HomeMy WebLinkAbout027-110-004c � .,
�� a . e
e o � . � � �
j t �. ..
. � B�• o c
A L � - 1
� IO � � � 0
y, �� '
�,
��
. ` kt't n
� _ c � - .die"� ,
� � . .
S ��;
:K ' t _ ,
,� f b • ���
� ��
�, N . �.
��
���'
M
B•
._ ,.���
a� .,
',
li . � u '
�, .
� � � "/
� ��
1 j ., 1
��
1, .. 11� �
t
r
� : � - , I u
� t � � I 1
i
9
8'4"IU-UJ J -Q2
APPLICANTr____- Ge,or e Ivii ler
ADDRESS _
3275 Grubb,, Road, Oro -Ville,, CA 95965
_
OWNER Same
Tentative Parcel Map cliv'i.ding 2� ac,,Vos to create �A
PROJECT DE`SCRIPT ION -
parcOl.s„ A -L. c. roc i a 6 l.0,`5 a tC ,.
At the northwest corner of Grubbs Road and Beaver
LOCATION------
Roa-d intersection,, Oroville area.---------------
-
AiSESSOR"S PARCEL NUMBER(S)
ZONING ---- A_ - 5Y ,GEN. PLAN Ag -Res
PROJECT CONSISTENT
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED 10 / cJ / 8 4
En ,, Barnhart, Brown ssoc.
g "
DATE PU3LICATION NOTICE �4RITTEN
PIJBLISHED
PLACE NtW$PAPER NOTICEtSi PUBLISHED - 0. C• �'• G. B.
DATE MAILING LIST 'PREPARED
DATE MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN_ MAILED NUMBER
DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PREPARED
ENVIROr'3:�',N'l'AT,
CAT4GOPICAL EXEMPTION - DATE FILED
DETER1riI»NATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION - BATE ADOPTED.
AND i9=
MITIGATE
D NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DATE ADOPTED
ENV. IMPACT REPORT - DATE CERTIFIED
i
t
r
6.. George Miller, AP 27-r1"-04,, 4"p arcel s at the, nw, corner of Grubbs Rd;
and Beaver Rd. intersection. Oroville area. ENginer: Barnhart/Brown
and. Associates (cant_ from Der_ 17, 1984)
OPEN
Mike Evans, engineer, said there was something about a roadencroaching on the
property, but the condition to show all easements of record would. take care of that.
As for the swage, it really goes to zero
The mitigation measures were discussed.
BUTTE COUNTY ADVISORY Diry MINUTES
December 24, 1984
Page 9
Ms. Tuttle said that the map of earthquake faults in the Count=y has such a large
scale, that the location of the faults cannot be pimped down within 100 ft.
Mr. Evans said all the conditions were acceptable. A geologic reporthas. been
commissioned_. Mo problems are anticipated.
Georgina Miller, applicant, asked how her existing mobile home would be effected
;by any identified earthquake faults.
Mr. Mendonsa. said tha=t the existing dwelling would not have -to bye moved_
Ms. Tuttle said that future development
�rbghtfunderdit1``hough it might
be advisable to move the mobile if thefault goes
Mr.Mendonsa said that the applicant's insurance Might be effected by locatior
of a fault, but the mobile would not have to be moved.
CLOSED
Mr. Reid stated: having reviewed the environmental review checklist and conversations
M and the Planning Director's Report of Dec. 6, 1984, I will make a
at this meetingor
motion to grant a mitigated negative declaration
ls on of27�11�-g4mefindingFthat�thetprohe
jeci
e i
George Miller parcel map to create pe
could have an effect on the environment, but willenot have a silnif icantTeffect
in
this case provided the requited .m g u
2 and 3 as listed within the
mitigation measures are mitigation measures ,r1, that
Planning Director's Repart of gece Bu�tteBCountiy�General Plan andmotion is made Butte County
he
project is in conformance with h
Zoning. Motion seconded by Ms Tuttle and carried unanimously.
that a miti ated negative declaration was adopted this
Mr. Reid stated: noting ' 9" arcel ma of George Miller to creata.4
date, I will make a motion tothe approve
to thepfollowing conditions:
parcels on AP 27-11-04. App �. .
Public Works conditions '
1. Provide two-way traversable access R5--8-LD-1 to each parcel.,
from a county maintained road or state highway.
2 Acceas to be reserved in deeds as percounty o=rdinanc=e.
3. show 50 ft, building setback line measured from centerli.:ne o!
access easement.
4, provide road ma ntonance agreemenb.
5 oeed to true County of Butte 30 right -of -Way from the
cent=erline of Grubbs Road,
6„ Indicate a 50 ft. buiI61hgI setback from the cent=erline of
Grubbs Road.
BUTTE COUNTY ADVISORY- AGENCY. MINUTES Nlge 10
Decerobe+^ 24, 1984
MILLER, TPM'
7. Show all easements of record on the final. map -
8. Obtain encroachment permit for all driveways, .s-
and construct to county standards. �'► nem or extinc,
5. Pay any, delinquent taxes or current taxes as required.
Health_ Department conditions:
10 Provide: a 100 ft. leach field free setback around e:xis.t ng
wells either within theproperty or within 1001 ft. of, the,
property boundaries o -n Parcel 3.
11 Shwa a 5.0 ft. leach field setback from- the. dra'Inage way Orr
parcels 1, 2, 3 and, 4..
12- Show the usable two acre sewage disposal area proven to meet.
