HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-12B RANCHO ESQUON PARTNERS GPA (15),
1 I i
the proposed proJec �s approved. Tes cauldinclude "real;
other projects Le.projects.
designed to responid to marker c6fiditIo6yas;i
el, as specu,atnve prciposals desxgne "la
ncreas,and'"value �?�Ftttuirproposals could wellbesubstangal
in size,and rtum6er, and,
associ'ated.enrtuoni�tr✓ntal
impacts would lie potentially consi arable on both a a
cmu ,alive basis.., projecrand
a
I.
:
t
,
4
r I
ji.
I
I
I
1
I
,
1 I til I
� I r
�^
1
I
t
I, I
, .
I 1, 11
1
a I
IL i
I 1. I
A ,
I 1 I
i
I 1
y.
� 1
1' `I
l
r
n I
I A 1 I
1 I
�• I
Ranhn Esquon "Final 1~IR
Section IV, Etesponses to Comments'
"Page IV'*,
I
1
t
♦,t` i
HAPTE�i .0-CUMULA7I' 'i 10 E � TS
19.QOa COp meat 48 ,84;'' '
i
The cumu, anveimpact analysis should include• a brief analysis of this growth inciucin
impact as it relates t6!'the 20 year buildout of the City of Chico sphere. c� influence."
19.00a Rospori a #08 24,:,;
See Res onse #0$ 23 within Cha ter 18A: Growth -'Indocin Im acts.
P P g p
19.01a Comment #>�.34.
"The .,.E Auld' provide the reasoris why the, Durham Dayton Nelson planning area i.s art
I.
appropriate area far the E1R to analyze cumulative impacts. Why wasn't another area
uSeClTv
19.'01b Response. #13-1,:
CEQA provides little guidance as to the geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis,
indicating; in. C,EQA Guidelines Section 15130 that documents 'designed to evaluate
regional, or area; wide ,conditioris`�' would be useful in per brining the "analysis.: Ther
'Durham -Dayton-; ,, lson planning area, Was elected fur evaluation because it: provided aq;
area wide context for analyses of cumuita6e impact. Furtherriiare; propaSed" dev.�lopmenc
in the planning area had been ubUect to recent review in conjunction with the Durham-,
Dayton -Nelson Area Plan, and extensive development and environmental impact: data was
available for the planning area, The selection of the cumulative; impact analysis area was:
made in consultation between the 13,utte County Planning Departr fent staff and EIR'
i.
prepared,
19.05a Comment #16=1a:
�I
The trafilain fomtat'on included in the _raft Environmental 'Impact Report (DEIR is
Ii
insufficient; We feel that prior to approval of this DEIR and GPA, additional tiaffc '
information needs to be inade available. This information should;include:",
A section that eovers'ftrture cotk,lipons withourthe project:"
19.05a Response #164a:'
s e�' 1� f`th D�. I
PIease .c � .
aft RPa e 9}5 0.:,. a z": ,E
19'A b comment .#16 Ib:
"The traffic infoinnation included in the Draft En'viro merital,Im act Re ort. DEIR is ,
n p �' p C t..
•that
insufficient W'e feel prior to approval of this
DEIR and GPA, additional traffic
information needs to be madoavailable This.infonnation'8
'ould' nclude:
.�
Future cumilative traffic growth plus project:''
I
L9 05b Rea dose` + , b ,
PI ease seepage `19.5 of the Draft
1 AS-
� Gomm�nt. #16 Itc
e traffic information inclu'ied iil; the Draft Environttental Impact Report (DEIR' iS
m.sufficier t We feel' ,,that pnor to approval of this DEIR find GPA; additional traffic
info adge available Ilii s infatmaaon should iinclude
iLIl
s �>
Road and iriterstion co' uranons and oeratiri conditions`under,future;con
p g duan"s..
„
I
Rericfio Esqudn FLtal Eti� Section IY,, Comments
.,
Responses to
Page NSB
777
t
I.
i 4.
'
25,00a Comment #094' roved the
'The of the district remains that a plan must be developed and app. .
position
I)urharn Unified school T?istrick fbr payment prior to approval cif the project"
2S:UOa Clxnmenf, # -G: s 'ace and a 'cultwal zoning should,be
z; p p rvation of open p
'th , Tess
v�.,herevex' possible
considered."
25 166 Cornmolt
n Planning aiea EIR slyoulil kye given priority."
'The Duxham-Dayton-Nets
�
f
25.000 Cortiment #11-9z
"Should an ameftdrnent to, the General Plan' be, thadef h ro ose potenti 990 1 he nitia
y
units on � quon Ranclt� .tlthough the develops P . P
.
developmeht','IJ
25 40a Comment #l1-10
"`'Phis is definitely a Teapfrog develt�pmcnt"
25,.004 Comrncnf.
