April 19, 2021
SENT VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Mark Michelena, Senior Planner Butte County Development Services Department Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965
RE: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed Tentative Parcel Map TMP19-0002
Dear Mr. Michelena:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group (“NCNSG”) regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the George Nicolas Tentative Parcel Map TMP19-0002 (“Project”). This group is working to address issues in North Chico relating to flood hazards and other quality of life issues for existing communities, including new development proposals that could worsen flooding, and cause other unmitigated environmental impacts.
I. BACKGROUND
The application to develop this parcel with four single-family homes was initially submitted in February 2019. Later that same month, the Autumn Park subdivision was flooded due to Keefer Slough overtopping its banks. Water rushed through Mr. Nicolaus’ orchard, and down the fire lane that borders Autumn Park, west of Garner Lane. From the fire lane, water rushed down Bosc Drive to Magness and Anjou Courts. Flood waters came within 15 feet of front doors, and were 4 feet deep.
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 2 of 23
Flood waters from Keefer Slough flowing Flood waters flowing down fire lane on down Bosc Drive (2/14/19) south side of Nicolaus orchard (2/27/2019)
Subsequent to the flooding, NCNSG wrote to the Butte County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) regarding its concerns with the regional flooding, outdated FEMA mapping and the two development proposals submitted by Mr. Nicolaus and his affiliates. (See Exhibit A, NCNSG Letter to the Board, dated December 4, 2019.) In early 2020, the Board considered imposing a temporary moratorium on certain development within the 100-year floodplain. NCNSG supported adoption of the temporary moratorium, given the flooding risks in the area. (See Exhibit B, NCNSG Letter to the Board, dated February 10, 2020.) At the request of NCNSG, MBK Engineers wrote to the Board, to explain that the parcel proposed for Tentative Parcel Map TMP19-0002 (among others) should be included in the moratorium area due to flooding risks. (Exhibit C.) Ultimately, instead of adopting a temporary moratorium, the Board directed staff to carry out nine measures to help address flooding and drainage concerns in North Chico. By November 2020, only one of the nine actions had been completed, leaving the region still at significant risk for future flooding. (Exhibit D.)
This Project would convert portions of an existing orchard in an area subject to significant and chronic flooding to four (4) residential parcels. The development of these parcels would likely exacerbate local flooding, may lead to the release of untreated or partially-treated human waste from the septic systems when flooded, further stress the groundwater table, and pose safety risks due to inadequate emergency access, among other impacts. The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts that are inadequately disclosed and mitigated in the MND. As explained herein, the MND is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”]), and should not be adopted.
The Planning Commission has issued a notice that it would consider approval of the Project on April 22, 2021. From the perspective of NCNSG, there has been Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 3 of 23 inadequate time to fully review the proposed Project and the MND, and April 22 is too soon for a hearing on the Project. In the future, please provide this office notice of all actions on this Project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.2; Gov. Code, § 65092.) Should the Planning Commission proceed to consider the MND on April 22nd, NCNSG requests that the Planning Commission determine that the MND provides an inadequate basis upon which to make any decision, and require further review of the Project’s environmental impacts in a full Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) in accordance with the minimum requirements of CEQA.
II. THE MND DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM CEQA STANDARDS
The MND is entirely inadequate to support approval of the Project. Preparation of a full environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required prior to any action being taken on the Project.
A. Standards Applicable to Mitigated Negative Declarations
The MND fails to include relevant information and fully disclose Project impacts as required by CEQA. In particular, several potentially significant impacts are associated with the Project, necessitating preparation and circulation of an EIR prior to any further proceedings by the City regarding the Project.
Under CEQA, an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, even when other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (See, e.g., No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74 [No Oil I].) This “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) Thus, a project need not have an “important or momentous effect of semi-permanent duration” to require an EIR. (No Oil I, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 87.) Rather, an agency must prepare an EIR “whenever it perceives some substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect environmentally.” (Id. at p. 85.) An EIR is required even if a different conclusion may also be supported by evidence.
The fair argument test is the least deferential to the lead agency; importantly, “substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument” is not the same as the deferential “substantial evidence” standard applicable to the adequacy of EIRs. (No Oil I, supra, 13 Cal.3d at 82–87.) The fair argument test is a question of law, not fact, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 [Pocket Protectors].) Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 4 of 23
To lawfully carry out a project based on an MND, a CEQA lead agency must approve mitigation measures sufficient to reduce potentially significant impacts “to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur.” (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14 [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15070, subd. (b)(1), emphasis added.)1 This is assured by incorporation into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”). (Pub. Resources, Code, § 21081.6(a)(1).) “The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.)
Furthermore, an agency cannot hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data. Specifically, “deficiencies in the record [such as a deficient initial study] may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 [Sundstrom].) For example, in Sundstrom, the court held that the absence of information explaining why no alternative sludge disposal site is available “permits the reasonable inference that sludge disposal presents a material environmental impact.” (Ibid.)
Substantial evidence of a fair argument may come in various forms. Comments from experts presenting evidence that significant impacts may occur is generally considered to be substantial evidence. (See Sierra Club v. California Dept. of Forestry (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 370; see also City of Livermore v. Local Agency Formation Comm’n (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531, 541.) Opinions, based on relevant expertise, that a project could have significant effects also qualifies as substantial evidence of a fair argument. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1582–1587 [expert predictions by three separate “sludge generators” constituted a fair argument that the project would have significant environmental effects] [County Sanitation Dist. No. 2]; Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 34 [planning
1 A lead agency may satisfy its CEQA obligations by preparing an MND instead of an EIR if: (1) revisions in the project would mitigate the effects of the proposed project to a point “where clearly no significant effects on the environment will occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.) The City must also adopt a legally adequate MMRP in compliance with CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15074, subd. (d).) To comply with CEQA the MMRP “shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15074, subd. (d), 15097, subd. (a).) The City may not simply rely on a “summary” that merely relists the various mitigation measures in the absence of a discussion of implementation or evidence that the measures will be enforced. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 5 of 23 commission’s findings of fact and testimony of an architect regarding project consistency with applicable land use policies constituted fair argument of significant environmental effects].) Substantial evidence can also come in the form of public comments, so long as such comments are based on personal observations on nontechnical subjects. (Id. at 937– 39 [personal observations by area residents constitute evidence of a fair argument of significant aesthetic impacts].)
For each resource area discussed below, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a potentially significant impact. Moreover, the mitigation measures included are not legally adequate and do not sufficiently address the potential impacts. Therefore, an EIR is necessary in order to adequately analyze, disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
B. The MND Does not Include an Adequate Project Description
An MND must include a complete, accurate description of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15071.) An accurate, stable and finite project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 655; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 (County of Inyo) [“(a)n accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” CEQA document].) The court in County of Inyo explained why a thorough project description is necessary:
A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the ‘no project’ alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance.
(County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-93.) The three paragraph description of the Project fails to describe all elements of the Project. (MND, pp. 1-2.)
For instance, the MND fails to clearly list all of the approvals required for the Project to move forward. (MND, p. 5.) The Project is inconsistent with the North Chico Specific Plan’s (“NCSP”) service provisions. The Project attempts to use infrastructure, including access through cul-de-sacs and a retention basin, that are designated for the benefit of Zone III of CSA 172, even though the parcel proposed to be developed (APN 047-260-19) is within Zone II. The County clarified in 2001 that the Project “receives no direct benefit from the CSA and therefore should not be charged.” (Exhibit E.) For the Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 6 of 23
Project to rely on the retention basin proposed in the MND would require changes to these zones of benefit and a means for the new residents to pay for drainage and other services. Yet the MND fails to disclose this aspect of the Project.
In a related example, new drainage systems will need to be constructed to serve the Project, yet those systems are inadequately described in the MND. The Conceptual Site Plan figures for the Project show significant areas of impermeable surface from buildings, walkways, parking, and roads. (MND, pp. 9-10.) Yet the MND fails to disclose and define areas of impermeable surface, design storm events, flow volumes, period of storage, and volumes of onsite capacity identified. As a result, there is no means by which to substantiate any analysis as to the Project’s hydrologic impacts. The expected details for the storm drain design, as required under the Butte County Improvement Standards2 are also are also not depicted.
C. The MND Fails to Provide Adequate Information about the Project’s Environmental Setting
The description of the environmental setting sets the stage for assessing a project’s impacts. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1123 [inadequate description of environmental setting made analysis of project impacts impossible]; Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c) [knowledge of regional setting critical to assessment of environmental impacts].) Similarly, an accurate project description is necessary for fully understanding a project’s impacts. (See County of Inyo v. City of L.A. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192 [County of Inyo].) Therefore, on review, the adequacy of a CEQA document’s description of the environmental setting should be considered prior to the document’s treatment of impacts.
Before the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an initial study must also describe the existing environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d)(2).) It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15125, 15126.2, subd. (a); see also County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952.) According to CEQA Guidelines, section 15125, subdivision (a): “An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” This same requirement applies to a Negative Declaration. (Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319.) As the Supreme Court has explained, a comparison must be made between “existing physical conditions without the [project] and the conditions expected to be produced by the project. Without such a
2 Available at: https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/22/downloads/IS- 06/ImprovementStd2006.pdf?ver=2020-02-19-124024-510. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 7 of 23 comparison, the EIR will not inform decision makers and the public of the project’s significant environmental impacts, as CEQA mandates.” (Id. at p. 328.)
Here, the MND includes insufficient information regarding the Project setting, which describes the surrounding land uses. (MND, pp. 3-5.) The MND fails to include adequate setting information, including but not limited to, the setting relative to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, hazards, hydrology, land use/planning, and utilities.
D. The MND’s Analysis of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts is Defective and Mitigation Measures are Inadequate to Reduce Project Impacts to Less than Significant
1. The Project Would Result in Potentially Significant Agricultural Impacts
The MND fails to include the required agricultural and residential setbacks from orchards and vineyards. The MND identifies the applicable Agricultural Buffer requirements of Butte County Code section 24-56.1:
Butte County has adopted Article 17 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance which requires a 300-foot buffer between lands zoned agriculture and new residential development. This ordinance applies to parcels where residential structures are to be developed in the following areas of the county: (1) all lands zoned Agriculture; (2) in other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones; (3) areas inside and within 300 feet of sphere of influence boundaries for incorporated cities, where the boundary abuts parcel zoned Agriculture; and, (4) areas within 300 feet of a Williamson Act Contract. Exceptions to the 300-foot agricultural buffer setback requirement may be requested by the project applicant through an Unusual Circumstances Review application process.
(MND, p. 15.)
However, after stating that the Project is in conflict with these requirements (“The project could create land use compatibility issues . . . .”), the MND ignores them and instead proposes 100-foot and 25-foot setbacks. (MND, p. 18.) No explanation for the reduction in setback width is provided. With the Project owner having listed the Project parcel for sale (see Exhibit F), it is especially important that there is clarity regarding the required setback from active agricultural uses. To prevent future land use incompatibilities, a 300-foot buffer should be provided, as required by the County Code. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 8 of 23
2. The Project’s Potentially Significant Biological Impacts are Not Disclosed
The Project area includes an orchard and seasonal grassland. (MND, p. 8, Figure 1.) The MND identifies that “The site may facilitate home range and dispersal movement of resident wildlife species,” however, no species are identified. (MND, p. 28.) Yet no biological resources analysis is provided other than an excerpt from the California Natural Diversity Database. There is no evidence that a qualified biologist prepared the analysis or visited the site. A lead agency “should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296) in analyzing the Project’s potential impacts on biological resources; instead, it must correct this failure by performing an analysis of biological resources impact in an EIR.
In addition, no mitigation is identified for biological resources. The MND provides an insufficient basis to make any determination as to the significance of the effects of the Project on biological resources.
3. The Project’s Energy Impacts are Not Disclosed
The MND fails to properly discuss and analyze the potentially significant energy impacts generated by the construction of and operation of the Project. (MND, pp. 32-33.) The MND should consider “energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project.” (California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland, (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 [CCEC], citing CEQA Guidelines, App. F.)
The MND should also consider whether the project involves unavoidable adverse effects which include “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated.” (Ibid.) The considerations should include “whether it [the project] should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building’s envelope.” (Id. at 211 [includes energy impacts associated with additional square footage of project construction].) The review must also contain discussion of potentially significant energy considerations such as renewable energy options, energy use attributable to vehicle trips generated by the project, and the resulting energy impacts from these trips. (Id. at 213; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah, (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 263-265 [Ukiah].) Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 9 of 23
The CEQA Guidelines expressly require substantive analysis of a project’s energy impacts:
Energy Impacts. If analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the project's energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project's size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. (Guidance on information that may be included in such an analysis is presented in Appendix F.) This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (b).)
The MND briefly discusses energy impacts of construction and the new development project, and concludes that the impacts would be less-than-significant. (MND, pp. 32-33.) The MND’s perfunctory analysis of energy falls short of CEQA’s substantive mandates, and therefore fails as an informational document. The brief discussion provides no information of the adverse energy impacts from construction, incorporation of renewable energy resources, energy use attributed to vehicle trips associated with construction, the energy impacts associated with additional square footage of the Project, and the designs by which the Project will undertake energy efficiency. The MND also fails to consider whether energy impacts of the Project may be avoided through alternate means, such as renovation, or LEED-quantified efficiency improvements.
The MND fails to quantify the Project’s energy consumption, thereby providing no information as to whether the Project’s energy consumption is inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary. No information is provided to assess the Project’s energy consumption; the MND provides only provides a cryptic and qualitative discussion of construction and operational energy demands. (MND, p. 32.) The MND provides no information as to how these energy demands will avoid unnecessary or inefficient consumption. Due to this deficiency, the analysis of the energy demands must be revised to include a comprehensive view as to the impacts and energy consumption. As no information is provided concerning the Project’s energy consumption, there is no way to confirm that the Project will not result in a less-than-significant impact on the environment. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 10 of 23
The MND also fails to provide sufficient information regarding the Project’s plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. (MND, p. 33.) The MND does not discuss the process by which energy efficiency or renewable energy measures will be undertaken. There is no information which establishes how the Project will comply with these standards and the corresponding expected reductions in energy use. The deficiency in information does not provide an adequate discussion of potentially significant energy considerations for the building standards and does not require compliance with energy efficient undertakings. (Ukiah, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at 263-265.) The MND’s analysis of energy must be revised to provide sufficient information for the renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.
4. The Project Would Result in Potentially Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
a. Potentially Significant Hazards from Prior Agricultural Uses
The site has been in agricultural use since at least 1937. (See Exhibit H.) Agricultural activities have the potential to create and accumulate hazardous conditions through the use of herbicides, pesticides, metals, and other chemicals.3 The MND, however, is entirely silent on this potentially significant impact. There are no mitigation measures to protect worker health, adjacent residences, and other impacts to the environment from the disturbance, emissions, and settling of these potential hazards. Mitigation should be provided for soil sample collection and analysis, and specific measures to reduce any potential impacts from prior contamination.
b. Potentially Significant Hazards from Inadequate Emergency Access
California Fire Code section 503.1.1 requires that fire apparatus access roads must be located within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of a building. The Project is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area (Butte County Improvement Standards, October 2006).4 It is zoned SR-1 Suburban Residential 1-acre minimum, with a Specific Plan minimum requirement of L-V.
