wide :fiscal analysi. is completed. Without a document
to cover the'entire County, or at least a planning .area as defined
II
by the Housing Element of the GeneAal Plan; it is difficult to eya-
f
p cu.11t Project-
So
project <
luate the,fiscal effects -of a art 4
Soa.ls Data and Sewage Disposal - Tile only detailed soils information
avatla
----_- le 5 ta�C. developed p r the lots of the F p Sierra I"oothx� l is
1
Subdivision units 1 ,arid 2 and several tentative parcel ma s in the
.northerly project area. Soil exploration holes have been done
randomly over the site: These soils' indicated a mixed situation;
some areas had three to four feet of 804 Whil.e,others had very
little soil, Basitall,y, the initial comments of the Health Depart�-
ment ,are still pertinent Refer to pages 23 and 23a of the FIR,
Refer also to the October 26, 1982 letter from Lynn Vanhat l Environ. -
mental. Health Eitector; the text of the letter is reprndnced in the
October 28, 7.982 Planning Commission minutes.'
8? -62
Botanical Surma A que5 tion i,+
botanical survey. It is clairedsthsat ]die��suxvet.he coverage of the
area rather than the whole site. Dr, '`
conversation, indicated that he had covered the entire
a limited
Kingsley, Stern, in a telephone
and not just Portions of the Traject site, e entire 1-200 acres
comes North to the contrary, the results of theebotanicalrsurvey are
as no in Appendix F,
survey are
,Inpact on Bute Creels Casnnyo quality oy Jon_An�let'sN Water
Access vza Center G p Road 'fillbe
tvi11 be discussed
emergency access A break arra
that the road �,?i11 be used only for that limited to
y barrier should be erected. to assure
allowing Center Gap Road to be continuall�uoPOse. We agree that
as to traffic impacts an Centerville uaad p vould raise quest
Cree?; Canyon. Center Gap Road, and elselvhere in Butte ons
utilise ,even for emergency accesst;presnnt,vould be difficult to
Upgrading, to be usable. It jtould require cansxderab7.e
ate with tale The along ant 0± this project should cooper.
road property owners along Center Gap Road to .0
in a timely way. Staff would recomme,;ci that upgrade -the'
to a year-round traversable standard and en emergency the rand be improved
barrier be erected prior t
filed for Bid�rell Heights. ° the time the g v bre ak at+tay
Final subdi�r5ior maps are
paint limes -- In 7'evieving the fault lineament, +
Appen z B; it appears that some of the dwel - sho►�n on a ma
located on or near fault lines. g units would map
to address this factor reads• it The mitigation measure developed
lineaments traverse an o Verify with a geologist that n0.
those in the cent -r I sed f tthe Proposed builds s'
If this measure is implemented, the Project
1, t rtes, particularly
y portions of the project area: it
forming to the. Seismic Safet p J ct could
be viewed- as ran-
_ y Element of -the General Plan,
'Ali r grxalitl" - Comments were made regarding
traffic an .. smo
Pollution `Controlpbsxctthaat WOU1 s rev7eweesutthe amount of vehicular
in the BIR far -a second time', Butte County Air
d the air gizal i ty information
may be significantly Their findings were that air
represent a cumulate impact on by this, project; quality
to attached cb%meats from Air Pollution Cont. it jauld
p -air Zualit�* in the region, ttef�r
I+ibstey� ran far devela meat control District.
an area-cvz e Several comments have occurred that:
such a plan lnlau August,,
e fdx the Rid e,
gust, 1981. g COunty..staff proposed
a
Plan being considered, There is again consideration for such.
the Possibility off' doin such
supervisors Fultoh and l�heeler ae e;tplorin .