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance on
and 4. parcels 1, 2
13. Prove that the required 9 quantities of domestic water at
»; available or place the statement an the map that "there is. ha
evidence that domestic water is available" for
and. 4. parols 1 , 2
Planming Department c-otlditioh
14, access to parcel 2 shall be approved the the Dc
Ppar'czrtent of
ublic Works.
•rte+.. N.iJ;�_ �.�A.rr. W' sr..r
The!ollowing mit gat on measures must also be complied witht.
Pero rm a geological survey and incorporate thq »
�. Perfammendations 64 #,hn I
geologist into the� I
.. pro3ec�.
.,
2. Utilize standard ��rosic�n cc,ritrat measures and canstructibn-
techniques to zni'r�zmz,te erosion
Potential,
3.F r�nQ,ta11 grope"Ply s ued and de`sig'ned culv9ets as necessary.
Mot4on seconded by Msi Tut,
le and G81"i'ied 1.lnart mow
1 53
7. George Miller, AP 2"(-11-01N, 4 parcels at the northvIest corner of
Grubbs Rd. and. Beaver .Rd:. intersection. OroviJle area. Engine-.er
Barnhart/Brown Associates
HEARING 0aN
Mike k;vans, engineer, asked about the Planning Dept. condition to have
access to parcel 2 to be approved by DP1J.
Mr. Mendonsa said that the road appeared to be involved with ri Swale,
which might require a-culvert.
It wag agreed that the condition basically meant to meet standard construction
practices.
f'
Mr. Mendonsa said that Beaver«
Rd does not show on the titl report, but does
appear on parcel snap 8193.
btr,. Evans said that title report said it- does riot go across the property--
-
either the titla repart or -p'revioVs map-, are incorrect.
The item was continued to Dec. 24, 1981E.
UTTE 0000TV AI)MORY AOtaNOy 1I.CN11` r
a
APPUNDI X i
COUNTY OF I UT,ri.
ENVl'R:NMl:NTAi, cilbcnis,r i,toizm
(to WAITS c y i,eas9 Agency 1
1'0a- ! 84-10-09-02
All is 27-11.-04
(. BACKGROUND
' er
I : .aaaae o f- proponent (; eo r.
v, Address or proponent and representative (if applicable)
3275 Grubbs Road Barnliart: _Brown An 95jµ
�Orovil le, CA s 95965_. ,�.,�—. _ P. 0. BoX 1.576 _
L- Oz'ovzlxc, GA 95965
. Project descriptionTenLat eve P� i^oel Map��_ —_.,..,. .
XES MAYBE NCl
tI. rt�NI11#Ttllty' 1.�.�. �,NIi1hCS_Ui iIlaNli:iCe_ �'NC..,�1' -�
�. Aloes the Project have the potential to degrade the
quality or the envirotament, substaantiallY reduce
the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a
rich. or wildlife population to drop below sel f-
sustaiaaing levels, t'.I'reaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, r( educe the number or restrict the
range or a. raze or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods z
or Cal iforni.a hiatory or preltis oryY'?
b, Does the project have the patent l aal to achieve
short-term benorits to the detriment or long-term,
environmental goals? (A short term 9miaaact on the
environment is one wh i c,h occurs in as rola tvelY
brief period of tune while 101M, tc;am imparts will v
endure into thefuture.) j•
all , timitec , haat cuminlatively considerable?individu-
ally
atdna
c ,
Does the project have impacts which as di (u
project mai}• impact OP two oa mole separaate resoureee
where the impact on eachresourceis rol at it CIF
.mall, but where the effect of they total of those
VVac:ts can the environment is significant.)
ci. pars the project have Enilronmental errec.ts which
will cause Abstaant•ial acversa: affects can human
beings, either direc:tlY or indirectly"" !
111 li',l�t�il_NATlett. (Di he completed hY the l�,c+aad AZ enCV 11
tart the basis of this Initialvl a'.luaatiun
111%r find thu proposed lalaivc't Ccalil.la NOT have a significant effect
cin the environment, and as Ni?r,r'i"CISE D1i('I,a1itA'i'iON will be prepared
!/WE 11nd that cai.thcnai;h tl elrcal,,ed pro,iect could have esignil:i
cant a deet on the cent ircanwel , , thvrc will not tae a signifIc ant
effect in this carie bevalnsv the MITIGATION MEASURES described on
the attached :sender have bveo added to they project. A NUGATTVY
t)l;t LARATIt1N Will he Prepared.
l,,wE find the proposed praa,l'vvt MAY have a sig+nincaant effect on
the �c�nvironment, and an ENVIRONMEN'T'AL IMPACT ItEClOWr is requireel»
rat i 1 . �
Novamber 27, 1984 (MUNTY nV 11UT`V, PLANNING DEPAR'i'MPNI
,• . ,a-�.r�'
ASsor.`dt:o Plannor
Reviewed by
4.4 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ACT'S_ 0
p1anat:ions of all "yes" and "maybe' answers are required
on attached sheet(s))
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: YES
MAYBE
N0
a—'Instable
earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substr-ictures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?,
C.
Change in topography cv ground surface
relief features?
d.
Destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
e.
Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, -
either on or off-site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
—'
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay,, inlet or l.akm?
g.
Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils
outside designated urban areas?
h.
Exposure Of People or property to geologic
ha-ards such as earthquakes, landslides,_ mud -
Slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
2 AIR. Will 'the proposal result in substantial.
T7
Air emissions or deterioeation of ambient
air quality?.
b.
The creation of objectionable odors, smoke
or umes
c.
Alteration of air mole"�`yeTt�, moisture, 0C
�—'
temperature, or any change in climate,
locally or regionally?