The Parcel Map (MND, p. 10 [Tentative Parcel Map, sheet 2 of 2]) provides limited detail on road access to parcels 1 and 2, and fails to indicate whether these
3 https://nasdonline.org/1246/d001050/health-hazards-in-agriculture-an-emerging- issue.html 4 https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/22/downloads/IS- 06/ImprovementStd2006.pdf?ver=2020-02-19-124024-510, at PDF p. 69. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 11 of 23 proposed parcels have the required 50-foot easement with a 24-foot travel lane, with a structural section and design detail, per Department of Public Works Improvement Standard RS-3(C) applied. (Butte County Improvement Standards, PDF p. 95) It is not clear from the Project Description and the Parcel Map that even at this required standard this will allow appropriate fire-fighting access, vehicle turnaround, and staging.
The MND refers to an Exception Request for “a modification to the required road standard to serve proposed parcels 3 and 4,” “proposing a lesser standard of a 12-foot wide concrete, HMA or gravel driveway” and, “includes a turnout and fire vehicle turnaround.” (MND, p. 2.) This is half of the width for the access standard for County Roads in the Specific Plan, and is not justified in the MND. The fire vehicle turnaround is also not clearly identified on the Parcel Map.
The lack of emergency vehicle access in accordance to the standards, the unclear or missing details on that access, and the request to cut that access by half in the case of proposed parcels 3 and 4, is entirely inappropriate. The Fire Captain from the Nord Fire station agrees. In an email to a NCNSG member, he stated that “We are not going to deviate from requiring the developer to putting in a Standard asphalt or concrete access with appropriate width to allow our fire engines access. (See Exhibit G.) After the tragic history of the Paradise fire, it is all the more important to follow all applicable requirements for fire safety.
Further, the new roads depicted on the Parcel Map do not provide multiple means of access to the Project site. For purposes of compliance with the Fire Code, these streets have a single point of access, and must be treated as a single emergency access road. Under the circumstances, more than one fire apparatus access road should be required pursuant to the authority granted the Fire Chief under the Fire Code. (See Cal. Fire Code, § 503.1.2 [“fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.”].)
The new roads would also violate the Fire Code’s requirements for emergency vehicle turn-arounds. The California Fire Code requires dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length to include an approved turnaround in accordance with the Code’s Appendix D. (See Cal. Fire Code, § 503.2.5.) Appendix D establishes the width and turnaround requirements based on the actual length of the dead-end fire apparatus access road. (See Cal. Fire Code, § 503.2.5, Appendix D, Table D103.4.) The Site Plan violates the turnaround requirements in Fire Code Section 503.2.5.
The “fire hydrant radius” depictions in the Parcel Map show that the proposed new hydrants, not discussed or analyzed anywhere in the MND, cannot adequately serve Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 12 of 23 significant portions of parcels 3 and 4. This creates a potentially significant hazard to future residents. Further, there is no evidence that the proposed fire hydrant system can support the required pressure drop or the minimum flow standard to serve this purpose. (See Butte County Improvement Standards, p. 49.)
The proposed vehicular access through Autumn Park subdivision Phase III cul-de- sacs is not contemplated in the planning for the NCSP and would lead to potentially significant impacts threatening the health and safety of both current and future residents. Should any development of this parcel occur, the only logical access is from Kittyhawk Drive. The applicant’s desire to cut costs does not justify flouting the County’s road standards or Fire Code standards intended to protect the public. Moreover, the potential for exposing future residents to fire is not addressed in the section of the MND entitled “Fire”. (MND, pp. 69-70.)
5. The Project’s Potentially Significant Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts are not Disclosed
a. The MND Fails to Address Potentially Significant Direct and Indirect Impacts to Groundwater
The MND claims that groundwater supply impacts are less than significant. (MND, p. 45.) The MND provides a Tentative Parcel Map that marks the locations for proposed septic fields. (MND, pp. 9-10.) These leaching fields are aligned to apply the 100-foot setback from drinking water wells on the adjacent parcels, as well as their own fields.
Pursuant to the Butte County Improvement Standards, “Where any resulting parcel is less than twenty (20) acres and an individual water supply system is proposed, the division shall not be approved unless the developer shows that water in sufficient quantity and acceptable for domestic purposes is available in accordance with Section 12.02-2 (1) above.” (See p. 46.) The MND makes no finding as to the suitability of the groundwater amounts or quality for the proposed subdivision as required by the Butte County Improvement Standards. Nor does the MND provide any protections for human health and the environment from the impacts of the project on the groundwater or as a result of its proposed siting in an area subject to flooding. The fact that the applicant has already lost the use of one well in the area, and has installed a new 600-foot deep replacement agricultural production well to just south of the stormwater detention basin adjacent to proposed parcel 4 (see Exhibit I), indicates that there is limited availability of groundwater in this area for additional residences.
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 13 of 23
The Project also poses a potentially significant impact associated with septic and stormwater contamination of drinking water and groundwater. Each of the proposed wells is located on the far westernmost edge of the parcel, the area within the frequent flooding. The MND references the use of septic fields (pp. 36, 67), however there is no information provided to demonstrate how human waste would be contained during a flooding event, or how that waste would be segregated from the recharge area for the drinking water wells. The analysis is further silent on the potential impacts of the stormwater collection system on the transport of chemicals into the water table used by these wells. No setback from the retention basin from the well proposed to serve parcel 4 is provided.
The Tentative Parcel Map shows the well on proposed parcel 1 within 75 feet of an agricultural production well. (MND, pp. 9-10.) Yet no the MND provides no information regarding the depth of the well screen, the area of influence and any cones of depression created by that well. Similarly, the well locations on proposed parcels 2 and 3 are immediately adjacent to each other. There is no information provided as to if there is sufficient water supply for these wells to function without interfering with each other. The analysis leaves the determination of the feasibility of serving water of sufficient quality or quantity to a future process.
These potentially significant effects associated with groundwater supply, quality, and contamination must be addressed in a full EIR.
b. The MND Ignores the Subbasin’s Groundwater Planning under SGMA
The Project would rely on wells to supply the proposed parcels with domestic water. The MND fails to describe how this new groundwater use would be consistent with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), as implemented in the Vina Subbasin.5 From the well records associated with the new “replacement” well recently drilled by Mr. Nicolaus, groundwater is only available in the deep aquifer at a dept of 600 feet. (See Exhibit I.) At that time, County staff confirmed that the well could not be used for public water supply. (See Exhibit I.)
The potential for new wells to interfere with each other and existing wells is noted above. It is clearly inconsistent with SGMA, and likely to lead to undesirable effects, if the Project wells were to impair each other. (Wat. Code, § 10721, subd. (x).) In addition, the MND is deficient in that it neither describes the implications of the Project with
5 See https://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/Sustainable- Groundwater-Management-Act/Butte-County-Subbasins/Vina. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 14 of 23 respect to SGMA and the Vina Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, nor the currently stressed localized conditions.
c. The MND Ignores Potentially Significant Flooding Impacts
i. Background
In February 2019, a much smaller than 100-year event lead to flooding well outside of the FEMA mapped 100-year floodplain. As described in the introduction to this letter, in January and February 2020, the Butte County Board of Supervisors considered the imposition of a temporary building moratorium in North Chico due to regional flooding concerns. The Public Works Memorandum to the Board in February 2021provided the Board with a detailed analysis of the challenges associated with the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed and conceded that the repeated flooding of the area shows prior mapping is “not reflective of real world conditions.”6 (Exhibit J, p. 2.)
Though a moratorium was ultimately not adopted, there was consensus around the fact that reducing flood risk is complex and will require additional mapping and other engineering efforts. The Board chose to pursue the list of updates below rather than placing a moratorium on new development, and to return with a progress report no later than December 8, 2020:
1) Update rainfall criteria; 2) Refine Outfall Criteria and increase detention volumes; 3) Update NFIP Ordinance – more resilient building requirements; 4) Support Rock Creek Reclamation District – channel maintenance; 5) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage, public information; 6) Update drainage improvement standards; 7) Stabilize Bifurcation – design; 8) Update FIRM (FEMA project); and 9) Flood Risk Reduction Study – develop preferred project.
(Exhibit D.)
By November 10, 2020, only one of the nine items identified by staff had been completed. The discussion at the Board meeting indicated that as to Item 8 (Update FIRM), DWR had provided additional data to the County in November. It is not clear
6 FEMA mapping for this area dates back to 2011: https://www.buttecounty.net/publicworks/Services/FEM-Firm-Panels.
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 15 of 23 what the status of this information is, but the Technical Memorandum included in the MND was completed on October 26, 2020, does not rely on any updated information regarding the correct FEMA Zone A Flood Boundary.
Significant public safety issues exist with the current flood prone conditions. Indeed, as explained by MBK Engineers: “The hydrologic and hydraulic models (HEC-1 and HEC-2) are legacy models dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. The HEC-2 model is a simplified standard-step backwater calculation of water surface elevation, and cannot accurately simulate the shallow overland flow that actually occurs in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough floodplain. The topography used in the HEC-2 model dates back to 1951, and has an accuracy of plus or minus 2.5 feet.” (Exhibit K, p. 3, and Exhibit A thereto.) In addition, the flow rate assumed for Keefer Slough is based on a rating curve that dates back to 1951 that “is not accurate and is not reflective of the actual site conditions today. This may result in flooding in areas not delineated by the FEMA FIRM Maps.” (Exhibit K, p. 4, and Exhibit A thereto.)
The current development standards, flood mitigation and flood infrastructure are clearly insufficient to protect the area under current conditions. The Potential Flood Risk Reduction Action Items 1 through 9 listed above included actions related to both development standards as well as regional flood risk. Updating the County’s standards for development applicable to individual parcels and development projects would be a step forward, but do nothing to address the regional flood risk. Even if a parcel has adequate retention facilities, for example, that will not address flood water from other locations.
Despite a plan to do so, the County has not yet completed work needed to address existing flood risks or to reduce risks from new development, such as the Project.
ii. Project’s Potentially Significant Flood Impacts
According to the MND, flood impacts would be rendered less than significant by the installation of “break-away” fences designed to allow flooding to pass. (MND, pp. 46 and Mitigation Measure HWQ-3.) The proposed Project’s exacerbation of hazards associated with localized flooding is potentially significant notwithstanding the plan to install fences to allow flood waters to pass. As explained in the technical comments prepared by MBK Engineers on the MND submitted previously, the Preliminary Hydrology, Hydraulic and Flooding Analysis prepared by Provost & Pritchard 2020 (“Provost & Pritchard 2020”) included in the MND is entirely inadequate. (See Exhibit K.)
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 16 of 23
Although not mentioned in the MND itself, Provost & Pritchard 2020 states that “the finish floor elevations 2-feet above adjacent grade to ensure floor elevations are well above flood waters that might occur.” (See p. 3.) According to Butte County Ordinance No. 4041, Section 26-24(b)(3) all structures in the A Zone must be elevated at least one (1) foot above Base Flood Elevations (“BFE”) specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Yet Provost & Pritchard 2020 fails to calculate the BFE, and thus there is no basis for the finished floor elevation discussed in Provost & Pritchard 2020. (See Exhibit K, pp. 1-2.)
In addition, Provost & Pritchard’s “HEC-RAS hydraulic model of the Keefer Slough floodplain to “… understand what impact the proposed four parcels… may have on the flood characteristics in the area of the Project and Subdivision (Autumn Park)” (p. 4) is faulty. Provost & Pritchard 2020’s HEC-RAS model erroneously includes a “fence” that arbitrarily cuts off the flow to the south and directs it to the west, so that it assumes no water would flow south of the north fence of the Autumn Park subdivision. Yet both the MND and Provost & Pritchard 2020 acknowledge that flood waters in February 2020 did just that. As explained by MBK Engineers:
The hydraulic analysis must be revised to address hydraulic impacts in order to show: depth of flooding, duration of flooding, and the potential to induce additional flooding. The analysis must also include, not only the area north of the Subdivision, but also the parcels (i.e., Magness Court and Anjou Court) immediately east of the project and any other locations subject to flooding within the Subdivision.
(Exhibit K, pp. 2-3.) Without this correction the model could underestimate flood flows. Thus, both Provost & Pritchard 2020 and the MND fail to analyze or mitigate potentially significant flood impacts from the Project.
d. The Project Would Result in Potentially Significant Drainage Impacts
According to the MND, increasing the volume of the pond built to serve Autumn Park CSA 172 Zone 1 would reduce the Project’s drainage impacts to less than significant levels. (MND, p. 46 and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1.)
Yet the County, while identifying the need to update Drainage Improvement Standards and targeting that to be done by March of 2021, has not yet done so. (Exhibit D.) As explained in November 2020, “Staff have made progress on a preliminary review of drainage standards and potential modifications to increase the factor of safety.” Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 17 of 23
(Exhibit D.) The plan to meet the existing, out of date drainage standards is inadequate to reduce the potentially significant drainage impacts of the Project.
A retention pond located on a 1.49 acre lot (APN 047-260-187), on the western side of Autumn Park is proposed to be utilized and enlarged by the proposed subdivision. But the MND fails to describe the changes that would be necessary for the Project to use the existing retention pond built for the benefit of homes to the east within Autumn Park Phase I and Phase III, a different zone of benefit in CSA 172. (Exhibit D.) The retention pond filled and flooded back onto Anjou and Magness Courts in February 2019. To the extent the Project proposes to change the CSA 172 zones of benefit to allow the Project parcels to use the existing retention pond, that approval is omitted from the MND.
The lack of proper drainage, and increasing the impervious surface from these new roads would likely exacerbate property damage during floods and severe rain events as the existing Magness and Anjou Court drains are already at capacity. The lack of analysis or even mention of this drainage impact requires significant technical support in an EIR. In addition, the MND fails to provide an analysis of the proposed Project’s potential impacts on the nearby Slough as a result of any project runoff exiting the Project site.
6. The Project Would Result in Potentially Significant Land Use Impacts
The North Chico Specific Plan (“NCSP”) Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and the Butte County General Plan (“GP”) EIR provide relevant information for environmental review of the subdivision. The MND summarily concludes that the Project is consistent with all applicable land use plans. (MND, pp. 50-51.) Without saying which mitigation measures, the MND vaguely concludes that implementation of mitigation will reduce land use impacts to less than significant levels. (MND, p. 51.) This excuse for analysis fails to pass muster.
