HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15 OF 21r �
86-686
-
Continued hearingJoseph Burrell - appeals the Planning
Donna Mooberry/Joe Burrell TGeneral, Plan
1405)
Commissions denial of
amendment (item on which a draft. environmental impact rep rt
has been prepared) from orchard and field props to agricultural
residential- on property zoned A-5 (agricultural - five acre
both sides of Muir Avenue south of Bell Road,
.}**
parcels) located on
gest of Alamo Avenue, north and east of the Southern Pacific
(File 84-45). (from
Railroad and 'north of East Avenue, Chico
1114/86) (HEARING CLOSED AND C0NTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 1986.)'
«� ra«�.,�W-, �,,., �..,.�. � � � ,,,1;<,+�sr,P- dr -,raw- �-a'-*-*•� �ac"�" � t is � sir"#"k `^�+trl�-, r.,
i/R�� ��l►,F "�'F,
w��kN�..
,R`
ro-..y BVsM
n B' �%1;1� 'S`�+1'�T .��^1, A.��L�•��••yy���
�y,46.2
i
I. Joseph Burrell appeals the Planning Commission's denial of
�. Donna Mooberry/Joseph Burrell General Pian amendment (item on which
a draft environmental impact report has been prepared) from orchard `
and field crops to agricultural residential on property zoned A=5
(agricultural - five acre parcels) located on both sides of
Muir Avenue south of Bell Road; west of Alamo Avenue, north and
east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue,
Chico (File 84-45)'.,
!3.Report to the BoardDonna Woberry/ oe Burrell; et al - denied
General Plan amendment (item on which a draft environmental impact
report has been prepared) from orchard and field crops. to
agricultural residential on property zoned A-5 (agricultural
vie acre parcels,) located on both sides of Muir Avenue, south
of Bell Road, west of Alamo Avenue, north and east of the Southern
Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue, Chico (File 84-45).
INFORMATION ONLY.
44.11 Joseph Burrell - appeals the Plahning Commission's denial of
Donna Mooberry/Joseph Burrell General Plan amehdmertt (i,,,
on-
which a draft environmental impact report has been prepared)
from
orchard and field crops to agricultural residential on property
zoned A-5 (agricultural five acre parcels;) located on both
sides of Muir Avenue south of Gell Road, west of Alamo Avenue,
north and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of
Easlt Avenue; Chico (File 84-45), SET HF_ARING U Tk FOR OCTOBER �1,
1985 AT 5.30 'P.M:
'
/+„♦}
+'.iiilii�?yI9oR1r\'� �i�' �"�1"�:.1fu..i�Ml�.'ri �'4'iilTii4'+ee«s':idln/�e4h!►r:.�"1 �#,7i3111��..��r:r "�%Sa!`au"'y' a-.. �..q«-r�..v,-.r w•-Fi",�`�"""al"ijw`
Donna Mooberry/Jee Burrell, et al - General Plan Amendment
(item on which a draft Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared) from Orchard and F;eld;Crops to Agricultural
Residential on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural - 5 acre;
parcels)
westlocated
lamo Aven'ue,sides
north andMuir eass4b'of south of Bell
Road
of the Southern
Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue', Chico. (File 84-
45)
Al Beck discussed the mitltAt 6h measures. He requested SR-S1 road
standards rather than SR-:S2 for 03 because of the way the area was
developed. He requested that #6 say "from all parcels" instead of "to
all parcels". He felt it was impractical on #7 to design for a 100,
year, storm. He stated that there were underground systems in this
area anti he suggested a 20 year storm design.
;staff stated that Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls did a study that included
the Bell Muir area three years ago. Oliderground systems are usually
designed to 10 years, this is. what Chico is using now. Staff stated
that it is a policy consideration whether they want to have an
underground or above- ground systemi, if you have an above ground
system you could increase the carrying -capacity of the ditches.
Chairman Vercrus_e stated _that: .the Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls _study was
not for the purposes of infrastructure, tett was for the Purposes of
outfall from, rural areas southwest and, out to the river.
Staff stated that Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls assumed that there would'
be a little ,bit of development, but the pipe sizes will accoinmodate
more development. There is a point at Which you can not havea
smaller pipe because you can not get in to maintain it. The 'minimum
pipe is 6"
Al Beck felt that a 100 year storm was too much to plan for. 'He
stated that the maximum usually worked with is 20 years. Item 08 of
the mitigation measures is for connection I to community sewer. He felt
that the. septics were acceptable,
Commissioner Lambert stated ghat they could leave the last sentence
offs beeauee they, will have to comply with the nitrate study;
Al Beck discussed pressurized mater systems compared to wells on '09
He objected to 014, police patrol. Putting in a ones-time fee be a fee
for this' area doesn't provide the benefit that benefit adsessinent 'fees
are supposed: to provide. It is customary for districts to provide for
the construction of roadway improvement's, but the ma"intenarice comes
out of their 'gas tax money.
Chairman Vercruse asked if there was an obj`ction, to c -hanging the
wording. 'Instead of "forming a district` "the applicants would not
protest any future assessment needed in order to provide adequate
service levels.•,
Al Beck stated that as long as those eervice levels ars: related to the.
benefits that the people in the area receive, then he would have no
objections, otherwise there would be a legal objection, taxing them
for benefits they don't receive.` The wording as it starts out in
number 2, pro rata share, is reasonable.
Chairman Vercruse was looking for appropriate language that we, know
that the people recognize that infrastructure will be needed and
service levels will have to be paid for and that they Hill not protest
having to pay for them;. ,
Mr.! Beck felt that these should be listed, because a drainage system
has to be maintained. One of the biggest problems is:non- maintenance
of surface drainage channels,
Mr. Schoenfeld, Cussick Neighborhood Council, and they concur, with
many of the impacts identified in the report and with many of the
mitigation measures suggested, they .did not agree with the mitigation �
measures on traffic that suggest solutions that are vague as to
financing and timely implementation. To proceed with this Proposal or
any other in this 'part of the Chico area without a Well conceived
implementation plan acceptable to all parties is an invitation to
degradation of the property values and the gUality of li.fec He was
opposed to the project for the above reasons and because it would
remove prime class soil from potentiau ag.. use. They oppose this
proposal as it Would not deal with existing substandard land, division
patterns. They recommend that the Commission r;,tle against thioOPOS61 as ill i
advidedi
stated that there ar^e many bowling alley
shaped, lots, These' lots do lend themselves to an efficient use by
residents: He felt that thehomes should be clustered and the rest of
the 'land should be Out to agie use. He felt that this project was
premature
Chairman Vercruse stated that they had asked staff to research the
Board's determination on the Bell Muir area and its status"wi.th the
G`reenline policies. If the Bell Muir area Wtd- intended to be
considerred as 'part of the M-ednl ne and come under the jurisdiction of
Greenline policies'then all of the points he just raised are well
taken However, it was her recollection at the time of the
consideration of the Bell 'Muir area that It was created as a study
area and was not to be considered in the same light as other areas
westerly of the Greenline. The 'Board made a motion clarifying that
position in 1983 and sent this Bell Muir area back: to the Planning
�. 419
Commission for a General Plan change to the urban side with the
stipulation that the Greenline policies did not apply. The Bell Muir
area had been identified as a study area, and by a majority vote the
Board could relocate that line only for Bell Muir when certain
considerations were takon,, to include traffic and drainage
specifically. She would like this clarified
Mr`. Schoenfeld stated t iat if this. is 'the case, then their points are
c.ot valid. He still would ask this Commission to deliberate on the
matter of the land division of this area.
Joe; Burrell,. 2947 Nord Avenues stated that it was his understanding
regarding depth and width of frontage towards the street, that if a
lot is 300 ft. deep it must have 100 ft. of street frontage, a 3.1
ratio.
The hearing was closed
Chh61rman Vercruse stated that if they are talking about encourao1ng
large lot development, she sees it as a buffer between more intense
urban uses and ag. uses. She has a problem with the minimum County
standards that we have for large lot divisions. She realized that
t:iey are bahanding the cost of infrastructure and the intensity along
with needed "improvements, but she felt that the County's minimum
standards are not adequate for a large area of i acre lots. She
wanted to know if there was--a 1»fay to suggest stronger 'standards. She
discussed ,the problem with not having a specific plan, but she would'
like to suggest that'prior to approving anything that they have in.
mind stranger standards.
Staff stated that for the road standards, they could attempt to find
something i n between the two standards that wet-e recommended. Staff,
wanted to know if they were looking for more width, or sidewalks?
ChairmanVercruse felt road ttandards foi* the potential number of
parcel sp, I I ts, for private drives is out adequate. In terms of the
drainage., they have not; seen a drainage pian. She is looking for
where they can go 1n terms of procedure to 'require some of the
standards. IS it possible to include a specific plan as a cohdltion?'
Is it posti'ble to include a drainage plan as a condition?
Staff +:'--ated' thait they could 1fic 1 udd a dra i nage plan as a cord i t 1 on ,
but, it, +asses a number of issues as to who is resparsible to spay for
it, who is going to prepare it, eta. the County has entered into ;a
contract where the residents agreed to pay 6 cartsin amount for a
certain 'amount of work and this would be an expansion. It would be
hecessary before a drainage plan could 'be prepared to know what the
development: pattern would be. There are a number of ways to iinpleme,nt
mitigation measures, Iseis form a distrrict, have a Bell Muir plannift.
area with policy statements, draft a new zone with atabdards, etc.
Chairman Vercruse did not want to create another new zone. Still
there is no overall comprehensive plan for the Bell Muir area.
Staff stated that if they have direction from the Commission as to
What .road standards they want, and what drainage standards they want,
they would be a long way toward knowing; how those portions of the -
Infrastructure would work.; and the layoutofthe houses, layout of the
private drives, the amount of property, devoted to privates drives are
things that they do not know at this time.
Commissioner Walter stated that as far as hong narrow lots are
concerned, once they .are created you can not eliminate them. As far
as -the overall project is concerned, he read the EIR and looked at the
area. He felt that this was a checkerboard EIR. He did not feel that
the EIR had muchvalidity. His conclusion Is that the primary use of
the land in the subject application area Cs orchard and field crops.,
The rezoning of this area';at this time would compromise the ag
operation that is in existence. The present use of the land ;is Its
most productive, logical and proper use;, and partial or spot zoning of
sections of the application area would create Illogical development,
and ;gross inadequacies in the cost to the various property owners for
the improvements required. His recommendation is that they recommend
to the Board of Supervisors that the whole project be dropped.
Commissioner Lambert agreed, -and she was. -not ready. to do a General
Plan amendment on this site. She felt that they needed to look at the,
entire area; more needs to be done. We need to have drainage plans,
sewer plans, and need to know where they are going in this area, and
she felt that a specific plan is exactly what they need;. She felt
that it was an ag. use primarily, and 'a productive' use. It is good
sail. She felt that they needed some time to deve'lop'a specific plan
for the area, and with the Greenline consideration coming forward next
year, they will have time to bring these things forward using what the `
applicants have provided;. We need the time to find out who is going
to pay for What, hor, much infrastructure, and what is going to be
maintained blit of the gas tax, and what `is gbtns to be maintained by a
d'striet. She felt that, there were concerns of circulation, traffic,
drainage, ;sewer' versus septic tanks and Ca'i Water..
