HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-42 BLAKELEY SWARTZ GPA (7)�
6r ON
x7
s
C
�
;) �i c c -
lw,W ... W
w of � �
le! �� �4�
i�'
i
S. Fis FerFes
X Linke
Bassa There are no known fisherie'So n the site.
Howeverncreased sedlri1ent
and urban ructoff reaching
Butte Creek. could potentially impact the fishe, which
su poor s s rt, t and fal I runt
T p chlnook Salmon pis Weil as
. _
warms water spec;es.
C. Lands cu'nenti 'utilized fora Iuiture
Y
X
Basis. 'The site is currently used as seasonal 'grazing.
This use Would most, I,Ikely be eliminated
even in the
proposed Open Land and Crazing Area as the urban
area proposed develops, Because the sn'iIs orn' "
the s`Ite,
.,
are of �nargRnai' `value for agriculture sand grazing,
Impacts are riot expected to be significant:,
7. OtheO ( stat(- )
Fur#he,r°
Stu$y The .ores'.
ES token study should be relied on in pre
ring,this section of,the EIRe The constrali t maps "
prepared jn that s0udy should be adapted o in
s'e'
_r
tire: ElR and fo'r' consistency with other constraihts „
maps whicij should "be prepared.
-
Further study should d6termrne >vhch special status
1f
and other intportant.species populatGions grid habitat ori'
the sjte cotaid not be readli"
y
'u
peotaa,ted under urbani
lath's U " Hess eat i5ns.,'S
g pecit scally,; the ptatent;iaf for;'
impacts `riparian
to the hpixed wrest heeds tobe
determinF,do Both dlI-eci impacts,, from gradings and�
„t•iect lirParcts #root' changes i surfaces' &`,g und-
water `flo.W 'fpumping) should' big�
a#t d
,
,
,
Y
l
C O �N C Lt) 1 O}� N
i
C
�p i
w u
... ;,
�r U U
U 'o �� qJ C, C
M
y.
Amitigatiori`measure should be devised recommending
any appropriate reconfiguration ofpropas'd land use
designations, Other mitigation measures which Would ,--
be effective in protecting these areas at the` general `
plan level should be identified. The appl.cabiiity of
T'6_
deer m 'ti,gat on . desto the roect'should,be discussed
" P )
and their ee'iationship to actual impacts on the site-
'should be explored. If prosect. on.cannotbe ensured at
the general plan level, this factshow d'bepointed out
and appropriate recommendations made,.
The: presence of the burroWirig owl 'and elderberry
longhorn beetle within the areas proposed for urban
Iand .use designations should be confirmed or
discounted by further "studies,
le'.impacts of contaminated runoff' on i3itte Creek.
fisheries should be described;
_NOISE;- At ND, ir7ill=RGY FACTORS: Describe' the
effect sof tho "project on 'the follows"rig:
I
U,,, ExistIng' no, se levels Cambient and single event)
X
- :Basis: -- Thi 61 -on ly ,noise' sensitive uses specifical,ly -
^Unkr%
-
prapoSed ori the site Ied retid�ntialr At this bine it
appears ilial residences adjacent to, Neal Road WoUd be;
subject to' traffic nsise. Noise estimates for Neai'k'
are not: r vided in the' Butte Coil
p o my Geheral Plan
Noise Element because of:Idw traffic projected'on, that
Road. liowever,I a rule of thumb prorded .ln the Eie-
Ment is that the 66 dB Lin contour for, high' srr peed
roadways (4055 mph) With ,6000 to 20,tl00,average daily .
traffic" is ,200 feet from': the roadway., Given :that
traffic will 'increase on Neal Road due to `the ip,roem
some of the land planned fo'r residences May ba
affected by the 4si%ltin ;noise. An additional concern
is __wise from the :(andfi ll.
Z.nblent air quality Cby t�ydrmcarbott, thermal,
X Ll►kh
', usirJ►"� dust, sniois�', raciliation, etc.
l#a..5 �
sr .our areas of potential impact may_resiiit ,from
d`eve lopmenl Under the prroposed land' Usedesignatidhk
1) du`st during construct#ok, `)1ldtjtt from the iand,fill;, �
16
` S ,
n _77777-
tibr
m
I ,
,.w
F" I
t
N
1� S N,S;
1�
.
v'
y C N
lOhi; from .ndustrial,facilities;
3) potentimul
v •�
tIS
and 4) cu quality impacts related tb
traffic increase The California Air Resources
Board, i�nYesppnding to Notice of Pi-epar'atIon,on
the '. Blake ie Swartz Ranch appii.cationr
' y
- -
commrevious
,
ented`that-mitigafion measures should be
_
provided to reduce the length anc!' frequency of
vehicle trips for the project, and that the reduc-
,
tions should be quantfled. " Addiiotial,ly, the
phasing, funding, irriplementation; and monitor -in
of the measures`Ishould be ;descr bed.
Climate (locally or t°egonallyj
Ln
X' -...'..U-. kn
r i
Basin; Addition of extensive areas of paving and
stYuctures can "result an substant'ai Changes to the
m for aclimate on a site of this size.
