Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-11 REZONE PLANNING 8 OF 10California, C��� (�1,� Archaeological BUTTE MER{1A Inventoi`y (�y�/ BiENN SlMER "� CaAW0I°Department of Anthropology' ,P ��LI UU' 1✓� IASSEN SUTfER IA000c TENAMA `"" California State University, Chico PCUMAS TBINp Chico, CA 95929 SHASTA (916) 895;625F Butte GoUnty Planning Depart' January 25, 1990 #7 County Center Drive ment Oroville, CA 95965 RE FA;IRWAy ESTATES T2. 2N) RIE r AP �i-01-58`, 44-o2 72-73;4-5; USGS No c 73, I.C. �� L9G- 7.5 qu�xd; nd Richardsoh Spring, prings Dear County Planners, In response to the re search for the above cited edst °f January 12, 1990, a record, the of pro eot was conduced' b Butt, County: maps and records for Y examining arehaeologlcal sites in RESULTS:— - PREHISTORIC ,RESOURCES: recorded sites wzthai7 the Although • g there are .no recorded prehistoric •✓ilia e project area there previously the immediate g sites known to be located several Within these sites, vicinity of the CA -BUT -278, is s;tuat et area. The closest project drainage system direct -13' ed Within the M of k _ 3 north of the ud Creek HISTORIC RESOURCES. Project area, ` There lyre no pro ec eolagical sites previouslY recorded historic Within the Parr, els. There are prbject area, :Ates -located several_ recorded histoVic, arehaeologieal_,. Lith n the vid�.nit �' of chi,do._ PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL, INVESTIGATIO records, the previous project area has not been According to out ctaltur,l resources'.1Y serve e ' west and south The nearest serve s d f`or report 08 B -L- Y have been to d3, not mention the 42 and B-L� 2 the sites; presence of an.� -); These gUrveys y, prehistoric or historic LITERATURE SEARCH: traps for Reviewed were the officisl, records and archaeological sates and surveysh B tt Also reviewed Caere the National Register of" H' o e doubt y. Ca:lifbk%n.ia 3 Inventor lstorie f'lacesy California H%stcrical La ndmahks i g82 Y of Historic Resources Historic Interest (1975) y Califopnia Points of arid Historic Spots in California (1955, RECOHHENDATIONS: +rt#atroFl�rr►tn.. for Based upon the above gCmu'r1,` sensi both ihformat vi ty ion, the resourcews is estpiate$ to behistoric and 'historic' JAN �i� ���� of flat land and' moderate to high, The cultural gentle sloping ridges in close presence OraAe, CaDfomt� ources such proximity to #��easonal/por3naheht dater s attracted both arbor. as Mud Creek frequently` nd Euro . g ria.l a American Populations Paetilc Gas and Electric Com art P Y Do Sabla Divislofi R0, BOX49 Chico, CA 9592 'we C°c. P►snR►: December� 22,1989 DEC 28 itf Larry Painli Butte County planning Commission' 7 Couoty Center Drive groville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Paroli PROJECT` REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FAIRWAY. ESTATES-�-E, H:OCHINERO OUR FILE: 606 X-9 8-12..6 ; We have reviewed the "FAIRWAY ESTATES SITE PLAN" N letter, dated Deceinber 11' 11989 and ih dedicated request that as public utility easements: the he olloWing beur z. All roads Z. A10-f66t strip contiguous to all the lots; roads 1 y7ng within 3 A 3 -foot strip Contiguous to ail side Any lot lroesi expense to rearrange PG&E, electric or gas be the responsibility of the developer, } , facilities would If you have an Chico at 894-4757uestion as please contact_Mr, David Wiens in Sincerely', L 3E�- ROGER L. $RIGGS Support Services Manager RL8:rvmo I7Z Z'R�;BU`TZO'N LTS'I' 'Fop C01 ES X County Public Works IRESQXMCE MA.NAGE.I�IENT. County Environmental Health State Water 'Resources Department City of Biggs U.S. Forest Service X City of Chico U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ci�y of Gridley Butte County Mining Committee City of Oroville 'Paradise State Department, of Fish & Game Town, of California Native Plant Society Planning Department State Div. Forestry — attention State Transportation Department Craig Carter Regional Water Qual. Control Bd, State Reclamation Board DOMES eTC'_ WATER Butte Water District 9EWEi2S California Water- Service Co. �_ Richvale Sanitary nist,rict Del Oro Water Co,. North Burbank Pub. Util. Dist. OWID Skansen Sub. (CSA u2i) Thermalito Irrigation DistrictIT Stirling City Sewer MangDist. Other Thermalito Irrigation District (CSA #26) Z7TTLZTTES PG&E North (Chico) TRF2TGA0CY011T WATER Higgs-W.Gridley Water District PG&E South (Marysville) Butte Water District Pacific Bells � Durham Irrigation District ..state TV Cable OWID Viacom TV Cable Paradise Irrigation District RichVale Irrigation District Table -Mountain Irrigation Dist.. FT. E1 Thermalito Irrigation District Medio Fire Protection Dista c� County Fire Department/CDF Di2ATNAGE D2S1x1:z2CC1x 40sQiJT O . ABA=g-mN•r D=STRZcT _x Durham, Oroville Or Butte Cd�Y RECL:AM.ATZON DTSTRTCT 2CE PROTE CTZC)N_ State Highway Patrol County Sheriff -_---- SCYl70L, DTSTRZCT �THEK, COMP4ZTTEES COt�IMTSS?ONS REGREAZ�ON .FAO�i,"'°�"ZES Chico Area Recreation District Paradise Pines' Architectural --7 Durham Area Red. & Park Dist. Control Committee Feather River Rbc, & Park Dist; Utte County Farm BureaU Paradise Red. & Park Dist, Richvale Rec. & Pc^l:k' Dist'' Community Assddiation: State Pans & Rec: Dept. Mill x A ....._ , .We do d®sig ns., t CONSTRUCTION --- w & INST_LLAT10N Small & Large Scale ntire� Ca, 5t, L1c« Ni), 3616-38 P.O. BO," `C 492381 / 'REDDING, CIALIFOFINIA 96049 / (916)223-181,15 FAIRWAY ESTATES Tree List BOTANICAL COMMON 1 •-Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Red Gum Eucalyptus 2. ,. Pinus Hall�pensis Ale Ppo Pine 3. uidambar Strace g y flux American Sweet Gum 4. Liriodendron Tulipafer Tulip Tree 5• Cupressocvx Paris Leylandii 6. CUpressus Semp(3ruirens Italian Cypress 7. Cedrus Deodora Deodar Cedar 8ifolia P1atanus Acer 'Bloodgood' London Plane 9. Pistacia,ChlnenSiS Chinese Pistache 10_- Pyrus Calleryana 'Bradford' Bradford Ornamental Pear 11 Olea Europaea 011 ve B "lm COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Comrnission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, November 15 1990, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ( 9:00 a.m.. E.H. Ochinero -Rezone from SR -1 Suburban Residential - 1acre parcels)to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Develop anent), to allow a 200 lot esidential development, a. golf course and sewage disposal facilities, located on the west side of Hicks Lane, approximately 1 mile north of Sycamore Drive, identified as AP# 007-010-057 and 058, 007-550-046 and 0.477 Chico. (File #90-11) ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVTEW 9:00 a.m.. Raymond M: Norby- Variance to allow holding bins for walnuts on the side property line on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels),; located on the northeast corner of Meridian Road and Oak Way, - idlenti, ed as AP# 042420=039, west of Chico: The above mentioned application, maps and Negative Declarations with Mitigation Measures is on file and available for public vi wing at the office of the ButteCounty Planning. Depairtment, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. "Comments may be submitted in writing any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as continued to a later date. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited 'to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described to this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Co'mntission, apt or prior to, the public hearing: BU'1 M COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 134A, X RCHER. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Tobe published in the Ch'tco Enterprise. Record on Thursday, October 11, 1990, r n Bey MARC MEnRS Attornep,at Latotea-? ch1+� Chic 725 The Esplanade o, California 95926.1114 f` L TClCph0ne: (916) 893.1149 150Facsimile., (916) 893/1045 Ibbruary 28,, 1.991 Jane Dolan, Chair Butte County Board of Supervi 2sors S County Center 'Drive Oroville�, California 35965 RE E. 14. Ochinero Rezone All 007-010-057 and 058; 007-550-046., and 047 Dear Ms. Dolan and the Board of Supervisors't Please be advised that and the Butte Environmentl I represent Friends of a Council. Butte ;County Thin letter ,i in matter cheduled far Tne;,de 'regard to the public Bering of this sY, March 5, 19:91. My clients are opposed to the t,ljat the rezone 1idt be Ochinero Rezone. negative 5�?�P"moved. tahat the so -call d eY request declara.tzon be $!' t aside considered unti a �, and, that themitigated are completed. SP�.ific .Plan and 'envi'ronmenta Projectimpact re ort to the The specil-,, .! bjec_l-ions P rezoneare as .Follows 1. The en'"vi:Iuntjell{ address the ----- review of this cumulative 3m otential for pro'ect nailed to p_ a`y srgnif�cant environfiental im`pa d On or about, Butte County May a 1990, Thomas Last y Planning BQpartment, informed the Planner, Planner, that due to the,potential for project aPPl cant,. an Environmental Im act significant. environmental impacts. A, ,attached hereto and incorrorated would be re .. address the )Pquired(See E9 ibit Faliowin Pacts; reference). The EIR was to 9 impacts y` . A. The cumulative flooding the to impact on offsite dirain north a'ge ;and Chico area, E._ The substantial altea rtion'af he prsent an Planned land e I use of an area d C• The cumulative impact in traffic to the area. north Chico 'f i). The need for hew local government services. At tiie July 24 r 199 , t m o� exmined that ► en of Your Boatdy the Board pacts the cumulative im o regarding storm drainage Jane Februarya28, 1991 Page Two and traffic in the North Chico Area(CSA 87.) could be mitigated with impact fees. This determination was made with no analysis or substantiation concerning the cumulative impacts of all proposed or approved projects within CSA 87 (See Exhibit a, attached hereto and incorporated by reference) The<Ochinero project applicant appealed the requirement that an EIR was required. At the Board s August 7, 1990, the ' appeal was upheld on a 3-2 vote. The motion included a finding that the impacts ,were mitigated by the mitigation measures developed within the applicant's #Ex;panded Initial Study" , and slib,sequent reports. Furthermare,_,the motion included a finding ttiat "the cumulative impacts of this project on the North Chico Area can be mitigated through the project design end proposed on-site and ofi--site iipprovements. ,"(See Exhibit B, incorporated by reference) . The Bxpande8 Initial Study contains no in-depth analysis of the cumulative impacts cited in Mr. Last's letter of May .16, 1990, and ;consequently no legally acceptable mitigations g p through on=site o.