Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-050-024,4' 1 ® ' VL F F. .k ® ' VL F F. COUNTY OF BUTTE - DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - BUILDING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive • Oroville, California 95965 • Telephone (5-0) 538-7541 (Rev. 12/96) APPLICATION AND PERMIT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERD D r �20NING14CI BUILDING PERMIT OWNER OWNER'S MAILING ADORES,� D 672-/ /G r/ o coNTRACTOR'4 NAME CONTRACTOR'S MAUNG ADDRESS �J /< !J� �j�{ C CONSTRUCTIONLENOER LENDER'S MAIUNO ADDRESS ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER ARCHITECT OR ENGwEERS MAILING ADDRESS BULOWG ADDRESS hwel LOT NO. SUBONISIONSNAME PERMIT NO. e�FJ SO. FT. OCC. BUILDING VALUATION o�/ay � ~ri OQQ .. -LICENSE NO. USEOFSTRUCTTURE SF ❑ Duplex ❑ Mobilehome Other sPEcsv TYPE OF WORK New ❑ Addition ❑ Remodel ❑ Utilities ❑ Installation ❑ Other B---" Describe Work: Qp p W 0/x (fT I Total Valuation is I Filing Fee S Permit Fee S Plan Checking Fee S Energy Plan Checking Fee S b PERMIT FEE S PLUMBING PERMIT Each Trap Solar or heat pump water heater Water piping Each gas water hea-eer or vent Gas piping system 1 - 5 outlets Building sewer Mobile Home I S I G I W - PERMIT FEE S ELECTRICAL PERMIT OOaV OR LESS Main Service 20W Oq LESS Main Service 200A TO 1000A NEW CONST, OWE[LMO OCCUP. OR ADONS. a . - a — 20.00 �o 20.00 7.00 23.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Q20.00 ng Fee 20.00 23.00 46.00 so 3.5¢Fr. @7.50 Ex. Occup. OVrLE- OR FIXTURES 20 ® 1'00 BAL 0 .SO Ex. OCCU FIxECrAPPU OR 011Tl,6^S 616. EA 5.00 Temporary Service 23.00 Mobile Home Facilities 20.00 Misc. Wiring 23.00 'ERMIT FEE f MECHANICAL PERMIT Fling Fee T 20.00 Cooling Hood 1 1 6.50 PERMIT FEE S Mobile Home Installason Fee $ Energy Inspection Fee $ occ =ITOTAL FEE $ • I D. FEES t IMP I FLOOD I COF I PARCEL I PO 11 HDISSUE This permit is hereby issued under the applicable provisions of the Butte County Code and/or Resolutions to do work indicated above for w;;iich fees have been paid. By Date PERMIT EXPIRES ON (Date) Parilo, Thomas From:, Parilo, Thomas sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 12:03 PM To: McCabe, Neil Subject: Blakeley Western TSM Neil, You may recall that the processing of this TSM has been delayed. It will require an updated Elk and the applicants are also proposing that their industrial GPA and Rezone be included in that document. I met with Jim Mann yesterday regarding the future process. In discussion, Jim indicated that they have received a grading permit per Appendix 33 to perform some on-site grading and filling. They are doing this pursuant to a Nationwide 26 permit. This permit is issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is for the purpose of filling wetlands and/or inland waters.. Jim indicated that their permit is due to expire and that they want to take advantage of it, as going through that permit process is a long and drawn out endeavor. The issue is somewhat similar to the problem we have experienced up on Skyway. Can vve issue such a permit per Appendix 33 of the UBC before a decision is made on the TSM? Did we issue the permit in error? My concern is that once they start grading this land along Hwy 99, we will hear about it. If we have no way of legally preventing the action then it's .in the landowners hand, but we could also look bad for issuing the permit knowing that there is a discretionary entitlement pending.' It may also keep them from committing a political blunder that may prevent them from receiving a fair hearing. Please help. Thanks. Tom I MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Thomas A. Parilo, Development Services Director From: Dari Breedon, Senior Planner Subject: Project Histories -Blakely Western Applications (General Plan Amendment 93- 23; Tentative Subdivision Map 95-197; General Plan Amoendment and Rezone 98-03) Date: July 12, 2000 Attached is the chronology regarding these applications as requested. Related correspondence/information that pertains to important aspects of each p-oject's history is also attached to the chronology. Aside from the more recent meetings staff haE held with the Blakely Western Group, the processing of the two current applications (TSM 95-197 and GPA/RZ 98-03) was suspended, pending completion of the DEIR in the case of the Subdivision Map and submittal of an EIR in the case of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone. At the more recent meetings held between the applicant and the County, new drawings and proposed changes to both proposals were submitted and discussed. A summary of the input provided to the applicant at these meetings is attached. Revised applications, reflecting the proposed changes, have not been submitted by the applicant. This is an important issue that I believe should be communicated to the applicant. Additionally, the EIR for the Subdivision is still not certifi--d. From what I have reviewed, this is a contentious issue, with the applicant unhappy with the EIR product produced thus far, and the County willing to continue the EIR process at the time. In order to continue processing this application, it will be necessary to focus on the completion of the CEQA process with the applicant. Staff should also focus on completion of En EIR for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone. However, the recent changes discussed with the applicant, such as the inclusion of a wastewater treatment facility on the east side of SR -99, wa.rants a reexamination of this process, and what needs to be amended in order to proceed. Some of .hese changes, such as reduction in number of parcels proposed for the Subdivision, are not necessarily impact producing. Still, if the applicant is altering the project, the application and the EIR project description should be amended accordingly. Additionally, I believe that the EIRs for the Subdivision and the GPA/Rezone need to work together, especially since the -new proposal integrates the subdivision with- the GPA/Rezone through the use of a common sewage system. Lastly, the GPA/Rezone proposal should be amended to propose a Research & Business Park (RBP) zone. ' Chronology for Blakely Western Applications The following is a chronology of events for the applications submitted by the Blakely Western group, for the land generally bounded on the east by State Highway 99, to the south by Neil Road, to the west by.the-Oroville-Chico Highway and to the north by the Butte Creek Country Club. General Plan Amendment 93=23 . { , The earliest application received from Blakely Western appears to be General Plan Amendment 93- 23, dated June 3, 1993. This GPA proposed to change the General Plan for the area from Grazing and OpenLands, to Low Density Residential', Industrial, Commercial, and Medium Density Residential.:An EIR was also prepared for this project (Gateway Chico Project), but was never certified. This project was denied by the Board of Supervisors on January24, 1995. A motion of intent to approve the GPA, offered by Supervisor Houx, died for lack of a ,second, and included a long list of deficiencies that needed attention prior to actual approval. This motion is attached to this chrbn'ology.'.Thepasing motion, which denied the GPA, also instructed the applicant to work with the County on the General Plan update that was then in progress. County billing indicates that the applicant owes $5.50 in processing cost for this application, although the applicant has not yet been billed for this costa (billing worksheets are attached.) Tentative Subdivision' Map 95=197 The next application received was Tentative Subdivision Map 95-197, dated June 9, 1997. An EIR was also prepared for this project (Blakely Western Subdivision). This is a proposal for 169 Jots on 62 acres. The Subdivision Map is located on that portion of the Blakely Western land that is zoned R-1. This application was deemed complete ,by the County on October 9, 1995. A series of meetings were held between staff and the applicant on September 15, 1995, February 5, 1996, June 9, 1997 and July 29, 1997. These meetings discussed various aspects of the EK but mainly involved traffic and circulation issues involving project access to State Route 99. The EIR for this project was considered by the DRC on November 13, 1997. At this hearing, -public comments were received and the comment period was extended to December 10, 1997. Comments included a voluminous letter from the applicant's attorney, dated December 9, .1997, which critiqued the. project EIR. The letter primarily was directed at increasing the legal defensibility of the EIR, especially with respect to General Plan consistency, but many other issues are discussed. Another meeting was held March 17, 1998 with County staffthat:discussed the concerns regarding the EIR. Information'contained , within the file indicates that a new, work program was considered for making: the suggested changes to the EIR at a cost of approximately $30,000.00. There was no further action on the EIR after this request. (see June 19, 1998 letter to Jim Mann from Tom Parilo and May 26, 1998 Memo from Douglas Aikins to Jim Mann.) Most recently; staff held meetings with the applicant on April 26, 1999 and September 20, 1999. The applicant also submitted revised drawings for the Subdivision dated July 16, 1999 and January 11, 1999.. However, a revised application was not received with the drawings. The new drawings' changed the number of lots from 169 to 123, and reduces the size of the project from 62 to 40.7 acres (some versions of these drawings have 134 parcels proposed on 40.7 acres). Planning Division staff provided some initial comments regarding the new drawings at this meeting, which also included revised drawings for GPA/Rezone 98-03 (see below). Staff's initial comments regarding these new drawings are provided as an attachment to this memo. County billing indicates that the applicant owes $5,385.60 in processing cost for this application, although the applicant has not yet been billed for'this cost. General Plan Amendment/Rezone 98-03 The next 'application received was GPA/Rezone 98-03. dated October 22, 1997. This was a resurrection of the application denied by the Board on January 24, 1995 (see GPA 93-23, above); but additionally included a rezone from A-40 and Unclassified to M-1, C-2 and R-2. A letter was sent to the applicant on April 8, 1998 from Randy Chafin, AICP, acting for the County. This letter essentially deems the application processing as suspended until the applicaif fulfilled a number of requirements detailed in the letter. Specifically, staff requested that the applicant amend the application to include Research & Business Park zoning (which has since beer passed by the Board), delete 36 acres of residential zoning and replace with business park uses, and delete reference to the at -grade interchange with State Route 99. Some other technical changes to the application materials were also requested. Additionally, an EIR was requested, with the suggesticn of using background information from the "Gateway Chico" EIR. To date, an EIR has not been sutmitted for this project. The new drawings submitted regarding this proposal, dated January 11, 1995.1 increased the amount of R-2 (residential) zoning proposed from 35.8 to 46 acres, deleted plans for a. 7.4 -acre park site, and also included minor changes to other zones as well. The drawings additionally deleted references to an at -grade intersection with SR -99, and further proposed a wastewater t.-eatment facility, to be located on the east side of SR -99. Also included was a drawing of a tentative subdivision map for the GPA/Rezone area, proposing 10 parcels, with anaverage size of 29 acres. No amended application was submitted at the time these proposed changes were discussed. . County billing indicates.that the applicant has $1,696.00 left on account, (roman initial deposit of $2,000.00. Preliminary Comments made to Applicant on Revised Drawings Dated July 16,1999 and January 11 1999 Blakely Western Subdivision and General Plan Anendment/Rezone 1... Staffrecommended that a Planned Unit Development be considered for the Subdivision Map, to. allow for flexibility in the design characteristics proposed by the applicant, such as not providing sidewalks, reduced residential setbacks, reduced right-of-way width for subdivision roads, providing open space, and to address the screening and buffering necessary from State Route 99. . I, Staff and the applicant discussed applying for Research & Business Palk (RBP) zoning. This zone was in the process of being developed by Planning Division staff and the Board of Supervisors at the time this recommendation was made. Since that tine, the RBP zone has been approved: Staff believes that an application for RBP zoning is mcre appropriate for this project,. and this was discussed with the applicant. " 3. Staff recommended that it was necessaryto conclude the Draft EIR process for the Subdivision, and that an EIR could address the GPA/Rezone project.. 4.` Amendment of the FEMA floodplain map was discussed, and possibly a provision restricting building permits until the floodplain map was amended. 5. Secondary access or emergency access was recommended, possibly through Butte Creek Estates Unit IL 6. The proposed sewer treatment plant, planned for the east side of SR -99 was discussed. Staff advised the applicant to discuss this proposal with Public Works. The lormation of a County Service Area was discussed. Staff advised the applicant to research a way to ensure that this major infrastructure improvement would be properly maintained through the life of the project. 7. Staff recommended that. a more complete landscaping plan be provided, which would graphically demonstrate the landscaping treatments for the business park proposed under the GPA/Rezone. Additionally, staff requested designs for the buffering treatment between the Subdivision and SR -99. s 95-25 MOTION:" I MOVE TO REFER THISAPPLICATION TO THE DIRECTOR -DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO RETURN TO THE BOARD AT A FUTURE DATE WITH LANGUAGE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE 1) THAT ANY. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY BE PRECEDED *BY SUBMITTAL BY THE APPLICANT AND APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING; 2) THE SITE SHALL BE EXTENSIVELY LANDSCAPED AND - SCREENED FROM HIGHWAY. 99 AND ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES; 3) SINCE THIS PROJECT IS BEING TOUTED AS A "JOBS CREATION PROJECT"., } DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROCEED IN A PHASED SEQUENCE IN WHICH THE RESEARCH PARK IS DEVELOPED FIRST. CHICO HAS A LARGE INVENTORY OF EXISTING HOUSES. ALSO, THERE IS AT LEAST THREE OTHER MAJOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS PROPOSED FOR. THIS GENERAL VICINITY. ALL OF THOSE PROPOSED ''- DEVELOPMENTS AND THIS PROPOSAL'S HOUSING PLAN ' SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IN A MANNER THAT PROVIDES A BIGGER -PICTURE THAN JUST INDIVIDUAL a PROJECTS; 4) THE PROTECT SHALL HAVE NO ADVERSE ,.. IMPACT ON EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS AND. ' SHOULD SEEK TO IMPROVE THE IMMEDIATE AREA; 5) THE BALANCE OF THE PROJECT SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED UNTIL THERE IS A GRADE SEPARATED FREEWAY INTERCHANGE. THE COUNTY SHALL NOT SHARE IN ITS COST. THE APPLICANT MAY RECEIVE SOME LEVEL OF COST SHARING THROUGH AGREEMENTS WITH FUTURE DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA AT SUCH TIME AS OTHER PROJECTS OCCUR; 6) A DESIGN CHARACTER STUDY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE ' SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WILL ENSURE PROVISION OF t WELL CONCEIVED AND HARMONIOUS BUILDINGS, AND SHALL BE. COORDINATED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND SIGNING PROGRAM; 7'). BUFFERS SHALL BE. ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF LANDSCAPED SETBACKS OR ` OPEN SPACE SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTINUATION OF COMMERCIAL FARMING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ORO-CHICO HIGHWAY; 8) THE NAME OF THE PROTECT SHALL BE CHANGED TO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE HARMONIOUS TO THE CULTURE OF CHICO; 9) THE USE OF THE ' -TERM "INDUSTRIAL PARK" IN THIS APPLICANT SHALL BE STRICKEN,' AND SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH "RESEARCH PARK" OR "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PARK"; 10) THE ISSUE OF THE GREENLINE AND SCHOOL ' DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ARE UNRESOLVED. VOTE: 1 2 3 4 5 (Motion dies/lack of .second) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - January 24, 1995- .,. ..-.suite LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'_3 OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • - 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • ORO'/ILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397. - TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 19, 1998 Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP 1891 Landings Drive - Mountain'View, CA 94043 Subject: Work Program for Blakeley Western ARDEIR . Dear Mr. Aikins: Neil McCabe and I have reviewed your letter of May 26, 1998. While you have raised points that suggest some refinements and clarification to the cost estimate outline prepared by Planning Concepts are in order, overall, we do not agree that a new consultant should be:retained to finish this job. We also do 'not agree that Planning Concepts has not followed county cirection in preparing the revised scope of services outline. Planning Concepts has addressed all of the points raised in your letter of February 27, 1998. Your initial concerns regarding the General Plan consistency analysis have previously- been addressed. Planning Concepts has agreed to eliminate the analysis of the nonphysical policies. In this latest outline, they have, once again, reiterated project description deficiencies that need to be ovdreome in order to proceed. As I have previcusly stated, I remain convinced that Planning Concepts can and will prepare an adequate EIR. - Your concerns seem to be based on your forecast that the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR will be legally deficient before it is even written. We are unable to arrive at the same conclusion based on the -April 27, 1998, cost estimate outline prepared by Planning Concept:. The Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an independent consultant be retained to prepare both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The ultimate acceptance of the Final EIR is based on a public process. The decision on certification will be made by the Butte County Development Review Committee and Board of Supervisors, if appealed. 'As the applicant's. representative, you have the right to review the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR and participate in the public process. We will review your comments on this administrative document, but will limit changes to makers of factual and legal adequacy. An EIR is intended to be an informational document. It does not dictate or predetermine the final decision on the project. In approving a project, the County decision makers may accept, modify, eliminate, or substitute mitigation measures and alternatives that are included in the EIR, if proper findings are made. Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP June 19, 1998 Page 2 Both the State and Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an EIR reflect the .independent judgement 'of the lead agency. Environmental impacts identified by and _mitigation approaches recommended by trustee and responsible state agencies, as well as local agencies, will be reflected in the document. The EIR will also identify and evaluate all natural and ma- ade setting impacts (geological, flooding, noise, etc.) that may impact the project. This is both required in an EIR and the County General Plan. We disagree with your assessment that the EIR cannot evaluate specific general plan policies that raise environmental issues or otherwise specify level of service standards and other thresholds. We also maintain that an EIR that does not disclose the natural and manmade impacts that could impact the project would fall short of CEQA's full disclosure requirements. We are at a pointwhere, aside from minor refinements, the latest submittal from Planning Concepts is acceptable for use to proceed in completing this EIR. We feel this is in the County's and your client's best interest. Once the EIR is finalized, project decisions can be forthcoming. - We also advise that no further work on completing the EIR will occur until adequate fimds are deposited with the County. Once said funds are deposited, we will proceed to amend the contract and scope of services. Having stated our.position regarding Planning Concepts and the completion of the EIR, we also need to respond to your request to initiate another Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The County's EIR contract is a three-way, agreement between the county, consultant and applicant. The applicant's role in the contract is primarily that of the payor and the current contract does not contain the necessary funds to complete the scope of work provided in the outline. If the applkant is refusing to go forward with the current consultant, you do have the option to request a new RFP at this time. If you were to pursue this avenue, the County will request that you waive or agree to an extension of all processing time limits and agree that the County will pay Planning Concepts 'or all work completed to date. We would, in turn, notify the consultant that the contract has been satisfactorily fulfilled and that termination .'of the current contract dm not poorly 'reflect , on their workmanship.. and professionalism. Should you or your client have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me or Neil McCabe, Assistant County Counsel. Sinc rely, ' Thomas `A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP.jb. cc: Neil McCabe, County Counsel k:\dds\Ietters\Aik ins. wpd To: Mssrs.. Bill Beck, Jim Mann From: Douglas B. Aikins Date: May 26, 1998 Re:. Blakeley -Western Residential Project ("Project"); Preliminary Critique `. of Planning Concepts ("PC") Proposal for Revisions to- Draft EIR The following are the main deficiencies in PC's recent proposal for revising the Project's Draft EIR. Background. We were denied an opportunity to review the "administrative draft"'of the Draft EIR, but when the formal Draft EIR was circulated for public review, we necessarily reviewed it in order to correct as many as possible of the substantial legal and factual deficiencies in it. These defects posed the risks that (a) the Project would be denied, or (b) a subsequent lawsuit would overturn Project approvals, due to EIR deficiencies over which we had no control. To prevent these risks, we attempted to "repair" the administrative record as much as possible by correcting and counteracting the Draft EIR's defects in writing on the public record. The result of our critique was a 43 -page letter .detailing 86 separate legal defects., factual mistakes, analytical errors and policy misinterpretations in the Draft EIR. Upon reviewing and discussing our critique (dated December 9, 1997) with us, Tom Parillo of the County Planning staff and Neil McCabe, from the County Counsel's office, were quite responsive to our concerns, and agreed to halt public review and revise -the Draft EIR before using it as the basis for Project consideration. We explained that the Draft EIR prepared by PC was one of the worst EIR's that any of us had seen in 20 years, -and requested that PC be replaced by another EIR consultant, but for efficiency and budget reasons agreed to fund . PC's corrective work, provided that the main thrusts of our legal and.factual critique were incorporated into the "Revised Draft" EIR ("RD.EIR"). On January. 21, 1998, PC.proposed.to produce the RDEIR and Final EIR at a cost of approximately $30,000. This proposal, however, perpetuated several of the ' fundamental legal and analytical CEQA errors noted previously, and included several important new procedural and factual mistakes. We pointed out these mistakes, including the fact that PC still apparently was reluctant to follow the County staffs instructions, in a memo dated February 17, 1998. The County staff then directed PC to make a revised proposal corresponding to the "Scope of Work" outlined in our February 17, 19.98 memo. PC's revised proposal, dated April 21, 1998 (two months later), unfortunately continues to suggest CEQA interpretations which are legally incorrect, EIR contents which are mistaken, costly and confusing to the public, factual conclusions which are unsupported, and Project alternatives and mitigation measures which are legally unenforceable and factually unjustifiable. Specific Defects. The following lists the most important of the defects which PC. apparently refuses to acknowledge or fix, despite County staffs direction to do so: A. CEQA Misinterpretations/Legal Defects: 1. General Plan consistency. PC continues to advocate including some of PC's erroneous General Plan interpretations in the RDEIR. Jur request is that interpretation of Butte County's General Plan, zoning, precedents and future consequences be left to the County's Planning staff (who are accountable for the results), and that the RDEIR contain only that minimum Genera Plan discussion required by CEQA. 2. PC still wants not to revise Alternative #3. This alternative (the one with a 200 -foot setback from Hwy 99.) mus be revised; because (a) the 200=foot setback is legally unenforceable even if the County imposes it (ft's an unconstitutional "regulatory taking"), and (b) the resultant loss o: residential units violates State Planning Law and CEQA (see PRC 21000, 2100', 21085). A revised alternative should be crafted which fulfills CEQA's requi-ement that it "attain the project's purposes yet is capable of being approved such as an alternative that is partly multi -family or attached housing, or one that places its wastewater treatment facility on the southerly adjoining land:. 3., PC still wants not to delete or revise Alternative #4.. It, too, (the one 2 r with 1/2 -acre minimum lot sizes) must be revised, because of the same violations' of State Planning Law and .CEQA noted above. It does not attain the Project's F purposes of creating affordable housing and a self-contained residential neighborhood, and is economically infeasible; two reasons why it does not qualify as an adequate CEQA alternative. PC's rationale for including it is that it complies with -Chico's general plan, which is completely irrelevant since the site is outside Chico's city limits. One-half acre lots in this location in fact would violate general plan policies favoring "compact urban forms", by adding a low-density,., urbanized margin south of Chico. It.must be either revised or deleted entirely. 4. ' PC has overstated the legal effect of various informal DFG mitigation policies and informal guidelines, as well as the legal effect of the Natural Diversity Database.- There is no legal requirement for a 100 -foot minimum setback from the Durham Ditch, and even if there were, dedication of the setback area, as opposed to an easement, would violate the holding of the U. S. Supreme Court's Dolan v. Tigard decision, as another "regulatory taking". 5. We pointed out that PC's proposed mitigation meas ares for wetland J and sensitive biological effects should be replaced by a single mitigation standard . which defers to the expert state and federal agencies having jurisdiction, since PC's mitigation measures were factually and legally unjustified and bureaucratically duplicative. PC has refused, proposing instead simply to add our single mitigation standard to its current list.of unjustified mitigatican measures. B. EIR Formatting Errors: 1. PC has not acknowledged the legal invalidity of its two proposed "alternatives"; one with a 200 -foot setback, and one with 1/2 -acre lot sizes. Now that it has been directed to revise and delete those "alternatives", PC instead - notes that it will simply propose these Project -killing ideas as "Mitigation measures" instead. See A.2. and A.3. above. They remain legally invalid, regardless of whether they are alternatives or mitigation measures. 2. The DER contained no "offsite alternative" analysis which was an obvious unexcused legal deficiency. See GA. below. C. Factual/Project Definition Errors: -1. Analysis of offsite drainage is not a "cumulative" effect, since it is not 3 additional to the surface drainage effects of other development projects in this drainage basin (there are none). It is a "direct" Project effect, and, more analysis - is advisable only because the DEIR's analysis was superficial and unquantified. ' 2. r .'N& analysis of "cumulative" effects of reclaimed water disposal is neededeither, since there are no,other known reclaimed water disposal programs or effects ,in this area. Disposal of reclaimed water in any event is most likely to be by wetland restoration and/or groundwater, recharger and is least likely' to be by "spray fields". This too is a direct Project effect and must be analyzed + as such.,,',* , q •• n .3. �` The Project'does not include 100 -foot setbacks from Durham Ditch. See AA above. PC improperly concludes, despite evidence, CEQA precedent and? applicable policy guidelines to the contrary, that traffic noise will be a 4significant" adverse effect caused by the Project, and proposes a vastly expensive, ugly "soundwall" to mitigate it. Likewise, PC presumes that the Project will cause a - "significant adverse aesthetic effect", despite CEQA concepts, -precedent and facts to the contrary, and proposes a'200 -foot setback to "mitigate" it. When s directed to delete these unwarranted and unenforceable exactions, PC refuses to , do so. -.'D. Unwarranted Planning Policy Conclusions: 1., . PC continues to assume incorrectly that the Project- should comply with Chico's general plan designation of 1/2 -acre lots, contrary to the Coun 's General Plan requirement for small suburban lots at this location. r 2.. PC continues to misinterpret County General Plan *goals and policies, and to assume. that many such policies (residential density; noise, aesthetics', etc.) discourage various Project features. In fact the reverse is true, and County General Plan interpretations should be left to. the. Ccunty staff. E. CEQA Procedural Errors: 1. PC has presumed certain DFG policies and comments, and incorrectly incorporated them prematurely into RDEIR mitigation proposals. DFG necessarily will.be afforded opportunities to (a) comment on the RDEIR,.and. (b) a 4 regulate all incursions into streambed areas within its jurisdiction (see F&G Code 1600-1607). PC, though, has prejudged these comments and mitigation policies, in effect preempting the County's discretion to employ different policies, and forcing the County to administer mitigation measures within DFG jurisdiction. See A.4. above. , F. Undisclosed Anti -Project Bias: 1. PC has proposed several severe, unprecedented and legally invalid "exactions" as mitigation measures, apparently knowing that they would render the Project unattractive or financially infeasible if imposed. See A.2. (200 -foot setback), A.3. (1/2 -acre lots), A.4. (100 -foot setback from ditch),, CA (soundwall), density reductions, deletion of Parcourse and recreational amenities, etc. 2:; PC still proposes wetland and biological mitigation measures which require the County to duplicate regulatory efforts of expert state and federal agencies, at an unjustified cost to the County (see A.S. above). 3. PC dill refuses to accept the County staff's remedial instructions, and noted its refusals subtly in its proposed Scope of Work dated 4/21 /98. If this technique had not been caught, the administrative RIDER would have been completed incorrectly (and PC paid another $15-20,000), and then the County and Project owners would be forced to choose whether to fix the errors again. at the cost of another 2-3. months delay, or.go forward with the errors built into the administrative record. G. Unjustified_ Consultant Costs: .1. $3460 (est.) for additional analysis of "cumulative" traffic congestion seems too high. The facts and effects attributable to'both of these known projects haven't changed; the only issue needing additional analysis is the potential for regional infrastructure improvements made possible by Central Buttes,. Gateway, etc. to improve -traffic circulation. 2.$1948 (est.) for more analysis of Offsite drainage seems too high. See C.1. above. 3. $1865 (est.) for analysis of reclaimed water disposal seems too high. See C.2. above. 5, 4: $1200. now for analysis of an "offsite alternative" is unjustified, since CEQA requires all EIR's to include this feature, and it was completely omitted: from the DEIR. If PC had analyzed this mandatory Project alternative instead of the legally_ defective Alternatives #3 and #4, this additional cost would have been avoided., 5. $3220 to produce the RDEIR as a single document: superseding the DER (printing, reformatting costs only) seems way too high; PC previously, offered to-do this work at no charge. 6 „ $3560 to respond to our previous ,critique seems high, since PC already understands its points, and most of them are "self -responding", in the sense that they are either legal (no response needed), or merely explain DER issues in a more logical.or defensible way ("Comment noted" suffices as a FOR response). 