3. WATER, Will the proposal result in substantial.,
=changes
in currents; or the course or
direction of water movements in either
marine or fresh waters?
b
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, `—
�
or the rate and amount of surface runoff!
C,
Need for off-site surface drainage improve
ments, including vegetation removal, channel-
ization or culvert installation;'
d.
Alterations to the course or flow of food
waters?�
e.
Change in the amount of surface wator in any
water body?
f,
Discharge into surface waters, or in anti
�.._
alteration of surface water duality, including
but not limited to temporature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
g,
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
I'll
Change ii. the quantity of ground w ers,
either through direct additions of 'with-
drawals, or through interception Of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
i..
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water s,,p,plies?
•
Fxsnsure of people or prope. �y to water "-
related hazards such as flooding?
YES
NW_�„YBF- _ NO
q. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial;
or number
a, C ange -in th- diversity of species,
species of plants (including trees)
of any
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatz.c plants)?
the numbers of ant unique, rare
b. Reduction of
or endangered species of plants?
of plants into an
C. Introduction of new species i
baxrer to t he normal rep. eni,,h-
area, ,�
Ment otrelsting species.
agricultural cro;>?
_--
d. Reduction in acreage of any
S, LIp,E. Will the proposal result in snumbersi.111
_4NIMAL
a. C ange in the diversity of species,
animals (bards, land animals
of any species of
including reptiles, fish and shell fish,
benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, 'raxe
,
or endangered species of animals?
animals into
'1'.
C. Introduction df new species of
in a barrier to the migration
an area, or result
or movement of animals? -y--
fish. or Vil.dlife
{t..
d. De:teriOl'cition to existing
habitat?
It in substantial"
Will, !,he proposal resulevels"?
�in
I. Irncreases e:cxsting noise
of people to severe noise levels?
b: Exposure:
?, LIGHT AND CLARE.. Will the proposal produce
f
stgnifidan�ght and glare?
LAND USV• Will the proposal result in a
substantin.j al.tera:Lti:on of the present ar planned
land .use of an area?
9. NATURAL RESOURCES. 1�ill the proposal. result in
in the rate of use Of any ,natural
a,Increase
resources?
b. Depletion of any non#ronevable natural.
_ .
resources?
10 RISC Op UPSET. Will the proposal involve; ard-
� est explosion or the release of haz,
aTis
ous substances (including, but not i.imited to,
-in the
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
accident or upsot conditions'? ._..
event of an
b, passible interference: with n emergency
plane?
response plan or emergency evacuation
IVil1 the proposal a11er tl�e 7 ovation,
rate of the human
1l. Pj3tLrA1Tb—u-0t-"i'-On,
density, or growth
...,.:�.�..
...�.�-
ropul.ation
l" HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
housi.ngl
or r:reate a �letmand for additional
YES MAYBE NO
1.3. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the pxoposa.l.
result in:
a, Generation of substantial additional -vehicle
movements
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial, impact on existing transportation
systems?
d. Significant alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of people and/or
goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists oc pedestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICE'S. Will the proposal have an offect
upon., or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services
a, Fire protection?
b Police protection?
c. Schools?
d, Parks or other rocreati,oaal facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15, ENERGY. 11111 the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
of new sources energy; t
sources of energy,
or require the development
16. UTILITIES, Will the pxopsal result in a need for
neva syjtems, or substantial alterations to the
foIIOwing :
a. Power or natural gas?
b., Communications systems?+
c. Water:
d. Seger or septic tank?
e.. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid. 'waste and disposal?
1?. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard, or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b'. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18 AESTHtTTCS, Will the proposal result in the
oobstruc�r of :any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? �.
..4-
A
r
YES
19. RECREATION. bVi ll the proposal
MAYBE'
result in an ill,pact
upon the quality or quantity of existing
opportunities? recreational
20, CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a• Hill the proposal, result in the alteration
of or the destruction of
a prehistori
historic archaeological site? c or
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physycul-
or aesthetic effects
--
to ;a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
C. Does
the proposal have the potential to c7tise-/-
a physical change which
would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d. $Vill the proposal restrict existing ieligiotIs
ar sacred user within the
— -
area? potential impact
V, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AP 27-11-04
See attaclunent
��i
ib,c,e: Oisruption of the propert,( for driveway construction and
three homezites. Approximately 1 114 acres will be overcovered by
improvements. Newville variant exhibits, a medium erosion potential.
Property immedia�,ely adjacent to swales with slopes of 25% has the
greatest erc-,ioh potential. Natural homesite locations are far enough
+rum swab's to minimize most erosion related impacts-
1fl: Faults of the Foothill Shear Zone traverse this property. CX act
location of the faults should be determined by a geologist. A 100
+Out no building area shall be designated along any fault -trace.
2a: Dust generation from dirt/gravel roads will increase.
3blf: Road and/or driveway crossing of the swale will affect on-site
drainage and disrupt soils- Proper culvert installation should
minimize problems.
Wyman Ravine. Will Ladd to existing
stptipwater runoff draining into
'loading.
4a, 5d; Some foothill oak woodland habitat will be removed by
devela0m--nt-
81, 11: Development will increase in a rural community where services
are limited. lhcreasing parcel ita-tion may reduce the agricultural
viability of neighboring properties.
jza,ct Traffic will increase or area roads. As ADT increases, Grubbs
may require upgrading. Parcel 2 will require approved access over the
%w al e ,
14a, t7b- Fire hazard on -Bite is rated extreme by Butte Cc3uh+-Y
General ;Ian* Residents will be exposed to fire hazards and may
increases -- by residential burning practices.