In addition, the subdivision must be consistent with the NCSP, yet the MND provides no analysis of the Project’s consistency with it. The NCSP covers six elements: land use, circulation, open space management, public services, funding, and implementation measures. (NCSP, p. 2-2.) The goals of the NCSP include:
1. Create a functional and attractive residential community, complimented by cultural amenities and public facilities and services necessary to support the population which will result from NCSP development, with development of a variety of housing types to accommodate a broad range of household needs. Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 18 of 23
2. Create integrated open space, parks and recreational amenities which will result in improved quality of life for residents of both the NCSP area and greater Chico area. 3. Plan areas for commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities which will meet the needs of area residents and reduce the need for daily travel outside the NCSP area. Traffic on all streets within the plan area should not exceed a Level of Service (“LOS”) C, and in no case shall the LOS exceed D. 4. Develop a circulation system which provides for the efficient and uncongested movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists with minimum intrusion upon the rural and residential character of the area. 5. Increase the mobility of residents through development of an adequate and balanced transportation system that includes automotive and non- vehicular transportation considerations. 6. Develop a community complemented by compatible and harmonious architectural and landscape design. 7. Establish a balanced, pedestrian-oriented Village Core which supports a variety of uses. 8. Provide public and community services which both adequately serve the community and are cost-effective.
(NCSP, p. 2-6.)
General Policies applicable to the proposed subdivision include:
Agricultural Policy: All existing orchards shall be permitted to continue, without interference or interruption by development. Circulation Policy 6: All paths and trails designated within properties which are proposed for subdivision shall be required to be designed and improved by the developer of the subdivision in accordance with the requirements of the NCSP and good planning/engineering practices. Circulation Policy 11: New street alignments must include safe and convenient access to properties.
(NCSP, pp. 2-6 to 2-7.) The area where the subdivision is planned is currently used as an orchard, conflicting with the Agricultural Policy. However, this area is also zoned SR-1 (see NCSP, Fig. 3-1), which permits suburban residential development at a 1-acre minimum parcel size.
The NCSP also provides GP Policies that would apply to development within the NCSP area. GP Policies which could apply to the subdivision include: Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 19 of 23
GP Resource Management Policy C.1.b.: Retain in an agricultural designation on the Land Use Map areas where location, natural conditions and water availability make lands well-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. GP Resource Management Policy C.1.e.: Encourage urban expansion toward the least productive soils. GP Resource Management Policy C.4.d.: Require proof of adequate water supply for all new development. GP Resource Management Policy C.4.e.: Water and energy conservation shall be considered in approving new development. GP Natural Hazards Policy H.1.a: Fire hazards must be considered during subdivision review. GP Circulation Element Policy 11.1.1: Sidewalks or reasonable alternatives must be provided for all subdivisions.
Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code, Subdivisions, applies to all development within the NCSP area. (NCSP, p. 8-17.) According to Article V of Chapter 20, the subdivision will require a parcel map, as it is less than five parcels. (Butte County Code, § 20-94.) Article VI of Chapter 20 includes design standards, which would apply to the subdivision. The MND fails to describe the applicable land use plans in any meaningful detail, or analyze the Project’s consistency with them.
While the NCSP is mentioned, the relative place of the Project area within the NCSP is omitted. As discussed above, although the retention basin serving Lots 22-43 is located on Lot 44, the County has determined that the remaining lands within Lot 44 owned by Mr. Nicolaus are not within the zone of benefit for CSA 172, Autumn Park Subdivision. (Exhibit E.) As a result, the Project appears to propose an amendment to the zones of benefit for CSA 172.
7. The MND Fails to Disclose Potentially Significant Transportation Impacts
The MND claims that transportation impacts would be less than significant. (MND, pp. 62-63.) The MND ignores the obvious problems with the plan to “bootleg” access to the Project through the existing courts to the east, rather than provide access from Kittyhawk Drive, as the NCSP appears to require. The MND claims the access roads would meet minimum safety standards (MND, p. 63), but as discussed above in section II.D.4.b, they do not. Though the MND claims transportation hazards created by Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 20 of 23 the Project would be less than significant, it also admits that “road improvements for the Proposed project will create safety concerns.” (MND, p. 63.)
Then, in apparent recognition of the ultimate need for safe emergency vehicle access, the MND refers to the NCSP expectation to eventually extend Kittyhawk Drive to State Highway 99. (MND, p. 63.) Yet should that road eventually be built, the MND does not describe how that would do anything to provide safe access to the parcels proposed by the Project. Clearly, should the Project proceed, the only possible access would be Kittyhawk Drive. The MND’s discussion of this issue is contradictory and fails to address key facts relevant to safe access. As the result, the MND is inadequate due to its failure to disclose potentially significant transportation safety impacts.
8. The MND Fails to Address the Potential for Direct and Indirect Utility and Service System Impacts
The MND’s discussion of utility and service system impacts fails to provide substantial evidence supporting the conclusions contained therein. The Project utility demands are not identified, and the MND fails to provide substantive details on the nature of the required construction.
The MND fails to provide any information on whether construction activities would encroach on adjacent properties or roadways, or require temporary street closures, or the amount of trenching that would be required. As a result, it is likely that this construction activity has also not been properly accounted for in the air quality analysis. As a result, the MND fails adequately address both the direct and indirect impacts of needed utility and service system extensions.
9. The MND Fails to Address the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
The lead agency must assess “whether a cumulative effect” of the project will result in a significant environmental impact, and thus require an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(1).) CEQA requires analysis of “[t]he cumulative impact from several projects” which “can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15355, 15130.) “Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital ‘because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.’ [Citations.]” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214.)
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 21 of 23
Despite this mandate, the entirety of the MND’s cumulative impacts analysis in the Mandatory Findings of Significance section is cursory and inadequate. (MND, p. 72.)
Though cumulative impacts are mentioned in passing in certain impact discussions (pp. 12-15, 22-23), the MND includes no discussion of the interaction between the proposed Project and other past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts. It does not appear that the City considered potentially cumulative impacts for any individual resource impacted by the Project. An agency must “determine[] whether the incremental impacts of the project are cumulatively considerable by evaluating them against the backdrop of the environmental effects of other projects. The question is . . . whether the effects of the individual project are considerable.” (San Joaquin Raptor I, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at 624 [internal quotations and emphasis omitted].) While the City did not need to “conduct some sort of grand statistical analysis of the combined purported environmental impacts, if any, of all other” projects in the surrounding area, it should have included some analysis into whether this Project’s incremental effects could be considerable in light of other projects. (Id. at 624- 625.)
There is evidence of other nearby development plans, which combined with the Project, could produce cumulatively significant effects not disclosed or analyzed in the MND. For instance, Mr. Nicolaus has previously proposed a large development project to the south of the proposed Project site, most recently called Legacy Village. In addition, Mr. Nicolaus has listed all of his property in vicinity of the Project on the market. (Exhibit F.) This indicates a likelihood that the Project would be accompanied by other nearby development. Analysis of potentially significant cumulative impacts tailored to specific resources is required by CEQA, a requirement ignored in the MND.
III. CONCLUSION
The MND fails to meet the most basic standards for adequacy under CEQA and fails to adequately inform the public and decisionmakers about the Project itself, related Project approvals, and the potentially significant impacts of the Project. This letter describes these informational deficiencies and includes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of potentially significant impacts, making preparation of an EIR the only appropriate method of evaluating the Project’s impacts. Alternatives and mitigation measures that would avoid and/or lessen the potentially significant impacts of the Project have not been, but must be, considered. As a result, NCNSG respectfully requests that no action be taken on the Project until a full EIR is prepared and the deficiencies described in this letter are cured.
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 22 of 23
Please feel free to contact this office regarding any questions about these comments and potential means to address the concerns stated herein.
Very truly yours,
SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation
By: Osha R. Meserve
ORM/wra cc: Supervisor Debra Lucero ([email protected]) Marilyn Rees, NCNSG ([email protected])
Exhibits:*
Exhibit A NCNSG Letter to BOS re Flooding and Other Concerns, December 4, 2019 Exhibit B NCNSG Letter to BOS re: Temporary Building Moratorium Support, February 10, 2020 Exhibit C MBK Letter re: Correction to Temporary Moratorium Area, January 13, 2020 Exhibit D Agenda Transmittal and Memorandum for Item 3.20 re: Update on Flood Risk Reduction Efforts for the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed, November 10, 2020 Exhibit E CSA 172 Zone of Benefit Memorandum, October 30, 2001 Exhibit F Real Estate Listings for 0 Kittyhawk Drive and Other Parcels Exhibit G Email from Butte County Fire Department Fire Captain, March 30, 2021 Exhibit H Historic Aerial Photo, 1937 Exhibit I County 047-260-198 Well Permit & Memo, 2019 Exhibit J Agenda Transmittal and Memorandum for Item 5.04 re: Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed Flood Risk Discussion, February 11, 2020 Exhibit K MBK Letter re: Comments on MND, April 8, 2021
Mark Michelena April 19, 2021 Page 23 of 23
* This entire letter and its exhibits are available here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5hqhpv1lflzaynw/AACJNXMnDE7jJYKimlCXcTh ma?dl=0
EXHIBIT A
December 4, 2019
SENT VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Chair Lambert and Board of Supervisor Members Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965
RE: North Chico Land Use and Flooding Concerns
Dear Chair Lambert and Board Members:
This firm represents the North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group. This group is working to address issues in North Chico relating to flood hazards, new development proposals that could worsen flooding, and other related concerns. In the past few months, we have been gathering information to better understand the status of various issues pertaining to existing and proposed land uses within the North Chico Specific Plan (“NCSP”) and their associated environmental impacts including flood risk. Although our research is ongoing, we have developed enough information to bring the concerns discussed in this letter forward. The flooding that occurred in February 2019 was a major precipitating factor in the need to update the Board and other County officials regarding these issues. After heavy rains, Keefer Slough overtopped its banks and flooded the streets of Autumn Park as well as areas downstream.
Water level at Garner Road bridge looking 4243 Anjou Court (2/27/19) north (2/27/19)
Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 2 of 12
The flooding events of February 2019 make clear that the County must take action to address existing flood risks and avoid approving additional development that will exacerbate existing flood risks. These flood risks are addressed in more detail in the attached letter from MBK Engineers, who was asked to review flooding issues pertaining to development in North Chico. (See Exhibit A.)
This letter includes:
A Discussion of the Factual Background regarding the North Chico Specific Plan; A description of how proposed development in the NCSP would exacerbate flooding and other environmental concerns; An analysis of why new development must be analyzed in a single environmental document; and Requests for specific actions by County to address these concerns.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Autumn Park Subdivision was constructed as part of the NCSP in the early 2000’s. Similar to other subdivisions in the area, a retention basin was built to store surface water runoff from the subdivision. That retention pond is located on a 1.49 acre lot (APN 047-260-187), on the western side of Autumn Park that is owned by the Nicolaus Family Trust, which is encumbered by a County easement to allow for the construction and maintenance of a detention pond. The larger parcels to the west, north, and southwest (around three sides of the Autumn Park Subdivision) is owned by farmer and land developer George Nicolaus, and affiliated entities, such as ARCAPCO, Inc. (APNs 047-260-199, 047-440-012, and 047-260-198).
Over the years, Mr. Nicolaus has endeavored to move forward on development of his lands, which are currently in orchard use. For instance, in 2007, the County prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2007 MND”) for cancellation of Williamson Act Contract for APN 047-260-199, the parcel immediately to the west of the Autumn Park subdivision. This project was apparently never approved. Comments from Caltrans on this project raised concerns with the exacerbation of flooding of Highway 99 from the eventual development of this parcel, which would include raised building pads according to the 2007 MND.
A. Actions by Mr. Nicolaus Exacerbated Flooding of Autumn Park
Unfortunately, Mr. Nicolaus has taken actions that worsen flood conditions in Autumn Park and the greater region. For instance, in 2012, Mr. Nicolas planted a new Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 3 of 12 orchard in the area to the north of Autumn Park. In so doing, Mr. Nicolaus, leveled a protective berm adjacent to neighboring property within Autumn Park to the south.
Newly planted orchard on APN 047-440-012, Google Earth Pro (5/2/2013)
When Keefer Slough overtopped its banks on February 14 and 27, 2019, the flood waters overflowed to neighboring property. Water rushed through Mr. Nicolaus’ orchard, and down the fire lane that borders Autumn Park, west of Garner Lane. From the fire lane, water rushed down Bosc Drive to Magness and Anjou Courts. The retention pond also filled and flooded back onto Anjou and Magness Courts. Flood waters came within 15 feet of fronts doors, and were 4 feet deep.
Flood waters from Keefer Slough Flood waters flowing down fire lane on south flowing down Bosc Drive (2/14/19) side of Nicolaus orchard (2/27/2019)
Mr. Nicolaus acted negligently when he laser leveled his orchard in 2012, which included flattening a berm that previously protected neighboring property to the south Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 4 of 12 from flood damages. Private property owners are subject to traditional principles of negligence when they make alterations to natural water channels or otherwise change the flow of flood waters. (Ektelon v. City of San Diego (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 804, 810 (Ektelon).) While there exists at common law a “common enemy” doctrine which offers some protection to land owners making changes to protect themselves from flood waters, it is not without limitation. (Id. at 809.) Further, no such protection would apply here as Mr. Nicolaus was not attempting to protect his land from flood waters; rather, he removed protections from such flood waters. Mr. Nicolaus’ removal of the protective berm, whether inadvertent or purposeful, was unreasonable and negligent.
B. New Well Installations Have Not Been Properly Overseen
Mr. Nicolaus’ actions in furtherance of development of his parcels currently in agricultural use within the NCSP have disregarded County requirements and procedures applicable to groundwater wells. This disregard for basic groundwater permitting requirements also raise serious long-term groundwater sustainability concerns. In addition, Mr. Nicolaus’ personal and unauthorized use of Autumn Park retention pond is likely to exacerbate flooding conditions.
An existing agricultural well at the corner of Garner Lane and Kittyhawk Drive, which serves Mr. Nicolaus’ orchards to the west, was drilled prior to the County’s current well permitting system.1 It appears that a permit was issued in 2017 to attempt to make improvements to this existing well. Those improvements, however, were apparently ineffective.
In September 2018, Mr. Nicolaus applied for a permit to drill a new well on APN 047-260-199, directly west of the Autumn Park subdivision and within the parcel for which Mr. Nicolaus is now seeking to build 4 homes (discussed below). The application indicates it would be for a Large Diameter Well, ostensibly for agricultural use. The permit for this well was not granted because no flood elevation certificate was ever provided, according to County Environmental Health Services (“EHS”) staff.
1 The 2016 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan for CSA 172 (2016 MSR/SOI Plan) indicates that this well is the irrigation well serving CSA 172. This information is incorrect, as the irrigation and fire suppression well for CSA 172 is actually located in a fenced area at the north side of Kittyhawk Drive between Winesap Court and Bosc Drive. Given the description in the 2016 MSR/SOI Plan, it appears that CSA 172 may be paying the PG&E bill to operate Nicolaus’ well pumps along Kittyhawk Drive. That could explain the large increase in PG&E costs over the past few years, subsequent to the planting of the orchard by Mr. Nicolaus. Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 5 of 12
In August 2019, Mr. Nicolaus submitted another well construction permit application,2 this time slightly to the west, located at Kittyhawk Drive and Comice Court. When personnel for Sullivan Drilling were asked what they were working on by a neighbor, the response was “it is the new well for the new housing development.” The permit application does not indicate the well type, although it was apparently processed as a replacement well for the failed well at Kittyhawk Drive and Garner Lane. According to County EHS staff, the well was built to specifications for a Public Water System, confirming the statement of Sullivan Drilling personnel, but the well does not meet the setback from septic tank requirements.