4. nates of fuel energy lase
nkn f,_
Basis: Additional' urban use's which will be provided
l
for undde the p"
pro osed, land use tlesigriations will
re�luire. consumption often, oh: -site. as'° well ,,as in' '
increased vehicle traffic:
-_
5e C�amulative 'energy demand ar noise,' rx= .air"
poli�utants
`
X 1(
Bads; Cumulative impacts are discussed above:
_.Unkn
fI
I
f
Y'
i
r v
Ti
I,
.
I
44
.+ C
M,
U w ;w
w -u
IA
w
Climate.Microciimate constraints maps -should be
prepared to determine -the -ell five' SUItabilit y.of vat-
ious 'locations on thel site for residential, industrial
and commercial development. The affect ofdeveloj-
men t;_under proposed 'land use designations on the
-
S1 te's microcifmate should be. evaluatetf Local' Wind
patterns and climatic conditions should'be taken into
account. Impact and mltiga 'Jon categories ''should
include hea;ith factors, safety (%rind), energy costs,.arvd
aesthetics: Any appropriate r..econfgus-anon of'fand utel
designations should be proposed:-
En, erc;y: Evafu. io"n of cumulative ener,
y. gy use and
meansrofmitigation is required. The utility and feasi-
`bull of park and ridefact it should be assessed,:, '
,I ,I
E. NAlUf2/�1: 'Rir3UURES: Describe the ro ac t
p �.. is
I
.effect
on, or Senslt�vlt to the use e:'._
_, _
— •_- r Xtr C#1 -0n Or--COn'"==
5@rYiit1011 Uf an atura( te50urGes:
- - - - - _-
'
;�..
__--U k
Basis: Tlie site is not cUrrenily used for extraction':
,
of miherals and' Inq Ude'ho mapped important -mineral`
- resource's': HoWeVer, nospecific. s#udy has ^beery-
prepared oh thus issue and as,,a, res:ult th;e potontiai
impacts are un -n The pr6per#y, does include an
ens
extsive blue: oak woodland ilvhfcli' I ra'>i d .
l i l�►
_demi-
rushing ttirouglout the State. The sites is a'Iso"used tor., r
iriter anci spr�i►g ranges bUt with its thin soils is not
`valuable
I 6 gratsland.
Fi rttl ;
5th Ftarther study w111 be accomplished Under. other ,!
sub ec
i ts.
r
I , r I
I
',
t
;1
I
I
s
I
n
s� Iti
i
7
r
1r 0 �.. C Q. Us � s
.. i
i
i
u
r. C
LJ
C1ILTURAL/AESTNEfiC �FACTORs: Describe the;ef%ct
"
of the' project on, the `following:
9. The established` character, aesthetics or
--
_ _ _ funcEionin _
g of tF�e surroundlnc� area'
_ _- T X— -'Unkh
Basis: Development of the area under the proposetl
land use deslgnatibris"wi II result in �p vistas where'
open space currently exists. Along Highway 99, which"
carries the greatest number of`viewees, industrial land'
uses are proposer. The ,applicant intends to develop a
University Fteseairch Park in tpi"s area With lot sizes of
60-160 acres` and lmper'vlaus coverage limited tc► 35$ of`
each lot, which vv.{iI reduce the levea of impact, Howe-"
ever, ;the overa i i ;character 'of the ' area will change ;
slgnifcantly.'.
W thin the developmerit, residential areas ?re proposed
-
on tiloping sites With' potenliai for_visua!_ impacts.
--- -
-
tiding. th
relate l to r ese. areas have'thih soils".and
g
--_—
poor pa)tentia{for �revegetatlph On cut slopes or other
disturbed land:
aIso the' potent i a I for" ative►-se vi sua I impact-to
-
future residents surroiunciing th' adjacent'Courtty land-
�'
fill 1, the proposed sewage` "treatment" area, and
commercial and industrial areas,
Fas'ther
St �+,,
,
viewshec! a
A nal sl soft
y .. he area should beper on.
an sensitive viewihlj` areas ;shoulcl be ldenti'fietl._'
j
Future vjews of th'e s e firom< the surrounding area
24
shoultl'be analyzed. fThe ability'of`'dkisting zoning '
re,gulations d j nn��tiClate� po entlal visna! impacts ;
smul, bedeterminecf► iddltlonai measuresshou tl.he
recommended` as necessary Alch could Include:;
Retyuireci phasing program to ,promote orderly
appearance of growth;
`-
= buffer strips;
lVlinlmum lot 'sizes;
Visual constraintareas where developmrii ltl
not occur or' where special der el,opment'
teV n clues are r`etlt lred
�
11 r'eguiatjonls Which may be neve"ssaty tb
cagy out general pja"ti `sthetic goals and policies
Tri the area.