� off-site improvements exist.t the concerns of idem 'Expanded Initial Study to satisfy Therefore, the use of the identified cumulative `impacts is improper and illegal. This concern is shared by the City of Chico, th,e California Regional Water Quality Control 1.oard - Central Valley, Region, 'the League of Women Voters of Bute County, your own attached heretoand incorporated her, and otti.-rs(;See Exhibit C, Planning r y by reference) . Exhibit C) Mayor Mary Andrews stated,. 22, 1991; (See In a letter to your Board dated January " he Council's Lntergovernmental Committee and the Board's Chico Issues Committees have discussed, on. several occasions, the current problems that exist in the Hicks bane/Keefer Road/Garner Lane area with regard to inadequate streets, drain'.age and sewage disposal due to existing devE?'apment., It. was the Couhcil'`s understanding from members of th, Chico Issues Committee that no further development would be allowed in; this area without thea preparation of -a Specific plan and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report. (new paragraph)Therefore, with regard to the proposed Fairway Ettates Subdivision, the City Council urges that the Board take no action until a full tnv.itonmbhta1 Impact, Report p p r. is submitted to address the impacts on the: strrroundin9 area a n d on the Cit s public fa'c i ties. Jane bolas February 28 199 Page Three Butte County Planning Director agrees wit the position on January 28, 1991 in the Chico which appeared y Enter ri taken b' the Chico Cit Council. In a news -article ser,• said, As she planning director, I cannot Record, Ms:, Kircher project by itself, just look at this if large acres e5 -.I have to look at this in the context that 9 those with the greatest poten ir7l frpr' development -are allowed to go forward in a piecemeal fashion, tie can never be sure that all the pieces of the the end`," puzzle will fait ?5n (at page 3A) Kircher went on to say that traffic circulation and storm water drainage are the two big,tlest concerns in the area. (See also Exhibit D, letter dated April 25, 199 Orn Ms Kircher to me regarding gardang cumulative ertvironmen,ta.l My clients request that the Ochinero rezone not be approved. until a specific plan is developed and an EIR is conducted t addresses the concerns of the Planning Department -staff, the City of Chico, and the public. The li1ost effective mechanism to accomplish this task is through QSA 874 2. The so-called Mitigated Negative'Declaration fails requirements of the California nvito meet the ronmental Quality A t. On November 15, 1990, the Butte Count'Y °Planning, Commission uComtnissi on") heard testimony and discussed the modificat-ons to condi-tions of approval' and mitigation measures of the sou +'mitigated negative declaration'' called d irected to make word -Ing changes and At If't t onsSt if am Win Possession of a document titled inter-bepartmental Memorandum ,In the Butte County planning Commission from the Planning Department dated INc�vember 27 1990, the subject bein Modifications to g Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures for Rezone 90-11 (Ochinerq) (See E:Yhbit E; attached hereto and incorporated by reference). Attached to this. Memorandum are seven(7) (i pages titled "Bt7TTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIJN STAFF' FINDINGS. er 4 1990" anti nuimbered 4 through 10. I have reviewed thesebseve°n pages. Nowhere in these se,"ven a P language � p qs does staff indicate the revious ian iaa a and/or the ro osed wording changes and clarifications. Fazlure to do so deprives the public of meaningful. notice of the new.language and the public's ability to make a kn'owle'dgeable the of the conditions and mitigation measures.: On December 10, 1990, I wrote a letter ,d the Commission'regtesting that these proposed modifications be highlighted in some' form to ensure adeg cite public notice and review; and, that these proposed modifications be discussed at a ftiiture public hearing to be adequately noticed by the ., Commission(See Exhibit r; attached hereto refereand irirorporater7y nce) No response was ever received from the Commission to my request, Jane Dolan February 28; 1991 Page Four The November 27, 1990; Memorandum referred to in the previous paragraph, also contains mention of "a potential Mitigation Measure monitoring program" (see first page of Memorandum) with a three page example attached(See Exhibit E) In reviewing the Planning Department file in this; matter, I could not find any previous document that indicated the Commission has ever considered a monitoring program for this project. It was totally inappropriate for the Commission to consider any monitoring program at that time since it was,.not,contained inthe_- Meeting Agenda enda of December 18, 1990, and since the same meeting g a enda describes this matter as a "closed" public hearing. In my December 10, 1990, letter to the Commission(See'Exhibit F) I requested that the proposed monitoring program be discussed at, a future public hearing to be adequately noticed by the Cossion. No thisl request. MyScli ntsascontend ethatewh t veronse w, ever rceivd from t�eomission to monitoring and , enforcement component adopted by the Commission for this project does not comply with the requirements of CEQA,. The public must have an opportunity to review a negative decp laration that describes the proposed ct as modified, rather than as originally proposed t so thatcomments can be made on the project in its final form. See PublicResources Code section 21080 (c) (2) , Guidelines sec'4µion ` 15070 (b) (1) , Penley v. County of, Calaveras(1982), 131 CA3d 474; 431t and pla City ,of San Jose(1980) 101 CA3d 842, 853-854) ggmier v. The Commiss kon Meeting part! o.f December 13,� 1990; .Ind,icates' the followin i g g � � P r �� E. 'H. Ochinero - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts.,`.'' In reviec;ing the file ,at the Planning Department for this project; I was unable to locate any document that was labeled Negative Declaration or, inany way, shape or form comprised a so-called Negative Declaration. A negative declaration circulated forpublic review must include the following element$: a brief description of the project; including its commonly used name; the location of the project; a proposed finding that the project will not have a .tignificant ,effect on the 'environment-an attached copy, of the initial study documenting reasons tosupportthe finding; and mitigation measures See CEQA Guidelinest Section 15071 and Long ( �cxation v Lon Beach Beach Savioo$ and Loan Assr, g RedPvol "�ohg Agency(1986) 188 CA8d 249, 264T su=ch dor++*^cn- appears torhave been prepared ti compliance, With the Guidelines: t...... t : APPENDIX I COLTNTy OF BYJT'.rE E.N't 'T:LRONMEA7TAL CHP cxL=ST FC7Ri+�d (Ta be completed by Lead -Agency) Loc No. s9 -11-27-o1 AP No.007-010-057, 058 007-550-046, 047 I. BACK �RtJL7ND 1. Name or' proponent E. H. Ochinerb z. �2—ares of f proponent and representative (if applicable); Lane Reddiz urve in CA 96OQ2 Sierra West S ive rive Paradise CA 3. Project description: Rezone from -SR -1 to P.U.D. (Flynn ed Unit Development) I I . MANDATO R -�' FZND=NGS G1F' S2GNZF'=LANCE YES MAYBE 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, subs£antiaill reduce the.habirat of a r' y p ash or wildlife NO` �� ife a Wildlife papulh or ation to drop below selt-sustaining levelsP cthreatento eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of 'a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major of California history or prehistory3 - J periods 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term environmentalgals7 environment is one which occurs irelativelyy brieff-term ant me the n a periodimp long-term iapacts will t�6while endure into Lhe future,) 3. Does the project have impacts vhich are individually limited but cuaulatively crosiderabhe? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources ware h the impact cin each resource is relatively small, but where the ef total of those impacts the fect of the on environment is significant.) Does ve tAl 4, adverse eekfeetstanahuman beings, eithpredirectly cau e substantial oVill V III. 3:)MTERM27v`A'TYo1V (To be completed by the Lead this initial evaluation: ABancy)'• On the bas' of I/iiE r---._ - find theProposedNEGAIIVE.`DcECLJ1RA NOT have a significant effect on the environment an -a pro J TIbN wilt be prepared: /HE find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect : n the eGATIonment, there dill not be a significant effect in this use beca+.ise the HI`i'IGATIOH HEASUBES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 11, WE find the proposed project HAY have a significant �`- gnificant'effect on the environment, and an `ENVIRONtiENTAI IHPAdt RMRT is required, COUNTY OF Btf=) PLANNING DEPARDtaE'E' btTE: May, 1,5_ , 19_g 0 „ . By: ThOmas L-a'st KdViewed by Paula Leasure, Senior -Planner . ` V. ]CNV CRONMEYV^re�r ►v*Ppc•�rc (Explanations of All "YES" and "MAYW10 mowers are required ached'shont(s eq on Attached ). 1• :1III the proposal result in significant; A- Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? "M`' B-' _No b, Disruption,displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. age in topography or ground surface relief features? —� d. Destruction, covering or modification of any features? y unique geologic or physical e. Increase in we or ea ter erosion of soils, either on or off site? f• Changes in deposition or erosion at beach sands or deposition or erosion which may modify,he changes in siltation, or the bed of the ocean channel of a river C. or anyor stream any bay, inlet or ,lake? 8• Loss of prime prodareas? �tive soils outside designated urban. V . h,' Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as landslide4, mudslides, ground failure or simi earthquakes, lar hazards? 2• AIR. Will the proposal result in 'sub stantial• %G " A' Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation at objectionable odors; s moke or fumes? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any climate, locally at regionally? �8a in Y _— — 3;, WATER. Will the proposal result i.n substantial.. �—-.___ g � a�srren , or the courseoror a. Chan 4 direction of water movements in either esh eaters. b. Chang es in absorption ton rates, drains a patterns, o£ surface runoff? B P rns, or the rat and amount c. Need d1for off-site surf, ce drainage ainage ymp row , including vegetation > chaimelizaxion or culvert installation? --, d. Alterations to' the i or flow of flood.vaters? e• Change in the amount orsssrface water ist any water body? f. Discharge into i q' lit y�naludaCet or in an alteration of surface water Y, in8 but not limited to temperature) turbidity? �p dissolved oxygen or / g• Alteration of the direction or rat, e of flow of ground waters? 