Note no box checked for well type in application
Construction in County right of way south of Kittyhawk Drive for “Replacement” Well (9/20/2019)
Maintenance of the retention basin has been an ongoing concern, both before and after the February 2019 flood events. Residents within Autumn Park subdivision have exchanged numerous emails, numerous phone calls with County Public Works to inspect, maintain and service the retention pond, yet nothing has been done. This belies common sense given the flooding in February 2019.
2 Though the well application lists APN 047-260-198 as the location of the well, the location is actually on a County parcel (APN 047-260-053). Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 6 of 12
In addition to failing to maintain the pond, the County has also allowed Mr. Nicolaus to use the pond for purposes unrelated to the provision of drainage for Autumn Park. Subsequent to completion of drilling the new 600 foot deep well in September and October 2019, Mr. Nicolaus proceeded to pump large amounts of water from the well into the Autumn Park subdivision retention pond. Despite the fact that the retention pond does not serve (or “benefit”) any of the parcels owned by Mr. Nicolaus and his parcels are not charged for services provided by CSA 172, the Assistant Public Works Director apparently verbally authorized Mr. Nicolaus’ personal use of the retention pond.3
CSA 172 Retention Pond filled with well water pumped by George Nicolaus (10/1/2019)
Subsequent to pumping water into the retention pond, in November 2019, the fact that bentonite was part of the drilling solution was identified. Bentonite is a sealer4 and would be expected to decrease the infiltration rate of water in the detention pond. Subsequently, County Public Works advised that Mr. Nicolaus would scarify, or till the bottom of the pond to increase the percolation performance. On November 25, 2019, Mr. Nicolaus apparently undertook this work, without any engineering or other County oversight. The top layer of the soil contaminated with bentonite was simply moved to the sides and then scarified the bottom. Like the initial pumping, these actions were not formally authorized.
3 Later, at the Board’s November 19, 2019 meeting, the Public Works Director characterized these actions as “unauthorized”. 4 See http://wildlife.tamu.edu/files/2010/04/1_Sealing_Ponds.pdf, https://sturgismaterials.com/products-view/sodium-bentonite/. Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 7 of 12
Grading in the Autumn Park retention pond on November 25, 2019
In any case, these actions within the retention basin do nothing to address known flood issues from Keefer Slough. Clearly, Mr. Nicolaus should not be worsening the functionality of the Autumn Park subdivision detention pond (see Ektelon, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d 804, 809-810), and County staff have failed to provide adequate maintenance and oversight on Mr. Nicolaus’ activities with respect to well drilling and use of the retention pond.
II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THE NCSP WOULD EXACERBATE FLOODING AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Nicolaus’ Proposed Four Home Subdivision Application
Mr. Nicolaus submitted a four one-acre lot predevelopment application on February 19, 2019 for APN is 047-260-199. It is directly north of the proposed Legacy Village project (discussed below). (See Map, attached as Exhibit B.) Mr. Nicolaus has requested that the tentative parcel map be processed as a separate application from Legacy Village. It appears that the four homes would rely on the existing stormwater detention basin in Lot 44, despite the fact that the County has determined that APN 047- 260-199 does not benefit from CSA 172. The decision to approve the project would be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
As discussed in the MBK letter attached as Exhibit A, construction of these homes could increase flood risks on nearby parcels, since they would be raised. As can be seen in Exhibit B, the outdated flood map shows the Zone A flood line going through three of the four proposed parcels. Given recent flooding events, it is a nonstarter for additional drainage water being added to the community retention pond from these four houses. Moreover, the County specifically identified APN is 047-260-199 as not benefitting from Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 8 of 12
CSA 172 facilities. Last, the proposed access from the existing subdivision would not be compatible with existing development in Autumn Park.
B. Nicolaus/ARCAPCO Inc.’s Legacy Village Project
In October 2018, a predevelopment application to develop 100 clustered homes on 25 acres was submitted by Mr. Nicolaus. The Legacy Village project (previously called Almond Ranch) would be located on APN 047-260-198, with density transfer from Nicolaus’ parcels to the north. A golf course is also included in the plans. The golf course and homes would be located in APN 047-260-198. (See attached Exhibit B.) Drainage facilities are proposed to be located in the southernmost parcel. The application states that a lot line adjustment, tentative subdivision map, and rezone will be needed. County staff has indicated that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) will be required for this project. (See attached Exhibit B.) Traffic, flood and drainage have been identified as key environmental issues by County staff.
Flooding
As discussed in the MBK letter attached as Exhibit A, development is constrained by the flood zone shown in the Standard Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (“DFIRM”) (Zone A in DFIRM). The existing DFIRM map product is not a precise indication of actual flood flows, nor is it intended to be. Though the proposed development is mostly aligned to avoid flood zone, with the homes proposed for the southeast corner of the parcel, there is no detailed, up-to-date flood map for this area, and the flooding of February 2019 showed that the mapped flood zone is incorrect.
In 2017, the Nord community was approved for State funding to conduct feasibility study projects under the Small Communities Flood Risk Reduction Program. There is insufficient information upon which to base any determination of the current flood status of the area, or the effect of future development such as the Legacy Village. A new model would be updated to reflect existing topography and development, as well as storm event frequency. It is likely that the map will be different than the current DFIRM map. Even with the homes proposed out of the flood zone identified in the DFIRM map for insurance purposes, roads and other improvements associated with the project would be within the floodplain and could significantly constrain flood flows. These restrictions and the effect on regional flooding would need to be analyzed in an EIR.
The 2016 LAFCo Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence report does not adequately address drainage issues in this area. For instance, drainage into Keefer Slough from the Pheasant Landing/Sierra Moon subdivision (CSA 169) is omitted. The Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 9 of 12 actual storm water drainage from this CSA of 140 homes is pumped into Keefer Slough by two pumps, contributing to flooding of the Keefer Creek Estates subdivision, homes off Dusty Lane, and Autumn Park Subdivision.
The Sierra Moon subdivision is a prime example of the County’s failure to require adequate infrastructure and flood protections improvements.5 The Sierra Moon development did not install adequate retention ponds; thus, stormwater runoff from these homes is diverted directly into Keefer Slough. More homes in this subdivision are being built every day.
In addition, many other homes built off both sides of Keefer Road over to Highway 99 and the Garner Lane homes are not a part of a CSA. These homes are also annually flooded in their neighborhoods. Keefer Slough cannot accommodate drainage from existing development, let alone future development such as the Four Parcel Subdivision and Legacy Village projects proposed by Mr. Nicolaus.
On November 5, 2019, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed item 4.04 North Chico Flood Plan, where the Board acknowledged the flood problems in North Chico and adopted a resolution that requires the Planning Division to notify developers and prospective homeowners that it floods in North Chico. This is an important step forward, but more action and leadership is necessary given the severe flood risks posed.
Unfortunately, the Resolution fails to reference existing County requirement for new development that the site be reasonably safe from flooding. (MBK Letter, Exhibit A, pp. 5-6, Butte County Code, § 26-23.) In its review,
the County must take into consideration that the existing FEMA Zone A maps are outdated and are not accurate, based on the flooding that occurred in February 2019. As per Section 26-23(a)(2), the County must require the developer to prepare a cumulative hydraulic impact analysis to demonstrate that the proposed developments do not increase the water surface elevation on neighboring properties.
(Id. at p. 6.) Thus, in addition to warning developers and permit applicants, the County must also responsibly assess incremental flood risks posed by new development and make sure the development does not increase flood base elevations on neighboring
5 Sierra Moon also contains a “sewer package facility” that is failing and is causing wells to be contaminated. This same sewer package facility is slated to be used in the Legacy Village development, causing additional concerns. Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 10 of 12 property. We know from flooding in February 2019 that this duty has not been carried out, and that new pending development proposals will only make conditions worse.
Groundwater
The project description in the predevelopment application states the project would rely on “water wells”. It is not clear where these wells would be located or how this new groundwater use would be consistent with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), as implemented in the Vina Subbasin.6 From the well records associated with the new “replacement” well recently drilled by Mr. Nicolaus, groundwater is only available in the deep aquifer. To the extent Mr. Nicolaus intends to rely on the new well assumed to replace the agricultural well on the corner of Garner Lane and Kittyhawk Drive, it cannot meet the setback from septic requirements for a Public Water System.
Wastewater Treatment
The Legacy Village project would rely on a package Waste Water Treatment (“WWT”) plant. It is unclear where the waste water would discharge. Combined with the flooding issues, winter-time wastewater disposal could be a serious problem. This has been an ongoing issue in the Sierra Moon subdivision, for instance, where the package WWT is not functioning properly.
Traffic
Traffic issues and traffic congestion in North Chico continues to worsen, and would be exacerbated by the Legacy Village project. If housing continues to be approved in North Chico, issues to be addressed include mitigation for traffic congestion, delayed safety response times, and flooded evacuation routes. There are currently no mitigation plans for these serious traffic issues.
III. SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE FOUR PARCEL SUBDIVISION AND LEGACY VILLAGE WOULD CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL PIECEMEALING
Mr. Nicolaus has requested that the County analyze the environmental effects of the two adjacent development projects separately. This would constitute impermissible piecemealing. Piecemealing or segmenting means dividing a project into two or more
6 See https://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/Sustainable- Groundwater-Management-Act/Butte-County-Subbasins/Vina. Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 11 of 12 pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document. This is explicitly forbidden by CEQA, because dividing a project into a number of pieces would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating individual pieces separately, each of which may have a less-than- significant impact on the environment, but which together may result in a significant impact. Segmenting a project may also hinder developing comprehensive mitigation strategies.
Given the intertwined environmental impacts associated with the proposed Four Parcel Subdivision and the Legacy Village project, they must be analyzed together in a single EIR. Under CEQA, the whole of the action must be considered and that the agency may not “segment” or “piecemeal” for purposes of environmental review. The standard of review of what constitutes the “whole of an action” with respect to the piecemealing or segmenting issue is also de novo. (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 98.)
The County has been aware for decades that there is a flooding issue in North Chico yet has continued to approve new developments without adequate attention to flood control. In addition to flooding, groundwater and traffic impacts necessitate review of these North Chico development projects in a single EIR. Continuing to approve housing projects without adequate drainage and flooding facilities imperils existing communities. Interim fixes implemented by the County, Rock Creek Reclamation District and others are only temporary, one season fixes; a comprehensive solution is needed.
* * *
The North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt a moratorium on all development within the NCSP area until flooding, infrastructure, and safety concerns are addressed. We also request that LAFCo’s MSR be updated to address the current drainage conditions in North Chico, including the overreliance on Keefer Slough. If any new development is to proceed, it must only do so in full compliance with existing flood and safety requirements, including a showing that flood elevations will not increase, in addition to compliance with other environmental laws. The County must also provide proper oversight over CSA facilities, and not allow them to be managed or damaged by unauthorized parties not designated as beneficiaries. Last, environmental review of new development projects in the NCSP must not be segmented and must fully address and mitigate flooding impacts.
Butte County Board of Supervisors December 4, 2019 Page 12 of 12
Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the information contained in this letter.
Very truly yours,
SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation
By: Osha R. Meserve ORM/mre
Attachments: Exhibit A, November 25, 2019 MBK Engineers’ Letter Exhibit B, Map of Nicolaus Legacy Village and 4 Home Subdivision Proposal cc (via email): Butte County Board of Supervisors: Bill Connelly, [email protected] Debra Lucero, [email protected] Tami Ritter, [email protected] Steve Lambert, [email protected] Doug Teeter, [email protected] Butte County Planning Commissioners: District 1, Michael Evans, [email protected] District 2, Vice Chair Peter Hansen, [email protected] District 3, Second Vice Chair Henry Schleiger, [email protected] District 4, Chair Rocky (Daniel) Donati, [email protected] District 5, Ruby Roethler, [email protected] Public Works Director Dennis Schmidt, [email protected] Public Works Assistant Director Radley Ott, [email protected] Environmental Health Director Elaine McSpadden, [email protected] County Counsel Bruce S. Alpert, [email protected] Deputy County Counsel Brunella M. Wood, [email protected] Butte County LAFCo Director, Steve Lucas, [email protected]
EXHIBIT A Water Resources Flood Control Water Rights GILBERT COSIO, JR., P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY MARC VAN CAMP, P.E. 1913-1985 WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. RIC REINHARDT, P.E. DON TRIEU, P.E. CONSULTANTS: DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS, P.E. NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E. LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. BEN TUSTISON, P.E. THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E.
November 27, 2019
Sent Via Electronic Transmittal
Osha Meserve Soluri Meserve 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects
Dear Ms. Meserve:
George Nicolaus and other affiliated entities are proposing two housing developments near the Autumn Park Subdivision, north of the City of Chico and within the North Chico Specific Plan. These two housing developments are located near or within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone A and in an area which has historically flooded. These two housing developments have the potential to:
1. Put additional residences/homes in a flood hazard zone. 2. Exacerbate flooding in surrounding parcels.
MBK Engineers (MBK) has compiled and reviewed existing reports, studies, photos and videos, maps, ordinances, etc., to help better inform local, state, and federal agencies the potential flood hazard in this area and has summarized key findings and comments below1.
Proposed Development The proposed developments are to the west and south west of the Autumn Park Subdivision. The first development is located on a 52.5 acre parcel (APN 047-260-199) west of the subdivision. The proposal is to sub-divide the western portion of the parcel into four 1 acre lots (Figure 1).
1 Attached is Exhibit 1 showing my qualifications and experience to review and comment on flood issues.
455 University Ave. Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 456-4400 Fax: (916) 456-0253 Website: www.mbkengineers.com Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 2
Figure 1. Western Portion of the Parcel Divided in Four 1-acre lots The second development (Legacy Village, a.k.a. Almond Ranch) is located southwest of the subdivision near the projected intersection of Kittyhawk Drive and Highway 99. The proposed development is on a 51 acre parcel (APN-047-260-198) with plans for 100 clustered residential lots and a nine-hole golf course with associated facilities (Figure 2). The proposed housing density is about 5 units/acre.
Figure 2. Proposed Development Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 3
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone The two proposed developments are in or near a FEMA Zone A (see Figure 3). A FEMA Zone A is defined as “Areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are shown. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply.” The FEMA Zone A for Keefer Slough was developed in April 2000 as part of a county wide effort to investigate the existence and severity of flood hazards. To determine flood hazards, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis was performed which: 1. Quantifies the flows in the river/slough. 2. Computes or estimates the water surface elevations in the river and floodplain associated with the 1% chance annual flood (100-year flood).
Figure 3. Location of the Two Proposed Developments Hydrologic Analysis The April 2000 hydrologic analysis estimated the 100-year flood event for Rock Creek and Keefer Slough. Rainfall-runoff models were developed using software developed by USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-1 was the computer model used in the April 2000 hydrologic analysis. This computer model used 30 years of recorded precipitation data from the City of Chico and physical parameters of the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough dating back to a USACE 1975 study. A key assumption in the hydrologic model is the determination of how much of the Rock Creek total flow gets diverted into Keefer Slough. For the April 2000 analysis, a rating curve was Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 4
developed using normal depth calculations using typical cross sections/topography at the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough flow split. It was estimated that approximately 44% of the Rock Creek 100-year flow is diverted into Keefer Slough. Table 1 below shows the estimated 1% annual peak flows along Keefer Slough used in the April 2000 analysis.