is
2 0
. �f
i
C,'O N L. U 5 N�5
,10
.r
i
W UA UJ
r
°
�Ie 1y�f�
s
Q Q d
2.fiysicat change effecting tmique ethnic cultural
Witaes
X Unkn'
Basts: M archaegiogical survey of the property was'
conducted 'n 1982for an EIR on a previous submittal
_
(EcoAnalysts; 7982). The survey located 30prehstaric'
rock shelters, :� bedrock mortar loci, a stone fence a
stone corral, and'a sof lapsed vVoaden building. At least
two of the rock shelters and two of the bedrock
Mortar areas are: ` significant, The' add tiona rock
shelters may be significant. It is unclear"tivhere;:these
features are located, :and as a eesuit whether or' not°
they are located in areas proposed, for sievelopment
T.he features may have been recorded with the
Archaeological Information Service ir► Chico. '
Furtfw
Study
Maps of previous recorded sites shoul(� be located and'
a general orti- site° urvey of areas praposed for urban;,
Uses should be per=farmed 4)t the ga2i1 of developing a=
- _ - -
cu1Weal resources constraints analysis. Mitigafion
measure s should when be deVet"ped ' s:1ch; as:, '
AddI on al o en space pace areas,,
(7veriay protectJon zones'for i'eatures v�i,ich iwUltl
be le"ss. readi Ijr harmed' by development' and
�
xpantied access;
C7utline of more ctetaited`study which should be
eequired at futuredove lopment stages and Method
to 'e nsUed,,implementotion of the recotnmerxiations.
'
3. `Resfri�tion of existing religious° ar sacreri! uses
w�ithtnttra potential impact areae
X Ut n
Basis:" See discussion under 'J hi ` above:
irehistoric 'or historic buildings, structures,
,
objects orr `unique culturol t6 tures
Unkn
�.
E3asis See discussion under 'item z above:
,
'5. Arciiaeologicai or paleontnlogca! resources;
Xn{in
B SiS; seg C4i5CUi, ilntfer iieiti ', 'dbClVer
,
2 1
�!
s
a.
1
4
U
-
I
d
it
i
W W y" ttJ w 4)
I
W � ®1.
Z
further
,
study
The feasibility of the;area soiit to handle overland
disposa I of treated effluent, 'and the degree of treat'-
ment required needs ;tic) be ,studied" further:' -( See;
ologic Factors,sectjori.
The, minimum buffer required ;around the"landfill must
be determined based on current iegis'lationsi#e''
15pqcJfidr concerns alnd the County's Solid Was #e Man-
agement Pian. in addition, minimum lndus#rial and
Commercial area lauffers atresidential interfacesshould
be determined.
The hydrology study should include a discussion of any
additiona l t.ises beyond those ou#1 inod ih the proposed;
policy which ,should not be allowed in the indcstrial_
area "relative to ,.specific surface ;and groundwater
concerns n the area.
i;e abilkty of existing regulations tip mitigate concerns,'!
relative to ii°aial 'd substances, in this 'area slXiiaid fie `
explored and appropriate recom bendations
'lo. S §Mf caht neNr light or glare mpacts.bar the site
asisYouaxilhg area
. tlnkn
Basis:' The transition of the areaii'ifrom+open space to
urban uses will create sig_ nificarik 14W light which"iVill '-
result)h visual impacts ar:ticill4;iy frblin the SkyWay
and Nea'1 Road* N1ght vistas from ilhese :two reads care,
ourrer tl of;a dar% foreg�6hd Wi#ii. valley iigttts "in
,. y
the backr` JlUnd. This pr+avides a transltlon between
tha b�a lay :'t'ioor wid, file To rh 0 paradise, �whicFa vVi l M ,
beigniflcaritly altered. x
f=urther
5t udy'
T he Viewshed anal sis s' fluid include
n ad$
Y. i fuss pn of
,
rig�tti'me views and appropriate wiiitig.ation measure5�
h
f
,.r
1
r..
.f •4 �
t.
� •� �� • � ,
C N t,. � U S i' p R ;S
•r f
s
1
�� jp V w •�
44 illi a.
F r
l j in
'!� f0 ♦r Gi
Study A fu►► heeds analysis shoultl tie
provided a
determining �a.cts ori the affected s a basis for
f Paradise, Chico and Durham Park districts;
required on- ) as well as iantfying
site fa, tl,s.._ The u
-- Natural Resources;; ar,�d Recreation
- - -
Element of the Bug e.
County General PlM,h should be
Used to
assessmeht. 1r�pa,cts to Cit gu�tle the r eeds,,
be eval!�,� Y of Chico:
ted,
Mitigation measurPS shoaldsnclOW ude no
tr> ohlY they needed far_ilitids
.b,ut also the
funding "for deveio"pmeht and maintenance, means of '
S.; 'traffic and parki'
hazard) �jrx aces, in, cQnge"scion,
'
=- � X Urik i
Bass; T1KM Transportat!on Consuitah s has
it g�
Traff�cfMad�
itn Anal" ss 'the potd a
Ranch y :for` Blakeley Swa
swaetr. , T Y �, 19.88) under contract fo', BI rtz
his analysis ldehtifles
"
_ ficant impacta'=on tFe eXistingvroatlwa" of signi-
a nurhber_ Sighl
needed improvemehts'to
-- - -
Mitigate these mp cts i clod
p ding v1d: ning '
Skyway interchan H��hwa,Y 9g' improvemehts to
the
all , anti a neW interchange, !aclditinn-
Y. Ca'itrans, in' respohdin to
Preparationon-the g°` the
Notice 'of
a previous Blakele C,
Ywartz,Ranch
h, oommerted oh the
anaiisas.a t"bads and lssues:heeding-
Y These commehfs are eel flected in the Further
Stt,dy section "belo*;;;
Furltiltar •
�tucly l F the T J _
If M ahefysis is used as' a 'basis f
evaluation«,, the 'folio" ,
iw ng tasks
I�
should ba condu to A
The ass'
u m ptions, da ._ ,
to -
should be yerifiel;. '•and aralysisof.therepor�t<�F
,
�. C°plc ons�; siio�� �d be `!fr ..
