HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-42 BLAKELEY SWARTZ GPA (9)I
�I
r f11 � rYr.
Brent iivloore w•, 4
"
I Deremberr 1988 4 .
Paplour - BC G,rCiues" Response to i QP on Blakeley S.W! tz Ranch Projiect
t
ptonomc lmnact�(�rr'Exissna Cities 1
The potential adverse irt;pacts"on nearby cities of competition from the oro jedes ind"r�strial'
space is a concern of the City of Gridley and should be examined, Gridley hopes to attract
additional tight industry as a way of dversifvirig its declining agricultural economic base,
This analysis should augment the other market analyses noted as being necessary in the Initial
Study under Socio-rtconorn?cs. The EIR should also describe the types of industrial uses. the
p tenants.
Project would ho a to attract as
One way of mitigating potential adverse impacts would to require a phasing plan that
-
.be
wiuid allow continued construction and;_occ-upation of industrial space at the project so long
- -
as certain conditions were met with regard to vacancy rates in other communities;;
r
Housine, Afror la
The need;=for housing which would result in, new employment oppor'tunsties at
.incrrease&
the project should be quantified and categorized according` to household income .groups' (e,g,
very-Ib.'wr, low;, rood" to and other income households) [city aC Chicoj. The ` ikeiy split of
these households by tenure category (owner versus rental units should be discussed. An
oa of internal ability to accommodate these housing needs should be
e.valuat ;the project's'
quantif'i'ed anti the potential impacts ork surrounding communities analyzed:'ConsiderauAn
stoulii be given `to the potential for housing price qr rent level increases in the event that
deimand outpaces supply ti speci
i
10 Ofi
* piai fling,''• Attn.. Bill 'Turd+zn
RE: $lakeley 'S+�tz'Ian chenEral ,Plan A`�ndment
eceme l., 1988
Fa 'e 2
r
Fea i '
� 2
Item G.• .�'ublic' Sent cel — A study shbulid be
0 t
4� ¢iantena�ce requirements .Eor all
and °`ter systems, drainage
made
public
of the potential im act .
facilities `i
Eaezlitacsl'
.ladsta,pi,ng.
roads;,
tiraffc contralU,de+risand
„
P_ae:3l.°�?
TtemVAter, for' Domestic (fi a an i
18 requested Via' be inserted before tt�ie 1Iconramnatiuneiworhet.tnoxti,toe"
orkF
- last,seatper , th,e .r,eason sated above. `
�!
t 1111am Cheff
Dire for of Public; 3Jorks
€tDM:dd
j
onD. PicElroy/
De ut
A. y Di;recta
a
,
r,
it
~K•
J
I y�
i
I
W`
)
I'
f
I
I
r
`
y �
ik F •4
•l
I
t" �n �l . � 1. qt. a i � u•
�1
n 4
. �•' ..� . ._
.. N
w
� � �' rw � Jw � KGs s LL5i •r y�'a�M �h '�4 .
4
w.�
�.. Yob ��,w � ».:1."w".�. • '��'F�= -��s errs i� �'+,•
. 1 �i : ids, t�.,ri'1 ""'i.�i.• ^_ �I
I ,�
„', rl}
44 tt yy ��s } 4M
.,.... Ytt
•�F�CC`� ^i W � W tri � Air � �"w " s+..�:. iia "inT�w S1i,,w�` 'r Aii �Lf�„ I"+~'1+. L1;. 4V Srt�
I
i r
+i r:.la
_
r1r'?'�t rr...itz r.- ah``.Sw.,J' s4 ✓ R4CG'F1 G �JO
'.fy
�1..Z
4•' i .i'F • Aa1r L a5d' i� ii'f' MN $'' ^
1 + R d�rljC. MA.f'rj LiA.
1 Y
31 i TIC 411 ad
W.L1.1r. JY dl �1J� xL.3'4 4 4v' �p ay 4.Ltr A v '?1. Yit
M'i .L ♦ i
w+,�'� N
Vv-
Wd"
_l. `4�i _ ��1.'i. �"n! Y b • x.,"`'4'! ut Ri �31�i, f . T Y t ,iaa ,y t .. l
r
_
�
y a.