71, h• Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters, either through, direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? L Reduction in the' ---- amount of eater otherwise available for public water supplies? =-.. � ,• .� osure J. People at P roperty�to water -related hazards such of Bothe as flooding? 6. PLA'MT LIFE _�_ hill Proposal result in,substantia'lr ' a• Change in the div, ersitj: of specicsi or number of an (including trees; shrubs cies of plants � grass cro s and a uati p , Aquatic pllnnts)? "b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or en' Plants? daagered speci" of c. Introduction of new "species of Plants into an area` the normal replenishment or in a barrier to p shment of ekisting species? d, Reduction in acreege of any agricultural crop? -�• 4 �� r 5. AN1h9 LM--- W# 11 the proposal result in substaittial,: YES No ,. Chang+ in the , d animals including reptiles, fish diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals ((bininserts)? sp h and shellfish, organismsor w ' ' . b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or on6ingered species of Animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of, existing fish or wildlife habitat? b. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial. AL. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to,severe 'noise levels? 7 JIG17 AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce significant light and glare? B. JAM USE. Will the proposal result in a. substantial 'alteration of the y present or platmed land use of an area? V� a. Increase ;in the rate ofuseofan naatural�r..soursubstantial: 4. NATURAL RESOURCES. proposal Y es 7 b. Depletion;'of any none-renewable natural resources? 10. RISX OF.UPSET Will the proposal, involve: A4 A risk 'of explosion or release of hazardot4;. substances (`including, but / not limited 6, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event ` of Ao accident or upset conditions? � b. possible interference with an emergency response ;plan or em.xgency evacuation plan? il. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location- dist—ibution; density or growth rate of the human population? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? I3: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Will the proposal result in; A. Generation of substantial additional "vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parting facilities, at 'demand for new parking? c. Subftantial !apart on existingtransportation systems? / d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods: e. Alterations to waterborne, rail. or air traffic? f: Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUtttd Stt Will the propd=ii have an effect upon, or result 'in a need for new or altered government services: a: Fire rotection? b Police protection? c. Schools? d Parks ci other recreational faeilities7 0. intehance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental service's? ' 15.G_Y. Will the proposal 'result n: yyg£NO a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ b. Substantial increase in demand upon ezistiatg'sources of energy, or require the development of now sources of enatgyt 16. UTILITIES. Will the 'proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following:l a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Vater availability? .74 d: Sewer or septic systems? a. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and .disposal:? V 17. HUMAN TLTH 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. tha roposal in the of scenic viis�orCS. viewWill Open to thea public, ortwill thheobrooposal�resuln t� nth e creation of an 'aesthetically offnsive site open; to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or , f quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 1/ 20. CULTURAL TitSOURCES: a: Will the proposal an the alteration or destruction of a prop prehistoric or itistorsc.ar g chaeolo ical site.' b. Will the. proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effect.- to a prehistoric or historic bdildingz structure or object? _ V ci Does the proposalthepotential f It haveto cause a physical chahge whish would epthnent cultural values? V d: Will existing religious or sacred uses within otenPtial the pimpact areat D2cSCTJSSZC3hT Ox' ENVSRON7, Er=AL. r-,VA-T tTAMt0N See attached. _4-; DISCUSOF E1yyTunr rio�,.;•,r• AL EVA C7AT70N AP # 007-010-057, 058 007-550-046, 058 and ova covedpment of ng of ththe soil created project will result in disruption, displacement, compaction created by the grading of the site to accommodate building , driveways and other impervious surfaces such as streets. Since the site is reldat el flat Pads, and displacement of the soil is expected to be minimal to accommodate building pads and ailing proper drainage. potential erosion is also expected to be minimal. insure Ih; There are no known ,faults or other geologic hazards within the immediate vicinity of' site. However, all of Butte County is located within Moderate' The applicant will be required to comply with 'the minimum unifEarthquake rm building code l requirety Zone ment for seisrmc building standards. 3b,c,d,e,f; Development of the site will reduce absorption' rates and increase local runoff the creation of impervious surfaces of the 200 residential units streets and club houseua to parking lot This will result in an incremental increase in drainage and flood hazards to and north Chico area (see map). The Board of Supervisors has determined that because of the lathe number of similar projects and other develo menu g, Project P P P P a' : ry as well as any potential downstre all cumulative im act to the area drainage network Lakin lace in this are it is necessa to evaluate ate flus ro ect in terms of potential over g k am flooding. The Butte County Mosquito Abatement District has expressed concern with additional water discharge into Sycamore Creek durinperiods it is normally at a very low flow or dry. The applicant has indicated that some stordraWhen g P n runoff created from this development. nils and therefore reduce some of the increased run will be utiIrzed within. the off course Po n& However, the preliminary reports still do not cover the pacts of the entire drainag attached mapand therefor hould be d scusse ork within. the CSA 87 area as shown on the P p.- y p gp - d nor to an further develo ment Lakin lace: survey - P pb.ecimersu. At the time of the survey rn Se tember of 1989 to identify any rare or endangered lant rvey a shallow but large vernal pool was noted on the site. A sprang check was performed on April 6th :and 24th of 1990 Due to the lack of rain "this ear, in addition, to the heavy grazing by cattle, the vernal pool was" disturbed beyond that which would normally be expected. No trace of meadowfoam or other sensitive taxa were noted at that time. cant has indicated that t , mitigate the vernal' pool, development of the golf course will e applicant the vernal pool and Gvoid disruption o incorporatep _ f that :area. 6a; Existin noise levels will increase b the conversion of Open grasslands $ y homesites and a ,golf course. SMee the site is planned for development and there arenonoise sensitive" environments in the area, {here are no foreseen si nificant impacts within this are Noise levels on site ar6 expected to be at the greatest 'level during construction phases . p of the site. current zoning would 8; This proposal may result in a substantial alteration of the planned land use of the :area ,The g yhave the potential to allow for 227 dwei;` yg units on the to though this request is for only 200 dwelling units, the addition of a golf course has the potenven tial Curre ease the land use activity and intensity, over a normal I acre development re uo,t, ntly the SR -1 Zoning all for golf courses With approval of a 'useipermit; 'lite ebrncern, however, is with the combination of both uses creating an overall mere intensive dovelo "meet than would normally be;expected under an SR -1 Zoning. P 13a,cd: This project will result in incremental in the north Chico area. The Board of Supervisors has determined ttha ential traffic hazard$ in number of projects and other development ease rrr traffic and this area, •° t because of the lar ge thus project: in terms of the overall cumulative impacpitlto thace e nerth Chico Is area, dart to evaluate servicing the area. In addition, the Public Works Department, Chico Unified all the streets the County Fre Department have, al; indicated the owed ,for an School District and Highway 99 to Hicks P require , east- route to connect agencies as it relates to oten�sbuild of this arra. er discussion with the appropriate E IR was prepared in 1980 and recommended that Keefer R Chico Airport environs rezone) be upgraded' to collector routes. ►Lane Garner Lane between Highway 99 an port The report also indicated the need for an east -rawest com r Lane.: The traffic analYss was not very detailed, but did indicate that full buildout of the area would create traffic levels in excess of ,ca r` circulation element of the General Plan does not reco pacity. AdditionalIY, the Highway 99 and gnize any of the local streets other Ulan part of Cohasset Road as having a arterial collector status. analysis needs to be prepared that looks at the cumulative impacts of potential build Therefore, a traffic entire north area with recommended mitigation measure;; before this out of the 14a: Currently County fire service is considered adequate, project is approved. County financial status q however, due to the uncertainty of the expressed the need for an east west traffic service a may be Y questionable. County fire officials have for a more efficient, emergency response time. n Gghway 99 and ll;cks I.arre to provide route bet-` "ee 14b: The Butte County Sheriffs Department has be sue to budget restrictions the past ten years. During the past ten years the been experiencing "severe roan polder shortages r►:ot�xxty la.'.� increased by 25 plus percent while sheriff services have be Population in Butte the increased Urba,ru�,atro r been cut by 50 percent,; With n response lime is getting longer and the department has no f -dries available or rldufr ,aye~fr z�:Ysms for adding new Personnel. Calls are emergency, with life threate=09 esPonso�s eceiving the h ghesf riori . take u to two to three days for an answered on a basis of P y artrort. P ty, Most other calls can 16d: Thea Ii ep tanks wi,l� ► �. applicant is proposing individu;��l s tic x and sewer treatment plant. Effluent will be taken from septi :, .' sewage i .p system community waste treatment plant to be located on site. r-tmuna aewer �lrnes toed process and subsequently taken to ponds located throe 'l~he efiluent will go through a treatment water will be used as a source for watering Shout, the golf course; g Then, file tr�4ted V�'ater Quality Control Board has reviewed the conceptual' course ens and fairw,�ys. 