,zo area fire hazards
Reference: Tentative Parcel Map, AP 27-11-05
Applicant: George Miller
PM-guggl
Assessor's Parcel #
27-11-04
Log # 84-10-09-02
A.
I. Type of Project; TentativI2 Parcel Map
2. Brief Description: Land division of 26 acres to create +,aur
parcels, one at 5 acres, two at 6.5 acres, and one at 13 acres.
3. Location: At the northwest corner a+ Grubbs Road and Beaver
Road (Crossacountre), Palermo area.
4- Proposed Density of Development: 1,dwelling Unit/par.cel
S. Amount of Impervious Surfacing; Slight
6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Grubbs Road frontage an
throe parcels, access road to Parcel 2.
7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septics
8« Source of Water Supply: Individual wells
9- Proximity of Power Lines: To original parcel, mw.n
transmission line adjacent tc the east.
W. Potential for further land divisions and develaprrventT None
under existing zoning.
B. V-nvirbhmentRl_Settj12t1
1* Terrain
a. General Topographic Charatzter: Gently to moderately
sloping lower foothill
b, slopes-. 8-25%- SIOPe% of 25% near drainage swat es.
Homesito locations will be an gentler terrain.
c. Elevation: 4W-�$
d, Limiting Factorzk -
2,, Sails
ai Typos' and Characteristics: Neville variant 2o -40,,J yellow
bi-bwli to red brawnl, gravelly to sandy loam, weakly
consolidated conglomerate, slow permeability, well
draihinr ,. madium-low suitability +at- eXtonsive range use,
tonsiderabler ttbnihets.
b. Limiting raCtorSt Medium acidity
Z Natural Hatards a+ the Land
-A. Earthquake Zone-. Foothill fault astoCiation and shear
zone c d -Jy-CxVtq(5
bi Erosion Potential; Moderate
c. Landslide Potentialt. Low -Moderate
d. Pine Hatard,. �,,4trome
e. I
-l"Pahsive 80il Potential: High
Appotidix V (a)
AP 27-11-0
4. Hydrology
a. Surface Water: Wyandotte Creel; +/- 100 feet east, The
property drains westerly to Wyman Ravine: QWID e t,t'
tiff -site just to the east, rr
b., Ground !+later. Unidentified resource
c» Drainage Characteristics: Numerous drainages on-site
flowing into 'Wyman Ravine.
d. Annual Rain -fall (normal) : 25"
e. Limiting Factors Numerous swales restrict homesite
locations
S. Visual/Scenic Quality' Hugh
b. Acoustic Quality, Good - isolated rural area
7. Air Quality: Good
lei of ogles! �EDvi rc�rtm�ntl,
$• Vegetation: Foothill oats woodland and open gr'aseland
9. Wildlife Habitat: No rare or Endangered species have been
mapped within the area
�c� i fur �l _En�+i r�c►nmer, Z;•
10, Archaeological -Md Historical Resources in the area:
sensitivity area LOW
11. Butte County General Plan designation
Agri cul tut~al -Resi demi al
Existing Zoning. A -S
1 N Exist ng Land Use cin -site: One homesite
1.4. Surrounding Area:
a, Land Uses: Dural ranchettes, large tracts of Open space(
b Zoning: A-- -5
co Gen. Plan designations: Agricuitural -Residential
d, parcelsSofe100.1 3-15 with major road frontage, interior
e
Populationt sparse
15. Character o•f Site and Areak L'lutlying ranching community
16. Nearest Urban Areaq broville +/ q miles northwest, Palermo
Miles west
17i, Relevant Spheres of Influence.
OWIp,lutte County hioseltita
IE3. Improvements Standards Urban Area; mane
19, Pire Protection Servv te:
a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station; Palermo, ','-) 1/2 miles
b- Water Availability: None e�,
ct•f tht, site cept ag ponds west and south
20. Schools in Brea.- Palermo Union Elementary, Oroville Union
High School
Appendix i? (b)
i
P�iLIP A LYDON 'AN 1 0 1985~
Consulting Geologist
2948 San Verbena Way, Chico, California 95926 cam, � �,,
"' i.�ir� "�� X3277
January 9,
j 1st®moi
SEISMIC HAZARD AT THE MILLER PROPERTY, N&IR PALERPIO fl+ ! 1
qtr►�,,.,1� 8 %Q��-
CONCLUSIONS r Cefitor,{�
No evidence of an active fcult was found on t,;NO
nor do faults from map II --1 of the General Plan appr-�az, to
cross it Ground shaking is the principal Potential selsmc
hazard. It can be mitigated by constructing dwell,ncXs°e-
sistAnt to lateral forces, avoiding steep microre ief c,'j,crse
to stream courses, and installing mobile homes (if an-
y) in
such V.�nner as to resist lateral: forces,
I NTROP CTT ON
Thre Miller property (Ap # 27-1.1-04) consists of appxr,x -
mately 26 acrp.s located about 2 mi east of Palermo, or crumbs
Road,. it is in NE 1/4 Sec. 10, T18N,, R4,E.,
A preliminary assessment of the tentative parcel n,,a p �,jy
stuff of. the County Plann hg Department led' to the conc1m-,-_in
thatseismichazard exists because, as noted on the env :toj,;
mental-�ro-View form, active and inferred faults of the Foot. -
hills Shearr Zone cross the property. They requested a ciu? rle 4 -
iCal stuailr to 10cate any fbitits precisely and to outlin,
100 -ft setback zones.