7.. '$8200 to respond to new comments on the RDEIR seems high, since most.commentators will not repeat themselves or their comments on the DEIR. f 8. $4000 to make corrections to the Administrative draft RDEIR is very. high, and seems to presume that the Administrative draft will require many major corrections. The administrative draft RDEIR should be essentially final and complete, affording the Project.sponsor merely an assurance that it was done properly, not the necessity to correct still further deficiencies. The cost of pointing' out legal and analytical deficiencies in the DER so far has exceeded $14,000 in legal fees alone. 6 1. LAND OF NATURA1. WEAL TW AND BEAU 1' PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF CEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: 19161 S38-7601 FAX: 19161 538-7785 April 8, 1998 R�"C Jim Mann O Rural Consulting Associates A4% coAlsU 199, 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, CA 95973 - l /�C4' 81900 Re: Blakeley Western Business Park (GPA/Rezone 98-03) Dear Mr. Mann: Thank you for taking the time to meet with Tom Parilo, Craig Sanders and myself last week, and for providing me with a useful and interesting summary of yoir planning efforts to date at.the subject site. It was a pleasure to meet you and Mr. Gilbert, and .I'm looking forward to working with you on behalf of the County. The purpose of this letter is to summarize some of the project directio-i we discussed at our meeting so that you have a clear understanding of our expectations. Project Status Applications for general plan amendment and rezoning were filed on October 27, 1997. As part of the process of determining application completeness, staff has distributed the October 1997 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Mapprepared by Gilbert Engineering to various County departments and other service providers to solicit feed- back. Preliminary comment letters have been received from the following- County Public Works, LAFCo, Environmental Health, Fire Department, Air Quality Management District, U.S., Army Corps of -Engineers, Caltrans, Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game, Cal. Regional Water Quality .Control Board, Durham Unified School District, Cal Water, Durham Area Recreation District, PG&E, Durham Mutual Water Co. Please request copies. of these letters if you do not already have them. As we discussed and agreed at our meeting, the application will be revised prior to further processing. The scope of the revisions are discussed below. Your revised application materials will be re -circulated for review and comment. The fees already submitted are still applicable and work will be billed against this deposit. Overall Approach As you know, the County provides for industrial development throug,-i the;lndustrial land use designation in the General Plan and the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. However, based on the business park concept you have described, we have concluded that the existing General Plan and Zoning land use designations may not provide for the flexibility that you require. Furthermore, they do not provide a basis for design guidelines and other safeguards the County would like to see. As Mr. Parilo indicated, it is our expectation and understanding that the proposed project, . while providing economic benefits to the county, will .be of a very' higl caliber in terms of site planning and design. To accomplish this objective, we strongly believe that a new General Plan land use designation and Zoning classification are needed. These new land use designations would be drafted to reflect and facilitate the higf standards of this proposed project, but could also be applied elsewhere in the county. As we discussed, the most efficient approach to creating new County General Plan and Zoning designations is to adapt applicable ' documents in use elsewhere. It is my understanding that you are in the process of collecting such documents, and will provide copies for our review and comment. Once we have reviewed the land use documents, we will provide direction to you for. use in preparing draft texts. The draft general .plan designation and associated zoning will become a key element of your application materials. Project Revisions* . Land Use., We have expressed concerns about. the proposed inclusion.cf medium density residential land use on nearly 36 acres of the project site. In addition to exacerbating traffic problems in the area, the presence of dwellings could create land use conflicts within the proposed business park: It is our understanding that your revised application .will show this land use replaced with business park uses. Circulation. As we have discussed, reference to creation of a new intersection with Highway 99 should be deleted from the application. As you know, thD County's 1982 Freeway Agreement with Caltrans calls for closure of the- Estates Drive/Highway 99 intersection and, ultimately, construction of new interchanges at Neal Road and Southgate Avenue. Caltrans will not allow new at -grade interchanges. Moreover, the applicability of an interchange, as shown on your map, with connecting roadways is questionable since the land to the east (Swartz) isnot proposed for development. Application Materials In addition to completed standard application forms, your revised -application package should include four components, as follows: 1. Proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Map. Revision of the exhibit dated October 1997, reflecting changes in proposed land use, circulation, and other issues. 2. Narrative. A project description narrative is needed to explain various key elements of the proposal that cannot be adequately addressed graphically on the GPA/Rezone map. First, there should be a description of the overall concept of the project. The text should also address and provide detailed information concerning other key issues we have already identified and discussed, such as the proposed. land dedication to CSU, Chico, proposed storm drainage,'proposed sewage treatment and disposal, and circulation. 3. Conceptual Land Use Plan. This exhibit, which provides graphic information not appropriate for inclusion on the GPA/Rezone .map, should consist of an overall illustrative land use diagram, with details'as needed, that graphically depicts design concepts identified, in the narrative, including the location of the sewage treatment plant. (A plan of this type was previously prepared for the Gateway Chico project.) 4. Proposed General Plan and Zoninq Text. As indicated above, initially, you will provide County staff with copies of ordinances and. general plan land use descriptions adopted and in use elsewhere. Following discussions among County staff and with you, draft text will be prepared and distributed for wider review along with the other application materials. It is understood that you will prepare the draft text based on our direction. Environmental Review. Process As you are aware, an environmental impact report will be required, for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone. The scope of the analyses will be determined following the Notice of Preparation process. Hopefully, some economy in both cost and time can be achieved by using background information contained in Vie Gateway Chico EIR (SCH 93122063), even though it was never certified by the County. Also, background data collected for the Blakeley Western residential project EIR may be applicable to the project site. Certain technical studies will be required as part of.the environmental review process. Some studies that have already been completed may be useful. T:) date, you have provided us, with the following: 1) Market. Support for 300 -acre Chico- Gateway Development, Chico, California, September 1992, Economic Research Associates, 2) The Economic Impact of Gateway Chico on Butte County, California, Seotember 6, 1994, Regional and Economic Sciences;. and 3) Preliminary Wetland Assessment Map, January 19, 1993, Sugnet and Associates. Please provide us with copies of any other studies that have been prepared that have a bearing on your project and the project vicinity. Also, you are encouraged to provide a detailed description of which aspects of the Chico Gateway project are incorporated in your current proposal. It is our expectation that, with a sufficient level of information in the project description, the EIR should be adequate to address subsequent tentative maps and most other land use applications ultimately required within the project area, thereby eliminating the need for preparation'of additional EIR&: However, it is premature to make this determination at this time. Upon submittal of all requested application materials and all available background studies, we will initiate the environmental. review process, beginning with preparation and distribution of a Notice of Preparation. 1 Again, on behalf of the County, .I look forward to receipt of the materials identified above and to working with you and Mr. Gilbert on this important application. Please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone (916.782.1098) if you have .any .questions. All submittals should be made to the County Department'of Development Services. Sincerely, 4,a, Randy M. Chafin., AICP Contract Planner cc: Wesley Gilbert, Gilbert Engineering Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time 3:43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet 93-23A * Gateway Blakeley Western In reference to": General Plan Amendment, File No. 93-23'1�ppeal Rounding None. Full Precision No Last bill Last charge c 01/26/95 Last payment 03/14/95 Amount. $716.00 Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL. 11/07/94 Lynn R. / C 0.25 11.25- #3794 CLERICAL - 45.00 11/14/94 Lynn R. /.0 .2.00 90.00' #3989 CLERICAL 45..00 11/14/94 Craig S. / P, 3.00 177.00 #4073 PROCESSING 59.00 11/28/94 Barbra D. / C 0.50 22.50 #4113 CLERICAL 45.00 11/28/94 Craig S. / P 0.75 44.25 #4143 PROCESSING 59.00 01/23/95 Lynn R.', / C. 0.50 22.50 #4700 Clerical 45.00 01/23/95 Craig S. / P 6.00 354.00 #470.8 Processing 59.00 $721.50 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME.CHARGES 13.00 $0.00 TOTAL BILLABLE'COSTS $72.1.50 TOTAL NEW CHARGES . PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 11/02/94 Deposit - Receipt #16790 for (175.00) $250.00 $75.00 for Clerk of the Board publishing.fees. 'Data 07/10/00` Development Services Department _ F '' `' f � 4. Time .3 :43 Pm `, µ - Applicant -Billing Worksheet (Page` 3 95 -197 -TSM, Blakeley Western, c/o Jim Mann 55 Independence Circle ; } Suite 101 r- , Chico; CA 95973 In-•reference,to':.TSM; AP#040-050-024,064,054 ptn.. �- ' Rounding None , Full Precision,• .. No .. $ Last bill, �• / Last charge 04/30/99 ' Last payment.,, +` / -/° Amount $0.00 Date/Slip# Description - HOURS/RATE AMOUNT' TOTAL 06/19/95 Linda' T. / C. 2.50 85.00 #5967. Clerical 34.00 07/03/95 Larry P'.. / -P 3.00 177.00 #6132 Processing 59.00 07/03/.95 Linda T. /,' C 1.'00 34. 00 ; #6196 Clerical °".:f 34.00 - 07/17/95 Steve /" PF �. 5:00 295.00 ,H.. #6244 Processing \' 59.00 • 07/17/95 Linda T'.' / C , . 1.00 34•.00 #6268 Clerical 34.00 07/17/95 Craig S. / P + 1.50 88.50 #6303 Processing. • ;, 59.00 - 07/31/95 Steve -H. / P 0.50 29.50.,.. #6390 Processing - 59.00 F 08/2.6.•/95 .Steve H'.: /;: P f 0.25. 14 75 '' #6594. Processing ,59.00 ' 09/25/95 Steve H.'/ P 1.25 73.75 -#6797 Processing ", 59.00 10/09/95' Steve H. ` /• P 3.50 206.50 #6935 Processing • 59.00 '. -10/23/95 Steve H. / P 10.25 604.75;, #7005. Processing .. 59.00 „ 11/06/95 Steve H.'/ P -- 4.00 236.00 '. #7126 Processing 59.00 Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time 3:43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 4 95-197 TSM ':Blakeley Western, c/o Jim Mann (continued) Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 11/20/95 Steve H. / P 2.25 132.75 #7178 Processing 59.00 12/04/95 Steve H. / P 4.50 265.50 #7279 Processing 59.00 12/1'8/95 Steve H. / P 4.25 250.75 #7398 Processing .59.00 01/01/96 Steve H. / F 1.50 88.50 #7543 Processing, 59.00 01/15/96 Steve H.- / P 1.00 59.00 #7656 Processing 59.00 01/29/96- Steve H. / P 4.00 236.00 #7750 Processing 59.00 02/12/96 Steve H. /:P 1.00 5.9.00.. #7890. Processing 59.00 02/26/96 Steve H. / P 2.50 147.50 #8055 Processing 59.00 03/25/96 Steve H. / P 1.75. 103.25 #8226 Processing 59.00 04/22/96 Steve H. / P 2.25 132.75 #8516 Processing. 59.00 05/06/96 Steve H. / P 0.25 14.75 #8690 Processing 59.00 05/20/96 Steve H. / P 2.00 118.00 #8759 Processing 59.00 06/03/96 Steve H. /-P 2.50 147.50 #8989 Processing, 59.00 06/17/96 Steve H. / P 1.50 88.50 #9090 Processing. 59.00 08/12/96 Steve H. / P 1.00 59.00 #9643 Processing. 59.00 _ Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time.3:43.pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 5 95-197 TSM :Blakeley Western, c/o Jim Mann (continues) Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 09/21/9.6 Steve H. P 2.25 132.75 #9944 Processing 59.00 12/16/96 Steve H. / P 1.50 88.50 #10526 Processing 59.00 01/13/97 Steve H. / P 1.00 5.9.00 #10722 Processing 59.00 02/10/97: Steve H. ./ -,P 3.90- 177.00 #10934 Processing .59.00 02/24/97 Steve, H.- /.P 0.25 14.75 #11081 -.P.rocessing 59.00 03/10/97 Steve- H. / P 3.50 206.50 #11116 Processing 59.00 04/07/97 Steve. H.:-./. P. 4..00 236.00: #11418 Processing 59.00 04/07/97 Toni P. / D 2.50 147.50 ..NO CHARGE #13380 Director 59.00 04/21/97 Steve H. /:P 2.50 147.50 #11524 Processing -59'.00 04/21/97 Tom P. / D 4.75 280.'25 NO CHARGE ; #13379 Director 59.00 05/05/97 Steve H. P 0.25 14.75 #11613 Processing 5.9.00 05/19/97 Steve H. /.P'- 2.50 147.50 #11738 Processing 59.00 06/02/97 Steve H. / P 0.50 29.50 #11757 Processing 59.00 06/30/97 Steve'H. / P 0.50 29.50, #12047 Processing 59.00 07/14/97 Steve H.-,/ P 5.75 339.25 NO CHARGE #12142 Processing 59.00 Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time 3:43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet, Page 6 95-197 TSM :Blakeley Western, c/o Jim Mann (continued) Date/Slip# Description r HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 07/14/97 Tom.P. / D 0.75 44.25 NO CHARGE #13378 Director 59.00 07/28/97. -Tom P. / D 2.50 147.50 NO CHARGE' #13377 Director 59.00 08/25/97 Steve H:-/ P 0.25 14.75 ,NO.CHARGE. #12426 Processing 59.00 09/08/97 Steve H. / P. 0.50 29.50 NO CHARGE #12582 Processing 59.00 09/22/97 Steve H. /.'P 6.50 383.50 #12755 - Processing, 59.00 10/06/97 Teri .B. / C 11.00 374.00 .#12950 Clerical 34.00 10/06/97 Diana. S .. / C. 3.-40 115.60.- 15.60 ...#13025 #13025 Clerical 34.00 10/06/97. Steve -H. / P 12.00 708.00 413066 Processing 59.00 10/20/97 Brian L. / PA 3.75 221.25 NO CHARGE .#13544. Administrative Analyst 59.00 10/20/97 Steve L. / LR` ..1.00 59.00 #13546 LAFCo Review 59.00 10/20/97 Steve H. / P 9.75 575..25 #13602 Processing 59.00: 11/03/97 Steve H. / P 12.50 737.50 .. #13622 Processing.. 59.00 11/03/97 Diana S. / C 2.00.. 68:.00 #13662 Clerical 34.00 11/03/97 Larry P. / P' 1.00 59.00 #13682 Processing 59.00 11/17/97 Diana S. / C 0.10. 3.40 #13946 Clerical' 34.00 Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time 3:43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 7 95=197 TSM :Blakeley'Western, c/o Jim Mann.(continued) Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL '11/17/97.Steve.H. / P 3:50 206.50 #14026 Processing 59.00 12/01/97 Steve H. / P 10.50 619.50 #14130 Processing 59.00 12/01/97 Diana S.-/ C 8.50 289.00 #14216 Clerical.. 34.00 12/15/97 Steve H. / P 5.50' 324.50 #14458 Processing 59.00 12/29/97 Steve H. / P 1.25 73.75 #14573 Processing 59.00 01/12/98 Steve H. / P 3.00 177:00 #15530 Processing 59.00 .01/26/98 ,Tom P. / D 1.25 .73.7.5', NO CHARGE #15818 Director 59.00- 02/09/98'Steve H. / P 0.25 14.75 #15153 Processing 59.00 ..02/09/98 Tom P. / D 0.50 29.50 NO CHARGE #15800 Director 59.00 03/09/98 Steve H. / P 0.50 29.50 #15605 Processing 59.00 03/23/98 Steve H. -/.P 0.50 29.50 . #15854 Processing.. 59.00 06/01/98 Tom P. / D 3.75 221.25 NO CHARGE #17796 Director 59.00 06/29/98 Tom P. /.D 2.25 132.75 NO CHARGE #17786 Director 59.00 03/22/99 Randy W. / P, 3.00 177.00 NO CHARGE #22466 Processing..., 59.00 03/22/99 Dan B. / P 1.00 59.00 NO CHARGE #22467 Processing 59.00 TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $48.60 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $10,299.85 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 06/27/95 Deposit - Receipt #14910 (1,000.00) 11/26/96 Deposit - Receipt #15673 (3,914.25) TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($41914.25) NEW BALANCE New Current period 5,385.60• TOTAL NEW BALANCE .$5,385.60 Date 07/10/00': •Development Services Department Time 3,:43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 8 95-197 TSM :Blakeley Western, c/o Jim Mann (continued) Date/Slip#'Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT. TOTAL 04/05/99 Dan'B. / P 3.75 -221.25 NO CHARGE #22598-. Processing 59.00 04/05/99 Randy, W. / P 1.75 103.25 #22753 Processing 59.00 04/19/99 Dan'B. / P .4.00 .236.00 #22891 Processing 59.00 186.25 $10.,251.25 TOTAL BILLABLE.TIME'CHARGES TOTAL NO CHARGE TIME CHARGES 36.25 $21-138.75 Date/Slip# Description QTY/PRICE 1.0/11/97 Diana S../ $C 1 48.60 #12918 Publish Legal Notice in Chico 48..60 Enterprise Record TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $48.60 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $10,299.85 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 06/27/95 Deposit - Receipt #14910 (1,000.00) 11/26/96 Deposit - Receipt #15673 (3,914.25) TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($41914.25) NEW BALANCE New Current period 5,385.60• TOTAL NEW BALANCE .$5,385.60 Date 07/10/00 Development Services Department Time 3:.43 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 9 REZ 98-03 :.Blakel,ey Western Attn: Jim Mann 55 Independence Circle, No. 101 Chico, CA 95973 In reference to.: Rezone, AP#040-050-0641067 & 040-120-019 Rounding : None Full Precision• : No' Last bill Last charge 07/24'/98 Last payment /. / Amount $0.00 Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL . 10/20/97 Teri B. / C 2.00 68.00 #13502 Clerical. 34.00 11/03/97 Paula L:. / LR 0.25 14.75 #13649 LAFCo Review 59.00 11/03/97 Larry P.'/ P 1.00 59.00 #13681 Processing 59.00 11/03/97 Craig S: / P 0.50 29.50 #13794 Processing 59.00 12/01/97 Craig S. /-P 0.50 29.50 #14290 Processing 59.00 01/26/98 Craig S. / P. 0.25 14.75 #15037 Processing 59.00 06/01/98 Tom P. / D 3.75 221.25 NO CHARGE #17559 Director 59.00 07/13/98 Tom P. / P. 1.50 .88.50 #18053 Processing 59.00 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES 6.00 TOTAL NO CHARGE TIME CHARGES -.3.75 TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $304.00 $221.25 $0.00 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $304.00 Chronology for Blakeley Western Applications The following is a chronology of.events for the applications submitted by the Blakeley Western group, for the land generally bounded on the east by State Highway 99, to the south by Neil Road, to the west by the Oroville-Chico Highway and to the north by the Butte Creek Country Club. General Plan Amendment 93-23 The earliest application received from Blakeley Western appears to be General Plan Amendment 93- 23, dated June -3, 1993. This GPA proposed to change the General Plan for the area from Grazing and Open -Lands, to Low Density Residential, Industrial, Commercial, and Medium Density Residential. An EIR was also prepared for this project (Gateway Chico Project), but was never certified. The Board of Supervisors denied this project on January 24, 1995. A motion of intent to approve the GPA, offered by Supervisor Houx, died for lack of a second, &-id included a long list of changes that needed attention prior to actual approval. The successful motion, which denied the GPA, also instructed the applicant to work with the County on the General Plan update that was then in progress. Blakeley Western Tentative Subdivision Map 95-197 The next application received was Tentative Subdivision Map 95-197. An EIR was also prepared for this project (Subdivision). This is a proposal for 169 lots on 62 acres. The Subdivision Map is located on that portion of the Blakeley Western land that is zoned R-lsouti and east of the Butte Creek Estates Subdivision adjacent to Highway 99. The following events have transpired since the application was filed: 1. Application filed. June 27, 1995 2. Application was deemed complete. October 9, 1995 3. A series of meetings were held between staff and the September 15, 1995 applicant. These meetings dealt with various aspects February 5, 1996 of the EIR, but mainly traffic and circulation issues June 9, 1997 involving project access to State Route 99. July 29,1997 4. Letter to Jim Mann regarding the relocation of the June 5, 1997 Freeway interchange from Neal Road and related land use issues. 5. Discussed how to pay for future interchange, area of June 19, 1997 benefit, and other land use implications. 6. DEIR submitted by consultant. October 2, 1997 7. DRC DEIR hearing. November 13, 1997 8. DRC extended public comment period until November 13, 1997 December 10, 1997. Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 2 9:. Many comments received including a 45 page letter December 9, 1997 from the applicant's attorney. The letter primarily addressed increasing the legal defensibility of the EIR, especially with respect to General Plan consistency. 10. A new work program was considered for making the December 15, 1997 suggested changes to the EIR and Response to Comments at a cost of approximately $14,520. Primary issues: • Discuss new interchange. • Cumulative traffic issues with Gateway Park. • Revise GP consistency discussion. Respond to Aikens 45 -page comment letter. Outstanding issues needed to be resolved: Evaluate sewage spray area-additional.budget. Need cumulative drainage analysis from applicant - may need additional budget. • Durham Mutual Water prohibits treated effluent into ditch/Crouch Ravine. 11. Letter from applicant attorney suggesting recirculation December 29, 1997 of EIR. 12. Revised Scope of work from Consultant in response January 21, 1998 to applicant's attorney. $25,505 without subs: • Re -circulation. • Central access. • Project modification to eliminate spray irrigation flow to Durham Ditch. • Second set of response to comments. • Qualitative cumulative analysis of Gateway Park. • Central Butte cumulative analysis. Additional information needed from applicant: • Legal right to direct drainage to Durham Ditch. • : Revised sewage disposal area (Gateway Park). • ID location and size of spray irrigation fields. • Provide cumulative drainage plan. • Changed circulation a la Gateway Park. . Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 3 13. Phone meeting. Doug Aikins, applicant's attorney, assuming co -project mgt. role. Address the items in January 28, 1998, proposal. 14. Meeting with Doug Aikins, applicant's attorney, Bill Beck, Neil McCabe, Jim Mann, & TAP to discuss concerns regarding the EIR, remaining process, and consultant proposal to finish the EIR. Applicant requested to address outstanding issues before EIR processed. Doug Aikins was to assume project management role. 15. Letter from T. Parilo to Jim Mann suggesting that freeway interchange remain at Neal Rd. due to larger land use implications. 16. Revised cost estimate of $38,840 to revise and finalize EIR. Identified applicant responsibilities for additional studies and Project description modifications: January 27, 1998 March 17, 1998 April 24, 1998 April 27, 1998 • Revised drainage and sewage treatment proposals. • Location, size and layout of effluent spay fields. • Cumulative off site drainage analysis (originally requested i-1 1997). • Revised TSM with project changes. 17. Letter from D. Aikins transmitting memo to J. Mann & May 27, 1998 B. Beck discussing DEIR defects and unjustified consultant costs. 18. Letter to Doug Aikins from TAP extending the option to, among other comments, issue new RFP. There was no further progress or action on the EIR after this letter. 19. Meeting with Jim Mann to discuss and suggest combining Gateway Park into TSM project. 20. Meetings with the applicant to discuss project design issues. 21. Applicant submitted revised drawings for the Subdivision Subdivision. A revised application was not received with the drawings. The new drawings changed the number June 19, 1998 July 7, 1998 April 26, 1999 and September 20, 1999 .July 16, 1999 and .January 11, 1999, Blakeley Chronology July 18, •2000 Page 4 of lots from 169 to 123, and reduced the size of the project from 62 to 40.7 acres (some versions of these drawings have 134 parcels proposed on 40.7 acres). Planning Division staff provided some initial comments regarding the new drawings at this meeting, which also included revised drawings for GPA/Rezone 98-03 (see below). Staff's initial comments regarding these new drawings are attached. 22. County billing indicates that the applicant owes $5,385.60 in processing cost for this application, although the applicant has not yet been billed for this cost. General Plan Amendment/Rezone 98-03 The next application received was GPA/Rezone 98-03, dated October 22, 1957. This was submitted as one similar to the application denied by the Board on January 24, 1995 (s. -,e GPA 93-23, above), but additionally included a rezone from A-40 and Unclassified to M-1, C-2 aid R-2. The following is a summary of the events associated with this application: 1. County retained Randy Chafin, contract Planner, to process the application. 2. "Meeting with Jim Mann, Wes Gilbert, Randy Chafin, Craig Sanders & T. Parilo to discuss needed project information and processing expectations for the GPA/Rezone. 3. Letter to Jim Mann from Randy Chafin identifying processing procedures, additional application information, and requirement for an EIR. This letter essentially deems the application incomplete until the applicant fulfilled a number of requirements detailed in the letter. Specifically, staff requested that the applicant amends the application to include research & business park type zoning (which has since been passed by the Board), delete 36 acres of residential zoning and replace with business park uses, and delete reference to the at -grade interchange with State Route 99. Some other technical changes to' the application materials were also requested. Additionally, an EIR was requested, with the suggestion of using background information from the "Gateway Chico' March 15, 1998 April 1, 1998 April 8, 1998 Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 5 E11R. The applicant was requested to submit the information prior to commencing the EIR process. To date, a letter of authorization to proceed has not been received. 4. New drawings submitted. Many changes made including, increasing the amount of R-2 (residential) zoning proposed from 35.8 to 46 acres, deleted plans for a 7.4 -acre park site, and also included minor changes to other zones as well. The drawings additionally deleted references to an at -grade intersection with SR -99, and further proposed a wastewater treatment facility, to be located on the east side of SR -99 to also serve the residential TSM to the north. Also included was a drawing of a tentative subdivision map for the GPA/Rezone area, proposing 10 parcels, with an average size of 29 acres. No amended application was submitted at the time these proposed changes were discussed and no. authorization to proceed on the EIR was received. 5. Meeting with county staff. Applicant submitted preliminary CC&Rs and indicated that it will be submitted with the application documents, 6. Meeting with Jim Mann, Wes Gilbert, Bill Beck (phone). Discussed Nationwide Permit grading on TSM site. Have concern with R&BP proposed GPA designation and ZO text. Inquired about using a Development Agreement to assure development standards. No further contact since this meeting. 7. County billing indicates that the applicant has $1,696.00 deft on account, from an initial deposit of $2,000.00. January 11, 1999 April 26, 1999 November 20, 1999 ae -r //•� ('/,mow/ Ny iI 'I, � Ace, � � •` :� _ c.o 4 c ass �. � ..�i,�.,, (b Z' 4&4-44A ge C Cello i J —G UOice 1.0 — -- — (I I — � - ' i • ' ` — C?s- [ 41'1. -- )LW4- •Al/. .. .. , r . # ._ �. .. r .. _ � { T, � � • . wiz' �. � .e � .J �� ,' 1. ��. � � - _ � �' "��«. i a - � r ��' Blakeley Western. Proposed Subdivision -. Project, Description SEE SHEET 2 OF 4SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 79S _ . .�'�.� HIGA9VAY . I 99.. ' LocnnoN MAP - NIpIHAM • ■QA9 tr — _ — — - ... • NO TO SCALE - .. 1645• IMO(tAQ ROAD 4' = — �'y� ewe\ 1 > �>i'�--�i• r o •.• -.. .ped Mi..:r:: n'l� .J• _ _ � rIN Is m�• s9 r f - 7 s • ■ • ■ t w KT AN05 • T e s' ■ r r r r r PRESERVE' ■ • • � � � � � � r w � r u w..• g p4■ • ■ • • r - -. • a _ ;= i', =. r LEGEND " � . • • • n ' r � PROP. PAR COURSE AND OPEN SPALL 1DGTION >o •, • v .■ r " NOTES: - '' „ ■ sssRT t r r r i r - ON ff lAT LYS 1) NO EWS7W0 MEDS. ABA 7n, MILLS OR SUMPS n r ■ .. ' >_ STING ROCK WALL E)oST am T►E PROPERTY. 2) THERE ARE NO STRICTURES ON THE PROPERTY. . ■ r r f .' 3) SUBOMSHON 6HiORMATIM . H■ r ■ w ■ .r • • ` TOTAL ACREAGE - 62 .. - r . stRRs T. ■ e i� - 169 LOTS s 000 of ■ AVERAGE R $ RHVVATE ROADS - ZE i12 oce p r m r r - PAR COURSE/PUBUC AREAS - 49 ■ts••t . . .. r - r ■ WETLANDS PRESERVE - 49 oa■•t ..� .. - r ■ O f ■ IN ` - 4) STORM WATER MPX*T WATER OUAUTY MIO QUANTITY WILL f ■ ' BE PRONGED THROUGH THE USE of ON -91E UNDER OROHRHO . .. •'P'. r v - - AND ABOVE GROUND REMIlDN/DETENTION BASINS f' r WASTE BE PROVIDED BY A COUMUNITY r r I s) TREEATU04T F OUTY L MEEW4 INE REOU OdENTS OF TIMES J r r I REGIONAL WATER QUALTY CONTROL BOARD AND WILL BE . 376• - - - OPERATED BY A COMMUNITY SERVICES 067I6CT i11AT K TO . BE FORM;a, . 6) ALL STREETS wTIM THE gjawAsON ARE PRIVATE STREETS . - .. CDNSTRUC71:9 TO BUrn COUNTY STANDARDS:' . STREETS 'A' TNRU'r - RS -2(9) (60' RHCHT OF WAY. EXCEPT AS NOT1:L) . __} RHONTAGE ROAD - RS -,(A) (SO• 2CT OF WAY) CU. -OE -SAC PROPERTY N UNE RADIUS - SO' . . PROPERTY UNE RETURN RADIUS - 20' • - ' OMNM BLAKELEY WESTERN - - - ■u1L"= ssfAl,ort '� • • -'A*- ' 46 MONARCt SAY - rum? Aro TKAIM >). Tie lR•R 0/ ZONE MONARCH BEACH. G 92629 - . t. U&SUVAATMI 1�sA■V TOPOGRAPHIC reFORET 4 AND THE iL000 . (714) 499-2168 �. A. .. _ ARE SIIOM71 ON SHEET ♦ OF 4. • , ` _ I 6j PAR COURSE/OPEN SPACE TO BE MAINTANED BY. A COMMUNITY sTBOM0M CC/�RALWESTER1L1M0 ASSOOATE$ SL1ri10ES DISTRICT THAT K TO BE FORMED. ^ -/ RURAL CONS.LTINO �� TOI - 9) LOTS 1 THRU 169 WILL BE A PART:OF A PRIVATE 'GATED" COMMUN T! OHICO, G 93916 - SERVED BY PRIVATE ROADS (STREETS 'A' THRU 117 THAT ARE (916) 699-9849 .. .� }• 7 M MOM CONSTRUCTED TO BUM COUNTY STANOAEtO RS-2jB} W .. ._ ENGMEI2! pLBptt EHGMHEOlNO � .~, •'. • - � .. 3 - � ' .. .. r.,. � WISELY t OILBOeT, R.C.E. 31669 `- 0RMIB -• - 33 wovoHOERCE ORCLE- StATE 101 ti 7 09COL G 93926 (916) 699-930.3 A. P. NOa 040-030.02 _ 040-0.50•OU (PORTON) - DL AyEL L) ��p��}ERN PROPERTIES ROPS TIES LANG USE: PRES011: VACANT Dl1'1l1rJrGi TY�711/Il�l\ riWr�lllli+7 i PROPOS@ SINGE ►AMRY RESOQIIIAL zO sGu -i*:Oar NINQ DOS19sQ Ti'i R-1 �.� iE lAl1•.-svBDi cN- mA PROPOSM R-1 UTTUTIM SANITARY SCM* COMMUNITY TRUTMENT Sym ti j �� BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 1; 2, CE 3 OF STORM DRAW cauNTr or earn •„ THE RXDURHAM TRACT AND A PORTION - - - WATM CALFOMA MATO SERNCE 00. - - ;,R - OF THE RANCHO ESQUON 1� IIMl16TJ1T10•!P � iA� �'►•,�„�' COUNTY OF BUTTE �""6vDawaR 0! 671 STATE OF CAUFORNIA Jul'• - - _ CASA TVI OIA1LBOei CABLE � .. W. A-4« tet' emT owEEle.H wa. WESLEY .D1waHa■M.I• . Y E GILBERT. RCE 31ON • - u 0400 004CE CIRCUL sum 101 WIT. ,NI 0■C0. CAfCRMw* 939m . KW>� H■RIN■1: ,••• A•t. ill■ •QT 1 s .• ��� -- • , . � ��•de � .use � � s4��E =, o�P �� c�.Jjv►/1.—lit 4�h' t r ��� B . �//2 �c/���'�� � yiPY Q�t/�`L � •PNS �O�C.� " t ��Z. + - �' /� C�,cc�C.� � Cr C`GSJ � , x•04 /�' .� �' � Ki .cv� •lam ! 4 c coo to (e f ' . ���3. ca�,,►.� � saute us . . , .: • tt ^3 � VOL L14,47 7j _ / . - n ,. a �9 .n ter✓ ! !'�1 . _ /7I / /� '—X27-3gDe2- Chronology for Blakeley Western Applications The following is a chronology of events for the applications submitted by the Blakeley Western group, for the land generally bounded on the east by State Highway 99, to the south by Neil Road, to the west by the Oroville-Chico Highway and to the north by the Butte'Creek Country Club. General Plan Amendment 93-23 The earliest application received from Blakeley Western appears to be Genercl Plan Amendment 93- 23, dated June 3, 1993. This GPA proposed to change the General Plan for the area from Grazing and Open Lands to Low Density Residential, Industrial, Commercial, and Medium Density Residential. An EIR was also prepared for this project (Gateway Chico FT01 *ect), but was never certified. The Board of Supervisors denied this project on January24, 1995 A motion of intent to approve the GPA, offered by Supervisor Houx, died for lack of a second, and included a long list of changes that needed attention prior to actual approval. The successful motion, which denied the GPA, also instructed the applicant to work with the County on the General Plain update -that was then in progress. Blakelev Western Tentative Subdivision Man 95-197 The next application received was Tentative Subdivision Map 95-197. An EIR was also prepared for this project (Subdivision): This is a proposal for 169 lots on 62• acres. The Subdivision Map is located on that portion of the Blakeley Western land that is zoned R-lsouth and east of the Butte Creek Estates Subdivision adjacent to Highway 99. The following events hzve transpired since the application was filed: 1. Application filed. 2. Application was deemed complete. 3. A series of meetings were held between staff and the applicant. These meetings dealt with various aspects of the EIR, but mainly traffic and circulation issues involving project access to State Route 99. 4. Letter to Jim Mann regarding the relocation of the Freeway interchange from Neal Road and related land use issues. 