Ito carried
moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded y
and for denial. as follows er Lynch
was. »deo b � Commiseior►
A. find that the requirements of cF-QA have been
completed, and considered noting 'that an
Environmental Tmapct Report was 'prepared, but riot
certified' as complete and
b, Find that the pr6066ed :General. Plan Amendmtnt is
J
r
not consistent With, the policies of the Butte
County General Plan in its entirety in that the
present land use is Orchard and Field:Cropst the
project would have a detrimental impact to
agricultural uses and the agricultural economy in
the Chico urban area; the project would promote an
illogical checkerboard pattern of urban
development; more specific information is needed
on the improvement standards including drainage,
sewer, road improvements, and a layoutof
improvements; a comprehensive_plan, for all
improvements is needed in order to make a finding
that the project complies with the Butte County"
General Plan; a specific plan is necessary to lay
outfuture development patterns; and
C. Deny the proposed General Plan Amendment from
Orchard and'Field Crops to Agricultural
Residential forr that area known as Bell Muir
located in northwest Chico and more specifically-
defined in the Hell Muir EIR incorporated by
reference fMooberryfBurrell?.
AYES'. Commissioners Peabody, Lynch,, Lambert, and
Walter
NOES': Chairman Veecruae
ABSENT e' No one
ABSTAINED: No one
Mott6n carried
Chairman Vercruse,asked if this is denied now, what has to happen in
order to dove?.op a specific plan? Staff stated that a plan can be
developed one of two tsys i�'s•g a matter of who initia�7,ea it who
funds it. We, acknowledge that there are planning needs in the County,
and if we wait until we have our own resources and staff it could be a'
lent time. We have discussed 'the poasib ility of allowing private
applicants to initiate this processf and It is not exactly 'clear what
:the agreement would be. ghat they have discussed is that the
applicants would have to pay for any consultant worst, the application
fees, etc. They Gould" pays A portioh, of the staff time devoted to
processing the project. Staff felt when It comes to spearheading
cbeotings and helping to develop goaid and policies, that these could
be provided if the department kns.de a commitment of the staff resources
to that projoctx Staff stated ;that they would need 60% of the owners
to Digin the applicAtion and be in support of iti it they had 6bx of
the owners they could:; miDve on and do the entire area;. The EIR and the
I xpanded alternatives sectl.on did "address the entire block-.
IWT96+r
3�
Donna MooberrY/Joe Burrell; et Al - General Plan Amendment
which a draft Environmental Impact Report has been (item on
prepared) from
Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential on property zoned
A-5 (Agricultural - 5 acre parcel ) located on both
-aides of Muir
Avenue, south of Bell Road., west of Alamo Avenue, north and east of
the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue) Chico. (]file
84-45) (Continued open from 8/13/86).
Staff submitted a memo dated 8/19/86.
Al Beck, Eco Analysts, stated that the applicant would appreciate a definite: set
of mitigation measures He ttatzid that the major consideration is drainage and
sewage systems. He said they needed help to Suggest funding mechanisms. He
discussed benefit assessment districts. He stated that benefit assessment
districts were being supported by the courts. He stated that they would haVt to
establish a benefit between the fee and the land.' He felt that traffic was the
largest impact. He requested that this by made a, part of the Chico Urban
Transit. Plan,
Commissioner Lambert asked where the funding was coming from and when, for
traffic.
Ai Beck stated that road fees have to be on an area wide
Lambert discussed the traffic on 8th Avenue, basis. Cotnmissoner
stated C taking press ure off of East Avenue. He
Mr.
stated'that.t8th Avenueitin the County. He wanted mitigation be
asurts
to be specific, x.e. funding mechanisms, road fees, He stated that. the rbin,
g
p g p urban;
Rolls did a d'xaina a tan for the whole nd
e area,
area conce t has to be addressed. He also stated .that Rolls Anderson, a
Chairman Vercruse "stated that the drainage in the area was bad, tier. Beck stated
that you have to look atthe overall drainage,
Chairman Vercruse stated that she was looking for something that showed how this
can.drain to the west..
There Was a brief discussion on a development plan for the area and being
reviewed_by the Commission,
g . w�
Comnissione<: Lambert asked what draina �+ studies have been done,
p years that 1•fcdaxn did one en Rolls, And
Mr.
Beck state therson; and Rolls just. a
cuu1e a ago. Chairman Vertruse stated that tbbbre was another one being
done by Mown and CaldWell, but it does not xncludt het;«,!fair,' It was staff's
understanding that Brown and Caldwell might incorpotata the Ro11s, Alderson, and
Rolls in parts in Chapmantown and this one too;
V172t "rF"� »a _
T�, "1i�`'r,M�' a�°'4,�4afi1tii+w
,,ex,�Y�s,,,.x_ '"t'w'"..!:'�,5i8`*1FS�_ .fi'!NV,x!"'�•r fwrdr>,C7.. Mom
r
Commissi.c.ner Lambert asked how costly would it be to pr
indicated the type of prepare a map that
YP drainage or what type of sewage, circulation, where Cal
Wader is, etc.
Mr. Beck stated that he had an old map of Cal Water hooku,is, Staff stated that
they have the Brown and Caldwell plan now for sanitary sewers.
any storm drainage plan. We do not have
Chairman Vercruse asked, is it anticipated that should the EtR move forward as
adequate for General Plan Amendment will there still be a Specific Plan for
this area?
Staff stated that they believed that there should be
areaa specific plan for theeast over . Brest on the part of
� some property owners to the south and
There
the�sameissues that are being discussed in
impacts, drainage impacts,. this plan, i.e., traffic
g p A committee -has been meeting and working on
recommendations as to what should happen on contiguous f has
roperties.encouraged this group to contact the Mooberry/Burrell group. StaffStaf felt that a
specific plan, that, was all endompassing, would be advi able, but staff a'1so
feels than it is unfair to t.nese applicants unless the rest of the committee is
also involved in it.
Chairman Vercruse stated that if they do consider this as partofa larger area -
that this area ,is distinct in a number of ways, particularly that it had been, ;
P y ,
up to this paint and. ce in in the future on the west side of the Greenlino:,
which makes a difference in how you look at it, a buffer between a and
urban -as g,
that this area was differpntas othex'properties to the east and south, She felt
Staff stated that it is different, but will still be derjendent upon thw
infrastructure to uirements.
q It does not ,have a ma3or access that is outside of
the other area. It totally rependent on East Avenue:'
Al Beck Commented on the specific plan stating that he agreed with staff that it
would be better to have a larger area and a more definite idea of what the otter
infrastructure need's are as wart of the specific plan requirements,h
Chairman Vercruse asked, what happens'if the General Plan is approved based on
the documentation in the EIR and the speai£ic plan in process and they get
aPplicat_ons coming through, where would they stand?
Staff stated that if the project wa's approved ais proposed,, unless there was a
pzovision for an Urban Reserve that would require Cf--rtain other things to occur
it was going to happen, p' then they would have lost the ability to say how
before, the start to dwelo
a r n* p p .` Y if d General Plan Amendment w
Chairman Jercruse asked abort the ossbilit
g were
pp axed a£ incorporating as one of the condition. the Urban'Reserve concept:
Staff stated that this might be used as Wel! as the mitigation mQasures,
r "'(�' Vit`" tit
�w
-. -. .gyp♦..e a . i
Al Bec4� stated that the applicants have paid for this application because
depending on another area meant several years of waiting. He did not want the
people in the area to have to wait for a specific plan to develop.,
Mr. Beck discussed sewer and wells. He did not feel that with one dwelling unit
per acre that there was going to be a problem with sewers:
Chairman Vercruse stated that the County needs to look at how much cumulative
effect are they going to tolerate from septics within an area before they want
to commies to upping the density to making it worth putting sewers in, that one
acre lots are the breaking point,, that 5 acres are fairly safe, Between the 1
acre and the 6 dwelling units per acre, where do you ;decide how 'much are Iyou
- going to tolerate andhowmany within an area are. you ;going to tolerate? This
Commission has never been asked to decide that, and it is something the Board
will have to decide when they face the, Nitrate Action Plan. There was a brief
discussion on types of soilssuitabl.e for septics.
Hathew Webber asked the Board for some costs and the engineer did a lot o.f
things abut infrastructure and drainage, etc. road, but he felt in the final EIP,
there are some estimated Costs for improvements in the area and they range from
$8,000 an acre to $40,000 an acre: He owns 2 acres in the area and he is, Ot
minimum, looking ,at $16,000+ He did not think that anyone had mentioned water
line costs, and fire hydrant costs, eta:, and these things have not been brought
to light.
Chairman Vercruse stattad that the costs are paid by, anyone wishing to develop
their land, not necessairly those that live there; these are development costsi
Assessments would be district wide and the boundary lines would have to be
proposed; Benefit assessment 'districts 'can be established, and if 10% object it
goes to a vote. The Board could establish ;a benefit assessment district and
determine boundary lines, if 10% of the people within those boundary lines
object to being ,ncluded then it 'would require the..Board to put that measure on
the ballot and vote;
Mr, Webber stated that on these costs, corsideting the acreage that at the
present time is available,.are running between $25,00.0 and $351000 for a 1 acre
lot. He was concerned about the cost with another $8,000 to $41,000 tacked on
Commissioner Lambert asked which costs are borne: by the developer and which
costs are area wide.
2.
Chairman Vercruse pelt that some of the mitigations that are identified here
could be broken up into things that could be borne at the time of development;
and some would have to be included in it larger area. The things that would be a
larger area would be sheriff protection; fire protection, traffic. A'road fee
could not cover the infrastructure needs in this area on their own: It Would
have to be included in a Chico urban area study. Other things such as drainage
requireMents and development standards c-5iild be parcel by parcel;
Commissioner Walter asked which costs would Hr, rabbet have to pay when he is
not going to deVelap, he is already there:
Nfix"" 1 r ..1 m ,144-,ya."R.'""`"'�p"k WgJ�j4�r.`tr`^'M+"' '!4" 1 _'�i91{"' d�.i�, L+�r°`,'ltµ•$ii A n� .
Y.
tha
wer
ed
o U
Chairman Vercruse stated those things that road fees.,
Hehwouldrnotehavecto pay
n
Area as per CATS study, development fees, r but anybody doing
anything unless he tried to something with his propertyi
en they would pay
anything, i
i.e. for school :fees,: if a' bedroom was. added th
school fees.
Commissioner Lyn
ch stated that if it's development fees then the developer pays
one
as it's developed; if it' a benefit assessment district
enl v sygo ngato.
beHe
felt that they needed to understand that, hat the only
'. it is set up as a developer kind of, a fee for whatever
the developer is when .
purpose.
Al Beek felt that certain 'fees, such as fire fees, that are standard for
Fire, hydrants have been. looked at as being shared by everybody., He
everyona_ y r.
stated that benefit assessmentpeople
whopaysbenefitaassessments, Andtheneed
Theta was A brief discussion P
acre parcels.
to know what is necessary
-for development of 1
had tface the question of funding
chairman'Vercruse stated that they have.not �
mechanisms. 'This Commission has never seen a presentation on benefit assessment
districts: cular site
Commissioner Lambert discussed the concern for dramag a on the.parti
where development is occurring,
but questioned where the drainage goes
ultimately if not perhaps impaCing the neighbor down stream.
Mt, Beck stated thatthisis why staff talked about the
need for a specific
plan,; You coud approve only so many lots before you had to start being
concerned with downstream influencer
The Commission has to decide which s .re.
standards have to be required for development of 1 acre lots. which thing
benefit as and areawide like fisc, sheriff, drainage, and fire
hydrants: Than if 10% of the residents decide that they don't want to accept
the decision of the Board of Supeiwsors, they will require a vote. tie sta+fi:d
that when, you go for the benefit assessment district you have to se'erupaacel,
specific valuefor each parcel, you have to specify the exact cost p p
and you establish a base core and go from there.
t
assessment district and
os
e a benefit _ '
Commissioner Walter asked, if fou prop to have to pay for whatever
someone does not want to develop, is he still going
d changes are required? re etas a`discussfon on who pays
roe
Mr, Uck stated no, the developer will pay, The
ghat fees.