'fie Regional tentative okay that it could meet all their rf:qurements. P system design gr and has given a. 16ec Pending the results of a comprehensive drain study that covers th need for a new system or altered storm drain system, for that area will no e north.. Chico area,. the 20a: t be nown. The project site is located wi g archaeological sens66 an arca identified as' having hi The ro`ect site has had a coin fete ar PreiirstOnc and historic a P J p chaeological survey cultural resources that would be considers ►y prepared and i ent ed no sr frcant issues or d significant., • R Applicant: E. H. Ochinero Assessors Parcel # OV -010-057,058 and 007-550-046, 058 Log # 89-11-27-01 A. Project Description L Type of Project: Rezone 2: Brief L'.i•�;ription: A request to rezone 221 acres currently zoned SR- 1 to P.U.D' 3. Lacatiow On the west side of Hicks Zane approximately 1 mile north. of Sycamore Drive in the north Chico area. 4. Proposed Density of Development: 0.9 dwelling units per acre 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Approximately ;10% of the site 6,' Access and Nearest Public Road(s): ;Hicks Lane along the east property line 7 Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic tanks with a common treatment facility. The tre:,#ed water will be used to irrigate the golf course: B. Source of Nater Supply: A community onsite well 9 Proximity of Power Lines: Along Hicks Lane 10. Potential for further land divisions and development: Not if the P.U.D.-concept is approved. - B. Environments ettlr_g Phvsical Environment: L 'terrain a. General Topo&eAphic Character: Level to gently rolling b. Slopes: 0 tc 6% C. Elevation: 180 to 200 feet abore sea level d. Limiting Factors: None 2 Soils - a. Types and Characteristics: Anita clay loam and Anita clay adobe,, brown to dark'brown soils that are 12 to 36 inches in depth and have poor drainage la. Limiting Factors: Shallow soils and, poor percolation 3. N-12%txxtal Hazards off'the, Land, a. Earthquake Zone: "Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII b Erosion Potential: None to slight C Landslide Potential: None d Fu* Hazards Unclassified to modern to e Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate -7_w 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water. None on site. Mud and Sycamore Creeks doabut the property. b. Ground Water. Area of heavy ground water,withdrawal. Also moderate to high liquefaction potential and subsistence area. c. Drainage Characteristics: Sotithwest trending d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 22 to 24 inches e. Limiting Factors, None S. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good 6. Acoustic Quality: Fair 7 Air Quality: Good iological .Environment: s. Vegetation: Heavily grazed valley assl grasslands, planted in small grains with a heavy star thistle concentration. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Small wildlife expecte' in valley grasslands and grazing areas. alto awl Environment:; 10. Archbeenaologiidentified and yaHistorical Resources ' 'in the area: A northwest portion h ng 'high archeological sensitivity. IL 12. Butte County Genetal Plan desi anon: 'A , ' •4 Eatistin.g Zoning: SR -a gricultural residentiral 13. Existing Land U:e on-site: Vacant and grazing 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: To the north i . .. - grazing/resdential , south -residential/grazing, -- - „ east - gra7.uig/residential, west - residential. b. Zoning: SR -1 C4 Gen. Plan resignation Agricultural residential d. Parcel Sizes: 1 to 7.15 acre parcels' e. Population: Suburban residential fringe 1S. 16. Character of Site and Area: Valley grazing land adjacent to suburban development. Nearest Urban Area: Chico 17. 18. Relevant Improvements Standards Influence-.- p CARD, CSA No. 87 ..Urban 19. Area: No Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fine Station: Stations No: 41 and 42 b• 20. Water Availability: H}�drants will be provided Schools in .Area: Chico Unified School Distract .. ; AGENDA IN'-ORN',A i t SEP 2 5 1°oQ �0 Inter.Deparimental Memorandum TO: Boai,d of Supervisors FROM: B. Ai Kircher, Director of Planning SUBJECT: �p{:laCtie�7, 1990 regarding the E. H. Ochinero,caoof quement for an Environmental Report. DATE. Se,'pember 11, 1990 On August 7,1990, 990, your Board determined that an EnAronmental Impact Report was not required, finding that a Negative Declaration with mitieations would addrev _ I emulative impacts. (cop, of motion attached, 90-327). At your, prevjrrtls meeting, July 24, 199 Your Board determined that the cum impacts regarding sttsr _n draina,;e and traffic in the North Chico Area (CSA 87) cou... Aigated with impact foxs (see attached estimates and agreetnent for Hays), The n Ri ation fees wh e based upon the 3000 the No rti Chico Area which included the Ochinero proAerty. Additionally, these feeswere to be considered for inclusion as raj#igations for other parcel maps, in process, in the North Chico Area, (see' r attached mot .on, 90-13): As a result of the Board's intent to consider mitigation fees in articular instances sta ` requiring.p ff is; of the 81,5 m iQ tion fess to address sn cumulative off-site 0100 eimpacts. nage and. $1,000.00 per acre traffic The appl cart does not agree that their property should be subject to the storm drainage and traffic mitigations and ask for clarification of your Board's intent: RECOMIVI NDAnON And, that th M 1=; It Ochinero rezone of 220 acres Was not eXcluded from the acreage upon Which cosi estimates for storm drainage and traffic improvements Were based; that the ,g p N mit ation fees imposed "upon other developments within North Chico fivers. Based 'upon these est mutes• and dire p acre fees are appropriate mitigations for the, Ochineri Rezone, that the per BACtlr i ENVIROI�MEI!ZNT.AL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1o, Map 1I-1, F. xdiquake and Fault Activity: Seismic Safety Element, Butte County General, Plan revised I,-77, by CHX Bill. 2-Map y c ential•• Seismic SafetyElement, Butte County General Plan sed 1--77,[byeCHzM H�llon 3 Map M-1, subsidence & IandsLde Potential.- afety Element, Butte County General Flan revised 1-77 by CHA Hill. 4. , Map III-2 Erosion Potential: Safe,ty Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by C,HA Hill. 5. III�Expansive Soils: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised I=17, by CMHap 6., Map IV-,1, Noise: Noise Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1777, by CHA H'il1, i; Ma V-1 Scenic Hi wa Scenic Hi P gh ys: High way Element, Butte County General Plan revised 'by 1-77, CH2M Hill S. Map III4, Natural Fire Hnxard Classes: Safety Element, Butte County General plan revised 1-77, by CH2M ML 9. Archaeological Senstivity> Map by James F. Manning, for Butte Courty Planning Department, 1983. 10. School District Map, Butte County Planning Department. I Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells, 1983, by Department of Water Resources, Northwestern District, The Resources Agency, State of California. 12 Agricultural Preserves �► Ma.P established b y Resolution No., 67-178 Butte C�,unty Board of P• t � r Su ervxsors .becemb::,r S 1987, 13. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, National Flood Insurance Prograru, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1988. 14.tTSG8 uad Ma O s, Nord and Richardson S P ,rings, Photo revised 1969. 15. So , e. Soil MapChico 0925)/Oroville 0926) Area,U.S.reogr UDepatmnt f Ai,cultur" 16. Cluco Soil Survey of i (1925)/Orov le (1926) Area, US. Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Fa.cilities Map, Buf to County Fire DepanEment and Galifoniia Department of Porestry. Butte County Planning Department. _gam i o90 90-326 Capitz'l Olav l'- atecti0r. �� c� ctheTah oc0 : ax ^.. - a.. aYa:. --as (Dr o os - — , la.le $7CS,3;C for i -1 a� facilities Cabita_ inprovene:,ts _ revues and ..osp, ..als wi whin Bute ~_ c_ - ed ADO_t"" rm ` a Y C, .,. t tet• e o OF BUTIrr pmt S- 1;", TO S- l �`�I' OU3'IY� PLA =r.x IN , -.. :.ONS Cann 16994 OF`•.-- Cz'F,'^ ..- r.?iD ni, i.^Ot�rGE CI�t'i1P.*., .�„ •� c �:v... =r. C.; SIT , AZ OUTp - ,07 m URS SEC_ ONTo E9 a �- T "WETZTUTIONS 94 - Cy- �P COD' ,- .r- TO - ..F rr. S.IG r' APP ROUe' L CvV"1*71=' VOTE: V_ 2 $ C—.-- M _At ii 1 `-' 3 Y r, y 5 v (Unan,.nosl a• 90-327 Closed neazina - . = E • Oc -ne= O - appeal, 01 D- COr. ass on's recn;ire_men � for De r '� ile - �anninc repo on a re �.. a_ an envi 0nmen a. ; zone ZZ OM SR-I suburb .mbact acre pz=�ei S `0 an resiaentia ; _ (Planned unit levelcaoment` -one located o. she west. side o t , ;g�a�e_ rs-le noir c Hicks Lane, zp�=c?_.:mately one Srczlaore Dr%ve, ider.-:i- as Q5;_; 05E c- A- OC7-olC,_ _55o-046 and 047j Chico. ,c MOTION.- MOV-z- TO - E II•LpACTO_ TO S - O. M`'�'IGn'=E� �v T�.r� �'" ��OROsn=- DE ? "LOQ D j�•-c- - ... 2�'IGn:^I03i *.Z-ASuRz-S STUPY." -AND_n.NDED y _ , CUMTL..w Sv.,Ss QuE2�`T P,F.ORTS ; . _ INr.. >,-r CHICO ' _ I'M�`"�C'�'S O" 'THIS pt?O.� C'=' oi, !'.'..= NOR'*?-`' ...