5. Discussed how to pay for future interchange, area of benefit, and other land use implications. 6. DEIR submitted by consultant. 7. DRC DEIR hearing. "8. DRC extended public comment period until December'10, 1997. .lune 27, 1995 October 9, 1995 September 15, 1995 February 5, 1996 June 9, 1997 July 29,1997 June 5, 1997 June 19, 1997 October 2, 1997 November 13, 1997 November 13, 1997 Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 2 9. Many comments received including a 45 page letter from the applicant's attorney. The letter primarily addressed increasing the legal defensibility of the EIR, especially with respect to General Plan consistency. 10. A new work program was considered for making the suggested changes to the EIR and Response to Comments at a cost of approximately $14,520. Primary issues: • Discuss new interchange. • Cumulative traffic issues with Gateway Park. • Revise GP consistency discussion. • Respond to Aikens 45 -page comment letter. .Outstanding issues needed to be resolved: • Evaluate sewage spray area -additional budget. • - Need cumulative drainage analysis from applicant - may need additional budget. • Durham Mutual Water prohibits treated effluent into ditch/Crouch Ravine. 1 L. Letter from applicant attorney suggesting recirculation of EIR. 12. Revised Scope of work- from Consultant in response to applicant's attorney. $25,505 without subs: • Re -circulation. • Central access. • Project modification to eliminate spray irrigation flow to Durham Ditch. • Second set of response to comments. • Qualitative cumulative analysis of Gateway Park. • Central Butte cumulative analysis. Additional information needed from applicant: • Legal right to direct drainage to Durham Ditch. • Revised sewage disposal area (Gateway Park). • ID location and size of spray irrigation fields. •. Provide cumulative drainage plan. • Changed circulation a la Gateway Park. December 9, 1997 December 15, 1997 December 29, 1997 anuary 21, 1998 Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 3 13. Phone meeting. Doug Aikins, applicant's attorney, January 27, 1998 assuming co -project mgt. role. Address the items in January 28, 1998, proposal. 14. Meeting with Doug Aikins, applicant's attorney, March 17, 1998 Bill Beck, Neil McCabe, Jim Mann, & TAP to discuss concerns regarding the EIR, remaining process, and consultant proposal to finish the EIR. Applicant requested . to address outstanding issues before EIR.processed. ` Doug Aikins was to assume project management role. 15. Letter from T:.Parilo to Jim Mann suggesting that freeway April 24, 1998 interchange remain at Neal Rd. due to larger land use implications. 16. Revised cost estimate of $38,840 to revise and finalize EIR. April 27, 1998 Identified applicant responsibilities for additional studies and Project description modifications: • . Revised drainage .and sewage treatment proposals. • Location, size and layout of effluent spay fields. •; Cumulative off site drainage analysis (originally requested in 1997). + Revised TSM with project changes. 17. Letter from D. Aikins transmitting memo to J. Mann & May 27, 1998 B. Beck discussing DEIR defects and unjustified consultant costs. 18. Letter to Doug Aikins from TAP extending the option to, among other comments,, issue new RFP. There was no further progress or action on the EIR after this letter. 19. Meeting with Jim Mann to discuss and suggest combining Gateway Park into TSM project. 20. Meetings with the applicant to discuss project design. issues. 21. Applicant submitted revised drawings for the Subdivision Subdivision. A revised application was not received with the drawings. The new drawings changed the number une 19, 1998 July 7, 1998 April 26, 1999 and September 20, 1999 July 16, 1999 and January 11, 1999 of lots from 169 to 123, and reduced the size of the project from 62 to 40.7 acres (some versions of these drawings have 134 parcels proposed on 40.7 acres). Planning Division staff provided some initial comments regarding the new drawings at this meeting, which also included revised drawings for GPA/Rezone 98-03 (see below). Staff's initial comments regarding these new drawings are attached. 22. County billing indicates that the applicant owes $5,385.60 in processing cost for this application, although the applicant has not yet been billed for this cost. General Plan Amendment/Rezone 98-03 The next application received was GPA/Rezone 98-03, dated October 22, 1997. This was submitted 'as one similar to the application denied by the Board on January 24, 1995 (see GPA 93-23, above), but additionally included a rezone from A-40 and Unclassified to M-1, C-2 and R-2. 'The following is a summary of the events associated with this application: 1. County retained Randy Chafin, contract Planner, March 15, 1998 to process the application. 2. Meeting with Jim Mann, Wes Gilbert, Randy Chafin, April 1, 1998 Craig Sanders & T. Parilo to discuss needed project information and processing expectations for the GPA/Rezone. 3. Letter to Jim Mann from Randy Chafin identifying .April 8, 1998 processing procedures, additional application information, and requirement for an EIR. This letter essentially deems the application incomplete until the applicant fulfilled a number of requirements detailed in the letter. Specifically, staff requested that the applicant amends the application to include research & business park type zoning (which has since been passed by the Board), delete 36 acres of residential zoning and replace with business park uses, and delete reference to the at -grade interchange with State Route 99. Some other technical changes to the application materials were also requested. Additionally, an EIR was requested, with the. suggestion of using background information from the "Gateway Chico" Blakeley Chronology July 18, 2000 Page 5. EIR'. The applicant was requested to submit the information ' prior to commencing the EIR process. To date, a letter of authorization to proceed has not been received. 4. New drawings submitted. January, 11, 1999 Many changes made including, increasing the amount of R-2 (residential) zoning proposed from 35.8 to 46 acres, ' deleted plans for a 7.4 -acre park site, "and also included minor changes to other zones as well. The drawings additionally deleted references to an at -grade intersection with SR -99, and further proposed a wastewater treatment facility, to be located on the east side of SR -99 to also serve the residential TSM to the north. Also included was. a drawing of a tentative subdivision map for the GPA/Rezone area, proposing 10 parcels, with an average size of 29 acres. No amended application was submitted at the time these proposed changes were discussed and no authorization to . proceed on the EIR was received. 5.. Meeting with county staff. April 26, 1999 Applicant submitted preliminary CC&Rs and indicated that it will be. submitted with the application documents, 6. Meeting with Jim Mann, Wes Gilbert, Bill Beck (phone). -November 20, 1999 Discussed Nationwide Permit grading on TSM site. Have ' concern with R&BP proposed GPA designation and ZO text. Inquired about using a Development Agreement to assure development standards. No further contact since this meeting. 7.' County billing indicates that the applicant has $1,696.00 left on account, from an initial deposit of $2,000.00. L: I I I 1r I Mkq�TER PLAN 0 1 _, .� • ay t r j 7 r Tl 11ai (`iY �•- ♦rrr�... ' 40 FA.TRNVAY' XNO Ll: } 17 NV'ln :, . _ 1 i i► 4 Rural Consulting Associates 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, CA 95973 Land Development • Entitlements (530) 899-9849 Project Management FAX (530) 891-3690 July 10, 2000 Mr. John Blacklock, CAO County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 JUL. f 120C;) Re: BLAKELEY WESTERN PROJECTSP D'E COi1�jTy LANNIIJG DIVISIOAI Dear, John, . Recently we discussed projects that Blakeley Western has filed with Butte County and some of their continuing concerns. You had requested a chronology and background of these projects with some thoughts from my point of view. Following this letter is a brief chronology of the Blakeley Western Project experience that has consumed too many hours and a great deal of money_ We'understand the process and.the fact that final decisions are made by the Board of Supervisors but the projects seem to get derailed due to inadequate environmental impact reports (EIR) and a planning staff that changes personnel much too often. Blakeley Western has spent several hundred thousand dollars following the direction of the county and to dare have two (2) inadequate and probably worthless EIR's. These EIR's are the counties; consultants are selected by the county from your approved list of EIR consultant's, and are prepared under the direction of the county. Blakeley Western did receive a great deal of cooperation from Tom Parilo, Development Services Director and Neil McCabe, Deputy County Counsel during the latest BIR fiasco. Blakeley Western currently has two (2) applications fo- entitlements on their property contiguous to Butte Creek Country Club. We look forward to our meeting in your conference room on Tuesday July 18th @ 1:00 P.M. - incerely, J m Mann c: Curt Josiassen, Butte County Supervisor Tom Parilo—Development Services D-irecto Jer lBry, akeley, Blakeley Western Bill Beck, Blakeley Western 'Chronology of Entitlement Process for Blakeley Western Property in Butte Co. June 1; 1993-Filed GPA and zone. change for 350+/-. acres October 27,.1994- GPA and Rezone denied by Planning Commission February 21, 1995 Appeal of.GPA to Board'of Supervisors denied June 27, 1'995- Tentative Map Application filed (file # 95497) October,27, 1997_ GPA and rezone on B-lakeley Western Business Park (GPA/Rezone 98-03) Environmental Review Process Fourth Quarter 1993- .Community Concepts, ,Inc-'DEIRIFEIR not certified October 2, 1997- DEIR prepared by Planning Concepts for Blakeley Western Business Park — Blakeley Western denied.access to review ADEIR (Administrative Draft EIR) prior to DEIR . April 123,1999-,Further EIR'work-from.Planning-Concepts on Blakeley Western Business Park/Projects terminated by Butte, County with-agreement from applicant i I •i GATEWAY PAf"D%Jw'. E' MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT ' tlf tlTOD S • r _ 'r-.� ':f• � } to 1t • - - 1tIYIiY { f K�� • NYM.DIDT Redding4. r_ N 0 Tr E, R gigg:`' C' A• L I^ N 1 A. PLVMAS r,. {' Chic 32 BUTTE vTa. t - 1 MtMDOCINC � `'IC TYtA 'Ntv AOA " COLV$A - tvTTtt PLACES + r � LAt1 S r�+ . • IL D-All • ` \ SOLO Sacramento N.., . IONOMA - ,`V' TAC AMINTO, 'SIASI. ULA vtt wl/'. ' i iVJLV MNt[ CONTtA - ' COSTA SAN I IOAOYIM ` San Francisco ' AtAMp DA s ` IAN fi MIfIAV1 ' l �` v1i. � y NIt CID r ..'• ADIIA ' k'V. Projects of , `• t BLAKELEY WESTERN BUTTE LLC I April 8, 1998 Jim Mann Rural Consulting Associates 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, CA 95973 LAND OF NATURA( Ai 1. A1. TH AND BEAU Y PLANNI%G DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: 15161 538.7785 Re: Blakeley Western Business Park (GPA/Rezone 98-03) Dear -Mr. Mann - Thank you for taking the time to meet with Tom Parilo, Craig Sanders and myself last week, and for providing me with a useful and interesting summary of your planning efforts to date at the subject site. It was a pleasure to meet you and Mr. Gilbert, and I'm looking forward to working with you on behalf of the County. The purpose of this letter is to summarize some of the project direction we discussed at our meeting so that you have a clear understanding of our expectations. Project Status Applications for general plan amendment and rezoning were filed on October 27, 1997. As part of the process of determining application completeness, staff has distributed the October 1997 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Map prepared by Gilbert Engineering. to various County departments and other service providers to solicit feed- back. Preliminary comment letters have been received from the following: County Public Works, LAFCo, Environmental Health, Fire Department, Air Quality Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game, Cal. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Durham Unified School District, Cal Waier, Durham Area Recreation District; PG&E, Durham Mutual Water Co. Please request copies of these letters if you do not already have them. As we discussed and agreed at our meeting, the application will be revised prior to further processing. The scope of the revisions are discussed below. Your revised application /00Z, 0 1 materials will be re -circulated for review and comment. The fees already submitted are still applicable and work will be billed against this deposit. Overall Approach As you know, the County provides for industrial development through the Industrial land use designation in the General Plan and the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. However, based on the business park concept you have described, we have -concluded that the existing General Plan and Zoning land use designations may not provide for the flexibility that you. require. Furthermore, they do not provide a basis for design guidelines and othe( safeguards the County would like to see. As Mr. Parilo indicated, it is our expectation and understanding that thF proposed project, while providing economic benefits to the county, will be of a very high caliber in terms of site planning and design. To accomplish this objective, we strongly believe that anew General Plan land use designation and Zoning classification are needed. These new land use designations would be drafted to reflect and facilitate the high standards of this proposed project, but could also be applied elsewhere in the county. As we discussed, the most efficient approach to creating new County General Plan and Zoning designations is to. adapt applicable documents in use elEewhere. It is my understanding that you are in the process of collecting such documents, and will provide copies for our review and comment. Once we have reviewed the land use documents, we will provide direction to you for use in preparing draft texts. The draft general plan designation and associated zoning will become a key element of your application materials. Project Revisions Land Use. We have expressed concerns about the proposed inclusion Cf medium density residential land use on nearly 36 acres of the project site. In addition to exacerbating traffic problems in the area, the presence of dwellings could create land use conflicts within the proposed business park. It is our understanding that your revised application will show this land use replaced with business park uses. Circulation. 'As we have discussed, reference to creation of a new iintersection with Highway 99 should be deleted from the application. As you know, the County's 1982 Freeway Agreement with Caltrans calls for closure of the Estates -.0rive/Highway 99 intersection and, ultimately, construction of new interchanges at Neal Road and Southgate Avenue. Caltrans will not allow new at -grade interchanges. Moreover, tl-e applicability of an interchange, as shown on your map, with connecting roadways is questionable since the land to the east (Swartz) is not proposed for development. Application. Materials In addition to completed standard application forms, your revised application package should include four components, as follows: 1. Proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezoning Map. Revisior- of the exhibit dated October 1997, reflecting changes in proposed land use, circulation, and other issues. 2. Narrative. A project. description narrative is needed to explain various key elements of the proposal that cannot be adequately addressed graphically on the GPA/Rezone map. First, there should be a description of the overall concept of the project. The text should also address and provide detailed information concerning other key issues we have already identified and discussed, such as the proposed land dedication to CSU, Chico, proposed storm drainage, proposed sewage treatment and disposal, and circulation. 3. _Conceptual Land Use Plan. This exhibit; which provides graphic information not appropriate for inclusion on the GPA/Rezone map, should consist of an overall illustrative land use diagram, with details as needed, that graphi ;ally depicts design concepts, identified in the narrative, including the location of the sewage treatment plant. (A plan of this type was previously prepared for the Gateway Chico project.) 4. Proposed General Plan andZonino Text. As indicated above, initially, you will provide County staff with copies of ordinances and general plan land use descriptions adopted and in use elsewhere. Following discussions among County staff and with you, draft text will be prepared and distributed for wider review along with the other application materials. It is understood that you will prepare the draft text based on our direction. Environmental Review Process As you are aware, an environmental impact report will be required for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone. The scope of the analyses will be determined following the Notice of Preparation process. Hopefully, some economy in both cost and time can be achieved by using background information contained in t -ie Gateway Chico EIR (SCH 93122063), even though it was never certified by the County.. Also, background data collected for the Blakeley Western residential project EIR may be applicable to the project site. Certain technical studies will be required .as part of the environmental review process. Some studies that have already been completed may be useful. T*D date, you have provided us with the, following: 1) Market Support for 300 -acre Chico ' Gateway Development, Chico, California, September 1992, Economic Research Associates- 2) The Economic Impact of Gateway Chico on Butte County, California, September 6, 1994, Regional and Economic Sciences; and 3) Preliminary Wetland Assessment Map, January 19, 1993, Sugnet and Associates. Please provide us with copies of any other studies that have been :prepared that have a bearing on your project and the project vicinity. Also, you are encouraged to provide a detailed -description of which aspects of the Chico Gateway project are incorporated in your current -proposal: ' It is our expectation that, with a sufficient level of information in the project description, the EIR should be adequate to address subsequent tentative maps anc most other land use applications ultimately required within the project area, whereby eliminating the need for preparation of additional EIRs. However, 'it is premature to make this determination at this time. Upon= submittal of all requested application materials and all available background studies,, we will initiate the environmental review process, beginning with preparation and distribution of a Notice of Preparation.` Again, on behalf of the County, I look forward to receipt of the materials identified above and to working -with you and Mr. Gilbert on this important application. Please do not " hesitate to contact me by telephone (916.782:1098) if you have any questions. All . submittals should be made to the County Department of Development Services. Sincerely, ,V Randy M. Chafin, AICP Contract Planner cc: Wesley -Gilbert, Gilbert Engineering Supervisor, Curt Josiassen P.O.Box 38S Itich-ale, Cry Q5974 Dear Sir,: 10SToh May 21,1998 "f"his letter is intended to express to you., our Supervisor, the depth of our liustralloll with the "entitlement process" encountered in Butte County. During the past six years we have -gone the extra mile" in an el Tort to brine all sections ofC:'ounty Government into the decision making process: It was our (tope that irr sed doing,, VVC could achieve approval of a planned, mixed-use developntert3, of xwhich cwe could all be proud and one, which could Drove economically and esthetically beneficial to :ill. Following the dictates ofStaff and providing; numerous requested studies by knok+-n contpeterrt consultants has had the result of building, the tiles in the Planning Department and deplet.in" our bank account without any visible benefit. Our first application, made in 1992, was for the development known as Gatewa-Y Chico and requested a Zone Change and General flan Amendment. This required anton�, of her exhibits aft EiIZ. This document was liroduced b;- a Consultant recorfltmended an�_i= controlled by Staf}'and later declared a piece of"JUNK' by Staff" The Stall -Report makes interesting reading flor it praises the Project throughout and then las.ly rccontniends denial apparently based.solely on the unlikely and unsubstantiated premise that it is premature and not needed. This statement flies in the face of the (act that the COUltty is in dire need of new job f-Orntatian. The current applications pending are: A single-family subdivision, which complies \�,ith the General Plan on land zoned at twice the density requestcxl; A request for lone:; Change and General Plan Amendment for a mixed-use developmcrtl of \vl)lch IIie majority acreay,c is devoted to the.issue ofjob c:rcation. In the iristancc ��f the ubclivision another EIR specifically oriented to this application was requir_d. A C.011Sultant was selected and controlled by Staff, to the point where we wer•2 prohibited Irony diSctlssiw, any aspect of t:he job without the Stall're resentative being determination has been made by our Lei, p. present .� Legal Counsel, concurred in by Count, Counsel, That this Draft F_fR; now in hand, is so le�� ;ally flawed as to be useless and daft: the only worthy rc;nredy is anotherF..IR. It is our considered opinion that this document cannot lrc c:i rrcctc'd or amelided byits originator and Staffadvisor. . Our reasons circ best. left u,,said Z/t abed 9EZ qor ;�i'o, oa/i>>cn Pa«e 'f%vo - Supervisor Curt losiassen To say that we are frustrated over the cavalier treatment of our deposited -El R funds, apparently wasted in pursuit of"What appears to be some unknown: agenda, is putting it mildly in view of the fact that: these, plus CEQA legal fees, now exceed 100,000.00. -Considering this past record a required expenditure by us c.f an additional $40-50,000.00 seems to us to be imprudent, unfair and unwarranted. Weare for the rnonuent weighing our options. 1 have no iniuilediate schedule to be in Chico, however, I'll conta•.t you when mv plans are firmed. Cordially. W. H.Beck Z/Z a6ed (;P? 4of AGENDA ITEM AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager BY: Craig Sanders, Associate Planne DATE: October 18, 1994". REQUEST: Gateway Chico General Plan Amendment Blakeley Western: A request to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and map designations from Low Density Residential and Grazing and Open ' Lands to Industrial, Commercial, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Public on 350 acres 'of land located bn. the west side of Hwy. 99, north of Neal Road and south of Butte Creek Country Club in the Chico area. , RELATE_ D ITEMS: None FOR. Planning Commission Meeting of Oct 27, 1994 ABSTRACT: This request brings up fundamental, issues regarding the shape and size of the Chico urban area and the location in which development should be directed. Based primarily on the availability of other land within the Chico urban area and existing General Plan policies, denial of this request is recommended. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: This is a request for an amendment to the Butte .County General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designations on approximately 350 acres from Grazing and Open Lands and Low Density Residential to Industrial,'. Commercial, Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential, and Public. The site is located just south of the Butte Creek Country Club and is. bounded on the east by Hwy. 99, the south by Neal Road, and the. west, by Oroville Chico Hwy. The current land use designations are broken -down as follows: Low Density Residential ...... 75 acres Grazing and Open Lands ......'. '275 acres Total ..... 350 acres ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . The proposed acreages are: Zoning General Plan Net acreage Pr-- pLet. excluding roads Low Density Residential ...... 72 acres Medium Density Residential ... 35 acres Industrial ........:....... 106 acres Commercial .............. 22 acres Public/Open Space ......... 62 acres Roads and bikeways ........ 53 acres Total ........ 350 acres AGENDA ITEM Gross .acreage including roads 85 acres 41 acres 125 acres 26 acres 73 acnes The site has historically been used for seasonal grazing and does not .have any structural improvements on it. It is characterized by open grasslands strewn with volcanic rock and is located on the edge of the Tuscan formation, a volcanic lava flow.e-teriding from the foothills. The soils are shallow and the land is not suited for crops, orchards, or other types of intensive agricultural uses. There is sparse vegetation on site with some riparian woodlands adjacent to the northwest, along Crouch Ravine. Several seasonal drainages traverse the property from east to west and there a number of vernal pools located on site: A preliminary wetlands assessment was conducted which identified a total of 4.8 acres of wetlands including 1.6'acres of vernal pools, 2.7 acres of intermittent drainage, 0.5 acres of intermittent stream, and less than .1 acres ,of wet seep. The EIR prepared for this project provides a more complete description of the site characteristics of the project (seepages 27-31 and 35-36 in the DEIR). PROJECT AND SURROUNDING ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND EXISTING LAND USE: Described below are the project and surrounding zoning, general plan land use - designation and the existing land uses. Direction Zoning General Plan Existing Land Use Pr-- pLet. R -t, A-40 Grazing & Open Lands, Grazing Low Density Residential North: South: R t Low Density Residential Residential, Golf Course A-40 Grazing and Open Lands Grazing East:_ U Grazing and Open Lands Grazing West: A-10 Orchard and Field Crops Orchards ANALYSIS: This request, if approved, will result in a significant change in . the land use designation of the property which will create the potential for increased industrial, commercial, and residential development on site. This development potential can not be realized by the applicant until the property is rezoned in a manner consistent with ' the new land use • Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 2 AGENDA ITEM designations. A rezone is not part of this request and will require a separate application and approval by the County. Existing Development Potential: Seventy-five (75) acres of the property is currently designated Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This represents a development potential of 450 dwe[ing units if the land were developed at the maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre.* This is a theoretical maximum density and can not be achieved using a typical single family residential subdivision. The R-1 zone allows parcels for. single family dwellings as small as 6,500 square feet which would result in a density of approximately 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Subdivisions aimed at middle to upper income buyers typically have larger lots and have a density of about 3.5 dwelling units per acre with lot sizes averaging around 8,300 square feet. Environmental constraints to this northerly portion of the site include an area subject to flooding, noise from Hwy. 99 ( which may require a setback buffer in order to permit residential uses), and wetlands that would require buffer zone setbacks. Given these factors, approximately 150 to 160 single family dwellings is a realistic estimate of the development potential of the existing Low Density Residential land use designation. Any development at this density would require a connection to a community sewer system or the installation -of a package wastewater treatment facility and connection to a community water system. The remaining 225 acres, designated Grazing and Open Lands and zoned A-40, could be divided into 5 parcels, each with the potential for a single family residence. The A-40 designation allows for a variety of agricultural uses and agricultural accessory uses that are not necessarily dependant upon the agricultural quality of the soils on site. Agricultural processing plants, commercial poultry production, and farm labor housing for up to 12 families would also be permitted on .each parcel created. Proposed Development Potential: The above development scenario gives a reasonable evaluation of the current development potential of the site with which this request can be compared. TI -e, land use designations proposed by this GPA have the potential to allow considerably more development than what is planned for by the applicant or is discussed in the EIR. However, this maximum development potential of the requested land use designations is not a realistic scenario and, for the same reasons the existing Low Density Residential area can not be developed to the maximum potential, does not warrant evaluation. If this GPA is approved, policies can be included that would limit development to that proposed by the applicant. Although the request at this time is for the General Plan Amendment" the applicant does have a preliminary development concept, including proposed land uses and major road and intersection locations. This preliminary design can be used to as a guide for the, -potential development of the site if the General Plan Amendment was approved. The following figures ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report 3 AGENDA ITEM have been developed by the applicant: Industrial ................. 1,400,000 Square feet Light and general commercial ... 165,000 Square feet Neighborhood commercial ...... 70,000 Square feet Professional offices ............ 15,000 Square feet Single family residential ........... 360 units Multi -family residential ............ 280 units These figures were used in the EIR to determine the potential development impacts of the General Plan Amendment. General Plan Policies: The overall goal of the General Plan is to plan for long term physical development of the County. All elements of the General Plan.and the policies contained within those elements must be -used to evaluate requests to amend the General Plan in order to assess the consistency of an application with the General Plan objectives. No one policy by itself should be used to determine consistency and a project is not required to meet every policy in order to be -found consistent with the General Plan. The items listed in Attachment "A" represent critical issues and policies that need to be considered in the decision making process. These policies relate mostly to a General. Plan Amendment and are determined to be the most important in terms of the decision making process for this request. Staff has weighed the pros and cons and listed several policies that tie back to the Butte Count' General Plan Land Use Element of 1979 and the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Area Plan Policies. It should be noted that many of the policies listed within the General Plan and the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Plan can be met through the development of the project via conditions and mitigation measures. Attachment "A" provides policy excerpts from each of the above mentioned documents and analysis of the project in relation to those policies. CONCLUSION: The project conforms to some policies and is in conflict with other policies of the General Plan. There does not appear to be any clear direction when reviewing the pDlicies. The needs, wants and expectations of the community also play an important role in the -decision making process. The potential benefits of the project include increased tax revenues to Butte County which needs to find new sources of income. Given the current property tax climate, the revenue generated will not benefit the County directly because the- Count' receives only a small percentage` of each property tax dollar. The real benefits would sales tax dollars and jobs. The one pitfall to this is the possibility of future annexation of this land to the City of Chico. It currently abuts the City's sphere and once developed would represent a substantial prize to the City. Based on past actions by the City, the County should antcipate that at some time in the future the property could be within the city limits of Chico. With an acceptable sales tax • Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 0 s AGENDA ITEM sharing agreement the financial impact of annexation could be mi-:igated. Another positive aspect of the proposal is the applicant, Blakeley Western, who has a notable track record of quality development projects throughout the United States and appears to have the financial means to see a project through. A well planned and aesthetic development in such a prominent location will serve to enhance the image of the Chico area and could be an example to other developers of the expectation the County has for future development. The positive aspects of the application, however, are outweighed by the negative aspects of the request. The four primary areas of concern are as follows: Maintaining a compact urban form for the Chico area: The public through its support of the 1979 County General Plan, ttie City's current General Plan process, and the recent evaluation of the Issues and Options report by the County, has shown a preference for a compact urban for Chico and the greater urban area. The City of Chico through its General Plan update studied this area for possible urban expansion. It was reject as not meeting the .policy of using a;strong physical boundary far the urban edge and not maintaining a compact urban form. The growth inducing impacts: Another factor to consider is the impact the project will have to t,ie speculative values and development potential. of adjacent lands. The productive agricultural lands to the west should be protected by adopting -strong preservation policies equivalent to the greenline policies. Land to the east which is of similar character will be particularly su3ceptible to ' development pressures especially -if a freeway interchange is constructed some place along Hwy. 99. Since the land to the east will be integrally. tied to this project by the interchange, land use planning for east side is an important consideration that the County may want to consider before approving a general plan amendment on this site. In order to prevent continuous strip development south along Hwy. 99 to Durham Pentz Road and beyond, strong policies using Neal Road as the limits of urban development will have to be implemented. Impacts to Existing Industrial Lands: ,The question of whether this land is. needed for industrial development also has to be answered. Existing industrial parks have improved vacant land available for development. Both the County and City should guard against allowing a glut of industrial land to occur in the Chico area which would undermine the commitment to existing industrial parks, industrial land values, and the infrastructure already in place there. At the same time iit is important to have a substantial variety ' of available lands in order to accommodate t'ie needs of prospective businesses. When businesses relocate they are usually looking at a number of different sites within the state or beyond. The ability to provide a site that most closely meets a businesses needs is of primary importance. ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report 5 AGENDA ITEM Availability of Industrial Land According to the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) prepared by the City of Chico for their General Plan update, there was a total of approximately 2,4-1 acres of industrial land designated in their existing General Plan. Of the 2,411 acres, 1,031 had been developed (only 770 acres was developed with industrial uses) and 1,380 acres werE available. The City's new Draft General Plan provides for a total of 1,750 acres of developable industrial land with the caveat.that some"of the land is environmentally constrained thus reducing that figure to some degree. The extent of the constraints is' not fully known at this time. The net result is that the new plan provides for no more than 320 additional acres of industrial land over that of, the old General Plan and will most likely provide for less due to environmenal constraints. Based on these figures the City's proposed General Plan is not providing a sibstantial increase in new industrial land. The annual demand for industrial development must also be considered.. Figures taken from the MEA state that over the past 5 years the City of Chico has apprcved an average of 71,354 square feet of annual industrial construction. This required an average of 7 acres of industrial land per year using a floor area ratio of .25. The figures contained -in the Draft General Plan indicate that substantially more land will be required each year for industrial development. Based on a 20 year life of the General Plan, there will be a need to _develop about 580 acres of industrial over the life of the plan which averages out to about 29 acres per year, using the City of Chico's General Plan floor area ratio of .15. These figures would indicate that there is at -least three times the industrial land needed to accommodate tha projected growth of the community for the next 20 years. This is not seen as excessive if the goal is to provide potential businesses with the maximum choice of sites on which to -orate. The 125 acres of industrial land.proposed by this application does not represents a significant addition to the overall availability of industrial land for the Chico urban area as it rep: esents a 7% increase in the available industrial land inventory. While there appear to be many positive aspects to the proposal, conflict .with current General Plan policy, maintaining a compact urban form for Chico, and supporting development on existing land planned for urban growth supersede those positive aspects. The timing of this southerly expansion to the urban area of Chico appears to be.premature. Staff recommends + that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this project to the Board of Supervisors. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been refined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such, is 80bject to the requirements of CEQA. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for -the project. The main areas of concern raised in the document are traffic, air quality, wetlands; noise, and impacts to public services.• The site is not particularly environmentally sensitive: The soils on site are not prime agricultural soils: No rare endangered or threatened species were found on site though there may be some limited areas that could be potential habitat. A wetlands survey was performed ■ Butte,County Planning Commission Agenda Report 0 AGENDA ITEM on the site which identified approximately 4.8 acres of wetlands area, all of which can be avoided: While this survey did not meet the criteria for an Army Corp of Engineer wetlands delineation, it is sufficient to consider a GPA. Traffic impacts will require the construction of anew freeway interchange to serve the site. Cal Trans has planned for an interchange at Neal Road and Hwy. 99 but the applicant has proposed the location to be approximately 1 mile north. The exact location does not, have to be determined at this time since this is a GPA the important information is knowing tht one is needed. The EIR did identify cumulative air quality impacts that can not be mitigated by the ,applicant and would require the adoption of overriding considerations. It should be noted that impacts to air quality are the same impacts that would occur even if the project were to be developed in another location such as east of the Chico Airport. These impacts are not a result of the location they are a result of any type of development such as this in the urban area. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: The Draft EIR was available for public comment as required by CEQA. Several comments were received and addressed in the Final EIR. The public hearing for the project was advertised in the Enterprise Record. Public notices were also mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. As of the date of this report we have received some written public comments on the project which were included in the Final EIR for information purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation on this project is to deny the request.. While the application has merits, the development of this property at this time is seen as premature. In addition the request will have growth inducing impacts on the grazing lands to the east and approval could preclude comprehensive planning that should be done for both sides of Hwy. 99 in this area. FINDINGS: Section 1: Environmental Findings. A. An Environmental Impact was prepare for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and Section 2: Action. A. Recommend that the Planning Commission take no action on the Environmental Impact Report, and; ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 7 • Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 8 ATTACHMENT "A" GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT COMPLYING POLICIES AGENDA ITEM Policy B.7.c - "Encourage development in and around existing communities with public facilities." The project meets this criteria in that the project is around Chico but, City public facilities are not available to serve the site. Policy C.1.e -"Encourage urban expansion towards less productive soils." The soils on site are clearly non -prime and can be classified as less productive agricultural soils. Policy C.2.a,b,c. "Maintain extensive areas for primary use as livestock grazing land." "Allow livestock grazing on all suitable sites not needed foo development or crop production." and "Prevent scattered development in grazing areas." The conversion of this land will represent a minor loss of grazing land within Butte County. As of 1993 there was approximately 270,000 acres of non -irrigated grazing land in the County. The conversion of 350 acres is not seen as significant.. Development on this land would not be - considered to be scattered within the grazing areas since it abuts the City of Chico Sphere to_ the north, is bounded by a Hwy. 99 to the east, .and is adjacent to intensive agricultural land to the west. Policy C.7.d. "Promote conservation of energy resources .i,1 reviewing proposed developments." PG&E has indicated that they will be able to serve the - proposed development with both electricity and natural gas. This, is important for an industrial development. Natural gas is a more efficient form of energy for use in heating and some industrial processes than electricity. Policy D.1.b - "Provide a diversity of housing sites varying in size, density, and location." This proposal has the potential to provide for a variety of housing and also provide for suitable space for new housing construction in the County. The exact type of housing and the cost or affordability has not yet been determined. Policy D.2.a,b,d - "Correlate residential densities to soil, slope and other natural site characteristics.", "Correlate residential densities ' to availability of water and sewage disposal and proximity to other public facilities.", and "Balance residential densities with traffic carrying. capacity of existing and proposed circulation plan." The ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report 9 AGENDA ITEM residential portion of the site is not constrained by soil or slope considerations and the natural characteristics of the site can be incorporated into the future residential design. Public facilities are available or can be extended or constructed to serve the proposed land uses. Road capacity is available to serve the potential development if a full interchange is constructed on Ffwy. 99 to provide access. Policy E.1.a. "Provide sites and facilities to accommodate a variety of economic uses." The proposal would meets this goal. While there is undeveloped land available in urban areas and city spheres of influence, there may not be large landholdings that would support a mixed use project of this scale. Policy E.2.a. "Maintain economic use and value of private property." The site has historically been used for grazing purposes. The continued economic use of the land for. grazing is dependant on the market for beef or sheep and the cost of the land. Large tracts of land are often purchased at inflated prices based on developmem. speculation and then the claim is made by the new owner that the property is not economically viable. Large tracts of grazing land (2,000+ acres) in Butte County are being purchased for between $250 to $450 per acre. If the property is valued at more than $450 per acre, 'g: azing is probably not an economic use of the site. Policy E.4.a. "Promote the development of new industry in the County." "Locate industry near major transportation facilities which carry raw materials, finished products, and commuting workers." "Direct new industry to locations adeq°.jately served by major utilities and provide sufficient services and utilities to meet f-.Jture industrial needs." Promote the full utilization of existing industrial areas." and "Encourage the grouping of industrial and heavy commercial uses into integrated indus-rial parks." The project appears to met all of these goals except for promoting the full utilization of existing industrial areas. The project will promote new industry in the unincorporated area of the County. The project proponents have been in negotiations with California State University Chico in hopes of providing facilities that are compatible with University research ac-ivities. In addition, plans for hotel/conference center have been proposed which could be ar asset to the community. The site has the potential for excellent road access if the proper imprcvements are constructed and unlike other industrial parks, traffic will not have to traverse local city streets, thus reducing the impacts of truck traffic that another location might incur. All needed utilities can be provided to the. site without a major expansion of .distribution facilities. The industrial and commercial uses will be grouped 'into adjacent areas of the site. The question of whether this land is needed for industrial development.has to be answered. Existing industrial parks have improved vacant land available for development. Both the County and City should guard against allowing. a glut of industrial land to occur in the Chico area which ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 10 AGENDA ITEM would undermine the commitment to existing industrial parks, industrial land values, and the infrastructure already in place there. At the same time it is important to have a substantial variety of available lands in order to accommodate the needs oii prospective businesses. When businesses relocate they are usually looking at a number of different sites within the state of beyond. The ability to provide a site that most closely meets a businesses needs is of primary importance. According to the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA).prepared by the City of Chico for their General Plan update, there was a total of approximately 2,411 acres of industrial land designated in their *existing General Plan. Of the "2,411 acres, 1,031 had been developed (only 770 acres was developed with industrial uses) and 1,380 acres were available. The City's new Draft General Plan provides for a total of 1,750 acres of developable industrial land with the caveat that some of the land is environmentally constrained thus reducing that figure to some degree. The extent of the constraints is not fully known at this time. The net result is that the new plan rprovides for about 320 additional acres of industrial land over that of the old General Plan but will most likely provide for less due to environmental constraints: Based on these figures the City's proposed General Plan is not providing a substantial increase in new industrial land. The annual demand for industrial development is another factor. Figures taken from the MEA state that over the past 5 years the City of Chico has approved an average -of 71,354 square feet.of annual industrial construction._ This required an average of 7 acres of industrial land per year using a floor area ratio of .25. The figures contained in the Draft General Plan indicate that substantially more land willbe required each year for industrial development. Based on a 20 year life of the. General Plan, there will be a need to develop about 580 acres of industrial over the life of the plan which averages out to about 29 acres per year,, using the City of Chico's General Plan floor area ratio of .15. These figures would indicate that there is at least three. times the industrial land needed to accommodate the projected growth of the community for the next 20 years. This is not seen as excessive if the goal is to provide potential businesses with the maximum choice of sites on which to locate. The 125 acres of industrial land proposed by this application does not represents a significant addition to the overall availability of industrial land for the Chico urban area as it represents a 7% increase in the available industrial land inventory. NON -COMPLYING POLICIES Policy B.2.b. " Consult with incorporated cities and neighboring counties 'in the development of planning proposals for areas of mutual concern The application is partially within the LAFCO sphere of influence of the City of Chico. If approved, it would clearly change the form of the Chico urban area. The southern most edge of the project at the Neal ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report 11 AGENDA ITEM Road intersection is approximately 4.7 miles away from the Park Ave. interchange and major commercial services. The proposed request would significantly elongate the shape of the urban area, forming a "panhandle".. Approval of this application will not promote a compact urban form nor will it result in using a strong geographic feature. as a urban boundary line for the Chico urban area, two goals proposed by the City of Chico in their new general plan. While the goals and desires of the City of Chico should not. be directly applied to projects in the unincorporated areas, some consideration should be given to them as the project could ultimately have an impact on the City, particularly regarding traffic and air quality impacts. The City of Chico is currently in the process of updating their General Pian and based on the draft plan, no future growth is - proposed for this area. One of the goals of the City's General Plan is to .preserve Chico's identity by discouraging development outside of the sphere boundary. This project is in conflict with the stated goals of the City of Chico's growth and land use policies. According to the City of Chico's Draft General - Plan the Gateway property is only partially within their planning- area. which is defined as "... any land outside its boundaries which in their judgement bears relation to its planning." City planning staff has stated that the project is within the planning area and that the map in the City's General Plan does not accurately represent the planning area boundary. This project will introduce a new expansion of urban development into an area that _has not previously been planned for this type of land'use. Even though the property is adjacent to the Chico urban area where it abuts along.the-Butte Creek Country Club golf course, the urban area for Chico was not planned to extend this far south. Approved in 1964, the Country Club stood alone as the only concentrated development south of Butte Creek and remains so to this day. It took many years until the area of Southgate Lane and Entler Ave. developed in between Chico and Butte Creek. Had the Country Club not been -in existence when the Chico Urban Area line was formulated, the land would not have been included in the urban area and the line would have stopped at Butte Creek. The argument that a commitment to development south of Butte Creek has been made based upon the existence of the country'club, can not be supported. The project was done at a time when development laws and public involvement was very different than today's regulations that they can not be compared. Policy B.7.b - "Promote the full utilization of sites served by existing public facilities." The project does not appear to meet this goal. According to the draft Master Environmental Assessment prepared for the City of Chico General Plan update, in 1990 there was a total of 1380 acres of vacant land zoned for industrial purposes within the sphere of influence. The majority of that acreage either has public services or is capable of readily being served. Policy B.3.a 'Plan for development within the County for the ensuing 20 years, giving emphasis to the more immediate years, while -at the same time considering the long range factors and trends." This policy was written in 1979 and based on this and other policies the land in question was given a designation of Grazing and Open Lands and Low ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report 12 AGENDA ITEM Density Residential. The General Plan is now being reviewed and new policies will be developed for the next 20 years. It can not be seen at this time if this proposal will be compatible with the policies that come out of the new General Plan. Because we know a new plan is in the works, a strong argument could be made for delaying this project until the County's new General Plan is at a later stage. Policy B.4.a "...provide plans which. allow reasonable "freedom of choice" of sites and facilities for the population growth of the County, both in the County as a whole and in it's various sections." The key word here is reasonable. The County is not under any obligation to provide land for every development proposal. The -County and the cities do provide a variety of choices for development. Currently, within the Chico Sphere of Influence, there is enough undeveloped industrial land to easily accommodate growth for the next 15 to 20 years. In their proposed General Plan, the City of Chico provides for at least 3 times the needed industrial land for the next 20 years. Additional residential land may be needed to accommodate the population growth for the next 20 years. An argument might be made that there are few singly owned tracts of land in the Chico area capaole of supporting such a proposal. However with proper planning efforts, the long term development goals could still be accomplished using smaller parcels under different ownership. Policy B.4.b. "Designate adequate land for free-market competition among land suppliers - to avoid artificially constricting land availability." In addition to the land that Chico has planned for industrial use, both the County and City of Oroville haV6 substantial amounts of useable land already zoned for industrial uses. A particularly large a. -ea of industrial land exist under both the County and City of Oroville's jurisdiction in the' south Oroville area. Other vacant industrial land is available at the intersection' of Hwy. 99 and Durham Pentz Road and in the Gridley area. The residential component of this project can be better served in another location. Care should be taken to avoid an over supply of industrial'. land which could have a detrimental effect on existing industrial parks which are not built out POLICIES IN QUESTION Policy F.2.a - "Encourage expansion. of public water and ;ewer systems where development to be served conforms to adopted land use plais." This project would provide water and sewer facilities sized to service adjacent propErty owners. There is a question as to the need for this type of development at this particular location when there is ample vacant land within the Sphere of. Influences of most cities in the County to serve the development needs for the next twenty (20) years. -The unanswered cuestion is whether or not there are large amounts of lands under one ownership that would support this type of development. DURHAM -DAYTON -NELSON PLANNING AREA POLICIES ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 13 AGENDA ITEM These policies were adopted for the Planning Area in March 1992. As- in the case of the General Plan Land Use' Element Policies many of the Durham -Dayton -Nelson policies can be met through project development via ,conditions and mitigation measures. COMPLYING POLICIES Goal II - Provide affordable ,and adequate housing within the community to ensure the physical health, mental health, privacy., and security of -Planning area residents. Objective - Ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the weeds of all segments of the Planning Area. Policy - Provide an adequate amount of affordable multiple famiy, housing. This project will substantially increase the stock of multiple family housing units w -thin the planning area and provide a variety of housing units for planning area residents. - Goal IV - Discusses encouraging orderly growth -that does not result in a significant burden to the existing public. The developers of the property would be entirely responsible for improvements on-site and off-site for the development of this property. No burden on the existing public would occur -during the development of the site. t -appears that :long term revenues will pay for the needed services for this property. This proposal would also provide an economic industrial base for the community and limited commercial services for residents within the. project. A neighborhood park will provide for -some of the recreation needs of the new residents. NON -COMPLYING POLICIES Goal IV, Policy 3 - Develop a program of growth°phasing, wherein only those lands which are adjacent to existing urban densities and have public facilities and services available, will be able 'to develop at` urban densities and standards. Urban densities exist within Butte Creek Country Club but the housing component of that development is not adjacent to this application. No urban services currently exist in the area. This represents a conflict with that goal and policy. Goal VIII - Discusses concentrating future residential uses within or near the existing developed communities. This project would not accomplish that: goal. Policy 13 under Goal VIII requires that all .General Plan Amendments which allow densities of less than one acre per .dwelling unit shall be incorporated into urban boundaries. Currently no urban boundaries have been formally established in the planning area, but it is unlikely that this area would be considered* in the-establi;hment of such boundary for any of the 'comm.unities. ■ Butt County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 14 AGENDA ITEM POLICIES IN QUESTION Goal 1, Policy 5, discusses,restricting residential development from locating adjacent to streets carrying or expecting to carry 10,000 vehicles per day because of adverse noise levels. Hwy 99 carries traffic volumes higher than 10,000 vehicles per day. Residential uses are proposed adjacent to Hwy. 99 but the impacts .can be mitigated via setbacks and noise attenuating walls and construction standards. - Goal IV - Discusses reviewing all development projects to ensure that they promote the responsible use in stewardship of the natural resources.to preserve the quality of rural life. This project can be developed to ensure a responsible use of the natural resources, but does not necessarily preserve the rural life style for the planning area. Objective - Encourage a rate -of- growth that does, not exceed the County's ability to provide necessarypublic services or the ability of the local economy to. afford such growth. A market analysis has been completed which indicates that the project is economically viable and will reach build out within 10 to .15 years. The overallcosts and' revenue of this project to the County appear to be off setting with respect to public services. ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■' 15 U A 20 .... Highwa M. \ -Q Pr ject Lodation Neal Road I A-40 ' I U Dur m a onway 0 X A-40 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Blakeley Western OWNER: Same [-TEARING DATE: October 27, 1994 @ 9:00am EXISTING ZONE: U (Unclassiied) , R-1, A-40 REQUEST: General Plan Amendment to Industrial, Commercial, Low Density Residential, . No Scale Medium Density Residential, and Public. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 040-050-024+ FILE: 93-23 �,` � ' �� 6 � '��, ha -- il"` � •, `y, 4+�}-psi '-a ---t �.t "`xx� •.� - -.�, r''e.�S. -a-� �. �—r-�-',���s.' BUTTE COTI&Y� vICINI UN�TY4 MAP-= PROJECT OVERVIEW: The City of Chico, with a population estimated at 86,000 in its urban area and 260,000 within a 40 mile radius is located at the northerly end of the Sacramento Valley, one of California's fastest growing areas and serves as the commercial and financial hub of Butte County and the surrounding. counties. California State University, Chico is a widely recognized leader in the teaching and research fields of computer science and satellite . communications and development. Highway 99 links Chico to Sacramento and the Chico Airport provides commuter service to San Francisco and other destinations. The combined projects comprise a total of 350 acres , more or less, located in the unincorporated area of Butte County California, approximately five miles south of downtown Chico. The total holding has about 9000 feet of frontage on Highway 99. Its northerly, boundary is conterminous with the Golf Course of the Butte Creek Country Club and has frontage on Neal Road and Oroville- Chico Highway. These surrounding. arterials meet identification and access needs. Water, power, and gas service are available. Sewer service will be provided by a developer organized Service -District and the construction of a wastewater treatment plant. This Master Plan envisions a combination of Residential, Industrial and Commercial uses in a multi —faceted Business Park environment. Comprehensive Development Guidelines will assure a high level of building design and land use and supplement existing governmental restrictions. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN PROGRESS: FAIRWAY KNOLLS.: A Single Family Custom Lot Subdivision occupying the ' northerly 40 acres, zoned R- 1, is currently being processed through the Department of Development Services of Butte County. This. application for a private, gated community is in conformance with the zoning and general plan. GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK- A mixed-use job center development occupying the abutting southerly 285 acres is planned for multiple residential, commercial and advanced technology uses. These concepts among others, include: Residential Condominiums; a Commercial. Wholesale Retail complex to be located along Highway 99 for users desiring such identification: an Advanced Technology /Business component for firms seeking quality facilities and those firms which can benefit from the use of Chico State's expertise in the computer science and telecommunications fields and; Hotel Conference Center providing a future locale for business and social activities. u IN40, '�^R99"SCC'"�"s" yi ,�: w *: �+� �'�O •; r.� yr?%;-r� 9 S GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK r r �;` ��y�C'p NEAP - - .� k• 9 ._.� lilt x� M 6NT p SEWAGE.TREATMENT PLANT SITE GAD 14 , II Yk �1 r'r 2 9 M'k-ARM-1-1--fi, mwlm-"� IUMI'DENSITIYJRESIDENTIA UrAfEWAYTARK RESIDENTIAL STI it Q .. •e , CL mz zm�' z Q 1 I•�' �� 0 m - i JiyMFZ 'tUX Imp 8ux 10 �C ` 2 VV _ O- . mp Z (f _ I i ,Z.i t �'3 p1�Do>6< bm= o � •� qQm ^w 4>-�'t3 __ = 2�e rE - ?• lvg. AM ld _ Y__ _ __f�_� � . 1 ____�_ ____ _ FwOKwm 'o,,�•� �+� F<F I � �M �V �'• "-g __ ':' 'LL - a o 9I S 'r• ! $ z A 5$... dR a$oaaasa.5�$. .seaa6a W •SPCC �m v + Ua a p•a '1��` I yJ. F -S c I , F5 O •letOl. 8"• d• :d J m y � f •8 -- -_ oiif4y+o,, 9'nL 'ar'.•. a�$ _-_ • � ..- � _ m rS e_112_ vs - e f'Ooe$� .4e :;adoa S' •�,b j��% a _' _ _ �Z:°°. E& $_ _ W Na re - §S 7r p3 o,�•,r�R �b%�, i \ � - °' ' �', � �'e� +: o � i ,�'wq, (r�.� O` - -- s5 ..err•../ \ p_ . _'' � p_« p a _ oQ. __ � J Jy [�. at .'P > • � • fig: � ! m .°. '�"'�• _]c -V aron tlonnn3 � `� 3 0;. Yea �$.o _ .��♦ o ,�� o/'aa� __- L.. _ p= `. :.; - '•' Ia•tl1,M'6993 ,t _ ale : L mw ••P ••`y= .. aa-n1..a.ZWooF• � _ � a§ ?=3 (FI, N'Kei IF)0,6n,pl•ootl �• " '7 1, m - •L- Itl•n1,9c'rc6t IB-tl)e_os,n•ooN - IWG.tai�9' l,'Y-b'♦. l,0ul - I♦-tlIN13nN _ I♦-tl1Zoss Iam,areZ IC-a13,tD.en N d2- $�< `a 5`3ircu a mgr` s iii 0J'�J a� Q¢o u' s; e' e g ogo�On ::IS 0 - EL EST RN",--BU:T.,�!T,-,,,.E.,*�"�:,E,-'�"�,�L,-;-�-"C�.�,,,I��"f�'p�:'L..-.R�, C`111.14�,,, K E :'BLA 7 QI,, tvt �4 �QXTEI FA.1RWA,Y'KN0'htS,.­'­ VAYW -TARK-�j� �7 0; "'A d' 'L WiVate residetifiatto -tv t afruixe AMC., I ;LAND US S�., ......... 1,-TOTAL-ACREAGEI 40-7 s�es 0 Acres multi. ty fa :11'.22 -acres TOTAq'ACR '4� T IAL ILtlt�l 41 0 5i single tamll;� let ­.,'�-,TOT AL LOTS r. '7�1 multi I�ii­ Lot 3 1. itcluitriii 4,ti', PARKV& OPE4SPAtt, t,,k Lot 4!:'.Industriaf."," 37.0 acres . pq )ENTRANCE PARK SITES 2.7acres (2tennjacoUrtz)� :2 commercial (G 2) t A, ;acres 7 strial (M f 'ic127.+acres:, _m NORTH Irtdu Lot 5 - .Ind4stripi �Ij PAR -COURSE -,, - - %j: 1.9 'acres (apprpr&000 tL lOng). Fq 2!11 ot 6 Industrial �202`acres> ADJACENTPARK 5.3 mores (in Gateway Park) lor — , " , L RIVATE ROADS 9:2 ��ee OPEN SPACE, '40.8 acres Lot 7 industrial P 5.6 acres q, Lot 8', Indusiriali,1,�'i J. 21..d acres Lot 9V_ Industrial j . -112.7a&es� -TOTALS - 10 lot Lot 10':Cdniarierclal /Industrial 23.7 acres acres r j It 0 ' S `<.40.8 acr 1 0 " _".1 ;, r. Sire6tb% t� 16.6 aar S�, .t a17 vath two.. Tennis courts W 91, 1W e WM 4h ft Zri.��-5r E bS USE 4 '4 rt r -A' "At • 4-j" liz I;r JE w- n ID 4 Y "4 yq ii 1t Y I Y - - I - % 4' � "% 4, % V. - k's -1-61LITTECREEK CpUNTRY4CLUB'1- A A's 04 'NIT sx. %C 4 -N. tt mz rl V. R AR ZR4 Um 0 z am A UJ W11V LSA TJn\IR K DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Development of all of the sites in Gateway Park will be subject to recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.& R.$). A vital -element of the C.C.& Rs. will be the Devel- opment Guidelines which will be carefully crafted to insure a well designed, well constructed, and well maintained environment. The Guidelines will supplement existing governmental regulations. The following pages outline some of the design criteria which are planned along with some diagrams and photographs to illustrate these concepts There are two sections which are presented as examples, Single Family Residential and Industrial / Commercial. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION At such time as is appropriate, but prior to the transfer of title of any individual lot or parcel , there shall be established a qualified entity to serve as the Community association with a subcommittee for Architectural Control, (the Architectural Committee). Ownership of a lot or parcel of land and membership in the Association will be non -severable. The Associa- tion will hold title and be responsible for all Community Property including streets (where applicable), open space areas, recreational areas, drainage facilities not accompanying a specific parcel of land, and buildings if and when erected on Community Property. This Association entity will be operated for the benefit of its members'and will be empowered to levy assessments as authorized by the Member elected Officers and Directors. Incorporation documents.as well as fully defined Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions will be attachments to the Development Agreement. FAIRWAY KNOLLS, -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES i iic iuHUM iig uiiiiiiiC U( Key" features of the Development Guidelines are proposed as part of the Fairway Knolls Restrictive Covenants. In all cases, the existing Governmental Codes f are to be considered as the minimum requirement. The requirements listed in the`Guidelines are intended to further improve'design quality. Any variances shall be considered first by the Architectural Committee and only if approved may it then be„submitted . to the local government entity. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN f Dwellings shall be designed as whole buildings with attention to detail and consistency and continuity of design on all sides: Front roof style and 'details'are to be the same on all sides of the building. Roof penetrations shall be designed so as to protect the silhouette of the.roof ' form. SITE DESIGN CRITERIA Building setbacks: ' Interior lot: Front - 50 feet from centerline of street ` Side - 6,feet, 8 feet for two. story portions of buildings Rear - 10 feet Corner,lot: Front - 50 feet from centerline' of street Street -side 10 feet : t Interior side - 6'feet (Note- two storystructures aie not permitted) Rear - 10 'feet t, Detached garage setbacks: Detached garages shall conform to the same setbacks as the.priiriary building, except -detached garages in the rear 50% of a lot, as follows: z Interior lot- Side - 6 feet Rear - 6 feet CornerJot: Side - 20 feet Rear - 6 feet,,, a, ■ 1VIUA1111U111 UU11U111g UVIe-, 1L: - - Comer lots - single storyonly, maximum of 25 feet . All other lots - single'story. or two story, 35' height above finish. grade ' Maximum building size: Interior lots - 1,500 square feet minimum, single story or two story ' Comer lots _ 1,500 square feet minimum, single story only Golf Course Frontage lots - 2,000 square feet minimum, single story or two story. ' Screening: All mechanical equipment, recreational equipment, and storage facilities of any kind must ' be approved by the Architectural Committee as to location and screening. Materials, height, and fencing must be approved by the Architectural Committee: I0 FAIRWAY KNO S, 1112UPhIgi IIIIrISAIRIIIIIIIII! V •k ,'`� ':y The photographs on this - M page show examples of designs which are similar to the design ideas which are planned for Fairway Knolls. Fairway Knolls is planned as a private com- munity of homes which wilt enjoy its own park with two tennis courts, shuffel board courts, and multi-purpose recreation lawn area. A par course will be laid out around the perimeter of the property. Access to the private streets will be by resident controlled electric gates similar to those shown at left above. The community park" which is shown above and at the left has a tennis court-' and two shuffle board' courts. The tennis courtis fenced and screened withY� 'SIM F 1. planting to afford a lush' and unobtrusive setting.W , Exhibit "A" DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS (To be part of final recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) As a part of a general plan for the development, improvement, maintenance and protection of all lots subject hereto and for the purpose of imposing upon and subjecting all of the said lots, and each and every portion thereof, and such other Property as may hereafter be declared as coming under the terms hereof to the covenants, conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth, THE DECLARANT, herein as owner of the of the subject Real Property, located in the County of BUTTE, State of California, commonly referred to as FAIRWAY KNOLLS, does hereby declare as follows: ' That all the lots, parcels and portions of said premises, and such other property as may hereafter bed coming under the terms hereof, when sold, transferred, leased, sublet or assigned by DECLARANT ao sold, transferred, leased, sublet or assigned subject to the provisions of this Declaration and to the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein set forth, each and all of which shall inure to and pass with said property and each and every ' lot and parcel thereof and shall apply to and bind the successors -in -interest of any holder thereof so long as this Declaration shall remain in effect. That full power to require performance of each and all of the terms and provisions of this Declaration and the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein contained and to declare cancellations and enforce forfeitures in the event of violations thereof shall be vested in DECLARANT. That said covenants, conditions and restrictions are as follows, to -wit: ' (1) No building, structure, or improvement shall be constructed, erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any of said lots or any building site on said premises other than a one -family dwelling designed for occupation by not more than one family together with outbuildings hereinafter permitted. ' (2) The minimum livable floor area of all residential buildings constructed or erected on any of said lots shall be not less than 1500 square feet; cellars, basements, patios, porches and garages are specifically excluded from inclusion in minimum livable floor area. ' (3) No building, structure or improvement shall be constructed, erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any of said lots or any building site on said premises in such location or manner as will unreasonably obstruct or interfere with the view of other lots in the tract or which exceeds 35 feet in height above the reference grade as noted on the master grading plan on file in the offices of the DECLARANT. No projections of any type shall be placed or permitted to remain above the roof of any residential building with the exception of one or more chimneys and one or ' more vent stacks. No outside television or radio pole or antenna shall be constructed, erected or maintained on an)}, building or on any lot or building site or connected in such manner as to be visible from the outside of any such building. (4) Outbuildings or garages erected and maintained upon any lot or building site on said premises shall ' conform generally in architectural design and exterior material to the finish of the dwelling house to which they are appurtenant and may be, but need not be, and to said dwellings. (5) No shed, tent or temporary building shall be erected, maintained or used on any lot or building site on said ' premises; provided, however, that temporary buildings for use and used only for purposes incidental to the initial construction of improvements and dwellings on any portion of die premises may be constructed and maintained provided that said temporary buildings shall bepromptly removed upon the completion of such construction work. No boat, truck or trailer shall be stored or parked on the premises unless the same shall be kept in an enclosed area and out of the view of any adjacent lot or street. ' (6) No privy shall be erected, maintained or used upon any portion of the premises but a temporary pprivy may be permitted durin the course of construction of a building. Any lavatory, toilet or water closet which shall be erected, maintained or used upon any portion of the premises shall be enclosed and located within a building ' permitted under this Declaration to be erected on said property, shall be properly connected with the sewer system and shall be so constructed and operated that no offensive odor shall arise or otherwise escape therefrom. .(7) No sign or other advertising devise of any character shall be erected or maintained upon any part of the premises or on any lot or building site;provided, however, that DECLARANT may erect and maintain on said ' property such signs and other advertising devises or structures as it may deem necessary or proper in connection with the conduct of its operations for the development, imrovement and subdivision of said prerruses; provided, further, that, written approval having been obtained from DECLARANT with respect thereto, residential signs giving the name of occupant and/or the address of the building site may be displayed upon such site. DECLARANT or its agents may summarily remove and destroy all unauthorized signs. (8) No animals, fowl, reptiles or poultry shall be kept on the premises, except that domestic dogs, cats, birds and fish may be kept as household pets upon said property provided that they are not kept, bred or raised thereon for commercial purposes or in unreasonable quantities. IPage 2. (9) No weeds, rubbish, debris, objects or materials of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon any portion of the premises which render such portion of the premises unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to any property in the vicinity thereof or to the occupants of any such property m such vicinity. In the event of the default in the performance of thisrovision, DECLARANT shall have the right to enter upon said property and remove all weeds, rubbish, debris, objects or materials and do all things necessary to place said property in a neat and orderly condition and any expenses therefor shall become due and payable from the owner within five (5) days after written demand therefor. (10) No plants or seeds infected with noxious insects or plant diseases shall be brought upon, grown, or maintained upon any part of said property. DECLARANT shall have the right to enter upon any portion of the premises and, at the expense of the owner, remove infected or diseased plants and/or take such measures as necessary in the opinion of the DECLARANT to prevent any spread of such infection. (11) All service yards or service areas and clothesline areas on any lot on the premises shall be enclosed or ' fenced in such a manor that all such areas will be obstructed from view from any adjacent lot or street. (12) No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any portion of the premises, nor shall ' anything be done or maintained thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. (13) All buildings and other structures upon theremises and each portion thereof shall at all times be maintained in good condition and repair and well andproperlypainted. ' (14) During reasonable hours and after reasonable notice, any agent of DECLARANT shall have the night to enter upon and inspect the premises and the improvements thereon for the purpose of ascertaining whether or . not theprovisions of this Declaration are being complied with and shall not be deemed guilty of trespass by reason thereof. '. (15) DECLARANT, in its sole discretion, may allow reasonable variances and adjustments of these covenants, conditions and restrictions in the application of the regulations contained herein. Such variances and adjustments, however, shall not be effective unless they are in written form and duly executed by DECLARANT. Furthermore, such variances and adjustments shall be in keeping with the general plan for the ' development, improvement, maintenance and protection of all lots in the premises covered hereby. (16) The failure by DECLARANT or any other person to enforce any of the covenants, conditions and restric- tions to which said property or any part thereof is subject shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter or to enforce any other covenant, condition or restriction. Any and all of the rights and/or powers of DECLARANT herein contained as to any of said property may be delegated, transferred, assigned or conveyed to any person, corporation or association, and wherever DECLARANT is herein referred to, such reference shall be deemed to include its successors -in -interest. r "............................ _._'....... ._._. INTERIOR ............ 114_ _ ---------LOTS 10; The�diag rams shown are for lots � t� ' that are 65 feet wide by 102 feet deep. Diagram "B" shows a two 1 4 story house with wider side yard setbacks. Three garage and driveway illustrations are shown: 1 �e {sem ow "A" front entry "B" side entry, • y� ` 3 and "C", a detached rear garage SETBACKS r..s x�s� SETBACK 1 BUILDING AREA, 2 STORY^ 'FOR RESIDENCE 8'-0^ �y a�ryp's 2 STORY r4 n ...'....1 2 CAR ?S Aii�A FOR.': }>:•a: :;:;:;i}: , .... FENCE OR WALL >: GARAGE h9 ESIQCE t 1215050"FT ;fir% y The diagrams also illustrate that }; single story houses over two 4 1 thousand square feet and two Sq story houses:in excess of three - thousand square feet can be 1 accommodated.on such lots. ' � I1tV��.' LU M: g 8' s DE cE FIN SETBACK SQ`FTi SETBACK 8-0 PATIO '•< " t SETBACK GARAGE]r'J 1 t _.__ 3 J K kd 1 I f. 1 C RNER I LL is LOTS, _._._._._._.+:_._ ..................... `a In order`to ensure that side streets look as well'as ! frontage streets several special requirements have been planned for'corher lots because the' - !( side yard of a corner lot faces the side street. The., purpose is to. position the buildings and.fences , farther back -from the side street so that there will ,Ii be more landscaping visible along the side streets. !-d r.' Corner lots are designed to be'larger than interior : " lots. This extra space allows fora ten foot ,o.op minimum building setback at:the side yard toward: SETBACK q ':� r; SETBACK the street, and allows a_structure of similar size to be constructed on.either an interior lot or a corner BUILDING AREA p 9'-0^. lot. I .. I FOR RESIDENCE 2 STORY I ,�fig• I �� r' ! , I � n4 � y ' SETBACK," IZ° .', AREA FOR ............... .n rk ;:i ;g, FENCE OR WALL:';'' L'l� r b' �"(ili 2CA(i _ . IAM M ARAGE iiiXXX On the front half of the lot, fences will be restricted to : • �'F �Y zaii;ic .I 65o M. -FT..., the same setback as the building. On the rear half of: the lot, the fence can be located with a five foot setback.�..'��Z. v This provides a ten.foot wide landscaped area at the front of the lot and a five foot -wide landscaped area at. fi PnnoY:" the rear of the lot facing the side street.I _ Garages can front o.n the side street, but must be °= L:. - ...__8 } setback twenty feet in. order to provide for two parking spaces in front of the garage. �w� I,i ';11- .,�w:�ro-iP •r ._fA ..nl6�i! t'y�+tA i@'c�'• +;'!Z'c R f l�-f'. y ..r. . Zt wi3 - it�� ., ��� • � . � - - r� r� . ,,r x„2,`i�.,� " �i r GARAGE• F�l-``�,,, .,l "�y,F`'''`'2i, s!nY;' .. i•l<,�J Sf6C C ;,4 c .. �s a m ✓ r Fel SOO SQ MIN 's,��,.�, ,.• ,�`s.y .4 • �I 3 N+ yrPATI sF Os �. y�' fK,rJ� �,.. �Cj�� ?• - . � .. �� s. I F���;gr� aV� R �..y.p .. . �M,I k yACT .. MIN a •I 20 '-0. . . SETBACK t 17 GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK, INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL GUIDELINES The following outline of key features of the Development Guidelines are proposed as part of the Gateway Business Park Restrictive Covenants. In all cases;the existing Governmental Codes are to be considered as the minimum requirement. The, requirements listed in the Guidelines are intended to further improve designquality. 'Any variances shall be considered first by the Architectural Committee and only if approved may they,then be submitted to the local government entity. The comprehensive'Development Guidelines, among other requirements, will specify extensive landscaping,` require total on-� ite parking, control signage, and encourage -a high level of quality in architectural design. j ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. . s Quality contemporary architecture that reflects pleasing style,�quality matmals'jand professional workmanship shall be encouraged. The objective is to create a cohesive,;, distinctive character that sets Gateway Business Park apart from other business parks. .3 SITE DESIGN CRITERIA E Building and parking setbacks: For buildings' For.par:- ::b. +� ; Front: 30 feet 20 feet at arterial highways E 20 feet • 12 feet at interior, streets ' Side: 10 feet 5 feet Rear- l0 feet 5 feet .'.f 10 feet at front of buildings 5 feet at sides and'rear of buildings Coverage ratios: Building (structural) coverage: 50% maximum' Floor area (FAR) '50% maximum .4 Landscaping requirements: 1. Minimum of 156/o of gross site area shall be.landscaped. 'T i 2. All setback areas shall be landscaped. 3. Around buildings: 5+foot wide strip except at entrance, exit, and shipping areas. These areas shall be paved. 4. Landscaping along arterial highways shall be in accordance with the plan p%epared by the developer's•Landscape Architect and adopted•by the Architectural Committee; 41 ' 5. Driveway entrances shall include enriched paving sections (i.e. bricks, pavers, or colored concrete) 6. All landscaping shall be completed within 30 days of the issuance of the use and ' occupancy permit. Screening: 1 -1. All storage and activities shall take place within the buildings. 2. Trash areas shall be fully enclosed, covered and screened from view. ' 3. Shipping areas shall. be at the side or rear of buildings and shall be . screened from view. 4. All mechanical equipment, antennas, and other appurtenances shall be . screened from view.: Ductwork shall not be located on roofs. Parapets shall be high enough to screen mechanical equipment so that roof mounted ' screening devices shall not be required. 5. Fencing, where required for security,. shall be an integral part of the architectural design concept for the project. ' All screeningshall be accomplished so that these areas are. reasonably p Y screened from view from streets and from primary entrance areas of other ' buildings. Screening shall be constructed of the same materials or compatible materials as the buildings or of landscaping and berms, or of a combination of these, and.shall be subject to the approved of the Architectural Committee..' 1 . Parking: ' All required parking shall be on the site. Parking shall conform to or exceed existing government requirements.. 'Signs: , ' 1. Construction signs shall conform to "Guideline" standard sign designs. 2. Permanent signs shall be composed of cut-out letters mounted on the building front elevation. Size shall be based on. a percentage of building ' front elevation width. 3. Street address numbers shall be composed of cut-out letters mounted on the building front elevation. ' 4. All signs shall conform to the "Guideline" detailed sign designs and shall be subject to final approval .by the Architectural Committee. ' The following pages combine site plan illustrations of these design guidelines and photographs of existing recently built projects which were designed using similar design concepts. ' These photographs illustrate two possibilities for landscaped islands in parking lots STREETSCAPE EXAMPLE: The photograph above illustrates streetscape landscaping in a 22 ft. front setback area along an internal street. The plant- ing includes lawn, trees, and a hedge to screen the parking area in front of the building. The low wall can be used for the street address of the building. The photographs below illustrate consistentcy in i to W 9 J W W 9 cc Q AREAS REQUIREDM BE LANDSCAPED (n 11 LANDSCAPING AT PROPERTY UNE LANDSCAPING AROUND BUILDING W I I , W AT FRONT (& SIDE IF CORNER LOT) 5' AT INTERIOR SIDI AND REAR cproperty lines 22' AT FRONT (& SIDE IF CORNER LOT) W AT INTERIOR AND REAR lines I LANDSCAPING IN PARKING LOT -- -- 7---1 -- -- -- -- -- -- � athil I1 X30"siquar� plahters; w ---[,--- tq4&,4rourjd99Ver_I--J__-, I A carefully designed sign program will be required for each project. UJ* Q V t� Z Q J Z J LLI D (D Z (3 C/) LU D \ In BUILDING Landsc*ng arour46ullding: 0'-0_ 5' at sides9r�d,10' at street s'-0 frontage (2 si If corner lot), except at eptfanbef, exits, & loading,9eas. i o i � I LANDSCAPING IN PARKING LOT -- -- 7---1 -- -- -- -- -- -- � athil I1 X30"siquar� plahters; w ---[,--- tq4&,4rourjd99Ver_I--J__-, I A carefully designed sign program will be required for each project. UJ* Q V t� Z Q J Z J LLI D (D Z (3 C/) LU D 4. ` + ni- ,4Y •'�i 2 /,y � N4! r, 13 Rte �ac.'Q1;� : � .fir.^.1• ,,.. h--��; ��1!: .. buildings. f;,;,; ; ; ;f . ;f f -=� R IPA D PA!" Site plan of Multi -tenant, office and industrial uses building. Wew of front entranre area to offire snarec- View to rear entrance allev to industrial sDaees. A MULTI -BUILDING, MULTI -TENANT, OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX This building complex is a multi - tenant facility consisting of four separate buildings arranged on the site so that the office entrance fa- cades are along the front and rear of the complex providing a dual frontage to the project. The rear of the buildings open onto a pri- vate alley between the buildings which provides roll -up door en- trances to the industrial spaces. This arrangement completely shields the industrial activities from the surrounding properties, and even from the office entrance areas. The four building complex illustrated consists of approxi- mately 115,000 sq. ft. of rentable space with a parking ratio in ex- cess of 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. The site shown is a little less than ten acres. Individual rental spaces may be either office, industrial, or a combination of office and indus- trial. Industrial activities includ- ing storage are strictly limited to inside the buildings, and manufac- turing processes are limited to rela- tively quiet, fire safe, and non pol- luting processes. ------------------ .................... !N. a n AF 0 IL �B ICAL VNh ow TWa' A"V�E-Pciw,�,, M111L7 = u' , 1, I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 r I , I. I 1 1 1 I F ' r L r L r L L L L 1 L• L L r L L L L r L r I. • •. L ..r L r Lr l r L• . r 1 ' : '1 ' • t ' :_ems. , -" n"' '` -1. �p�4 r- p_. rrrrrl _1_ r _•- �_�.-1. r- erte,«�a".,,M..'r W. _{.t:.. 5, 1 1 r 1 F T 1 r= .yes wL 1�Lp j } —1..5,E 5 � ::SCI t r 1 L—jT -_ • r - ... Z. ' �! , • Imo'. L �- V 1 1' . i Lr. .. :rr.rr�rIr rrrrrrrrr .. . rrr'►r\^ _1 1 I i I. 1 1,.. 1 Lr\rL' \rLrL.r �. \ rrr r`rrr r r r r -r- r Il. .1 1 l r.l�1 1r11� '11 1 EXAMPLE: FULL OFFICE USE14 story SITE AREA: 217;076sq.'ft: (4.98 ac.) BUILDING footprint:: 28,775 sq. ft. TOTAL GROSS A: 115,100 sq. ft. NET.AREA / FL..' 25,450 sq. ft. (2nd, 3rd, '& 401) 23,000 sq. ft (1st) TOTAL NET AREA: 99,350sq. ft. (86%) . PARKING (4!1000) 404 spaces (4/1,000 net, COVERAGE: 13.3 96 ' FAR: 53.0% .. L'DSCAPE AREA: 52,587 sq. ft. (24.20/.) .. 1Cn: r_ _ �: L I I I I IEA L i I 11+ 11 1 1 ,, 1, 1) ,_ i , 1, 1 1, 1 t i ....... r L r L r 1 r L. L r L r L L. r t .. r l ..L r\ r L r L r 1� \r ...� .. + I. _ , ( 20'-U • -. Ti. .1I'I 1 i. I 1 I -. J{L,laL. i,liL iLilaLJ. l•�J. �• �• J � J.t :J1,J ,. ICL Hrrrvr , I�rr rr Il rr,il4r rl rri lFrr„erl 1I'1 1INTMIM I,rI'q1qs1L lLrLrLrJ. J :::. .. 1 �..� •;'' .. f rf r r r r r 1 1 .1 w �)- a:. r Ili+l 11 li l 1, l,. r,i.,l 1i,i1r., I,11 r r r ` -- ui EXAMPLE: MANUFACTURING 1 story w/ mezzanine SITE AREA: 217;616 sq. ft. (4.99 ac.) a BUILDING - footprint: 1102,000 sq.,ft. (office - 4,000) r. ' — - (manuf. -98,000) mezzanine 4,000 sq. ft '(office use) TOTAL building floor area: 106,000 sq. ft. PARKING: ofc. - 4H,000 32 spaces mfr. - 2H,000 196 spaces total parking ' 230 spaces LuCOVERAGE:: 46.996 FAR: 48.790 c "µ, L'DSCAPE AREA: 29,510 sq. ft. (13.6%) IL \ro y���'.4,��' «:x"_E +.ir►i'..L�t .x_;�y.t ,.x��. r f�.y� �..i>•'�� -., t ,ire �, 2�����s�,.�^w.�. ,�, ,l t am 77 &r'”: i »'F' ,. a.. +I,.:F �..>"r^ : ,, .. r^4, _• .s r ,..yew- +�^r'. srY - _ � :na _ • ; i ,'� L . sx yes � . June 19, 1998 Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP 1891 Landings Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 Subject: Work Program for Blakeley Western ARDEIR Dear Mr. Aikins: LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Neil McCabe and I have reviewed your letter of May 26, 1998. While you have raised points that suggest some refinements and clarification to the cost estimate outline prepared by Planning Concepts are in order, overall, we do not agree that a new consultant should be retained to finish this job. We also do not agree that Planning Concepts has not followed county direction in preparing the revised scope of services outline. Planning Concepts has addressed all of the points raised in your letter of February 27, 1998. Your initial concerns regarding the General Plan consistency analysis have previously been addressed. Planning Concepts has agreed to eliminate the analysis of the nonphysical policies. In this latest outline, they have, once again, reiterated project description deficiencies that need to be overcome in order to proceed. As I have previously stated, I remain convinced that Planning Concepts can and will prepare an adequate EIR. Your concerns seem to be based on your forecast that the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR will be legally deficient before it is even written. We are unable to arrive at the same conclusion based on the April 27, 1998, cost estimate outline prepared by Planning Concepts. The Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an independent consultant be retained to prepare both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The ultimate acceptance of the Final EIR is based on a public process. The decision on "certification will be made by the Butte County Development Review Committee and Board of Supervisors, if appealed.. As the applicant's representative, you have the right to review the Administrative Recirculated Draft EIR and participate in the public process. We will review your comments on this administrative document, but will limit changes to makers of factual and legal adequacy. An EIR is intended to be an informational document. It does not dictate or predetermine the final decision on the project. In approving a project, the County decision makers may accept, modify, eliminate, or substitute mitigation measures and alternatives that are included in the EIR, if proper findings are made. Douglas B. Aikins General Counsel Associates LLP June 19, 1,998 Page 2 Both the State and Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an EIR reflect the independent judgement of the lead agency. Environmental impacts identified by and mitigation approaches recommended by trustee and responsible state agencies, as well as local agencies, will be reflected in the document. The EIR will also identify and evaluate all natural and manmade setting impacts (geological, flooding, noise, etc.) that may impact the project. This is both required in an EIR and the County General Plan. We disagree with your assessment that the EIR cannot evaluate specific general plan policies that raise environmental issues or otherwise specify level of service standards and other thresholds. We also maintain that an EIR that does not disclose t] -ie natural and manmade impacts that could impact the project would fall short of CEQA's full disclosure requirements. We are at a point where, aside from minor refinements, the latest submittal from Planning Concepts is acceptable for use to proceed in completing this EIR. We feel this is in the County's and your client's best interest. Once the EIR is finalized, project decisions can be forthcoming. We also advise that no further work on completing the EIR will occur until adequate funds are deposited with the County. Once said funds are deposited, we will proceed to amend the contract and scope of services. Having stated our position regarding Planning Concepts and the completion of the EIR, we also need to respond to your request to initiate another Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The County's EIR contract is a three-way agreement between the county, consultant and applicant. The applicant's role in the contract is primarily that of the payor and the current contract does not contain the necessary funds to complete the scope of work provided in the outline. If the applicant is refusing to go forward with the current consultant, you do have the option to request a new RFP at this time. If you were to pursue this avenue, the County will request that you waive or agree to an extension of all processing time limits and agree that the County will pay Planning Concepts for all work completed to date. We would, in tum, notify the consultant that the contract has been satisfactorily fulfilled and that termination of the current contract does not poorly reflect on their workmanship and professionalism. Should you or your client have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me or Neil McCabe, Assistant County Counsel. Sinc rely, 4 Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb cc: Neil McCabe, County Counsel k:\dds\1etters\Aikins.wpd Post -Wm bran( To &L Co. Dept. —7ul Fax # .Irl Lel' �L J June 17, 1998 s - -Douglas B. -Aikins , General Counsel Associates LLP ` �b 18.91 Landings Drive` w . Mountain View, -CA 94043 ' • . Subject: Dear Mr. Aikins: . Neil McCabe ' and myself have reviewed �y�ur lett r'of May�226�1498, and have a number of comments that form the basis of our position. While you .'have raised paints that suggest some. _ refinement`s and clarification to the cost estimate outline prepared y'Planning Concepts are in order, overall, we do not agree that Planning' Concepts should be dismissed from this job. We also disagree that Planning Concepts has not followed` county- direction in preparing the reaised scope of services outline. Planning Concepts has ad�dr� se sed all of tie poi tsyaised in your letter of February 27, 1998. They have also, once again,,(reiterated project description deficiencies that need to be overcome in order to proceed: Ire convinced that P ar ningrConcepts can and will prepare an adequate EIR. Our position is basedon your, forecast that the Administrative Draft EIR document's conclusions will be legally deficienit•be re itlis written. We are unable.to arrive at the same.conclusions•based on the April 271998, cost estimate outline prepared, by Planning Concepts.; The Butte County CEQA guidelines quire thatn independent consultant be retained to prepare both the Draft EIR and Final;EIR. The ultimate acceptance of the Final EIR is based on a public process. The decision on certl ication will be made,by�he Butte County Development. Review Committee and Board of Superyisors, if appealed. As the applicant's representative, you have t --ie right to review the Administrative Draft EHR and participate in the public process. We will review our comments on `4�� 1/ y the Administrative Draft EIR document, but will limit changes to factual ar_d legal adequacy ones. 14e X An EIR�is intended,t6 be an informational document. It does not dictate or predetermine the final ' ' deelcision on,th oject. In approving a project, the'County decision makers may accept, modify, ' dismYsubstitute mitigation measures and alternatives that are included in the EIR, if proper • findings are made. Your letter ignores the informational aspects of an EIR o_, demonstrates aneffort to influence the conclusions of the document.- Both ocument.Both the State and Butte County CEQA guidelines require that an EIR reflect the in judgement of the.lead agency. Environmental impacts identified by and mitigation approaches, recommended by impacted, responsible, and local agencies will be reflectec. in the document. The ' EIR will also identify. and evaluate all natural and man made setting impacts (geological, flooding, Douglas`B. Aikins T f General Counsel Associates LLP , June 17, 1998 ,• _ Page 2 r noise, etc:) that may impact the project. This is both required in an EIR and the County General Plan We disagree with your assessment that the EIR cannot evaluate specific general plan policy - that raise environmental issues or otherwise specify level of service standards and�,other thresholds. We also maintain that an EIR that does not disclose'th& natural and manmade'impacts that could kit impact the project would fall short of CEQA's full disclosure requirements. We are 'at a point,where aside from minor refinements, the Latest submiafal from Planning Concepts ` is acceptable for use to proceed in completing this EIRy We-feel O's'is in the'Courity''s�and'your -client's best interest. `Once the EIR is finalized, project decisions ��can be forthcoming:•- We also advise that no further work on completing the EIR will occur until adequate funds are deposited with the County. � Once said funds are deposited, we will proceed to amend the contract and scope of .�. services accordingly: Having stated our position regarding Planning Concept and the completion ©f-the EIR; we also need to recognize your request to engage in anothervI equestfo lroposal`process. The County's EIR contract is a three-way agreement between the county, consultant and applicant. The applicant's role in the contract is primarily that of the payee. If they, pa plicant is refusing to go forward with the current consultant, you do have the option to request�a new RFP. at.tlus time. If you were to pursue _ : this, avenue-, the County will requ �t htt you � e all EIR processing time limits, agree that the County will pay.Planning Concepts,,for all work completed to date, and that cancellation of, the current contract does not poorly effect on the workmansyhip and professionalism of the consultant. } Should you o 'our client�have any. questions r'eg ding this matter, feel free to contact me or Neil . McCabe, §sistant County Counsel. ' Sincerely, y 'Tho as A. Parilo .• Director of Development Se ices TAP.:jb 14 • . 