Table 1. Estimated 1% Annual Peak Flows used in April 2000 Analysis Location 100-Year Flood Peak Discharge (cfs) Keefer Slough approximately 1125 ft downstream of 560 Hicks Lane Keefer Slough approximately 500 feet upstream of 680 Garner Lane Keefer Slough at State Highway 99 525 Source: FEMA (2011) Hydraulic Analysis The hydraulic analysis to develop the FEMA Zone A shown on Figure 3 was also performed in April 2000. A hydraulic analysis typically requires a discharge rate, topography, and parameters associated with vegetation within the river/slough. The April 2000 hydraulic analysis utilized the computer model HEC-2, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Ground elevations of Keefer Slough and surrounding floodplains were obtained from U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Flooding Dynamics/Historic Flooding The Autumn Park Subdivision and surrounding parcels are located within the south overbank of Keefer Slough. During periods of extreme flow rates on Keefer Slough, water will overtop its bank and flow in a southwesterly direction, overtop Highway 99, and continue to flow towards the town of Nord. Butte County has documented flooding in January 1995, March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998 (Butte County Supervisor Agenda Item 4.05, January 8, 2013). Other years that this area experienced flooding include 1969, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1982, and 1983. The cause of the flooding in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough system has been attributed to: 1. Insufficient channel capacity in Rock Creek and Keefer Slough for flows produced by the watershed size and slope (USACE, 2008). 2. Leveling of fields (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2014). 3. Private levees (DWR, 2014). 4. Sedimentation at the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough flow split (DWR, 2014; USACE, 2008; FEMA, 2011). Most recently, this area flooded in February 2019. Exhibit 2 shows pictures of flooding in the Autumn Park Subdivision. Keefer Slough overtopped its banks downstream of Garner Road then flowed in a southwesterly direction through the streets of Autumn Park Subdivision then continued to sheet flow towards Highway 99 ponding against overtopping the highway causing closure of the highway. There was widespread media coverage of flooding in February 2019: Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 5 https://www.chicoer.com/2019/04/12/north-chico-flooding-focus-of-listening-session/ https://www.chicoer.com/2019/04/17/north-chico-resident-irate-over-flooding-issues/ https://krcrtv.com/news/butte-county/county-finds-temporary-fix-for-keefer-slough-flooding- nord-more-troublesome https://krcrtv.com/news/butte-county/sandbag-barrier-put-up-to-protect-se-chico-subdivision- from-flooding https://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/video/506412552.html https://kpay.com/kpay-news/archives/2019-02/ https://twitter.com/CALFIRE_ButteCo/status/1101536680916336641 Of particular note, the FEMA Zone A map does not show flooding within the Autumn Park Subdivision. However, Exhibit 2 clearly shows streets and yards being flooded. Technical Flood Comments 1. The existing FEMA Firm Maps for the area are not detailed flood zones and are based on outdated hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and underlying data. The hydrologic and hydraulic models (HEC-1 and HEC-2) are legacy models dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. The HEC-2 model is a simplified standard-step backwater calculation of water surface elevation, and cannot accurately simulate the shallow overland flow that actually occurs in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough floodplain. The topography used in the HEC-2 model dates back to 1951, and has an accuracy of plus or minus 2.5 feet.
2. The FEMA Zone A along Keefer Slough is based on a 100-year flow rate of 560-680 cfs. This flow rate is based on a rating curve which approximated a total of 41% of the total Rock Creek flow being diverted into Keefer Slough. This rating curve was based on USGS quadrangles dating back to 1951. As noted by USACE and DWR, this area has experienced significant sediment deposition, which has the potential to send more flood waters down Keefer Slough. The use of a rating curve to estimate the flow rate in Keefer Slough is not accurate and is not reflective of the actual site conditions today. This may result in flooding in areas not delineated by the FEMA FIRM Maps.
3. The Legacy Village planned development and the four lots shown in Figure 1 has lots at the edge of the FEMA Zone A. The FEMA Zone A is an estimated delineation of the flood hazard and is not accurate and outdated based on comments 1 and 2 above. DWR acknowledges that the existing FEMA FIRM maps are outdated and is currently working through a Co-operative Technical Partnership with FEMA to revise the FEMA FIRM maps in the Rock-Keefer Slough areas (as per a teleconference with Todd Hillare).
4. In the County’s review of these two proposed development projects, the County must follow Butte County Code 26-23, cited below. Section 26-23(a)(1) requires the County to Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 6
determine that the site is reasonably safe from flooding. In its review, as per this section, the County must take into consideration that the existing FEMA Zone A maps are outdated and are not accurate, based on the flooding that occurred in February 2019. As per Section 26-23(a)(2) the County must require the developer to prepare a cumulative hydraulic impact analysis to demonstrate that the proposed developments do not increase the water surface elevation on neighboring properties. 26-23 - Review of development permit applications—Generally. (a)The Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works shall review all development permit applications to determine that:(1)The site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding;(2)All necessary permits have been received as required by federal or state law;(3)The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designed. For purposes of this article, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation on neighboring properties. The county will not allow development to increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one (1) foot at any point, nor will it allow any increase in the base flood elevation which adversely affects any neighboring property.
5. The four proposed lots shown in Figure 1 are within a FEMA Zone A. As per Butte County Code 26-24(b)(3). The applicant must determine the FEMA BFE in accordance using detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. 26-24(b)(3) In an A Zone, without BFE's specified on the FIRM (unnumbered A Zone), all structures, residential and nonresidential, shall be elevated at least one (1) foot above the BFE as determined by methods comparable to those in a Flood Insurance Study or by using the detailed methods as described in the most current edition of FEMA publication, FEMA 265, "Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas—A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100-year) Flood Elevations" or any successor FEMA document.
References 1. (DWR, 2014). Mid and Upper Sacramento River Regional Flood Management Plan. November 10, 2014. 2. (FEMA, 2011). Flood Insurance Study, Butte County California and Incorporated Areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency. January 6, 2011. 3. (USACE, 2008). Rock Creek-Keefer Slough, Butte County CA, 905(b) Reconnaissance Report. September 2008.
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 7
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call or email me.
Sincerely, MBK ENGINEERS
Don Trieu, P.E.
DT/oh R:8888.9/Flood Comments on Proposed Development 11-25-2019
Enclosures: Exhibit 1. Qualifications and Experience Exhibit 2. Autumn Park Subdivision Photos
EXHIBIT 1
DON TRIEU
EDUCATION California State University, Sacramento BS in Civil Engineering, 1995 California State University, Sacramento MS in Civil Engineering, 2002
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES & SOCIETIES Registered Civil Engineer, California No. C058284
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
EXPERIENCE 1995 to Present MBK Engineers, Sacramento, CA Principal Principal Engineer in charge of hydraulic/hydrologic models for evaluation of flood control alternatives and development of design water surface elevation. Perform hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of flood problems and evaluation of flood control alternatives using HEC-RAS, RMA-2, FLO-2D, UNET, HEC-1.
EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
Technical adviser, hydraulic model development, and 200-year floodplain mapping for the lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project and Stockton urban area streams in support of DWR’s Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program (2008-2013).
Formulation, oversight and review of hydraulic analysis in support of alternatives evaluation and hydraulic impact analysis for widen of the Sacramento Weir (2019).
Hydraulic model development and re-calibration of a SRFCP hydraulic model in support of USACE WRDA 2016 projects.
Develop 2D model and hydraulic analysis of the Yuba River Goldfields in support of a new levee south of the Yuba River Goldfields (2017-2019).
Reconnaissance level hydraulic impact analysis in support of alternatives formulation for Little Egbert Tract Multi-Objective Project (2017).
Prepare cumulative hydraulic impact analysis in support of Lower Sacramento River/Delta North regional flood control components (2017).
Update hydraulic model of the North Delta region in support of the McCormack-Williamson Tract Levee Modification and Habitat Development Project and Sacramento County Point Pleasant FEMA Base Flood Elevation Study.
Developed 2D model of the lower San Joaquin River and tributaries in support of hydraulic impact analysis of 1700 acres of habitat restoration at Dos Rios Ranch (2017).
Principal in charge of hydraulic analysis for the Lower Feather River Corridor Management Plan.
Evaluate hydraulic impacts of wetland restoration project on Cougar Wetlands using the North Delta HEC-RAS model.
Evaluate hydraulic impacts using the North Delta HEC-RAS for the Cosumnes Mitigation Bank.
Evaluate hydraulic impact using RMA-2 for Liberty Island Conservation Bank on the Yolo Bypass.
Technical adviser for development of RMA-2 model of the Sutter Bypass for evaluation of vegetation management.
EXHIBIT 2
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 1
Photo No. 1. Flood waters from Keefer Slough Flowing down Bosc Drive (2/14/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 2
Photo No. 2. Flooding of Fire Lane between Orchard and Northern Boundary of Autumn Park (2/27/19)
Photo No. 3. 4243 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 3
Photo No. 4. 4243 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Photo No. 5. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 4
Photo No. 6. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 5
Photo No. 7. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Photo No. 8. Water level at Garner Road Bridge looking North (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 6
Photo No. 9. Looking west from Garner Road Bridge down Keefer Slough (2/27/19)
Photo No. 10. East End of Orchard where Water Flowed into Orchard; Garner Road Bridge in background (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 7
Photo No. 11. Water in Nicolaus Orchard (2/27/19)
Photo No. 12. Water being Pumped from CSA-172 Retention Pond back into Keefer Slough (3/3/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 8
Photo No. 13. Sand Bags being Installed in Nicolaus' Orchard bordering Keefer Slough (early March 2019)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 9
Photo No. 14. Sand Bags on Nicolaus' Orchard bordering Keefer Slough (early March 2019)
EXHIBIT B d
R
P n
e
u L n
i r
p e
h
l s
s e
o
n R r S
u o e w
S
b d i
e e e e C t H F b t Q e r l i u ic a a i r Shorthorn Dr i d l a D C d o r v L e n y C t Green Meadow Ln
t
C
l
i a Dusty Ln G Pheasant Run Ct Parcels used for density transfer
«¬99
Rancho Rd
Golf Course and Driving Range Porchlight Ct
Residential Area Clubhouse/Pro Shop Non-golf activities Kathy Ln
Our Way Keith Ln Michelle Ct
Hedstrom Way
gh Ct Rawlie
Legend Flood Zones FEMA FLD_ZONE A-no base elevations determined
AE-base flood elevations determined r E D s an p ce la AH-depths of 1 to 3 feet, elevations determined O n a d
n e L
AO-depths of 1 to 3 feet, sheet flow m
o Ln s s SHADED ZONE X s en
o v
l e S
B e hre d T
SHADED ZONE X CONTAINED INr CHANNEL
a h
c t
r C s X-no flood O a am C
EXHIBIT B
February 10, 2020
SENT VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Chair Lambert and Board of Supervisor Members Butte County Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965
RE: February 11, 2020, Agenda Item 5.04 Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed Flood Risk Discussion
Dear Chair Lambert and Board Members:
The North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group appreciates the work of the Department of Public Works has done to start addressing the regional flooding concerns we have been raising. The Public Works Memorandum for Agenda Item 5.04 provides a detailed summary of the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough flooding issues. This information, along with information previously developed by the County and the public1 provides the substantial technical support for an interim urgency ordinance to protect public safety and property.
The North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group remains concerned that significant public safety issues exist with the current flood prone conditions. The current development standards, flood mitigation and flood infrastructure are clearly insufficient for current conditions. It is important to note that the Potential Flood Risk Reduction Action Items 1 through 9 listed on the second to last page of the staff PowerPoint include actions related to both development standards as well as regional flood risk. Updating the County’s standards for development applicable to individual parcels and development projects is a step forward, but will do nothing to address the regional flood risk. Even if a parcel has adequate retention facilities, for example, that will not address flood water from other locations.
Also, this is not simply a case where people just put their homes in a high hazard area. The County planning process indicates that it is safe to build in these locations and issues permits to do so. The County moving forward with additional development now,
1 See, e.g., North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group letter to Board of Supervisors, December 12, 2019 regarding North Chico Land Use and Flooding Concerns. Butte County Board of Supervisors February 10, 2020 Page 2 of 4 when the facts show that current flooding conditions are not well-understood, unacceptably puts more lives and property at risk. We agree with County staff that there needs to be better modeling criteria for multiple storms, and better maps and mitigation, including insurance.
We understand that it is not the County’s responsibility to protect the public from all possible storms, under all possible conditions. But here, the current system does not protect against 100-year events. We need to keep new and old homes and development out of danger while the County’s flood planning approach is updated to match current conditions.
Flooding Risks
The Public Works Department has clearly identified why current development standards and flood information are insufficient in its Memorandum. The upper watershed is very large, which means that it is at higher risk for large flood events, as shown by the Disaster Declarations in 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2019. Our fears about the extreme flooding risk were most recently realized in 2019, where a much smaller than 100-year event lead to flooding well outside of the mapped 100-year floodplain. As explained in the Public Works Memorandum, the repeated flooding of these areas shows prior mapping is “not reflective of real world conditions.”
We agree that reducing flood risk is complex and will require additional mapping and other engineering efforts. However, the Board of Supervisors can act to provide a critical public policy position that protects the public interest, by issuing a temporary urgency ordinance. That ordinance will give Public Works sufficient time to establish a firm technical foundation through the DWR mapping program due December 2020, time to consider how to set a multiple storm Standard, and further implement Potential Flood Risk Reduction Action Items 1 through 9 listed in the PowerPoint prepared by County staff.
In summary:
As we near the one year anniversary of the flooding in February 2019, we fear for the health and safety of our neighborhoods. We do feel this is an emergency situation and support a moratorium on development until the County has had a chance to update its flood mapping and developed a plan to address it. We appreciate the County updating of the initial proposed moratorium map from the January 11th Board of Supervisors meeting to have two options that includes Butte County Board of Supervisors February 10, 2020 Page 3 of 4
the entire area that was mapped in 2011 as subject to flooding or that has actually been subject to flooding. Each additional house that is built in the area subject to flooding increases the risks to existing neighborhoods, but we are respectful of the right to build individual homes that have already been permitted. Without flood elevations it is almost impossible to effectively plan development drainage engineering, and difficult to define the flood effects of new building pads and other reductions in floodplain area, and to understand the magnitude of new flow restrictions. We depend on the Board of Supervisors to protect public health and safety of our communities and to do everything it can to address these concerns before there is another disaster in our community.
Conclusion
The North Chico Neighborhood Safety Group supports the efforts of the staff to find solutions to flooding risk for our communities. The temporary moratorium protects public safety and property and maintains the incentive to complete work on the nine Flood Risk Reduction Action Items identified by staff. Only with a moratorium can we prevent worsening of flooding risks to both existing and new homes. The County should adopt a temporary moratorium at the earliest possible meeting.