Commissioner Lynch asked that assuming that they approved the coning changes ort
the basis that there were going to be some benefit assessment districts and then
the people in the area voted down the distric striould the zoning be aonditibr►ed
icsl
upon the approval of the benefit assessment d
Staff stated that they do have conditional zoning. At this point Ih time they
are talking abbot the General Plans Even if the General Plan changed the
eklstirg A=5 conforms either way'
. would be at the zoning level then
tbad
the possibility of more development could be proposed.
Nb
,. ... •...y., �+'4-ngjG«,`Me" ,�.»:�4
0
s'*
y Wli
L
U
Chairman Vercruse stated that if the general Plan Amendment goes through the
zoning that exists now is in conformity with that
designation.,
Commissioner Linch stated that when yca�u get to the point of the rezone, and you
,*
are talking abr itt assessment district's, it seems like the a,:.ts essment district
would almost have to Come before therezone otherwise the rtzone is ineffective:.
Doris Shell, 2715 Rodeo, stated that she has listened to dovelopers and heard
about septic tanks, and d she sees hosp.s ubeing built out in 't,lais area that don't
-
seem to he going though this proce-s She sees 1 acre parr..els'down the street
from her, the road has not changed, they have a well out in front, they have a
septic tank. She felt that they were being pout upon and wanted to know if it
y g ine.
was because the were on thea side of the Greenl
Chairman Vercruse stated that the reason they are different is 'because they came.
in earlier, and they have not been through a rezone applicati.on,: They have
probably had their
parcel
map filed for sone time or they Jt,st ttiert lthrough a
parcel split an zone that conforms. Those parcels could have been
sitting as smaller parcels for some 'time without any development. All those
people P have to do is get a building,perriit.
Doris Shell discusseda in the development tees over a period of years instead
P y g
of all at once.
Al Beck stated that road fees are usually paid for up front. Fire and drainage,
g es
sheriff are ongoing fees: Same fees are long term maintenance fe
Commissioner 4Falter'briefl dis d op p oz` lack of it.
y
cusselce rotecton
Joe Burrell did not Agreethat
'�
the property middle . He said they
had no flood controlP ems roblduriti the last big stormo 8
Lee Turner stated -hat this wasn't true, t:,hat some of the properties do drnin
into the subject teeA.
Harsha Wiemer was concerned about the traffic on Mur and concery�:G with
density. She also stated that there, is a drainsga roblem in the Ruir and Bell
area.
Commissioner Lambert asked about the meetings in the area. Staff stated that,
there are groups contiguous to the south and east that have been meeting:
Staff stated that they ate going to contact the College for a traffic count, an
origin and destination study oft this portion of Bast Avenue from Highway 32 east
to Esplatta&� and will report at the next meeting.
Cliairm
an 'Vttdtuse stated that she and Cammissioner Lambent will go through the
mitigation treasures and,briiig back a report.
Nelayne Turner stated that there was A lot of traffic on Muir Avenue.
116
vLl BUT"�E CCS "�;ritiNrtG,.o►�bt� M�`
'` ; rtv
'waw Y. dttfi' Y
Donna Mooberry/ion Eurrell et al. - General Plan AMendtnent (item on
which, a draft Env*trorunental Impact Report has been prepared) from
orchard, and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential on property zoned
A-5 (Agricultural
- 5 acre parcels) located on both sides of Muir
Avenue, south of 'Bell Road, west of Alamo Avenue, north and east of
the Soot''°s`i Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue, Chico, (File
84-45)` (Co!jtAnued from 6/25%86);
Staff stated thatY the consultant n has rewritten the EI R documents and they were
submitted to the Commission, The primary changes are that all the costs are
- included and the, _consu ltanc'`s recommendations, r.itigation measures and off' -site
improvements come to $'8,400+ ;per acre. This does not include the provision of
full urban storm drainage or sewage disposal. If these, two items are included
the per acre figure would inflate to $41,000. -The cumulative impact analysis
has been rewritten as requested by the Commission and staff helped identify the
area of impact as being located west of Esplanade, north of Lindo, and east of
projects PP denied within the
Highway 31, Staff -included all ro ects a lied for and not
last two years. Going through the cumulative analysis the Commission will find.
that the proposed project, rerresents 47� o
f the dwellng units only 15% of
trips. The consultant was Present to answer quest�ons.
the vehicle
Commissioner Lambert 'wanted clarification on the 47% of total dwelling units and
ierips. Staff stated that when you take all the ro'ects that
15% of vehicle t P J
have been __appl' d for in the last_ two years, you can count up how many dwelling
units you will have and how much traffic yoti will generate -and out of those
projects there will be some commercial with no dwelling units, but a lot of
traffic generated,
.. ds� sGreenlineesetbacks,sagricult
►,
agriculturaliststandsresidentstarermitigate' 'y agricultural
p g P
use notices restricting farm equipment use to TOO a.m. to 10x00 p m..", and he
ranted to know what was meant by Greenline setbacks,
Staff,stated that the consultant had suggested such things as clustered
ment and/or limiting the placement of residences w1
thin
thin about 200 feet of
the Greenline, which may move them closer to the front of the lot rath':r than
the center of the lots
Commissioner Walter discussed the difference between agriculturalists and
residents. He felt that the agriculturalists would also be, residents. Chairman
Vercruse stated that some might be, but not all.:
Staff stated that in'referring back to the docur ent it does read, i`new urban
development within 200 feet of the Steenli.ne be set back the maximum feasible
distance consistent with the applicable zoning requirements," it does only,
apply to thd new urban rises.
Commissioner Walter discussed clustered development; Staff stated that they
could develop standards in the implementation section of the document, whereas
part of the planning policies would apply to later development, which might
include; restricting the development within 200 feet of the rear lot line when
it bumps up against the Greenline, or placing residential dwellings wi-hin 100
feet, of the road in front of them, clustering within75 feet of a cul-de-sac and
leaving the backs of the properties open.
Commissioner Lambert stated that restricting farm egvipment use from 7,30 a.m.
to 10;00 p.m. is a Concern;
Chairman Vercruse stated that she would like to continue this item for input and.
review of the new document. She raised the issue of whether or not the
Bell -Muir area would have to meet the finding requirement in the greenline
language last time, it WAS staff's opinion that it would. Staff stated that
this was still on the ag. side of the greenline. Also staff stated that they
would review the original records and report to the Commission regarding the
appropriate findings.
Chairman Vercruse felt that the polis; nseded to be changed, because it was not
the intent to ?nclude this in the Greenline findings; She 'felt that the
Commission could not, 'meet the findings and this process is futile in light of
those findings,,
Commissioner Lambert felt that this was set aside as a study area, but on the
agricultural side of the Greenline and' had all the requirements as any other
property on the agricultural side of the Gteenline.,
Chairman 4'ercruse stated that her understanding was that yes it was on the
agricultural side, but that it would not remain so if certain problems mere
addressed and solutions were found The commitment} therefore, to keeping it
there was not present and this is why it was identified as a.study area: There
eras a discussion on changing ,policy. language. She felt that they were 'spending
A lot of money for nothing if this project could not meet the findings:
Commissioner Lambert stated that they had the same options as ariy applicant
Chairman 'Vercruse:discussed the traffic and drainage problems in the area.
The hearing was opened.to the public,
Al. Beck was present to address what was in the BIM. He thought that this was a
special study area and that•the applicants slid have a chance. Rii felt that they
did not have 4 chance based,onesome of the interpretations of the Greenline.
P f agricultural easements to that now parcels
that are created have a notice on the deed that states that they are next to an
Agricultural use and that they are going to be subjected to;noise, dust, etc.
Re stated that faith the nprovemants trade in the 9YR he felt that the basic-
requirements have been met. Rd discussed street i.tnptovements. lie felt that the
only funding that can be considered for such.t'ings as traff;c have to be area
wide. The Chico urban Area 'Transit Study is trying to,address this, He
discusw. d the drainage systemsj if the entire area developed to lots of ond.
acre or .less a urban drainage system would be needed, but the line is About .141
acres
.U.,l t � �'�:� f � '� it�5 ��n�}.: s44 ."'ij`y,�4i; 44i'c• . 4 � S -:-I rJi; " v"
''+ -+ ».v.•..
Commissioner Walter asked .if ag. easementshave been tested in court.
Al Beck stated that they have never been tested in court to his knowledge.
Commissioner Lambert asked if there were storm drainage in the area.''
Staff stated that there was a 1985 Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls plan for sewer.
Chairman Vercruse requested that. this be continued to 8/27/86 at 3:00 P.M. for
the neighbors to have :input:
Commissioner Lambert asked if they should notify the citizens committee.
Joe Burrell Was against special invitation unless everyone receives an
invitation..
an
Al Teck stated that when he `Was talking
Abut the Chico other thinz,sUrb�'heseearerareatwide
Studyj'he was talking about, 'Last venue ad
problems, P e people to pay for all the 'improvements.
l
pm5, and you
can not expect these
Chairman Ve:rcruse stated that all public hearings are open. Area wide problems
have been identified and need to he addressed on a Chico Urban Area basis.
Staff stated that they have acontracted ttended twoY►earings
econsultanand�staffnwouldelike to
hearings. The consultant h
save the third, hearing for 'the Board.
Commissioner Lynch shearina to Aigust$27ne1 Lambert, and
10
It was movyd by this g 986 at 3:00 P.M.
unanimous) carried to continue t
Comments will bd distributed to the consultant, and he will not be present at
that meeting.
Al Beck stated again that he has his same objections to the recommended
mitigation teasuxes, for instance the Sheriffs Department. It is ridiculous to
receive no benefit. Sheriff's i7epartment as a
ask the applicant to contribute a sum of money to the
mitigation measure if they
g
:: .:. , ...... . .:._ a,�.w.r'w.i+a-n»ers:•,mR'Y`.r�i^mnr-a+rgi:,tni�+wi'�+1++"�'"�'�'�r�i�. ������. -�0li,�i' 'i" +�Lr"b-.�-� 1 :i•. ti .�+r.,*'�„ ..�+ S
Donna Mooberry/Joe Burrell; et al. General Plan Amendment (Item on
which A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared) from
Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential on property zoned
A-5 (Agricultural - S acre parcels) located on both sides of Muir
Avenue, south of Bell Road, west.. of Alamo Avenue; north and east of
the .Southern Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue, Chico. (File
84-45)
The Commission waived the reading of the Staff Findings,
Staff stated that this hearing has two purposes. Staff posted a map of the
area: One purpose was to consider the General Plan Amendment; the second is to
determine the adequacy of the DV.IRi A copy of the 1982 hand Use Plan h's been
posted. '!The General Plan Amendment raises a number of planning issues which
have: been listed in the staff report: focusing on the integrity of the
Greenline; our planning efforts to redirect growth to the east side; and whether
or not a l acre parcel size, which would be allowed if the General Plan
Amendment is approved, would supportthe cost of extending the infrastructure
which would be -required. This is an agricultural area in terms of the types of
toads, the lack of drainage, and the lack of any kind of urban improvement
whatsoever. The second map posted showed the locationS of structures. Overall,
the roads have 'residential structures up and down With large orchards behind.
The.applcant's consultant prepared a third map which was posted showing parcels
of 2 acres or ,less in yellow,and locations of dwellings. Thr EIR was prepared
under contract to the County; the consultant firm is.Earth Metrics, represented
by Brian Kennedy.
Brian Kennedy, product manager with Earth Me-tr,ics Inc., stated that he was there
letters.v�Thesetlettersona owilltbeQaddressed ;in theFinal
EIRt him seve
addin comment
to Albert Beck, Eco -Analyst; representing the applicants; stated that the
applicants had major concerns, one of which is that the Mitigation Measures are
so generals In the Mitigation _Measures some are specific and some are very
general, -and the concern is that there is no established County mechanism;at
this point to indicatet to the present owners and future buyers the eluent of
costs and services that they can expect. The applicants recognize that they
Will have to make some improvements and will have to 'pay for them. One of the
concerns of the applicants is that the EIR does not separate out those that are
on a very local basis; i.e.; pressurized water system for hydrants, drainage;
and those of a,tnore general nature addressed on an area basis, i.e., traffic
signals far Eatt and Esplanade, schools, library, police, etc. He felt that the
staff's comment of setting this up as A special planninp, area is one of the
steps that the Commission should recommend to the Board. This would establish
an overall level of improvement necessary for development. Future development
was discused, and concern with the Mitigation Measure for the Sheriffis
bepaxtment., recommending an impact fee. Mr. Beck felt this is :a policy decision
and should not be part of an impact fee structure or, adopted as part of the EIR.