BarnM t -Brown & Associates of Oroville retained nje t,,
prepare tl�'Rl ?required geological report. I examined the 0.tto,
on ,7anuur�r 4, 1085.
TO POGRA PPI''V SOILS, AND G 90 CAGY
Heast-tr-Od over distances of 100 to 200 ft► elopes range
from leis than 10% to a maximum of 35% andl appear to ave; ,,ge
About 20%., Hicrotopography (very small features, not
on even 164'9e -scale maps) displays some elopen that are
steeper tP'tim these.
'Lydon page two
January 9, 1985
According to ma
Aping by the U.S. Soil Vegetation S
series property belong Survey (Smith
, which is typically to the Nevvi,lle-variant
e'
gravelly sand y a Yellowish-brown to t�ant
Y clay loam, reddish-brown
and moderate rt has moderate shrink-swell activity
Rock on the site
moderatel consists only. of
Y-indurated Poorly-exposed
r weakly-
(aligned v gravel conglomerate. No evidence , to
egetation, linear wet zones of faulting
found on the property. mi,croscoar s
p etc..) was
Enclosed is a COPY of parts of the Bangor and
quadrangles on which Palermo 7.5-...
have been plotted „yin
cracking that occurred
during the locations
the 1975 of, ground.
from map II-1 of t earthquakes
he County General eZ'.�es3 faults.
low-°eyel black-and-whitePlan; liheamehts
aerial observed on
Prairie Creek lineament zone photographs; the north end ° the
and the Miller property.
main earthquake;
A lineamentr
is a line or band, nd, usually seen on aerial or
Photographs, that results features ' lts from alignment
bed s#
that
changes, saddles,
visible
stream , tonal chap
etc. A lineament ca - �,. .less. ridges,
odic features n be caased
I (Such as jc ints b' a variety of geol_
rtiults, or Changes in rock type) ► inelu, ...Ig
The Prairie Creek linea
three „ ment is about 40 lineament faultzones,,mi long, and is
in the r one of ,
cnnfii8t of ',complexregion, so-called
Of of in
• because they
dippino f-'dlts" formed , .inteetar neo, s ee 1' -
more than 10 million t p y
ResouzCes 1979) The Cleveland Years ago go (Dept.Water
Of these ancient fault, a reactivation
fault zones the Swain Ravine of one
in 1975, lineament)
Rm V ed
The Prairije oreek lineament
l')79,, p, 74
is considered by bePartment of
Nater Resources (
Ment because, to be capable of futu
(l) Sotxth of butte Count re fault move
-
Of lineament, �+hich inclCad s t mer es v
Y► i g ith the Swain
(2) South of t e the acti.jve Cleveland
he merger point, trenching
11ill fault;
evidence of fa ultin +
9 in the .l,ine,i�inent revealed
9 (although overlying soil arae
suggesting no, movement at t not offset,
that Point for at l+,4at the last 10,000
r Lydon page th
January y, 1985
yr) ; (3') Groxmd cracks ( the "Palermo crack zone") , originating
during the 1975 earthquake series, form a crude alignment that
extends northwest from the north encs of the Prairie Creek linea-
ment to Oroville, a distance of about 6 mi; and (4) Small, eart'-hr
quakes have occurred with epicenters aligned along the linpm-Tent
or its northerly projection.
At its northernmost mapped extent, -the Prairie Creek lineament
trends N17oW; if this trend continues northward, the IJ,neament
passes about 1.5 mi west of the property.
Faults shown on map SI -1. of the General Plan were Mca,led from
township lines ( the 'principal 'lines of reference on map II -1) to
the larger -scale topographic map (enclosed); both the plots and
the topography smgcest that', none of the faults passes across the
property. A possible exception is a "fault:, actii►ity unknown"
that at its northernmost extent comes, within O„l ori of the east
end of the Miller property. if its trend continues northerly be-
yond what is shown on the map, it might pass through the 'northeast-
ernmost corner. `there is, however., no evidence that the trend
continues northerly undisturbed (6,g. , it might pass along Wyan-
dotte Creek) , no evidence that it continues at all, no evidence
that it has experienced fault movement ;in the geologically -recent
past, acid no evidence that it is even a fault. Recent geological
mapping of this region by Department of Water, Resources (1979)
does not indicate a fault along this trend.
Plotting of locations of ground cracking on the enclosed map
of the Palermo region shows that no ground cracking occurred in
1975 closer than a few hundred feet from the property, and no
trend deduced from the pattern of cracking crosses it.
Lineaments observed on black -and -white air photos consist of
aligned vegetation and trend parallel or su.bparallel with regional
trends of bedding in metavoidani,c reek. Aligned vegetation on
metavolcanic rock: south of the property appears tobe following
lows soil -filled areas between discontinuous lihea r outcrops of
rock; the cause of similar, trends on conglomerate is not obvious,
but could be related to distribution of groundwater controlled in
Lydon page fo
January 9, 1985
turn by trends of bedding in buried metavolcanic rock.
DESCRIPTION OF SEISMIC. HAZARD
In August 1975, a magnitude 5.7 earthquake occurred, along with
numerous fore- and aftershocks its epicenter was located about
1..5 mi west of the Miller property. Ground breaking occurred near
Palermo and discontinuously over a distance of 7 mi within the
Swain Ravine lineament, a Few miles to the east. Maximum vertical
displacement was about 2 inches and horizontal displacement about
1 inch. Structural damage within a few mikes of the epicenter in-
cluded fallen plaster, broken Windows, toppled chimneys, houses
shifted off their foundations, and settling or movement of found-
ations and approaches to small bridges.