P'
analysis, g such a Plan zohich would include a'
fiscal
bw.nershi o the Bidvell Ilez hts
available in the Cou r arcels
- Ths.is information is
stitute a sUbstattiye ertvi�'onmental issue Con -
that T i information does not
con-
tluzx eS A response,
Pundin mechanism$ for services
*vasal e t e appropriate od 4s indicated
Previously; an CSA
he Pee
ded services
aPPlis anon teas made T an SI) sta,f+fulid � vill recommend that hA
t an
cansider the C8A as an, alternative until ll rr, c ... PCo
present;
4
`g2-62
reservation - R-C zoning and a land trust would Provide
Open space x� �e etuity -
en space would be maintained in 1 rP
assurance that op and traffic
Hi hwa 32�_;antos Way in tersectio.Al - The public sa Eety
�_ly 32 were mentioned;: Stoxms which impact the
-impacts at that intersection �a + were noted. Sight: distance
ridge and fogs which reduce visibi .Y
potential dot serenu�rements dor pro'm because of its atiio
at the intersection is a p vision
near a curve, Caltrat and Publi elmi,, would
of adequate sight diFtance, a part o an encroachmen'c p
rate such concerns: If sight distance
tot improvetsigft dis-
alley i erns. ted, off-site roadwork
amount of traffic g" ouch measures might include removing
tance would be apprcfpTiate. some vegetation
portions of the cthatTxobscuxeshsi�htvdstanceov1ng
near the highway
"-'yUr fob FisChex of Chico• ng
Pre arat-ion of the fiscal anal" sus The analysis was repand use
methodolog3 from an economist"rstanas' that a ect will be
most of,this some of the
Sale case of the PA-C units,
dale of lot - Staff In the architectural controls
a, " are lot" offering. event,
applicants nay construct units . In any
.. al sub-
tp,uld.be retained for both the PA-C areas and the convention
divisions.
analysis is based on
Costo residences and im rovements The fiscalIf such
a cture o $125,000 or more °ruesnaetaieratedrwould,be.less than., a
Ligure is not reached, the *even g-
e.cted, A question ryas raised as to the- means to guarantee tat
roje cabins" on the parcels: There
thexF will not be "mobile homl�seoofleanstbins that may... occur..
in Iiidt�ell Heights ranged fS,,OG(?
e Bio assuraitees as to the type
�' ve . p ng
Rece�it de�elo ed lot offers
to w,ll,o ,
munit CC unified
facilities act distict -a cordihe ng vD Robin ,
Statitsom t .� tai�rards that end, bCtur «r thYn
S: "ot71 District is �,orkn�, district fbxmatin ma)
'Chomj)son of the school dist? station ,providing for such. distracts .
the nett ELS months : The le�yi be Pebruaty 1.934 by the time
tooU 'effect 011 January t ,m6 it may
is set tap with a, .tnec:haiiis.m to collect funds
,sere mad- -t,�at hoods should be posted for 7 oad
Comxiter' K' , ,7 otect� on. Staff would suppor. t
ual it) z
ma-iitenance anal , or water �iand for Toad
GSA as thetealis
to accomplish:muntmortsuchcbonds vouldabe to
protec exon. ,� :tting tae t ►effects t
xn the case of the z,ater portan
liffcult,
particularly octant, not oitenc
,the creeks, lie agr4e that road maintenance �s imp but for einerg y
pro -ct
residents of the p a
for yoaru"round access by such vehicles available on
vehicles that would respond �t�eyond aril
x i Yearly inspections and impr.oiminal star�dardd to insure
the site)
that the roads are niainta,in to their o g uail C.artVon
1 in to this
nownstrenin ef' ects mlie saeat0s,) Wore noted1 as appt�'e g
�ii� -iv-isi:on VCanyon pant
pro
ject Jt�*el.l � �1 m tigation measure 'B tte Cree�:dshou�debe c" ns�ir�e�ed:
pt�a ►tilmpr°irc� the leroetoleIon of both Little Chico Croe an u
The folloi�ring mitigation nta.stire is prop°sed. `
system
on Little Chicr� and 'Butte Cteekt near the ;punctures t.t-ith the
A 804a Co. Planning Comm.