P
At 4
r�Pa 96 f ..YU`geW M t
ha�.t .�yy
+� �. tY �'�
I
V,��� r'� n,� 1'i tt Afi `^ r•t�dh. L E�.�
Px Yrt'1 � ��ii+�ig
vs*yi wyy,.La,...
!,5'«'�,
ti7lG 11�,::bY;R Glil '';•Ol11 '.I3;_ `� iQ s.
i'.i
tGi } W
ti'1.i Y'
I
I
I
I I
�i 1
xI
�
n
4
I v
I
f
r
I
I
4"
1
Fu
+}
Teble of contents «
PROJECT DESCR I PTI ON
.
1
Proposed Project'.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
.. ._
General
Evaluation
A» Geologic' Factors :
B:Hydrologic Factors
3
O. tic Factors`*
-
-81 _ - -
- - • .. . -. .
b. Noise Air, and Energy Factors'
-
-
E NatUra! �ResgUrces
36
4 i i
F. Cultural%f stb is Factors,
R Pub 'I Utlifiies
25
i Socio -Economic
. . :.:, . : : :. . . .9
J General' Plans and Planning Policy ,;
3g -
. - . „
K Other Potential Impacts Specific to Project'
Mandato ry Findi ng of Significahce
SIO
. .
Significant Impacts and Feasible Mitigation Measure
40
40
PERSONS AGENCIES CONSULTED
- -
•t
-
i
1
i
r
r
F
i
i
'rs YL
r 1
EY_ALUATI4?N �.
Check the appropriate boxes. Circle or specify items marked'Yes'
if'more
than
one posh biiity in catnSj r, . Ail phases of project planning imp;lementation;and
operation must be cor►sj,de�ed. A) I ite_'ms checked !Yips' 'Unknown��'
or
(j l SCU5S@d it S�ectiOn i�;r:
u musf'tita
.. .,
" ..
moi.
V.ii
If V
d
I
r
N Qi
�
�
Q RS �
r
Ar V.=V'�LWi� FACTORS• describe ,the effect of ,the
Project on fof lowving. '
:the.
•
r,
tom' T�Ohy !nciWirng unique 9eolo9I or i
featurE,s.
Basis. There �� potential for substantial grading at 'I
industrial sites inL .Crouch RaYine and other swaies�,I
vrsib'te fro,i Highway ~? Grading` may lie limiters ! y 'a
'
geologic o,ondltions; but this, cannot be assurer. Tlie rl
l1
�srze of conceptually Mapped: irrdu'striparce`Is tnayy�'^�
provide 'for some fie;crbifity in design., Novever
— - - -the potential fo�,recortfrgured topography shouId-66— -
- ,- -- -
discussed. The subrri.Ated Grading Plan only shovys j'
typical road section:
Jill, Seismic hazards, ,incltxiin fau_It suii•1`aae s
9 rtrptut.,,
1� �fac
que, tion, seismic shaking, laulsOding, tsunami
ntstciatiori ,
Jj r
_... inkn .
Basisz, kithough the,
tie site is in. 'an,area of relatiVE. iy'=
'1OWL
ser§nic activity; the report by Arirerson' Geq°^;
r'
�i technical Consultants, Inc. as stibni ttddla the
y Pro
propaneht'recor r Inds "... a;;More detailed gealagic
(#
"study, to in�ic�stitwte sverai�.I iineainents,vvhcl% heve
j!
F�een obrved ani# mapped, op the. Ile, `
t
'7 'Additionally'; the fa.Uit shown ori Figure 1 bf' the r
report _y Jerold ,l Behnke 'P.hbD titled +' i' he Hybr�o--
r
geoloc�y of:{he Conti Ridt* , ance Carnyt�r► Area" 'sFbciid
be 'ts
(ova Mated foie hazard poteht a I
I ,
j
rr
I. d r I
l , it
.
• ,3
t
r t
�.