9 i R kAddsUettersWkins.wpd ^ xis n 4 ATTACHMENT A AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: ` Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager BY: - ' ' Craig Sanders, Associate Planne DATE: October 18, 1994 AGENDA ITEM REQUEST:' Gateway Chico General Plan Amendment - Blakeley Western: A request to amend the Butte County General Plai Land Use Element and map designations from Low Density Residential and Grazing and Open Lands to Industrial, Commercial, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Public on 350 acres of land located on the west side of ,Hwy. 99, north of Neal Road_ and south of Butte Creek Country Club in the Chico area. RELATED ITEMS: None FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of Oct 27, 1994 ABSTRACT: This request.brings up fundamental issues regarding the shape and size of the Chico urban area and the location in which development should be directed. Based primarily on the availability of other land within the Chico urban area and existing General Plan policies, denial of this request is recommended. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: This is a request for an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element to change the land use designations on approximately 350 acres from Grazing and Open Lands and Low Density Residential to Industrial, Commercial, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Public. T -ie site is located just south of the Butte Creek Country Club and is bounded on the east by Hwy. 99, the south by Neal Road, and the west by Oroville Chico Hwy. The current land use designations are broken down as follows: Low Density Residential ...... 75 acres Grazing and Open Lands ..... 275 acres Total ..... 350 acres } Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 1 AGENDA ITEM The proposed acreages are: Net acreage Gross Ecreage excluding roads including roads Low Density Residential ...... 72 acres 85 acres Medium Density Residential . , . 35 acres 41 acres Industrial ................ 106 acres 125 acres Commercial ............... 22 acres 26 acres Public/Open Space ......... 62 acres 73 acres , Roads and bikeways ........ 53 acres Total . .... 350 acres The site has historically been used for seasonal grazing and does not have any structural improvements on it. It is characterized by open grasslands strewn with volcanic rock and is located on the edge of the Tuscan formation, a volcanic lava flow extending from the foothills. The soils'are shallow and the land is not suited for crops, orchards, or other types of intensive agricultural uses. There is sparse vegetation on site with some riparian woodlands adjacent to the northwest, along Crouch Ravine. Several seasonal drainages traverse the property from east to west and there a number of vernal pools located on site. A preliminary wetlands assessment was conducted which identified a total of 4.8 acres of wetlands including 1.6 acres -of vernal pools, 2.7 acres of intermittent drainage, 0.5 acres of intermittent stream, .and less than .1 acres of wet seep. The EIR prepared for this project p-ovides a more complete description of the site characteristics of the project (see pages 27-31 and 35-36 in the DEIR). PROJECT AND SURROUNDING ZONING, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, AND EXISTING LAND USE: Described below are the project and surrounding zonrig, general plan land use designation and the existing land uses. Direction Zoning General Plan Existing Land Use Project: R-1, A-40 Grazing & Open .Lands, ,razing Low Density Residential North: R-1 Low Density Residential Residential, Golf Course South: A-40 Grazing and Open Lands Grazing East: U Grazing and Open Lands Grazing West: A-10 Orchard and Field Crops Orchards ANALYSIS: This request, if approved, will result in a significant change in the land use designation. of the property which will create -the potential for increased industrial, commercial, and residential development on site. This development potential can not be realized by the applicant until the property is rezoned in a manner consistent with the new land use Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ii 2 .) AGENDA ITEM designations. A rezone is not part of this request and will require a separate application and approval by the County. Existing Development Potential. Seventy-five (75) acres of the property is currently designated Low Density Residential and zoned R-1. This represents a development potential of 450 dwelling units if the land were developed at the maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre. This is a theoretical maximum density and can not be achieved using a typical single family residential subdivision. The R-1 zone allows parcels for single family dwellings as small as 6,500 square feet which would result in a density of approximately 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Sutdivisions aimed at middle to upper income buyers typically*have larger lots and have a density of about 3.5 dwelling units per acre with lot sizes averaging around 8,300 square feet. Envirormental constraints to this northerly portion of the site include an area subject to flooding, noise from Hwy. 99 ( which may require a setback buffer in order to permit residential uses), and wetlands that would require buffer zone setbacks. Given these factors, approximately 150 to 160 single family dwellings is a realistic estimate of the development potential of the existing Low Density Residential land use designation. Any development at this density would require a connection to a community sewer system or the installation of a package wastewater treatment facility and connection to a community water system. The remaining 225 acres, designated Grazing and Open Lands a-ld zoned A-40, could be divided into 5 parcels, each with the potential for a single fam ly residence. The A-40 designation allows for a variety of agricultural uses and agricultural accessory uses that are not necessarily dependant upon the agricultural quality of the soils on site. Agricultural processing plants, commercial poultry production, and farm labor housing for up to 12 families would also be permitted on each parcel created. Proposed Development Potential: . The above development scenario gives a reasonable evaluation of the current development potential of the site with which this request can be compared. Tie land use designations proposed by this GPA have the potential to allow considerably more development than what is planned for by the applicant or is discussed in the EIR. However, this maximum development potential of the requested land use designations is not a realistic scenario and, for the same reasons the existing Low Density Residential area can not be developed to the maximum potential, does not warrant evaluation. If this GPA is Epproved, policies can be included that would limit development to that proposed by the app icant. Although the request at this time is for the General Plan Amendment, the applicant does have a preliminary development concept, including proposed land uses and major road and intersection locations. This preliminary design can be used to as a guide for the potential development of the site if the General Plan Amendment was approved. The following figures ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■ 3 06/19/98 ji I 15:06 V530 538 6891 BUTTE CO COUNSEL Post•It", brand fax transmittal memo 7671 N of papas ► 6' To iron . ats Q% Co. Dept. Phone N 7644_ Fax N 77%5 Fax N 45^ Iy I OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL 0 001 CONFIDENTIAL .. A 'QR EYICUENT INFORMATION TO: Tom Parilo, Director - Developmezrt Services BY: Robert W. MacKenzie, Chief.Deputiy-r-County Counsel SUBJECT: Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464 DATE: June 19, 1998 ,1 U ry 19 1999 ®roville, California You have asked whether an EIR may properly consider both the cumulative impacts of existing freeway noise and.additional freeway noise which will likely be created by a proposed project, on"the proposed project itself. Such impacts may necessitate a sound barrier wdll between the proposed project and the freeway, to mitigate the noise impacts of the freeway on those who will inhabit the proposed project. You have informed us that the project applicant has objected to a sound barrier"requirement on the basis that CEQA should only consider the impacts which a proposed project will have on the environment and that impacts which the environment may have on the project are outside the purview of CEQA. There is one appellate case which held that an argument similar to the above applicant's contention is correct, but the case is�distinguishable and we believe it is also at odds with established case lana interpreting CEQA. Further, the case is not from this appellate..district, and we do not believe our district (the Third District Court of Appeal) would follow it. In Baird v. County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464(1995), nearby residents sued the county after it had approved a proposed project, an expansion of an addiction treatment facility for adult residents, on a negative declaration. The expansion proposed was an addition of a 20 -bed facility for treatment of male adolescent drug and alcohol users, to the existing facility for 56 adult residents. The nearby residents claimed that the proposed project was near an area contaminated by hazardous waste, and that the presence of the contamination required 'an EIR. The trial court issued a writ of mandate compelling the city to set aside its approval of the proposed project on the ground that an EIR-was required, but had not been prepared. The appellate court reversed the trial court and held that no EIR was required because consideration of preexisting environmental impacts on a proposed project is outside the scope of CEQA. The Baird case is distinguishable from the situation you have requested advice on, in that Baird analyzed the standard under which an agency must decide whether to adopt a negative declaration or require the preparation of an EIR. In the existing situation, planning has already required an EIR, and the issue is whether, as part of a cumulative impacts analysis in the EIR, the above described impacts on the proposed project can be considered and mitigation in the form of a sound barrier can be required. The standard for whether an EIR should be.required is whether the impacts of the proposed 06/19/98 15:07 pV530 538 6891 BUTTE CO COUNSEL IM 002 project are "cumulatively considerable". (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15065(c).) At this stage of the environmental review, pre-existing environmental impacts and impacts from other nearby projects are considered, but only as a context for considering whether the incremental effects of the -project at issue are considerable. This is different from "the cumulative impacts" analysis required in an EIR (14 Cal. Code Regs•. §15130). In an EIR cumulative impacts analysis, if the proposed project has impacts which are very small, those impacts may still, when added to the impacts of other surrounding projects or other impacts, be considered significant. At a recent meeting of the Land Use Study Section of the County Counsel's Association, the apparently universal consensus was that the Baird decision was an aberration unlikely to be followed by any other appellate court. Only one California appellate court has cited Baird. In Los Angeles Unified School Dist v City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.App.4th 1019 (1997), an EIR for the Warner Center Development Plan proposed for an area of the San Fernando Valley was rejected as inadequate because of an inadequate cumulative impact analysis and an inadequate discussion of air pollution mitigation measures. In the cumulative impact analysis portion of the opinion, the court noted that the EIR failed to prDperly consider the cumulative impact of existing and projected traffic noise at two schools. The court disagreed with the EIR's conclusion that noise and air quality impacts of the new development were rendered insignificant by the fact that the noise and air pollution levels around the schools were already beyond the maximum allowable levels. The court found that the relevant (noise impacts) issue to be addressed in the EIR was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise cDuld be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the traffic noise problem already existing around the schools. Moreover., the EIR did not find that the noise impact was too speculative for evaluation - reliable data were available for a meaningful and accurate report. The court also held that the ETR was inadequate in failing to discuss feasible measures for mitigating the effects of increased air pollution on the schools, including, specifically, the feasibility of air conditioning and filtering at the schools so the windows could be closed against polluted air, as suggested in the school district's comments to the draft EIR. There was no finding that air pollution would be insignificant, it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plan, and air conditioning and filtering were not facially infeasible. The court disagreed with the city's argument that Baird stands for the proposition that an EIR need not consider the impact of a proposed project on a site where there are already adverse environmental conditions. The court indicated that Baird would only be relevant to the Warner Center plan if a motorist claimed the noise from the schools would have a significant effect on the Warner Center Development Plan. This gratuitous comment is somewhat problematic, in that it appears on the surface that it could be used to bolster an argument that sound barriers cannot be required to mitigate noise impacts on the proposed project you have asked for advise on. We do not believe that such a conclusion would be correct, _iowever, because as mentioned above, the standard Baird applied is different than the standard which applies once an EIR has been required. It appears as if the reference to Baird's potential application was a somewhat careless remark made by the court, without regard to the differing standards involved. 06/19/98 15:08 V530 538 6891 BUTTE CO COUNSEL R003 I have enclosed an article in which two legal experts concluded that the Baird decision is inconsistent with several provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and cuts against the grain of long established CEQA practice and law. As one of the commentators points out, if the Baird view of CEQA is correct, then consideration of flood and earthquake zones would not be permissible when considering the appropriateness of a proposed project's location. One of the commentators also notes that courts in recent CEQA cases have consistently interpreted CEQA narrowly to avoid giving relief to petitioners whose primary motivation does not appear to be genuine environmental concerns, but rather stopping a project. This appears to be the category into which the Baird case fits, as the petitioners had sued apparently for the reason that the proposed expansion: would reduce their property values and/or disturb their use of their property. In the existing situation, this is not the case at all, a sound barrier has merely been proposed to mitigate traffic noise impacts on proposed project residents. CONCLUSION Although the comments in the L.A. School District case concerning Baird are somewhat disturbing, the Baird case does not appear to apply to the existing situation. Further, the Baird case is apparently a "renegade" case which does not square with other interpretations of CEQA by appellate courts. The Baird case has not been cited in this appellate district. Thus, until these issues are ruled on by the California Supreme Court or until there is a specific ruling otherwise from a court of appeal with jurisdiction over Butte County, we recommend that you not rely,on the Baird decision and continue to follow the CEQA Guidelines, statutes and the County's existing practice with respect to these issues. It would be prudent, however, to use caution when issues similar to those in Baird are raised. I would suggest that in the case which you have requested advise on, you ensure that there are decibel level measurements of existing freeway noise levels, an estimate of how much the proposed project will add to those levels and a thorough discussion of how those levels compare to levels recommended for the area -in the County's General Plan. This should allow.your staff to determine whether the EIR's cumulative impact discussion firmly supports the sound barrier mitigation recommendation. If traffic noise in the area of the proposed project is already at a significantly high level (as measured in terms of General Plan standards), then there is a greater chance that contribution by the proposed project would be considered significant, whether that contribution is relatively small or not. Please contact me at extension 7621 if you have any further questions concerning the matter which you requested advise on or the Baird case. ( m\parilo.meml 06/19/98 15:09 V530 538 6891 BUTTE CO COUNSEL JUN -17-98 WED 02:39 PM P.05 i4 Califomia Environm MW Law Re; THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SRIEI+T Y NOTED: Ent Not Required -for Preexisting Envirownental Condition Bard v. Cowry of Contra Costa No. A063062. 1st App. Dist.. Div. 5 1131/95 Daily J. D.A.R. 1269 Jauma:y 27, 1995 The county board of supervisors approved the expansion of an addiction treatment facility. The county issued a conditional use permft rad it sato issued a negative decla- radon than the pwjexx would not have a dS;ni5caut cafe ct on the envtronment and thus would not require an environmen- tal Impact datemats (Pub. Res. Code l 31080(c)1. Plaintiffs Wed apatition for writ of administrative mamdaLe to compel the county to set aside the decision of the board of supear- visoes. no triol court granted a writ, holding in part" an EM was required because there was substantial evidence to support a frit argument that the pmpe rty might be eon- taminsted by oil that had bocn stored in open ponds by a print landowner. The court of appeal neve rsexi. The court held that even if the property was eon- =dnwed, an EIR was not tecluved because the ---- project would not change that condition and thus would not have a sign iant et , on the environment. The court noted that plaia*M did not coinead that the proposed favi ty would cease an adverse change in any of the physi- cal conditions within the affected area. Rather, they con - waded that preexisting physical conditions would have as adverse effect on the proposed facility and its residesns. The mart stated titan any such dftd was beyond the scope of CBQA. The court distinguished McQueen v Board of Diradors [(1968) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 249 Cal. Rpt. 4391(EIR required when property contained transformers) on the ground CEQA was hold applicable because the transforhrhus would have to be maintained in some fashion and dwathe project had thepotemtial ofdhanglagapseeaeist- ing environmental eondlition. The court noted that it was statutorily prolufted ho interpreting CBQA'ln a mama= which imposes procedts or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly sem Ili" CEQA or the CEQA Cvuide>wes' (P'Jb. Res. Code 21083.1). It concluded that to require an E -M in the pane context would impose a requirement beyond those orated CEQA or the Ouldelittes. a td thus was pr obibitcd. COMIM tery by Ron Bate This case represeuna.a giant step backwards in the inter pretation of CEQAI During the .early years of CEQA. a small mlooaiity of public agencies argaodtiat mvironmeaw impacts did not include iu Vw% that existing hazardotnj conditions would have an people breugitt to an area by a! project. In the early 19M. however, 115126 of the CHQA j Guldelinet was amended to specifically require that an ER must include any significant impacts resulting from expos-: itng people to a pre-existing hazardous environment. This; Guideline section is based on Pub. Res. Cade § 21083(c), in which the kgWature clearly indicates thathuman beings ata: a part of the environment to be evaluated under CEQA. Thus, if a pmje ct will attract penple to sn area, and those, people may be adversely effected by an Lh eady dangerous 6WAMnmenL the impacts erre within the purview of CEQA. Tice chain of causation ftom the project to the impact on people is quite clear! N a bead Agency wean to rely en the constrained view of: CEQA taken by the courtin this case, it could exclude fiomt its environmental documents amt discussion of e4tthqu4i hazards, flooding, unstAle slopes. aildfises, toxic sites, and' other potentially hazardous conditions. The failure to evaluate these impacm would, how0vw, contradict the C3uidelines and would be ineonsigten: with several of CEOA's polices. Specifically. the holding conflicts with the following statutory objeatives: Pub. Res. Code $ 21001(d). Ensure the long -tear protection of the emviroanletlt, consistent with the previsions of a decent home and suitable living en- vironment for every Californian. • Pub. Res. Code g 21001(c). Create and maintain conditions under which than and inure can exist is productive harmony to fulfill the social and eootnontic eogaitomoats of present and fitttec genera} tions. 1004 06/19/98 15:10 V530 538 6891 BUTTE CO COUNSEL 0 005 JUN -17=98 WED 02:40 PM 19" w an an agency begin to provide decent homes and ac living forits citizens if it is prohibited evgUrad" the a ffocts of pre-eadsting hazards in its p MWW evaluations? How am an agency faster abut hsn Any betwoea than and nature under such a oortstrucdon of CEQA? bo ahly apparent trason for tho court to have made this *ion was iu reliance on the rexaet I CEQA amcndmem pn tWls a *hart from interpreting CEQA "In a manner A intposec procedural or aabstattive requirements ad those Cq*MttY staff in CEQA for its implement- Guhidelbhcs." however, in this sitnadon. the court ap- m to have relied on this provision erroneously. because aA and the Guidelines expressly require agencies to lmhte the drecm of bringing people to a hazard. Had the n held for the peddanats, they world have simply bat► =iagwbatthe law already provide& Rxthcathandothis. haver. the cWWs efeefsfon uwmws rththct than broadens applicanon of CEQA from what is specifically stated in snout and CBQA Guideli> c& AWW* the dcddon conflicts with J 15126 of tine s'QA Guidelines. it does not repeal it 'Thus, in the spirit fall.dbeclowe and the ghost for legal adequacy. agencies hints be wall advlced to heed the language in f 15126. The heads in gttesdon (e.g.. a thqudes. flooding. landslidek do radon) are too important to le:avc Out of BOA documents. AMt 1 Herson 11ris decision cuts against the grab of long-establlslhed W practice ad law. The cwtt's ovexiy-literal inta- aaoon that exposing people to FamustlAg eaivironmental aratds is not a signifieaat esffied is in&W puzzling, and raid sot be felled on in flaws CFQA litigation. Maps the nature of the petitioners- can eaopisln the art's hostility to a more reasonable interpretation of 10k The petitioners were 040bors wbo bad objections the addiction treatment facility on sodoecoaomie wauds. The peatioms appeared to be invoking CRQA to rp the expansion project. rather than to make sore the ojW B significant catviroomental effects wee fully dis- Wed and mitigated if feasible. One oma question the simafty of the petitioners' concern At the drug and alcohol ups living in the facility not be reared to ha>'ardvus substances. if petitioners were MWQ* comerned about the htahb of these ttserc, why d toy object to expansion of a facility to rue for them? P. 06 55 Courts in recent CEQA casts have consistently interpreted CBQA narrowly to avoid giYing relief to pctiti0w$ whose primary motivation does nocappear to be genuine enviroa- methtal concerts, but rather suing The project. Mr. Bass' oozy ably indicates why the court's decision is inconsistent with several provisions of CFQA and the CEQA Guldel nm and snakes for poor public policy. i can, add the fbllow¢ng additional arguments as to why exposure, of people to laeexisdng hazards should be a sigafficarit envimt uww dF&t: s The Legislature is 1991 adhied to CEQA's etvfron- tnental doeumest public notice requirements a state- meaR as to whether the project is loeated of a hazardous waste sitz listed pursnaat to Gov. Code 4 65962.5 [Pub. Res. Cade § 21M61- Guidelines 1092.61. G idelines Appendix G states that a pro)ect will nor- mally osorally have a significant effed on ft euvitonmeQt if it would `Va pose poople or a mcumc to major gemlogie hatrarde, or "metre a potential public health hazard." JU mment version of the Guidelines' laitial Study checklist (Appeudia 1) includes the followi4g ques- tloa (Number MO. "Would the proposal involves ex- posure of people to eo Sbng soutMs of pote=ntial health hazards?" comnwftry by Edward L Ater The CEQA statutes and guideliM emphasize adve me physical changes in the ervu mnent. This court has staled that sa EUt is required Orly if a project may cause areal Physical impacts to the emaronment: only bringing people into proximity with preeadsdng hazards will not trial as ER Ruling May Cenbra&ct GuMeUnes Me decision may contradict languago ie t.inhideliae I I S126(a) ad its amompaaying Discussim which describe topics to be addressed by an WL Section 15126(a) states: The ER shall also analyze Boy signiRcaat On- viroame W dffoctu the pmjed might cause by bringing development and people into the arca affected. Forexample, an 1R on a subdivision wmide an active faalt line dhauld ideuttity as a sib effect the seismic hazed to fimhte oeeapats of the subdivision. The subdivision nftb.1Ks 06/19/98 15:11 ^0530 538 6891! 1 BUTTE CO COUNSEL JUN -17-98 WED 02:41 PM P.07 66 Cardaffda Erlvirorimerttal Law Rept would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing cheat to the hazatds found there. Under Pub. Res. Code § 21093(c) one potsntial sig. nificant effect on the environment that will trigger an EIR is if "The envirtmmetital effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly." Section 21083 calls on the CEQA Guidelines to 'include criteria for public agencies to follow in deter- mining whether • or not a proposed project may have a 'sib effect on the arvironment'" for this purpose. Gaidclinc 115126 includes a Discussion that claims the L.egislattre is coaucxroed about exposing people to harm and wants the topic covered by EIRs: (T]he EIR must analyze effects on ... people who would occapy the pwject. This language responds to the ongoing debate over whether the EM should be limited to axwWning effects an the pre-existing environment, As shown in PubfSic frees Code Section 21083(c), ft Lepslatume had a concern about adverse effects which projects may have on human beings. Accordingly, the, Guidelines declare that if a project would have the effect of attracting people to a leea6m wbcm the people would be exposed to cAvitommuntal hazards, or disagree- able conditions, that attraction and the resulting exposure moat be seen as a elpffieant effect of the project. (emphasis added) Appendix G to the eiuiddines contains alist of topics that normally will be eonsldered to represent a significant effect on the eaviroument. According to Item (t). a projoet will be wed m have a significant effort if it will "expose "VIc of strnetum to metjor geologic harards." Possiible Two-level Test for Significance? One explanation for the Baird result is that CEQA con- adeas "significance of a potent ud uppact twice, under Mau t criteria, pub. Ros. Code J 21083 addresses the threshold question whether as EAR should be required at all. Guldelioe 515126idendfies which topics mustbe evaluated for significant impacts, after the decision to regmte an EIR is made. It is possible that trite Legislamm wants to have this topic covered in an EIR, which already is required to address physical .impacts, but is unwilling to trigger an MR if the sole issue involves exposure to puteadsning condition. This ieterpretntlon may be supponted by the fart that the CEQA sU tries and Guideline ¢ 15064 (determining significant effect for purposes of requiring an EUR) omit any mention of exposaoc to hazards, while Guideline; $ addresm the topic is detail. Guideline Appetedilx G is crass -M ierenced in ¢ 15064(e) asproviding examples of potential sigrAcant eonsequetwft that may trigger an BIR. This implies that exposigg people to "uugor geologic hstar&' by itsel is enough to ftquit+e an EIR. but no other type of ha=4 will qualify. Such a result seems artificial: why woule a 20 -bed ucatmeut facility trigger an EMR if proposed bebw a landslide, but not if located near contaminated ground or in a iloodplain7 Inquiry into I.agisk0we Intent? Pub. Res. Code $ 21083.1 was adopted in 1993 to curb the tendmey by camU to expand the meaning of CEQA. It states that courts shall not interpret the CEQA Statutes or Guidelines "in a manner which rape ses procedural or sub- nantive requiteteents beyond those explicitly stared in [ft Statutes] or in the state anidelines " The NOW Court Chaos; 21083.1 to support its demon that the statutes require physical impacts to trigger an EM However. the Court ignores the fact that ouideeline ; 15126(a) explicitly requires E1Rs to study impacts from exposing people to ham. It retains an open question whether $ 21083.1 forbids the court -iooam analyzing legisia- tivc intcrot as vuggvAW by this comment, to consider which (if any) c;ces may xcquire an EIR in the absence of physical impact. The Baird court did not mention Guideline § 15126(a) or tcoognize the potential stahiWguideline intenpre"ou issue — aldmo itis possible theses questions were not raised on appeal. The weals claim of harm (contaminants were IM 2,000 feet away from the facility) nay have iailueneed clue decision. The court's conclusion could have been mare defensible if it had acknowledged § 1$126(4) and subjected the question to more rigorous anabsis. This Case may lead to new legislation next year clarifying the Legislature's intent 0 1h 040aankaeaaca. u.i n.d,m X1006 34 JUN -17-98 WED 02;39 PM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CB ._...... .... ......._..._.............._.......... ... .......... ........ ...... --.... _...... .....................,.�._......... BRIEFLY NOTED: EIR Not Required for Preexisting Enviromnental Condition Baird v. County of Contra Costa No. A063082.1st App. Dist. Div. 5 1131195 Daily J. D.A.R. 1.269 January 27,1995 The county board of supervisors approved the expansion of an addiction treatment facility. The county issued a conditional use pertnit, and it also issued a negative decla- ration that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and thus would not require an environmen- tal impact statements (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)). Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate to compel the county to set aside the decision of the board of super- visors. The trial court granted a writ. holding in pact that an EIR was required because there was substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the property might be con- taminated by oil that had been stored in open ponds by a prior landowner. The court of appeal reversed The court held that even if the property was con- taminated, an EIR was not required because the proposed project would not change that condition and thus would not have a significant effect on the environment. The court noted that plaintiffs did not contend that the proposed facility would cause an adverse change in any of the physi- cal conditions within the affected area_ Rather, they con- tended that preexisting physical conditions would have an adverse effect on the proposed facility and its residents. The court stated that any such effect was beyond the scope of CEQA. The court distinguished McQueen v- Board of Directors [(1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 2.49 Cal. Rptr, 4391 (EIR required where property contained transformers) on the ground CEQA was held applicable because the transformers would have to be maintained in some fashion and thus the project had the potential of changing a preexist- ing environmental condition. California Environmental Law The court noted that it was statutoril- prohibited ftp interpreting CEQA "in a manner which imposes procedw or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stat, ie CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines [Pub. Rea. Code 21083.1 ]. It concluded that to require an EIR in the prese context would impose a requirement beyend those stated CEQA or the Guidelines, and thus was prahibitcd. Commentary by Ron Bass This case represents a giant step backwards in the inter] pretation of CEQAI During the early years of CEQA, a small minority of public agencies argued ttat environmental l impacts did not include impacts that gusting hazardous�i conditions would have on people brought to an area by a' project- In the early 1980s, however, § 15' 26 of the C$QA; Guidelines was amended to specifically require that an EIR must include any significant impacts resuking from expos.: ing people to a pre-existing hazardous erviroi Ment. This: Guideline section is based on Pub. Res. Code § 21083(e), in.: which the legislature clearly indicates that luman beings are: a part of the environment to be evaluated under CEQA Thus, if a project will attract people to an area, and those. people may be adversely effected by an akeady dangerous environment, the impacts are within the purview of CBQA The chain of causation from the project to the impact on people is quite clear! If a Lead Agency were to rely on the constrained view of CEQA taken by the court in this case. it coald exclude frow its environmental documents any discussion of earthquake: hazards, flooding, unstable slopes, wildfire;, toxic sites, artd other potentially hazardous conditions_ The failure to evaluate these impacts would, bowever, contradict this Guidelines and would be inconsistent with several of CEQA's policies. Specifically, the holding conflicts with the following statutory objectives: * Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d). Ensure the long-term protection of the environment, consi°tent with the provisions of a decent home and suitable living en- vironment for every Californian. Pub, Res. Code § 21001(e). Create and maintain conditions under which man and na Lre can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the soEal and economic requirements of present and future getters - tions. P. 05 JUN -17-98 WED 02:40 PM P,06 1995 65 ow can an agency begin to provide decent homes and bleliving environments forits citizens if itis prohibited 1 evaluating the effects of preexisting hazards in its ronmental evaluations? How can an agency foster :naive harmony between man and nature under such a ped construction of CEQA? he only apparent reason for the court to have made this Sion was its reliance on the recent CEQA amendment prohibits a court from interpreting CEQA `In a manner ch imposes procedural or substantive requirements and those explicitly stated in CEQA fof its implement- Guidennes." However, in this situation, the court ap- rs to have relied on this provision erroneously, because ZA and the Guidelines expressly require agencies to luate the effects of bringing people to a hazard. Had the it held for the petitioners, they would have simply been Ming what the law already provides. Rather than do this, sever, the court's decision narrows rather than broadens application of CEQA from what is specifically stated in statute and CEQA Guidelines, Although the decision conflicts with § 1$126 of the QA Guidelines, it does not repeal it. Thus, in the spirit fall -disclosure and the quest for legal adequacy. agencies �dd be well advised to heed the language in §' 15126. The pacts in question (e.g., earthquakes, flooding. landslides. tie contamination) are too important to leave out of ROA documents. Albert 1. Herson ' This decision cuts against the grain of long-established EQA practice and law. The court's overly -literal intcr- tetation that exposing people to preexisting environmental azards is not a significant effect is indeed puzzling, and Gould not be relied on in future CEQA litigation. Perhaps the nature of the petitioners- can explain the art's hostility to a more reasonable interpretation of :QA. The petitioners were neighbors who had objections the addiction treatment facility on socioeconomic Bunds. The petitioners appeared to be invoking CEQA to V the expansion project, rather than to snake sure the uject's significant environmental effects were fully dis- Dsed and mitigated if feasible. One can question the sincerity of the petitioners' concern u the drug and alcohol users living in the facility not be Posed to hazardous substances. If petitioners were w1inely concerned about the health of these users, why i they object to expansion of a facility to caro for them? Courts in recent CEQA cases have consistently interpreted CEQA narrowly to avoid giving relief to petitioners whose primary motivation docs not appear to be genuine environ- mental concerns, but rather stopping the projcot. Mr. Bass' commentary ably indicates why the court's decision is inconsistent with several provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and makes for poor public policy. I can add the follo%%ing additional arguments as to why exposure of people to preexisting hazards should be a significant environmental effect: The legislature in 1991 added to CEQA's environ- mental document pubic notice requirements a state- ment as to whether the project is located on a hazardous waste site listed pursuant to Gov. Code § 65962.5 [pub. Res. Cede § 21092.6]. Guidelines Appendix G states that a project will nor- mally have a significant effect on the environment if it would "expose popple or strticturc to majoir geologic hazards" or "create a potential public health hazard," The current version of the Guidelines' Initial Study checklist (Appendix 1) includes the following ques- tion (Number IXd): "Would the proposal involve ex- posure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?" Commentary by Edward L. Shaffer The CEQA statutes and guidelines emphasize adverse physical changes in the environment. This court has ruled that an EIR is required only if a project may cause actual physical impacts to the enoironment; only bringing people into proximity with preexisting hazards will not trigger an EIIL Ruling May c(mtmdict Guidelines This decision may contradict language in Guideline § 15126(a) and its accompanying Discussion, which describe topics to be addressed by an F -M. Section 15126(a) states: The EIR shall also analyze any significant en- vironmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected. por example, an EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify as a significant effect the seismic hazard ro future occupants of the subdivision. The subdivision (rnb.174) ZIN-V-98 WED 02:41 PM 66 would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found then. Under Pub. Res. Code § 21083(c), one potential sig- nificant effect on the environment that will trigger an EM is if "The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." Section 21083 calls on the CEQA Guidelines to 'Include criteria for public agencies to follow in deter- mining whether or not a proposed project may have a 'significant effect on the environment"' for this purpose. Guideline § 15126 includes a Discussion that claims the Legislature is concerned about exposing people to harm and wants the topic covered by Elft: ('1'1he EIR must analyze effects on ... people who would occupy the project. This language responds to the ongoing debate over whether the EIR should be limited to examining effects on the pre-existing environment. As shown in Public Resources Code Section 21083(c), the Legislature had a concern about adverse effects which projects may have on human beings. Accordingly, the Guidelines declare that if a project would have the effect of attracting people to a location where the people would be exposed to environmental hazards, or disagree- able conditions, that attraction and the resulting exposure must be seen as a sigufficant effect of the project. (emphasis added) Appendix G to the Guidelines contains a list of topics that normally will be considered to represent a significant effect on the environment. According to Item (r). a project will be considered to have a significant effect if it will "expose people or structures to major geologic hazards." Possible Two-level Test for Significance? One explanation for the Baird result is that CSQA con- siders "significance" of a potential impact twice, under different criteria, Pub. Res. Code § 21083 addresses the threshold question whether an EIR should be required at all. Guideline § 15126 identifies which topics muAbe evaluated for significant impacts, after the decision to require an EIR is made. It is possible that the Legislature wants to have this topic covered in an EIR, which already is required to address physical impacts, but is unwilling to trigger an 1RTR if the sole issue Involves exposure to preexisting conditions. This interpretation may be supported by the fad that the CEQA statutes and Guideline § 15064 (determining significant P. 07 Califomia Environmental Law effect for purposes of requiring an EM) omit any diteq mcr tion of exposure to hazards, while Guideline § 15126 addresses the topic in detail. Guideline Appendix G is cross-referenced in § 15064(e) asproviding examples of potential significant consequences that may trigger an EIR. This implies that exposing people to "major geologic hazards" by itself is enough to requim an EIR, but no other types of hazard will qualify. Such a result seems artificial: why would a 20 -bed freatmant facility trigger an EIR if proposed below a landslide, but not if located near contaminated ground or in a floodplain? Inquiry into Legislative Intent? Pub. Res. Code § 21083.1 was adopted in 1993 to curb the tendency by courts to expand the meaning of CEQA. It states that courts shall not interpret the CEQA Statutes or Guidelines "in a manner which imposes procedural or sub- stantive requirements. beyond those explicitly stared in [the Statutes) or in the state guidelines." The Baird court cites § 21083.1 to support its decision that the statutes require physical impacts to trigger an EUL However. the court ignores the fart that Guideline §. 15126(a) explicitly requires Ellis to study impacts from exposing people to harm. .lt remains an open' question whether § 21083.1 forbids the court from analyzing legisla- tivc intent as suggostcd by this c:ommcnttay, to consider which (if any) circumstances may require an FIR in. the absence of physical impact. The Baird court did not mention Guideline § 15126(a) or recognize the potential statuteiguideline interpretation issue — although it is possible these questions were not raised on appeal. The weak claim of harm (contaminants were 700- 2,000feet away from the facility) may have influenced the decision. The court's conclusion would have been more defensible if it had acknowledged § 15126(a) and subjected the question to more rigorous analysis. This case may lead to new legislation next year clarifying the Legislature's intent. 0 (waftw Buda k ea, uw,) iPh%. i 7I1 FkUM PLAtdN� NG .CONCEPTS . '' a, • PHONE 7J0. 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998 11: 29AM P8 June 24, 1997 . Memo To: Steve Hackney and Tom Parilo✓ CJ' 3 t. From r; Laurie Oberholtzer Re.. Blakeley Western General Plan Consistency I have completed.a draft of the General Plan Consistency Table. Steve, if you will remember, this wasn'tprepared for the admin. draft because we had a specific discussion about it and you r decided at that time that if wasna needed. I always: leave the option up to staff because there is certainly a difference of opinion on how far EIRs should get into policy consistency conclusions Viand every agency has a different take on the issue. I personally think it's. useful to decision" makers and is a valuable part of EIRs as long as the disclaimer text referring the final ' interpretation to the Board of Supervisors is included. I would appreciate it if you would review the table carefully since its cor-clusions are up for , interpretation and you are the day today interpreters of the General Plan. ' + Based on the table, I would recommend the following if the project is ap?roved in its current form: _ 1. .' `� Find that the project is consistent with the policies listed in the potentially inconsistent column because all mitigation recommended will be required anc is feasible and will mitigate impacts below the significant level. 2. '` Find that the project is generally consistent with the policies we 1--,ave placed in the clearly inconsistent column with a reason stated for each (these are polic..es that are worded such -'that they are•open for interpretation). Policy 5.3.d should be excluded from this finding since it clearly calls for no development in flood plains_ �. 3. Change policy 5.3.d (no development in flood plains). w Alternately, a project alternative addressing the clearly inconsistent column would need to be adopted (with visual, riparian, and flood plain setbacks). We have provided these alternatives in the EER. -FROM PLANK I ,4G CONCEPTS PHONE NO. : 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998 11:24AM P1 January.? 1, 1.998 Tom'.Pfirilo: Director .Butte Coun .Department of Development Services PIanning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville; CA 95965 Dear Tom., .. Based. on my review ofthe conimetits on the Blakeley Western DEIR and our discussion .on the comments; I have summarized below the additional costs whiclY will -be required to.respond as well.as .our agreement on. how various comments/ issues will.be handled_. Cost Summary. Our budget for the Final EIR ($3000).only allotted 21 hours of my time to responding to comments. This assumed a modest.n imber.aad depth of comments. The number . . of -comments we received far exceeded this assumption; mainly due to.the 45-pagelett�r from the. devel'ope�c's afro rriey. In addition, additional technical work not anticipated will' be needed to . respond to comments regarding cumulative nnpacfs when combined with Gateway atxd Central 1 Buttes. '}Additional technical reports may be necessary in the area of cumulative impacts related. to traffic. combined with Gateway and the effluent spray field location issue though youf may see a need for .other new studies after you read the Administrative Draft FEIR. We' have also run out . of priming budget because .the.DEIR Appendix was. printed m equal numbers to the. DEIR and was much longer than.expected (applicant's studies were inelu&d). In addition, because we'were' trying -to hold down costs,. a Response to Commennts format was. specifiedin'our proposal, rather than a: fully revised DEIR in legislative revision format. The revised-DEIR which staff has .requester{ wili cost us an.additional approximately $25.00 to produce, We .will consider. . providing the fully:revisetl DEIR as a service to your.Department at no cost since we think it will make the document rinich easier to follow. The estimate for additional_costs-are-describe4-and-rested Gut -at the`en this letter. City Planning • Environm'Mal'Studies 9 Landscop.e Architecture • Site Planning-. . 1,er.:your directiari;.I v✓i1L be iemoving all Gctieial Plan.iolicies from.th•. Impact Evaluation cnteria•a#d removing . the General Plan Consistency.. Table.Only policies that. are the most.': directly related;.to pliysical-unpacts. of this project such as.the flood plain o5licV will be'6fcd in individual uanpact text Note:. As background 1 have attached a critical piece of past. correspondence related to the.issue 9f.. the General Plan Consistency Table.and,the use ofpolicies ar impact evaluation" er'keria :in.ihe EIR just as.a reminder of't Ze:hislory.behrntl this:.issaie> '_.. table or giniilly was not in the Adinthistra6e Draj? EIR, buf staff rzguested that rt: be included anal that: ive provide recommendations on how to handle tde. problem of potential 'inconsislency with policies. 1 gave staff the options in the attached letter. It is nry.professional opinion that revising the DERto delete direce use of all of these policies will' -still residt.,in an adequate SIR. Itis W. to County staff and.the.decision makers to determine whether or not certain policies were intended `o guide the initial prej7aration'--,ofthi General Plan Land Use map or to additionally guide. development . (such .as this pro us it. occurs. Anc4. cu• noted �in.rriy preyaous correspgndence, the use ..of the Pulices. in cin: EIR is a matter of staff preference. Staff . prefe::r. ed that they' be � . • included initially hodprefers that they be removed at this tir►ie J'ke revisions that we have agreed upon now are not a remedial measure, but staffs reasr•ned. response to comments. •However, .CEQA J6es require.ihaI the issue ofgeneral plan cotasistzncy be discussed and .will`still:ltaveio do that in some mdnner in the revtsed DEIR'or,R'ZZR.: heiase°mote that > Section. 15125 (by of the CEQA Guidelines leads: as follows: The Etlt shall discuss inconsistencies between the proposed project and'applicable general.:pluns .unci regional P Ira addition, Appendix_G of the- CEO Guidelines states tkat " A project may. be deemed to have.a.significant effect on the environment -if it will. (a).. Conflict with. adopted environmental plarcv and goals of the community where.it is located'.' Itis difficwt tv dis•cii3.i project inconsistencies and conflict with adopted environmental plans . aird.gcals withotit;evaluuting the prvjec!'s relationship fo.both the Cerieral:Plan Land. Use map and. policies: . In addition, please note. that the DEIR states the follaiving regarding the'.General Plan Consistency Table: ".:... while these judgements, of General Plan consistency. are made in this EIR, they .are preliminary because. the icltimate consistency judgements will -be made by the Butte County Supervisors. "'(DEM p. C14) I4 addition, relative to. the final impact conclusion on General flan consistency it.concludes that the project "is . inconsistent .wfih.a'number of CountyGeneral.Plari policies which are. associated potentially uni mitigable sisal impacts as.iiiscaissed irr this FIR ire`ludiitg flood plain. . FROM PLANNING CONCEPTS PHONE NO. : 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998 11:26AM P3 f irea eap,an prb deveilopinenf*, scenzc-vzews` DEIR.p--Cli20,-.�mph�il� -j::,)n:47 n;:.thepoliciesselectedfor impact evaluation criteria and 6n.rhe Gen6;a1Pkin'c-onsistency table are environmental in nature, and can be: related to'Wil, , impacts" - A&' -A ikins,makhes. the point in his commentson the. D.EIR that -General Plan inconsistencies cannot he wiiigaied similar to consistency table, -.hotethe*plo�kical:impactilicitthe plysical im,6a�ts—Ho.weveF.. in the We .: ia�illu4ch�eI�t�siothi husp :'General Plan' inconsistency could he eliminate 'ro&t&ng- the impact yr adopting an environmentally superior alternative. Mr..Aikins notes.the legal test for General Plan consistency. -Hoifever,. it should be noted-thai to.use-this. test, it. is entirely appropriate to view the* General Plan as a whole, including all ofits policies, This is difficult to do in'one.or two paragraphs. This is particularly critical relative to the General Flan policies which are very directive -such as the flood plain policy 'Directfuture urbangroh away from fla odpr6ne area,.! Policy 5.3d,page 4.UE-39) 2.' Rdlated i6. the -issue, of recirculation,in general we are not adding new sigmficaait impacts .or. the level of impact to significant in any previous co lusi* increasing ne ons. sc lk -both are. tests of the need for recirculation'. ...-Howevcr, I do. feel the the--Gatcway. application is "new inforriiation-6.f-sub.stantial.iinoortancet.0, the pToject",which recirculation. In addition. the circulatigNI proposal- is: app4ently being. - requires reci chk6 ' "(t6.*a:ctntral:eimess--tol4ighway99)wWchrepr�se�fits.a- arkg� tion, g6d: �h ifi 7. -he project descrip -requiring recirculation.: If the Durham Ditch'trul receive: - or treated 6flienc, y cannot rec-ei g,. this. will also r,equire. achii -ige in the. project description.as''will the. specific location of aspray Iield'which -is b�.-irig requested in a number of comments:. irrigationi u In addition;* it is -alwa'y.-ia good idea to recii-culatc if -substantial chajiges--have beenmade so that S ..the.P10 blic, can review them. A recirc- ulated:EIR w ll'rN ire a second set of -response to Comm LAthe original: contract . u comments not -whicii:uvill -require additi6nal.biidget. 3.. Since, based, on comments from the Durham- Mutual Water Company, ra.treated effluent discharge of other increased flows will be allowed into the Ditch or, presurhably Crouch Ravine -which -leads t6thd*Ditchtfie spray irrigation alternative bi-xaxnes ai6it:reai. -We.conclud6d.-that impacts-kelated irrigation Would be les's than sig.m— fica'xit r -nu igation5:bksO 6zi the fact �ey.'Wes--,ekn. Howe'ver, based th - ad utiw land Blai adj* I oWried by b =,'is eq adjacent.to the s, on 9t.uart Edell' comments, the identificaLion of the spray area,rniybi­necssay with more sitz sspecificdis'c ussion ,Finally, the. new Gateway proposal shows the sewage treatment plant in another location. FROM PLANNING CONCEPTS PHONE NO. 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998 11:26AM P4 To resolve these issues, we feel it.necessary to identify the actual.spray aze•Ft'and discuss it further, additional budget.ww ill be. needed - this as riot Part of the original project description; As we'discussed; w' will also revise: the:s6wage treatinent:;biitigat on axeasues to note that "if :. e tFie--applicant cannot. demonstrate a Ie al ri t to dischar a treated efflueni itxto'the. Durli�am :..:..:. g. Bitch; no discharge will be allowed in t1Tc creek and a spray.irrigation system: will be required"_ .The Water.•Goiinpany will alsq not accept drainage and this subject --may need additional design attention 'by the applicant: Spink notes that the drainage basins may treed .m be'redesigned if this is the case. ".Also; we still need that cumulative drainage analysis fromSpink. There.mayalso be . cumuIative:issues.tQ discuss combined with the new Gateway proposal. -:Any extensive revisions to th.O :drainage .proposal. will require additional budget foreview.. . 4. Stuart Edell has: resubmitted his comments frons 10/10196(NOP) acid St14/97 (QDEIR).: We submitted. detailed responses on -how his 5!14/97 dorrizzients. were to. be handed in the DEIR and received no response and so' we proceeded with the: revisions we outlined at that time. Our responses in the FEIR-willbe similar to our previous responses:, . Many of tas comments dealt with issues related to:-the.project application which aie not. our responsibility:. . The.DEIR.will be revised to include a qualitative. cumulative .discussion in,each impact section relative to the Gateway project and the. Central- Buttes project::Gateway was submitted: after 'the DEiR was published.. Central Buttes was not inchid ' in our cumulative list by'staf�' and .we assumed that it was not an official application at the tirne'we began `vork on the. EIR. he drainage; scwage;.and circulation.analyses: -ill need additional techilictf work',16 address. cumulative:Gateway:impacts. Central Buttes cumulative traffic impacts may -:be able ta:be handled byciting that EIIts cumulative analysis; I need to look. at it.; ()vera!!; these additional 0.Um dative discussions'will require additional budget. 6: 1 wit! be tiobtening up biotic mitigation in6asures based oii:tl a Fisti:and game comiznents since they are the expert agency. (50 foot lot line setback from ripatian.vegetation.) 7.. In respoe to various: comments, we will revise.the flooding mitigation measures to require :..Po -housing constiuctori.in the flood plain, 8:. Alternatives. We: will not -discuss an additional alternative. which stays out of.the. FEMA flood plauz•only. (a variation of:alternative 2) since we decided this could serve as.s mitigation mt "tire; Any new: alternatives would probably raise a .recirculation issue which would not be'a­..,..., problem if we are planning to recirculate anyway. FROM PLANNI4G CONCEPTS PHONE NO. : 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998'11:27AM P5 Does the applicant have legal rights to discharge drainage and efitluent into the Durham Ditch? Ifnot, will the drainage and sewage treatment proposals be revised for the Revised DEIR of FEIR? . Ys tkie sewage: treatment plant stillbeing proposed in tlie:same location since itis shown :. . as a park ori. the Gateway proposal? c.- Whcre; will the effluent spray fields be located and what size will they.be? (Please 10kprovide'a map.) /NV^:.:" 5: d:. Will the cumulative off site drainage analysis .b ' S "ink be re �. g �' Y P prepared for the revisions. i� �� (We have beerx. promised this reportprior to preparation of the FEIR.) ,tp l l e. Where is access to Highway 99 proposed now that the proposed Gateway access is shown midway bet%Aieen"Ncal Rd. and Estates Dr.?.. Finally; we. -Will need. to extend the time needed to prepare the FEIR. Once we have received resoluti6nori the above issues from yourDepartment, OIC to proceed, and funds have been deposited with the County for the contract additions.it will take us one month (rather than the 3 ,� .weeks'originally proposed) to complete an Administrative Draft FEIR . I have completed a number of the response to comments but have stopped work at youi request:. , We are now at the' lirztits. of..our FEIR budget. Please call with any questions erely; aerie Oberholtzer, AICP attachments: cost estimare, .7124197 leuer FROM PLANNING CONCEPTS PHONE NO. 530 265 eoGe Jan. 22 1998 11:2eAM P6 :.•. • •; `: 'Biakcley�Western•�a1�:�ETR' .:. Contraet- Aaiendments • • . Draft .. : . Task.... Pri. ntin�. Gialblzics :clericalwoikTelated to creation of $'720 revised DEIR.. _ • Assuirie County• "w111-copy FEIR 0 . -- - - ' 112 w Revised DEIR Text-4. 250.0 Revise 1' Admui. DrAf�BIR oz. RDEIR • 2640. (An• Admin. was not assumed iri original budget, , thz�ugh;minor:revisions`vdould have been expected. In t}iis;-case, because' of the:extent.of the comments, your detailed iievi&w- is needed to help maleamumber of decisions ori key issues and could*result in extensive. ..: revxsip ns before final publication.) pv� Tag•pag -s of key rev ions to Ad in. FEIR or DEIR 1360 ;.;.: °..... Key revisions will be submitted to staff for final OK. and :. adjustments as needed. A'full.second: Aduiiri..Draft DEIR. Will riot lie .produced..(Add iti.onal .budget would be. required.) New Issues/ Technical Studies Needed • 1. Revised project,description (circulation. possibly drainage, 1'400.. . sewer/ spray fields) and consistency thru text 2. •.Discussion of land.use..relatcd to new interchangc•.(Edcll) : 320 - . 3. Cumulative issues. mb Gateway Park a. Circulation/ttaffic (Chico and Caltrans): . Subconsu Cant (est.) 1500 Planning Concepts 730 ,. • . ..:. :.b. Diainage. . ; •. . •..:.. Subconsult�nt. (est:) SOU..... . .y "Plaaning concepts -•480. .. .. ............ : c ; °Sewei/ spray fields . > Subcon§ultant .(est.) 500 Planning Concepts 500: 7 FROM": PLANNING CONCEPTS PHONE NO. 530 265 8068 Jan. 22 1998 11:29AM P7 d. Othe r issues = qualitative 365 4. Cumulative issues.combiniliv-Central.B.uttes . b ...:: Traffic. Concepts-assumes wecan' 23,0 S un narize.Ceutral Buttes discussion'. _ Sifteinsultant if:needed 5. New. Gen' ia . Plan cbnsisteacy discussion.. ' ' . .365 :6_.: Response to Aikins letter. This.i y: m assistanceb Count onsomePoints. ' I:do-n4lf cl-IMt,ihis can be'done.completely . by County Counsel sin de revisions to the EIR� must' be done as cofiu ients:are responded to: :. Revised 19EW Subtotal `. Planting Concepts •:." 17305 Subcobsultants 19805 7. 'Second set: of:iespoae to comments related to recirculation. • 8200 . ruid.related rr%cetings�:eic.: •.. .' .. �• .. . _ This: is ari estimate only; costs will need fo be: on a Time. B ' ar►d �iteriaTs.basis: .. Administrative:costs will depend on.amount of subconsultaint; work'.needed. TRANSMITTAL i�_j • zt 1viiLA i t unial aruaies • Narks ancl` RP.c'rPc]tinn Plr'-nning Sito pinnn;.,ry •tS _ June 24, 1+997 Memo 'l'o:• y Steve Hackney and Tom Parilo From: Laurie Oberholtzer Re: `` Blakeley Western General Plan Consistency I have completed a draft of the General Plan Consistency Table. Steve, if you will 'remember,' this wasn'tprepared for the admin. draft because we had a specific discussion about it and you decided at that time that it wasn't needed. I always leave the option up to staff because there is certainly a difference of opinion on how far EIRs should get into policy con.3istency conclusions and every agency has a different take on the issue. 1 personally think it's us-ful to decision makers and is a valuable part of EIRs as long. -as the disclaimer text referring the final interpretation to the. Board of Supervisors is included. I would appreciate it if you would review the table carefully since its con6lu3ions are up for interpretation and you are the day to day interpreters of the General Plan. Based on the table, I would recommend the following if the project is approved in its current" form: 1. Find that the project is consistent with the policies listed in the potentially inconsistent column because all mitigation recommended will. be required and is feasible and wil l .' , mitigate impacts below the significant level. 2. Find that the project is generally consistent with the policies we have placed in the clearly inconsistent column with a reason stated for each (these are policies that are worded such that they are open for interpretation). Policy 5.3.d should be excludee from this finding since it clearly calls for no development in flood plains. 3. Change policy 5.3.d (no development in flood plains). Alternately, a project alternative addressing the clearly inconsistent column would need to be adopted (with visual, riparian, and flood plain setbacks). We have provided these alternatives in the EIR. i BLAKELEY WESTERN SUBDIVISION GENERAL PLAN GOAL / POLICY CONSISTENCY TABLE Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy Object/Policy Consistent Inconsistent . Inconsistent Land Use Goals and Policies a. Policies for the Planning Area 1. Consult with incorporated cities and neighboring counties in the development of planning proposals for areas of mutual concern. (Policy 1.2.b.). b. Policies regarding General Welfare 1. Provide for the health,. safety, and well-being of the County's present and future residents. (Policy 1. La.). C. Policy regarding Time Frame 1. Plan for development within the County for the ensuing 20 years, giving emphasis to the more immediate years, while at the same time considering the long range factors and trends (Policy 1.3.a.). F ' V The County is furthering this policy by soliciting comments from the City of Chico and various special districts regarding -this project. d The project is generally consistent with this policy in that the critical potential health and safety impacts related to the proposed sewage, - treatment plant and development in the flood plain can be mitigated. However, mitigation required will be extensive and require additional oversight at various stages in the development process as well as continual mitigation monitoring for the life of ate project. In addition, one of the recommendations in this EIR is to consider placement of structures outside the flood plain which would require significant change to the current design of the project. The project is proposed a� the fringes of urban development in the unincorporated Chico arca. As a result, issues of timing particularly relative to the provision of public facilities and urban form issues are relevant. Tris EIR concludes that Goal, Objective, Plan Element o f. Policies for Orderly Development 2. Encourage development in and around existing communities with public facilities (Policy 1.7.c.). g. Policies regarding Agricultural and Crop Lands 1. Retain in an agricultural designation on the Land Use Map areas where F location; natural conditions and water availability make lands will suited to orchard and field crop use, while considering for non-agricultural use areas where urban encroachment has made inroads into agricultural areas and where past official actions have planned areas for development. 2. Encourage urban development toward the least productive soils (Policy 2.l .f:). 2 Furthers r Thls Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Ibject/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent visual impacts of the project from Highway 99 have the potential to., be significant and unmtigable, requiring a significant setback from highway 99 to ensure continuance of the visual openness which characterizes this portion of the ,Highway 99 corridor. In• addition, to fully mitigate impacts to Highway 99, contribution to the Southgate interchange on Highway 99 will be needed. Since the date of construction of this interchange is likely fairly distant, impacts will remain unmitigated for some time. hire Department and school impacts will also be significant until appropriate facilities are constructed. Water and sewer service are not ntly: available on or near the .sire and will require major new facilities or line extensions. The residential portion of the site was originally designated for residential uses and placed within the Green Line because its; soils are not suitable for orchard and field crops. Thus, this portion of the project is consistent with this policy. However, the proposed sewage treatment plant is on agriculturally designated land (Ag -40) and is outside the Green Line, an inconsistency with both this policy and the County's intent related to the Green Line. The residential portion of the site was originally designated for residential uses and placed within the Green Line because its 'soils are not suitable t Furthers This Goal, is Generally Is Potentlally is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy ObjectlPollcy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent 3. Allow rural residential development as a buffer between urban development and intensive crop land. h. Policics'for Grazing Lands I. Prevent scattered development in grazing areas (Policy 2.2.c). 2. Discourage irrigation of grazing land with poor drainage of which has a high risk of mosquito production (Policy 2.2.d). I 3. Retain in a Grazing -Open Land Category areas on the Land Use Map where location and natural conditions make lands well suited for grazing land, while considering for non -grazing use areas where urban encroachment has made inroads into grazing areas and where past official actions have planned areas for development (Policy 2.2.e.). i. Policies regarding Water Resources for orchard and field crops. The sewage treatment plant may be _nconsistent with this policy because it is on agriculturally designated land (Ag -40) and is outside the Green Line. Ibere is no intensive crop land directly adjacent to the site. f . This project is contiguous to residential development rather than surrounded by grazing; lands. d The project does not involve grazing. 'liowever, certain aspects of the project could promote mosquito production including sewage treatment plant storage ponds and ..rrigation as well as detention basins. Mitigation measures which are easily implementable are proposed to control mosquitos in these project areas. f The residential portion of the' site has been designated for residential uses for some time in part because of its proximity to suburban development. The sewage treatment plant may be inconsistent with this policy because it is on agriculturally designated land (Ag -40) and is outside the Green line. 1. Maintain quantity and quality of water d resources adequate for all uses in the Water quality impacts relat6d to the proposed County (Policy 2.4a). sewage treatment plan are expected to be significant, but mitigable. However, mitigation 3 Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy 2. Control ` development in watershed areas to minimize erosion and water pollution (Policy.2.4.c.). . 