►, iciilarl. concerned about the, traffic patterns which ina}�` develop and the
1 eras part y signalization of Highway 99 north
ti
suggested mitigation measures. The measures include
Aurhain-P tthe
antic
and sautliev
bound off ramps,, and
nra ated level of service oracle
given the current traffic level, a P
critical
developmeiit is completed,"
15,.Ooa Cotrithent ecausenl
'''Tate RanchaErquon Project is consistent with the Butte County Oen04P AA`
'_the diicres contained'- in ihc` General Plan:.ar.
all. p `
furthers- almost of
letter for !full text)
r
25.404 .'Comment `Conditions of a pxoal' instead. o
the, ElR should mlce the mit axon; rneasu es p �
g
�p pp
them to be completed nor to a ro�tal,"
requiring
OOa Ccimment. #113-14:
4, ve itwould be 1o6-ical and.equitable to ex and the General flan
In the alternati, , ` n l? of acres
:avoidance'
Amendment, area to the south .or west by an amount of acres equal to the number
aaided+
Comtneat ��# l 3-.4 4• '� I .' J .. i Y
be noted that the map of disturbed'aritatxonailleve
''Figure 13 1.t should
L7elineaaons in subsequent envirorou
nmental dacume gi , a more p ectgse
t'sttnite�
characteriiation.
25.044 Comment #14 l: eloper's
urban conflicts and the dev
discssion concerns agricultuzl and
£ ' 1'. This; .0
'page 2 6
solution to the conflicts whchCAsu Tlh of the rezon in'termsof,, 'r
ire of >great concern to the A p pr posed
air quality can be astronomical (See actual 'comment letter for '
coiriplatnts regarding
complete teKtof,coinrnem),'
5ecuon IV. Kesponses to Caminenits
TR e't'� 52
RanoTio Esquon-Fis1a1 E - Prig
i
1.
w � " .,4• y�M .x#d1+��A a b rt 'S.+ A'•' 4 kr�+S,�R.nG ,{ y ,��:w �
n
1 Y�,`• .r� " 4 4 '� � gat` ; ; • • • " S
t
l
s
J � .
e`.
� �. • � i� , �fii% tit � f'�'� � �' . '' ,
. - � • • } �, 1(4 r , � t a�k,l� a � 1 n 'J'�jSy. � . ,reL, _
' - t f a � `+, s� s:(iR,'` �r.r �' s!, � M, ��� ,; �1. / � �� „�Pj dx� •
P
r
• _ � 9y9;� P� 1 h. ' •• I 1,'1' ` , li� i1 � N ., } � V 11 i -'
r 11
+ � •Y rF'
• F . , ( 1� 4� k � 4 d(` �� ` � � y �+iy VV f{ � ' � 1� M1 r 1
- .. �1,I. 91 {y y1 4 t ��_ T.R L S� . �+fjl ��,rr '•r s r s d f ,}x d �.
/� �•„ ��7Y �1 i. U �� � �' �,�J.�' _ ^/ N , i, �11�r }'i� ` R�,� �Y r J.�Y'11 _
;.r/
_......_ } � ,+ ♦ ar � w;7`�t� \ ?�"�.' ,r e "dS' ,Kl� ns 4 :I'"y �'
IL
lilt
J!q
26.QOA4 C6M,0161 # 63 9
of residents to
going work?"
It
ol
iI
v ti
0 1
t :4SII
"Y W60 Find, EIR ..o
cc 1,VRdspb -i lb C
ibh I
i' 4 .i
ti •r. .rr v t y s ,: m,
7
fl i 1
,1
I�( t CA t
I
�
12.00 Comment #141 �� � _
"BatYe County is currently unclassified "for CO with the Chico` Urban'Area laving a "noit-
attainment status for bath 1Federal an`d State ambient air duality standards,. ,Not madeling
the C0 contributions fioni this,' ro'ecf is unacceptable becuse,of. this current status."
p J
12,t1� Response #14411:
R.." entified the ote tial for CO exceedences at Corr i .' ri and
They Draft El d, n gested me rsecno s
p
.,
h
identifed midgatim necesssary to reduce any exceedences which ,mig t; occur to acceptable"
.
levees, Ng Ck"L,*E modelling wa's. performI JJ consistent with the. overall approach to
environmental analysis of the purposel.General Plan amendment; All analyses in the Draft
EiR with, the exception of the traffic analysis; were performed at a generalized' level':,,
s
Wh .le modelling data'would provide specific information on post-project air quality, the.
j
,
basic conclusions oft he.drafC EIR would not: be's ibstantiavy changed.
Ptiblic I3earing'tr'Lmrnents and Responses
l
Comment #17-,1: is.