He stated that it may be 'useful to recommiend to the Board that they reconsider
the adoption of special district's and allow the people within those districts to
pay for approved levels of service.
�: Yy. y't 1it intV T&M Yammko
ii"�1J t
Chairman Vercruse stated that she was having trouble with the EIR. When the
E
ne was drawn and the study area was designated, he-- understanding of the
process was that they took input regarding Bell Muir during the Greenling
process, the area could have gone either way. Commercially it is not
supportable as-commercial-agricultural, and there was not the support in the
Agricultural community to make a commitment to keep it in agriculture; but
because the parcels were large, and because of the planning problems, draining
problems, narrow roads, good soil, etc.; there was not a strong feeling that
this should develop either. When the line was adopted it was said that if this
area could urbanize, it was not: to be precluded from urbanization, if certain
things were addressed. The things that were talked about that needed to be
considered were a drainage plan for the area; and a traffic plan for road
improvements for the area. This is 'a planning area. The idea was that there
was a need for specific planning for the area. This is not addressed in the
DEIR
Staff stated that after, the identification of this as a study area, the Board of
Supervisors initiated an action to possibly consider a General Plan Amendment.
The Board then directed staff go out with art RFP for this and two other, areas.
When staff brought the cost back to the Board, tkle Board "ri."ed to not take,any -
action. As a result of this the applicants decided that they wo!,j : rake it upon
themselves to initiate the action, using the RFP that. was originally pr .pared.
prepared g original REP.
The EIR was re' area: salon the dines of the
Al Beck stated that one reason :for the map that they submitted shows that there
are some large 'parcels surrounded by development that°has steadily encroached.
He also discussed development Cost.
Commissioner Lambert _asked. 'if they were talking about a total area of 270 acres
or if it is more?
Staffstated that when the Board initiated a General Plan Amendment for this
area, the Board used roads for the boundaries. The private application being
considered here is approximately 270 acres within the road boundaries that are
not contiguous, because the applicants paid for the >;IR and the applicants felt
that
those
theGeneralpeople
PlanAmendmentribinetheothe cost ElR processf one ofthe
Roreq remetitsis to
included
consider project alternatives, One alternative was to consider using the
Board's suggested General Plan, Amendment area which ,follows roads, etc..
Commissioner Lambertasked, if service areas or districts were formed for the
infrastructure improvements, would it include ,just those who are paying for "the
EIR?
Staff stated that a district with discontiguous boundaries is going to have
serious problems. Staff stated that there are a number of small parcels, and
about 752 of them are developed that were excluded from the General, Plan
Amendmentarea
Al Beck added that the people who contributed to. the 9IR are concerned about
including idedallotot aof lotstof to north Bell... Road where people. already have a
tubdiv+
pall for any more i.mpravements. this limits
their chance of getting a service area. Ue felt that thea should "set standards
for as wide an 'area asp ossible.
Robert Olson, Alamo; stated that he drove around the 'area,. He stated that it is
about 2/3 agi land that. looked healthy and productive.; He questionedhow; many
new residences are in the proposal.
Staff stated approximately 30 within the project area.
Robert Olsen stated that the S -R and SR -I has a lot of undeveloped area in it,
He questioned if the area needed more residential development.
Joe iBurrell stated that out of the 400+ acres there were 132 homes.
Don Heffren stated the issue was the Greenline. He, felt that they needed a
study area. He was in favor of this proposal. He felt that there was a need
for l acre lots in the area,
Chairman Vercruse stated thatsheunderstood that neither the coalition, Farm
Bureau,'Commissioners, or Board, had made a commitment:for this, area on the west
side of the Greenline, And that is why it was separated out. She asked Mr`
Heffren if as a member of the Farm Bureau Board. of Directors -rind a participant
in the coalition, if that was his recollection also. Mr. Heffren stated yes it
was.
Doris Shell, Rodeo, was in 7favor of the project. She stated that they can: not:
farm the area, can not make money. Rodeo Rdaa* she said, was 2/3 houses.
Nelsyne. Turner wanted good land in ag. production. She Wanted them to protect:
the good soil+ She stated that they were not bothered with nitrates, but if
this is allowed to go into one acre parcels there will be problems with
nitrates. She was against the project.
Chairman Vercruse stated that the EIR did not focus on the traffic problems,
drainage problems, etc.
Dar-ia Shell stated that the traffic problem is worse than it used. to be. She
did not feel that a few more houses would increase traffic that snach.
Mathew With the cost. He stated that: construction
equipment would be needed o h pays ;who
Webber was concern�:d
pays for sewers, water lines`tee�r�ads; who a s for maintenance of roads
Chairman Vercruse questioned Mr. Kennedy on the t1k, she asked if he was
addressing this from the standpoint of proposing a project to mitigate certain
things that were raised in past hearings. Did they approach it Froth the
standpoint that they recognized documeent:ed testimonies and hering and
decisions that have been made apto that point and to recommend specific
mitijlations for thea licantsre the "you documenting reco nixed problems
PP , or we
y y g $ P I
that needed somehow to be mitigated?
Mr. Kenriedy stated that there was an intent in both areas, Fie stinted that their,
ability to define specific mitigation measures is limited by the policy
deci.siohmaking that needs to take place and the decision that needs to take'
place prior to a specific develnment;proposal. We should recognize that this
'
is a draft: EYR: He was there to heat what the Commission needed from the
d ocumdht in terms of specific mitigation measures.*
Chairman Vercruse staffed that as outlined here in the. EIR, participating in the
Master Drainage Plan for the Chico Urban Area says nothing. It does not
pinpoint any kind of infrastructure requirements for this area. She stated that
she needs to know: are they willing to form a drainaSe district if they dos,
what will it cost applicants; what do they want to do with the district; and
where do they want it to go? How is it going to work?` She was disappointed.
that the EIR was not done for the whole area:
Commissioner Lambert questioned that the ETR was paid for by the people in the
area, but is it not an impartial EIR rathev than an EIR as they have ha, in the
past, 'done for an applicant by an applicant?
Staff,stated that this was an impartial EIR. It ".gas limited to the applicants'
property because they paid for the EIR. A,_larget area was considered in the`
project alternative section. Staff stated that the application provided for a
project, and there was an alternative section that, discussed the entire project..
If thei concern is that the alternative was not discussed in depth enough to
respond to the questions that are being raised, this reeds to be.considered'
before the Final 'EIR is prepared.:
Chairman Vercruse felt that the 'EIR was done backwards: rather than have that
be the alternative, the whole EIR would have been written using the area, and
the alternative wuuld be to limit it to
numbers would have been different_. the people wh'o:we.re .coming forward, The
Staff stated that the project was not the whole area; there are little islands,
and you could not
really look at it as A whole,
P -
GIR was concerned,
Lambert asked what they could do at thJs point as far as the draft
EIR wase. concerned,:
Staff stated that this hearing, I's, 'for both the General Plan Amendment and the
EIR. They might want; to take -the EIR first and have comments from the
Commission today; which would help to bring the document tip to a level of
adequacy'.
Chairman Vercruse stated thnt she would like this RIR written to include the
whole area, to include all the impacts, and would liketo see the Mitigation
Measures specific to the area and not dependent upon whatever. master plan or
Yong range plans exist for the Chico Urban Area. She felt that the Mitigation
Measures as outlined are inadequate. She would like to see more documentation
in terms of impacts related to the density as proposed with these applicants
included in the whole, not just individually; She would like to see some
infrastructure proposals, how to, solve the drainage, where to put the pipes and-
culverts
nd
culverts, where it is going to drain, and the costa She would like to see What
it would cost and how much they would have to improve the
to roads within
tare,
area them n ' ai-tf districts are being proPosed, she
would like to set thogdistricts Po osed as an areawide
district. riot just
lines and host,
"related to those applieants. She Mould also I,ike`,to see projections for sewer
.,
in addition to this, they can not look at this
`w�,►is.,ionet
Lambert stated that
isolated item within these boundaries
because they have a great deal of
! ireaciy zoned for residential rise, the Northwest Chico Rezone, that has iot
.M
i
._......
?t
There is a committee working on the area Surrounding this, west
been infilled bacau5e of the density.
of'tlae Esplanade, who want to reconsider existing zthi'
They are concerned with the impact that. is already there should the area.
buildout to General Plan densities:
Chairman Vercruse stated that one more thing she would like to see included is,.
that nothing should happen here,unless the urban boundary line, City sphere of
influence of the Chico Urban Area is expanded to include Bell Muir. This would
take agreement on the part of the City. She stated that she would like imput
from the City on this issue should the Chico Urban Boundary Area and sphere of
influence be expanded.
Mti Kennedy felt that this reflects a change in the project description and
woud require some specific findings made by the applicants as to what they want
to propose and what has been addressed, He stated that he will have to work
With the Planning Depart6ent and applicants;
Coam►issoner Lambert stated that the Commission had alternatives pointed out by
staffs one was the possibility of making a decision, yes or no; another is the
middle-of-the-road approach such as an Urban Reserve, which has been used in the
past., She was not sure that there was any advantage to An Urban Reserve.
Restricting development to 5 acre parcels.
staff Mated that the Commission Is not considering a rezone, subdivision, or.
use peVAit, so other methods must be considered to assure Mitigation Measures
are implemented, An Urban Reserve overlain on the existing General Plan
designation could require the accomplishment of the mitigations before[a change
of the General Plan or zoning. staff suggested that if the Commiss?an
pp nclude a specific
recommends approval of :the General Ptah Amendment 'they mist
means to implement the Mitigation Measures- _
1.
Staff stated that they would have to look at the RkVat for tae DETRhe 'if there aare
issueo that have 'been raised by the Commis
gion ddt
description, then the contract must b -e, additional the costeneStafftsuggestedand ethatlthistbeould have
to agree to bear any a
continued open and let 'us report back: ,
It was noted that there was a consensus to ollow`up on this:
is that they
Al Beck stated that one of the eoncerne informats, of the ionithatswas necessary totmakewhat
they paid for, The applicants want thCo
this a complete EIR for the proposed project. He stated that is 270 dcrds, Ifthe,
Like to make it for x+00 acres, the primary project
Commission wants a larger study, it should be the Planning Ctftnmis,sion that pays
for it
Chairman Vercruse stated that tsue the larger EIR, wouldn�t it
at if they can not par
still be pertinent to their project area to in
de the cumulative impacts
recognizing nizin what is around 'them.
Al Beek stated that those are required by CtQA and would not be a new,project.►
C. Michael Hogan, 'Ph.D.,
President, Director of Physical Science'Programs
Ph.D., M.S. Stanford University; B.A., Princeton University
Dr. Hogan has directed the performance of more than 200 environmental analyses
in the past nine years in California. He has developed and validated models
for the dispersal of air pollutants from highway,_airport and other indirect
sources of air pollution,. He developed environmental guidelines and ordinance
for numerous governmental agencies and corresponding implementation and
enforcement, plans. He has developed computer models for the dispersal of air
pollutants and propagation of transportation (including buses, transit
1 vehicles and roadways) generated noise.