Because of concern over the Auburn dam, the earthquakb trig-
gered extensive study by private and governmental organizations
into the seismicity of the Sierran foothills. Conclusions, summar-
ized by,Divisioh of Mines and Geology Staff (1979), are that a
maximum credible earthquake having a magnitude of 6.5 should be
Coitsic Bred possible anywhere in the Foothills Fault System;
Department of Water uescurces (1979) p. 79) concluded that the
potent;al for future earthquakes and ground rupture in the Oroville
area is greatest, along the Swain Ravine lineament, north and south
of the part ruptured in 1975. Toppozada and Morrison (1982) con-
eluded that the timing and magnitudes of earthquakes from 1975
through 1981 suggest that the 1975 rupture; zone is being Progress-
ively relieved of stir„ass, but that stress has not necessarily been
relieved outside that zone.
Because (1) the Prairie Creek linearnent merges with a linea-
ment containing an active fault► (2') the "Palermo crack zone”
formed along Al linear extension of the trend of the Prairie Creek
lineament, and (3) small ea rthquakaes have occurred along the linea
meant, , the Prairie Creek lineament zone should be regarded as
capable of the same kind of activity as occurred along the Swain
RaVine lineament zone in 1975 (inept'. Water Resour:'ces 1979-)
Folovinq the 1975 earthquake, a Consulting board for Earth
quAk'e Analysis recoMmended ( Dept. Nater Resources 1979) that the
Lydon page fiv,
January 9, 1985
maximum credible earthquake s
("reanalYis earth oaks
Ville area should be considered to q ") in the pro -
have these characteristics:
magnitude 6.5 peak horizontal acceleration 0.6
( shaking > 0.05 g) 0 sec and g duration
predominant period 0.4 sec.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE CONCERr;1ING SEISMIC HAZARD
No evidence of an active or any other kind of fault was
on the Miller property: The prairie Creek lineament Zone
s found
about 1.S mi west of the site; it should he considered trends
future fault activity similar to that capable of
Ravine lineament zone, where the Cleveland Hill efaultalonb the. Swain
distance of 7 mi in res broke over a
response to a Magnitude 5.7 earthquake. Faults;
shown on map II -1 of the General Plan do not cross the
One possible projected trend of a fault property;
map II -1 might C `activity unknown'o) from
g graze the northeastern coiner of the Mix.e,� pro-
perty, but recent geological ma
nota Fault. q pFing suggests that this feature is
A future earth earthquake .in the region
er than. that of 1.975 should be considered kel similar to or larg�-
and s likely, although the time
specific location of its occurrence cannot be predicted, Away
from
the immediate vicinity of stream courses, soil on
is well drained and has a j11gh enough clay content that tle property
tion during an earthgauke is unlikely,q efac-
when the If strong shaking occurs
ground is saturated, small-scale slumping of Newvill.e
soil or the underlying conglomerate could occur where slopes are
steep over short distances; this kind of condition is mos
to occur close to strew t
m G'Ou2'ases: likely
MITIGATIONS
The seismic history of the region and evidence irony a
the site indir--ate that ex mining
ground shaking is the principal potential
seismic hazard.
forties, as outlinedninrtheireqn of dwellings resistant to lateral
uirements o� the
CUniform Building
ade, should provide reasonable mitigation of the hazard,
Con=
struction heasr strum .courses should be avoided, in order to reduce
the potential of being affectedby small-scale slw+npf"
Strong earthquake. ng during a
If mobile homes are to be placed' on the sitd anotheir tniti, �»
_q
Lydon page s�i.3
.. ` LT". iva ry
tion would be to reqi.*ire that they be tied clown, braced, or other-
wise treated so as to resist lateral, farces from earthquakes
Steinbrugge et al. (1980) have prepared a correlationcurve relat-
ing earthquake in
g q tensity at an affected site with average monetary
loss (.in percent of value of mobile home
when the .mobile homes.
x
are not earthquake resistant. The General Plan concludes that a
maximum intensity of VIII+ should be anticipated for future earth,
quakes in most of eastern Butte County; this is in general agree-
ment with the expectation of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake. The
expected loss among non-resistant mobile homes from such an earth-
quake would average 12 percent, according to the curve of Stein=
. brugge et al.; loss from injury in mobile homes ;is generally
similar to that experienced in wood -frame dwellings.
REFEREW r. S
Department of Water Rsources, 1979, The ,august 1 19750 Oroville
earthquake investi,gationst Calif. Dept. Water Resources Bull..
203-78, 669 p.
Divisiol,s of Mines and Geology Staff, 1979, Technical review of the
seismic safety of the Auburn damsite► Calif. .Div. Mines and
Geology Spec. Pub. 54, 17 p
Morrison, p.W. Jr., et al., 1975, The Oroville earthquake sequence
of August 19751 Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Spec. Rept. 124,
P. 147-151.
,Rapp, J.S;, et al, 1975, observations of ground breaks in the
orovi.11e area, Californiai Calif. Div. Mines and Geology
Spec, Rept. 124, p. 53-.59.
Smith„ B.F. , et al., 1974, Soil -vegetation map and tables,
Northeast Quarter Gridley [Paler=mo] 7k5 -min quadrangle (49
A-1), Butte County, Californiat U.S. For. Service, Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station# 8 p, plus map,
scale It 3.1,680.
Steinbrugge, K.V., et al., 1980; Mobile homes and earthquake
dainage in CaliforniasCali
SSC 79-07, 29 p; f. Seismic Safety Commission,
Toppozada T.R. , and Morrison* P. W . J'r. , 1982, Earthquakes hquakes end
Lake levels at Oroville, Californias California Geology,
v. 35 p. 115-118.