•. Ct,Iv I 1-GATED ^':^�OUu"r` DESIGN AND PROPOSED 6N- IZ SW AND DIREc- • _ NEGATIrte- DECL. a-z+rTON W`r r` I,C =•= A2FD Crm .. ._ _'?':�: M-m1G =T_T VEE �.Rblj :'_" FOR nLBL_C =~aT "sNl`iL�'r'r1ATMTCC-�JI4 _ G • orf. 2 N - _ 3 •" � N -9 v 5C--2Sa o- - Rec-^—.. iso* he '� , ,, c_ - hi cit.. Controi r r` Fce ea �� oZ Dis- a a. 4;: a co,i r C= advel.o5e= z .. scz? vee_ 195j9C: and mitica��.o� ALtD?mpr-CONTRO~'`�,-S4d� (k..POR'_' as` -R FOR 1X-rr OPUMIAT`ON S�' ►�';:,: 30 ' Fa ae 23 E +• . Parcel Map Proj ectt i X111BIT 11P NumbeXtn-183 " County of Butte Dept. of ;Public Work© AGREEMENT RUNNING WITH THE LAND RE ,MITIGATION OF CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS WITIIIN :CSA ie7 W11CREAS, the undersigned are presently the owners of tlat land commonly known as AP No. 47-25-183, which is located wl.thin g countyService Area No. 87 in Butte cc) CIa lifor is e b6undariethef legaldescription 'of which is set forth in #roton tX111SIT A attached h, nd incorporated hereinl and W11EnEl Sr and said owners propose to develop their said land by parcel ma pi said owners recognize thnt the cumulative traffic and draittt+ge impacts of existing development has created, and future development will aggravate, the need for the construc,bion and mnintdnance of road and drainage improvements within the area Of County Service Area No. '871 and WIIEREAS, Paid owners agree that when the County of, Butte rinl;nrminnn in itn dinoretion to provide for funding ;relatitsg to the mitigation of such impncts within said area by .entnhlinh,lrtg developer fees, expanding the powers of. County. Service Aron No. 87 and establishing service fees therein, establishing an a sessment district, or some similar, fair, reasonable and nrrrnhrintn fnnrlfnrl m?t:hnninm 4n flnnncn nt+rh 1mrr,nvmmnn1-.n nr environmental studies or other planning studies deemed necessary to determine the needs for such improvements, said o'wner`s recognize that the imposition of such ,a mechanism or combination of mechanisms will benefit their said property. e&tnbli Tl'IEREFORE; said owners do hereby :consent to the t of such funding mechanisms, agree not to protest against the eamer and agree to pay their pro rata share thereof. Tile undersigned owner# hereby further agree to cooperate and support Elie County of 13utte in obtaining the approval of other prol,erty owners w thin the boundaries of county Service Area No 87 to such funding tneahahism or mechanisms. Saiis+nountd owner# further agree to pay forthwith the following s per acre for each parcelcreated by their 'parcel mapt X1,000 fanr traffic impact mitigation and $1,500 for drainage impact mitigation. It in under#t ucod that such ':fens are boded pon current estimates and shall be treated an deposits sgaintit the actual fees ultimately determined by the County of Butte be owing for such impact mitigation. If the actual fees a#BeP�ment#, or charges sot. are greater than said deposits, Owners Phall be reBpotiaible to pay any nddi.tional amounts owingr' ,. If `the bctttitl feast assessments or charges set are less than said depottits Owners Phall be entitled to receive a refund of portion of their deposits witi'ch are in excuse of the actual fee; assessments or'charges: Said, deposits Eire to be miaihtained ` in separate designated County funds limited to use for the intended pbboses of ttraffic drainsgedinpac}swithn tlekh of countyService Akallo87.' Ih consi'dertition of the foregoing tihd other good' and 4 valuable cohsiderationr the undersigned owners exprensly agree that the foregoing shall be an agreement running with the land end shall be binding upon t inters#t. Heir heirs and all euccesscrs in - bb ted i r r OFFICE OF THE MAYOR VTYaCHICo P b `Boz 9420 rvc �y,r Ch)C0. CA, 95927 ATSS J59 4815 January 22 19 91 Board cl Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center ,Drive oroville, Ca. 95955 Re: (1) Fairway ;Estates Si buiv .sion (2) Land Use North of City At its meeting held Tuesday, December 18, 199'0, the City Council:- discussed both the proposed : 20-iacre Fairway Estates Subdivision on Hicks Lane as well as future development of apCits Sphere proximately 3500 f: yr y acres located north othe Cit' and outside the here of Influence. Needless to say, the CityCouncil is very concerned with the proposed Fairway Estates Subdivision, which we understand has ,been approved by the County Planning Commission and will, next be considered by the Hoard at a future meeting. L The Council's. Intergovernmental. Committee an'di. the Board's Chico Issues Comxftittees have discussed, an several occasions, the current problems that exist in the Hicks tare/Reefer Road/Garner Lane area with regard to *adequate streetis, drainage and sewage disposal due - to existing development. It was"the Council'sunderstanding' from aieinbers of the Chico Issues 'Committee that no further development: would be allowed in this area without the preparation of a Specific Plan, and an accompanying Environmental Impact Apport Therefore, with regard to the proposed Fairway Estates Subdivision, the City Council urges that the Board take no action until a full, Environmental Impact Report is submitted to address the impacts on the surrounding area and on the City's public facilities. With regard to the total areia north of Chico, consisting of approximately 3500 acres and including the above subdivision, the City Council believes that it is imperative that the City and County hold a joint meeting "to reach a dons ensus°on the future of ,4 this area and adopt measures to mitigate impacts on land use and public services. As you know, the City and County have jointly adopted a Chico Sphere ;of Influence, which is ,presumably an area within which future municipal seri*ices are to be provided such as transportation, sewage and drainage, and the Sphere is reflected in both the City andCountyGeneral Plans. When adopting the Sphere, the Cit did so with assurances from the County that this was the area Within 'which future urban y Further the Council su development, would take place . i ent y p ggested that at the t Meeting, City and County re' resentatives should a axn review the purpose of the Spher� of Influence as set forth in the State law. EXH, I BIT + ,e�q1 a GEJ4Gf ]E.wAAc. .. t;ALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER OUALITY CONTROL BOARD :NTRAL VALLEY REGION SHASTA CASCADE WATERSHED BRANCH OFFICE 4iS KNOLL;CREST DANE REEDING, CA 96002 PHONE (916) 224.045 17 April 1,990 Butte County Board of Supervisors Administration Center 25 County Center Drive 0 oville, CA 1.95965 LAND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE CHICO URBAN AREA Regional Board staff has recently become aware that County Service Area 87 (CSA 87), which includes a largE portion of land just North the Chico Urban area on the North b Rack Creek),.. is by my 95' on the East by 'Chico Airport, and boundar Bounded on the "est b highway y tense scrutiny for developn«nt. We also enders nd t under the oning, this area could be developed with as many homes, be served y septic./tank leachfield systems. Portions of this land `nave relatively poor soils and may „be subject to seasonal high groundwater. Tt is unlikely that; this area will be sewered for many years, if ever, as it is not currently in the city of Chico's Sewer Service Area Boundary. Current Butte County development standards 'call for a minimum of five feet: of useable soi i depth below grade for a septic tank/leachfield system (or a minimum of 2 feet of soil above an impervious layer); Because leachlines are generally buried two 'to three feet below 'grade, this standard may result in wastewater percolating through less than three feet of Unsaturated soil. Present guidelines of the Central Val ley `Regional. Water Quality Control Board call for a' minimum of 51 of useable soil below the leach lines and 'above any saturated tone. Board staff have not objected to individual systems and small developments within Butte County that do not meet the five feet soil guideline, primarily because we have felt that groundwater has been adequately protected for these specific developments. These developments in question have also been primarily rural and of low density, in addition, the current County ordinance, adopted in January 1987 was a significant improvement over the former ordinance, We are concerned that the current ordinance may result in impacts to groundwater and surface water from';development in the CSA 87 area; The Chico ,Urban Area -is growing rapidly, and areas in the vicinity of the subject acreage already 'suffer q from degraded groundwater quality. To avoid water quality and public health problems, we request that steps. be taken to prevent potential bround4;ater degt4adation: Following are some suggestions for appropriate measures that could be taken to prevent such degradation 1) Alteration of the county ordinance to comply with the Regional I36ard=t guideline of a mi,pimuto of 51' of usable unsaturated so l berdath the leachfield above an 'impermeable layer or groundwater; t t L ierr 6 SS s Ll t s Ce (� •*, ►-t+e r Yu' ., Bu upard ofSue-2- rvisors ' 17 April 1990 2) Proposal for use of special design s st that provide additiona 9 y em�� p 1 Filtration. This should only be considered if appropriate _technical isvfb med.undertaken and an adequately fun maintenance district 3) Provision of exceptions to the Regional Board soil depth guidelines in areas where high groundwater can be shown to be "perched" and not hydraulically connected to other usable aquifers-. This approach would require an adequately funded study. We are also concerned with otential impacts of storm drainage wind erosion P P p Sion during construction. Methods for dis osal of solid waste and setage also need to be addressed. The c i tyR of Ch i co does not accePt s,eptage and the Neal Road i andf i l l in not expected to accept septage after October 1992. We request you carefully consider all development requests in this area and the degneed radatianfor ppf prig e uaTdiification of County _ordinances to prevent further, quality and threat .to public health. We also request that 87 be for�arded to this Office for review. in accordance with Board Resolution 73-188,, all new subdivision snaps within CSA splits We alio re of 2-4 parcels each, quest to be advised of lot If you have any questions ` the ad ss b e. Please contact Ronald Dykstra at (916),224-485$ or, up'ESC. Pd� ervising 8n ineer 980-tch 191990 .APR c. _• i Boy 9hay be fore my Cathy araaks sprain Peter to college at Stitt WrIler age as saving taxpa y CrucialAcisiondue I While calling 'unfortunate," I best learning oppportunity by sending him fullumo to Butte President RFttryty De comment furtht:r o on 199 -unit unit prod act i Dt1 Ad Farrell Staltwelier planning for the project was "one, of the best prepared" to pnvaey, Developers of a proposed PK�icnutions he has seen, tion at Butte or learning the self- 199 -unit', 220 -acts subdivision The Chico City Council, father, the boy Wli and golf course north of Chico before the however, has urged supervi- his own age, go Butte County of Supervisors Tuesday sors to reject the rezoningBoard without an acmes -r ,German for what they claim is'a make- area -wide specific plan for North Chico, or -break dxtsion on rezoning for the project. Although the area is outside Chico's current sphere of in - ''If they vote against us Tuesday,"" 'said Tom Wrinkle, fluence, development of the area will have impacts on the whose surveying firm is work- city, council mcmiiers main. Ing the development, "the protect is dead." taro. Boy 9hay be fore my Cathy araaks sprain Peter to college at Stitt WrIler age as saving taxpa John Chang is adamant he can of dollars in educat save the taxppeeyen money and provide his 10 year-old son the While calling 'unfortunate," I best learning oppportunity by sending him fullumo to Butte President