Dr. Hogan has directed Environmental Impact Statement or Report preparation
_ for fifteen major sewage treatment facility expansions,. ten ft,deral aid
Highway projects, three airport expansions, and other flood control pro,ects-,
water conservation projects, and land development actions"_ Managed
environmental analyses related to Coastal Zone Planning, 208 Comprehensive
a Wastewater'Planning, Urban Mass Transit Development and Forest Management
Plans. Managed preparation of General 'Plan elements for twelve California
counties and cities. Directed the demographic, traffic, air, and noise
analysis g P g f Bay
Toll Crossings. PDirected Da�field �measur measurement pro ram1forntheia DUvSslon oof
Environmental Protection .Agency,to acquire a data base for the dispersal
air pollutants from highway sources
Dr. Hogan is an expert in environmental analysis of state of the art rail and
bus systems. He has analyzed or inspected rail systems in Amsterdamr Zurich,
San Francisco, Tokyo and New 6kleans. He has directeed the noise and vibration
analysis for the Baltimore Regional olitao aentathrought Statement (all trans-
ortati.on alternatives in the metropolitan 1.990) and condurted
Pthe western United States. Produced noise, vibration, air' n
the air, noise, energy an, traffic analyses for several major transportation
corridors in
quality, microclimate, and lighting environmental guidelines for the Ui,S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development+ Directed the 1973 air, noise,
quality program in. y Of
and water ualit data assessment Midtown Manhattan for the ,Cit
New York.
1 He is an invited member of the National Highway Research Board Air Quality
Committee. Chairman of the Highway Noise Session of the Third Environmental
Symposium, Menlo 'Park, California. Authored �vver 50 papers on environmental.
quality; land use planning, sir quality, community nose, and wager quality
including dritries in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency Technology
Series, the Journal of Air, dater and Soil Pollution, The Proceedings of the
Journal of Physical Chemistry, the
American Society
of Civil Engineers, the Jo`Review. Directed the
California Public Works Proceedings and Physical.
development and.`testii►g of pesticide and herbicide runoff prediction models
for the U.5 Env�.ronmental Protection Agency. Was National Science Fellow and
Princeton Unil6t sitssionalsro .Foundixg Director of the Association Of,
Past
Environmental Profe Past member of the `Technical Advisor Co
for the San Francisco 'Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance. Plan. He has serves as
an expert -,vitness in'environmental hearings in seven states.
®�® ®l9rtil metric E?
r4-5
gay Wilson
.Director of Planning Programs; AICD
MRCP Kansas State University; B.A.,"Vanderbilt university,
Ms. Wilson has extensive experience in all aspects of community and regional.
planning, including land capabilities and land use analysis in the urban and
rural environment. She has detailed familiarity with land use and other
technical General Plan elements under California requirements including the
requirements for local coastal planning. In addition, she is skilled in
redevelopment projects and growth management policy as it relates to legal
code.
At Earth Metries, Ms. Wilson is a senior _project manager and has managed an
array of projects involving complicated environmental, land use, and insti-
tutional analysis including projects requiringcoordination, review, and
app`r`oval of multiple jurisdictions. Recently she has supervised the prepay=
aton ofenvironmental studies for the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame,
Carmel, Millbrae, Mill Valley, San'Luis Obispo, Novato, Monterey, and the
County of Marin. Specifically such work includes preparation of General Plain
elements, detailed 'land use, socioeconomic, and visual impact analysis in
' Environmental. Impact Reports for residential, commercial, recreational; and
transportation projects; and assistance in the land use and institutional
analysis of water quality and wastewater management programs, including the
Clark County 208 Program. Ms. Wilson directed the North Santa Clara County
Solid Waste Management Program. Several of these programs have involved
management of public participation programs, involving both neighborhood,,
y g ops, and dissemination of public
Information. Mse Wilson mhas iagstrong k'record for coordination With regional
agencies and is particularly familiar with the requirements of the Office of
Planning and Research, A45 review process, HUD and EPA review and funding
r requirements, State Parks and Recreation, State Solid Waste Management Board,
and the California Coastal Commission, BCDC, OALTRANS, FHWA, and 'UWA.
Ms: Wilson has strong project experience in transit and transportation
planningin California and Oregon. ears she has supervised
past four y
reparation of over 15 transportationEnvironmentalImpact Statements,
including the S.W.`89th Avenue/lnterstate 5 Roadway Alternati.vies EISt
Washington County, Oregon; Route 87 Corridor 'Protection EIS, Santa Clara
County,
California; White Roars Widening, Ery> San Jose; the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) Daly City Station Tuenback Improvement Project EIS; the
Westside Corridor Alternatives Analysis, Portland, Oregon; and the Guadalupe
Corridor Alternatives Analysis EIS, Santa Clara County, California,
Prior to Earth Mdtrics Ms. Wilson has 'four years of public agency experience
g ities Ms. Wilson performed as
in bothlon 'range and current planning aetiv
the Acting Director of plannin8 and Building for the City of San Bruno, which
included supervision of four staff members, preparation of department work
o the City Manager, City Council ,and
Planning Commission. other, f advisor t n preparation of 6,11
program and budget, and stat
;cork included participation i
Use
elements of that city's review of plans for planned unit development ,
permits, des ign reviews, subdivisions, and making staff' recommendation to
fanning Commission and City Council. Ms. Wilson previously ;Served; as program
coordinator for the nine cities involved in the North San Mateo County Noise
Abatement Task Force:
' P eerth Metrics
44
Curtis Alling
Senior Environmental Planner; Director of Natural Resource Management Programs
M. Ag., Texas A&M University; B.S., Cornell University
Mr. Alling is experienced in numerous aspects of land use and environmental
planning. His specialized areas of expertise include the analysis of land use
and social impacts of development in the coastal zone, recreation and open
space: resources planning, visual resources assessment, community and resource
planning policy analysis, and mass transportation impact analysis. He is
thoroughly familiar with General Plan requirements, California Coastal
Commission use and.resource planning programs. P other
California andBay
Conservation and Development Commission policies, and
Earth Metrics, Mr• Alling, served as a senior project manager
Sinandclanduse joining lanner. Recent projects he has supervised include the
P
preparation of environmental imptec reports for roadway widL,'ix'.-ng, hillside
residential development, and commercial and regional shopping mall proposals.
Mr. Alling has directed interdisciplinary analysis teams on numerous complex
projects, including mass transportation alternatives analysis; postal facility
site selection; environmental assessment and engineering evaluation; and
construction/reactivation of Department of Defense installations. He has also
conducted land use impact and policy analysis for several projects, such as
wet weather overflow storage facilities; planned unit development housing,
mixed commercial and regional shopping development, and scenic highway
t improvements. In addition, Mr. Alling has performed socioeconomic impact
General Plan elements. 'Through his project work,
analyses for proposed county
r. l, Statelitg aAndY uFederallly Agencies,prepared
inc„luding eheaFederal documents Highway
way numerous
ineers Urban Mass Transportation Administration
.local,
Administra-
tion, U.S. Arm Cor s 'of Eng ,
P
and the U.S. Postal Services Mr." Alling i-s specifically experienced in the
ansportation development projects under
preparation of 4(£) statements for tr
joint sponsorship of UWA and FAWA. He has also analyzed wetlands and
prepared Section 404 Vetlandsl Permit Applications .and has managed the
preparation of historical and archaeological analyses for EIS inclusion,
p Y encompassing q the National Historic
s ecifcall encom assin Section.. 106 re uirement� of
Preservation Act.
Prior to Earth Metrias, Mr. Alling was the senior enVironniental planner for
Roy Mann Associates.,. Inc•, a Cambridge, Massachusetts ,based landscape arahitec-
ture and environmental planning firm. At that firm he served as project
manager and tesource analyst for numerous projects including the environmental
impact assessment of a propbsed sand and gravel excavation, the evaluation of
recreational boating in the New Jersey', coastal zone, environmental "tburism
program master plan far McIntosh. County, Georgia and recreation planning tot
1 'Boston's 'Southwest Corridor Project (a $60 million multiple use transit
corridor). Other previous experience includes the analysis of recreation use
and development in riv.erine and coastal environments of Texas and the compre-
hensve evaluation of state programs for the protection of wild and scenic
' ri�hers.
earth MetrlC S
4-'i
Marc R. Pa P'zneiu
Traffic, Air Quality, and Energy Analyst
M.teA., University of California at Berkeley; A., Hat�erford College
Skilled in trip generation and distribution analysis, as well as modal split
r and traffic assignment. He is experienced in all facets of roadway and
intersection impact analysis and design, :including capacity, levels of
service, signal warrants ,and timing, chanhelizatio-a,' a+'d safety. He developed
several traffic analysis computer models.
Mr. Papineau has prepared ,air quality analyses for numerous Environmental,
impact ;Statements and Reports for projects,in the Western U.S. He has
developed air pollutant emissions inventories and future year forecasts of
emissions, and he has applied microscale and mesoscale dispersion models in P
variety Of Case Studies, lan Clef*elopiaent projects, airports, and several Air
basins. He has'"tLana'gcd the compilation o% seg.*.exal regional air_n;sality and
meteorological data bases.
His recent ins+oltfement in 'major air quality programs includes direction of a
two ;ronth carbon monoxide and particulate monitoring program in Tualatin,
Oregon (leading to preparation of the Indirect Source Permit application)i
Butte County, California Nonattainment Plan; Medford, Oregon Transportation
Air Quality Study; Las Vegas Valley environmetmal study for the Clark County
health Llistrict under the federal 2
OS Program; and direction of a twelve month
morii`toring program at IT Corporation (leading to preparatir' of evidence for
hearings before the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San
Francisco)
He has also performed the energy and air quality analyses .for the Guadalupe
Corridor-A'_ternatiaes Analysis, San Jose and the Wo stside Conridor Altetna-
ti�.�es Analysis. Portland, Oregon; and an economic and energy analysis fot the
proposed waste management Alternatives for the. Durham Road S3nitary tandfi;ll
EIR, Fremont. 'Assisted in the preparation of. .air quality and noise analyses
for the White Road g dect ExS (San Jose, California). Applied
dispersion modeling tech►iiques in air quality analyses for.' Buchanan Airport
(Concord, California) and Stockton Airport (Stockton, California). Prepared
air quality impact analysis for the kincon de los Esteros Redevelopment
Project (San Jose; Calif.€trnia)t Projected air quality scenarios under, three
alternati:V-e population projections for the North and South Central Coast Air
Basins in env ronmental analysis prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of'Engi
veers. Prepa'r'ed air quality, noise; and energy analyses In FIRS and other
ens ironmeo ll O-Valuttions fur projects in; the San Francisco Bay Area.
Mr. Papineau was recently elected As: a member, of the American Meteorological ,
Society.'
1
Gem
'EMME110
QBf'thrY1t;riC6
Steve Roth
Land Use Planner
M.A. Program, Land. Resource Management, Michigan State University;
B.S., Physical Geography, Michigan State University.
Mr. Roth is experienced in current and advanced planning, land use analysis,
urban design, and has prion public sector planningexperiencei His special-
ized argas of expertise include remote sensing of natural resources; land use
and environmental analysis for large scale engineering and land development
projects; the development of General Community and Specific Plans as well as
the'proeessing f development permit applications. He is'thoroughly familiar
o
with the National Environmental Protection Act, the California Environmental
1.
Quality Act, the Subdivision Map Act, and various other state and federal
statutes.
Since joining Earth Metrics, Mr, Roth has served as Project Manager and Land
Use Planner., Recent projects he has participated in include the revisions to
the City of Carmel�s zone+code, an evaluation of environmental documents
submitted to the EPA on the impacts of Outer Continental:Shelf oil drilling
Survey Report on a
and est r parect for the City of is utpCree Y
bridge oreplacem and preparation of `a Historic nut Creek. Ir addition, Mr,
Roth has supervised' R for a 100 million gallon a day
drinkingWater treatment dplant pInnSanta tClaraCounty and a market feasibility
analysis for a shopping center in north Monterey County,
Pr Earth Metrics, Mr, Roth helped supervise the preparation of
for to�joining
an'EISIEIR and a Transit Corridor Specific Plan fora •5 billion subway,
thern project in Los Angeles for the SOU urbancdesignnandia Rdevelopmentapid tpermitict.
