Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-10 REZONE PLANNING 2 OF 3Mter-Departmental Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning SUBJECT: Posada Way Investors, Rezone, File 90-10, Suggested Motion DATE, April 17 1990 The suggested motion for the subject rezone is as follows: A. Note that the Board of Supervisors upheld an appeal for the requirement of an EIRL finding that: The proposed rezone and associated requirements for expansion of Chi o's Sewer Service 'District would not have a significant effect on the environment because: 1. The proposed server line extension is not a trunk line and will only serve a limited area, I The parcels to be served by the sewer are surrounded by existing development and the sewer- extension will not alter existing or proposed land use in the area. 3. The project will not induce substantial growth or concentration of population in an area not already developed 4. The Butte County Land Use Element designates the parcels in this project High Density Residential and a PUD zoite for 45 dwelling units has been previously approved on-site; and 5. This project is separate, different in character and, factually distinguishable from other projects requiring expansion of the Sewer Service District; and B, Find that the requirements of CEQA .have been completed and recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a legative Declaration;_ and C. Finthat the proosed rezone conforms to Pretext and map, of the Butte County General Plan; and policies; including D. Adopt an Ordinance rezoning to R4 that property identified as AP 007-310-008, 009; 010, and 011 (Pusada Way Investors): i - I Affle Co. planning Cann JAN 8 1990 December 11, 1989 Orovilb, Caufor rccc i i; wwr 1263 The Esplanade S»rtd C Chico, Ca"iforrna '95926 Telophont 916 8914757 FAX = 915 891.4206 Ms. Carol Roach, Clerk of the Board 25 County Center Drve Oroville, CA 95965 REF: Rezone, File 90-10 Dear NIS4 Roach: We request to appeal the planning departments decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the above rezone before the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. We have enclosed an appeal fee in the amount of $243,50 Sincerely, PBTER G GrAMPAOLI PGGsIc Enclosure(s) cc Alan Burchett, Attorney Ellis C Rolls; Rolls Anderson Rolls Al Beck, BCO Analysts 'JAI 0 1990 C ' ADMINISTRATI OFFICE COUNTY OF B LJI-rE on U�?F+ 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE o a OROVILLE, CALIPORNIA 95965.3380 o a Telephone: (916) 538-7631 UM1 Fax (916) 538-7120 MEMBERS OF THE 00ARD1 WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH HASKEL A. MCIN—I)RP CHIEF AOMIN15TRATIVE OFFICER JANE , , N KAREN VERC►USE ED MCLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON April 17, 1990 Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade 4AC Chico, CA 95926 Re Rezone, Filc '90-10 Gentlemen; The Clerk of -Che Board of Supervisors set a public he;xuin 1990 at 10:00 a,n�t,, to consider g date for May 15 (Planned Area Cluster) to Your request for a rezone from southwest corner R"4 (Residential) for roe P`�'`C of Joshua Property .rt3' located at the. identified as Tree Road rind Posada Way intersection, AP 007-310-008, 009, 010, and 011, Chico, The meeting Will be held in the Board Of Su ervsors' Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, Room, County Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning P -7601 between 10:00 a.m, and 3;00 pm, Tannin Department at 538 Very truly yours, William Randolph Chief Administrative Officer WR lr Ida i .au < • .a _ UwIU Va 'e. . $ 12 P v Y o Roseanna Cl rive htw'fer ��' ••' �J DQE J` _ OQ� G Idenrotl i d0 i^,.. wummanA T R svy 5I it x m Rio Grande ^ 1 C g Ihorn Silott' E horn O� r Landmark I r r Cly N N m • m Anita Road r °<� `� �� LTa �`� Rio Bravo r >!j ° Green FABadnW �., i �l .•`+� .. l lie7er r -� oe �''c .._. Dusty Ln'. 99 R i 13CFDtTA 441 St '4010 4m, 111e-1111 Gte 1 Pas �e. Kath Lane } Wilson Landin Road �1 Aur Wav Aelth Lane r An H m WV. Gtildfiri �t t � ° �;i,Y r °^ 00 M�rglleCNrM A Ir» '--_ J 'J Slone ailoy— .v pw, GehalloA,A,^_I�..� — Iatpn MeM VI CHIC € Y Ml1NICY 'AL to I 2yb rl 0C 1, Aft 0 'a9 h Nt — y � eretl Cn timer •..r" `_"�.�....._. °.-".-.,,»,......:. � - t �� +°w� S ,41a r w , M�oar � S reirltllr �` TaA, CL e \ e, Peak Ln. - a EATON Y b ��0� C% . ucu 6 � � � \ , �� AD Q• p�n�t•� y'r� ��� _ P R m a e 1 WA O Rd. +yd tK ;i +p J C it�d•t" �'t� �y t re�e s�% e 4A C�. tCi `�� f Z r 't - t it• d" ' n = $ ttiabl H Ctk.hmor 6cryrrm. Meme •. x A�taue a+'e 4I. e' ,` � . Y1 Yr � ` 4•. yl,rrt1rl°r»AI<K..u' �,�. u. .Avenue yy `•'LOCA A0 .14 N I ;ewh, WY a ^Mt lry \a •{�, µy1 •� A N/d.- 9 rF YNea ma tit In. 421„ y .. 2�alis vP`' Y RI`tl oNhl !: ; iiml4ir, ¢ 5 9 e a ,p �.` ry '�, V y a�' CF. �...4 1• L16 a n, d.' y., , v� F� •y} �"i` � � 4' c+' A�~b b r♦ >� tad x° Y, vxorve to, - e rrrr , a•. ..fano' 9noe' eaao" Aab° � . y,. �' �¢`�� - rd' r4,y �,, c+ `>Q ,y r'�,� a} �';i'dl ` acit,nr. € 'r � 6 llml, mis r $ 1� 9 C7P� h d it b> wtlr, 1 K�<;lnn am.n. i m a`,x. �.e�' e,.+fiy IN, $rll ...... Rosdfill Dei ei4 �\ `4� dti?`•'_� 4' �a. u1•c r. `°.. a1.. _ �... VtcIN 1Y� GIAM PAD 1 RE, Z U N G CO-7- 10 -- (008 009 D 10 011 + Butte ('®ung LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAilTi` PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELI=PHONE: (916) 538-7601 March 22, 1990 Fete Giampaol Posada Way Investors 12613 Esplanade #C Chico, CA. 95926 Re: Rezone, File 90-10 Dear Mr. Giampaolii At the regular meeting of the Butte County 'Planning Commission held March 22, 1990, your request for rezoning from PA -C to R-4 for property located Joshua Tree Road and Posada Way intersection, at the northwest corner of identified as AP 007-310-008, 009, 010, and 011,Chico, was recommended for approval. A repoil of this matter will be made to the. Clerk of the Board of Butte County Code Section 24 - Supervisors. Pursuant to the Al, an estimated publishing provisions of fee of the rezone ordinance shall be deposit4.4 with the Clerk of the Board prior to the Board setting- a public hearing. Your rezone application has is been reviOved and the estimated cost of $100.00. Accordingly, we would request that publication and staff time forward your check for $100.00 to the Clerk of the Board 25, County you Center Drive, Oroville, Ca. 95965, made payable to the "Butte. County lac Treasurer." Upon receipt of the monies the Board of Supervisors will asked to set a public hearing. Should ,you have an office between 10:00 a.m. a d 3 00 questions regarding this matter, please contact thlS p.m. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning �ICL,C,c� Paula S. Leasure Senior Planner PSUr cc: Clerk of the Board .� IN Eu fte Cog LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNT? CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE. (916) 538-7601 March 1, 1990 rete Giampaol Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, CA 95926 Re Rezone, Fitt: 9040 Dear Mr. Giampaoli; Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Findings concerning your application for a r -zone from PA -C to R-4 for property located at the Posada Way intersection, identified southwest corner of as AP 007-310- Joshua Tree Road and 008, 009, 010, and 011, Chico. A public hearing has been set for March 22, 1990 at 9:00 Room, 25 County a.m. The meeting Center Drive, will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Oroville, Califurni& The Planning Commission recommends that a t or their authorized uestions the to respond representative be present at the hearing p that one q will represent the Commission may have. In the event ne applicant, please contact the Planning office prior to the scheduled public hearing. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office betwc en ° . a0 a.m. and 3:00 p.in. Sincerely; B. A. Kircher Director of planning - Craig B. Sanders Assistant Planner CBSAr Enc: � , ��fl } - y �' n i 0 � �'.� �P A I T �• ' + � _ _ � �'.� �P A I T Green Meadow_U Lane. M -M •PORTION OF LOT It, ESMERALdA TRACT, SECS•9,IQ,15F�I6, T22E,,RIE: SU(3DIV1S ION OF LOT 15 AND 33/35 ..y N/ 550.24 t30.00 130.00 130.00 140.00 260.24 h._ 100' ZO D V a e 9 10 I! N p tl O 67 N O o + M _ a co i W 13 25 31.43 22 LUN s r,� PCS.a 0A WAY w a 14185 130(30A0 130,00 120.02 LON 31.40 4�13 2 G as Z4- Du > /'� l./ N to O m 2 O 5 4 d1 N ti N V 130.00_.. 130:00 130.00140.00 pp 780,50 Assessor's Asap No. 07-31 t U LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH .= 1i AtVD BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965,,3397 TELEPHONE; (916) 538-7601 December 5, 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL Pete Giampaoli Posada way Investors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, CA 95926 Re RF,zone File 90-10 Dear Mr. Giampaoli: As there exists the potential for significant e impacts f.