no to amed I C� 'A term i-
gY , >;vaivatI of impacts .
shCuld. �.e . _.,
by the ButterC, guided',
Mitigation roiramen thouid
atfons include
" a
�, � . q , rliscussiorl 'of the feasrbiiiidehttfied
niee�ures
The ahalysisaofralte nattVests o fuhding;
',�• id inclutlebath'�
alternative land use-
s on the site and ,aiternative
street patterns. The
TJKM report lees
w
7
1 ,
A,% 1
F
C0WCrL'USI"SWS,
r.,
u
A
c W
rr
,.. . ,
q} `
u a..:r�
W'u 'M
+W.C.. «. d
r
,
,
In; V
6: Emergency _respon uation :pians
se or evac
A
X Unkn;
Basis: / Further Stt y
;i
The General Plan Map submitted, by the application,
.
"
shows one roatl (Parkwa , traversin the western '
Y� g
r - -
;
portion of^the site arid`connectin Neal Road.and,the
9.
Skyvtay. i ;also shows an emergency ,access road '
connectiri,g'Nance Canyon to `Neal'Road#,;This combi-
nation of roads should be :evaluated by the Butte
.
Ctiunty Fi C}epartment..antl the. Sheriff's: Bepartment
for its 'adequacy' for. emergency response:
7. Maintenance'.o'fpr„,tic fbciliiies (raadis tf**je-
etc.)
X: Unkn
Basis:' An' eXtensve network of, new public roads will`
equire an-gaing maintenance. The project concept
r r;
includes the fouhmationof ecommunit'yservicesdistrict,' '
which,would be responsible for maintenance of on-site
facilitethis s; however; is not a formal part of
appiication:�
Eu=tlier
�
Study
ibiis suBj4dt should be consideeeii in the fiscal analysis
r
particularly with regard to offsite mai;nstienance deeds
iroads and iaridfil;l): Te,'feasibirlt of the
Y proposed
r
land uses fo s.upport ons-,lt.Rlp�`mainienance costsioultl
be explored,,
r
=:k
”
8: Public mass, trat�spcyrtatiati 'fir
yy� G �rrnative
b'ansporfation,^nrxies (pireempflnll
of���rnej
X Unkn
No r»ess transit s, �s PrSposed on �ihe site.
Study
The
feasibility of extending public mass lratt;ortatiari
to the site should be cbnsldered in tl, a traffic anaiysis�
ItaIto should bv''I date the feas.iblii.t and.desirabili' . t?
h'
ofpah`;andrl;defae,ilities,and.,bicyci,e,aiidedesErian
paths,.
w
_
9 t7ther (state)'
-..
Commen s:
9
r
t
'
C q S,
{ p.
V V Ill
UJIw
H PU81.IC
UTILITIES. Aemeibe the project"s effects on
z v
r! the fol -
oWityg►til►ties:
1. Ser or septic; systems
laastun The p
-IY pra�ect.conce t incluc�s�ti
� . X' .. lJnkn
�~
- -
treatment; of sewage by a.package treatment plant
spray
,a'nd,
disposal of the' treated effluent over 'the golf
catlrse ,arid pasture: (CWtvIDR, 1588 as'tet�ater
Re.use A1tei-na'tives for Blakeley Swartz 'Bench.)'
Treatment; levels er,visIoned are; econdary for spray
to 'pasture' and fertiary for spray the
.to golf course.
Separate winter Stora ads would b' pro Wed
.for
�:
secaridaryr and tertiary'efffl ent. ,hese faci)it etj,o,se
the ;fitillowing issues which shouid, be evalua3ed ;
�,✓:
e sewageflows, Oft. the project should Ee
r!orrfirmed.'. The' C1YC IDR report; assumed tow
flows fro►» RSD type.cieyelopment as we`li aspre;_
treatment.
The potential for higher'flo,!,vs anc!_fat-, �
--Linantldipated. -unpre"treated flows r.fr11 oin the''f
,{ iI us 'a area should `be
assessed;
r N!eatth ha aeds should be iyval'uated with `
discussion of case histories. i'otenti'al
health
effects during,a roalfun,ction
of the sti�Ym'shouid
ble lnctull in `I;he decl'sion;
`Cbe means of pro�iding` for oper�ai
jor�malntenanc
wind 'regulatory ,resp6hsib lltie`s should be;
Q, e+ra luetedj
0
V1
it
I
JI
I
I
i k �
1 ,
p
,
1
{
„
'j
I
rt
I i
.
� �
"
9
I
b'
C Q.� Nf�19
LU5I;ONS
�F' rte►
C
C r.+
' 6Vt„ a C. C
.- a
W:�
+d W "t
W �i in
JA
•r G7
. ¢� 4.0
<Z
'otential impacts to 'drainage channeis and
groundwateh should be described inclding.effect5
on peau stormflows,.add itions of chemical con-
stituents in sprayed effluent, and accident
.. , �al
� re lea,.ses o . the `
f mtcals;
a
_ - ;Potential actor from storage facilities should be
- - -
evalua'fed,
9 The capacity of the 'soils to accept spray
Irrigation should. be assessed: If existing con-.
tours, are to ire maintained in the spray areas;
thennfii#iometer tests should be performed.