Other previous experience i Architects; and Planners, Irvine,
processing for vtN Consolidated Engineers,
California; government relations coordinator for Mark III Homes, Inc., Costa
+
paration and de Bernardino County, California; and environmental analysips
st/
Mesa, California, county planner doing community plan pre
review for San
project coordinator for
review and .:evaluation of over 100 Watar Pollution.
Control 'Plans submitted to the EPA on contract from Ralph Stone arct;Company,
Incorporated,; g ifornia.
Environmental En ineers,_Los Angeles; Cal
i
1
spur earth metriCs
4"10
i. John Hodges-Copple
Planner
B.S.E., Duke University
Mr. Hodges-Copple is experienced in a variety of areas related to transpor
tation and land use -analysis. His expertise extends to traffic analysis,
transportationtravmodeling and
land eUse imp actler s evaluatione, public . Past workoincludedntriprgeneration and
distribution, intersection and roadway capacity analysis, parking studies
Transportation.Systeb Management (TSM'), public transit and ridesharing
p d traveler response research.
fanning and development,' UiPa modeling an
At Earth Metrics, Mr. Hodges-Copple serves as a planner and project manager'.
Among the ,projects on which he has worked is the Guadalupe Corridor light
rail/expressway EIS in San Jose.
He conducted traffic analysis associated
_with a major commercial redevelopment project in Orange, California and
waterfront land use changes in Sausalito, California. He served as project
r s on 1,000+ unit residential development impact studies in,
manager an ies,, and a senior citizen housing project in
Placer and San Benito Count
Millbrae.
Mr, Hodges-Copple is coauthor of the, updated FHWA publication Traveler
m.,a..anr.»t:a$i nn 9=I0 p°1 Changes (1981) . The study analyzed the
ie to_results of Transportation System Management projects instituted throughout the
United States. Prior to joining Earth Metrics, Inc., Mr. Hodges-Copple was an.
associate With the traffic; and transportation planning firm of Barton-Asehman
Associates, Inc,, in Wa.hngton, DC. He Worked on numerous transportation
planning and traffic engineering studies including transportation modeling in
southeast -Florid
a and Buenos Aires Argentina and traffic and parking analysis
for commercial and office developments in Miami, Washington, DC, and'ithe New
York'City metropolitan area.
earth'rnetHOB
411
A
George W. Ball
' Economic Analyst
M.A., Immaculate Heart College, B.A., University of California at Santa Barbara
Mr. 'Ball 'is responsible for performing economic and demographic analyses for
Environmental Impact Statements and Reports• He has participated in field
measurements and community surveys and has'perfcirmed final synthesis of
environmental documents.
Mr. Ball, analyzed economic and social factors fog. z%ri Environmental Impact -
Statement on a major road widening project in San Jos0i, where he also'
' conducted a pedestrian conflict analysis.: Responsible for land use, economic;;
and socioeconomic sections of an Environmental Impact Statement for a sewer
line extension in Bollinger Canyon, Contra Costa County. Wrote economic land
use sections for an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed Subdivision_
annexation to the City of Brentwood. Wrote land use, economic, and,
socioeconomic sections of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed road
'o improvement and sewer assessment district in the City of Belmont. Analyzed
p p p rt parking :facility in the City of
Burlingamenomic impacts Assisted in development of air quality predictions for the Santa
Clara Valley Corridor Evaluation.
Mr. Ball prepared a cash flow discount analysis in a_solar heating
cost/benefit study for a proposed new town in South Santa Clara County., He
conducted a cost benefit analysis of travel time versus capital and operating
costs for a roadway project in 'San Jose. He conducted economic analysis of a
commercial development in the City of Mill. Valley, including analysis of
market demand and public sector cost revenue projections. He conducted
economic and tax analyses ;of a commercial/residential mixed development in the
Y s -related to business access:
Cit of San Francisco, where major issue
Other recent projects include an economics and jobs/housing analysis for the
Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Blan E1R, fiscal analysis of a waterfront
mixed use project in South San_ Francisco, .and economics aTtd land ttse _studies
of several hotel, industrial park, a,nd transportation related projecta• Mr.
Ball also was responsible for technical review of the Camp Parks ReactiVition
EIS;, Hacienda Business Park in :Alameda County, and hdradtous other projects-
-Odom IP 'eat-th metrics
4-12
`r
Russell B. Leavitt
Environmental Analyst,
B.A., University of California at Riverside
' inpeesvariety of socioeconomic,
.environmental
and stitutionalasssmentsfortransportation, residential,
commercial,
industrial and public works projects. He has gained considerable experience
in jobs/housing analyses and demographic projections of high' employment
related developments. -He is skilled in relating expected demographic and
housing distribution to projected traffic circulation patterns. Mr. Leavitt
has done graduate work in administration of local public services and is
knowledgeable of development impacts on public sector costs and revenues. He
also has broad experience with General Plans and downtown development and
redevelopment programs..
r Mr. Leavitt has prepared the Housing and Conservation/bp
en Space/Scenic:
Highways Elements of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and assisted
in preparation of the EIR for the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan. He:
has performed jobs/housing analyses for, the City of San Mateo Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and Specific Plan, for a large office project in San Mateo,
and several industrial "and commercial developments in Benicia. Other projects
in which he has participated include the BART Daly City Station Turnback
Improvement Project EIS; the Westside Corridor Alternatives Analysis;
Portland, Oregon; Hacienda Business Park Project Assessment, Pleasanton; the
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EAMUD) Wet Weather Facilities' Plan; and
the Guadalupe Corridor Alternatives Analysis; Santa Clara County.
Prior to joining Earth Metrics, Mr. Leavitt served in an internship with the
League of California Cities in Sacramento, applying his skills in communica-
tions and fiscal-analysis: In Riverside, he-prepared a research report -for=
the RivLjrsid'e Chamber of Commerce ;on public services alternatives and
r
performed
mall.ed an economic and architectural analysis of a declining downtown
pedestrian.
1
1
r
ebrrth Metriics
r
5. , PREVIOUS RELATED EXPERIEN
as
assessments in hcompleted
inNorhernCalifornia for General Plan me Impact reports arrd
more than 340 E�:�viro
Plan Amendment projects,
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. We
have particularly strong experience in analyses;of area plans projects
Ithroughout Northern California. Earth Metrics experience credentials most
relevant to the Chi -do Area General Plan ,Amendment include the following:
F.XPFRTRNCE IN GENERAL Pt. NS. SPEGTF'TO Pt NGS AND AREA PLANS. Earth Metrics is
experienced in preparing General Plan ,elements, particularly for noise,,
seismic safety, conservation, land use, circulation, recreation; and housing
elements for counties and municipalities throughout the western U.S. In such
work we emphasize the ;development of workable planning procedures that are
suited to local needs and unique physical, economic and social features of the
community. From prior planning work our staff is knowledgeable on issues of
agricultural soils, infrastructure and locating and planning new developments.
Earth Metrics has experience in performing general plan revision and amendment
work :for over 50 California cities, and counties 'including the Following:
Butte County Mono County Sacramento
BurlingameCapi told Campbell
Los Altos Los Altos Hills Pi't,tsburg.
Moraga Clayton Pacifica
Pinole 1ionterey Benicia
Mill Valley Pleasant ;Hill Reedley
Saratoga Gilroy Aptos
San Luis Obispo- Morgan Hill _ Solvang
Carmel Seaside Novato
a Non Attainment Air Quality Flan
- 3-TONAr EINTRONMENTA._ A.SSMAMENTA. We have undertaker 26 regional assess
merits ;related to 'regional transportation plans, Areawide 208 Environmental
Management Plans, economic activity studies, as well as comprehensive land use
plans: These programs, often involving more than a single county, have
Provided envirobmental evaluation Criteria, screening of alternative regional
plans;' and impact analysis for a selected plan. In some eases, the work has
involved forecasting demographic and edonomi'c activity for the region. We
have learned to perceive the enviropmental and social priorities of each affee-
ted community or interest group within the region and to integrate such find-
ings into a balanced and objective statement. The flexiblity of our computer
models to analyze air quality impacts allows us to synthesize a data base of
significant site and produce practical assessment measures at the regional
scale. These past programs have provided extensive familiarity of our staff
members in problem saving -involving a large number of interacting institu-
tional ,jut•- dictions.
MAATER ENV r :Nm "t,:A.SSBZ,8 g?kts. We .have completed more than 3o Envi-
ednmdntal 1'mpact Reports with Consideration to protection of agricultural
lands,, analysis of infrastructure; water availability, natural drainage; 'vege-
tation and wildlife, viewshed, geotechnical risks, air quality and acoustic
sEAtting. We are thoroughly familiar with the flexibility of using a master
M
I .
r
environmental assessment as 'a planning tool Products of this work can also
include constraint maps illustrating the distribution of sensitive nat_
factors. These analyses have resulted in conceptual recommendations for an
area plan, sometimes involving scenic, open space, drainage, or viewshed ease
ments • many of our previous analyses have involved urban service boundaries
which ;include large acreages of agricultural lands in Solano, Sacramento,
Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, Monterey, Marin and Alameda Counties.
RET.F.('.TED Expr,, TFHCE IN ENVIRONIS FOR PUB I TC WO 1,S PR 7ECTi.
Metrier,has
completed ethan 0Environmental Impact Reports and
Assessments ofpublicworks for city and county- sponsored projects. From this
.experience Earth °Metrics staff is sensitive to the costs of such projects, the
need for projects to proceed with expediency both to obtain funding and to
community,on e need for the EIR to provide
minimize disrupti
practical.. mitigationin the
measures,that and financially be
implemented by the sponsoring agency, Earth Metrics has performed
environmental analysis for diverse types of public works projects including
roadwidenin
gsand extensions. ., downtown
parkin
and circulation plansp
drainage and utility structures, landfill operations, public marina and lagoon
projects, park and recreation facilities, sewage treatment plant expansions,
airport improvements, public recreational arenas ;such as stadiums, and city
beautification projects. The following is a partial "listing of public works
projects:
(3) White Road Widening Federal Air Urban Project,, City of San Jose.
(ii) North Main Widening Federal Air urban Project, City of Walnut Creek.
(iii) Heath/Alaska ,Intersection Improvements Federal Ai"r 'Urba*n Project,
Fairfield, California._
(iv) Monterey and Santa Cruz County Regional 'Transportation Study._
(v) Route 87 EIR, Santa Clara County Transportation Study.
`
(vi) Potbelly Beach Sealer Interceptor ReplacemeaEIR, Santa Cruz County."
(vii) Patton Way Arterial Projeet, 'City of Alameda.
(viii) Countywtide Septage Treatment Facility Plan ETR, Santa Cruz County.
(ix) 30,000: 'person athletic sta"diiml, Reedley State Center Community
College District:
(x) Wastewater Solids pacillitiesi North San. Mateo. County Bayside Unit and
San Francisoo International Airport.
(xi) Col,ma Creek Drainage Study, 'City of South San Franoiseo.
(xi`) no ParSolid Waste Disposal Site, Milpitas; California.
(xiii) North Santa Clara County Solid Waste Management Plan, F''ogram
Cooedi'hatioh Cities of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Los Altos
)sills, Mouhtaih View, Cupertino anal County of Santa Clara.
5-2
(Yi:T) iiellyer Canyon Disposal Site,, County of Santa Clara.,
►.
,
(xv) Skyline Sanborn Park, County of Santa Clara.
(xvi) Alamitos Creek Flood Control and Linear Park',Santa Clara Palley
Mater District,
(xvi) San Antonio Regional Park, County of Santa Clara.
venswood Park and Marina Cit of Menlo Park (in
(xviii) Ra , y progress).