Very truly yours,
SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation
By: Osha R. Meserve cc (via email):
Butte County Board of Supervisors: District 1, Bill Connelly, [email protected] District 2, Debra Lucero, [email protected] District 3, Tami Ritter, [email protected] District 4, Chair Steve Lambert, [email protected] District 5, Vice Chair Doug Teeter, [email protected] Butte County Planning Commissioners: District 1, Michael Evans, [email protected] Butte County Board of Supervisors February 10, 2020 Page 4 of 4
District 2, Vice Chair Peter Hansen, [email protected] District 3, Second Vice Chair Henry Schleiger, [email protected] District 4, Chair Rocky (Daniel) Donati, [email protected] District 5, Ruby Roethler, [email protected] Public Works Director Dennis Schmidt, [email protected] Public Works Assistant Director Radley Ott, [email protected] Environmental Health Director Elaine McSpadden, [email protected] County Counsel Bruce S. Alpert, [email protected] Deputy County Counsel Brunella M. Wood, [email protected] Butte County LAFCo Director, Steve Lucas, [email protected]
EXHIBIT C
Water Resources Flood Control Water Rights
GILBERT COSIO, JR., P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY MARC VAN CAMP, P.E. 1913-1985 WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. RIC REINHARDT, P.E. DON TRIEU, P.E. CONSULTANTS: DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS, P.E. NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E. LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. BEN TUSTISON, P.E. THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E.
January 13, 2020
Sent Via Electronic Transmittal
Osha Meserve Soluri Meserve 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Comments on Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item 5.05, January 14, 2020 – “Introduction and Adoption of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on the Issuance of Building Permits for New and Expanded Structures and Land use Approval within the North Chico Area”
Dear Ms. Meserve:
MBK Engineers (MBK) has reviewed the subject staff report, which relates to the flood risks identified in my November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects. The staff report proposes an interim urgency ordinance “To protect public health, safety and welfare, this interim urgency ordinance would temporarily limit new development that would likely result in the generation of additional storm drainage flow in the Keefer Slough and Rock Creek Drainage Basins.” The staff report identifies many problems, concerns, and challenges within the drainage basin, one of which is “Repetitive flooding since that time [1989] has demonstrated that the original FEMA mapping effort was not reflective of the actual flood risks. The FEMA flood maps for the area were again revised in 2011. Last year, areas flooded that were not shown as being within the FEMA mapped 100-year flood plain.”
Attachment A of the staff report shows the parcels proposed to be subject to the moratorium. Also shown in Attachment A is 1) Rock Creek/Keefer Slough Watershed (Complete), 2) County Limits, 3) City Limits, and 4) FEMA Flood Zones (A and X). It appears that the County used the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough Watershed line to determine which parcels should be included in the moratorium.
455 University Ave. Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 456-4400 Fax: (916) 456-0253 Website: www.mbkengineers.com Osha Meserve January 13, 2020 Comments on Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item 5.05 Page 2
The use of a watershed delineation to identify parcels subject to flooding is not comprehensive enough. By definition, a watershed delineation only identifies lands that drain all the streams and rainfall to a common outlet. A floodplain delineation map that is developed by a local, State or Federal agency responsible for flood protection or risk mapping should be used to identify parcels for the interim urgency ordinance. The use of a floodplain map is consistent with the goals, policies and actions of the County’s Health and Safety Element, Butte County General Plan 2030.
The FEMA 2011 100-year floodplain is the only available floodplain map within the North Chico Area. This map is not up to date but is the best available information to identify entire parcels to be included in the interim urgency ordinance to protect public health, safety and welfare. In addition, parcels close to the FEMA Zone A or ones that have experienced flooding should also be included. Exhibit 1 shows parcels that should be added to the interim urgency ordinance. Following is a list of the 25 parcels I recommend be added to the interim urgency ordinance to be consistent with the risks depicted in the FEMA 2011 100-year floodplain map.
047-260-139 047-260-205 047-270-033 047-680-038 047-260-198 047-260-206 047-270-035 047-680-039 047-260-199 047-260-207 047-440-064 047-680-040 047-260-201 047-270-017 047-680-030 047-680-041 047-260-202 047-270-019 047-680-031 047-260-202 047-270-020 047-680-032 047-260-204 047-270-032 047-680-033
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call or email me.
Sincerely, MBK ENGINEERS
Don Trieu, P.E.
DT/oh R:8888.9/20.1.13 MBK Comments on Butte Co Staff Report
Enclosures: Exhibit 1. Additional Parcels to Add to Ordinance
Border of proposed moratorium
FEMA Zone A
LEGEND Parcel to add to ordinance
Add parcel to ordinance FEMA Zone A (Typ.)
Border of proposed moratorium
Exhibit 1: Additional Parcels to Add to Ordinance
EXHIBIT D
Clerk of the Board Use Only
Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item: Agenda Transmittal 3.20
Subject: Update on Flood Risk Reduction Items Efforts for the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed
Department: Public Works Meeting Date November 10, 2020 Contact: Dennis Schmidt Phone: 530.538.7681 Regular Agenda Consent Agenda
Department Summary: (Information provided in this section will be included on the agenda. Attach explanatory memorandum and other background as necessary). On February 11, 2020, the Department of Public Works provided the Board of Supervisors with a detailed analysis of the challenges associated with the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed. The Board directed staff to implement the flood risk reduction activities listed below and return with a progress report no later than December 8, 2020:
1) Update rainfall criteria; 2) Refine Outfall Criteria and increase detention volumes; 3) Update NFIP Ordinance – more resilient building requirements; 4) Support Rock Creek Reclamation District – channel maintenance; 5) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage, public information; 6) Update drainage improvement standards; 7) Stabilize Bifurcation – design; 8) Update FIRM (FEMA project); and 9) Flood Risk Reduction Study – develop preferred project.
The combination of dealing with the aftermath of the Camp Fire, multiple flooding events, COVID-19, and now most recently, the North Complex Fire, along with several high level staff vacancies, staff have been pulled many different directions. The Department has not been able to prioritize these risk reduction items, but some progress has been made. The progress is outlined in the staff report included with the full agenda item.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Personnel Impact: None
Action Requested: Accept for information.
Administrative Office Review: Casey Hatcher, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Revised: Department of Public Works Dennis Schmidt, Director Radley Ott, Assistant Director Dan Newton, Assistant Director
7 County Center Drive T: 530.538.7681 buttecounty.net/publicworks Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7171
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 10, 2020
TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Dennis Schmidt, Director of Public Works
RE: Status of Nine Flood Risk Reduction Items from February 11, 2020 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Background:
On February 11, 2020, the Public Works Department provided the Board of Supervisors with a detailed analysis of the challenges associated with the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed. The direction provided to staff at that time relative to the flooding issues was to implement Flood Risk Reduction items 2-9, and return to the Board with a progress report no later than December 8, 2020.
Staff have made some progress, but with the combination of dealing with the aftermath of the Camp Fire, multiple flooding events, COVID-19, and now most recently, the North Complex Fire, along with several high level staff vacancies, staff have been pulled many different directions, and have not been able to prioritize these risk reduction items.
Discussion:
The nine flood risk reduction items, and the current status are listed below:
Flood Risk Item Projected Date
1.Update rainfall criteria 2/2020
Completed 2/11/2020, per Board of Supervisor Resolution No. 20-022
2. Refine Outfall Criteria and increase detention volumes 5/2020
Partially complete - more stringent requirements are being placed on new developments when appropriate. Goal is to develop and include new standards in the Land Development Standards – anticipated timeline early 2021
3. Update NFIP Ordinance – more resilient building requirements 6/2020
This update is still in process. The Department is coordinating with Development Services on this change in Code. The Department has been awaiting the recent completion of template code by the Department of Water Resources that addresses many outstanding items and will facilitate a more efficient review process by FEMA. The Department is working towards completion by August 2021
4. Support Rock Creek Recl Dist – Channel Maintenance 6/2020
Rock Creek Reclamation District made good progress during 2019 and early 2020 with channel clearing and vegetation removal on both Rock Creek and Keefer Slough. Butte County supported those efforts with a support letter. RCRC efforts have recently been stalled due to staff turnover and turbulence within their organization.
5. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage public information – RE: Flood Insurance 7/2020
This item has not been effectively addressed yet. Now that the seasons are changing, staff will work with the County Public Information Officer and FEMA officials to restart a public information campaign.
6. Update Drainage Improvement Stds –increase resilience 3/2021
Staff have made progress on a preliminary review of drainage standards and potential modifications to increase the factor of safety. Due to the demands on staff due to the multiple disasters and staffing changes it is likely this schedule will slip to mid-year 2021.
7.Stabilize Bifurcation –Design 9/2021
This design contract has been executed, and initial site reconnaissance/kick off meetings completed. Consultants have received the Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data from the State, and are evaluating that data. Significant work on this project is dependent upon hydrologic and hydraulic information from DWR as part of the FIRM update, which is still in development. . The timeline is expected to push into the winter of 2021.
8.Update FIRM (FEMA project) 6/2022 This item is dependent upon the State (DWR) completion of the flood plain analysis and remapping. This has been delayed approximately one year from the previous update. Estimated completion is around 6/2023
9. Flood Risk Reduction Study –DevPreferred Project 2/2022
This also is dependent upon the State (DWR) completion of the flood plain analysis and remapping project.
Action Requested:
Accept for information.
EXHIBIT E
.----- p.f'TMEJv-,.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: KEN JONES, ASSISTANT AUDITOR
FROM: STUART EDELL, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT DnlisION ✓ PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: CSA 172, AUTUMN PARK SUBDIVISION
DATE: (§aeR 30, ~
We need to divide this CSA into zones of benefit.
Zone 1: Autumn Park Subdivision Phase I, AP 047-680- 001 through 021 and Phase III, AP 047-680-022 through 043, receive full benefits _9f ~h~_~A a~d should be charged.
r'Zo~ot 44 in Autumn Park Subdivision Phase II, AP 047-260-197 -(Retention pond / ~rainage facilities in the above described Zone 1) and 047-260-199 (Walnut I I. Orchard) receive no direct benefit from the CSA and therefore should not be charged. __ J This was recently brought to my attention by Evelyn Liptrap, owner of Lot 44 (Zone 2).
cc: Tom Blixt, Administrative Analyst
EXHIBIT F
Frankie Miller Cell: 530-717-3884 [email protected] State Lic: 01767902
NEW 13960 State Highway 99 N $3,999,999 New Listing Chico 95973 Active Land Property
95 acre(s) lot, 95.00 acres, $0.97/sqft, VLDR zoning
1 / 7
NEW 0 Hwy 99 $2,499,681 New Listing Chico 95973 Active Land Property
51 acre(s) lot, 51.00 acres, $1.13/sqft, VLDR zoning
1 / 8
NEW 0 Highway 99 $2,865,000 New Listing Chico 95973 Active Land Property
68 acre(s) lot, 68.00 acres, $0.97/sqft, VLDR zoning
1 / 11
NEW 0 Kittyhawk Drive $2,634,575 New Listing Chico 95973 Active Land Property
53 acre(s) lot, 53.00 acres, $1.14/sqft, VLDR zoning
1 / 8
All information courtesy of Frankie Miller Frankie Miller Cell: 530-717-3884 [email protected] State Lic: 01767902
0 Kittyhawk Drive Chico 95973 Listing ID: SN21059377
Map $2,634,575 Active Lot Acre(s): 53 Acres: 53.00 $/SqFt: $1.14 Zoning: VLDR
1 / 8
Fantastic opportunity to own income-generating orchard coming into prime production on residentially-zoned acres in North Chico. With 53 +/- gross acres and 48 planted acres, the buyer can rely on an income-generating orchard as he/she seeks Chico. With 53 / gross acres and 48 planted acres, the buyer can rely on an income generating orchard as he/she seeks entitlements on the Very Low Density Residential Zoned acres (VLDR; 1-acre min.)*. Amenities include: -Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI) system built around soil types for optimal water use efficiency (WUE); full solid set and double line drip -Deep ag well, pump, and motor for irrigation -High density almond orchard consisting of 50% Nonpareil, 25% Monterey, 25% Bennett Hickmann -All are VLDR-zoned acres designated for residential development in North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) *Disclosure: Subject is in FEMA Special Flood Zone A There are three other contiguous properties listed at the same time in the Kittyhawk Ranch Portfolio: K2, K3, and K4. Please see the MLS for further details. Potential buyers are advised that each of these properties are listed separately but can be purchased together collectively or some combination thereof. There is an application for new maps on the K1 property, AKA the APN 199 property. The application is seeking four new lots with a remainder: 3 lots at 1.01 acres; 1 lots at 1.19 acres, totaling four lots @ 4.22 acres, which would make the final remainder lot of VLDR-Zoned Almond acres 48.5 +/-. The listing price assumes the approval of these four lots. Contact Seller agent for more details.
About 0 Kittyhawk Drive , Chico 95973 Directions: None General Description
Property Type Land List Price $2,634,575 Days On Market 22 Lot Acres 53 $/Acre $49,709 Lot SqFt 2,308,680 $/SqFt $1.14 Zoning VLDR
Facts & Features
List Date 03-22-21 Special Listing Conditions Standard Original Price $2,634,575 Lot Features Agricultural - Tree/Orchard Current Use Agricultural, Investment Possible Use Improved View Orchard Distance To Water Ag well
Association Fee $0 Land Lease No County Or Parish Butte Parcel Number 047260199000 Listing Id SN21059377 HOA Dues $0 County Butte Parcel # 047260199000 Listing Id SN21059377 Listing Id SN21059377
Assessment & Tax
Assessment Year 2020 2019 2018 Assessed Value - Total $1,411,849 $1,412,000 $1,411,180 Assessed Value - Land $1,318,000 $1,318,000 $1,318,000 Assessed Value - $93,849 $94,000 $93,180 Improved YOY Change ($) -$151 $820 YOY Change (%) 0% 0%
Tax Year 2020 2019 2018 Total Tax $16,330.40 $16,354.88 $16,373.74 YOY Change ($) -$24 -$19 YOY Change (%) 0% 0%
Frankie Miller State License #: 01767902 Cell Phone: 530-717-3884 People's Choice Brokers State License #: 01527324 664 E. First Avenue Chico, 95926
Notes for you and your agent
Add note...
+ Add Note All information courtesy of Frankie Miller
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
6422954.8
1937
= 500'
EXHIBIT I
Public Health Department Danette York, M.P.H., Director Andy Miller, M.D., Health Officer
Environmental Health 202 Mira Loma Drive T: 530.552.3880 buttecounty.net/publichealth Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.5339
December 6, 2019
To: Butte County Board of Supervisors
From: Doug Danz, Program Manager, Butte County Environmental Health Division
Re: Soluri Meserve Law Corporation 12/04/19 letter regarding well construction close to Autumn Park in North Chico area
Dear Butte County Board of Supervisors,
On a December 4, 2019 the law corporation of Soluri Meserve provided to you a letter that characterized recent well construction that was permitted by the Butte County Environmental Health Division. That well construction that is detailed in the letter is located adjacent to a housing complex known as the Autumn Park Subdivision and is close to the intersection of Garner Lane and Kitty Hawk in north Chico. According to the letter they advised that County Environmental Health staff stated that the well was built to specifications for a Public Water System well.