Id
1.
it
J`i I
j
fV7
0
f`t
�J i'II. � �1 [ �iE c fry t✓ f1 1 �� 7
0 D !1 t
r■�
t,. 0 � V
c
1 C
m
W � � W
4). •
-1 N w � 7
d
�, 6► �j C rl1�
W +
Further
?An
in
Study Further study should inclur�e development su;#ability
1
constraints.ana;lysis oh a general plan level regarding
slope, soils Munda{ion
i.
support; erosion potential;
shrinit-swell potential, a#c), seis�riic hazard' ir�er
m al
resour .. ,.
ces and:ot her geologic
More spec'ificaliy, additional analysis anal m'itigati'on
recommendations are -Headed on the fol lowing` topics:
The effect. of Industrial development on topo-
_ graphy.
The se i srm lc
A hazard on the site,; partc,�ilarly
associated with lineaments served theNe;
The potential for 'slope failure ;and %vat's to
control it; .
j
Erosign con:#rpl, particularly in,
n 1Jance Canyon;
The need fors ectal foundations
or: soil,tr�eajtment
on r1 dgetops and in expansive so: Is,"Fiance
Canyon;
_T h ell, impact -of blasting; and - -- =
- --
- -
Adjustment of land use designafio1 boundairies
base1. d on ,identified :geologic coristraintt if
studies indicate a need,
r B: HYDROL+DGIC FACTORS; Deseribe.;the effect of the
- L
proleG't, on, the f`ollowit g:
1. I;b'Iic 'or private .;water supply IJnk
Basia:' The reportsubmitted by the'propr neht tided;'
t, Th
1fi ;dro Bolo
Y g gY of the CoonRidge"Na�nrre Canyon �:
reg' for the Biaiteley ;`Swarth I2aricnr' by Jerold J.
Behlte, Ph
.b presehts,:evidence that Wells placed on ,
the site sari protltce abundaht water, �of good. gtislity
and that t ady can' be placed 'in suc,'h a manner as to
reniaih unaffected by contamr�'ants` fror» '.the, nearby
I
larrdfrl. This evidence anti analysis 'sliouid be'
�a'r;�irrti�d„
,
Ys
1
_
1 i
i Y
4
j h
a. rF
. >1
�.
I.
.� �• � �
tis � .Y b byl t -ll,�
I
`
C0, MC I: : �! 1, 0 N S
,s s
-
C W� INi
IN
C! C
W W
2.Septi6system functioning (irvidegmtepern�Iatian'
high water table, location in relation to►ater-
X ; U k
etc.)
Basis:' According" to the Andersoh' report, clays ,ln
Nance Canyon may have slow.percolation rates unsui=--
_-
table for disposal af; treated 'sewage by spc•ay rriga-
on. The report recomrriends field percalatIOft testing;
lhformatioh from this testing is important since It has
bearing on the viabiIIty`of `the proposed'seWage dis-'
pasal'me#ho do a6d,jhus, the Peasrbil3ty bf this`site
to support proposed land uses. Study of this issue may
point to sewage treatitier t alternatives which sho ildbe
discussed in thel.R. (Also see H1 of this .litial
Study)
3. Sedimientation rates
X Uriicn
i3asis: 'Since erodable njateriajs are present in Nahce
Canyon, of _:downstream U$#f' .may:: beratfec,tieci by-
F T
increased sedlmentation due o disturbance, of :soils
Jr
during` tleveiopment.
Surface: or gttiund_yvater 'iquality (contaminants
• X tjn
- other .than sediment,- i.e., rirban runoff; nutrient ,
"L
enrichment, pesticides, emperatuir+e dissolved
ox�Fgen;,
i ori i
('
I
[_es3s; Downstream beneflcl;ai uses of 'the. Nance
r
Canyon Creek and assaclated waters, as well as 'tile
Durham Mutual bitch could also be affected'i Develop-
rtti'ent under the proposed; land else designations could
result In aadition of golf course feeti.11zers, heH ICI- `
�.
desnd,other materials. There is also the potential
For .deve lopment 'Under the, proposed uses to con tam
nate groundwater. paetidUlaely the In-dUstrla) rises;,
which appear .to I e uporadlent of. the Butte Creek
i
Estates:' wetls4 ,
,
5 Gourxiv ter recharge
X. Unkh
Basis. Groind water recharge could be adversei y
affected k an Indrease I, Impervious surfaces; an `
uebal' tiraina a conve ance
9 y systems:
G
!�
--7-777777777777
,
c.