-r0l, your project environmental requited p[;L.Suant to the,CalifornianEnvironmeental ntal Quality will be the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelhes. ity Act and need to address all of the potential environmental The EIR will project listed on Attachment A a effaces well the those issues re appended tc; this letter as local, laws and gibed to be addressed by al applicable state d guidelines, and following wiith t he EIR may be initiated The preparation of t , he Planning Departmbnt: by filing the 1• One Authorization and Agreement Form for the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports dated and signed b Of record or their agents (copy enclosed), Y a1.1 owners 2. YOU,. selection, in wr�tin consultants from the CWri 9 On Attachment Br of five ( } Request for Proposals (RFPsaPproved ct,.lsultant list to whom County-aPProved consultant ? shall be sent (a co which said selections are tosbeaind well are tacloy of the well as Attachment B an this letter). sed with '. A Request for Pt6pasa1 and t Conxact Administration nistration Fee of 4. An ETR administration fee of $225.00. Upon receipt of the above, the Planning Department will prepare and mail an RFP to the five consultants shown on Attachment B. The Planning Department will review all responses to the RFP, choose a consultant, and notify you of the firm selected. Upon receipt of a letter from you indicating concurrence with the environmental consultant selected, and funds sufficient -to cover the consultant's fee, the Planning Department shall execute a contract with the selected consultant. A full copy of the County's EIR Consultant and Contracting Procecures is enclosed for your use. We strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety to familiarize yourself with the process and. the costs involved: If we do not receive a response to this letter within 15 days, the project will be set for hearings before the Board of Supervisors fox- denial. if you do not wish to continue with the project, please notify this office at your earli.�.�st convenience so that the file can be closed. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office any, weekday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning Craig B. Sanders Assistant Planner CBS :lr Enclosures BUTTE COUNTX PLANNING 'COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIAIG Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning that public hearings will be held g Commission the Butte County Board of be held on Thursday, March 22, Administration. Center, 25 County CenterRDriveeOrov 1990, in California, regarding the following item at the0fo lowi wing time r ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DF.('T.bnrmrn, ^�RT)Tn7r_ Lan��- S --BEEN Rr COMMENDED 9:0o a.m. Posada Way Investors from PAC (Planned Area Rezone to R-4 (.Residential) southwest corner of Jos Cluster), ster),ree Rlocat d at the Way''intersection, identified as AP 31-0-0 009, 010 & 011, Chico, 007-31-0-00$, ITEM DETERMINED TO BE ST FROM ATUTORIiY EXEMPT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a . n7. Gaylord Briggs -Rezone to add recently - property to currentacquired . timber property honed TM -5 preserve zone on parcels) and „U" (Timber Mountain 5 ,acre Cohasset Rd, to LowerlV las=Rd�' located north on Lower Vilas Rd, to Mud Creek then north on Hwy. 32 to Garland Road. Cohasset. North on approximatel ; left on Garland y 1 mile, Identified as AP _ 019; 056-210-013, 014; 059-1a0-001, Cohasset�� The above mentioned a are on file PPlications, maps and Negative Declarations Butte Count and available for public viewing at the office of the. Y Planning Department, 7 county Center Drive, Oroville, California. Comments may be submitted in writing time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting or as continued to a later date a any aPPlications in courtay If You challengeltheeaboveVe issues ou or someone else raised atmthed to raising only In this notice or in written correspondence those Plannin y public hearing described g Commission, at or prior top nce r3elivered' to the the public hearing, BUTTE COUNTY PLAN.riING COMMISSION 13"1 KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 19 b, published in the Chico Enterprise on Thursday February .1990: ary 15 .. ... 'J _ ...... i v ... .... '�1 1 APPENDIX i ENV ZROL�7NiN'3'AL C.��L,�S' FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) File #90-20 LAG No. 89-11-20-01 AP NO, 007-31-0-008,9,10 & 11 1BAOFC0ROT.J1%TD 1, Name of proponent Posada Way Investors 2, Address of proponent and representative (if applicable): 1263 Esplanade ,urC Pete Giampaoli ico , ' 6'3 E's�l� 3. Project description: II. MYA,NDATORY ?"r'2NAYIVGS Or'_ . S2GNTF`7=C'.AIV'C YES MAYBE NO 1, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially seduce the habitat of fish a or wildlife species, cause a fish yr Wildlife population to drop below self-sUstaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important of a rare ^samples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 4 2, floes the project have the potHntial to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term enyiroj,mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environmen is one which oc4Ui-s in a relatively 'brief period of time while ldng-term impacts Will end ure into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively sma -1) but where the effect: of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) 4i hoes the project have environmental effects which will cause substanti4l —� adverse.effects on human beings, either directiy or indirectly? III. DETERMTNATXON (To be completed by the tread Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation I,/WE find the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the ehvironment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared; IM find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case becaUse the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the Project,. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environm6nt, and an ENVIRONMENTAL :IMPACT REPORT is required, COUNTY OF BUTTE) PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 4, 1989 By: cK , Reviewed by: r7v�:xoNrc r�xax, xrK �p.r_:i s "MAYBE" answers ace required on attached sheet(s) (Explanations of all "YRS" and YF.S Ma m. NO EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: f L, ubstructures? earth conditions, or changes in -, o'logic s a• Unstable b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ----- c, Change in topography or ground surface relief features? or physical d• Destruction, covering nr modification of any unique geologic features?` in wind or Water erosion of soils,. either on or off sate? �' e, Increase f, manges in deposition or erosion mod fbeach or changes in siltation, which may tile schannel of a river or stream deposition or erosion bmo inlet or lake? or the bed of the oceaji or any > Loss of prime agriculturally productix- soils outside designated urban g• areas? ologic hazards such as earthquakes, uakes to ge (� h• Exposure of people or property landslides,-mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial' Air emissions or deterioration_ of ambient air quality? a. b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? any change in / Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or c, locall or regionally? climate, y 3; WpTFR• Will the proposal result in substantial: of water movements in JZ— a, Changes in currents,. or the course or direction. waters. � f either marine or fresh the rate and amount b, Cttangrs in absorption rates, drainage patterns) or of surface runoff? improvements; including vegetation sure �� --- c. Need for off-site removal, channelization or culvert installation? L d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? - ltharig e in the amount of surface water in any water body! e• f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or ^� quality; turbidity? of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g, Alteration quantity or quality of ground waters, either through the q h. or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer ' J -- direct additions direct by cuts or excavations? i. Reduction in th_ amount of water otherwise available for public water J J susupplies", to water -related hazards such as flooding? lies j, of people or property p . 1, LI , Will the proposal rep in substantial: species of plants p or number of arj Change it the diversityof s eciec,o and aquatic plants)? a, s (in-djudirig trees) "shrubs, grassy p r or endangered species of b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare plants? of new sp ecies of plants ,rico an area, or in a barrier to V et introduction edea? the normal replenishment of existing sp _ f of any agricultural crop? d, Reduction in acreage 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will, the proposal result in substantial; YES MAYBE NO a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, organisms or insects)? b. Redrucc ion in the numbers of any un que, rare or endangered species of tr' c. Introduction of new species of animals iirty an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of ekisting fish or wildlife habitat?- 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial. a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?_ 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal product: sx.gntfie.ant; light and glare?, � 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES', Will the proposal result in substantial:' ,t. .Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? _l% 14. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or rolease of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pian? 11, POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population?'` 12. HOUSING; Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal Lresult in: Ai Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? (� b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand tot new parking? , c, Substantial impact on existing transportation systems! n d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? V✓'' e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic. hszards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? C 14, PUBLIC SERVICES, Will the proposal have an effect Upony or result in a need for new or altered government services- a. Eire protection? V b, Police protection? t,✓ c. Schools? d. Parks Ot other recreational fAc;lities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? i •, 1-5. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy! YES MAYBF No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy) o require the development of new sources of energy? kY� r �_ 16,. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? -'— V C. Water availability? --- d. Sewer or septic systems? e. Storm water drainage? - ----- f. Solid waste and disposal? C 17. STH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? v 18: AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or e will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATiCN. Will the proposal result in an impact Capon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic e to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or objeffects _ a. Does the proposal have U-0 potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d• Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact �..rea? .r _ V DYSLITSS`SOIV OF ENV Z"2?0IVMr;NTA�. l✓vA .tJ'A S0 -M See attached. ,,4 D,i SCUSS I ON OF ENV I RONP,iENTAL EVALUAT LON lb,3b,3c, AP 0007-31..0_008,9,10 &11 16c. The Potential allowed by this number of dwel:�ng units Will n low 45 dw��°'��ct will be 48. The current zonin on the bl will result g units. The eventual development °f the parcel In substantial overcoverin increase in storm water runoff, g °f the soil and parcel Increased runoff are y Inrainage Improvements associated already Place.to handle the 1b. All of Butte County is in VIII. The project is Moderate Earth Adherence to Uniform BuildingCodes quake Intensity Zone ear any identified fault, Provide 6b,17b, The adequate mitigation. , Project (s It Within 300' travel Zane of Hwy 99. Noise levels from the northbound 60 dB on site. The Butte County Noise indLcat from 50 dB expected to be residential to 65 dB to be normals es noise levels areas. Y acceptable in,mUiti- familY 12. The zoning Will demand in Chico for allow for up to 48 de a at this o e. new housing, especiallynew dwelling Units. The m This project will affordable housing, is already developed with apartments and duplexes, an Infill I new demand far housing but fill n an area an existing it will not create a 13as, f . The g demand Potential for a approximately 336 Yehicie tri maximum :build out, Mast of Lassen Ave. and then either Westetorthelc will be p exist to Road. Both of Esplanade ordrecteq south to counts on these Intersections have stop light sl�dst t° Cohasset Lassen Ave. are bet,Ween 8000 and 9000 ADT. Ni'I i no t add significantly to existing 00 and level Traffic. This Project The potentlal for accldents at the s, and Lassen Ave. may increase. Intersection of Intersection In 1989 There have been Joshua Tree Road and only 1 In ur no acc►dents at this � Y accident In 1988. 16d The development of this land to Will require the instal lation any density Located outside of n of sanitar Y above. i du/acre Chico, the adopted sewer y sewer. The project is The sewer service area Will service area of the could be received, With have to be City of State Regione,I water the recent d amehded before service connection to Qualit de coming from the Water of Y Control Board that Will re Chico Urban masa of the unincorporated quire the Area a comprehensfVe amendment to thA area within the Res in progress.; This amendment Report Which requires - sewer service area Ps being prepared, All s Envlronmehtal Impact to the sealer service area Will topro}ects.regUlrin ETR has beenhalve. wait uhtli � an amendment combined prepared o,, prepal-e ;1 EIR al the o6mprehehslve With CEQA requlremeh't their own On this basis Addressed at the earliest that ehvlronmental th I s Project. Possible b l e t line an 8111 Will be rempacts be quired . for Appilcant; Posada 'Way Investors Assessor's Parcel 007-31-0-008,9,10 & 1 1 Log * 89-11-20-01 DATA SHEET. A. Pealed Descrl�tIon i., Type of Project: Rezone 2• Brlef Descriptloh; 3• Location; Rezone 3,6 acres from. PAS Tree Road, on the northwest corner of Posada Way and 1000' north of Lassen Ave., y and Joshtaa 4• Proposed Densityof Development: Chico DU/AC is Maximum Density of 13 5, possible. Amount of Impervious Surfacin 6. Access and Nearest public Road sExtenslve,50 - 70%. and on Joshua Tree Road road (designated Frontage on Posada Way sign); Lassen Avenue would Tree Lane on vehIcUlar traffic with some heading receive SIIVerbeli Road: most of the 7, g north to Eaton Road via Method of N hook u osa a Project $, p to sSewae tl £;I D l anitary sewer. will be required to Source of Water Supply: 9• Proximity of Power LI California-nes: Water Service 10: Potential for further land Potential exits to divisions further divide and development: B. Enylrohmentai Set tin parcels but is unlikely. - -P-by—s_i ca l Environment c i= Terrain at. General To b, Slopes LessPOgrthanc Character, Level open land. C. Elcvatloh: 296, d. Ll m tin 185 A.S.L. 2. Soils 9 Factors: None a' Types and Characteristics; feet +; very food Vlha foam; depth of characteristics, percotat'on 15 p• LimitingF prime a9rlcuiturolrsoiisand drainage 3, Natural Haxardsaofothe LNone a. Earthquake Zones and Vill. Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone b Erosion potehtlalt Low c. LandWlide d Potehtial4 None Fire NAzard: UncIassifled e. 4• Expansive Sol! pot ial•• Moderate a• Surface Water; 250' to the West. S'U"*A.D= drainage channel Within b• Ground Water: Valley aquifers C. Drainage Characteristics: Good natural drainage of Sol!. Surface water runoff will be handled by S.U.D:A.D. d. Annual Rainfall (normal); 24" - 26" year. e. Limiting Factors: None 5. Vlsuai/Scenic Quality: Fair 6 Acoustic Quality.. Impacted from Hwy 99. Noise levels of 6OdB can be expected. %• Air Quality: 9. Hwy. 99. Impacts could occur from auto emissions on B I o 1 oQ i ca I'Env i ron�t_ 8 Vegetation: Grasses, Star thistle. 91 Wildlife Habitat: Parcel does not represent a significant wildlife habitat. Cultural Environment': 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources In the area.. Low 11. Butte County General Man designation-. High Density Residential. 12. Existing Zoning: PAC 13 Existing Land Use on -sites Vacant land: 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: Apartments to the south and West; duplexes immediately to the north, with single-family residences beyond; a residential subdivision under construction to the northeast, small apartment complex to the east, residences, some mobilehomes, open flisld With horses, etc to the east l5. Zoning: R3, R-2, R-1 <=: Gen. Plan Designation: High Density Reslden"tial, Medium Density Residential. d. Parcel Sizes: 1/3 to 1 acre, ee. Population Area is densely populated. 15. Character of Site and .Area; Urban Residential 16. Nearest Urban Area: Ch'Ico 17. Relevant Spheres of influence: Primary sphere for city of o Chico Shasta Union Drainage Assessment District, CSA, not Within sewer service distzo rict: 18. improvements Standarda_Urban Area: Yes Chico 19. Fire Protection Service: a; Nearest county (State) Fire Stat lone Circle. STA 42 Frontier 20 School's in Area: CUSD�- hydrants on CWSC Line b. Water Avallabl-lit Flee ENV I RONMENT'AL REFERENCE P.IATER I AL I +• Map II -1, Earthquake and fault; ActivitY: Seismic Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77 by CIi2M Hifi, 2• Map 11-2, Liquefaction Potential: Seismic Safety Element, Butte County 'General Plan revised 1-77, by CH2M Hill 3• Map 111-1, Subsidence & Landslide P Bunte County General Pian revised 1_77tebtlai; Safety Element, Y 'CH2M H I I f 4. Map 111-2, Erosion Potential Safety Element, General Plan revised I-77, by CH2M Hill. ButteCounty 5• Map. 1I1--3, Expansive ScIIs; afety General Plan revised 1-7.7, by CH2MS/Hill, Element, Butte County 6 Map IV -1, Nolse: Noise Element, revised -77, by CI -12M Hill. Butte County General Plan 7• Map V-1, Scenic Highways Scenic Highway Element General Plan revised 1=77, by CH 2M Hill,. Butte County 8 Map 111-4, Natural Fire Hazard clelsse8: CountY General Plan revised 1--77 b; y Safety Element, Butte 9• Archaeological SensitivitycH2M HI11. County Planning Department, 1A983by Jamles P, Manning, •Far Butte 10• School District Map, Butte County PL;anning Department. l p tment. Chico Nitrate Studd Map, Nitrate Concentration e 1983, by Dep6rtment of Water Resources, In Shallow Wells, The Resources Agency, State of Callfdrnia..Northwestern District_, 12• Agricultural Preserves Ma 178, tI" CdLnty Board of Supers1ablished by'Resitlution No, 67- > December 5 1987, 13, Flood insurance +4at.3 Maps, Federal Emer Emergency nsa National Flood g y anagct;rctlt Agency. 1968. insurance Program, 14. USGS Quad Maps; Richards !&, 9011 Map, on,Sprincs; Photorevised 1969. Chico (1925)/Orov, Agriculture, (192E5) U.S. Department of 16. Solt SurVey of Chlco(1925)%Oroville (1926) Are` Of Agriculture. a, UJ -S• Department 17. Butte County Fire Protection Jtlrisdlctlons Butte CountY fire Department and Facilltles Map, Forestry. Butte Count and Californla Department of Y Planning Department, February 6, 1990 Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #G Chico, CA 95926 Re: Appeal of a Requirement for An Environmental Impact Report Rezone Vile 90-10 Gentlemen: 1990, the Board of Supervisors At their regular meeting of February 6 an Environmental Impact upheld your appeal for the requirement to prepare c to Report on the Posada Way Investors rezone PA - of Jo hua Tree Road and RPosada property located at the southwest co me Way intersection,Chico, finding ths�t the requirements of CEQA have been met :and that a Negative Declaration with regards to environmental impacts is appropriate. uestions regarding this matter, please contact the Should you have any q Planning Department at 538-7601 between the },tours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 P.m. Very truly yours, William R Randolph Chief Administrative Officer NVHRar CHI. ;-)1\4INTSTRATIV FF`FIC E COUN'T'Y OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE ,aVT7r' OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD; o -^^ o u Telephon: (916) 538-7631 Fax: (916) 538-7120 HASKEL A. MCINTURF a ' JANE DOLAN M',�4 KAREN VERCAUSE ED McLAUGHLIN WILLIAM H. RANUOLPH 0MCEN LEN