Zw�z
Philip A. Lydon
Calif. RE-giStered Geologist 4 144
Enc l . t
trap of faults, lineaments,
and ground cracking
explanation
faults `from Map II -1, General Plan)
IF; CF, IF t inferredfault; CF: concealed fault;
AU ALT; activity unknown
Ground cracking, 1975
reported in Dept. of Water Resources (1979)
reported in Rapp et al. (1975)
Earthquake epicenter (August 1, 3,975 main shock; depth 8.8 km)
0 reported in Dept. of. Water Resources (1979, p. 133)
reported in Morrison et al. (1975)
Lineaments
norPrairie Creek lineament fault zone
(dfromDept. ofWaterResources 1979)
observed on black -and -white air photos
Location of property
Topography from USGS Palermo 7.5 -min quadrangle (contour interval
5 ft) and USGS Bangor 7.5 -min quadrangle (contour interval 25 ft)
compiled by P.A. Lydon
January 1985
1 , �"� J ,rA ;y •� /� ' n J,,,�r�• ♦ ,'r /1 } ;; ` J ,i i, i r��"'�. �'.be 'r i i ill. 1�'
w�, .•ate ` 1
7 ' r, 1 / _ if � ,'+. p/,% ' �r�(�''j' � � •T �`.i^s �".3 %.'!- �. \ �!, r 7 1 i. •1. � 'I '.. A
VIII '� ! noi+ 'IA`' V• "I , �� :'�/� (�(�% � ' ' � 1..
.� ` 15 ,as der ! ,.. 'k. 3 � � ;.: '�' ! �1 1 ��•
•.r /ti 1s31�9✓j!w ~" VCS i,+rn11 J �' In 1/a
I�
zFk
06 f
61
CL a
r
• f
� � • =nom.. .r � +� /: ?l3 ��~ '�` ' `r _ �� ._.I-•
'P ) Wei y p`, ~ : � ✓+�' \ ��•.7 � ` �� "1 v mil + � I �� _
-71
lnz
9 awl 'y.r r~ ;' - y�.r" j ..r .•_ I+ �1.. =_=` tot a'"• 11 ►'".:I
•
i
• +' r Louis
•1•i l `I , , r ;,v n" ri P. r r\err. 1 ...
Y�a Rob �_ •' , —='y .. r
•1 pM • �L f • �. AVC lig j . "` :,.F� t _ `�.} `+Y t t. • ♦ 1'♦���-
.r.�y ytl
0.
'i
IL
ty
20
S ' '
it Ii;. i ,; .•�1 Ili ,. .,.1 !1
��"�. �U/ ,�. r ��w ,�•r� r a%. ra !�•.� I tii .moi �'1 ,I� r1 :i'
r
-.. P 0 li , ; • . w. ^ r., i`.� _ � ' i' •. r'.r +i' •iii ~• , , � {• •�" - .
.✓� V,•• t• ,�,.�\. � ry •Y ...:5 r. ++� • iy II 'V✓ N 1, •.• '�MIr M. , '�"!n / 'i ", •
i�� � �� w .,,. � •• • • hyo �r its r ��+r I � j`.. 'v rV 4 �:r
r
1 1-� i.. I1r • "1 "t".14 � ~�.�i,' •rw 4,y ,� •wa.,�ll � J ', / .+�•�. ��� ,. � .r•+
Int J
lJ
Y 1r l } -tom j
, +
n
d i1 a� t h. w;y +r Ile IMNj I r ,. 1
n' 1.w,yib 1 '1
1
MAIRRAIsm.. 0t
ASAP OF FAULTS, :LZ N EAM ENTS �
AND 1975 GROUND CRACKIPJG
NEAR PALERMO
COMPILED BY P.A.LVwN
JA WARY 19 8 5 R'
see we lanat sheet)
•
APPENDIX H
1OLPLcF, OF D11TPIRMIMATION L E
Secretary for Re.,,ources F JAN 141985 D
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
County ClerR, Courity of 'Butte ELEANOR M, BECKER, COUrIty Clark
25 County Center Drive A. UACIN
Oroville, CA 959155 By 11" Deputy
FROM: Planning DepaTtmen't
7 County Center Drive (Filed)
Oroville) CA 95965
SI BJEIM: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with
Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public84R10u
esorces02 Code
--09-
Project Title
Tentative Parcel Mata_ AP 27-11-04
George Miller
State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted,
to State Clearinghouse)
Contact Person
Telephone Number
John Mendons-la, Public Works (9 6)
53 -4266
Project Location At the northwest. corner
of Grubbs Road and
Beaver Iogad (Cr_Qis_acowl:LroJ., Palermo
ares.
Project Description:
Dividing 26 acres to create four parcels,
one at .5 acres,
two at 6.5 acres, and one at 8 acres.
This is to advise that the Butte Count )r Advisory Agency
(Lead Agency)
has, made the following determ.inations regarding the above - described
project:
1. The project will have a significant effect on
the environvient.
14111 not
2, An Enviro mental Impact Report was prepared for this
El
project pursuant to th.e provisio,as of CEQA, and was
certified as requir ld by Section 1.5085(g), 14 California
Administrative Code.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
Pursuant to the provisions of CtQAi A copy of the
-V tion M, ing
Negative Declaration ty be examined at the Plann—
Department, 7 County Con -ter Drive, Orovillt, CA 059656
0 ANotice of Exemption Wa-s filed indicating tills project
is exempt from environmental review.