G 0� N CL i.i ''S
c°
r. W M W •-rCA,"� j.... r►. a
UJ,
�p IA
6. Watercourse configeration, capaci; or . l`,
$Y bYck`au QCs
��
X' u- k,
Basis: The pl-oposal includes reconfiguration of the
Nance Canyon .Creek. The assumptiohs,leading to tiits,
'of
par the proposal should be checked, and the nature
ane=proposed channel should-be better clefinea:
1 -
Condition of ai*riparian corridor- marsh, tai e,
estuary .or'siough
X Unkn '
Basis: Industrial uses are proposed in the locat,ign of
a Butte Creek associated riparian forest., Additional
�
they _.: .
e may be potential for ground water withdraWals to
create .a cone of depression affecti'n ou"'
. - nd
_ ,g g►' .. Water
conditions in the riparian forest., See Biotic section.
8. Rate of runoff tiue to.impervious 'surfacing
41.
X Unkn
Basis The alip�(ica a prov%des' post-project runoff
estimates with the,conclusioh that a:8$ increase in
ftows off-'site can be expected. Detenti'bn
basins are
proposed in the appl icarit's: study to (mitiga=Acts
CRoll`s, Anderson, Z Rolls, 1988. Theseates
shor�tid be.' confirmed an'l the impacts 'of itic -e�secl
runoff-should bt',eviluated. 'Of par. iotilar concern are
cumU'lative.' impacts :to Outte Creek.,
0
f
I
. 7.
1�i-1 ood hazard areas . th or
, theer dei extent '
+ I
`
Basis: 'Nance Carryon geek is the primary fioodin
area ah the :site and if no # improver'wou1d,15eriodicaliy'
ihunrate areas proposed for "urban land Use desf�gna
tions. Offsite fiooding impacts,Y* both "from tie site'
antl cum�ulat'iVeiy are Ofconcern. Possible areas of''
conce�h Inc ekisttng i'oad'culvei-ts the Butts Creek
.Estates' and Butte CreEk� 1'he City of Chico has
pointed out` that butte Creek'serves'
as a-�s#orm Water
draii�age facility for 5oithChi co anti that tl'I,atiVe'
demand an the facility co,llid restrict fiilure grtiWt
7 ,.
I
rk 1.;r i3 i i j ,i
fJ
,
( x
NCLWSlCY:NS
c
1
c
C, .�C
C
t� V1 w (D
W p
4.
N
10...
Curnulative saltwater Intrusion,
NlA
Basis: Not applicab e.
m tither (state
F=urther
Study
Hydrologic constraints mapping to rate development
suitability on a general plan ieve i'should be per formed.
ConstrAIllts s,h.ou.ldinclude flood ,plains (after
developm-n patural drains a featur
g es, etc.
Specific studies should include:
Independent analysis bf the Behnke report
hydrology con"css
lu, I - I,.
Field percolation testings
Analysis ofi ,impacts t0ownstream Users from
sediment and urban runoff �ntrodiicttoh to Nance
-Ca, yon Creek and` the 'r
- - - -
ham ditch; Colf;course'
fertilizers, herbicides and otherhiaterialssi,oujd
bLi ihcluded;' in the a"valuation. Tlie potential for
he proposed uses to Contaminate gro, n water
5hould aiso,be assessed, part ciaiarfy the,'indus
trial uses, �vh►cii appear to be upgi-adient
of the
Butte ;Creek Estates wells
Analysis of potent'al 'impacts to groritlwata r
recharge;
Impacts of,patential need, to reconfigure IJahce
GanyOn Cf eek.
. Anetysi of ct haeptUal"poposal` by app . iicant
�
iholud hg assumptions used In the app(
,canP
drainage study),
• ilA'itigatbn meas�ires W will,lirrtiit heed to
reconfigure the steak if adverse impacts ane;
itlentifled;
tIil
Y,1
1, :W A
l
00
g
7
r
J,
fl C O N `C. L U". S 1O �M S
`
X
jI
C
!r .` c
W y
r �
LT
Northern Hardpan>Vernal Pool o•}Sttmliar to the vol-'
canic mudflow vernal pools, `these poals support A
highly specialPzed flora and fauna. Six small 'pools
were identified on, tl e site within the floodplain of
l
Nance Canyon creek and 04thin the proposed Industrial,
and Pubitc,;`;(sewage treatment plants areas. As a
result adverse impacts are ) ,en, la, y s'tgniftcant.