He wanted to know how°'the Consultant justifies. the statement that `fiscal impacts 'will be
positive',
Response #17-1:
'A
Please refer to the revised fiscal anal" sis shown in
Y Appendix A of the final EIR.
l►rferz ,said on page: 2 'S7 this is a well stated paragraph, He said the General Plan is'
deficient in this area. He said:the County Ys�,.entering into_Ihe General.Plan review, process
an&'he thd.ugh the current General Plan_is.legally.deticient n a.number.of areas aiid;. nfactt
any pra�ect of this nature §hould and can not go forward until the General ,1?lan has been
updated niid ievised,
Response, #1,7=2
TWis a recominendadan tQ. the commission'.
G'amment #�$-1:
lhave
Ms., ' Pulliath said he and h,d nei boys went throu h several mmetin s to the area'
!VI s gh g s g �.
designated A 4Q::on, th General Plan, She said she etas concerns about changing this and
changing,the rural nature of the area, She was eoneerneti with servlces bemgprcavided and
impatrts on sewers Sh'e briefly discussed school impacts. "
R'es onse #18-1•
The cone , P lli.., " have been discussed i detail includin' . iti" aro .
erns raised bys _ . u am n ngm, .g n.
when needed to lessen'irnpacts. in Chapter 6 O of the Draft EIR chtitled.PublieServices and
r= ,
CJtilifies.
vein mnt
v rf'° aid:"tier " ro ` ere horde s the land She 'wtis in a 'or of de e
Ms ,Lan erg e, ,s P Y, r f v p.
,P
because tfte lands not`siiitable for fartning; She said all the residents in the area ante
acre paicels and.w,ere given 1 f1' acre 'zoning,
Ranchci Esqunn Final I:IR section,WI, Responges to Comments;
ra,
4, 0"
Ak'
,A,
41
L AVAh
I I
fj
11
t1
1
1 1
h'
TAB LF. 8 3
5
CAPITAL FA,CILI'ES :EFFECTS
Can
i-ec'to
ilil erviCe
Project-.Ttelatcri Demand
Wtiieh' Demand
ied
Pat or.
� yr
Pe SA6
1 �
'
New streets to service propo sed
Construetcd by applicant in
RaacLs
-
land uses; improvenrieats to
J
jet Ilionith promised
exisgn 'street system.
P
r
11
Water,; Sewer,;Swrm
11rotV Ssy�$d aces ice
Constructed.b a hcant.in
conjunction „yttii ppgposed
Drainage, Gas, )electric,
p po - land
proJect,
GATV atidPhone
1
increased demands on disposal:
Disposal site expansion costs
S41id+aste I;
acilitic
met'by upping fees
(`Sheriff i"racilities'
Indremenwi in crease'in NO far,
I:xisdng impact fees.
�ofGces�and equipment .
1 ire Protection
Water _system improvements,.
iiiccease'iri need -for
Wafer system improvcments
consaucted by app2iant,
Facilities
increirtental
offices and t quipinent
provision of fire station sifts;
o. public facility fee;
payment
if adopted, possible formation
�. ..
ofvenue- aufig, cnerentity. ,a
Durham T3nilied; School,
One additional.elemeiitaz�� '
State-mand5ted school impact
mitigation fee ($1.5t;/sq.fl
DistrSet _ .;
school, addiuoiW cTassroonts
= n ermediate school and
at tiev .. t
de ft..
ntial526Is
res , , q
commercial) of abou[ SS��3
existing high .scbool
mitliow,
Additional fundi ig td b
w
'required
to meet anticipated
scfiool costs, couId,,be met,
I
- Melia
with developer fees ,
.
Rao§ District, school site
edtcation'or other':sources:
d .
ecreatiei3i
Parks a,id,
IllDemand far recrtrational
Quimby pct (inrlieu) fess if
conswction of
.Ill
facilities` other" th,�ii goIfF
adopted,
ballfield§` or other toe, on
facilities'.(shown,by applican t
te platij�
in Jul" 1992''sipl
d'
CHAP I FT3C?�i. .EFFEC'T'S
�� ,
•Fut dl ETR
'R�r►cho �Esqu�on -
I
l?a $e <lij'
`�C
,
7A
�l
11
On
1:
It
h ko—
it
j
lit
L' o
19
it
fit:
�'. rst..' a ! •:iso [ t 1� a {r �. :, t t I, ° a ^ �ti i �� �lA� N;�
1
t
e
THELE I2��
OZONE E' CMEr ENCES•
041CO MONITORI -STATION
Samples Exceeding Standards
Oiie Hour Eight "Hour
Meati
9
0
1986
? 0
0
,9s;l
0
0
�i
o
b
„
���
TASTE 12-4
t
PM -10 (ug/ C EXCEEMNCES
*, C irCrJ 1VIONIT, RIN STATION
Samples Bxceedi,ig Standards
One Huai EighE,Hoisr
1VfearE
�ggq;
Nlti' P�F?v1.
NM'
98f;.
9 ti
0
,a
t
9
L
0
i
15 0
i
I
i
t
�
I s
I
L
i l
9
i
f
c
I
`f
I
I
,I
1
I