FULTON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE February 6, 1990 Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #G Chico, CA 95926 Re: Appeal of a Requirement for An Environmental Impact Report Rezone Vile 90-10 Gentlemen: 1990, the Board of Supervisors At their regular meeting of February 6 an Environmental Impact upheld your appeal for the requirement to prepare c to Report on the Posada Way Investors rezone PA - of Jo hua Tree Road and RPosada property located at the southwest co me Way intersection,Chico, finding ths�t the requirements of CEQA have been met :and that a Negative Declaration with regards to environmental impacts is appropriate. uestions regarding this matter, please contact the Should you have any q Planning Department at 538-7601 between the },tours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 P.m. Very truly yours, William R Randolph Chief Administrative Officer NVHRar I Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT. Appeal of EIR Requirement for Posada Way Inv estors DATE: February 1, 1990 The Board of Supervisors is in the process of hearingan major focus of the document would be � appeal of a requirement for the preparation. of an EIR for the 'Posada Wayon the Investors rezone. ,If an EIR were required the P District, CE 101, Guidelines state that, normally, sig cant impacts will occur whenlca project will induce substantial growth or concentration of population or exte- trunk line with capacity to serve new developPressure line ment. The proposed 4" ressur d e is not. sewer considered a trunk line. Trunk lines Are generally 15" or larger in diameter. . ould public the, Boa djl after hoes h ring all the information and testimonynese nted at the P e appeal of the EIR the following fndinsshould 1�e made A. Find that the proposed rezone and associated requirement for Sewer Service District will not have a significant effect on the environment of Chico`s ronment becauFa 1. The proposed sewer line extension limited not a trunk line and will limited area. 1 only serve a 2, The parcels to be served by the sewer are surrounded by existing development and the sewer extension will not alter existing or proposed land use in the area. 3: The project will not induce substantial growth or concentration of po ulation in an area not alreadydevel,>,qed. P 4. The Butte County Land Use Element designates hear p cels in this project High Density Residential and a PUD .zone for 45 dwelling .units has .been previously approved on site; and Further find that there is no substantial evidence of cumulative impacts because; 1. This project is separate; different in character and, factually distin ` from other projects requiring expansion of the SevGer Service District; and nd Investors t Re of ealproject� uiremenf-to pr Posad''a Wa Upholdfor 007 310.008 009 010, 011) and find prepare an IR on the y requirements of CEQA hahat the ve been met and that negative declaration wht regards to environmental impacts is appropriate CBS:j10 OF'FIA OF COUNTY COUAML, COUNTY OF BUTTE o U T , 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / ('916) 538.-7521 / FAX (916) 538-1120 O , P O �! January ?(, 1990 NEIL H. MCCABE SUSAN RUFF MINASIAN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL - The Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive OrOville, CA 95965 RE: Posada Way Investors; Appeal of Planning Commission's Requirement for an EIR; Response to Legal Questions Raised Dear Honorable Members of the Board: ` At your meeting on Jaruary 23, 1990 you held a public hearing on the Posada Way Investors' (Giampaoli) appeal of the Planning Commission`s requirement for an EIR. The underlying project is a proposed rezone from PAC to R-3. During the hearing a number of questions were raised on the issue whether or not an EIR should be required,I believe the ultimate question may be stated as follows: Zs an EIR always required when the project will result in an expansion of the Chico Sewer Service Area? As is more fully discussed below it is my Opinion that expansion of the Chico Sewer Service Area does not necessarily roquire an EIR in each instance. An EIR would only be required ii, based upon substantial evidence in the record_, you determined that the project in question may have a significant effect on the environment. bISC.USSION The Ca]ifOrnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a lead agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that a project may have u significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR. If the lead agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration. 15064 CEQA Guidelines Section (g) Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 (c), The Board of Supervisors January 26, 1990 Page 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 states in part that:: "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance If Your agenda package included a copy of a latter written by William Spruance -,n August 29, 1988 discussing such issues in connection with the proposed Chico Sanitary Sor,�;er Master Plan. Mr. Spruance pointed out that the plan contemplated a massive expansion of the city's sewer system which would allow development densities 4 to 6 times greater tl,;n allowed with septic systems and would result in more rapid residential growth requiring police and fire protection, and other municipal services. He also pointed out that the CEQA Guidelines contain an appendix Listing specific physical impacts that normally would be regarded as significant, including impacts which will: induce substantial growth or concentration of population or extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development it should be poirt,ted out that the guidelines eferred to by Mr. Spruance indicate that such physical impActo normally; not always, will be regarded as significant. Fur her there is clearly evidence in the record from which you coull conclude that the project being considered by Mr. Spruance is factually distinguishable frc,n the Posada Way project involved here. The evidence presented at the hearing on January 23, 1990 indicated that the other project involving expansin,i of the sewer service area (a Webb home subdivision for which an EIR was required) is also factually distinguishable. The ultimate question for you to determine in connection With this appeal is whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record that the Posada Way project may have a significant effect on the environment. The mere fact tba , the project involves an expansion of the sewer service area wuAtld not in t' hd Of itself necessarily lead to such a conclusion., It is true as p4:eviously pointed out by Mr. Spruance that normally a project which would induce substant t'1 growth or concentration of population or which would extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development would L- regarded as significant effects. However, here you have been presented'with eViderce that the project itself is limited in hat -ire, is in an area already surrounded by development and would not involve the extension, of a sewer trunkline with capacity to serve any properties outside the immediate project area. (The evidence prosented indicated that a 4 inch pressure line would be installed and would serve the project in question and one other property. The ultimate capacity of this 4" line was not quantified) As a part of your determination you should consider whether or not the project involves cumulative impacts. Such impact;: are defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as follows: 11 'Cumulative impacts' refers to two or more individual. effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts,. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable,_ probable_ future 'projects. Cumulative impacto can result from individually minor but Collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time:" If you conclude that there is no substantial evidence of suchcumulative impacts and no other significant effects which this project may have on the environment, then you need not require an EIR. It is true that 'EIRs have been ;required for other projects involving expansions of the Chico Sewer service area. However, those actions did not create a binding "policy" or "precedent" requiring preparation of an MR for all projects involving expansion of the sewer service area. If there is no substantial evidence that a project will have cumulative or other significant adverse effect on the environment, and the project in question is therefore factually distinguishable from those previous projects, then the "policy" or "precedent" would not apply and an EiR would not be required. Very truly yours, 4/111 Neil H. McCabe Acting County Counsel NHM/gm cc: Plan�iing Departfient Administrative Office Alan E. Burchett, Esq: uor- T1 CH10 ADMINIS'TRA'TIV COUNTY OF BUTTEFFIE °pUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 Telephone: (916) 539-7631 cOUR'l ° Fax: (916) 538-7120 MEMBERS OF THE 4OARD„ WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH HASKEL A, MCINTUR� CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER- - JANE DOLAN- KAREN VE19CAUSE ED MCLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON January 31, 1990 Pete Giampaoli Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, CA 95926 Re: aIozone, File 90-10 Dear lvfr. Giampaoli: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of January 30, 19901 the public hearing was Of closed Suopervisors held 1990 with a Motion of Intent to t February anus an Environmental Impact Report on uphold request �r DRezonin eal for the from requirement of 3 for Property ntlocated at the southwest co .