Small Town News

Decision delayed on Lake Front project

---

A special hearing about the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lake Front at Walker Ranch development was held Aug. 26 in the Chester Memorial Hall.

Plumas County Zoning Administrator Randy Wilson arranged the public meeting and said its purpose was to review the final document and make a potential decision about the possible certification of the EIR.

Opening the meeting, Wilson advised meeting guests that the California Environmental Quality Act didn't require a hearing for this part of the process, but said the Plumas County Code does.

Wilson then turned the podium over to senior planner Jim Graham to read the meeting guidelines and present the project and EIR history.

The document review, as completed by Graham, was divided into three components: describing the proposed project, outlining the EIR process leading to the proposed certification of the final EIR and outlining the contents of the final EIR and changes to be made to the draft EIR because of public and agency comments received.

Project history

Graham said the planning department received the Planned Development Permit application Sept. 3, 2003. The next document was a Tentative Map application and was received at the county office Oct. 5, 2005.

"Following the receipt of those two documents, a draft EIR was completed and distributed for public review July 9, 2008," he said. The review period for the draft EIR began July 9 of that year and was extended through Sept. 12, 2008.

"Comments on the draft EIR were received by mail, e-mail and verbally during the public hearing held in the Chester Memorial Hall Sept. 9, 2008," he added.

Leading up to the Aug. 26 meeting, the final EIR was prepared. Graham said this included the draft EIR, all comments received, responses to all comments and changes to the draft EIR due to the comments.

EIR purpose

"The purpose of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public about the proposed project's potential significant environmental effects," said Graham.

He also said the process provided a means to identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce environmental damage.

"Significant, avoidable environmental damage can be prevented by requiring changes in the project through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when changes are feasible," he said.

Most importantly, Graham said, the "EIR discloses to the public the reasons why the project was approved in the manner chosen, if significant environmental effects are involved."

He said with the purpose and scope of the EIR, the applicant was seeking approval of three documents, the planned development permit, the vesting tentative map and the development agreement.

EIR comments and changes

Graham said there were a total of 571 comments made on the draft EIR.

He said those included 518 written comments and 53 verbal comments made during the Sept. 9, 2008, public hearing.

As an interesting statistic, Graham shared the breakdown of the written comments. He said one comment was received from a federal agency, 82 from state agencies, 34 from county departments, 12 from utility providers, 244 from regional agencies and organizations, and 145 from individuals and firms.

Graham next presented the environmental impacts in changing from the draft EIR to the final EIR.

He said the identified impacts increased from 129 to 130. Other changes included the number of "Less than Significant" impacts decreasing from 46 to 44; the number of "Potentially Significant/Significant Impacts" that would be reduced to "Less than Significant with Mitigation" increased from 77 to 80.

He said six impacts were identified as "Significant and Unavoidable."

Key changes

"Based upon comments from Plumas County and Cal-trans, the project's proposed direct access from the project site onto Highway 36 has been removed. That eliminated the one significant and unavoidable impact for transportation related impacts," he said.

He also said two new impacts were added to the EIR because of comments received. The two include electric magnetic fields and the Seneca Healthcare District. Graham said both were determined to be "Less than Significant."

For more results about specific impacts, such as the wetlands, the final EIR report is available in its entirety in the Chester Branch Library.

Public comment

Public comments ranged from the desire to know where the treatment plant would be located in relation to fawning and spawning grounds to the amount of water available for nearby developments.

Lake Almanor Country Club resident Aaron Seandel placed most of the emphasis of his comments on the topic of water and water quality.

"I'm concerned about the amount of water available for development--meaning if there is a sufficient amount for Walker, Bailey Creek and LACC, "hesaid.

He said in his review he thought he had read the water issues were listed as "Less than Significant" and said he "didn't see how that could be. I believe the individual studies' science were contentious."

He also said there are many people who are concerned there is not sufficient water. "There might be now, but not after buildup," he added.

Fishing guide Doug Neal said, "I am concerned about logging and construction silt in the primary spawning area for rainbow trout."