4. A statemortt or Over rid.ing Consideration ['J Was, lVas not
adopted for this project.
51 Mitigation measures adopted by the Loact Agiency to -rodtic-
It
t�e impacts OP the rpproved pvojoct alle!
See at tachment
rr Ft. —Ir—O
SLa61,,r
eeter
phaft A.
80A -Ot
Mitigation Measures
AP 27-11--44 -
1. Perform a,geological survey and incorporate the recommendations
of the geologist into the project.
Z. Utilize standard erosion control measures and construct-Im,
techniques to minimize erosion potential.
3. Install properly sized and .designed culverts as necessary.
-
."`> t .aAiir"�
. ,►, �,
H�t7r,` l eoa ng
A N n
4� �Mrx ter JuURt, wt-ALF14 A I I b ;.r.,,r
DEPARTMENT DP PUBLIC WORKS
NJfLl.1AM (B[I!) CN4F ',
7 Cot1NTY CENTER DRIVE� director'
• UkOV1LLE CALIFORNIA 95965
Tclephbncr 1916) 53,1.4681
December 26, :1984
reorge Miller
3275 Grubbs Road RE: AP 27-11-04
Oravillei CA 95965 Tentative Parcel Map
Dear Mr. Miller
At the:regular rnt.etnci of the Butte Eounty Adviso
December 24, 1984, thy, ry Agency held
declaration regarding environmental review t.i atc
Tentative Parcel Map for AP nment l g d negative
and approved the
listed on the attached sheet, subject to the conditions as
Tf no appeals are ti
the Advisory tlgrwrnc melt' filed --within ten (.10) days o
f the SuOervisors r.h� Y `s approval--wi thr the Clerk of the Board o fte of
+ ao�on will be final.
When the condi t: ons of approval are complied With, order for you tO file your "final ma h, it will be in
Department of Public j<lori s ;<or- recordation with,
the Butte County
months of the dote of approval by the Adv' ttaent
Ory Agency, Y -four (24)
If you should 11ttve an
contact, this ofi.ice. `questions regarding this matter
please
JM:cis
Attachment
Cc; Planning -- ShvitOhtnOhtal Reviow
Environmental. health Departmc%n't
Barnhart/OtOWn ano A8.5ociates
Very trulY .yours.;
'Vvillinm Cheff
Diree;or of public, Works
John Mendonsa
A'ss,istant Director
'umo Cn; Planning Omm
g ► v 1984
0rnvilltj; k,4140 ull
George Miller, Tentative Parcel Ma
'corner of Grubbs Road and Beaver Road intersectionparcels at
. northwest
AP 27-1'1-04 O.r;cville area.
Engineer: Barnhart/Brown and Associates
Public Works conditions:
1. Provide two-way traversable access RS-8-LD-1. to oach
from a county maintained road or state highway, from
2. Access to :be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance.
3. Show 50 ft. building setback line measure
access easement, d from centerline of
4. Provide road maintenance agreement.
5. Deed to the County of Butte 30 right-of-w
centerline of Grubbs Road_. ay frOtri the
6. Indicate a 50 ft. building setback from the cent�r.line o
Grubbs Road. f
7. Show all easpments Of recol,j on the final map.
3. Obtain encroachment parmi
and construct t for a1,1 driveways, new or exist....
to county standards„ ung.
9. Pay any delinquent tastes or curret.,t taxes as required.
health Department= conditions:
10. Provide a 100 ft leach .yield free setback
wells either within the around existinca
property boundaries on property oz within 100 tt, of the'
parcel 3.
11. Show a S0 ft. leach field setback from the drainer e w
parcels 1,2► 3 and 4i q ay on
12. Show the usabl.o two acre sewage disposal area provbn to
the requirements OE the Subdivision Ordinance on parcelsm1,
and 4,. 2
13. Prove that the re uir4d
available or ljxl.ace the s���em�nEe�;�o�h�omestic wafter are
evidence that domestic water is aver fable pforat these is no
and 4. 04rcels 1, 2
Planning Department conditions
14, Access to parcel 2 shall be
Public Works,
appr'ov�d the the Department of
The'
fol.lowin
g0
mitigation measures must also be complied with;
I. Perform a geological surve
recommendation C the a..oy and incorporate the
geologist into the project.
2. Utilize standard erosion
tecf�niques control measures and to minimize erosion potential. Construction
3. Install properly sized and designedculverts as
necessary,
TQ: Butte County Advisory Agency
PROII-- Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report on Tentative Parcel Map of George Miller
on AP 21-11-04
nINTr7t December 61 1984
This is a proposal to divide 26 acres to create four parcelsi, One at 5
acres, two at 6.5 acres, and one a:' -a acres. The prouont zoning is A-5
15-, acre parcels). The,. Lan"; Use Plan Mop Of the Butte
(Agriculturali
county General Plan designates this area as Agri cul tkiral -Resi dentiAl -
There are no specific Or community plans for the area.
The proposal does not conflict with County zoning nor any adopted Or
proposed element Of the Butte County General Plan nor any County,
specific or community plan.
Recommend approval subject to the +011rjwinO mitigation
me&viur'es/conditioOst
U Lti-cl qt'-21a-t� a aLtCt- s
1. Perform a geological survey and incorporate the recommendations
of the geolo5list into the project.
Utilize standard erosion control measures and construction
techniques to minimize erosion potential.
Install properly %Ized and designed culverts az hecezzaryo
qgnditlon
1. Across to Parcel 2 to be approved by DepArtmOht Of Public Works.
I k t
tc-, George Miller
,Barnhart, Brown and Assoc.