� of Joshu n PAC to R- Posada y rsection, identified as a Tree Road and Chico. AP 007-310-008, 009, 010, and 011, The meeting will be held in the Administration Center, 25 County, Center Drive rd of Supervi; E.M. Pf lueger 119 El Porton Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 378-9236 January 29, 1990 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive orovill-, CA 95965 RE: Rezone of AP 007-310-008, 009, 01.0, and 011, Chico Gentlemen; Please be advised that Mrs. Pflueger and I who own parcels 9 and W 10 described above, consent to the request by Posada Way Investors and Pete Giampaoli to rezone the above-described parcels from PAC to R-4. At this time this consent is strictly limited to the proposed rezoning. By giving this consent we do not join in any representation with respect to the forced sewer, system which has been proposed nor do we agree to contribute to the costofeither the installation or r y j systems stems maintenance of that system. We have not had ade ate Y investigate a+ evaluate the proposed system or alternative and therefore are not prepared to make a commitment at this time. Very truly yours, E.14. FLUEGE r f MINA,iIAN,VmASIAN. MINASIAN, SPRUA 18A8E�i. MEITH & SOARES ATTORNEYS AT LAW ` ' a OAVIO H. WiNASIAN.. INC. IA .PARTNERSHIP COMPOSEO OF PROFESS1014AL CORPORATIONSIJOHN CARLETON GRAY. 117.2.191 CARLETON GRAY. 1693.toN PAUL R, MINASIAN• INC:. I11131. BIRD $TREET At OAK STREET PAUL ,IACKKSON MINASIAN. 1033.1041 WILLIAM N. spaVANCEL INC.. P. O. Box 679 WILLIAM H. SABER III,. INCI ORO yILLE. CX LIroAN1A 95965•.1679 _ JEF?RET A. MEITH IV. ANTMONY SOAR"TELEPHONE19161 533-306 5 _ TELECOPIEI 10101573-0137 MICHAEL V. SEXTON: {IS August 29, 1998 J , Susan Rof BUTTE COU9Ty COUNSEL 25 County Center Drive oroville, Com. 95965 Re: Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan CEQA Compliance' Dear Ms. ROlf6 This is in rF:snonse to she questions I raised by the Board of Supervisors, and you► regarding the Negative Declaration adopted for the Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Those questions did not challeng- the adequacy of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan itself, but rather the i.ladequacy of the analysis and procedures used to determine its effect on the environment. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that the Negative 'Declaration was insufficient and that an Environmental, Impact. Report (EIR) should have been prepare d. In addition, it appears that thr C40A requirements for consultation, notice and comments were not properly followed in connection with the Negative Declaration. k . 1. THE_ PROJECT,. 'fhp Sanitary Sealer Mester} Plan is the guideline for providing Sewer service to the entire Chico Urban Area. presently, only those p 'opertiet inside the City limits (,approximately 14,000 acres, approximately 34,000 population) are y served by the sewer system- with a few exceptions. The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan contemplates the expansion of that system to serve 21,00.0 acres with a population in excess of 68,000; Extensive improvements would be required. The cost of construction is estimated to be $20,000,000 to $30,000,000, Including, trunklines, pumping stations and collectiotz systems - Although the Sanitary Sewer Master plan does not specifically address the expansion of the 'Wastewater Treatment Plant, it is premised upon such expansion inasmuch as the present plant %?3s only one-sixth of the dapacity needed., to process the flows under the plan. The availability of such facilities Will allow development densities four to six times greater than tWllOwed with. Septic ,ystems. This mill result in more rapid residential growth,' requiring police and fire protection, and other municipal. services. y Ms. Roff August 29, 1.988 Page Two 2. LIMITATIONS ON NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: As you know, the Public Resources Code (P.R.C.) allows the adoption ot a Negative 'Declaration only if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may ha e a significant effect on the environment (P.R.0 section 2108-0(c)(i)). If an Initial Study identifies pote ntial significant effects on the environment, a Negative Declaration cannot be adopted unless ie=visions are made in the project to. avoid or mitigate those e`fects ('P.R.0 section 21080(c)(ii)). The Resources Agency Guidelines (Guidelines) uniformly adopt the "substantial evidence test" for determining if an tIR or Negative _. Declaration is appropriate (Guidelines sections 15002(f)(1), (2); 15063(b) 15064(g) 15010). in the context of environmental review, the "substantial evi•_.ice" test is not a balancing test. In other words, if there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the ,environment, the lead agency may not disregard that evidence. It rust either prepare an EIR. or else revise the project to avoid -or mitigate such adverse effect: (Cf. Friends of "B" Street v City of Hayward (1980) 106 Ca1..App.3d 988, 1001002 Beginning with Friends of Mammoth v Board of Subervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259, the courts have interpreted qEQA in a manner which will "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language" This has been stated as'a standard which will impose a "low threshold" requirement for preparation of an EIR (No Oil, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 84). 3.. DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT . EFFECTS QN THE ENVIRONmENT The. phrase "Significant effect on the environment" is defined by statute (P.R.C: section 21068), by the Resources Agency dOidelines (Guidelines section 15382) and by cane law (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 271): It—connotes a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. The effect need not be immediate.. The adoption of a long range plan that will ultitately produce significant effects requires an EIR (C of Santa Ana v. City, of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521,531- 5 3 � ; 21,531-5:s�; The Guidelines contain an appendix listing specific physical impacts that normally will be regarded as significant, including impacts which will: -» induce substantial growth or concentration of ponulaLion y Ms. Roff August 29, 198$ Pace Three extend a sewer trunkline with capacity to serve new development 4 THE INITIAL STUDY DISCLOSES SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT The `environmental checklist accompanying the Initial Study admits one environmental impact, acknowledges the possibility of three others, and rules out the rest. The admitted 'impact is, of course, .the need for new systems or alterations to sewers or septic tanks. The 'acknowledged "possibles" are impacts on population, location, distributirn, density and growth rates, and -the need for police, and Lire protection. Given the recommendation for a Negative Declaration, one r would expect the narrative portion of the Initial Study to explain away, or minimize, those impacts. However, in this case, the narrative does the opposite. It clearly demonstrates that those imoacts Will be substantia! and cumulative. Indeed, the description of the scope of the project set forth in Section 1, above, was taken from the Initial. Study itself. That circumstance also brings into question those ,portions of the checklist Which -conclude that the Sanitary Sewer. Master 'Plan will riot result in disruption of soils, discharges ;into surface waters, alteration o;t sVrface water quality, alteration' of present or planned land use, the need for schools, parka, roads and otherpublic facilities, or the need for other governmental services all of which Mould seem inevitable with the massive expansion conEemplatea by the Sanitary Sewer Master' Plan. The conclusions of. an environmental: checklist must disclose the data or evidence upon which the person conducting For Development ofthe eishoa Area v Co ntvofI fo (1985 j1172b the study rel, ied. (Citizens Association atn s, Cal.App.3d 1':;)7 T , 171 There is lib such msdate to P:cl3llair. the oisions in this case. Perhaps the City intended to rely on earlier studies. Section. VII of the Initial Study cites, as references, the (1) City of Chico General Plan, (2) Chico Municipal Code, (3) Final Report Sanitary Sewer Master Plan,`kand (a) Final Environmental Impact Report Chino Area. Land Use Pldn (1982). however, the Initial Study does not summarize the relevant conclusions of those docuhnents: If a. Lead agency intends to rely on earlier environmental documents for its conclusions, it must include such summaries: (8-1,tiftg ton v: Solanb CoUnty Redevelobment Agency (1981) 195 Cal,.App.3d 491.,901-503) 5. CONSULTATION, NOTICE AND COMMENTS: I Inquiries to the County Planning Director, Public 'Works Director, Administrative Officer and Environmental Health • Department have disclosed no record of the: County receiving the Negative Declaration or the Notice of Intention to adopt it. The Guidelines -require a lead agency to solicit comments from resp.nsible agencies as to whether an.EI11 or Negative Declaration would be proper (Guidelines Section 15063(g)). They also require the lead agency to send copies of the Negative Declaration, and the Notice of Intention to adopt it, to responsible agencies and other agencies with jurisdiction over the resources affected by the project (Guidelines section 15073(b)). The term 4responsible agency" includes all public agencies which will carry out the project or have discretionary approval power over it (P.R.C. section 21069; Guidelines section 15381). Acknowledging that the City is the lead agency for the adoption of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, it. should be recognized that the implementation of that plan involves the discretionary approval power of other agencies to Ilan depends Upon implementation by the Count of Butte n�.ncorpor3ted territory) the Butte County Local Agency Formation as to annexations to the City of Chico), and