Ijiue yak Woodland,-, Blue oaks are a species of,con-
cern in Ca I ifornia because of their rapid decl ine, their
location cominonty in a -eas zoned for`deve lo'p `t, antl '
a reproduction tate insufficient 'tareplace current
.stands or future losses expected fe.om i de've lopment.
About ']278 acres of the 3868 acre area proposed for' '
urban. ,land i'#se designations,on the Blakeley Swartz
Ranch are blue :oak savanna and woodlands Develop
{
Ment, 'ih this' area'Will r"esult in direct '1
tr oss of trees:".
as wail .as eventual loss due to laridscaping,.irrtgattan,
s011 compaction, etc. Asa result, adverse ;impacts are
considered potentiaiiy sight cant.
w p"
Mixed 01156H h Noodlandiii ar an habitats:
becoming, increasingly scarce.,th'r"ou`ghout tl State°.
�
The U817Wlttgation po,l icy places this ha iitat ;in the
m:itigation cafegory no het:loss of
most stringent
existing hab`,itat value 'rs recommended. The mixed
riparian ood1'r `on the site is limited ';,to an area
along tine bother" Ifch within the pl,bposed Industrial ,
urea. Developmeiyt Cvittrri this area or a change in,j
water supply in the' ditch or in groundwater leve is
could signiflcan y Impact this habitat. Though the
appll"cantis conceptUai plan shows 'tris area unde-;'
veloped, tl�e; Can rel Olan amendment aS proposed '4
Would 'provi de no protection assiirahce,
:
77
0V .
+ 1I77
`Cj''~ do C C
Uj U3 Lu
'iii
�, C
U4 w �I; !• .� •
.. 'N
11 Intercn ittent Greek R i arian _- Because of their seasonal
nature, this habitat ,does not support the v6r.iety or
amount of` vegeta'tiori found in the mixed "riparian
woodland. However, this habitat is, important because
It sexves a's a wildlife mi^gray on dorridor'and supports
'
�'ipar On vege.ta:C
1:
Aft of the'm,ajor drainages on. the.. site 'suppprt this
habltat. As a rzsult, it Lts lodated within proposed
resid"rtiai areas including the Foothill, itesidential
area .within which the applicants are ntei ding tc+
develop a golf course. The Jones E Stokes study notes
that ::a yol"f- course cotiad IncreaseL. water si�ppty and
i�eneficlaf ly impact this habitat: Road crossing, home;,
andgolf course construction could result: in vegetation'
loss. In certain' 'areas' flows to r�ntilnagescould be
reduetl I•esulting in potentially' adverse impact"s:
tither Ecologically Valued Habitats" —,Also. of concern
are impacts to ephemeral drainages_founcl,inAho.#Ohja
--_
mound areas do the site 'which su pport `'many of the
T _rte --
same �"lant s ecies as vernal ° '
;�` p poois.Developmentcould
glrmin" to or degrade, these drainages. Whether �tliese
ar,s should be cohside , d significant will depend on'
whether or hot Interested and trustee agencies (DFG'
and 1i.5. Army Gores of Engineers) consider
,the
clrai:tages wetlands which should be cleterminedduring;'
jE the coiurse of` further environi dntaI review.
NumerousIL
seeps and spriinds are located across the site,'
'
w and are' important because they support wetland species'
and provide wiidlrfe hdbita,t. Development cr+uld
e(Ino lnate "the springs or altertheirflowwhich cajjitl
result in sgrifrcant adverse,lmpac'ts.
y
r
r
v
�j"�
,
W
s�
-17,
w
O''>N U S< N ; r
C. O!L 1 O
�
Y
rr
,
W ILI •• ..:LLt:+• ��
a 6 I'
y C
,
Ii
Yii
i�v
3. Wildlife habitai orr mic�•atinn cor;rirbr
�.