F D 3 198"
-
•�'�LOO A Orowk Calitotnlie
LAhlp CP NA7U'RAl WEALTHAND BEAUTY
OFFICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER
AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
316 Nelson Avenue- orovillu, California 95965
Malla P.O. Box 1229 - Telephone: 19161 534-4381
JOE CARLILE
JOE E. BANDY
Agricultural commissioner A;xistant Agricultural Commissioner
Air Powtioii Control Officer Assistant Air Poilution,Control Office,
wrector of Welphts and Measures
f brilaa" y -3.1
Steve Streeter, Butte 1^iq=ty Planning Departmenb
sem. � � �',�
Jf;f r y Nett, Butte Ccjunt � Air Pol.luti�an Control District ct '
SUBJECT: EriVi.ronmental Impact Report Bidwell Heights Rezone, Specific Ilan and
Subdivision
Dear k1r. Streeter:
zne Butte Count7, Ai-- Pollution Control District (BCAPCD) has reviewed the air
quality ana7.ysis of.tt BidWell Heights �11VXmnmental Impact Report ( 1?:) .
a P prepared for the B l,,e County Plann: _ Department is sncompl4te in ad -
ala �* impacts' �, substantial wort ono the data is gliestionable
drirss Lng az r qu
due to the lack of ref, rf nces. Therefore, we � recotranend the following elements
be noted in further review of thi s docuinernt
°they,: is a discrepancy as to tjkiether the project will ar 1.611 not signss
-
Va]- 'the California
cantly' contribute to the degradation
the level ofrsi niPicance at 250 homes
Air Pesources Boas ( g
r 25 tons% ear for pol'iutarcts; oxides of nitrogen (I30) and, total hydracari�on
( C) The air qual3t- anal.3fsis in the ErR states tha� these limits will not
be e; csedeci by the pra-jet,. Ho�rever, contrary tt this statement, Hifi calcu�.a--
tions in Appcnclix D reveal x and 1HC levels at' 12.57 tons/
and 39.7 tons
;year respectively. A eombinea. Ia"D,;_, ;_,VC projected emi.ss on level of ��.��i tons,/
;Fear is well above
the ARB's e AJ'1'sh(d 31 vel of significance.
Butte Col�xaty is designated as .nonattainmeM, for carbon monoxide (00) and nzont
'i'h,e air quality analysis fa ils to determine the ' .icance of 111 .7+ to
nsl�ear
y s�
d" 00 as it relates to t: e hsnat-taiment s -atus.
�
=- Section lRl Significant Mvi ronmental Vfeets t4hich Ca*tnot be Avoided ig pre
'fhe contribution to ail, pollution is reterenccd by the
p:38a1 i5 implomenttd. f r ficancei
statement: "Subject to ev t:atitn by the ARB (jet of signs,
pro,jeats contribution may baa considered insignificant" (sets pale l i► This
F the emissions estimatcs l.acated in Appendix D. Further-
statement is contrary'to
ti�;i there i s rti�
indication that the AM has made a deter nate on of signs i'�
CAL!' -
r
�Urw
-
IA NATIVE KAN r SOCIETY
DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION P.UArIJR1 C)F CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA
parLmeilt of B.io10 ical Sciences, California State University, Chico
9,5925
mr. St_
February 4, 1?8JButhen A.Streeter, Senior annerte County Planning Commission
7 C'oun4y Center Drive '
Crovill e, CA. 9 5926 Buffe Co. Ptarming Comt11�
Res Bidwell Heights Environmental im
FEB 4 11983
AF 46-71-1g, etc, %!o Pact deport Chortle,-CaDifarrfia
Log#.8.2-03-02-02, annin 2 52
Mr. Strp��
De
ar .ger, g 8
Upon retrieving the subject EIR I was leased to
survey Was c ondtaril t p note that a
merit re ed• This survey was neces� rare plant
pores, two rare and endangered sreciesac uldcpos�itia�
on the project site. , as the aocu
Although' she repast does not spFy occur
Were surveyed for, I assume they are Ju
robes us Iei spermus y J spec!.,
" and Ll-dalce_a
As
is une EIR atetes, the rare Plant survey Y was Condlxcted in October.
to adequa�,e surveys ,for either species are difficult
if mpossible to This
�f not z perform at 1.fis. time
dried infloresences Of the ra e : tim' cpf year. � Although same leaves
October., the si.tuatian is gait -e di 1. S1 Qd fci.
a_ occas�ianall�= persist until
a tiny, ephemeral annual that flowers in late Ahe u -us This plant ant i s
late June; and soon a "ter at,
t.a dist tipea B' October, May, sets seed by
Of this plant Would be indistinguishable from thBY r
mp
annuals known to occur in the she any _rOusdry remains
known from Kunkl0 reservoir habitat' Ju— nous le;asbermus isdeminuit ye
from vegetation near Pen�z-Magalia HtOy and Crhasset Ridge
Bidwell Heights,'YPes and at elevati ons thr� a.