th•e Regional Water Quality Control Board (as to expansion of the Wast:evrat'er Treatment ` Plant) It follows that they are "responsible agencies" entitled to notice of the preparation of the NEgatve Declaration. (Guidelines section 15073(b)) Apparently, that requirement was not followed in connection with the environmental review of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 6. REMEDIES " The Negative Declaration was adopted on August 2, 1988. A Notice of Determination was filed With the Butte County Clerk on August 5, 1988. Unless the City is willing to reopen the CEQA proceedings, the only available remedy Would be the commencement of an action to compel. compliance with CEQA- That would probably take the form of a Petition for Writ of Mandate. The petition would request a writ directing the City to set aside the Notice Of Determination, to reopen the CEQA commentprocess, and to prepare an EIR for the Sanitary Sewer Ma:,ter Plan: The petition Would have to be filed by September 6', 1988 in order to meet the statute bf limitations (P.R.C. section 211e7(b)). Although an argument might be made that the. County failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to adoption of the Ms,. Rof f ,August '29, 19RS Page Five Negative Declaration, that argument would hardly seem persuasive inasmuch as the ^ounty did 'not receive notice of the ,Preparation of the Negative Declaration as required by the Guidelines. I hope: the foregoing information will be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of an further assistance. Very truly yours, MINASIAN, MiNASIAN, MINASIAN, SPRUANCE, BABER, MEI'TH & SOARE5 BY C c4PRL�JP;CE��—�U— wlHs/cj WIL LIAMH. w JOS IIUA TREE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION OF LOT 15 AND PORTION OF LOT Ih 07-31 OWhlE2v�-11i� of 1/�RCI,S '� rLo �+� j ,} /- /� �Vf� L i j I=. `^" I. f 1`-v �V „�,�t�.,��. Ij VZ IJ' '" �.�,�,�.� 33/33.... 2 6 0 21 130,00NI utrl t-„,5„z7�L7-0.ele' U000 hoop d L(1't”}u!' I gA,uPFt.U�eTiit t�TArtr � 1 0 25 0 io rr nnbl i o0 3i 13 r3o,or1 22 q) � .. � IIH.99 6 POSADA WAY .. .... W 1 !1183 .. _.... .13000 I30.00 120.02 'a "3.36 IY9,D6 y� 'r 1�Iir'ell q { i . N N N IM C 190 50 )Jo 00 _ ron.ao coon 1io.on >eo.30 Q L OT 14 °5 I ,Iti it>>Lr, h O�}•�F h3Lt,V 7-31 t..!+s il. i. i�,:,Y ly ►I� 1lIhiw 11.iiiT,i - fl.in 1i 6►, t YrYr' 1'1 It t ptyd COuftly dr 6ulltai OOIir,. J0010 tote' Suit sak'6Roomay, 10►:6 i4rd J,t. il.rtii 1 Y publfe iictitif. Febtudty, 1578 LAW OFFICES STEWART, UILIMPHERYS, BUkRC ETT & SANIOGLMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RONALD C STEWART PROFESSIONAL PLAZA KEITH. S HUMPHERYS (910891-61 11 3120 COHASSET RD, SUITE D ALAN ly 13URCHETr P 01 ©DX?20 RAYMOND L SANDELMAN CHICO. CA 95927.0720 JOHN SCHWAR2,JR TELECOPIER MARTIN S MCHUGH 19101894(2193 M MELANIE HOWELL- orCOUNSrIL January 23, 1990 BOARDOF SUPERVISORS 25 County Center Drive Orovil.le, CA 95965 Re Posada Olay Investors, Pete Giampaoli Rezone File 90-10; Appeal of EIR Requirement Gentlemen and Ladies: The following will outline the position of the applicant and appellant, Posada Way Investors: I. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) A. Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2(c) states: "If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this division;, does not have a significant effect on the environment; the head ag�ndy shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances: (l)There is no substantial__ evidence,.before the a�encv that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (i) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for publz-, review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (ii) there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." [Emphasis added.] c BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Re Rezone File 90-10 anuary 23 1990 Page 2 of 4 Pages • B. Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2(a)states in part that "[t]he lead agencydetermine whether a project - may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in the record...." [Emphasis added.,] C. 14 Cal Administrative Code, Section 15382 states: "'Significant effect on the environment' means a substantial, or potentially substant±al, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant." D. Public Resources Code, Section 21083.3 states: "if a residential development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report' was certified with respect to that general plan, theapplicationof this division to the approv_,,L of that residential development project shall 0,.1, united to effects oh.'the environmetit (1) which are peculiar to the parcel or project and (2) which are not addressed as significant effects in the prior enirironmental impact report." (Numbers and underscore add,%.d for emphasis.) II. NO EVIDENCE IN RECORD OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON TSE ENVIRONMENT A. Effect of This Project. Based upon the law as set forth above, in order to require an Environmental Impact Report, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment as that term is defined above. The "Environmental Checklist (Initial Study)" for the project indicates only 6 z BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Re:Rezone File 90-I0 January 23, 1990 Page 3 ,of 4 Pages single area where, in staff's opinion, there may be a significant effect on the environment, which is with regard to sewers (Item 16d) B. Mitii,a� tion. Applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse enviroi,mental impacts relating -to sewage disposal by connection to the existing city of Chico sanitary sewage disposal system. There is adequate capacity in the existing trunk line to accommodate; the projects and the City of Chico has indicated that ccnnection will be permitted. Such would appoar to completely mitigate the environmental effect related to sewage disposal. C. Initial Study Comment. The only basis for requiring an Environmental Impact Report set forth in the Initial Study appears to be that "[a]ll projects requiring an amendment to the sewer service area will halt. to wait until the comprehensive EIR has been prepared or prepare an EIR of their own." We submit (a) that this statement ie- a conclusion only, (b) that it is not supported by any facts included in the initial study or )mown to the applicant relating to this project, and (c) that it cannot be :onsidered as substantial evidence in the record of a if effect on the environment" (see definition above). D. Application of Section 2108.3. The proposed rezone is consistent with the General Plan of both the County of Butte and the City of Chico. The project is within the primary sphere of influence of the city of Chico, the environmental -impact of which wa!s addressed in the County Environmental Impact Report for Chico Area Land Use Element. We respectfully submit that the initial. study has not identified any effect on the environment peculiar to the parcel or project riot addressed in the environmental impact reports for the general plans. The EIRs for the General Plans necessarily were based on build -out to the full density permitted under each respective General Flan, and thus the cumulative sewer impact of full build -out was addressed in the EIRs and cannot be of legitimate concern again. This, in accordance with Public Rosources Code, Section 2108.3, a -mitigated negative declaration is requitud as a matter of law. iii: REQUIREMENTS TO DENY APPEAL Xn order to deny applicantts appeal and uphold the determination that an gig must be prepared, you must find substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a 4 + y _.ERVISORS BOARD OF $U�' Re: Rezone File 90-10 January 23, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Pages "significant effect on the environment" not addressed in the General Plan EIRs. The record iii devoid of reference to any such. significant effect on the environment, and we submit that there is none. if 'required to prepare an EIR the applicant would be at a ]joss to determine khat issues to address. Based upon the foregoing analysis', we respectfully request that tha appeal be upheld. Very truly yours, STEWART HUMPH8RYS, BURCHETT, A D NDE N By J LAN E. BURCHETT AEBccb Int -r -Departmental MemorUndum TO Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT; Appeal of ETR Requirement for Posada Way- Investors, File #9040 DATE: Januarrt 10 1990 On November 6, 1989, Posada 'Way Investors made an application to Rezone 3.6 acres from PA -C (Planned Area property is located at the 'northwest corne Cluster) Posad R�WayIZande r Joshua The Road in the Chico area. After reviewingthe `free an initial study as required by CEQA, the eterminat determination depaiha an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be, prepared for the project. The determination was made ori the basis that development of the site will require the amendment and expansion of the Chico Sewer Service District. Expansion of the sewer service district itself is a project under CEQA requiring review. An EIR is currently being prepared which will address Appendix m sewer service expansions in the Chico area. g pp nd �Guloif the r CEQA guidelines lists projects that . impacts res P J significant effects on the environment. The list cites Willnormally nextensonhao f sewer trunk lines with capacity to se will induce substantial growth or rve new development and projects that concentration of population as projects that normally have sis�r ificant effects. limited effects by itself, when it is looked late inthlconju�o ction roject with have other protects in north Chico- the cumulative effects become significant. Cumulative effects include effects of past projects, other current Projects and probable future projects, RECOMMENDATION: A. Find that the development a.11o,ved by the proposed