�" d 2I
;
Basi ; The Jones E Stokes ,report evaivatetl,the site
X Un kn
"�'"
relative t.n the value of wildlife habltaiti Ares which'
contain wlrilife resolurces or habitat that would lilrely
be s gnifidantI irrrpactetl by development were,cons
I
derecl high constraint 'an
_ AL
areas only the riper wood
lani#i;habitat fell into this; category; `, iAs aresult`,
potential 'impacts to ;this commuhity Ire considered'
sicxiI icant. The Jones E Stokes report cote' orizedit
moderate cohstraint areas as those. in Vvhich Wildlife
habitat is moderate to high but where an . '
could be m;itigated'."by_,pr""'oje;?
design. 'i'hese habita'>L`
areas which are: lc sated' within areas ':~roposed for
urban lance use- desLignations inrluctFtie lower Nance
i
Canyon area; the buffer lands adjacent to the "riparian
area .and lar oak
ger ivoaclarirJ ,stands. 1=or the
purposes of tins :Initial Study, impacts to these wild
life habitats are cans dered potettttally significant
_sinr,e; _it cannot leIssUred �vithiri the context;vf t, ---------
le.-
_
J
existin CeheralPlan amendment oropo ,al that protecw
tion wi,l1, rLLG., t: In addition, if' tFae Pee 'of they,
burro:Wing owl is 'detected, ahy b,itation a a'Wouid <
be contsidered high constraint area,
II
c
According �fo the,Jones & Stopes report, the migratory
p
East Tehama deer'hi does.r�ot regularly :traverse the;
site ecausie of afl loiN aleva ion and adjace.leve-�<
` !�
lopment ih' Paradise an'd Butte Creek t:any,.oil
,
4. Tim div+cesi of cies in
aasis: Oecauti #tf oeict , to ,cer>ta in rat a ar'er�dangeedd
rte, y kh,
� lantw, iahliiiridliari habI'tat ere potehflal ly S gn I icar'tt l
:l
�I
cis a result oaf tlevelripment under` the proposed land use !
�f
I
�designatiorts, the jcatential. to''reclu�ee;.the�tlyet'si't o'F'
d
ecies on rho sitealso eafis s.*
{
Y
it
I
d,
r b
4
I
II 1 J
,
it � I7
jf
i t
II,
ia
r
I is
,i
1
I .
I
I,
I
h: ,
r
, ,
i
Y
C.-C L U: Sl. 1 N
c
441
� C C.
li
yy..
a 1J,� W in W +a . .
Z
AmiI gatiommeasure should.be devised{ recommending
any' appropriate reconfiguratlon of;j�riiposed land use
den,ignations. Other mitigation measures whlrh would
'
be �effectivein protecting these areas at :the gener=al `
pla'n le�gei souid be ide'ntlfied. The appl cabllay of
deer m, tigatron .fees to, the proi'ect.shouI be cAi scussed
_, . . --
and their ray ationship to actual impact:; ,on the: site
should be.explo"red. if pr'otecton cannot be ensured at
the denerai pian level, thi's fact should be. pointed out
a.nr.4 a eo mate r' commendat'
pp_ p ' ions made. ,
The presentee of !the burrowing oWl and .elderberry
longhorn beetle'.,the ara'as proposed , r'.urban
land use desigc ?''tons should be. confiraied or
�,
discou'iitedt furth'or srtudles�
y
The impacts of contarninated a-urioff on Butte Creek
fisheries sharuld, be de'scrlbed:
,D.
NOISE;- Alk -AM_ ' "!_NERGY FACTORS, Describe the,
- - "- —
effect 'of the project on the following:-- --
-
1 Existing n4nise ievieOs (amitiiient arxi single eve-nt)
X ' Unkn
Basis: -i`he- only noise- sans!' ive -uses specifically.
�
: oposed on 'the ' to are residential. At thls time it
'
appears that residences adjacent to idea! Road dvoil6be
subject to traffic noise. 'Noise estimates for Ileal koad
are trot provided in the. Butte County General Pian
�icrise 0~lernent because qf` low traffic projected`on'that
Road. however, a rule` of thump provided in the Ela-
mens that the 60 dB .dn contour for y>igh speed,,
roadways 140-55_mphj With 5006't" 20,00 average daily.