Soi 1 borinigs or' other tests may, be also
'
appropriate.
Alternative disposal methods should be..discussed,'
including use of the City of Chico Water Pollutloh;
Contro'i Plaint,
2: Water. fear Axpestid use and fire E±rotectian
>Basis%Further Study; Water is;pr_opo;sed.to-be-supplied- -
X. Unkm
- -
-by on-site,: downslope° wells and upslope storage
_
ifacf cities: Appiicant' sponsored studies showIng
`r
"r
°adequate gtlahtity and quality of effluent shaUld be;
confirmed. Adequate fire ftow for industrial facilities'
_ - - should -be :dt? stra#ed: Poten#'iai drawdown of:
. -
grouhC watel- 16vt is affecting neighbloring'wells sho►ild
" be evaluated. Also some evaltiaHon` is needed of 'the ;
possibility l;lty that a I cone, Ar cones of 'depre'ssion at ,Ehe''
produr;tion well(.sl couid, Iead`tocoritamination from the
is d
r n fill site'. Finally, rimy one wei,1 is shown on the
a ic�nt s ma" �s
t p,
;. ppl and,this ,'s.hoi.itrl ;be clarified,
"
;
3. tti ttea, gas or electtici y`
X Unkn
Basis. Electricity Woti`d be ex ended to 'various
:the
`,uses on the ''site by on�$ite or.nearby PGZrE (fines,. A:1
Signcan# r3einand for these utill#les will result.
i# is unknown a# this t'line '1vhev r a� not'cumula#five
dement! W'I1) impact tli�.exist n� syste'm�
l`urtl�r
Stu Cumulatj�e demand on; .these' facilities should be
addressed as shoo '
ld the on _site need for "silbstati,onsi
�� transmission lines, and tither facilities.
I
t
I,
31
r
I
ONCLU,S1 S
N
c
Q
.> G1
x�
4. Storm waterdrainage
Unkn
`
Basis: (Vance Carryon Creek floods periodical ly;and i3s
a�resuit; the applicant has proposed conceptually are'
configuration of the charineiPotential impacts are ells-
cussed.iri t{ aHydrology- ion (see pJ)-., otpat-ticuiar
concern are cumulative impacts to Butte 1 Creek on
'
wuhich'South Chico relies for ;_stoi-mwatee conveyance.:
1~usrther'
5t '
The adequacy, f`
o ro
q y p posed channel reconfiguration
should.be cahflrmed and alteriiative designs, should be:
eXplored to reduce impacts to Vegetation. The need
for and feasibi i;t of-: stnrrr� Wate' ret
l e enation needs:
to be explored , not only in Nance Canyon,, .but;n the`
,I .
Indus ,I l and commercla 1 areas as weld.
5. Solidi waste ;disposal
_
0nkr1
Basis. The :urban uses on the site will ,generate sig ,
rlificant amopnts of solid waste. ln.addition, !arid uses_
- — — ---
proposed near the; landfill being-,u, compafibility arid'
health hazard conoerns:
Stuffy
Impacts of the project on the County` Landfill -should
- -
be evaluatet3 in terms of itsexpect1 11 ed rife and any
-
other factors app!!cable from the Couhtyis'Solld Waste '
� w•r,;
hllanagement' 016hl the onformahee of ,the: gjroject to
this plan. should be beThe effect'ofthe', pro-
ject �n potentlai lanxp
dfill eansioh should be discus '
sed: lh the scoping session, Qepartrnerit of Putalic
Avork4' staff 'mehtioned state laws that .may, restrict
ran uses at, 1000 feet and ot�e;-half mf le ft`om a land-'
fi«,l. This shauld'be addressed in an evaluation. of°
potential odor, noise -and other impacts of the iardfiil
on future residences, ta�i'ing ihto a,sed
buffer, Thi91 Valustlon and ariy mititionsrecatunen-
�
tied .should consider tiro effects of any, future ctlm-
piaints on the gperation ,of the laridfiil.
I
`Che disposal':0f potentiai'ihdustrial ►haste frau the sate
sl►ould` also be addressed in 4he rla �iith reference
I
made to the;goVerrling hazardous h+latei'ials .Plan:
I
I!
I
t
r
m
+1
" 31 V
O♦
V uj
41
W N
Lu �' Z
W
61 OL C.Om tA*)jdatjonL SyStEflis
Basis/Further"StUdy; Although this isnot likely to
-_.._.
_ Un kh
a s.icifcant cpncem; the"availability of telephone
f°
service, should; be :discussed". =
_..
7. Plant' facFlit6es fbr .any of tt :abov+e (serener
plants, microwave station ` Wati!e tanks, ctC.
i
Basis: $ee discussion above.
U, n„tv7
8. Ottoer (state)"
C
I
I
l
I
i
1
I
I
I
I ,
I I
LL
H,
1'
(
V
I
i t 1 r' ,
I rl
71
, 1
777777-Y
f
}. 4
r
cO WC, t.US'1pN:�
I
W w UJ W.
�-
,.