rezone to R-3 for Posada Way Investors will require the expansion of thy, Sewer Service District, and B. The cumulative effects of current and future projed by andects allow said expansion will have a significant effect on the environment,, . C. Deny the request for an appeal of the preparation of an ETR for Posada Way Investors: CBSIr E�9C1< Vi1"3L 1263 The Esplanade Suite Chico, California 95926 Telphone '916 891-4757 FAX A, 916 891.4206 Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Orbville, CA 95965 REF: Posada Way Rezone Gentlemen and Ladies January 23, 1990 The purpose of my appeal to you is to remove from our Rezone application planning staff ree—pa rements to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). There are several legal issues which support our appeal, however, there are a number of nozi-1,.,al issues which you should be aware. They are numerated below for your consideration: 1. We acrluired the property for immediate development 111 1979 nearly 11 years tqo,. Prior to recording a construction loan to construct 6U apartment units interest rates jumped dramatically (froze 8 5% to 12.5%) making the pro7ject. economically unfeasible. After wa,,ting 2 years for rates to drop, without success, tact dOcided to rezone the property. in that the single family Housing market sales continued at A relatively good pace we considered rezoning the property to Planned Area Cluster (PAC), thereby allowing condominium dwellings Which could »e sold individually. We subsequently received a Planned Area Cluster (PAC) zoning thereby allowing us to develop 45 condo.ainiums. As you are probably, aware condominium market' has now reached a low point in market desirability making the project once again ` uneconomic. 2 Builders ]Development Real Estate Partnerships Cooirnercial Btokdraae If interest rates (ultimately 2,),.,5%) and market conditions are not enough, add one viewproblem and you have the ingredients for a really bad 1westment.I4ow enters the ever famous nitrate issue. We were found to be in one of the `high nitrate contours. Thd nitrate lssue has kept our Project dead in its tracks sines 1684, pending,completich of 4 the long awaited "nitrate action plan". Regional Water Quality Control adopted plan precludes densities greater than 1 dwelling per acre. The county General Plan and zoning for this property allows density of up to 20 units per acre. State Water Quality Control Board, according to county staff, will soon concur with the Nitrate Action Plan lowering densities not served by sewers to the l dwelling unit standard. 3 Two years ago Ellis Rolls suggested the best solution for all concerned might be to install a forced sewer main along 99 E south to the main sewer truck line at Panama Avenue. The plan called for a county Service Area ( CSA) to maintain the system sloisly at property owner expense. We would restructure the project back to original apartment concept and proceed. We subsequently meet with Bill. Chef and Tom Lando; who agreed the concept worked. Shelton Enochs, Mayor of the City of Chico later agreed the city sewer service area could be extended to our property, thereby ,allowing us access to sewer service. However, he requested that we meet with Karen Vercruse to get her opinion of ou:` project prior to - proceeding Ellis Aolls and.I MOt with Karen in October 1989 when it was decided further action wauld requite a rezone back to the original R-^4 zone from PAC in that our new density would increase from 45 to 64 units: it also must be pointed out, even if we stayed with the existing 45 unit PAC we would be required to hook up to sewers., The 1 acre dwelling unit standard is a statutory requirement, not discretionary, therefore, it's not subject to environmental review. We applied for rezoning on November 1, 1989 an subsequently notified on December 5, 1989 an EiR would be required. In that an EIR of the scope an visioned by the staff is many months if not years away and well beyond the ability of 3.6 acre parcel to fund. Add the supporting legal data I feel though that enough is enough After 11 years; 6 of which patiently :awaiting a solution to the nitrate problem; agreeing to fund a forced sewer main at. our axpens,e artd now being required to complete and EIR and only issue raised by staff (sewers) which we have already agreed -to, initigattt is not Only unreasonable and unconsdiousble but fuiwter adds to bureaticratXc nonsense. Board of Supervisors January 23, 1990 Page 3 Again atter 11 years and installingsewers to this project we must ask: What is the significant environmental ,impact of this project? I' ask that you stop, step back, and look at the overall scope of this project and decide if this project really supports staff's findings. I trust you will agree an EIR is not recruired in this instance?' Thank you for your time and interest. Very truly, .o All POSADA WAY INVESTORS -- _ BY PETER G. GIAMPAOLI, MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CH[I ADI��T]ENISTF ATIV COUNTY OF' BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE O gUTTF` OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-33611 Telephone, (916) 538-7631 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD' o Fax' (916) 538-7120 HASKEL A. McINTURF e o couNtyJANE DOLAN KAREN VERCRUSE WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH ED McLAUGHLIN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER LEN FULTON January 11, 1990 Pete Giampaol Posada Way Ivestors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, cA 95926 Ret Appeal of the onmeuirement for n Environmental Impact Report, Rezone:, File 90-10 Dear Mr. Giampaoli; The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing date for January 23, 1990 at 10:45 a.m., to consider your appeal of the requirement for an Envirnoment:al Impact Report on a request for rezoning from PA -C to R-3 for property located at the southwest corner of Joshua `Tree Road and Posada Way, Chico: The meeting will be held in tho Board o£ Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, 'Oroville. Should you have any questions regarding this matter; please contact the Planning Departme,at at 538-7601 between .10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Very truly yours, William a Randolph Chief Administrative Officer WIIR;Ir y ITEM ON WHICH THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REIN J AP. L -LED Posada Way Investors Pete Giamnaoli Rezone from PA -C (Planned Area Cluster) to R-3 (Residential) for property loc,,ed at the southwest corner of. Joshua Tree Road and Posada Way intersection, identified as AP 007-310-008, 009,. 010, 011, Chico. �i d'a CH A.DMINIS'T'RATIV FFICE COUNTY OF BUTTE pUTTF 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 v e Telephone: (916) 538-7631 MEMBERS OF THE: BOARD: ° Fax: (916) 538-7120 �Coun l° HASKELA.McINTURF JANE DOLAN WILLIAM 1-1. RANDOLPH KAREN VERCRUSE CHIEF ADMINISTAAi1VE OFFICES ED .MCLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON January 24, 1990' Pete Giampaoli Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, CA 95926' Re: Rezone, Pile 90-10 Dear Mr. Giampaoli; At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors held January 23, 1990, the public,_ hearing was continued closed , to January 30 1990 to consider your appeal of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report on a request for ret -ming from PA -C to R-3 for property located at the southwest corner of Joshua TreeRoad and Po0ada Way intersection identified as All 007-310-008, 009, 010, and 011, Chico. "Themeeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County .Administration Center$ 25 County Center Drive; C3roville. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the. Planning Department at 538-7601 between 10:00 a.m. and 3,100 p.m. Very truly yours, x` William H. Randolph Chief Administrative Officer WHR,11r Irl x gutta lcaan�' LANt) OF N,ATURAI WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE" OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE. (916) 538-7601 December 5 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL Pete Giampaoli Posada way Investors 1263 Esplanade 4C Chico, CA 95926 Rai Rezone, File 90-10 Dear Mr. Giampaoli As thore exists the potential for significant environmental impacts from your project, an Environmental. impact Report will be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines: The EYR will need to address all of the potential environmental effects of the project listed on Attachment A appended to this letter as well as those issues required to be addressed by all applicable state and Local laws and guidelines: The preparation of the EIR may be initiated by filing the folowir..g with the Planning Department: 1. One Authorization and Agreement Vo 9 - rm for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports dated and signed by all owners of record or their agents (copy cftclosed) 2. Your selection, in writing on Attachme.,at s, of five (5) consultants, from the Count -approved pproved consul;nt J,st to whom Request for Proposals (RFPs) shall be sent (a copy of the County -approved consultant list as well as Attachment which said selections are to be indicated are enclosed with this .letter) 3• A Request for Proposal and. Contract Administratj,,b.q Pee of $1100:00: 4. An EIR administration fee of $225.00. U oz receipt of the above, the Planning Department will Prepare and mail an RFP to the five consultants shown on Attachment F. The Manning Department will review all responses to the RF', choose a consultant, and notify you of the firm selected. Upon receipt of a letter from you iindi-ating 'concurrence with the environmental consultant selfcted, and funds sufficieshant executeto ea - the Planning the consultants fee, contract with the ,selected consultant. A full copy of the