teaffic is 20,0 -feet frorrl�' the :'roadWay.� ` GlVen that
„ xaffic uVi II in -ease on'Neal Road ,due to tlae protect
some ,of the !arid I' dif for residenc s rria Ise
affected by the ►�eaulltih'j nd.ise Jin additional concern
J`!§: poise from the laindfiili
1Mr►bieinit' air qualitj (by hyr.'rocai�tion ther�nai,
Linkn
.:,
actor, dust,, stnake, ;radiat�anetc#),
8.1slst Po r' areas of potential ii+ipact ma i i e'siiit fro►11
developm0 " tinder .the proposed Tani! _use desig1 boils
dust during construction; 2) :dust from the land; fill,
,I
� 1 Y I
r,
v
P
WCL ^U .S S
r;a
A C"l
C
» z:
Ij
3) Fotentiaiemissions from industrIai facilities;
and 4).
.: �.
cumulative_ airgyaiityF�npacts rela_tetl toy
increases. r1.
Tlie Ga)i,arnia.
�� �•
Board, ` Aer Re,ources
In responding
to.'!lotice of P+"eparat'on`on
the previous-BlakOq swat t'Z Ranch
applycation,,,,
- ,commented that rtltigaton ineasu�es should be-'
providetl to reduce`
_
the length and f r
vh�c.le trips for the ro'ect and that,�u��ncy of
i
ons should:be gUantifaetl. tl�e recluc-
ihasing, funding, impl�rren�tatiodanally, the
rid monitoring
rtf the measures shoui��! 'be' described.
3• Cl mete 'Qocaliy, negionalf Yl -
Basis: AddenA
tion of 's
strof
uctures can result tin
aee6schan
X
r
ubstantiel esi lg .and
rriicrociimate on a; site'' of s size.'' S o the
U
!�. Rates of fuel ,ener=gy
Bal>isi_ �----
Additionl
aurban uses �n%h3c
- - - for'. under the' h Kai i i be 'provided
'land
-=r-, x .� `iU, kn -
proposed .use clesignat ons �vili
require consumption of ehergy on-site':
as ,eons
inch-eased vehicr'e traffic. in
5.- Cumulative e,.
Vy demanda,, a'lr
Po.lutaintsa noise
-
Basi; CUmulative im acts d
p. are ci,iscusseab o
!
I :
Y �
i I � I ♦� P
{, i,f
V t y
1f V k r
r 1
I :
L
ri }`
ti ry yyy`1r1
xa
l Of
^r
1
�
A it
�.r �}
l C' 11
)
C.
t
W I W
W L y
pp
7. Adopted sce �c hi w s or area sof . scenic`walue,
n 9h aY
�
tlnkn'
Basis; There are no designatetl Scenic highways on or
surrounding' the site. However, the Skyway to the';,
north is 'a partic1lariy aesthetieal ly pleasing route.
_
.;tiiueti of -the site cart ;be v°levied fror�i the Skyway:=
- -
V;ows'wiil be aitered,.but genera1lykthe foreground
open space wjjjlremairnw 0ch will limi .visual impacts.
in the vicinity of the l,ndustriai. area, the Skyway
not as elevated above the valley floor an views are
-_
... -
'noIL
strHPI area
t as iking+ However, views of the industr�
could' be sgnifldantiy 'degraded..
Stticl
The viewSh A analysis 'should include an,analysis .of '
potehtlal vlews from the Skyway across the site
,
_ Lands;preaerved I under an ag-icultural, tic; ar'
NIA
- -
- _ _ =
— aper* -spare contract _.
Basi"s The' site 'does not int uce any Y�(#Iliamson Act
`
lands or Timber 2eserve lands: ,
9. Nazard to people or properfijr fri+'n rslr of expto=
Mon releate of hbkar dous suits#antes eithe�ron
'ite or iri transit:;
bast. The,, lnduStela! and C L as Mort.: al arehave the
y'
;3ctential for ttie,storage bf hazartlous substances. In
(addition the sewage re me, pians and disposal areas
and the landflli have 'some potential to expose ►esl-
dents to hazardous substances. • At 'a general pial,
�P�evel� the --impact concern is'the relhtiv, e Iac1tiOn of
� lard Uses and whOther r not ad giiate buffers or
,these
"r`estrctions on specd:land Uses have beenproyitlecl'
These issues heed to big 5ttjdied further
R
. ._
,
3,
I i