The purpose of this memo is to correct the implication that the Butte County Environmental Health Division permitted this well as a public water system well. The well was permitted for construction as a large diameter agricultural well and as a replacement for the agricultural well located approximately 260 feet east of it and close to Garner Lane in the same right of way. The applicant, George Nicolaus, documented that the well would be serving the 50 acre agricultural parcel with APN 047-260-198, just as the older well was. The new well was not permitted as a public water system well, nor was the applicant told it could be used as a public water system well. Given that, it was required that the new well meet standards for a non-public water system well and have a minimum 20 foot seal placed, as well as have a septic tank and leachfield setback of 100 feet. The Environmental Health Division oversaw the proper siting and construction of this well to assure that the required 100 foot setback was obtained for this non-public water system well.
The Environmental Health Division would be glad to provide any further details toward this well, including its permitting and construction upon request.
EXHIBIT J
Clerk of the Board Use Only
Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item: Agenda Transmittal 5.04
Subject: Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed Flood Risk Discussion
Department: Public Works Meeting Date February 11, 2020 Contact: D. Schmidt/ R.Ott Phone: 530.538.7681 Regular Agenda Consent Agenda
Department Summary: (Information provided in this section will be included on the agenda. Attach explanatory memorandum and other background as necessary). On January 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors considered an interim urgency ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium on issuance of building permits and land use approvals within the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough watershed area due to flood risk to parcels. The Board requested additional and clarifying information regarding development in recent years, the potential for new development, and ongoing efforts to address flood risk in the watershed.
The Department of Public Works requests direction regarding next steps for building permits and land use entitlements with the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough watershed.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Personnel Impact: None.
Action Requested: Provide direction to staff.
Administrative Office Review: Casey Hatcher, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
Revised: Department of Public Works Dennis Schmidt, Director Radley Ott, Assistant Director
7 County Center Drive T: 530.538.7681 www.buttecounty.net/publicworks Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7171
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 2020
TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Dennis Schmidt, Director of Public Works
RE: Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Watershed Flood Risk Discussion
1 REQUESTED ACTION 1. Direct staff to bring back an urgency ordinance to limit or prohibit issuance of building permits in Zones A or B; OR 2. Direct staff to bring forward additional building restrictions through the public review and Planning Commission in Zones A or B; OR 3. Direct staff to implement Flood Risk Reduction Items 1-9 and return to the Board with a progress report no later than December 8, 2020; OR 4. Provide alternative direction to staff.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors met and discussed a proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance to establish a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits for new and expanded structures and land use approval within the North Chico area. The Board requested additional information on the recent and historical building activity, along with other details of the drainage basin. This memorandum provides additional background and information to the Board, and staff request further direction on next steps.
Page 1 of 7 3 BACKGROUND
Drainage problems and concerns in the area known as the Keefer Slough and Rock Creek Drainage Basin have been the subject of many discussions and studies over the past 40 plus years. This area is north and east of the City of Chico, and has been developed in piecemeal fashion over time. Historical damaging floods (and Federal Disaster Declarations have occurred in this area in 1995, 1997, 1998, and most recently in 2019). The first flood plain maps were developed by FEMA for this area in 1989, after many of the parcels had already been developed. Repetitive flooding since that time has demonstrated that this early mapping effort was not reflective of the real world flood conditions.
The FEMA flood maps for the area were again revised in 2011. Once again, in 2019, areas flooded that were not shown as being within the 100 year flood plain, during storm events that did not rise to the level of a 100 year event. The map below shows the area in blue listed as Flood Zone A. The areas in red are Flood Zone AE. There are numerous challenges and threats to the stability of the drainage system within this basin. Primary identified threats are: 1) The Rock Creek – Nord Area Storm Drainage Master Plan, prepared in 1984 by McCain Associates Consulting Civil Engineers, stated that “The Rock Creek-Keefer Slough System is grossly inadequate”. This system has not improved over the past 30 plus years, but rather perhaps has become more fragile, with the addition of multiple new Subdivision developments east of Highway 99. 2) This is a geographically large drainage basin, spanning from 180 foot elevation at Highway 99 up to 3,800 foot elevation at the upper reaches of the drainage basin. This means that a “Rain on Snow” type of precipitation event could lead to abnormally high drainage flows in the lower reaches of the drainage basin. 3) The area known as the Bifurcation (the location where the flow splits between Rock Creek to the north, and Keefer Slough to the south) is privately owned, and does not have any engineered controls to insure the flow is equally split. Based upon vegetation growth and/or deposition of gravel, the flow split can change dramatically from one flood event to the next. The photos below shows the configuration of the split in 1999 (left), compared the view from the same angle in 2018 (right). This is a critical system failure point, and the lack of engineering controls at this bifurcation makes it impossible to accurately predict or control the volume of storm drainage that flows into both Keefer Slough and Rock Creek.
4) Keefer Slough is for the most part privately owned, and maintenance is sporadic at best. This channel is only 4-6 feet deep in many locations, and vegetation growth and/or gravel deposition can and does dramatically alter the flow capacity. 5) Keefer Slough does not have sufficient freeboard to contain a 100-year storm. This was documented in the October, 2000 Detailed Project Report drafted by the US Army Corp of Engineers. The steady state flow capacity of Keefer Slough (without spilling out of its banks) is approximately 600 cubic feet per second. During a 100 year storm, calculations show almost 3,000 cubic feet per second will enter the Keefer Slough system at the Bifurcation. The difference between these two volumes (approximately 2,400 cubic feet per second) will spill outside of the banks of Keefer Slough, impacting roads, private property and residences. 6) Rock Creek does not have sufficient freeboard to contain a 100-year storm. This was documented in the October, 2000 Detailed Project Report drafted by the US Army Corp of Engineers. 7) Rock Creek has a number of privately owned and maintained levees that attempt to contain flows within the banks. One of these levees failed in 2019. The sand bags shown in the photo were placed in 1997 during a previous high water event and subsequent levee breach at this same location.
Looking south, at breached levee on north side of Rock Creek
ANALYSIS: The challenges with this drainage system are many-fold, and there are no easy solutions. A significant effort was put forth by Butte County in the early 2000’s to obtain funding to study the issue and develop partnerships with other impacted agencies to develop solutions that would protect the area from storm events. After completion of the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, the Project Team at that time was not able to reach consensus with property owners as to best design alternative, and how to allocate both the initial construction cost and the ongoing costs of maintenance.
Since that time, Butte County has been in negotiations with the property owner of the land that encompasses the Bifurcation. The County continues to move forward with negotiations, but at this time the County does not have full access to the site, and does not have authority to construct any long-term improvements (Engineered Controls) to allow the flows into Keefer and Rock Creek to be stabilized. This lack of Engineered Controls makes it impossible to predict from one storm to the next how much storm drainage will go down each of the respective drainages.
Additionally, the County does not have a dedicated source of funding to the environmental review, permitting, and construction/maintenance costs for these needed engineering controls.
The County does have access to Department of Water Resources (DWR) Small Community Flood Risk Reduction Grant. This grant has been approved by DWR, and negotiations with the selected consultant are underway on the scope of work. This grant provides up to $500,000 in funding to study the issues in the Keefer Slough/Rock Creek/Nord area, and come up with reasonable alternative solutions to reduce or eliminate flooding and property damage.
Also of note, DWR is currently working on a revision to the existing Flood Zone Mapping for this area. They anticipate that by December, 2020, they should have draft maps available for public review.
4 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Parcel Maps and Subdivision Maps Applications in Process – 16 potential lots Tentative Approval – 34 potential lots Final map recordation – 34 potential lots Pre-application reviews Initial inquiries for an additional 108 potential lots. Map applications not yet filed. Building Permits Prior two years – 42 residential; 6 commercial Prior 10 years – 154 residential; 14 commercial (includes the two year statistics)
5 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/MITIGATIONS All new parcel maps and subdivision maps are required to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of its storm water discharge. The requirements for these mitigations are detailed in Section 10 of the Butte County Improvement Standards, dated October 2006. Typically, new developments are required to capture and retain all storm water, up to and including a 100 year probability event, and release no more water than would previously be expected to be discharged from the site during a 10 year discharge event, with an undisturbed site.
6 STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION/RETENTION OUTFALL CHALLENGES The County’s current Land Division Standards do not provide regulatory guidance for storm events consisting of multiple storms. Storm detention discharge calculations require that the downstream flow height either is known, or assumed. This can lead to less than inconsistent drainage outfall rates, if successive storms create high water in the discharge channel.
7 DRAINAGE BASIN AREA The total area of the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough drainage basin is 38,880 acres, and ranges in elevation from 3,800 feet down to 180 feet at the lower end of Highway 99 and Nord. The total area within CSA 87 is 3,315 acres (8.5% of the basin total). Total new development lots currently contemplated are on the order of 200 acres, or about 0.5% of the basin total acreage.
8 URGENCY ORDINANCE AND OTHER OPTIONS Several options were discussed at the January 14, 2020 Board Meeting including: Option A – Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Drainage Basin – extend limits to Highway 99. Option B – Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Drainage Basin – extend limits west of Highway 99 into Nord Area. 9 REQUESTED ACTION: 5. Direct staff to bring back an urgency ordinance to limit or prohibit issuance of building permits in Zones A or B; OR 6. Direct staff to bring forward building restrictions through the public review and Planning Commission Process in Zones A or B; OR 7. Direct staff to implement Flood Risk Reduction Items 1-9 and return to the Board with a progress report no later than December 8, 2020; OR 8. Provide alternative direction to staff.
EXHIBIT K
Water Resources Flood Control Water Rights
GILBERT COSIO, JR., P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY MARC VAN CAMP, P.E. 1913-1985 WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. RIC REINHARDT, P.E. DON TRIEU, P.E. CONSULTANTS: DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS, P.E. NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E. LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. BEN TUSTISON, P.E. THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E.
April 8, 2021
Sent Via Electronic Transmittal
Osha Meserve Soluri Meserve 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Comments on Butte County Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Tentative Parcel Map TPM19-002
Dear Ms. Meserve:
MBK Engineers (MBK) has reviewed the subject Initial Study and Environmental Review Checklist for the subject tentative parcel map. The review focused on the “Nicolaus Family Trust, 2002, Preliminary Hydrology, Hydraulic and Flooding Analysis for K-1 Tentative Parcel Map” (Provost & Pritchard 2020) technical memorandum, dated October 26, 2020, and prepared by Provost & Pritchard. MBK previously commented on the flood implications of development using this same tentative parcel map, and added our comments to another project on land under the same ownership jurisdiction in November 2019. Those prior comments remain relevant and are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. The following are MBK’s additional comments regarding the Provost & Pritchard 2020 document:
1. Page 3 of 8, Section Part II-Flooding states that: “The Project lies partially within a FEMA1 Zone A Flood Boundary. Therefore, structures constructed as a result of the Project will be required to have finish floor elevations 2-feet above adjacent grade to ensure floor elevations are well above flood waters that might occur.” In accordance to Butte County Ordinance No. 4041, Section 26-24(b)(3) In an A Zone, without Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (unnumbered A Zone), all structures, residential and non-residential, shall be elevated at least one (1) foot above the BFE, as determined by methods comparable to those in a Flood
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency
455 University Ave. Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 456-4400 Fax: (916) 456-0253 Website: www.mbkengineers.com Osha Meserve April 8, 2021 Comments on Butte County Notice of Intent to Adopt an IS/MND TPM19-002 Page 2
Insurance Study or by using the detailed methods as described in the most current edition of FEMA publication, FEMA 265, “Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas – A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100-Year) Flood Elevations”, or any successor. The Provost & Pritchard 2020 technical memorandum does not include analysis or calculations of the BFE, and is therefore inadequate to determine the required finish floor elevation of the new homes on the proposed lots. The hydraulic analysis prepared by Provost & Pritchard to support IS/MND “Section 1.10(X)(C)(iv) impede or redirect flood flows”, should be revised and findings updated accordingly. 2. On Page 4 of 8, Section “HEC-RAS Hydraulic Model Analysis”, Provost & Pritchard developed a HEC-RAS hydraulic model of the Keefer Slough floodplain to “… understand what impact the proposed four parcels… may have on the flood characteristics in the area of the Project and Subdivision (Autumn Park).” Figure 1 shows a schematic of the hydraulic model. The computation extent of the hydraulic model is between Keefer Slough and the north fence of the Autumn Park Subdivision. The hydraulic model will only compute water surface elevations within the “green” lines shown in Figure 1. The report acknowledges that during the 2018-2019 winter storm, flood waters overtopped Keefer Slough and entered the Subdivision at Bosc Road. Photos taken by residents (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) show flooding in the Subdivision streets, mainly at the west end of Anjou Court and Magness Court, areas adjacent to proposed project. The hydraulic model developed by Provost & Pritchard does not account for flood waters that flow through the Subdivision’s streets. The hydraulic analysis must be revised to address hydraulic impacts in order to show: depth of flooding, duration of flooding, and the potential to induce additional flooding. The analysis must also include, not only the area north of the Subdivision, but also the parcels (i.e., Magness Court and Anjou Court) immediately east of the project and any other locations subject to flooding within the Subdivision. Osha Meserve April 8, 2021 Comments on Butte County Notice of Intent to Adopt an IS/MND TPM19-002 Page 3
Figure 1. Hydraulic Model Schematic The Provost & Pritchard 2020 HEC-RAS hydraulic model fails to include areas documented to flood because the modeler inserted a flow barrier, a "fence" that arbitrarily cuts off the flow to the south and directs it to the west. The model needs to remove this fence in order to have the flood flows realistically go into the existing development, as it has in the past. This omission could lead to an underestimation of flows. MBK’s 2019 comments on flooding in this area explained how TPM19-002 would risk putting additional residences/homes in a flood hazard zone, and potentially exacerbate flooding in surrounding parcels (See Exhibit A.). Key findings from that prior letter remain relevant: 1. The existing FEMA Firm Maps for the area are not detailed flood zones and are based on outdated hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and underlying data. The hydrologic and hydraulic models (HEC-1 and HEC-2) are legacy models dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. The HEC-2 model is a simplified standard-step backwater calculation of water surface elevation, and cannot accurately simulate the shallow overland flow that actually occurs in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough floodplain. The topography used in the HEC-2 model dates back to 1951, and has an accuracy of plus or minus 2.5 feet. Osha Meserve April 8, 2021 Comments on Butte County Notice of Intent to Adopt an IS/MND TPM19-002 Page 4
2. The FEMA Zone A along Keefer Slough is based on a 100-year flow rate of 560-680 cfs. This flow rate is based on a rating curve which approximated a total of 41% of the total Rock Creek flow being diverted into Keefer Slough. This rating curve was based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles dating back to 1951. As noted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), this area has experienced significant sediment deposition, which has the potential to send more flood waters down Keefer Slough. The use of a rating curve to estimate the flow rate in Keefer Slough is not accurate and is not reflective of the actual site conditions today. This may result in flooding in areas not delineated by the FEMA FIRM Maps.