County's EIR Ccnsultant and Contracting Procedures is enclosed for your use. We "strongly encourage y ou to familiarize yourself with the process read it in its entirety to andthe cuts involved. if we do not receive a responnge project will be set for hears.Stobefore this �the erilr Boar+iofSupevisors for denial. If you do not wish to continue with the project, please notify this office at your earliest convenience so that the file can be closed. If you have any qu estion regarding this matter, please contact this office any weekday between lo;(�J a.m. and 3. p•m. Sincerely B. A. Kircher Director of planning Crai�l B. Sanders Assistant planner CB ' 1.r Enclosures AUTHORIZATION AND AGREEMENT FORM FOR THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Project Tltle: Project Type and Applcaton Number 2, 3 1 hereby authorize and request the Butte County Planning Department to prepare and send Requests for Proposals for the preparatlon of an Environmental' Impact Report for the Above project application to the consultants Indicated on the attached sheet titled Attachment B. I understand that the Environmental Impact Report Administration Fee Is an estimated fee and that prior to certification of the final Environmental Impact Report for the above project application I will pay the County any costs. In excess of the estimate, 1 further understand that failure to pay, or to make provision for payment In a fi'jnner satisfactory to the County, Within 30 days of demand for payment, may be deemed by the County to be an 'abandonment of the application and the project I understand and agree that failure to resPoMd Within 30 days of mailing to any request by Butte County to clarify, amplify, correct or otherWlse supplement environmental Information required by .Butte County for this project may be deemed to be an abandonment of the Application and the project i also agree to pay the actual cost of any technical studies or, reports requFred by the Butte County Planning Department and r);;.;)aced by other experts or professionals, provided I have agreed to the preparation of such studies or reports; Signature of Owner Of Record or Agent -.wr�ri .nom SIgnatUre o_f OWncer of Record or Agent Signature of O;vne;r of Record or Agent Signature of OWherr of Record or Agent Date Date Date Da e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONSULTANT SELECTION AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES l The County may retal'r.+ consultants In the evaluation of Environmental impact Reports Preparation and consultant Is retained, all (EIRsI If a administration and �,at's Incurred for the applicanthe project. of the E+R shall be borne by . for the protect. 2• The Plannln3 Department shall establish a list of environmental impact report consultants. qualified list will' also indicate the The established expertise, firm' particular field of Environmental Impact report consultants wishing on the 'list shall submit to be placed a resume Indlcating the firm's Principal Personnel, work qualifications, areas of epertise, statement of Information deened necessary expertise, and any other Selection to the list WII be based by ton exhe Planning De Of the Cou+tity, and Department, available expertise to knowledge quality, and and camprehensive environmentaleimlact reports, p Constltants With a possible conflict pro,Ject directly or Ingirectl of Interest with a consultant for the project, y, shall not be considered as 3• Followl- determination that an EIR will be g the a protect, a letter shat+ a requlred for that a consultant must be retalnedt°o the applicant stating letter Wi 1 l also inform thea pry epare the EIR. The 9 need to be applicant of the Issues that addressed I n the E i R' pro generalized description of t appeal procedLIret, and Will ess. A list he consultant selectloh Of County.-aPPeoved cohsUitants, an Authorization and Agreement Form for the pre and any other Preparation of EIR, pertinent Information Will also be attached, 4. The applicant may Initiate the filing the fotloWln preparation of the E I R by 5 With the Planning Department, a. One Author)atlon an Preparatloh of EnVlronmentaAglmp�tt Reports Signed b far the. g all oWnels of record or their a eht Sated and b, Aoollcant's selection, consuitahts from the Count in Writing; of five (5) Whom Aeque4ts for Proposals ~shaiivbe sohsti of �IiQ©, Ultant list to C. A Request for Proposal and Contract Administration F ee s This fee covers Planning Department costs, Including preparation of the Notice of Preparation, up through submittal of the Draft EIR by the consultant and acceptance of the document by the Planning Department. d An EIR administration fee of $225. This fee Is estimated and covers the costs Inc�.lrred by the County for processing the EIR. Upon compleetion of the review process, and prior to the certification of the final EIR, the applicant must pay the County any costs in excess of the estimate. The County shall refund to the applicant :any surplus deposit. The County shall not certify the final EIR and act on the project until the applicant has paid the County any costs In excess of t:jloe estimate. At such time as the costs are greater than the estimate, the applicant shall pay the addl#ional amount exceeding $200.00 Within 10 days of notice by the Environmental Review Coordinator by registered mall. In the event that payment is notreceived for the additional ,amount in. excess of $200.0o, the Environmental Rev ieW Coordlne`.or will immediately cease processing the EiR and notify the collection agency. All required fees may be submitted on one check. Upon receipt of the above, the *fanning Department shall prepare the Request for Proposril and mail it to the selected consultants and the project applicant o. Bid proposals will be sUbmltted to the Planning_ Department by the date specified in -the Request for Proposai. The submitted proposals shall at a minimum agree with the scope of services and proposal specifications as outlined in the Request for proposal, and shall be valid for a definite period of time, Incomplete proposal's may be rejected, The Punning Department shall review and evaluate the scope, content and compietch ess of the bid proposals in order to determine the bid which best demonstrates the ability and qualified staff to provide the services required. The P k d,on i ng Department. May hold Interviews with any or all of help In arrlving at a decision. Th+,. zcop+ed consultants to ns and h cost, of services the scope; content, equal and gUalt` provided will be o, q p 6; The Punning department's decltloh shall be contained In a letter to the applicant indicating the date of expiration of the proposal: Upon receipt of a letter from the applicant indicating concurrence with the environmental consultant selected; and funds sUfflclent to cover the consultant's fee, the Planning Department shall execute the contract. 1y 7• If less than twoow F the selected consultants submit a blas or If, following Judgement of a discussion With the applicant,_ it Is the the Planning Department that exceptional or ext;•-,ordlnary circumstances exist that Would use of the selected consultant preclude the shall, at the request of the applicant, the Planning Department additional Request for Prop.malt out up to three Department tendingthe Prior to the Planning the a h additional Requests for Proposals, applicant shall pay an additional fee of $15p to cover aor+ylnlstrat Ve costs associated Request: for Proposals and With the distribution of the responsive bid review and evaluation of the prc�po a I s , $, If the project Is .substantially revised during the the EIR contk-act, the a term of revision fee to cover the costs anInsurrredpa $185 project In redistribution of rPOLlests--for-comments, revision additional contact the proposed specifications, and additi agencies. With responsible 4TTACHMENT A Identified several the proposed Fteaone has this project. S; review of. that could result from staff significant Impacts possible sig follows: acts are identlfled as expansion of the These imp resulting from the exp Including growth Impacts Chico Urban Area, impacts. Cumulative g district in the and growth inducing sewer service expansion, traffic, Infrastructure exp the E1R focus on the above that be noted that thf Is the staff's intention it should it Items; However, be only limited to the abovan referenced shou"id not the f study, tal review in initial Identify environmehtems and those discus sed Preparation may mentioned responses to the Notice ddressed, that resp +al impacts that must be a additional environmen� ATTACHMENT "B" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONSULTANT SELECTION 1. Name: Address: Phone: 2. Name': Address; Phone; 3, Name: Address: Phone., ( ) 4.. Name: Address: Phone: t 5 Name: Address; Phone; ) ......... . 7. �butte ung ' LAND OF NATUPAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 November 21,, 1989 Pete Giampaoli Posada Way Investors 1263 Esplanade #C Chico, CA 95926 RE REZONE, FILE N -LIMBER 90-10 APO 007-31-0-008, 9,10 LOGO 89-11-20-01 �+ Dear Mr: Giampaoli This is to notify you that we have received your application for a Rezone from PAC (Planned Area Cluster) to R-3 (Re.Isidential), located at the Southwest corner of AToskua Tree Road and Posade Way, intersection, identified as APO 007--31-- 0-008, 9, 10 & 11, Chico, CA. An initial study of potential e,ivronmental consequences anticipated in connection with this project is being completed by the Butte County Planning 'Department and will b forwarded to you. I.f you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this 'Office between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m, at the telephone number "referenced above, Sincerely: .A ices Director of Planning BAX i rdm Enclosure: Receipt # 11073 in the amount of $481,00 I �i