RFttryty De comment furtht:r o College. cusations because Chico Unified School District said, would` violas officials :are worried, however, to pnvaey, that Peter Chang may not be receiving a well-rounded educe• According to Pe' academic transcrdpp Enterprise•Rt tion at Butte or learning the self- the confidence and socia; skills net. father, the boy Wli essary to interact with children his first fulltirrie set his own age, * earning 'A's" Their concerns ;have led. the acmes -r ,German school board to consider revoking and "ciodit" for i Since the prefect is located ppeermission for Peter to be a Glculas lI, Had Supervisors will hold a pub •' list beyond the northern Zhime community college Btu• advanced math r - Ile hearing' on the project at =urxWy of the city!s sphere dent, The board will make its glide, according 1 10:30 a.m. and discuss the of influence, the council's decision during a special meeting ''ter would havt poasib!lit of resurrecting only recourse was to send a today, C,untyrvice Area !37 to letter urging the county action. At Issue is haw to best teach a To date; Peter lu admini,le- a comprehena.ve Noting that the impacts of shy, 10 -year-old boy of Tai- units of Butte Cont plan for the arca. the project paled in signifi• wanese descent, who spends most has also Pasted . Th: Board of Supervisors' calve ro the ultimate develop• of his free time studying and has Chico State Univen has implemented a virtual ment Of the entire North done the educational shuffle fora !ng a university. cal moratorium 'on development in Chico area, the council year between home, study, Aute Ingle he also carne i the area until a detailed pIan stressed the need for the College acid Chico Slate Univer- Review of Peter' For growth of the area, Joe lid county to hold fait with ^ its fry, tus was initiated t ing Infnstruciure and commit- current stance that no develop= And locally it has raised the vember, a Bunt Co ty, crit hd allowed until the question of whether a campus trator sent A letter t ni services, can be m lated for the entire 3;500 -acre area -wide plan is completed, Principally intended for adult ed- suggesting that, wi service area, ucation is thea ro rate facility lion of the "intrcd Butte County, planningg 'the for ifted clernpsntar school•a a tistics" class; the Until that plan is completed, rector Bettye Kircher toldtheg rY- g fanned to Ne supervisors ruled last Jan= E -R she was m children to attend for a complete P pursue i sympathetic t f education and who should 19911 semester '-cot uary no further development the Chico councils point of make that decision. Plished within the. will be allowed in the elan View, According ricshed unless it can be shown tat all No matter how, Weil planned the Education Code the parent of After further n adverse impacts an be rniti• P, between the comm Any particular n'eet m 'the e gated, pupil, regardless of the lrupil s I airway Estates developers area north ,ofp �hicO mayy •age or class level may petiuon a NW CUSD, Butte C y seem, Kircher said, unless it school board to a�law tF.c student sions sent Chang a I claim their plan Iridis tiled addresses the overall problems to attend a oommuniry college Ing him that he waw requirement, hroughoar the" arca, it fuiltime, If the child would bene- out a concurrent en They also point out gthat shoulAsn t planning directo fit from advanced scholastic or for special part -tint supervi: 6rs agreed last August ++ ri 1 vq-A Ional work„ However the and seek pior. on a 3-i' vote to allow the ,cannot 'list look a this (irojcct stui'ent Is sWl requited tot take dale Principal ertnru-- b promal eat to go forward withoutwithout,by iise, r " Kircher said. ,I courses "of a sc and duratios Peter could not be r a 1lorenvironmental In. have to Took of this in the sufficient to sails the uire: Changi who said However, 'fine that vote those with the greatest p�s in Sc tember 1984 ,C w'' c school bow rti rrmtext that if is j!e aceta menti hf law, pp- P the CUSD approval for Peter b Kevin Campbell has replaced tential for development,-- art board of educatioc, reluctantly rorlunte held any r Karen Vercruse, who sup- allowed to o forward in' a gtanted Peter permissici, to en- Mtn re -petitioned portal the project, is supervi- Pieect,ttal fashion, We can roll fulltimc at Baine College board for continued project. ' the esti: ' P of er`Was then ii his school �9 th g�bw 's rei ser for the Third Distrin never bt stir that all lie nthcr than Rosedale Which includes the pieces of the utile wall ft, lit Campbell has indicated he years did and on Wednesday favors a comprehensive plan Accord' io Kircher, a veteran of three ears of p� While Peertt tra gg time antnt`+antt at cute Co ll e a not °fie Public at ' for the colics area and initi- traffic ciratladon W storm It s ated the proposal to turn the water drainage are the two during which tette he had board service area into an agency biggest concerns in the area. never received leu than: an "A" , c. r,"ttmbet of clas that could develop such a i on graded courses, Withdrawn from it, tl Roads' in the arra Waren t As a condition of Oermissloni Baud plan, i cOnstrucded to handle the type board mtmber Judy I:zity ,sug see to be 'ttlo�m WnNde claims plahners of of traffic that Is `qu!ekl be gestetl the district area tL close the daises a aboveEstate' ha�•e ''gone t ming commonplace to en wntact With Butt Celle e 1 above and bey' ad' the rc- Ute g to mce"" Andel, i quircuunts necessary to gain lac d t was once peslufe- monitor Peter's cissa scltotions didn't inc ode ,coo t approval, _ ,she said, and 'everyry tlnie . and progress, wand satisfy reqs . ' s pini of land is deJelupai , .him to graiivate fro I t The devtlopers' proposal itnrM water tun -off increases attend Butte 'Ord on nt 'or even junior high, he said y is more comprctien- bxausr less ground is avails• basis until the tall IS90 teemmester,' "Peter's traiuer slut^ and addresses more itmiies blo te, absorb the water, Chang had enrolled his ton in the ` "follow, the intent than most formal EIRs„ In a re .ht r+ubl!c me��ingg Marysville home study progtani authorized r year it was Prepared, he said, by on the matter; Cpmpbell Oft A Year -long -contract -- tow+ board httIn 5tepl five exaierts 'who studied tate Argued atrongI in 4a4i r of tvate, ht arid; that Peter Could Peter's Butte C61 1 overall 'impacts of the prefect, requirist the at"A ne - qt, truly anend commuiiify college roflaets only part of lands and seasiva r� xies, revi ill�z�at revitalization ofdC, Vent r$c I ifhy a Wh le in home ttudy� to in traffle I, ctt, wet- Cam r, mr and lncludeps anecnnostiic ie: Area 87 a ,9 ;a, � r .e Taiwan, also' it iaLnsgB�ttt iCom 1 artaiysis Which howt th- that was created mor, f Ice administrators Were rids co- ro cct tea ing rubstantl&I decade ago to pre til at�,,: of>Gtative U his attempt, to enroll - economlt benefits for the W co�leagodi to xge :ra y Pater in many closes, cl>!nncr with the Butte County sumssf l di ; ,.�nlal * �_ ' �� : a 1f BumB atloh f to Hunt eter :gi North Circa arta, Ms j. The pal Thomas Iasi; an associae tffe,�livc) drscmbt� vier, s mis.ratlan id to kick Pater tall p ' Qei" he sated dor= Planning Department agreed deveidpers,m hig a On& Interview with the _ EnterpnseRetur„ ' Chang sold, he k!e'w sending BUTTE C0UN7rY P"NNING COMMISSION STS' FINDINGS December 4, 1990, " uf/lwater Y /storage srg e area. Solid decorative boack walls should be utilized toProtde or visual and acoustical buffering for the neighbors. A final area of potential conflict: .deals with the Chilaren s play area being located adjacent to the clubhouse and swimming pool. Even though this location does provide for a beneficial focused recreational area, there could be some supervision, safety and noise conflicts with the other uses. If the applicant wishes to keep the play area at its present location, adequate supervision and safety feature,s will need to be Provided, particularly appropriate fencing separating thepool area,: Consideration may want to be given to relocate the play area to a centrally located area in the vicinity of Lots 113 to ']Sj. The ,applicant prepared an "Expanded Initial Study" with recommended mitigatito'measures as part of the ori gitial appIicatioTi. However, when staff completed its review, there was a recommendation to prepare an EIR due to the cumulative traffic and drainage impacts on the North Chico Area. The applicant appealed the MR requirement to the Board of Supervisors Who subsequently upheld the appeal. Staff then prepared mitigation measures based on the applicant's studand responsible agency comments. The sewage disposal plan has been reviewed and the concept has been tentatively approved by the appropriate agencies. The applicant has designed the project so that no increase in drainage will occur. The site will be designed to utilize the, golf course ponds as storm drainage holding ponds. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay drainage and traffic impact fees which wili further 'mitigate these concerns. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended, On Octob,�C 1, 1990, the_Butte County Subdivision-:Committee held a meeting with the applicant •• to rei tPw staff's recomniended conditions. These conditions are reflected as part of the conditions of approval. Some of these conditions and mitigation measures were repetitive, and have been modified and/or combined accordingly. RECQMMENDATIONS• MOTION. ACCEPT' THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DATED December 4, 1990; MAICE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A"; Ai'�lD ivLAICE `I'HE MOTION LISTED UND%R "Ii" .AND "C" INCLUDING ALL OF THE CONDITIONS NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 52 A. Find that: 1. An initial study has been comF�eted ;gin compliance with CEQA. 8al2 en dStudy 1 and comment lronmental defects tha the c6i ed rolma neon identified potentially significant P 1ert y have had but: T BUTM COUN-1 PL-UN`YI VG CONIINJJS�+ION STAFF FIND NGS' - December 4, 1990 a. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigate such effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and: b. There is no evidence before the County that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.; 3 The proposed zoning is consistent with the Butte County General Plan because Supe P g g B• Recommend the Board of Su ervsors adopt a Negative Declaration with nuti ati measures and adopt an Ordinance zoning to PITD that roe on 010-0:67, 058, and 007-550-046, 047. property rty-identfic,d as AP 007- C. Recon p give Tentative Subdivision tunend the Board. of Su ervisors P P rtY Man approval on the ro ei. identified within "B above, subject to the following conditions and mitigation measures ONO:: 1. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for approval and 'install the required facilities. 2 Provide 20 fL radius property line returns at all street intersections. I Indicate a'50 ft, building setback tine from the centerline of Hicks Lane and all interior streets. t 4• ,Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street intersections per County requirements. (Submit 5 -alternate names` for each street to the County address icoord*,Imtor for approval of street names.) 5• Deed 30 ft from the, centerline, of Hicks I.,ani: to the County of Butte: 6• Provide monunientation as required by `the L' eportment of Public 'Works i �Lccor c e with accepted standards, m 7. Street grades and 'other 'features shall comply with the 13utte Coonty Ordinances; design resoluton and other accepted engineering starid'xds. Vii. All easements of r -,f.% shown ota the final miap: d to be 9i Meet requirements of 9utte county I'"ire Department or otherresponsible agency, r� BUI`TE COUNTY P"VNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - December 4, 1990 10. Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendationsof PG&E, I1. Pay assessments, 12.ty anies (' ' Meet the ::requirements of _p + the utility companies i.e., Pl &, c Ap—, Pacific Telephone, water, sewer). 13. Pay any delinquent taxes or current taxes as required. 14. Contribute pro rata share toward traffic signal installation at Hicks Lane and Eaton Road. (I1c) 15, Construct S ca ruct uct full street section ,on Hicks 7 ane from northern project boundary to Y Creek Bridge to RS -3A geometric standard. Minimum structural section to be 2" AC and 8" AB, SC 150 grime, ;fog seal and 955x' relative compaction. Submitdesign to County Depa,.-tment of Public Works for ;approval. "R" value determinations and other data maybe required to support section design, (M) 16. ro Provide road maintenance agreement That agreement to also cover drainage - . maintenance. The homeowners to share drama maintenance wa 8 nthnn the property. P i'tY• 17. Provide 1 ft. no access stri on PTicks Lane fron P _ tage except ;at entrances. 18. Construct left turn lanes at entrances subdivision, per Caltrans standards and asapproved by the Department of Wo� 19. Developer all nec� nstall . ' hall iessary traffic safety signsncIudng stop signs. 20. Construct turn around area 8 on Hicks Lane side o+ • f security, gates m a location that will allow for use of security ate without Obstructing traffic Hicks bane, . on 'and/or allow people who; have turned nn error to turn around without backing onto Hicks Lane. (M) 21. Construct lull street section on interior streets to revised 1�S-" B road standard as shown on the tentative map with curb and and 2 ;utter AC, 8 AB SC 250 rime fog seal and 95% relative compaction. All private roads shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association to these standards. The applicant shall include within,the Articles rnf Inco ora on for the Incorporation, Haneowners Association • i ` i a detailed criteria for road maintenance responsibtIttnes, BUI'M 'C0U1'N_TY P"Wi NG Cpi UMISSION STAB FINDINGS - December 4, 1990 --- 1 Quids; commune sewage collection treaamen ty ' compliance with California State Regional Water Qual tY Control Board, facilitiest arid' disposal in ��� Butte County, California Health and Safety Cocie, and other applicable cod of es and regulations ogoverning e design construction and operation of the facilities. 23. Comply with Water Quality control Board, California Water Code, California Code of Regulations and .Butte bounty Mosquito Abatement District ;requirements for the usage of reclaimed wastewater. . 24._'Provide a Safe Drinking community water supply system in compliance with the California State j rinking Water Act, 25The applit licant shall comply ordinances, and regulationswith all other applicable State and local statutes;_ 26, The a leant shall provide PP ds, paths for sidewalks adjacent to interior road per P County or-walkingP that rovlde access 'to all residences` within' the of c�standeas•m order to provide for inte f internal pedestrian traffic safe g safety. 27. The R V parkin , . neighboring properties and local streets b ,e nilly screened from Parking and sewer treatment facili aJrea shall b ty create a hedge)and trees. y using a combination of large shrubs (to The screenin details ;shall', be reviewed- and a by the Planning De g approved g Partment prior'to recordation. of the Final Map. 27a. Any . , r -s of the sewer, treatment facility located above the Of crea ng noise (such as pumps) shall be Provided with ground and .capable ; reduction measures so as to reduce the noise levels if needed. enclosures or other noise of Final tap, the applicant shall provide information as to the expected. n n or to recordation, created from the treatment facility, no levels of a 1�0% Ding improvements for conditions ?S acid 31 shall re 27b. All landscaPerfo . . ,; uire rmance Bond for materials and labor for a one 1 posting P i p ._ () yew` period to issuance of building permits. °n- The Bond hall be posted prior after coni letion and approval of the installati 23• The applicant shall form a CSS. prior to Final 4ia record maintenastce of the water and sewer stems, ensureAtion to the sd As tlgi• ement betty en the CSA and :Homeowners hall be detailed as to maintenance and i e - Assosxatton s responsibilities of the Water and sewer systems. �P ct,ion d BUTTE COUNTY PUNNING COi1MUSSION STAFF FINDINGS - :December 4,1990 29. Prior to final map recordation, a revised copy of the CC&Rs shall be Provided include the changes indicated in the March 16 1Q p d and Article TV Section 4(Signs) `.90 litter from 'Tom Wrinkle of the CC&Rs shall be modified to incorporate the size and time limits for signage as identified with me related ordinance for this project. Jct. 30• Deodar Cedar trees shall 'be a minurium of 15 gallons in size and planted at no more than 30 foot inter✓als along Hicks Lane and the drving range. mesh nt tting at least 30 feet in height, shall be provided to prevent golf balls from w p m in height. until the cedar trees ,are at least 30 feet. entenn Hicks L.�ane and remain to lace u 31. If during constivction, further archaeological remains not identified within t he March 4, 1990 archaeological survays are encountered, a professional archaeologist shall'be consulted and construction shall cease until a full exarrunation is completed. 32• The final golf course design shall ,include a 50 friotundi.turbed rou h edges of the ver*tal �o be used as . g around the p 1 to �. buffer area. 33. An avigation easement :;gall be provided to, the Chico 1)4v, icipal recordation of th,e :mal _Map. (11M) Airport prior to 34. All members of the Golf Association shall be noted of the treated water - used as of the P p i a. being All Ps!'a hail be Posted oeident�t that the -shall be included within the CC&Rs. P fY ater has been treated, (M) 3S. A: 20 foot minimum fully Iundsca,ped setback shall be provided to separate Hicks Lane from parking lot Landscaping shall include mounding or bermi shrub hedges in conjung aM nction with the trees and wall; The parking lot area shall be revised to include ]�50 parking st�Ils with the ,remaining area to be landscaped and. devoted to passive open ace. Fin p . sP 3l lands , ca ,Planning prn tans shall anrung Department pna,r to Filial Map recordation, all be approved by the 36;, All residences shall require a two car garage and the driveway tandem parking to meet the PLrD standards for off-street Barkin shall be utilized as g 37Enter into an agreerrment with the Countyand fee (unless m�odMed)' for drainage impacts prior to naCon 0.Op re ordatio tgation 384 p fee of $1000.00 et. the Cc{intj, to Participate, in a traffic mitigation and Falter into an agreement VVt pay a p , acre (unless j OL, led to . (1M) pnor final map recordation. Tz BUM., COUNTY P"'i i G COiV[1IISSIOIV' STAFF 11DINGS - December a, 1990 39; Prior to final map recordation, the applican,, .5a11 provide et located children's play area in the vicinity of lots 113 throuher 155 �;w centrally detailed safety features such as fencing to separate the play area h o ' or 'provide Parking lot. Supervision mechanisms should be incorporated into the F e Poo and (�r) final CC&R,s. 40. Prior nved r ',fop recordation, a final hydrology study sail be . P that includes a monthly water balance analysis to establish pond capacity submitted and for storm runoff and that provides for permanent solutron, for drainage analysis shal' also include information on how treated wastewater will be co. This or separated within the storage ponds. (I be combined 41• The vernal pool identified within Kingsley Stern's letter of incorporated into the final golf course designApri129, 1989, shall be Ntigation Monitoring Agreement shall be established betweenerved in lthets eaA sn state' Engineers and the, ,;HHomeowners Association. Y Corps of Corps, shall be provided to the County This Agreement, if required by the; ty prior to recordation of the Final Map, 42• Left-turn pockets shall be provided on Hicks Lane P access point cr the subdivision. ( for northbound traffic at each Department gatesystemshall be re P 43. Theentranceviewed and app roved b_ _prior to installation: (1K) y the County Fire 44. Prior to Final Map approval, the developer shall submit that includes stipulation on fonnrng a Neighborhood Watch ro revised CC8�Rs the County Sheriff Department..(I1 P gram in conjunction with X45. Ibo followin - Hall be m .� . mr sl � g tigafion measures et prior to recordation of Final Map: Sewage Disposal P' a. Apply Reginal Obtain Waste Discharge Requirements from the Califo' Qual,ty Control Baardt Central Valley Region, rrua b.- Develop ilia obtain approval of a declaimed Wastewater Lisage PIan fro Butte C4uy+ty and State agencies for usage of reclaimed Water, m p water ponds se orate from areas of reside F p C. develo merit. ntial ca n reclaimed Waste 1"CiGATION "\Ifo NiTORTv- G PRO �R,�yt FOR R1=?Otv n Rnl - -1I �OCHIN RO) Impact/Issue Mitigation Measures _ Implementation A- Water/Drainage I 1. Pay S1,500.00 per acre ^ 1. Pa - - - - _ - y fees prior for draina a im acts. g P , to Final Map recordatiom f � 2 Submit: and receive j � r 2. Prior to Final approval of a final H drolo Final—Hydrology � , Y gy study for on-site drainage. � Map recordation. Analysis to include how treated it wastewater will be combined and/or separated within storage Pond. I Comply with Army Corps of EnguYeers-requirements. I If construction ; work isrequired within Sycamore Creek. 