Controversial Tuscan Ridge rolls forward County supes vote in favor of Skyway housing project

by Yucheng Tang
posted Jan. 3

Butte County’s supervisors have approved the controversial Tuscan Ridge housing project on the south side of Skyway, but the developer must still jump hurdles related to water, sewer and drainage.

The supervisors voted 4-1 Dec. 10 to move a project forward that will plant 165 single-family homes where the Tuscan Ridge Golf Course was once located between Chico and Paradise. After the Camp Fire, the site housed the PG&E base camp. The entire 163-acre project area will include six commercial lots and houses that are between 3,000 and 20,000 square feet in size.

Almost 16 acres of commercial lots will house facilities including a gas station, convenience store and a mini-storage facility.

Some of the people who filled the board’s chambers for last month’s meeting – including a few supervisors – were concerned about water and sewer service for the project. Some members of the public, speaking during the public hearing, opposed it because of fire hazard, effects on Paradise reconstruction or other impacts.

District 3 Supervisor Tami Ritter, who cast the lone dissenting vote, told ChicoSol she was concerned about the esthetic impact, cost of fire insurance coverage for residents, air quality issues caused by more car trips, and lack of public services.

The board majority certified the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the Tuscan Ridge Planned Development Rezone, the tentative subdivision map and took other steps required for the project.

“The next step is for them (the developer) to work on completing their site improvement plans and conditions of approval to record their first phase of the subdivision,” said Mark Michelena, senior planner at Butte County Development Services.

Michelena said that are steps that have to be taken before development can begin, like “a lot of improvement plans for drainage, road improvements.” Different county departments will be involved, he said.

The project, proposed by Tuscan Ridge Associates, LLC, has been in the works for years.

According to the EIR, the proposed maintenance of the project’s water and sewer lines would require an extraterritorial service agreement or annexation of the project site into the Paradise Irrigation District service area, which would be subject to Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval.

District 1 Supervisor Bill Connelly addressed fellow supervisors and the audience, indicating he’s worried about water and sewer services that still have to be worked out.

“I’m not against the project,” he said. “I’m nervous about approving anything that doesn’t have proven water and sewer; I’ll leave it at that. Just saying that you’re going to provide service, or maybe you’re going to provide service, puts a burden on LAFCo.”

Ritter said she was concerned about the potential impact on groundwater and groundwater-dependent ecosystems caused by drilling a second well.

Board Chair Tod Kimmelshue, the District 4 supervisor, said at the end of the meeting that he has concerns about putting large developments in unincorporated parts of the county.

“I would much rather have developments like this in an incorporated city where they can provide sewers, where they can provide police and fire protection,” Kimmelshue said. “In saying that, this has been on our radar since the 2001 General Plan, this is what is allowed in this area.”

District 2 Supervisor Peter Durfee talked about the housing crisis that exists in California, suggesting that was a reason to support a project that would bring additional housing to Butte County.

Durfee compared the controversy around Tuscan Ridge to the contentious discussion of Valley’s Edge in Chico. “Realistically, what we have here is another Valley’s Edge,” Durfee said. “It’s people that say they want housing, but ‘we just don’t want that type of housing,’ and ‘we don’t want it there,’ which I don’t think is fair. So I will support this project,” Durfee said.

Ritter acknowledged the housing crisis but disagreed. “We are in dire need of housing in Butte County,” she said. “Yes, I agree we need housing, but I’m not sure this location is the spot. This is our foothills. We know from our water conservation department that is our primary recharge for the Tuscan Aquifer.

“I think we need to have the water and sewer information completely mapped out before we even bring this forward,” Ritter added.

In comments later to ChicoSol, Ritter said: “Usually before a project would come before the board, they would already have contracts in place. We would know where the water was coming from. We would know what entity was going to be supplying that water. We do not have any information about that (this time).

“I don’t feel like all of the costs are going to be borne by the developer,” she added. “I feel that the residents of Butte County are going to be the ones who end up bearing the cost of this, not just financially, but in terms of the environmental impacts, the air quality impacts.”

Doug Teeter, District 5 supervisor, supported the project during the meeting, arguing that most impacts could be mitigated.

“I do have a belief this is someone’s land. Even though we say it’s our foothills, someone owns that land and I think they have a right to develop it per the county zoning rules,” he said.

Teeter said one of the reasons he wanted to be a supervisor was because of the potential for development in unincorporated spaces. “I thought that was an exciting place to be. And it’s taken so long to finally get some things in front of not just us, but other communities,” he said.

Allen Harthorn, executive director of Friends of Butte Creek, opposed the project, discussing recent fire behavior.

Said Harthorn: “I just can’t emphasize enough how poorly placed this is. The Humboldt Fire in 2008 left Humboldt Road, went through the Valley’s Edge subdivision area, and then on across Butte Creek, up the Skyway, over the Skyway, right through this development area. 2018, the Camp Fire came from the opposite direction. Same thing, right through this development in a matter of hours.”

The Butte County Planning Commission also voted 4-1 in favor of the project when it met in November. Henry Schleiger, vice chair, cast the dissenting vote.

“What I’m concerned about is that there’s 15,000 or so vacant, undeveloped parcels above this, in Paradise, in Magalia,” Schleiger said. “What does this do for their property values? Those property values have plummeted since the fire … I just kind of feel like that’s an irresponsible approach from the county when we have such a huge problem above us.”

Yucheng Tang is a California Local News Fellow reporting for ChicoSol.