3. The Legacy Village planned development and the four lots shown in Figure 1 has lots at the edge of the FEMA Zone A. The FEMA Zone A is an estimated delineation of the flood hazard and is not accurate and outdated based on comments 1 and 2 above. DWR acknowledges that the existing FEMA FIRM maps are outdated and is currently working through a Co-operative Technical Partnership with FEMA to revise the FEMA FIRM maps in the Rock-Keefer Slough areas (as per a teleconference with Todd Hillare).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call or email me.
Sincerely, MBK ENGINEERS
Don Trieu, P.E.
DT/oh R:\8888.9/ Comments on Butte County ISMND TPM19-002 2021-04-08
Enclosures: Exhibit A. MBK Flood Comment Letter dated November 27, 2019
EXHIBIT A
Water Resources Flood Control Water Rights GILBERT COSIO, JR., P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY MARC VAN CAMP, P.E. 1913-1985 WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. RIC REINHARDT, P.E. DON TRIEU, P.E. CONSULTANTS: DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS, P.E. NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E. LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. BEN TUSTISON, P.E. THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E.
November 27, 2019
Sent Via Electronic Transmittal
Osha Meserve Soluri Meserve 510 8th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects
Dear Ms. Meserve:
George Nicolaus and other affiliated entities are proposing two housing developments near the Autumn Park Subdivision, north of the City of Chico and within the North Chico Specific Plan. These two housing developments are located near or within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone A and in an area which has historically flooded. These two housing developments have the potential to:
1. Put additional residences/homes in a flood hazard zone. 2. Exacerbate flooding in surrounding parcels.
MBK Engineers (MBK) has compiled and reviewed existing reports, studies, photos and videos, maps, ordinances, etc., to help better inform local, state, and federal agencies the potential flood hazard in this area and has summarized key findings and comments below1.
Proposed Development The proposed developments are to the west and south west of the Autumn Park Subdivision. The first development is located on a 52.5 acre parcel (APN 047-260-199) west of the subdivision. The proposal is to sub-divide the western portion of the parcel into four 1 acre lots (Figure 1).
1 Attached is Exhibit 1 showing my qualifications and experience to review and comment on flood issues.
455 University Ave. Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95825 Phone: (916) 456-4400 Fax: (916) 456-0253 Website: www.mbkengineers.com Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 2
Figure 1. Western Portion of the Parcel Divided in Four 1-acre lots The second development (Legacy Village, a.k.a. Almond Ranch) is located southwest of the subdivision near the projected intersection of Kittyhawk Drive and Highway 99. The proposed development is on a 51 acre parcel (APN-047-260-198) with plans for 100 clustered residential lots and a nine-hole golf course with associated facilities (Figure 2). The proposed housing density is about 5 units/acre.
Figure 2. Proposed Development Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 3
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone The two proposed developments are in or near a FEMA Zone A (see Figure 3). A FEMA Zone A is defined as “Areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual chance flood event generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are shown. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply.” The FEMA Zone A for Keefer Slough was developed in April 2000 as part of a county wide effort to investigate the existence and severity of flood hazards. To determine flood hazards, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis was performed which: 1. Quantifies the flows in the river/slough. 2. Computes or estimates the water surface elevations in the river and floodplain associated with the 1% chance annual flood (100-year flood).
Figure 3. Location of the Two Proposed Developments Hydrologic Analysis The April 2000 hydrologic analysis estimated the 100-year flood event for Rock Creek and Keefer Slough. Rainfall-runoff models were developed using software developed by USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-1 was the computer model used in the April 2000 hydrologic analysis. This computer model used 30 years of recorded precipitation data from the City of Chico and physical parameters of the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough dating back to a USACE 1975 study. A key assumption in the hydrologic model is the determination of how much of the Rock Creek total flow gets diverted into Keefer Slough. For the April 2000 analysis, a rating curve was Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 4
developed using normal depth calculations using typical cross sections/topography at the Rock Creek and Keefer Slough flow split. It was estimated that approximately 44% of the Rock Creek 100-year flow is diverted into Keefer Slough. Table 1 below shows the estimated 1% annual peak flows along Keefer Slough used in the April 2000 analysis.
Table 1. Estimated 1% Annual Peak Flows used in April 2000 Analysis Location 100-Year Flood Peak Discharge (cfs) Keefer Slough approximately 1125 ft downstream of 560 Hicks Lane Keefer Slough approximately 500 feet upstream of 680 Garner Lane Keefer Slough at State Highway 99 525 Source: FEMA (2011) Hydraulic Analysis The hydraulic analysis to develop the FEMA Zone A shown on Figure 3 was also performed in April 2000. A hydraulic analysis typically requires a discharge rate, topography, and parameters associated with vegetation within the river/slough. The April 2000 hydraulic analysis utilized the computer model HEC-2, developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Ground elevations of Keefer Slough and surrounding floodplains were obtained from U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Flooding Dynamics/Historic Flooding The Autumn Park Subdivision and surrounding parcels are located within the south overbank of Keefer Slough. During periods of extreme flow rates on Keefer Slough, water will overtop its bank and flow in a southwesterly direction, overtop Highway 99, and continue to flow towards the town of Nord. Butte County has documented flooding in January 1995, March 1995, January 1997, and February 1998 (Butte County Supervisor Agenda Item 4.05, January 8, 2013). Other years that this area experienced flooding include 1969, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1982, and 1983. The cause of the flooding in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough system has been attributed to: 1. Insufficient channel capacity in Rock Creek and Keefer Slough for flows produced by the watershed size and slope (USACE, 2008). 2. Leveling of fields (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2014). 3. Private levees (DWR, 2014). 4. Sedimentation at the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough flow split (DWR, 2014; USACE, 2008; FEMA, 2011). Most recently, this area flooded in February 2019. Exhibit 2 shows pictures of flooding in the Autumn Park Subdivision. Keefer Slough overtopped its banks downstream of Garner Road then flowed in a southwesterly direction through the streets of Autumn Park Subdivision then continued to sheet flow towards Highway 99 ponding against overtopping the highway causing closure of the highway. There was widespread media coverage of flooding in February 2019: Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 5 https://www.chicoer.com/2019/04/12/north-chico-flooding-focus-of-listening-session/ https://www.chicoer.com/2019/04/17/north-chico-resident-irate-over-flooding-issues/ https://krcrtv.com/news/butte-county/county-finds-temporary-fix-for-keefer-slough-flooding- nord-more-troublesome https://krcrtv.com/news/butte-county/sandbag-barrier-put-up-to-protect-se-chico-subdivision- from-flooding https://www.actionnewsnow.com/content/video/506412552.html https://kpay.com/kpay-news/archives/2019-02/ https://twitter.com/CALFIRE_ButteCo/status/1101536680916336641 Of particular note, the FEMA Zone A map does not show flooding within the Autumn Park Subdivision. However, Exhibit 2 clearly shows streets and yards being flooded. Technical Flood Comments 1. The existing FEMA Firm Maps for the area are not detailed flood zones and are based on outdated hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and underlying data. The hydrologic and hydraulic models (HEC-1 and HEC-2) are legacy models dating back to the 1980s and 1990s. The HEC-2 model is a simplified standard-step backwater calculation of water surface elevation, and cannot accurately simulate the shallow overland flow that actually occurs in the Rock Creek/Keefer Slough floodplain. The topography used in the HEC-2 model dates back to 1951, and has an accuracy of plus or minus 2.5 feet.
2. The FEMA Zone A along Keefer Slough is based on a 100-year flow rate of 560-680 cfs. This flow rate is based on a rating curve which approximated a total of 41% of the total Rock Creek flow being diverted into Keefer Slough. This rating curve was based on USGS quadrangles dating back to 1951. As noted by USACE and DWR, this area has experienced significant sediment deposition, which has the potential to send more flood waters down Keefer Slough. The use of a rating curve to estimate the flow rate in Keefer Slough is not accurate and is not reflective of the actual site conditions today. This may result in flooding in areas not delineated by the FEMA FIRM Maps.
3. The Legacy Village planned development and the four lots shown in Figure 1 has lots at the edge of the FEMA Zone A. The FEMA Zone A is an estimated delineation of the flood hazard and is not accurate and outdated based on comments 1 and 2 above. DWR acknowledges that the existing FEMA FIRM maps are outdated and is currently working through a Co-operative Technical Partnership with FEMA to revise the FEMA FIRM maps in the Rock-Keefer Slough areas (as per a teleconference with Todd Hillare).
4. In the County’s review of these two proposed development projects, the County must follow Butte County Code 26-23, cited below. Section 26-23(a)(1) requires the County to Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 6
determine that the site is reasonably safe from flooding. In its review, as per this section, the County must take into consideration that the existing FEMA Zone A maps are outdated and are not accurate, based on the flooding that occurred in February 2019. As per Section 26-23(a)(2) the County must require the developer to prepare a cumulative hydraulic impact analysis to demonstrate that the proposed developments do not increase the water surface elevation on neighboring properties. 26-23 - Review of development permit applications—Generally. (a)The Department of Development Services and Department of Public Works shall review all development permit applications to determine that:(1)The site of the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding;(2)All necessary permits have been received as required by federal or state law;(3)The proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designed. For purposes of this article, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation on neighboring properties. The county will not allow development to increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one (1) foot at any point, nor will it allow any increase in the base flood elevation which adversely affects any neighboring property.
5. The four proposed lots shown in Figure 1 are within a FEMA Zone A. As per Butte County Code 26-24(b)(3). The applicant must determine the FEMA BFE in accordance using detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. 26-24(b)(3) In an A Zone, without BFE's specified on the FIRM (unnumbered A Zone), all structures, residential and nonresidential, shall be elevated at least one (1) foot above the BFE as determined by methods comparable to those in a Flood Insurance Study or by using the detailed methods as described in the most current edition of FEMA publication, FEMA 265, "Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas—A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100-year) Flood Elevations" or any successor FEMA document.
References 1. (DWR, 2014). Mid and Upper Sacramento River Regional Flood Management Plan. November 10, 2014. 2. (FEMA, 2011). Flood Insurance Study, Butte County California and Incorporated Areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency. January 6, 2011. 3. (USACE, 2008). Rock Creek-Keefer Slough, Butte County CA, 905(b) Reconnaissance Report. September 2008.
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Flood Comments on Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Development Projects Page 7
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call or email me.
Sincerely, MBK ENGINEERS
Don Trieu, P.E.
DT/oh R:8888.9/Flood Comments on Proposed Development 11-25-2019
Enclosures: Exhibit 1. Qualifications and Experience Exhibit 2. Autumn Park Subdivision Photos
EXHIBIT 1
DON TRIEU
EDUCATION California State University, Sacramento BS in Civil Engineering, 1995 California State University, Sacramento MS in Civil Engineering, 2002
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES & SOCIETIES Registered Civil Engineer, California No. C058284
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
EXPERIENCE 1995 to Present MBK Engineers, Sacramento, CA Principal Principal Engineer in charge of hydraulic/hydrologic models for evaluation of flood control alternatives and development of design water surface elevation. Perform hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of flood problems and evaluation of flood control alternatives using HEC-RAS, RMA-2, FLO-2D, UNET, HEC-1.
EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
Technical adviser, hydraulic model development, and 200-year floodplain mapping for the lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project and Stockton urban area streams in support of DWR’s Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program (2008-2013).
Formulation, oversight and review of hydraulic analysis in support of alternatives evaluation and hydraulic impact analysis for widen of the Sacramento Weir (2019).
Hydraulic model development and re-calibration of a SRFCP hydraulic model in support of USACE WRDA 2016 projects.
Develop 2D model and hydraulic analysis of the Yuba River Goldfields in support of a new levee south of the Yuba River Goldfields (2017-2019).
Reconnaissance level hydraulic impact analysis in support of alternatives formulation for Little Egbert Tract Multi-Objective Project (2017).
Prepare cumulative hydraulic impact analysis in support of Lower Sacramento River/Delta North regional flood control components (2017).
Update hydraulic model of the North Delta region in support of the McCormack-Williamson Tract Levee Modification and Habitat Development Project and Sacramento County Point Pleasant FEMA Base Flood Elevation Study.
Developed 2D model of the lower San Joaquin River and tributaries in support of hydraulic impact analysis of 1700 acres of habitat restoration at Dos Rios Ranch (2017).
Principal in charge of hydraulic analysis for the Lower Feather River Corridor Management Plan.
Evaluate hydraulic impacts of wetland restoration project on Cougar Wetlands using the North Delta HEC-RAS model.
Evaluate hydraulic impacts using the North Delta HEC-RAS for the Cosumnes Mitigation Bank.
Evaluate hydraulic impact using RMA-2 for Liberty Island Conservation Bank on the Yolo Bypass.
Technical adviser for development of RMA-2 model of the Sutter Bypass for evaluation of vegetation management.
EXHIBIT 2
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 1
Photo No. 1. Flood waters from Keefer Slough Flowing down Bosc Drive (2/14/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 2
Photo No. 2. Flooding of Fire Lane between Orchard and Northern Boundary of Autumn Park (2/27/19)
Photo No. 3. 4243 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 3
Photo No. 4. 4243 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Photo No. 5. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 4
Photo No. 6. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 5
Photo No. 7. 4231 Anjou Court (2/27/19)
Photo No. 8. Water level at Garner Road Bridge looking North (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 6
Photo No. 9. Looking west from Garner Road Bridge down Keefer Slough (2/27/19)
Photo No. 10. East End of Orchard where Water Flowed into Orchard; Garner Road Bridge in background (2/27/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 7
Photo No. 11. Water in Nicolaus Orchard (2/27/19)
Photo No. 12. Water being Pumped from CSA-172 Retention Pond back into Keefer Slough (3/3/19)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 8
Photo No. 13. Sand Bags being Installed in Nicolaus' Orchard bordering Keefer Slough (early March 2019)
Osha Meserve November 27, 2019 Exhibit 2 Page 9
Photo No. 14. Sand Bags on Nicolaus' Orchard bordering Keefer Slough (early March 2019)
EXHIBIT B d
R
P n
e
u L n
i r
p e
h
l s
s e
o
n R r S
u o e w
S
b d i
e e e e C t H F b t Q e r l i u ic a a i r Shorthorn Dr i d l a D C d o r v L e n y C t Green Meadow Ln
t
C
l
i a Dusty Ln G Pheasant Run Ct Parcels used for density transfer
«¬99
Rancho Rd
Golf Course and Driving Range Porchlight Ct
Residential Area Clubhouse/Pro Shop Non-golf activities Kathy Ln
Our Way Keith Ln Michelle Ct
Hedstrom Way
gh Ct Rawlie
Legend Flood Zones FEMA FLD_ZONE A-no base elevations determined
AE-base flood elevations determined r E D s an p ce la AH-depths of 1 to 3 feet, elevations determined O n a d
n e L
AO-depths of 1 to 3 feet, sheet flow m
o Ln s s SHADED ZONE X s en
o v
l e S
B e hre d T
SHADED ZONE X CONTAINED INr CHANNEL
a h
c t
r C s X-no flood O a am C