4. Comb with 'esi Comply gn standards ' 4: Prior to Final for 'ane st rage ponds of the Butte County Mosquito Map redordation, ! Abatement 'Diea c - B.' Plant Life i 1 Pr�avide the location of theA *'rior i to nal Ma Final p i vern" l pool is required by the ; recorda.tion, Army Corps of Engineers and provide for a 50 font un&zw rbed rough area around the edges of the pool. 2 Secure agreement with the 2. Prior to Final Map n gineers r ' recordation.mntnngvernalpool r area, 'r p: C Traffic 1, Contribute L y - `or - pro- towart a traffic signal at are ire ord.'tti Final Map otx. i H'iclt Lane and Eaton Road., i 1 i 2 Construct full street ".»' Either prior to Final Map improvements on Hicks Lane I ,from tle projectsnotth recordation or a bond,shall i boundary line to Sycamore be reaiiired. ° i Creek Bridge. c r, BARRY MARC MEYERS Attorney at Law 2725 The Esplanade Chko, Wifomita 95926 Telephone: 916-893-1149 Mus im i l e: 916-8,93-1045 December 10, 1990 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive trovi.11e, California 95,965 R,E: E. H Dchinero Rezone AP 001-010`-051 and 058; 007--550-946 and 047 File 9'0-1.1 dear 'lanndng Commission: Please be advised that I represent Friends of Butte County. Friends of Butte County believes that the Board of Supervisors erred when it failed to require an Environmental Impact Report for this project. Without waiving any 'rights in that regard, Friends of Butte County contends that serious flaws ekist in the procedures employed, by the Commission regarding the conditions and mitigation measures for this project. 'I This letter xs in regard, to the closed public hearing of this matter scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 1050: At the previous public hearing of this matter on November 15; 1990, the Commission heard testitrony and -:discussed the ,modifications to conditions of a,pprova and mitigation measures of the so -calked "mitigated negative declaration 'i At that time, staff 'was ,directed to make wording changes and c"larifications. 'L am in possession of a document titled Inter -Departmental, Memorandum to the Butte County Planning Commission from the planning Department dated November 27, 1900, the subject being °'Modifications to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures for Rez,oile 90-11 ('achiner,o) . Attached to this Memorandum are seven(`7). pages titled "BUTTE COUNTY PLANNiSNG COMMISSION STAFF' FINDINGS December' 4, 1990" and numbered 4 through 10. I have reviewed these seven pages. Nowhere in these seven pages does staff indicate the previous language and/or the proposed wording changes and clArffiaations Failure to do so deprives ''the public of meaningful, notice of 'the new language and thepublic's ability to make a knowledgeable determination' of toile conditions and mitrigatiob measures. Therefore, Friends of Butte County request that these proposed' modifications be highlighted in some form to ensure ad'egriate public notice and review; and, that these ptoposed modifications be discussed ata future ,public hearing to be adequately noticed by thee. Commission. 'Phut Novimbet 27; 1.950; Memor,6bdum referred to in the pievious Paragraph, also contains mention of i'a potential Mitigation Measure monito,ting p -tog ram'i ('see first page of Memo randUni) with a !three page ekample attached. In reviewing the Butte County Planning Commission , December 16, 1990, Page Two Planning Department -file in this matter, I cannot find any 'previous document that indicates the Commission has ever {considered a monitoring program for this project.. It is totally` inappropriate for the Commission to consider any monitoring program at this time since it was not contained in the g Meeting Agenda of December 13,, 1990, and since the same meetjIn a9'enda describes this matter as a "closed" public hearing In order to legally consider this matter, you must provide adequate public notice. Therefore, Friends of Butte County requeststhat the. proposed monitoring program be discussed at a future pub is hearing to be adequately noticed by the Commission. The public must have an opportunity to review a negative declaration that describes the proposed project as modified, rather than as originally proposed, so thatcommentscan be made on the project in its final form. See Public Resources Code section 21080(c) (2) , Guidelines section 15070(b) (1) , Perley V. County of Calaveras(1982), 137 CA3d 424, 431, and Plaggmier v City o£ San Jose(1980) 101 ,CA3d 842, 853-854) -'- The ,Meeting agenda of De-ember 13, 1930, indicates the following, inpart,, "E.^ H och ne o - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measuresFegarding environmental impacts... In reviewing the fi a at the Planning Department for this project, I was unable to locateany document that was labeled Negative Declaration or in .any way, shape or form co mprisad a so-called Negative Declaration. include he following elements: a brief negative description of the I�ro3ect, including its, commonly used name; the locat;ioa of the project; a proposed finding that the project will not have a Significant effect on the ;environment; an attached LOny of the initial study documenting 'reasons to support 'the-finding; and mitigation measures.(See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15071 and T,o,ng Beach Savings .and 'Loan Associa,.tion v. Beach Redevelopment A ency(1986j l88 CA3d 249, 264) No such document appears to have been prepared in compliance with the Guidelines. ..,Sincerely; BARRY, �.. ME,IBRS Attorney 'for FRIBNDS OF BUTTS CDUNTX A. WPM IVIH14,0 9 All-3"C RN11 ' AT LAW 6,15 NORMA, ,vVEa`It+.I r � C.HICO, C.",A V5928 r rrN1.,HT140NII: (916) .43-3513 DEC 231990 0 .� rrC`7i:wr Y PO it. (7C.;t11'N ERO :hNDA�E J. GRUBBS, Butte Co. Ole,k y _ YC1r :t5llty t t THE �t1hC I�1C�1 �(,.,Ovj r Ut"."rijj-, S 1 A.'I'1'�, n $ 1 l� y Y CJI' C.'. C.11 OItN1'A 13 .. l `1711-31 Cc�t„II� I' r Or, 4 10 f r� NO. 108536 12 � _ Petition, of FIZIEV S OF M U11,40RANT)UNt OrPOINTSAND ' I36,I 711' COUNTY, 1,3 � � t�1'1�C.�,�!'►'1��N '.1'CJ 1�1�'["I`I`tC�N R)IZ C)iZMIR AVI:'1IOT41`IIN " ° 1 Say["rtit�rl+`r, 1ikZHSHkVA'1'I0N Of-7 1'.-MI)ENC::E to 1F �r ,", ve 1: rer r E id aA:C1A1,r �I, ,1tJ i Ifi 1" `I"laNULI rL.10 r'l.m 17 �1 y �'t:'�tliti"ht�r ,�i� x11,1_ I��I'11;I�1,�i Lt7 1�,11� 11I„,s: 1"M 5;' 1'eiifiotm- k0i, rlltived IC+ Wl"N%.` ve Lwvi l;rl�:c (111de Ctl[iQ CiV. Pr DC, WGtl lrf L035c1. under tlri� �t:ltGrt �, 111c COU t Illtlj` rerlrrested 'dix5e(Wery "tijt the court 7 t 4 dctOrnittic" that tall or part ol* 1110 discovery requested may preyo1it j rel�lltt`(: car del:,, C1IF JuMiee,” 1'utitiont.-r ft, its tiring tt �`111i1'�?r 2 ►1ia lynvirclllilthill ti ' Utility Aci, htlreitl"il`tt r 2. rererred to Rs "QLQA` tic tioll ,1,19.11 1st Butte County, biased oil the '111kelihood"'that 26 certaiii pro pol•ty %Y1I1 )c roolled, 1.. I-1, 00.01,111M, is it marred party :and ititcrestecl raw At "" r€ in this matter. Petition e,r threatens litigallorl concerning certain refill property referred to 2 in its Petition. F. H. OCRINLR0 submits the fallowing points and authorities in 3 opposition to petitioner's request to preserve evidence. 5 This court should, within its discretion, deny petitioner's request for tile following 6 reasons. First, petitioner failed in 'itr request to comply with the requirements of Cal. 7 p, Code of CV. Proc, section 2025. Second �titione'.r is using section 2035 for improper � 8 purposes. p Third, the evidence petitioner seeks cannot be used by a plaintiff int the type 9 ' e r fans to brie For all Of Petitioner �reasoris tllereo!�� ted Discovery will P p g these, :es 10 not prevent a failure or dela" of `us ice, the sLuidard establish ,l urtcicr secticyn 2035. 11 12 IS I: PI TI"l'`I'OMEI2 :M 1lY i ll 'i`0 CONiPI'.,Y nl'OIIiTt[�NII:NT, OT SIa(M L 203 i 5` Petitionei' request s re st t0 P reServe -vide rice failed to conform with the requirements 16 'Of section 2055- The statute provides as follows 17 18 "I'erpettration of testimony or preservation of evidecne before action-- The petition shall set forth :., whe. particular d19 the petitioner des' isrOvcry nettods ., that 10}..,.Rireasons for desiring to Perpetuate o, preserve the se facts before all action has beer, filed Cn nd] �t]lie st16mance of the infarn)atioh expected to be elicited," 21 Here t , 't is Improper to Order the requested discover} because these r p have rdvis�ons' 22 . not been met. 23 24 `' cis before at Petitioner states no'reasdn it desires to preserve fa ' � p action has been 25 filed, Presumably, this .requirement ,places the burden on petitioner to show why �� (discovery ttilr5rect p t rde the action: Sere althitu h petitioner d �G�lGSA. ' g p eSc`rib an antlrripate'd NIN MOW 2 3f KV AT LUV AENUF. 28 d5�g #TpO 06 t�l6j lid 9�t5 i CEQA action against the catrnty, it fails to establish a next-is between the anticipated 2 action ar,cl the evidence it has requested to preserve. Furthermore, petitioner is silent as to the substance; of information expected to be elicited through discovery. (t r,nerely states that it wish;;s to establish that the: county "failed to comply with the requirements r _ of C1IQA." N'owe`rer, its will be diV:ussed below, in a CE-QA action the plaintiff has no 6 7 duty to establish anything, Thus because petitioner has not shown what it seeks to N Y Y �. a 8 discover and why; lts request should b. refused 9 10 TI, i?�TI'�N-lz 1S USING SICTIOiV.203'5 r tinder the express' provisions of section 2035, a petitioner may not 12 eny Flo rh.. iroCedures of .,. sectio;i1 p l y r l (.2035j for the purpose either of ascertaining the 13 b 14 possible existence of a cause of action or a defense- to it, or of identifying those who 15 rilight be niade part,014 to :u) action not yet riled," Were, petitioner apparently has 16 �'equested discovery For a 4imilarly improper reason:: to pressure the county into making 77 f a zoning decision as petitioner wishes, 18 Under CEQA, a cause: of action accrues either (l) when a pull'lic agency "is L9 carrying out or has approved a project which may have: a significant effect on the 20 21 enviroll Men t�" or (2)whet)a public agency has issued ,An environmental impact reptv.t 2r detc:rrnined that one is not required under Ct QA. Cal, i'ubl, lies, Code section 23 11,167, Purthern)orc, ari action typically natty not k filed unless plaintirrhas shown that 24 it lots exhausted st+cits administrative remedies. �anrr , �cevelmment A enc25 1.11idden bills (1986) 224 Cal.t ptr, X22; San f1crni„ardino:..Valley Audubon ; . v4', 2& Yrs PICES A. C�rraraMO ._ . 2`% •G-�r;E'r AT :J1�1 A'vwt MCALftVNIA 2 rt:w� ra3,�5t