3. Require proof, of adequate water supply for all new developments (Policy 2.4.d.). L Policies relating to Population Density 1. Correlate residential densities to soil, slope and other natural site characteristics (Policy 3.2.a.). 2. Correlate residential densities to availability of water and sewage disposal and proximity to other public facilities (Policy 3.2.15.). . Furthers This Goal, Is Generally is Potentially Is Clearly , Object/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent measures are expected to be fairly extensive and require continual monitoring over the lite of the project. r 1`he project is expected to be able to mitigate potential erosion and urban runoff impacts. However, development is proposed within the. 100 year flood plain which may be inconsistent with this, policy. d - Cal Water has commented that adequate water supply exists to serve this site. d The, project respects the bulk' of key physical constraints on the property including Crouch Ravine, a majority of the vernal pools, and the Durham Mutual Ditch riparian area. It shouldbe noted that some disruption of the riparian area and vernal pools is expected and mitigation is proposed in the EIR. However, proposed mitigation measures in these areas are expected to be readily implementable. Water and sewer are not currently available on, the site and major facilities of line extensions will be required to provide for these needs. In the case of the proposed sewage treatment facility, extensive mitigation and ongoing monitoring will .be needed to ensure that significant impacts do not result. In addition, there will be impacts to schools and the Fire Department until appropriate facilities can be constructed as fees are collected from other projects to combine with this project's fee contributions. 4 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy Object/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconslstent 3. Relate residential densities to intensity d and compatibility of adjacent uses (Policy Land use compatibility impacts related to the 3.2.b.).. residential portion of the project are expected -to be readily mitigable. 4. Balance -residential densities with d traffic -carrying capacities of existing and To fully mitigate impacts to Highway 99, proposed circulation plans (Policy 3.2.c.). contribution to the Southgate interchange on`�� Highway 99 will be needed. Since the date of construction of this interchange is likely fairly distant, impacts will remain unmitigatal for some time. n. Policies "relevant to Property Rights f r -l. Maintain economic use and value of d private property (Policy 4.2.a.). The proposal as well as the various alternatives in this EIR demonstrates that a viable economic use • is possible on this property. o. Policies regarding Commercial Services 1. Encourage a full range of seryices at d the regional, community, and The project will provide sewer, water, and private neighborhood levels. recreational and open space areas for its residents. However, it should be noted that additional -mitigation will -be required so that the project'contributes to its fair share of the need generated for schools, fire protection services, and public/ regional recreation facilities. r p. Policies for Circulation Syitems 1. Provide a circulation system and plan that is consistent with and will support existing and proposed patterns and densities of land use (Policy 5.1.b.). C� additional mitigation will be required so that the project contributes to its fair share of the need generated for schools, fire protection services, and public/ regional recreation facilities. The internal circulation system is expected to appropriately serve the development. However, off-site circulation will be impacted be this project combined with cumulative development until a Southgate interchange and possibly a Neal Road interchange is constructed. At $20,000+ per unit, it is not feasible for this project alone to fund the two interchanges. Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, ObJective, Plan Element or Policy Ogect/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent 2. Anticipate public facilities needs so land acquisition and new construction . A new site has not yet been looted for a new fire will be timely and take place with a station in this southern area; it may be minimum of cost (Policy 5.l .c.). appropriate to locate it on the site. q. Policies for Water and Sewer Systems 1. Encourage expansion of public water d and sewer systems where development to The residential portion of the project is consistent 'be served conforms to adopted land use with General Plan permitted densities. plans (Policy 5.2.a.). r. Policies regarding Drainage and Flood Control Facilities 1. Plan drainage facilities to serve areas d of future urban growth (Policy 5.3.a.). The project • has proposed drainage facilities which will adequately serve the site. '2. Require adequate drainage d improvements- for new development The project has proposed drainage facilities (Policy 5.3.b.). which will adequately serve the site. ;x " 9 C� additional mitigation will be required so that the project contributes to its fair share of the need generated for schools, fire protection services, and public/ regional recreation facilities. The internal circulation system is expected to appropriately serve the development. However, off-site circulation will be impacted be this project combined with cumulative development until a Southgate interchange and possibly a Neal Road interchange is constructed. At $20,000+ per unit, it is not feasible for this project alone to fund the two interchanges. Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, ObJective, Plan Element or Policy Ogect/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent 2. Anticipate public facilities needs so land acquisition and new construction . A new site has not yet been looted for a new fire will be timely and take place with a station in this southern area; it may be minimum of cost (Policy 5.l .c.). appropriate to locate it on the site. q. Policies for Water and Sewer Systems 1. Encourage expansion of public water d and sewer systems where development to The residential portion of the project is consistent 'be served conforms to adopted land use with General Plan permitted densities. plans (Policy 5.2.a.). r. Policies regarding Drainage and Flood Control Facilities 1. Plan drainage facilities to serve areas d of future urban growth (Policy 5.3.a.). The project • has proposed drainage facilities which will adequately serve the site. '2. Require adequate drainage d improvements- for new development The project has proposed drainage facilities (Policy 5.3.b.). which will adequately serve the site. 3. Direct future urban growth away from flood -plain areas (Policy 5.3.d.). t. Policies related to Schools r The project includes development within e 100 year flood plain. 1. Provide information on projected d population growth and development This EIR assists in implementing this policy by patterns to school districts to facilitate providing information on student growth adequate school facilities (Policy 5.6.a.). expected from the proposed project. 0 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy object/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent W. Policies relating to the Quality of Environment 1. Maintain public health and safety by requiring proper location and design for uses with offensive odors, dust, smoke, light, traffic, vibration, explosives, pollutants, insects and similar blighting influences (Policy 6. La.). X. Policies for Noise, I . Consider recommended noise levels in review of proposed development (Policy 6.2.a.). The proposed sewage treat>itent plant has the potential to produce odor, foster insect growth, and will be visually impacting when viewed from future residences. However, the odor and insect potential are expected to be readily mitigable. Over the long term, the plant can be screened . from view. However, in the short term, visual impacts are expected to be unrmitigable. f The project will be significantly impacted, based on County noise standard,, from Highway 99 traffic. However, a noise wall varying in height from 8-10 feet will mitioate this impacts and is r 0 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy object/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent W. Policies relating to the Quality of Environment 1. Maintain public health and safety by requiring proper location and design for uses with offensive odors, dust, smoke, light, traffic, vibration, explosives, pollutants, insects and similar blighting influences (Policy 6. La.). X. Policies for Noise, I . Consider recommended noise levels in review of proposed development (Policy 6.2.a.). The proposed sewage treat>itent plant has the potential to produce odor, foster insect growth, and will be visually impacting when viewed from future residences. However, the odor and insect potential are expected to be readily mitigable. Over the long term, the plant can be screened . from view. However, in the short term, visual impacts are expected to be unrmitigable. f The project will be significantly impacted, based on County noise standard,, from Highway 99 traffic. However, a noise wall varying in height from 8-10 feet will mitioate this impacts and is -z. Policies for Scenic Areas 1. Protect valuable scenic areas and parks for enjoyment by residents and visitors (Policy 6.4,a.). considered a routine and readily implementable measure. The project will result :n visual impacts as viewed from Highway 99� due.to the closure of open vistas unique to this portion of Highway 99 and the introduction of an urbanized appearance not typical of this location (including suburban density lots, frontage road, and noise wall directly adjacent to the highway). The required detention basins will also require mitigation to ensure that they are visually attractive. 2. Encourage compatible land use See discussion above.. patterns in scenic corridors and adjacent to scenic waterways, rivers, and creeks. aa. Policies related to Biological Habitat I. Prevent development and site f 7 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy ObjeWPollcy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent clearance other than river bank protection The project includes riparian woodland within of marshes and significant riparian proposed lots; as a result, impacts are expected to habitats (Policy 6.5.b.). be unmitigable without - minor pro1ect redesign 2. Limit development which would increase sediment loads in prime fishing waters (Policy 6.5.c.). 3. Regulate development to facilitate survival, of identified rare or endangered plants and animals. (Policy 6.5.d.). Project erosion impacts are expected to be mitigable. The canal and Crouch Ravine on the site are not salmon spawning areas and are some distance from Butte Creek. Impacts to special. status species which may frequent the site (Swainson's hawk, western pond turtle) are expected to be mitigable. Fairy shrimp must be assumed to be located on the site without .—L-- 7 - - -- -- bb. Policies related to Archeological Sites 1. Identify and evaluate all cultural resources impacted proposed projects before approval and development (Policy 6.7.a.). cc. Policies regarding Fire Hazards- 1. Consider fire hazards in all land use and zoning decisions, environmental review, subdivision review and the provision of public services (Policy 7.1.a.). 2. Guide development to areas with adequate fire protection services (Policy 7. l .b.). 8 impacts are expected to be mitigable via wetland retention and recreation. d There are no archaeological sites on the property. The historic rock walls will be partially removed and may be fully removed over time; however, it isnot considered it significant historic resource. This E1R partially implements this policy by analyzing this issue. I The Fire Department is requesting a one acre station site to be provided by this project. Until this recommended mitigation measure is assured on implementation, impacts may remain unmitigated. Furthers This Goal, Is Generally. Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Poky Object/Policy Consistent Incansi$tent Inconsistent ad. Policies regarding Seismic Hazards Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goat, Objective, Plan Element or Policy ObjectlPolicy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent dd. Policies regarding Seismic Hazards 1. Consider the most recent information on seismic hazards in all zoning and subdivision decisions (Policy 7.2.a.). 2. Restrict development along known active fault areas (Policy 7.2.b.). ee. Policies related to Flood Hazards If I For dd 1+2 - No fault traces have been located on the site, however a detailed geotechnical report on the site and final recommendations is necessary as a standard condition of subdivisions in Butte County. The fault traces located east of the site as noted in the MEA should be discussed in this report. 1. Limit development in areas with d significant drainage and flooding The project has proposed adequate drainage problems until adequate drainage or flood detention facilities. control facilities are provided (Policy 7.3.a.). ff. Policies related to Geologic Hazards 1. Correlate allowable density of development to potential for landslides,. erosion, and other types of land instability (Policy 7.4.a.). gg. Geology/Seismic Safety 1. Take into account all known seismic information in making land use decisions. Avoid locating schools, hospitals, public buildings, and similar uses in known active fault areas (Seismic Safety Policy 2). 9 f Landslide potential is minimal due to the gently rolling topography of the site. The erosion hazard potential for the site is rated as "none" in the MEA, and the project is expected to be able to mitigate potential erosion impacts. Standard geotechnical practices identified in the geotechnical report are expected to easily manage any potential problems associated with soil liquefaction. d . No fault traces have been located on the site. The geotechnical report needs to address the potential for the fault traces east cf the site to impact the site. Furthers This Goal, 'Is Generally is Potentially is clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy ObjecVlRolicy Consistent inconsistent Inconsistent 2. Consider liquefaction potential in making land use decisions (Seismic Safety Policy 4). 3. Inform the public of known geologic "hazards (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy 1.1). 4. Consider geologic hazards in development. of Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, and Open Space Elements (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy 2.1). 5. Consider landslide potential in review of private development and public facilities in areas rated 4 and 5 on the Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Butte County General Plan Safety Element (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy 3.1). 8. Consider erosion potential in review of private development - and public facilities in areas rated high and very high on Erosion Potential Map of the Butte County General Plan Safety Element (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy f Isolated patches of soils with high liquefaction potential may exist on she site, however„these would easily be managed by standard geotechnical practices which will be identified in the geotechnical report. f The site is not rated 4 or 5 on the Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map. The potential for landslides is very low due to the relatively flat terrain. f • The site is not rated 4 or 5 on the Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map. The potential for landslides is very low due to the relatively flat terrain. d The site is not rated 4 or 5 on the Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map. The potential for landslides is very low due to the relatively flat terrain. 4' The erosion hazard potential for the site is rated as "none” in the MEA. Additional mitigation measures including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, a permanent erosion control plan and a Drainage Plan are also required. 9. Protect against subsidence from d ground -water withdrawal and oil and gas Assuming an on-site well system option is withdrawal. Support the conservation of chosen, various studies will be required to ensure groundwater from deep wells for use that impacts do not occur. However, draw down within the County (Safety Element, has not been a concern in the vicinity in the past. Geologic Hazard Policy 5.1). 10 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally Is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy Ob ect/Policy Consistent Inconsistent Inconsistent 10. Protect'development in valley areas with expansive soils (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy 7.1). The previously mentioned detailed geotechnical report and final recommendations will provide protection of the site from hazards associated with expansive soils. H. Support development of erosion Vr control projects (Safety Element, Geologic Hazard Policy 7.1). The project includes on site erosion control ` mitigation measures including detention basins. hh. Plant and Animal Life 1. Encourage the creation and expansion f of natural and wilderness areas (Natural The project includes open space areas along the Areas Policy 6.6.a.). Durham Ditch and Crouch Ravine and preserves ii. Air Quality or recreates a number of wetland areas. 1. Evaluate carefully the air pollution d potential of all development plans and This EIR implements this policy; an air quality proposals (Air Quality Policy 2.5.a.). impact analysis was conducted. It should be noted that air quality impacts of most projects in Butte County are significant and unmitigable due jj. Noise . to its Non -Attainment status. 1. Endeavor to maintain an acceptable noise environment in all areas of the County (Noise Policy l). 2. Where possible, control the sources of . d transportation noise, to maintain acceptable levels (Noise Policy 2). 3. Special consideration should be given f to residential development and other For 1-3: The project will be significantly noise sensitive activities near railroads impacted, based on County noise standards, from and highways (Noise Policy 3). Highway 99 traffic. However, a 'noise wall . varying in height from 6 to 10 feet will mitigate this impact and is considered a routine and readily implementable measure. ' i 1 Furthers This Goal, Is Generally is Potentially Is Clearly Goal, Objective, Plan Element or Policy Object/Pollcy Consistent Inconsistent inconsistent 4. Control recreation activities that have d the potential to cause objectionable noise Recreational uses proposL-d on the site were not (Noise Policy 4). determined to be significant noise generators. r Plannin onotDts 309 Commercial Nevada City, CA 95959 (916) 265-8068 FAX NUMBER �916� 265--5042 TRANSMITTAL TO: t FROM: DATE: NO. OF PAGES (Including Cover Page) IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES OR HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL (916) 265-8068. COMMENTS: ' 1111 1 6 crovI e, City Plonning . Environmental Studies Parks and Recreation, Plcnning Site Planning 309 Commercial Street Nevada City, CA 95959 p a n n in Phone: (916) 265-8068 f Fax: (916) 265-5042 concep s July 16, 1997 Memo To: Steve Hackney From: Laurie Oberholtzer Re: Blakeley Western ADEIR General Revisions Steve - The following outlines how we propose to revise the ADEIR per the mon: substantive staff comments on general subjects. Some responses are needed. ' 31,a!•1 v s. Comments from Steve Hackney Table of Contents/ Alternatives. Please note that the Alternatives were originally discussed m the beginning of the EIR because we were following your prescribed format outline. We will change this in the DEIR. •a Project Description. We will add detail to the Project Description and add changes per the new Tentative Map. B. Summary -Important CEQA Subjects. We have completed a draft GP Consistency Table for your review. that we had previously agreed that this was no desired, otherwise it �,,�,«k';�I ul ve been in the �ADEI �►YS� 'Noires t � il1��e.� Dib. General Plan Consistency. See above response. z1 L VA VDi: Dlc. Land use compatibility (ADEIR page D1-4). I will make each of taese sub impacts.aw,,,�,� separate impact discussion with -a separate conclusion. - � `Lo vr� ��1 c,�wr • r D I d. Have you got a different threshold you would like us to use? Interior roads will not exceed '700f) ADT ac nntPri in the Traffic. rPnnrt i.Pt'c talk C'rovlri vnn nlarifv what is inrn»cictPnt Me. e. We have gotten photos of alternative design, detention basins (use as grassy play field and use as wetland with year round flow) and will recommend in DEIR. Will include photos in DEIR. Spink feels a wet pond will be feasible. They are concerned that there is not enough room for low sloped recreation fields. I will explore this.further. Also, they will hold water. every year, not just during large events, which reduces the rec field potential. We're working on this one. D 1 f GP Consistency. See previous responses on this issue. Dlg. Consistency with Ag Element. I think the consistency issue is whether or not the sewage plant is appropriate in Ag designated area. See GP Consistency Table for discussion of specific related policies. D4d. Do you have a preferred entity? Stuart seems to prefer a Homeowner's Assoc at'this point. D4f. We need a decision from you on whether or not the project is consis-ent with the no development in flood plain policy. See draft GP Consistency Table and cr_emo that accompanied it. D 1 l b. Schools. The unmitigable conclusion. here is because the School District has noted that current fees will not mitigate impact. Thus, a fee higher than the State limited fee would have to be attached to this project. Since a discretionary decision on the PD is involved, theoretically the Board could call for an increased fee I think. However this is unlikely and so we cannot expect mitigation to be implemented. Do you agree? Let's talk on this one: You 11 want to be consistent for m EIR to EIR on this one. D13-1. Cumulative visual impacts. This impact conclusion was consistent with the conclusion for project alone impacts on page D13-8. The conclusion was based more on our visual analysis and Impact Evaluation Criteria 2-4 rather than General Plan policies. We will check again for more specific policies in the GP. Any ideas? Did we go too far with this conclusion? Summary 3c. Format - Cumulative impacts. This section is only intended to be a summary of the discussions in each individual subject chapter. We will include a list of all the sig, cumulative impacts here, but that is all we expect to add to this section. The adequacy of the cumulative discussions in the EIR will hinge on the detailed discussion in -he text, not this. summary section. The issue of whether or not to add the Blakeley south project to the cumulative discussions throughout the EIR is a big one. We can do this, but will need a decision on this ASAP. It will also involve additional budget, particularly relative to traffic and noise. The site has been evaluated for biotic resources, but we will need to write the conclusions up for the EIR. The southern site was not included in the previous cumulative list provided by staff and we also did not think it necessary because the application had not been submitted and so did not qualify as a "reasonably foreseeable or recently approved project". We will discuss the feasibility of the Neal Road interchange if the southern property is developed; as noted previously we need a land use mix to be provided us by staff for this discussion. Summary, 3e. Format of Impacts. We will check all sections for a clear impact discussion and beef up as necessary, but at this point changing the format would be time consuming and it seems better to focus our efforts on the substantive issues brought up by staff. Comments for Tom Parilo Steve, Tom's more substantive comments are discussed above in responses to your comments. We are assuming that we will not redo the drainage/ sewage numbers prepared by our engineers, but rather note that the.project will be reduced in size and so previous figures still apply relative to magnitude of impacts., If you would like the numbers completely redo-ne an additional approximately $1000 will be required. S Redo all EIR maps to delete lower triangle per Revised Tentative Map: $300 V v Option of adding southern property to all cumulative discussions. (approximate - need to check with Omni on their portion of estimate): $3500 n(I' Option of adding other properties to cumulative discussions such as Central Buttes: Let's talk I `W about this... 3 R 4 . April 14, 1997 - t4 t Count y DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES i 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - CROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (9- 6) 538-7785 Jim Mann RURAL CONSULTING ASSOCIATES 55. Independence Circle, Suite 101 r Chico, CA 95926 RE: General Plan and Zoning Conformance -for Blakeley Western Tentative Subdivision Map Project Dear Mr. Mann: In response to your letter of March.13, 1997, I look forward to meeling with you to discuss the two issues outlined in your letter. I am also specifically responding to your inquiry concerning the zoning and general plan designation problem -or the Blakeley Western Tentative Subdivision Map application. It seems errors may have been committed by all parties regarding :he zoning and general plan land use designation of the 35 acre triangle from Crouch Ravine to the. rock wall. In reviewing the earlier Gateway Chico Project Program EIR, April 1994, the map shows this 35 acre portion as being Grazing & Open Land with U zoning (see Exhibits J & K, pp 65- 66). The zoning and land use designation for the 35 acre triangle should have been, known by the applicants and Barry Hogan, the former Planning Manager, to be other than R-1 and Low Density ial. Unfortunately, the Tentative Subdivision Map for Blakeley Western ugust 199 submitted to the County identifies this area as being zoned R-1. It is not wn wh nformation Barry Hogan relied upon when he incorrectly stated in his letter of June 21, 1 'that the project's zoning and land use designation were in conformance. At this time, I a naware of any information which confirms Mr. Hogan's representation to. you. In light of°this situation, there are at least three options which we can discuss when we meet on Tuesday, April 15, 1997. They are as follows:. 1. Modify the original application with a request for the Tentative Subdivision Map to include only that portion of the project, 75+/- acres, that currently has an R-1 zoning and Low Density Residential designation. Jim Mann RURAL CONSULTING ASSOCIATES - April 14, 1997 Page 2 2. Apply for a PUD zoning for the 100 acre site to average the maximum density throughout the project. 3. Apply for a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the 35+'- acres to change this acreage to Low Density Residential and R-1, respectively. Regarding the second issue, a general plan amendment and zoning change for the balance of the Blakeley Western land, I look forward to hearing ;your ideas, goals and objectives for this site. Very truly yours, 4 Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP: jb k:\planningUettersymann.ltr 03/13/97-00:21,' $916 891 3690 r 1&01/005. .. 2 • f + �• '' `� Y ' 4 ' {R�i��i �� � Vim"®�VY ��,.�..�!'T!�1 fL b1N�®�i'.�•�tV^i�i It 55' Inde elndenc Lice, ;Shitea ,' ` , Chico Cili&rni� 95926 44444iiiii i ' Aatf%`. 13 March 1997 . _ To-, TWPARILO' _,- FAX Number: 538-1785 d - . w=`; y w ` l: r im Mann r w r. ^Y ', 4 ^Nu r. of Pages Including This Transmittal: 5 ' •. r 't Original WILL NOT Follow Original WILL Follow Via: - U. Mail i _0v ernight Mail s , = UPS Next Day'Air Fed-ral Express Please reportapy problems with this transmis§ionto (916) 899-9849 immediately.. 1nI Planning Deparimedr. L MAR 13 , Y. Orovilie,:Ca .. ' •. r 't Original WILL NOT Follow Original WILL Follow Via: - U. Mail i _0v ernight Mail s , = UPS Next Day'Air Fed-ral Express Please reportapy problems with this transmis§ionto (916) 899-9849 immediately.. 1nI Planning Deparimedr. L MAR 13 , Y. Orovilie,:Ca . 03/13/97 10:21 0916 891 3690 0002/005 • • 55 Independence Circle, Suite #101 Rural Consulting Associates Chico, Califomia 95926 Economic Development - Entitlements (916) 899-9M9 Project Management. FAX (916) 891-3690 March 13, 1997 MEMORANDUM (send via telecopy - 4 pages) TO;, TOM PARILO, Director/ Butte County Development Services FROM: Jim Mann, Consultant to Blakeley Western SUMT: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE & MEETING REQUEST Pursuant to our telephone conversation of Wednesday afternoon, March 12th, I am forwarding this memorandum on two issues of importance to my clients, Blakeley Western. 1) On Thursday, March 6, 1997, Steve flackney from your department phoned me with some startling information. Steve informed me that we had a slight problem on a portion of the property which a Residential Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) was filed in mid-1996" Your department has just received the Administrative Draft E1R on this Blakeley Western TSM. Anyway, Steve stated that the southerly 35 acre triangle piece contiguous to the rock wall was not zoned residential but unclassified and Butte County Planning Division had erred (see Barry Hogan letter dated June 21, 1996 attached). I had expected Steve to call me on .Tuesday, March 11th when he was coming into the office for one day. Because I will be out of the office the week of March 17th it was necessary to communicate our concerns regarding this issue and request from Development Services/Planning a letter explaining in detail what Steve told me on the telephone regarding my clients property and the Butte County letter of General Plan Conformance received on their land. 2) We would like to request a meeting with you to discuss the filing of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the balance of the Blakeley Western land (approximately 250 acres). [t would be - 03/13/97 10:22 $916 891 3690 9003/005 March 13, 1997 TOM PARIL0 - Page 2 appreciated if your department could schedule this meeting for the afternoon of either Tuesday, April I st or Wednesday, April 2nd. It would-be helpful to have Mike Crump and Stuart Edell join us at this meeting. Discussion regarding this portion of the propertyhas occurred in the.past and involves the creation of a business park and jobs center_ We look forward to hearing from you on which day best fits your schedule as I will.be requesting Bill Beek, Blakeley Western Principal to schedule a trip - to be in attendance• at the meeting. Thank you for consideration of my requests -and we look forward to hearing'from you..I will be returning to my office in Chico on Monday, March 24th. c_ Supervisor Curt Josiassen,. Butte County District 4 Jerry Blakeley, Blakeley Western Bill Beck, Blakeley Western • > 03/13/97 10:22 $916 891 3690 • .,r,-; c: �.,:.:.,:�.�. . , 004/005 -...} J utte fount .... 1 L A N•D OF NATURAL W E A t T H. AND B E A U r V PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF CEVELOPMENi SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DANE - OAOVILLC. CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 - TEUEFR/ONE: 1916) 538-7601 - FAX: (916) 5913-7765 June 21, 1995 Rural ,Consulting Associates Mr- -Tial Mann 55 Independence Circle, Suite 101 ,Chico, CA 95926 r Y t RE: General Plan Conformance -for Blakeley Western' Northern Portion r Dear Mr Mann: This letter is written to confirm the general plan land use designation and zoning on the approximately 100 acres of the northern portion of the property known as Blakeley Western located on the west side of State Highway 99 adjacent to the Butte Creek Country Club Golf Course. This particular portion of the Blakeley Western -holdings is located north of the furthermost rock wall. This' portion of the Blakeley Western property is currently. designat:.d on the Butte County General Planas Low Density Residential (I to 6 dwelling units per acre)- It is currently zoned R-1 allowing for minimum lot sizes down to 6,500 square feet.when sewered. The current Land Use Element of the General Plan. indicates the it it- a policy of the Plan to "provide a diversity of housing sites, varying in size, density, and location." It goes on further to indicate that density is important in its effects on the "quietness, 'elbow room' . and overall quality ,of housing situations." The Element states that residential densities are to be correlated to Soil, slope, -and other natural site characteristics, availability of water and sewage disposal, and proximity to other public facilities. It indicates that the residential densi les and intensities should relate to the adjacent uses and speaks of the need to "balance residenfal densities with traffic- carrying capacities of existing and proposed circulation plans." It should be noted that while the density range of the general plan is t to 6 dwelling units per acre, the ultimate density of your proposed subdivision must be based >apon meeting the existing land use element policies, sound environmental documentation consistent with CEQA, and good land planning and engineering principles. We look forward to working with you and your client