(XIX) San Jose Airport Pilot Project for :Residential Noise, City of San
Jose.
(xx) Decoto Road Widening, Cities of Fremont and Union City;
Fx(717 STNi; .RTIMTES. Earth Metrics has conducted numerous studies involving the
impact of land use and development projects on affordable housing. Specific,
haverelocation conversion
i
Projects, housing elements of GeneralPlans, analysis affolrdablIe housing in
coastal zone locations, development of policies for provision of share
housing, analyses of the impacts of redevelopment on the current housing
stock,, and review of the jobs/housing balance in certain locations. From
these studies Earth Metries is knowledgeableofdemographicpatterns, construc-
tion types, recovery rates, housing supply and demand, and other factors which
can affect housing. Earth WtrLes is familiar with various housing types,
ncludi-ng mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, -single family residential =
,units, houseboats, floating 'hcmes, and ofler types of housing units.
RE_gIDENTTEuT ENVTRONMENTAL 22ACT $EPQ$TS. Sarth Metries has
completed over 150 projects in the last tiroyears involving; Ervironmental
'
Impact Reports for si-hgle family developments. These projects have included
general plan and Community wide issues, including, housing needs, traffic, op-
imus density, geotechnical constraints, visual impacts, noise, wastewater
disposals agricultural compatibility of adjacent 'rural lands, and watershed'
protection:
A partial listing of Earth Metries twojeets for which we have prepared Environ-
mental impact Reports under the California Environmental Quality Act are!
90 unit hillside planned development, City of Novato
l
77 unit ham, rise redevelopment condominium, city of San Mateo
330 unit single family subdivision, City of Pleasanton
600 &are residential development, Monterey County
3380 unit Monterra Planned Community, City of Monterey (in progress)
109 unit residential annexation, City of Brentwood
4170 unit single family subdivision, City of Clayton
5"3
30 unit hillside residential development, City of Los Alto6 Mills
f60 acre Siebe ;Ranch ;hillside residential development Solano County
7.4 unit hillside apartment complex, City of San Mateo
510, unit planned development, City of Fairfield
'80 acre subdivision, retirement convalescent center, Cityof Gilroy`
170' acre 'residential equestrian development in the Oakland Hills,
City of Oa kl and
2906 unit hillside ,residential development, Santa Clara County
(energy, acoustics, air quality, and water quality only)'
390 unit hillside residential development, San Mateo County
Hillside development plan' for undeveloped portion of residential lands
in the City of Pleasant Hill
120 unit shoreline residential development on Richardson Bay,
City of Mill valley
100 unit planned residential community, City of Fremont
50 unit planned residential development, City of Hayward
1200 unit residential/2tO001000 square feet commercial;
Alameda Marina Village mixed use project, 'City of Alameda
180 unit subdivision, Contra Costa County
360 unit single ,
•�� gl family residential subdivision City of Pittsburg,
22 acre planned shoreline light industrial park, City of Richmond
Mr-14& PARTTrTPATvn P8jtRAi-M. Our "staff is experienced in design and imple
mentatoh of'programs to inject informed public comment into the planning pro,
i� cess and also to conduot informational 'programs to communicate progress re-
ports of complex development projects to a diversity of public groups and indi
vidu6is. in conducting over 40 recent -citizen participation programs as part
of EYS preparation of specific project deweYo�,-
meht, +�erare �experienced nin all lforms of workshops, hearingst town meetings,
As well as media techniques. We are especially skilled in using these oommuhi-
r mmunicatin with diverse public
and of con-
cations to aid in early identification of issues and early re
g gr g p lie and private
entities,Wineludn ebusinessin op , gr
s conservation oups, neighborhood and
community grat 06 , and individualLOl
M0=611tkn 9nRMFARGH. We havo UL-11 equipped field and laboratory services
to provide aeasurestents of ambient air quality and meteorology, i e also have
developed computer models fo"r the analysis of Air 0611attion trans
port, trip
5-4
assignment, traffic network analysis, and economic impact (input/output). Our
computer models made practical use of available empirical data, extending the
interpretation of such hard data only within the range :of proven applicabil-
ity. Our computer models have been approved by (and in some cases. actually
Aeyal.op.ed for) most major regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environ
mental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Urban Mass Transit
.Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and numerous
highway departments and air pollution control boards in the Western U.S.
DEFENSE OF ENV ON ENTAL. D()MMENTS. All of the Environmental Impact Reports
prepared by Earth Metrics have been certified by the respective lead agencies
for which the reports Were submitted. -in addition, Earth Metrics has been re-
tained in 12 legal actions to provide expert testimony regarding environmental
documents written by others.' In all of these cases, Earth Metrics testimony-j
and data have been admitted into evidence and our clients have achieved their
litigation objectives. Also, our staff members have qualified in seven states
as expert witnesses onenvironmental matters.
EXPERIMCE `►w H RZ,TAT EtlALLUAT?ONF MANA(;-EM ST AND PRE,
RVATIOjj. Earth Metrics,
has a. full range of capabilities for identification and mapping of t),6ra and
fauna, for locations throughout California, Oregon and Nevada. We ate 'parti-
cularly experienced in regional 'mapping applications. Our biological team
includes wildlife biologist,, aquatic biologist, terrestrial ecologist and
botanist. We also have hydrologists, geologists and water quality engineers,
to supplement the biological, interpretive Work. Our biological team is
experienced in all of the habitat types of the Eastern Sierra and Pacific
Coast Region including coastal and pine/fir woodlands, riparian, estuarine and
Marinezones, chaparral, grasslands, alpine meadows, savannah, riparian set
tings, sagebrush/pinion pine, coastal -foothills and lacustrine environments.
I1RA N ,A[jRnP,P A11A1'.YSiR. EXPE,$IENCE.Earth Metrics has extensive experience in
performing hydrological, water quality, and envirotmmental assessment tasks of
urban runoff programs. Our, staff' members have familiarity with legal and
Planning requirements of the urban runoff and 208 Programs, and maintain close
relationships with staff officials of involved regulatory agencies: Earth
Metrics full time, in house, multidisciplinary staff covers all aspects of
physical, natural-and social science involvements; as Well as planning and
engineering specialties needed in the performance of these tasks. Earth
Metrics has devd aped and calibrated Watershed models to predict nonpoint
pollutant runoff and validated these models for more than thirty five water-
' p .y ida-
sheds iri the western United States. we have: built u this extensive val
tion �rork from the capabilities of Earth Metrios in house wet chemistx labora-,
tory where we can perform physical and chemical analyses applicable to both
Urban and agricultural runoff. Our staff has been active in developing and
analyzing the effectiveness of alternative control strategies for miri,mLzing,
nonpoint runoff.; .
H)tbRotj T At AND fiEnYttENTATTOR' STUDIES FOR F'R8SHVIA"E SIL-'"MS. glArth Metritis
has completed over 60 projects in the past thio years addressing surface
hydrology and sedimdhtation, characteristics of freshwater systams in Central,
and Northern California. These projects have included extensive data col-
lection of hater quality and biotic data, as well as computer modeling of flog
and sedimentation characteristics in lacustrine and riverine systems. Earth
Metrics also has detailed exileriendd in assessing the use of ,treated waste-
.
water effluent for charging lakes, ponds and ;streams. These ,past ,programs
have necessitated considerable liaison With the California State Departiment, of
Fish and Game, ':Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. In the City of San Luis Obispo, Earth Metrics has prepared the
Enviromental Impact Report for the expansion of the municipal treatment
plant, Which addressed the use of reclaimed Wastewater as a partial charge to
District with. an environmental assessment The several surfacestreams and
County Reservoirs. Our past programs have also emphasized compatible
recreational uses for water resources programs. Runoff analysis services
include the delineation of water quantity and quality problems, preparation of
drainage system ,mapping, developing drainage design criteria, and other miti-
ga;tion measures.
EXPFRIENQR IN WAS'T'EWATER .FACILITY- PLANNING ,PRXIRAMS. Barth Metrics staff has
completed 17 EIS or EIR documents for wastewater management programs in
California. The programs have addressed wet Weather facility plans, secondary
treatmentlanae expansions and wastewater transport projects. We are
P XP 1�
extremely knowledgeable in the tradeoff analysis of wastewater management
alternatives involving social$ economic and environmental impacts. Earth
Metrics also has detailed experience in assessing the use of treated Waste-
water effluent for charging hakes, ponds and :streams or for use in industrial
applications. The past programs have necessitated considerable liaison with
the California State Department of Fish `'and Game, Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the City of San Luis
Obispo, Earth Metrics has prepared the 'Environmental Impact Report for the
xpansion of the municipal treatment "plant, Which addressed the use of
reclaimed wastewater as a partial charge to Laguna _Lake.
Earth Metrics representative. qualifications follow.
5i.-6
1
COMMNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING CAPABILITIES
Earth Metrics has ,cad. extensive experience in preparing community wide and.
area plans inCaiifornia, particularly in municipalities of intermediate size
(population 10,000 to 150,000).: These programs have included addressing
requirements of the local General Flan and the related elements, the vocal
Coastal Program, the Naticnal Flood Insurance Program, Areawide Wastewater
Planning,, Sold Waste Management Planning; as well as specific Transportation
Plans.
LAND USEpLANNIING. Earth Metrics has performed many land capabilities analyses.
in order to rally assays the 'land use constraints prior to development of final
land use plan's for an area. Institutional, management and economic constraints
are also 'addressed as part of land use consideration. An important strength of
x planning regtAirements anct
Earth ,ietr;„cs is the ability to integrate diverse
unzque local goals and 'constraints by using our multidisciplinary staff Who
have backgrounds not only in land use, transportation, and recreational 'planning
but also economics; acoustical science, biology, infrastructure analysis, demo_
grAphy a Eeoldgyi g y �
f o water resources planning and sanita,r engineerin'
CC.nfliNlaY PARTICIPATION. Our past implementation programs have been successful,
in synthesizing objectives from cifferent sectors of the community iEiclud ng.
hotaeownccs associations, bus;ness interests, historical societies,"taxpayers
groups as well as groups supporting conservation, public safety; schools,
parks, ,and other specific objectives. Our staff is experienced in conducting
g icipat-ion during the
workshops and.�iubliG ���etin s to accomplish public part
planning process
GOVERMXENLAL APPROVAL PROCESS. In addition, Earth Metrics staff is very
expez'ienced in the state and local _governor r,.al approval processes and tile
requirements of state plannt"ng law,, Our ,est experience in working with public.
agency staffs enables us to work effectively and meet time dttistraints. Earth
rTetrrj4s is fully knowledgeable of the state requirements environmental impacts
an&ly?,es $eneral and specific plans, subdivisions; and zoning. In addition,
membets of the staff are skilled in pursuing funding opportunities and providing
data to obtain 1601, regional.; and fedez'al project approval:
LOCAL i:dASTAL.PLANNING. Earth Metrics has extensive experience in coastal
res'ourt:e management Our staff is skilled in addressing tite main issues io
Coastdl Act policies; Ialudiitg shoreline access; visitor serving facilities;
marine and soil resrJurces, new, development and coastal visual resources• Our
approach stresses integration and 'implementation of local coastal planning
with other aspects of the community planning process
o�i
r
.Odom® Iloilo
G�� earth metrics
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITIES
Earth Metrics has extensive experience in surface transportation planning espe-
cially as an integral part of major lard developments, Principal areas of work
have included traffic reduction plans, circulation elements. of the General Plan,,
transportation corridor selection and parking and access plans for specific
land developments
TRAFFIC REDUCTION PLATS. We have designed over 20 traffic reduction programs for
d.owntow•n businessdistricts in Northern California including conventional techniques
such as simplifying circulatiori and parking search as well as design of incentives
for reduction of vehicle use. We have worked extensively in the analysis and
1 demonstration of innovative transit systems to minimize traffic impacts from office
and commercial centers4 these programs have allowed our staff to compile an inven-
tory of available bus hardware a1%d aisociated capital and operating costs. Our
staff members have also been involved ;in numerous car and van pool information
system designs.