W H
sooitrticoi�aMlc. Describe any a.CfVt �.,e `
An Rw
a
plrys ca!
effectsa►hich,could result from the" following
economic factors:" socio-
I. Ex, perxiiture of public funds in excess of p+u30ic
revenues
generated by .Private. P�jects
Basis,. The project as proposed is a.rnfx of'ufban an
designations. Though the packet submitted
X Un
-- kn
ap licant incI by the
p lucles a potentlal hasI.ingPro
not forma 1.1 p 9 am, this Is
y part of the project descrip#ion. The
phasing pian ,is basad' on the applicant's
e o
of development,potentiai., The applicant faun ng for
buildout of the 1ndUstri6l,
tI
area over a period of 25
.years, the restcfentfat area.pver 20 ears a
2111 Y t rate
a of
units .per year.# and the commercial area as a
market Is generated. ,A fiscal impact st.0 ba"sed
on
these and other'appf (cant assumpt ons yya,
Angus MGDOnald and Associa parredby
tes J u ne.
results owecl a positive fiscal outlook toltheGount
— -- -- both-yearly 4ind= at--protect-'tauifdout. -
- - - _
An of land Uses are proposed by`°the applicant. lid
generaij from a land use planning stand,fnt;
a iiii�cof
land �:uses,h''
as a greater'potentiaC to "pay its-Way"#han
exclusive Ty �=esicientiaf land
uses If ab-: I
ach'te,ved,. adequate revenue �to "`the Coun nceis�4tiot;
t?' may no► be
generated to 'cover increased costs of providing ser-
vices:
However, whether or "not this balance can be
achieved is highly dependant on market
conditions and;
expected growth rates antl not on unci use designs-
tions �,�lone This issue' t�eecis to be
explored further:
ror instance, though a "rant"of land„uses lspropaSed It
i,� uf{kiear itihethe�- or not "the market e�tsts for the
Cornitra ily positive revenue
generatih industrial tiles.
g
ry' to the conclusions of the McDonald reports
the
potential exists for"la' negative fiscal impact to tha
County if intiUstrial
,buildout does not occur as e'°
ted and if rei'atfvejy liigi overe'il Income fee is tar
for the residehtfei
area; population.'db not resit
J citlitionaiiY' the' potentlai extst§,*or'fi sca'C Sin
the County if the site Il cor oratot : _,. pacts to
o
Chicoi A qualftative, descC ption of thesenitap-a-
should 'be provided. '
r
R
1, `
O y
_77777777777-7_
n ' .R tf
..,
a , ✓ V77�-
.10
1
r ,
F.w - A
O`NCLUS' ii Q `N S
;W = W W ,P
yy
A
In addition,; if:the market study determines that the,
:v
site will absorb a significant share of "the expected
housing demand; the abi I ity�of the: proposed residehtiai
area; to meet law'/moderate inc 'g targets will
.aortant. f riots icaht irn acts could resu-It.
g p.
_ .. be m 1 i _ if
Study The economic analysis should include, a deterrninatian
of the balance. of,income levels which should be
provided for by housitig on.the site to 'mitigate this
potential impact-, The<growth inducing impact analysis
should discuss the indirect impacts which might occur
to housing, as a resufi of bU"Idout In the area. Mlti..
„ gation measures which should be :65p orad irtciude:
;Developmeh impact fees;
Appropriate; off-site ceneral pian amendment`
is
including related housing supply'.polidl s.
y ,
_Cr+eat on_ of _demand ,for_ additlohat —
_ -- X-
.hotising
Basis; As discussed above, growth inducing ii'npacts
i could create`a dema,rtd for additional housing in Butte
Couny, par#icularly i"f the phasing of residential'
development on the site. does hot proceed as.at�tici-
�;,
-- -
gatedthe residential "area does hot provide for
housing prices affordable to the in es; "
m he "
£' ge rated In
the Indus#tial area.
M.
4t Furrier,
Study See discusslort under item 7 :above:
,.
r <L
4� 4an ,t se not th conformance ;with character
surr+ounding hE'-i9hbo+�tto
�C ilnkn
The'�iand 'uses proposetl wits be buffered;b'
1
i3utte :Creek, 26b0,;act' s ,designated Grail and,;Opeti
.
Land,, Neal` Road, the Skyway, and 'fthway. 99.
However; ttic overall area As currentl }� IargelyM;apped'
in non�urbab la" d use ��d
n- eslgttation_s. A significant
?`
ti changa iti the character of rite area Vviii result tsjr the
develapmen of a nEiN urban sa'teil to community:
.36
I
,
Cd
o ;if
'Z
C�PXCII
-C S�1.O,NS
. •.1.
064
ir T
�
5
IIr ,-.,.� , ,spa
W W W r
i
u /]fig,,
W: ar �►
!1Aorespecific land'use compatibility, issue`s are alsoof
concerti. Mthin the proposed General Plan ampridmont°
area, medkin density res ^ential 'areas are pri`I II d
aci;'acli ertto the proposed se+%a'ge tretmeht area land as
close as '15Q feet ';Lo the_edge _ of .the Cflunty landfill__
property. Pp.tentiaily significant"impacts to residents
include exposUre to odor; noise, decjra&WVlews,i and
health`hazaeds., Another' interior lani,use compatibility
.i
�cohcern includes the c -ori merci'alires 4'iential area inter
face. The. cr mpatiiai city 4f the indui` t,IdI area proposed -
On the`eas' side of Highway 99'with'surroundin,g;agri—
cU iture is also a ;concern.
rt�tlltie.