It appears reasonable to suspectsitsOoeeSe ueesbnt at
Gig>err these circumstances
fain the presence Or absehceo�ceithere rare, p�an� survej; coin d r
e here,
to my attention t),atat ascer
a population of Sides; roanoesccuswi oma
ati
g . ..
heknntvn�� ome�this$s���land��h�ts �ecatzse a�ra.re and
, endan ere
�} h g d species
thin
there has nay, Possibility ty a a second species oc0Uring
yet been determined, Imus request that another rare l
survey be conducted during late April thrau h June before th
consideree: ade uate b pant
the C e Fly Dari be
Cali ative Flant' Society.
There are. ether impacts4
associated W,,th the
addressed ;in the El lt, The Most obvious ommiss opnsis pro ec,4 that are not
Of
pro' Proposed "`, ,` r el,er; the q.
f hour the p project will ef'xec� ° y vete l od'ldi ss4
arcel s : A devel oPement of �h - s ma g ate, on O the
n f i cwt impacts on the is ani, gni l deanyw� d be t �A.
xpectec !,o have s,ig
antsthese lines
N
4 THE CALIFORNIA NATIVEANT SOCIfiry
DEDICATED
TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA,
Page 2
are restrictee_ to the fallowing: " The amounts and types of vegetation
removed would be
a.Lrectly related to the scale and distribution of develop-
merit and also to the .foresight and care taken in the ,construction process"
and also a paragraph stating what t
Although measures to mitigate impacsetooveetatonoare zsu ll be removed.
is no mention of how mucch of what types of vegetation Wil` suggested,
removed
where. Without this information, the efz"ectvenoss of tti and
gations cannot be determined. These pa^oposed r.�iti-
facus should be included in the EIR
so that the impacts to surrouncing area.,, can be assessed. Too much ve e-
andon removal could cause such serious impacts as increased soil, eros
atistream siltation if attem is t s> on,,
are not made. barge scale removal oflchapa.rrallvegetatihzation d revp emote tt
growth of poison oak. How roti 11 this problem be taken care can promote the
some methods ,of poison oak control such as herbicide a �. Surely
impacts to adjacent areas. No discussion is
PP �c i o,. can cause
p provided on what 1,, believed
to be the impact of Vegetation removal and corridors, or. .:he rn ,gratin
deer herd.
Even more important than these site' spec
j ifiC im
PaCt� are the cumulative of all theproposedpraiecs area What changevegetation and ecology of Doe s in the
Canyon
Will accompany several urban devel,opem ntsnin this -area? Thick information
should be analyzed and considered ir;:,:onj'unil on liar_project approval,
but -, cannot be a f it ars nit inc�.uded in the EZR;, Pp al,,,
in addition to describing how the vegetation will be changed by the ra`e
the EIR should also describe hoita the. "new`' vegetation, assumed to be ct,
present upon completion of the g
P 1
Th protects "new" vegetation will lIncludelplants ntroduaed ontaenvironment.
buffer zones that Will surround each dwellin. Ghat t he
what, bonceeestablished, and will scan Vegetation include obnoxiouseintroducedaspec
c
ompete native vege`lation? P yes
Another serious impact not addressed in the ETP is the effect of fire
Suppression on, the various plant communities
In unrtaCular, chaparral stands nowt perioc�icallysent on the bVrhed accusul�tet:��g�
ro
p of dead and linin material. material. is very' flamab?,e and
amounts
This
the risibility of fires cccuring increases with the at age. Fire
1 .iy �p
R+ M i �
n4pnsity and aba.lYt to 5 read also Increase with stand age arid.•the
bib lily of man-ix�duced P1,1e willease pro-
t1ed. Considering these factors t seems reasohablehto addresse%hes` set-
creased fire danger associated with the unburned chaparral nems,%riinglon
the project site and surrounding areas► and hove this fire haaM
managed. be