He also said the area was a fawning ground to the Tehama deer herd and he has seen eagles nesting in the area.

"The biggest impact would be to approve this project-- Bailey Creek, Foxwood and all the other developments are struggling," said Neal.

LACC General Manger Rich Archbold criticized the timeline in which the EIR was released for review. He said it was "ludicrous for anyone to read all of this in approximately seven days."

He spoke to his concern about Walker coming into direct contact with the boundaries of LACC and said the "EIR was totally inadequate about addressing our boundaries."

He said Plumas County was responsible for roadwork and damage and asked, "Who's going to care for our roads? Plumas County can't even keep a dog catcher em-ployed."Lake Almanor West resident Carol Bornhorst said she was concerned about road usage, hotels, golf courses that are supposedly paid for by increases to county revenues.

"I am concerned about the potential of those increases; we have a mall in Chester that remains empty," she said.

Hal Jensen questioned the need for development at all and certainly not in what he called "one of the most important spring areas in the Basin."

He said, "Chester looks like a ghost town with a mall with 10,000 empty square feet, Subway is empty and so is North-woods and you're proposing another 100,000 square feet of commercial space. Who's going to plant the trees and re-water the lake when it all goes belly up," asked Jensen.

Russ Greenwald addressed his concerns with the Peninsula Fire Protection District's sphere of influence. "There is a lot of confusion with mixed LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) messages," he said.

His concerns also related to the urban-wildland interface: "Open spaces should be defensible spaces."

In his final comment he said, "Before construction we should have an evacuation plan."

Ron Morales of the Honey Lake Maidu made two clear statements.

He said first that the Su-sanville Rancheria was just a small reservation. Next, he said, "The Susanville Rancheria wants to monitor the project--we want to stop it."

Project location

In a description published by the Plumas County Planning Department, the location of the proposed Lake Front at Walker Ranch Planned Development Project is listed as being in the northeastern portion of Plumas County, eight miles east of Chester on the northwest portion of the Lake Almanor Peninsula.

The county document also states the project encompasses 1,397 acres of land south of State Route 36, north of the Lake Almanor Country Club and west of Plumas County Road A-13 and Clifford Drive.

The site is bisected by Bailey Creek as it drains into Lake Almanor.

"As a result of the natural terrain and open space preservation areas, the site is physically divided into two halves, the north and south area," said Graham.

Project description

"The site plan for the proposed project identifies a mix of land uses including single-family and multi-family residential uses, It also includes a commercial area, hotel-spa, an open space dedication area, open space buffers and golf course land uses," said Graham.

The conceptual site map of the north area is comprised of seven land use areas totaling approximately 1,032 residential units on 270 acres. It also includes a nine-acre commercial area and a 14-acre hotel-spa with 150 planned rooms.

Also planned for this area is a seven-acre wastewater treatment plant, 37-acre recycled water storage pond facilities, 22 acres of collector road right-of-way and approximately 110 acres of open space buffers.

The south area is comprised of two land use areas and an estate lot area totaling approximately 642 residential unites on 369 acres.

A 256-acre golf course and approximately 112 acres of open space buffer are included in the plan.

County documents note that the planned development permit would also allow the provision of a one-acre building envelope for a future residence within the open space buffer along Lake Almanor.

Certification delayed

"As I consider certification I must consider comments. I received two letters today, 10 pages each," said Wilson

"I will not render a decision on the document today. In order to fully consider the letters and your comments today, I am going to continue the hearing," he added.

Wilson said it would be at least October before he completes the process of consideration and that he would return to Chester, to the same location, to announce his decision.

"There will be another public meeting. When the project comes forth you will have the opportunity to speak," said



Copyright 2009 The Chester Progressive, Chester, California. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from SmallTownPapers, Inc.

© 2009 The Chester Progressive Chester, California. All Rights Reserved. This content, including derivations, may not be stored or distributed in any manner, disseminated, published, broadcast, rewritten or reproduced without express, written consent from DAS.

More from The Chester Progressive