Study
The issues of conformance with the character of the,
surrounding area and compatibility""of internal land""��
uses need to bet studled� in further depth end appro�
priate'mitig+ation -0, `Uses or aiternativesrvccji ended'.
+ y
as necessarywhich ma include:
8uffees:,betwe,en interior' corifi ctisig land use
dgUireinents for future special- design areas��.1
implemented °through exist «age or' new zoning
I -
r,;egulations, _.,
,;
Changes n'i 'proposed land u`se `configuration:
The adequac}r of implementirig'zonincl to'alieviate these
pntenttal'cor fl'icts sholi.id be ado ess :d and'eppropr'iate l
recommendat�br�s itlade: :,
5'. ':thee-,('statel:
G�rtments.
r
r
I
I
l;
t
7
� , r
d
,
J` CoENE'It�tiL. pt / AND P LAWN
project INC POLICY. Is 'the Yes NO.JVlaye
1. Inconsistent with the County General'Plan?'''
X
Basis T he ro ect ' ea �.
P J r.. les an amenchnent to, Land
Use Map and may be inconsistent
with certain General
Plan polir.ies. The BIR needs to
'
provide an analysis of
'the,Project's consistency With the policies of the Land
Use Element and other elements of the .General Plan.
2. Inconsistent with cif6cPlans?
'SO'Sfsi There are no specific
plans affecting this arca.
3• Inc Sistea t with other adopted polic'iess' l
Basis; See discUssioh uhder Rein 1, above.
A n con'
sisteti�t .wt 7,t adopted plans of other ageneses?
,
Basis: 1~va�uat�61' shotild be provided of the projects
cons:istencjr`,with,the Chhico General Pian„and policies
- _ of the. State -"department of F sh ani! Game, the
Regiona i water .Qua I ity "Con tro I Board, :loca I schoo
;. - -_
i ,f
d steictsy and an.�Y other a' ffected�';agenr'ies.:�
5.p6tentially growth,lnducing?; -
x
Basis The project W6UIdrbrovlcle urFian seis W►ie-re
none currently exist and Will ll have the 'effect' of',
creating a new satellite
community. GroWtli induce-
ment'concerns related to creating
a neW urban cenxer,
Include the patentIal for`futt're ge`nerai plan artetid
inents>near the area; �of>�settin " h`” `
- gt e Jobs jltiousin-9
balance, da"growthipattertl
Change in the -"6f
cif Heard
cities iriclUding Parade and Chico.
Poothe r"
project ro oses�.uses West of Highway 99 creating the
induce
potential for growth ► en on agriculturally
valuable lands ne"a,rby,
,as. Weil as near Durham'.
i
i
`
va=
,. n
Furthers
Jt:. .. Contistenc wi t N Ado t
ed� Mang. y � The EIR needs to
a
'
provide an analysis of theproject!s consistency with
the policies of` the- Land Use Ele,�ent and othe" r,eie
menu of ;the ehdra l Plan 'For example"
_., Neaf Road'' is
currently unclassified in the circulation
Element. The
potQntfai need for reclassification. of the roatl`5hould
be revaluated.
In general, the polis es of the Butte County General
plat,, should be
used as a criteria toassist in the
evaluation of the level of impacts. Any
,inconsistencies
noted in various chapters of the ,EIR should be sum
r marred In a tliscussion of'the pi-oject's consistency
with the. General plan.
_
r : Evaluation should alto be provided of 'the project's
consistQncy with the Chlca General Plan, and po.licfes
"Department
of the .State of Fish incl Cama, the
Regional V'iater,Quality ControlBoard;
local school
districts, and any other affecti:d agencies.r
Growth inducement
The potential for futUee: generalplan amendments .
onsite slioultl be evaluated_- t°hisshould include at
analysis of the potent'fal for proposed jabs-housing
.6lance to be offset artd this 3�na(ysfs should be tied
- -- _
into Ahef i,scai analysis. .
Possible effects on .., e,' plann6d pa tet-n �of gro nth irt'�
the cities of Chlcq and Paradlse'needs an, Y
J-hei potential for growth IhdUtementon.agriculti�relly;
-'valuable lands nearby, as wef,1 as in,du a should be
evaated. Durham'.
lu
The appropriateness of the. and usevariety proposed
including th`e dem,andrf+ursu rt
ubllci pp'o ing land uses such as
p quasi-p Ifp.ICuMurat'!and
�
eecreatlrxnsNcxtjd be
assessed: This d'fscuss,l0 ;thou jd pbe' based oh the'
i
marl�et and economic stUgi ;
K. OTNQt'POTEPITI IM.aCTS SPECIFIC
(describe) TO OROWECT
�N
i
d
r
.... . 6. b . v r
�'
VI" "oh PC ' let!islon „
nvxronments l
U.S. Forest S011VICe
Pr6te6tion' , A e fey ' 1
875 I'itehell.
CA 95966
215 Fi•mont .'Oro
villP; CA 9596
Smn riciseo; CA 91205
,
Land NYan �f
i .r
snvi mental Ad,vocaite
. s ..
is 1 thil
Frig .►ds of .the ao . Is
�Batr�Ca�in,� Redding Res tai^,
nX"
West 2ttd Un.d Cherry Streets
�R.
:]78k" Eioney Rodd
I}%xlste�i Drive
fiido,: PA 95929
'Chico, OA '95928
96602
0a �ty�I,i�%ctvg,nni
co,CtYiflews & Review
Dr. llanalci 'Holtgreene
lake wr rt7,363
Fast 2hd StreetCalifornit�
State, University
P.Cl i ;iG69 '
Chico; CA 9.5928
Chico OA 9.5929-0425.
h>,, '5927
J�.y' 1 -ra(In ,
mutts 'County Planning Uept.-
Butte County Pfanniiig, Tient.;
33 tti Wsy
7 Cax.�nty den er.
Drive
7 County Center Drive
Cli p T = -` =
Oroville, CIA 95965'-3397"`
.
bi{ovi le, CA 95955.3397= - -
Butte: OoUhty Planning Dept..
I
`Butte County Plan,hin De t.
g p
Butte Count Plrinnin I3e' t.
Y g
7 Cdtr 'Center Drive
7' Coumy o en er Drive
7 County Center `Drive
C*ri CA 95365-3397: --
Orovzlcl'
. e, CA 91, `
�Oro;rile, CA 9596-3397`:
i
Butte 00rp.onty Manning Dept.
butte County t'lanhing Dept.
Butte County Planning „Dept:
7 Cbux#,y',�deiiter DrW
7 Ooun'ty t3enter rive,1.,�
�7 County C ntor` Urive
0roVi l r 'CA 95965-3397
Cirov:ille GA 05065-3397
;Croviile, CA:. 05965--.3307
1
Y ..g
Butte a-`unt ' k lanr►in De �?
Butte Count P1anrrin be t.
�' g P
Butte Cottrii Plerinin' De t.
y g p
�
7 (;ca{�n C"er�ter Drive
7 �
County 'Centez� Drive
7 Cauttty C�ntes' Drive
'om#441-10., .CA 95965-3397 -
Gh�oville, CA.635965=3397
�t3t•ovii teY CA 9596 3397;
1
11YI t P
Butte +uc► y lanriirig De�►t. ` ,
r
Butte County Plt►nr►ing D'ept..
Butte :Cauilty P1aYit�ing Dept.
7 Cour y' Center Drive
7' County, Center brlve
County Center Drive
Urovil opo ;CSA 95965-3337
Oroville, CA. g59G51-3397
OroVille, CA 95965-3'397'
'1110tte 00nty, Planning peps.
I
B:utte6 County Pliinnihg dept.
Ilutte Coliiily ,PlanYiing sept:
7-06--t ut Center Drive
7 Cot�n'ty C. 1 11 r Drive "
7 County Cehtex,,l)rive
Orovnle, CA 95965-3397
f rovilIe, OA, 95965-:3397
Oro�ille, CA 96966-3391
t
Dtatte rity Planiti�lg DeP,
��
1'a e'Caunty Planning' Dept
3uttc 'Couri'ty PlarinYng ,rept.,
�i County Center Drive
7 Count* Ceh'te- rive
7 Ooultity Oeriter Drive
Oratrille, CA 06066 -int
O^ovil.le; 6A9 065' 33,97
Ora'ville, OA`05965-3397
P
autte County tanning bept.
I
Butte Gaunt i panning ne t.
i
13utte 'County Pliihning bept�
County ;Center fhAV--6
7 ��C aunty Cen er Drive
fi 066tity Center Drive
brav#ile, CA 95065 3392
OPoville;, CA 35965-3397
dravill , 0A, 99965, 3397
f
i
LM J•
I
i
rl
S
I
JDIV'ES 1� STDKES,45SOC1A'TES; INC,
_
_3rd5TREFT 5U/TE �00/SACRAMENT.
_ _ _
I
a
{
I
t y
<
r
_Ir
P
„
i
PROPOSAL FOR, THE
.
P��PARATION 01� `THE
-- - EI 'ViRONMENI'AL, IMI ACT REPORT - - - -
POR TtIE BLAKELEY SWAR'TZ RANCH
G '
ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
Submitted to
Planning Concepts - T
c/o butte County Planning Department
'7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3397
- Contacts;; Laurie OberSo- tzer - -
Greg,.'DeY Dung .
016 265-806$
r'
, rep ar ed b.'
y.
1600-s & $Me' As ln��
"1 1725 - "23r, Street, Shite 100 i.
Sacramento, CA '516
Cantactc Mile `Rushton,
916/444t5638�
R. e15ed
� r
s, ,r ,• Jhniiar}� 26- 1080
FF
i
Wit, 1 a ,r
r
r-. i
n
1
r i
r
ti.
'TABL �' OF cfJ�T1'EI�TS
1'
,f
Pa e'
ECTIOI' X. INTRODUCTION, GENERAL APPROACH;
r
_ OF WOR
A1V,C ,AND SCOPE
SECTLC T `JR WORK .P.ROGR' K
7 ".
SECTIO%1 1TIx CONS t, TASK
37
SECTION "I
-
it
,
i
. ,�
_