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE __GENERAL PJAN, Earth Metrics provides services to
produce or update the 'Circulation Element of local General Plans, We utilize
trafficg Pp Y
generation and assignment modelU which have been approved b the Federal
Highway 1 Administration; CALTP.ANS' and MTC for predicting traffic patterns. We are also skilled in design of city wide parking plans, downtown circulation plans and
specifying,-needed'; capital or operational improvement programs. A large number of
out projects have involved ralating the Circulation Element Preparation to other ,
General Plan Elements such as, land use; noise andpublic safety.
CORRIDOR SELECTION. We conduct corridor selection analysis for urban roadways;
transit Lines and bus routes: based upon urban traffic models and areavide origin
destination .analysis. In add:it:ton to projecting travel, demand for various corridors
our staff is expert in demographic analysis relating to travel charactetisticsi so'
that we. can make. realistic evaluation of modal split and of ;expected vehicle accu-
pancy. We have recently particip,tited in corridor se]-ction.studies or, environmental
analysis of corridor alternatives in the Sa.ita Clara Vallsy Cort: dor Zvaltiation;
Interstate 505 Corridor Seleation Portland;; Oregon; trail corridors of the Santa
tiara County Park System, Las Vegas, Nevada Urban Corridor evaluation:
PARKING AND-ACCEI';S PLANS. We have c,,�mpleted over 50 recent analyses of parking
And access plans for commercial sites, college campuses and downtown business
districts. Our �rograts vmphasite the &itultaneous considera'tioit of convenience to
transportation patrons and impacts upo;h established land uses along travel corgi
dorsa Major capabilities at Earth Retilds relate to the comprehensive design and
rk
istics,ayouomctbtist and pede8trianodateconveniEnce andid-ad %UU6 sMbimumyimpactsphysiaupon tutrounding
land uses,r
r�
s-a
earth me'Gtics
ECONO,�u IGS CAPABILITIES
of 70 recent economics analyses ranging
from
Earth Metrics has conducted in excess
regional etora',Mic forecasts to individual public and private deveicpment projects.
our capabil4 ties can be grouped in the following manner: (i) cost benefit analyses
of development projects (ii) noetic
market. demand studies and (iii) regional eco
assessments.
COST BENEFIT A33I.YSES OF DEVELOP2 4:'We have analyzed a large number
T pFI.OdEGTS:
of private and public development projects with regard to cost revenue and cost
benefit criteria. Private development: with which we have particular expottise
Ate shopping centers,, parking facilititzs and waterfront oriented deve?-opmentu.
We have also per a variety of stUdies on the public costs and tax revenues
p public
projects we
associated with residential land developments. Principal p
. transport
have addressed are flood control program.,, wastewate- facilities; and trains or
-ation developments.
MARKET D_EMArtiM STUDIES. Emphasis ,is placed upon use of original data surve,rs to.
obtain information on current market activity and projected expected demands.
Principal areas: of investigation include demand for commercial and ot.fice space
p Y' growing populations. Our forecasts also i:onsider such
factorslities as expectredemployees and commercial patrons
willingness of empoyes �o co:itinue
l ent. Normalcy a range of future projections is most suit-
e trip patterns of the pres
• gy Assumptions regarding future inflation rates, g�` the
-able, spannin a range of
p p s;
rices and Chang_ in lifer
REGIOlr�•ECo�O"iIC ASS�SSriE�TS., Wj: have conducted •a number of economicgprof�le
descrsp ECO and forecastsSSIfor entire regions taking into account changes ila popit--
latior., employment, basic industrial. production; tourism and transportation
atterns: Most of these assessments involve projection of regional housing, demand
p _ arks and other services, Earth Metrics has pard-
as as needs for schools; p
as w
r skills in following through the regional forecasts to develop A, fiscal
culaimpact Alirlysis upon public agencies based upon expected eXpend tures for. sitrvices
And projected tax revenuet,
�y��
.. ___
..
I
0
1
1
1
1
HXDROLOGYIkwATER QUALITY CAPABILITIES
Earth Metrics offers servicesin water quality and water resources consisting of
field measurement, computer forecasting and abatement planning. Types of projects
analyzed for impact include wastewater reuses flood control; upgrading of treat-
ment plants and sewer lines (including, induced growth impacts), urban development,.
transportation development, park development, baylands development, and stream pre-
I servation in urban development,, We have.an extensive field monitoring and Tabora
tory capability for water quality analysis.
SyiFACE HYDROLOGY. Staff members have exteftsive experience in water quality field
surveys including analysis of runoff and erosion potential, modification'of stream
flow and channels, watet,table alteration, increases in slide potential, flood'
plain planning, runoff of fertilizers and pesticides into surface waters,, and im-
pacts upon biota. We have 'developed prediction models to assess runoff quantity
and water quality based upon slope distribution, rainfall intensity; land manage-
ment practice, soil type. 9nd ground cover. These models have been successfully
applied to predict 'runoff from construction activities, alternate roadway designs,
trail locations, residential lot layout and landscaping plans These runoff
models include submodels for evapotranspiration, soil ab.Zorption of contaminants,
dynamic dissolution, infiltration, soil permeability and`interflow.
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY. We have extensive capabilities iii assessment of aquifer
recharge and draudo.-n at well as computer modelling capability to examine sub-
surface groundwater flows. We have utilized these capabilities to analyze such
phenomena as sal water intrusion on the California' Coast, subsidence from aquifer,
and groundwater contamination from sandf lls, industrial:opera;tiont, and ieAcbfield
opera "tions .
WASTEWATER REUSE. Earth "Metrics has broad experience in design and analysis of
wastewater reclamation alternatives including end uses for industrial, landscaping,
Agricultural
irrigation
And habitat enhancement. We have extensive monitoring
equpmentandcomputermodellingcapabilities for assessing baseline receiving
water quality or groundwater quality and predicting pdtential water quality im-
pacts of land application procedures in all types of soils and vegetative cover
situations: We. also consider
constituents of treated effluent. p'Waterib
gttalityplanningiologicalworkUptaat Earthke of eMm cal
etri,cs
emphasizes the interrelationship of land use planning and groundwater resources.
The products of this work are often recommendations for land use and transportation
planning (including subdivision ordinances, "street sweeping programs, landfill
monitoring, as well as specific facilities plans modiLications addzessi,ng waste-
water ree,lam,atYon.
-1 i
►�rF rN AGRTCt�'„_p LANDS• Earth Metrics has prepared numerous
Environmental Impact Report addressing agricultural viability, appropriateness
oo soils for crop type, water supply and Watershed management and project
stal
compliance With the California Coastal Act or an adopted LTheaeCprojeetslhaves
is adopted for tie SouthricultureCoast easilyiculture, and of, SanXateO nresidential and recrea
addressed cooperative aur
tional development in the Coaston ief list ofof San erelative experi.enceefor �the
a
Marro Counties. The following is d
Cascade Ranch project':
EIR, Villa Nueva Unit #1; Monterey County: Included analysis of
conformance with the Local Coastal Plan, groundwater overdraft poten-
tial, and surface water quality imPacts of a rezoning action in a rural
setting bordering agricultural and open space land uses.
EIR, New Campu Master I Plan,
Mendocino Community College District:
issues addressed included Potential loss of prime agricultural land,
development impacts related to adjacent agricultural uses (several
grape vifeyards), water rights and supply cultural
and impacts of agricultural
chemicals applications.
- EIR Holmes Lumber Compan,Y timber harvest operations Santem tzdocu-
Mountains• Issues addressed included timber harvesting pr
roundwater recharge, watershed Protection, suroade runoff
mentation, g noise, soils and geology,,
and drainage, erosion control,
cess, and harvest economics.
Land'Capability Analysis,,��)Vth Monterey County: Included a:.,lysis of
--
Firiwe agricultural, soils, (for_irrigated field crops, strawberries) dry
fanned grta�'.,'� and artichokes), natural resource protection in the
Coastal Zuni`- iivalityuse
mpactsresidential
activity, And
er 4u �� r� an9 recreational,
wat pP
E?R, Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan: Analysis included an,
crops; agrti#ic ltucrora production activity
extensive evautivne of etablencrops; agricultural production
seed, and out
(fruit/aut crops; B
ts) involy ng crop dis-
flowers, poultry, livestock, and dairy products) involving
Use, agri-
trends, ag _
cultural expansion potential,etion„ heeds
tribution; crop values;'prodi� r supplycomp
Also ,included were detailed analyses of Ovate
and agricultoal/urban land use n
ibilitea. Al
- and costs, as well as Daher, required issues„
Open Space Mth6gement Plan, Riva RiddgeildlifetmanSanta Cruz County:
_ � agement, t�atershed
Issues addressed included forest an
managements Wa+,er resources,"natural habitat preservation, recreational'
and scenic Uses and trail management.
essment, Sebastiani Vineyards, Sonoma: Included
gb,vironmental Ass (s tier
' analysis of quality and quantity of wastewater runoff gen. rated by
grape processing facilities.
Land Use Pla al Coastal Plan:: Issues
n; Seaside and tontertion�;�watershed drainage, shoreline
ldressed included Mater di:tribu senstive'habitats, visual
access, recreation housing..,
environmentally
resources, 'and public works
5-�2
Technical Report, San Lorenzo River Watershed, 'Santa Cruz County:
Included and vegetative assessments, runoff characteristics,
,geologic
effects of urbanization, timber harvest, percolation ponds, and cover
changes on permeability, and changes in Water balance (severing or
export of treated effluent) in the Coastal. Zone;.
General Plan, EIRv Local Coastal Pian Implementation, Carmel -by -the -Sea.
Specifically addressed coordination With Iocal Coastal Plan, nater
lauds, as
resources and conservation, protection of prime agricultural
well as al -I other mandated General Plan and UP implementation issues,.
I
i
5�13
r'
Oslo earth metrics
1
D....HTZ) ,SAL P3
-CI �vS1S
a
M, r'
o
o41
_.._... _
t
City of ::organ Fi 11. Technical Assis.4ance for
AO se � emee, of tie General Plan
x
Ci;y o= S24-1 Luis Obispo Urban Growth Analysis
in Relation to 201 Facilities Plans
x
x
x
x
X
City of Live�m.,=e, Generaal. Plan Analysis
x
x
x
x
General Plan Analysis
Contra Costa County;lysis
No th San ?�,a teo County P.rea.wide Planning Analysis
t
in Conjunction with Mastewater Treatment Capacity
x
x
x
x
x
x
t. Creek, General Plan Analysis
City �y - of :`alms ,
X
,x
x
'
City of Los Altos, Technica,i IItneral Plan
Analysis
x
x'
City of Santa Paula Uemn GrMeth Ane.l.ysis
!,
Ftela ted vo 2t1 : aciJ i Wits Planar
x
x
x
x
x
Clark Co:nty, ievada Regional Planning Analysis
x
x
x
t
'
Ci -,,,y of a game) ! +'
Sarl�rigame General Plan Men,
x
x
x
City o� iercules, General 2 ft 81e�+W
x
x
x
t
y Area',,rid e TransrOrta Lion
„
lr,resContra Casta CaunWy
Plan and Jrbaji Growth Analysis
x
x
x
x
x
x
'
City oj Noise �enent Ox General Plan
x
x
Sc�: itir -8,t_r. Luils Obi! 'po COZi tY Areaw:Je GtoiJ h
Y
x
x
�ivironren'�a?° lnraet Anelysis
x
:�
r
City o iO cor^a, Gene ^�l � l ..an Asp s and
� e itvance
�nv,4 net.M1
Ass�sva.�ace
4
■ 5--15
�: