HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-100-024,� C .
. M.
i. e ,
t PLANNING GOMIESSxON SUMMARY S r
SHEET FOR LAND DIVISIONS
APPLICANT_ 84-08-06-02
011 011
DRe l ch
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentativeva.d0+ acres to
cels at 5_.0 ac. 6.Gand 8,5 ae. create 3 ar.
LOCATION On the southeast cornero� La Parte
Road and , oma
or ;area..Rita Road Ban-
..
ASSESSO,RiS PARCEL NUMBER(S) 28-10-24
ZONING A 5 GAN. PLAN A
��esi.
MATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
PROJECT Ct JVSISTENT`?
G.D.A. Au ust 6 1984
�2D Gran Ave. (JrovilleCA 95 65
DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE 14RITTEN
PLACENEWSPAPER NOTICE;(S) PUBLICHED _ O. C PUBLISHED
DATEMAI LING LIST PREPARED
DATE MAIL-OtTT NOTICES WRITTEN
-- --- -- .� NAILED
DATE PLANNING ,DIREOTORIS REPORT P,pSpARED '""'--- -•-- NUMBER
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION — _ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - :DATE PILED
klVl) BATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION W DAVE ADOPTED
MITIGATED
DATIVE DECLAI?A�,ION -DATE ADOPTED r i
ENV. IMPACT REPORT - DATE CERTIFIED
SUB. COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
ADVISORY AMOY HEARING DAVE \ r� �• � �,-,� _.
ADVISORY AGENCY ACTION
BOARD ACTION
s s-
GUMhi.LNl'S ._ _
I.
r ,.
1ta;cyn,r,rn
APPENDIX G
NCl'I',CCa"r, 3;3 Ja1,1t�.11Y C1T1�a,N tll4t,t t,hr< .PreJ(ic•t {reY,crxla�:(a 1aea:t��v l�t�� hell
t'evie��r((3 PursuGlt.`k to the Provisions or t1i( 4a1 i!'aril ra r a�vi.aaallneni rl'j
Quality Act' Or .19 0 (Pub11 I�eseurc cs Cede 21,L00,� ,
(10terminatl.(�,i'hY"as boen made tila.t it: ld'.l.'11. 110t. have rl 41 ;�"q,) and :I
(Irrect (lPQn tll(.a ealv:ll.`omilc'l1't. • �x x`f";1.Grtllt;
P1z.SC�1 T011101t OF PROtIn'h, AP
Z8-1'0-2rt. �
Tent[I°ti.ve Parce,. wi20+
Pal•cel.s of 5. Q acres, 6.6 Teres �llldcS res S acres.to
three
3. 110CnrIOPI W PIZOrr1,C.'Tw
OTItsollthasRoad,, 13aal1;bx` �it co7aaea• 0-F1,a. r-OrtO Road and 1rolria lt;ica
Road, Bangor
4. NAtli, AND APDRESc; QP Plt( J}WE"T APP1,1C:ANT:
(Charlesyfy JohrISOT, (& lJoll R0 ch
Sun 5 Dog, ,J a po to S 6rIge GDA
Mar)rs-,r,ij 1.c, CA 95901 220 Grana Avenue
5, Mi'1':iiATION I�li:ih5U1�r?�; OrOVA11.e, CA 95965
See attachment
6. h rr of y of tho 1 a1 i L l "11 Study To, � l`L1 i rt = °�lzr; (�r �; `
01' `t 1't � t. 1•, t of e(' •t. i,% (,a, r _• , t f. a 1' o lily o n t. a l
t1.r gat 7 Gat4ia7�t° C.��l�r���° 1tri���;, t7rrwal[e�
r
Spf'c, r.
1 c• liiLlLr1. f'] c'a t i its alxal
j
% . Y1 ��:aqx {1.a f .L ldr;ta e.'�li{q rCyiel t'hTt:� i � 9 ",. {. y �y yy ( �+,y �t +� t .},t
(` L> A. M w'� 1 ,Pi '� a. • t'+'r1 V L o g',) i 4 M D o h ei r v i a o l l 1, I �'9 �,� the
-
r t ld,rSA. :.i
11���1 � da�� .}itJ•�x'' _ ..b }r+ ltte O
euat
Botird of Suporva.s{ars
.C.(°i`J7i9lI�t%t,(t;l T 6q,
t CiP1)t l 13 1 �$
On �}ir 1r�3 �s °t: Lj tl1 studyda
aal�,r�'Xl,lt•aC�rl ��..�yC� YT � i of �.r,�t�rl�n\✓.�lldl�l'jt''�
l { ti.trl 4t i~ h�;�:i'.tTl45C; ,tl � 1 .al.tlai�twl., rlae
!a Laf, ;stl1 valid {Ii7 L' Own 1motil (,tr1go and T �2K�� �Y �l f •: J,a�{ x'' 1 ((1 {X3� thE'
C W J
4:.* l'a ilrl thi llrvlya{,r.(l 11a^ C�tJ111a11 C1's' i14��► s � f 1 e(. C era i 2,rr r'1r 7 Cllll,i(?ll i �at�{1 �i D ( a , r ,Yr11 1 1 r�ailt
131;ty1,1x1AT1,ON a
1`
find 1, Lt flair 1.)-o*►oc1, COULD 1l(l1"'(� Kl wl
t �' t he vilv:l t'tlilL vT11 b v, �tlt E f�a K eil'l � (:i.( {'(:'t'°
r [. tt � i 11 ant�l` axt tli�l :� (°�isc� lx�t aatlkse of
�1, sl. 6 l '�°ll r�.tl l"4l t. a ��'; (l i, t. i'lal al►�".a. etil�J".•
t�4 X4.1'7 1�c`&� ! It t 4.x'1,1 :J itld4'.11TC1
c1.Y�ia1'S4"�t1 .ti
L F
_ r
Al r,t°k'il(`("111: y C;11tr I t'If1111
alul,t.e C~tttlll � ,110,t1i'd or, SuporvIlSor'S
NOV pip
if w
AP 28-1.0-1, q,
1.a a no dova l.opnjo7],t area on all that land loc:sq(,- l
0utherIv. of the dSc+)ood irrigation C11-tcb,
2. .Mace, a note oil tho map Stating: ►t c,,nc TJ to bfl
;Certo inq �'� , i�tza t.tt to .C° i,e:C_j
Lid S1.C)i: 'CQ G'?CGCCti ,ri �.7`1nC� barbCd jT;l,7'C Or � 1
.�°C".C;`L'
axycl
to arcas north of the Osgood irrigation dit(jitt
Y
APPtNI)IIX fl
N.OT!Cr-,* OF T)Pq-PPII TNLATTON 0
1,0,
Secretary :Eo Resources ��11, L E
EJ l"I
14Room 1
6 Ninth Street, Room
r
Sacamento, CA 95814 F
r1D
County Clerk, County of Butte NOV 1
25 County Center• Drive
Oroville, CA 95965 ELEANOR M. OECXEP�, COunly'Qvrk
FROM: Planning Depart-nient By __ A. JAC,NTFi Deputy
7 County Center Drive
0"Oville, CA 9596S
SUBJECT: Filing Of Notice of Determination in Compliance with
Section 21108 or 21152 of -tile Public Resources Code
OA
P
r
o
J
e
c
_t
T
i
t
l
e
Tentative Pa
r
ce_l _M—
a
'A—D 28-10-24
– C. _J_3o
hnson 6
F
D
. Re
(IfichState Clearinghouse submitted to state Clearinghouse;
Contact Person
John Mrendnnca Publi;c Works Telephone Number
Project L0cation0nthe southeast corner of La rte RL0ma Rica. Road Ban or oad and-
Project
nd-
Project Description:
Dividing 20+ acres to create three parcels Of 5.0 acres,646 acres and 8.5 acres,
This is to advise that the Butte County Board of Supervisors
— R'-eadAgency)
—
has made the following determinations regarding the above-described
project:
I. The project ED will have a signjj'i*
cant effect on
the environment.
not
2. ED Ail Environmental Impact Report was Prepared for this
project pursuant to the Provisions of CtQA an
certified as required by Section 15085(g) I d vas
Administra'ti 14 California
lVe code.
`&A A Negative Declaration was Prepared fo
, NQ pursuant to the ptovis-, this -pro ect
provisions f j
Negative'Dec?ration may 0 , C8QA. A C
D y be OPY of the
IM.
examined at the Planning
Departmon.t, County Center 'Driven oroville, CA 05065,
S. A Notice otE,KI
emPti.On was filed indicating thlls profoct
is OxenlPt :From environmental ravi
4. A statenjenL OF Overriding Collsmi LOW,
adopted for this project, del-ation was, was hot,
1 0 I�sj
'"t'g`ltiOn Mt-as'UrOs C adopted by the tWid Agoncy to re4uce
the "nP":lcts OC the UPPrOVC(I project are.,
Soo attachmont
1111 t 1A 'r L
14 St0',VII0n A. SLroato-k
80n,10r
Date t
C
x
AP 28-10-24
Mitigation Measures
I. ,Show a no development area. on all that land located"
southerly of the Osgood irrigation ditch.
2,6 Place a note on the map stating:, "Fencing, to be limited to field
:fencing, not to exceed 5: strand barbed wire or 4 feet in hej,Ljht
and to areas north of the Osgood irrigation ditch''.
}
f
i✓%:._�
Or N A r 0 R AL V� E A L T H At<xr) hFAuTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUOLIL WORJKs
WILL IAM (13111) CHEFF, Director
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILLE, CALIRORNIA 9.5965
Telephone: (916) 5344681
November 14, '1 984
G.D.A. RE AP 28-10-24
220'Grand Ave. ien'tative Parcel MapOroville, CA 95965 for Charles Johnson &
Don Reich
Gentlemen:
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors held
November 13, 1984, the Board upheld your appeal of the denial by the
Advisory Agency of the above-referenced parcel map and adopted a
mitigated negative declaration regarding environmental impact.
Approval of the final map is rubjeCt to the conditions as listed on
the attached sheet„ When the conditions of approval, are complied with,
it will be in order for the"applicants to Mile their"Final map" with
the Department of Public Works -For recordation within twenty-four (24)
Months of the date of the Board of Supervisors action.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
this office.
Very truly yours,
William Cheff
Director of Public Works
U691nai signed by,
JOHN MENI?ONSA
Jahn ihendonsa
Assistant Director
JMAS Buffe Co. Planning Comm.
Attachment. NOV 1.41984
CC; .C,) erk of the Board of Supery i stirs Qrovillo, Calc}oruia�
Planning - Environmental Review
Invironmental Health
Charles Johnson Don Reic4y Sun bog, La Porte S-i;age, �1�1rysVil1e, CA
Charles JohnsonDon Reich TENT
the southeast corner of La PorteRoad
andTIVE Lo MA hwe parcels on
area. and Loma Rica Road, Bangor
Assessor's Parcel Number: 28-10-24
Engineer: G.D.A.
Public Works Department conditions are:,
1. Indicate a 55 ft. building setback from the centerline
Road and a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerlines Porte
Loma Rica Road. of
2. Show all easements of record on the final map._
3. Obtain encroachment permit for all driveways, new or exis
construct to county standards. t7ng� and
4. Pay any delinquent taxes or' current taxes as required.
5 Meet the requirements of the Butte County Mosquito Abatembn-% Dist'rirtt.
Environmental Health. Department conditions are:
6. Provide a 100' leachfield,free setback, around existing wells
Within the property or Within 100 of the property bounds either
Parcel 3. ries on
7. Show a 50' leachfield setback from the drainage wa
and 3. y o n parcels 1, 2'
8. Show the usable two acie 5e;Y",ge di$po$dl area proved to meet the
requirements o,� the Subdivision Ordinance on parcels 1 -and 2.
9i Prove that the required quantities of domestic water are available parcels l and 2. ailable to
The following mitigation measures are also conditions:
l: Show a no development area on all that land located sout e
Osgood irrigation ditch. , h rly of the
2• Place a note on the map stating, or
fencing, not to exceed 5 strand barbedcwingetorb4 fiimited toofield
to areas north of the Osgood irrigation ditch4eet height and
'84-BZ5
GDA Engineering - on behalf of Charles Jghnson and Da
{2510) the Advisor A
negative declagency s denial of tentati=ie n ,Reich_, appeals
Y
ration regarding environmentalimpact)(proposed mitg�ited
parcels re the southeast corner of LaPorte �' ) to Create thrbe
Bangor area. Road and Lama Rica Road,
84-815 Motion: NOTED THAT
(Cont''d) THE REQUIREMENTS OF QUALITY ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLETEDTHE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMLVTAL
D$Ci8I0N;AND CONSIDERED IN MAILING THIS
THE MITIGATION
A,MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEC
I MEASURES AS PROPOSED B DECLARATION, ACCEPTING
2UL41NG AND GENERAL PLAN ALLOW FOR pARCET APPLICANT.
A� HAS ADEQUATE FIRE FACILITIES THE
TOO PAR PROM THIS SIZE. THE
COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND SCHOOLS AND IS NOT
OE LOW DENSITY RURAL RESIDENTIAL D LS FOR THIS TYPE
USE 1 NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHAO NG AGRICULTURALUE S.
MENT. THIS TY
POUND THAT THE .�itOJtCT° CONFORM9 TO THE BUTTE' COUNTY
PLAN AND UPHELD DE USES
7' APPEAL OF TTiE' ADV`rSOR AG , GENERAL
A TENti'ATIVE PARCEL MAP pOR CHARLES JOASO 'FNCY S D .
rNlAr of
AP 28-10-24t CREATING THREE P. N AND DO
1 THROUGH 5 AND EIVVTRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS S N REICH,
PARCELS WITH PUBLIC `WORItS CONDITIONS
M THROUGH 9.
Vote: 1 Y 2 N 3 Y 5
4 Y 5 Y (Motion Carried)`
BOARD O Ct8
_ ., rirXNI�T�aS
i� IF OTI1 f:`
�'1tV��Q , �9s
�3. `�-"",CAIX"' PAO, MAPS FOR CONS I;Dc,RA j:,LON;
Chdrles Johnson and .Don Reichi AP 28-10-241 3 parcels on the S
corner of U1 Porte Rd,. and Loma Rica Rci. Bangor, area..Engineer: GDA
OPEN
Charles jbhnson,an applicant}reacl a prepare0 stritement into tj�e record,
in response to the Statements in the Planning Director's Report.
Re ardi.ntr
` agricultural compatability and nearness to. commercial services
and schools, he thinks that the situation across the count
be considered. The property is on the outer y rine should'
growth boundary of Loma Rica.,
This
type of lace density rurral, residential devei,opment ex
tenr3's clear to
ljoma Rica which is about it males away, There is no conflict Frit:l the o cattle
grazing area. One reason for that is because the soil. will not allow for
much further development. The roads serve as a buffer all The nei hborin
cattle ranches see no conflict. The proposed use. oi+ the land g
feasible economic use. is the. moat a
Mt•. ,Johrizon said that Bangor school is a.Lose b,
school bus anti goes through the 8th gtacie , J, uncrotadcd, accessible by
Where are coirmercill ser, vices
Hvailable in Bangor, and >om:t Rica. hit•, Johnson did not feel that these
was anything in the minutes of the rezone ft.,
arings Or the General xylan
to find this project unacceptable.
.tOUS a
• Bil.1 GcdtT s, engineer, saxd that the Board minutes were ambim
therei'ore it wc�Uld be difficult. to make and
ol,ic a clearcut 'determinatioa what
p 3'., if any.,: w��s ntand`Fd.
M.r. Streeter said that the crui;ial issue was the car►rl.itionei criteria,
Mr. Geddis said that if the property ,across the county line is considered)
then this project is not non-cranformin�
Lama Rica Sphere of influence. o a tea l l.. se'l'This a s real within
It also d s not seem right to use the
land in a Williamson Act Contract to ha,l.t devri.
Twenty acre zoning ori,ll mostly be eotttrol.l d elopn4nt ort adjoining property..
by the soil; anyway.,
NIr , r,
naonsa agreed that the Board rainut€.,s are ambiguous
comments by MILL Redmand and Supervisors Ler*lte, He rioted the
ttr. Oeddis said that he didn't feet a rcr
c�aar
cou i
w<�y frt;m the disria.as;�itn in l ly bt r"a3c eitherit 1.q the3caa•d rrxrtltte
aita ul:t to apt" pWe 't�f�tl r►,,c W! Lh AWS z.tnjn
sa id f,h.VaraeP•a ex
cs�trnunity. p c.t mnei:: A -j �,��� rt�t n,Mr a growing
{
C'Crl,al:fl HPARING j
UTx COUNTY ADV I80AY AMCY MINI Tt8
10/22/84
BUTTE; COMITY AD VT Y AGEIidC'Y l�C1:1VrCi`MS
October 22; 1.98V Page 3
Mr. htendnnsa said that Xttb} County h^cl not had a prob:iecn With this project.
It was noted that several of the c inditional criteria hrul been stet.
Mr,. Streeter stated,; I wil,L make a motion to cleny the tgp
utaP application for Charles J �hnsr�rt and Don i2eicn, Ap � rltixtiV Parcel
3 parceMis, for the; ate
reason:,' cited in the TD nnReiina ra3 "10-�24
Oct -A to 5, 1984, and request the boar W Directo. I R'c�port o`f.
Und uee in this portion of ButteaCotfinSupery ,,-, s input Ot' dpPropriate
and: carried unanimously. Y- ISotion seconded by M.r. Reid
3. Leo A. Gunther Jr. AP 39-08-11-6—= -x-R
and
of the intorsettion of Dat 58
,/tc�n , 5 Parcels aF�praX-, 2t
1. ,nnr:7 Regan Lahr,
�ft the eatD0 £•t.. no>r•tl
Of Dayton xd . Chico area. Engineer! North5 trtr o� noer ngt side
HE, ARING Opr,,N
Myles Ptstejovsky, engineer, had no problems,
HEARIPIG CLOS,I D
Mx- Reid stated: having rev'
eWod the environmonta:l: rev el; Checklist
I will make a motion to grant a negative' de istrict-dated S�:pt. 17 1 A4
and the letter f;0m the Chico Unified School J7
iml,;tct for the Leo Gunther jr. subdivision bttrat an. Of environme�ital � ,�
lEfl and 8 ✓Aar fief, maP on AP 39-08,:
5 finding that the project q in confar„ranee with the Butte
County General plan and Butte County Loni.nG and Will not have a signikicant
effect an the environment. Nn ting thu t rt n ,
this aatc, S will rrzakc a a'otion to a egctt vc der.Larat�on was adopted
for Zi'.o Gun;the,r Jr, on AP 89-08-! approve, the subd vision by .parcel map
:i'o1.1owing condition.:; E6 and 5a..,Approval iv subject to the
b.Li.c Works coni, iti.ons:
1: Cn;licrtte a 50 ft. building etbltck E'xcrtn the, cn �,
Butts Ci:i;y ttry. 44(1 iTegan Lane4 j rtt dine of Chico—
Shoo all ca �emcnts, of record
on the final met
3; Qbt tin enr.roachm"nt cry.*rtit ,for all, dr' %rcjq,, a �ietr aft e� zs t.
cott.strttrt to county sLfat«`lard:, anx„ and
}} tray any 01
P E;! ar ing inept �tr.�,+wliti ill
Aij,VaV,,I r� }}
k, ' •' c to till.° A-2 4
con jI f,lrarl
6,,.'P ov':tde rt 100 ft. IF:-Iohf,leq�i Ir F� ;d�tt�lck �e►t'rat 4
tht*r ti ttt t rl tho o r,up.,?g. ur, alt}t;i tt 1 Qf9 .fir. n x s tJ n r 3
}rOlIn I;lr'iK;r, e, taells
hI Prc tc rty
by MZ., $', Vex., t,u � � n 7 cry ..
,,�,t' � F`-"7 llrt.A Col .i )uG l 5�
TU.
dant-sr-Departrental Men, oranda
Board of Supervisors
Fa°M: Department of Public Works .:
Land:. Development Section
sunJeCT;, Charles Johnson & Don Reich Tentative parcel Map AP >'
DAre: November 8, 1984 28 i 024
YOU will be considering an appeal of the Advisory Agency de
deny the tentative parcel map for Charles Johns' & Don decision to
10-24. This item has been set for public hearing on Novetrtbt�
Rei ch, AP 2$ -
If the Board decides to uphold the appeal, the foil r 18, 1984.
recommended conditions of approval; awing conditions are
Public Works Department conditions are:
Road and a 50 ft, _building setback from the centerli
1. Indicate a o5 ft. budin _ ne o
r
Rica Road. 9 Setback 11ne from the -P f La Porte
" " nter1ine of Loma
2. show all easements of record on the final ma
34 obtain encroachment permit for all driveways
construct to county standards. �' � new or'existing, and
4. Pa; any delinquent taxes,or current taxes as re u'r"
' S. .Meet requir'Q y q � ed,
..meats of the butte Count Mosquito Abatement District.
Environm`ntal Health Department conditions are:
6. Provide a loo' leachfield free setback around x`
within the property or within 100, of the
e
Parcel 3. Property tbourndarieswells eo her
7. SNOW a:50, leachrield setback from the drainage and 3: �J way on parcels l 2
$. Show the usable two acre sewage disposal area Proven requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance re parcels l a
p en t�7 meet the
g, Prove that the required quantities of domestic and 2
to parcels _1 and 2, tic water are available
Tile following mitigation measures are proposed b
be adopted; y the engineer and should
1, Show a no development area on allthat land located southerly of the
Osgood irrigation ditch.
Buffe Cn. Plhnnln ,m,
2=1 Place a t�ate oft the. map stating; `�
` y rencing to bo limited to f�¢�, ,
fenc7ng, not to exceed 5 strand barbed wire or 4 feet ;n he`' 1984
to areas north Of the Osgood irr7gation dish �5ht and
Or�Y�il�, C:dlitarni�,
.. - LAND Or NlATURAL 4U
ipAl1`)i AND aJ:Ab'1'Y
DEPAFITMENTOF rUMLIC WOFIKS
WILLIAM (Bill) CH[ J• r-, blret:jor
7 COUNTY C! plTl (2 pRIVi . 011OVILLC, CALIFIORNIA 95965
Telophuetgr (916)' 53-1-46111
October 30, 1984
G.D.A.
220 Grand Ave. RE * 28_10-24
Oroville, CA 9g965 lentat•ive--Parcel Map
for Charles Johnson &
Gentlemen: Don: Reich
Please be advised that the Butte Caunty Boa
Public hearing date of November 13, 1984 at 10;1
appeal of the Advisory Agency's dec.is� rd of Supervisors has set a
map as referenced above. ' a.m. t0 hear Your
Ton to deny the tentative parcel
The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors
Administration Building,' Room County
2 County Center Drive, oroville,�Ca1�for
7f you Should have an n�a.
this office. Y questions regarding this matter, please contact
Very truly Yours,
William Cheff
Director Of Public I'lorks
C)rtglnaJ signed by
JOHN WNDONsA
john Mere olisi
Assistant bit^oc►'-or
cc : .,C'i or k of the Board of Supervisors
Planning - Envirll IWITUII Revibly
Envie bnlnerltal fled lth
Chr-lryles Joflrtsc)n & Don Reich, dart tlol•
,i, La Parte Stage, MarysV i i 1e, Ci<1
Butto Co. Planning Gomm.
Gc i 3 01984
0roVIII60 CalitokHla
To:
F ROMs
SUBJECT!
DATE:
Inter -Departmental' amorenduc
Butte County Advisory Agency
David I-Iironimus, Planning
Johnson and Reich Tentative Parcel Map, AP 28-10-24
October 4, 1984
This project is a Tentative Parcel Map dividing 20+ acres
into three parcels of '5, 6.6 and 8.5 acres each. The in.'Iti.al;
study originally 'prepared for the project identified rotentIally
significant impacts, and an environmental impact report was
required. Since the completion of tine initial study, the
applicant has provided this office wi.t'h additional information
and proposed mitigation measures. (See attached letter from
CDA Engineering dated September 27, 1984.) As a result, it
has been determined that the environmental impact report will
no longer be required in that the proposed mitigation measures
below are adequate to protect the riparian habitat and archaeo-
logical sites as well as mater quality within South Honcut
Creek.
Soil testing by the applicant's engineer and other ;ngineers
working the area indicates that further division of most of
this area to 5 acre parcels is unlikely. Therefore, impacts
associated with further development of small lots are greatly*
reduced. This position is supported by comments from the
rt_._ti l.l. tNA—n9itmnn+
Mitigation measures proposed to be attached to this project
are.
1. Show a no development area on all that Land located
southerly of the Osgood irrig,tion ditch,
2. Place a note on the map stating: ";fencing to be limited
to field fencing, not to exceed 5 strand barbed hire or
4 feet in height and to areas north o1 the Osgood irrigation
ditch"
with these mitigation measures attached; a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended.
DMI: lkt
Attachment
cc: Charles Jolinson &Don Reich
GDA
�"l �
mr_�
,e�S
Charles Johnson. and Oon Rei.--,,
Sun. Dog, to Porte Stage
Marysville, CA 95Hl
LAND OF NATURA;L WCALTH Ar,4''1 t; UAU'I
DEPARTMENT OF FUI3LjC WQRIC4
WILLIAM (BIII) QHFiFF, Djrot for
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILI,,r, CALIFORNIA 95965
Telephone; (916) S34-4681
October 22 1984
IRS. Ak 28.-10-24
Tontative Pal:cei Map
Gen t.lemen z
At the regular meeting of the Butte County .Advisory Agency held
October 22, 1984, the Agency denier the Tentativo Parcel Map on
28-10-24. The Tentative Parcel Mag etas denied bec,;;se of the
roasons cited in the Planning Direct :,,r's Report dated rOctober ,5,
1984. Xt was requested that; the Soa+-,d' of Supervisors supply input
regarding land use in this area of BuC-.te County.
1C no appeals are timely filed- wi.thin eeh (10) days of the date of
the Advisory Agency's denial --with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors, this action Frill be final.
If you should have any question.t. contact this office. regarcix.g this matter, pleas
V;.�zy truly yours,
% ;lliam Che Ef
Director of Public Works
J 4M�11nni
JrA : ds
Assistant Director
act Planning t nvir,onmCOU11 Review
8nvironmental Health Department
GDA, 220 Grand Ave.; Orovil,l.e, CA 55965
Crotid co, planning Comm.
CjCT P 31984
Oroville, l allUornla
T () t
i7ROM .-
SUBJECT:
Butte County Advisory Agency
Planning Direct.,
Report on Tentative Parcel Map Of Charles Johnson and
17on Reich on AP 28-10-24
DATE. October 5, 19B4
and This is a proposal to divide 2'0+ acres into three parcels 8-5 acres. The present 'Zoning is A_5 Of S-01 6.6
Plan Map Of the Butte County (Agricultural)* The Land Use
AgritultUral-Residential. Th General'l designato
s thi s area as
the area« are are no specific r commuhity plans for
While the proposal meets the 5 minimum reqla.remont
it dO,*3s not
G Inoral plan.
L conform to the Agricultu Of the A-5 zone,
analyze the In order to determine ral -Resident "�tl designation of the
the Agriculture conformity' it is necessary tr
al-Rezidential designation which
requires Conformity with 5 different conditional criteria When creating
parcels less than 20 acres in size. Those conditional Criteria are-
eating
With neighboring agricultural activities.
Z Evidence of adequate water and Sewage disposal CaDacity.
AvailahilitY Of adeqwato fire prot
ecticn 4. Adequately mai ntaireed facilitiez,
approved road access With tuf+i':iL
capacity to service area. -nt
Reasonable acCL_
.Ssib4lity to commercial
This project does no _i a' !service% and rchonlz,
t Conform With conditional criteria numbers and 5,
'rha immediate vicinity Of the sub
grazing land subject to sect property i5p', dovotod egClu5ive1y o
POlitzi0s Of the Land Lice 16,L) acre Minimum
Williamson Act contracts.
Element indicate that residoltial de',,,ti.,
Such as these propoted are to be discouraged
activity* Add in areas 0+ agriCUItUral
"t'onally' , while the subject prop
Loma Rica in Yuba County and Within apprO,,* OrtY is within 4 miles of
tipper grade levO!� and high school imatoly 5 5
1.1es of Honcut the
20 M110Z dist
are major
ant in Orovillo 4!�Ool +acilit'ez are IOCAtOd approximotel y
ZhOPPihq facilities. in
1 19?9�in con3unctior�
additiOO discussions before the Board of
, Superviscars 4n Ngvember
''th the creation of the subject parcels the
Board indicated that the General Plan Was adequate ' to maintain the 20 to40 acre minimum lot size of the area. Three a
Board at that time and the County Counsel indicat�d `hat t 'sors an the
minimum leaf sizes aaere appropriate for this area. that the z0 a+are
of the November 1, �.�ee attached minutes
979 Board of Supervisors'mn.) Because of the
interpretation of the General Flan regarding 2r� eetiacre gminimums, it �.ras
felt by a majority caf the Hoard that rezarring Of tete area to �� acre
minimum parcel sizes by the original. subdivider was. unnecessary„
It Buisrecommended that the project be found no, in Conformity with the
to Cerunty General Pian, specifically conditional criteria numbers i
and 5 of the Agricultural -Residential designation, and that the project
be denied,
rf ttxeproject is Conformity .
ith th Butte Coun
Pla"7 it is recommended thatthetwtGeneral
attached to the project, o Mitigation me
General
be
I i Show a no development area on all that land
the Osgood irrigation ditch. located southerly o,f
Z. Place a note an t
g,
not to ehe map statingyr "Fencing to be limited to field
ft<rrcin Xceed 5 strand barbed Wire or 4 feet in height
and to areas north of thy° Osgood irrigation ditch.
DINH; l kt
Attachment
cc Charles Jor rnsan and .Vern Reich
GDA
CERTIFIED MAIL
September 20, 1954
Charles Johnson and
Dun Reich
Sun Dog, La Porte Stage
Marysville, CA 959ol
RF,: 'tentative Parcel Map
AP 28-10-24
Log #,84-08-06-02
LAI'FJ OF { ATURAI V`,,EAALrH AND OEAUTY
PL.ANNI NG COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95165
PHONE: 534.4601
Dear Mr. Johnson and Mr. Reich:
We have completed the initial stud oL'
impacts xelat^d to our y potential ertvi�xonmen�tal
Of our evaluation are exylaap'necldin the denclosed initialivision. The sstud
C)leC list, Appendix F. y
Because of potentially significant environmental impacts,
particularly growth inducement
impact report is required pursuant tond mthetrequi
p
ive
California Envixonment�tl Quality ty Act and xements o F t
effect an
the Butte County he
EnviTonmental Review Guidelines.
YOUas the applicant ark: required y
the form of a draft B.I.R. wihin 200odaysmfr from information
nofn
receipt of this notice that an E.J.R. is required: We require
a deposit of the estimated costs of B.1, it, processing.,
:Finalizing your submitted draft. This cos'tpmay vary dependi g
on the completeness of the material. submitted.
M'timum deposit :For pro*ects OC this tjrpe is �GQb�pQcus�henry
the project is completed, wo �+�i11 refund any thlused re
tnaxnder
or bili yoLt for any costs in excess of those deposa.ted.
If yo�t tvish to al�peo.l the regYti�rGmortt :Cux
R. z • R. , you may file a written protest epcc Cy Igtioij the of
thero:Cor with the Plann'ng Doh7'rttnent, This must be done
W1t})in 1 clays fz�orn the date o:E this notice. If no
protest g*r.itten
p st is timelY :filed, all E. I. k Will, be required,
r ,•
AP 28-10-24
Page 2'
September 20, 198"
The F . Z . R. should fully address a11,
the checklistthe impacts identified , including growth inducement and the cumulat:`
impacts, Project a:l:tex•natives should be fully explore t �n V0
F•z-R. Also, the E.I.R.should discuss feasible project de-t,he,
features of future land uses t,rat would. reduce environmenta;i �
impacts,
A fiscal analysis is also required as part of this project.
FxamPzes are available in our office for review. At the
Present time, there are no methodology
COPY previously approved approaches x or the validity
Of your own method.
We will continue processin
E•1.R. submittal an�l`de osgtyour project upon receiving your
contact this Office:. If you have any questions, Please
Sincerely,
B. A . -Kl'RCHER
Director of Planning
tCZ
David R. F-fironimus
Associate Planner
DRI: Ikt
Enc.
cc - GWA
Public: Works
0 APPENDIX F 0
COUNTY OF BUTTE
ENVIRONT1iNTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(to e complete by I,ea Agency)
Log 11 84-08-06.02
I. BACXGROUNn AP II 28-10-24
l.. Name of proponent Charles Johnson anct Don Reich
2: Address of proponent and representative (if applicable)
Sun nog, La Porte Stage GDA
D'arysvilie, CA 95901 220 Grand Avenue
0rov� 11C ,A 9596'i
3. project description Tentative Parcel Asap
II, ivfANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YIS MAYBE No
a, Does the project have the potolitial to uegrade the
duality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a -fish or wildlife species, cause it
.fish or wildlife population to drop below Self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short torm impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief period of time while Long-term impacts will
endure into the future.) _-- ---
c. Does the project have impacts which are individu-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? to
project may :impact on two or more separate resources
whore the impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those
imparts on tale environment is significant.}
d. does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adve)•se effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? Z
'ITT. DI:TT?Rl JTNATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I/WE -.find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I/Wr. find that although the proposej. project could have a signify
cant effect on the environment) there will not be a significant
effect in this ruse because the HITTGATION 'MHASURHS described on
the attached sheet have been added to the project, A NHGATIVH
DECLARATION will be pr.eparrd,
eZt I/IVIa .find the, ptollosed rico ject MAY haVe' a significant effect on
the envirotlment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RI.PtIitT is required.
DA`CF; September 20, 1984 COUNTY CIF BUTTE, PLANNING DEPARTM11NT
BY:
IJava,d R.
Associate Planner
Reviewed by _.._ .
P
-IryENVIRONMENTAL I TS
(,Explanations o a 1 "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheet(s))
YES
I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant:.
MAYBE NO
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over.overing of the soil?
C.
ChanLte in topography or 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
sandz, or changes in siltation, deposition
or ezosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any, buly, inlet or lake?
gi
Loss of prime agriculturally soils
outside designated urban are -- t'
Xe -
h.
Exposure of people or property tc geology ,�
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mat),
`
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
2, AIR. W ll the proposal result. in substantial:
a.
Asir emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors, smoke
or fumes?
x
C.
Alteration ofair movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
locally or regionally?
3, IVATER: Will the proposal result in substantial:
a.
Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements in either
b.
marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, -�
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?;
c4
Needfor off-site surface drainage improve -
'Hent s, including 'vegetation removal, channel=
ization or culvert installationl
d.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
e.
Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
X
f,
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of Surface water quality, including
bu not limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
C,:.
g.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
h.
Change in the quantity of ground waters
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 supplies?
2L
j,
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
YES
MAYBE No
4.
PLANT LIFE, Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of
—�-�"
any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an
E
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. Reduction in
acreage of any agricultural crop?
S.
ANIMAL LIFE Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell fish,
benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of aniii►al,s?
d..
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
,
6.
NOISE. will the proposal result in substantial;
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of
people to severe noise levels?
X
7.
LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce
significant light and glare?
E.
LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a
su�'6stan�tial alteraltion of the
present or punned
land use of an area?
9.L
RESOURCES: Will the proposal rbsult :in
s
st ntial.
a. Incroase in the rate of use of any naturai
resourLer ?,,
b. Depletion Uf any non-renewable natural
"
resources?
10
RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a, A ra" sk of explosion or the release of "hazard-
ous substances (including, but not limited to
oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiat;on) in the
event of an accident or upset conditionz?
b. Possible interference with emergency
an
response pian or emergency evacuation plank
11.
POPULATION. Will the proposal altar the location,
isstr buti�oto density, or
growth rate of the human
population?^
12.
HOUSING. Will the proposal, affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional. housing?
,5("
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, iy• a YES
result in c z11 tine proposal:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehiclo
movement?
b• Effects on existing Parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact oexisting trasystems? nsportat%on
—
d. Significant alterations to
Of circulation or movement OfepeeoFleaand/ox
goods?
e• Alterations to waterborne rail o
f• Increase in traffic hazards to motorivehicles�� —
bicyclists or t)edestrians?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Will the proposal have
upon or '' an e,Cfect
result in a need 6r new or altered
governmental services:
a, Pire- protection?b. Po14_
c. erotection?
Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e • maintenance Of r._.
roads? public facilities, including
f. Other governmental services?
1S. ENERGY. the .._.
a, � Proposal result in;
Use of substantial amounts of fuel,or energy?
b• Substantial increase in demand upon existing
of el..:gy, or require the development
Of new sources of energy?
UTIs ITIES: Will the
new systems, or substantial,TOPsaxalterationsresult inatoned
e
ithefor
followng:
a, Power or natural gas?
b= Communications
lb,
_SCC.
c. Nater: systems?;
d. Sewer or septic tank.?
e• Storm water drainage? '--
f.
—_
Stolid waste and disposal'?'
-
17. HUMAN HEALTH, Will the proposal result in.c_-
a Creation of any health
hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental Potential b, Exposure of
People
hazards? p ple to potential health
`K e_l
ls. AESTHEtrxcS.IVI Ill the
o structxon Of any scenic v,3. staal roruvill vno the
the ' nub! ic,
or will the proposal result in the
Creation of an aEsthetically
to Public view? offensive site open
-4-
YES MAYBE NO
19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES,
a. Will t e proposal result in the alteration
.of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
h.1s toric archaeological site?
b,. Will the proposal result in adverse physi ;al
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values? X
d Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP 28-10-2
lb: Compaction and overcoverinpgrof thesoil will ccur from the
residential development on the y. parcels are of
sufficient size that these -factors should not be significant.
1c: No tna-or changes in topography or surface relief features
are foreseen. The grading for driveways should follow the contours
of the land to help minimize these factors.
le: The area has a high erosion
S potential. T}sere.is some gullying
evident on the property. The slopes are over 300 in places; most of
the property has slopes of 2'0% or less.
lgf The soils on-site are not primed for extensive agricultural uses,
However, this ]and division, and others of a similar nature that
would likely follow in the area, could adversely affect significant
crazing land zr, the area, especially that adjacent to the north
across La Porte Road,
1h: All of Butte County is within a Moderate EarL'hquake Intensity
Zone 'VIII: An inferred fault traverses the area to the west of, the
project site; this potential fault runs from the northwest towards
the southeast. Construction of homes to Universal Building Code
standards for seismically active aveas should provide adequate pro-
tection,
Portions of t}1e subject property have soils .ch are high expansive;
and homes should be designed wit}i this in mind..
2a: IVhile this project is only adding an additional two building
sites to the aroa, similar rlevel.o,pment on the remaining 20 acre
parcels in the immediate area could result in as many as 48 parcels4
When built out, than would result in a, local :increase �n traffic,
causing a locAfized reduction in ambient: air quality. Fireplace
use on additional parcels will contribute to this effect.
tis4
AP 28-10-24
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
3b: Drainage swales traverse the property in addition toSouth
Honcut Creek, a natural water course. According to Public
c Works
Department, drainage should be adequate for this proposal,.
3--.' See item 3b.
3f: The storm drainage and possibly of -fluent from septic systems
could, have some effect on the water quality of SoLith Honcut Creek.
3h: Individual wells are the Proposed Source of wLator for future
residents . According to the Butte County EnviTonmontal Health
Department, water availability is a problem in the a-rea. 'Environmental
Health conditions will require that proof of water i.; T-Tovido-d.
3j Areas subject to inundation along Floncut C' -ole should be kept
free Of structures. It is recommended that the building site on
proposed parcel 2, which borders South Floncut Creek, be located on
the northerly portion of the lot to -reduce the possibility of hazards
from potontial flooding.
4a: The number of plants on-site would be reduced to a degree through
development of the homesites; however, the overall diversity should
remain intact:
4dV1 The soils are not primed for extensive agricultural use; however,
this :..and division and .subsequent land divisions which could occur in
the area may substantially reduce the viability, of grating land in
the vicinity, especially that immediately to the north on the other
side of La Porte Road.
sc,d: The introduction of domestic pets and the installation Of
extensive fencing could substantially affect the movements of wildlife
and the maintenance of wildlife habitat. The habitat for songbirds,
squirrels, and other small wildlife will be partially lost as the
lots are improved for residences. Riparian habitat along South
Floncut Creek should be retained.
8 : Parcel sites in the immediate area are as Follows; 46 acres,
67 acres, 143 acres, 257 acres, 261. acres, 410 acres and 628 acres,
as well as nine 20 acre parcol,3 created at the same time as the
original parcel from this project. This current proposed land
first
division represents the 5 acre parcels in this area in Butte
I L.
Countyi Yuba County has been allowing 5 acre parcels to the south
within their jurisdiction, The Butte County General Plan designation
for this area is Agricultural -Residential which indica-, ;s 20 acre
minimum parcel sizes in this area. This is substantiated by the
Butte County Board of Suporvigotst hearing of Novembox 15, 1979
while discussing requirements for toning in this area as a result
of the parcel map from Milton Redmond (see attached Board illinuto:,,).
ii.. This project could induce a signIficant, amount of 'population
growth in n relatively uftinhabited area. There are nine additional
Appendix V - page 6
AP 28-10-24
DISCUSSION OF 11" NVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(continued)
20 acre parcels north of Honcut Creek that show little ev:i.doncc
of any development at this time. The effects of residential growth
on the 200 acres of the ur gi nal parcel map located, within Butte
County could. be significant. Under the A-5 zoning, as many ,as
48 parcels could be created in Butte County.
13a: The two additior4al residences that are likc;i.,y on this
Property will generat approximately 14 to 20 vell i.Ctt' tar trips per
day onto La Porte Road, and/or Loma Rica Road. SalUAar development
of 5 acre parcels in the area on the other 20 acro parCels could.
yield as many as 450 vehicular traps per da
Cnt
counts in the area shote an avorage daily traffictt:CA'DT) of 320con
La Porte Road just east of its intersectionlvitl� .lsoma:, Rica Road,
410 just west of its intersection 'with Loma with 17oacl and 140 on
Loma Rasa Road just south of its intersection with La Porte Road.
13c: Portions of La Porte Road near the site have been reconstructed
recently by the Public Works Department. Loma ttica Road is sub-
standard and some road work maybe required. Lome? Rica Road in
Yuba Coulity is considerably substandard and should be repaired
although this is not within the jurisdiction of Butte County. Part
Of the transportations} ste.-1r, ,i
(crrected n 1914n this vicinity is a concrete bridge
1 why ch tr�lveises South Honcut Creek between Butte
and Yuba counties This bri.dE is part of Loma Rica Road and lies
at the southwest corner of -*,he project site.
14: The proposal will to an o'�a uct on public services. Due to
the location, these seri; �s may be Substantially affected and need
to all established urban areaE�or���opulation comparable project closer
to be Provided at an increased Population cent
on-
site fire center. There are no o-n-
protection facilit�,es currently in the area, The County
:l=ire station at Bangor can provide fire protection; ,heir response
time is to 7 minutes; Wat
facilitate storage tanks may lie „.eeded to
e adequate fi.'re protection Police Protection, schools,
and other public services and facilities are locatert a considerable
distance away.
16a,bi New power and phone:'.incs would need to be extended to the
two nein parcels. These fwcl:ti
home on-site, es are currently to the existing
17a: The Butte County Bnvirollmetttal Real.th llcpa.rtntont is requiring
the applicant to shoji tite us"010 two acre sewage disposal area
proven to meet the requiremon's of the Subdivision Ordinance on
parcels 1 and 2. Any 5 acre 1`6tirc ols Created would need to have at
least 2 feet Of soil spread oVer an adequate area and reasonable
percolation rates. Soil dapt' tests and percolation tests will be
needed to determine" elle :leas,;, lity of septi
c systdms on these two
Appendix V - page 7
i
AP 2$-10-2
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
20, The area along South I-loncut Creek has potentially significant
archaeological sites. Some of the land near the crcexbcd has been
previously disturbed as evidenced by dredger tailings on the
Property. Several recorded archaeological sites are located to the
north and west, most being near 'Nilson Creek and North I•Ioncut Creek.
Development of a 100 foot no development area along South Honcut
Creek will adequately protect both the riparian habitat and archae-
ological sites.
11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC4NCE
b. The proposal may conflict with some elcInOlts of
the Butte County General Plan. The Mouslj.ay Element
goals are to insure siaf icient housing sites with
adequate public facilities and utilities and that
the General Plan should establish such orderly
patterns of growth. 'rhe proposed parcels are remote
from most of these facilities. The Open Space
Element recommends large minimum parcel sixes for
open space lands outside urban areas, and: that the
creation of residential parcels near large numbers
of vacant sites of similar characteristics should
occur only if such need can be demonstrated. The
relationship of this project to the General Plan
warrants further consideration.
c, The cumulative impacts of this project which have
potential significance include those related to
1, The potential for erosion due to grading per
driveways and other residential improvements.
2 The exposure of people and property to geologic
and flooding hazards,;
3. The availability of water and Avater quality
considerations,
4, The reduction of the number of plants and the
effects on wildlife habitat,
56 The substantial use of y on -renewable, natural
resources including fuel and onergy resources.
(Travel distances to commercial areas; etc.)
G, The growth inducing off—,ect on adjacent lands
7, Establishment of a potentially large residential
area in a relatively uninhabited arota,
8. The increase in tra:l-fic,
Appendix P w page 8.
AP 2E ;1.0^24
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LVALUATTON (continued)
9. The effort On La Forte Road and Loma Rica
Road relative to the need for road improvement.
10. The effects on public sorvices and utilities
that would be provided.
ll. The feasibility of septic systems oil 5 acre
parcels, both on-site and in neighboring
20 acre Parcels.
1.2. The alteration of archaeological sites of J.s
potential importance
13. The effects on amlaid t air quality,'
REFERENCE; Initial Stud,- ChecRlist and Rnviro�timental
Impact Report Prepared for the Milt Redmond
Parcel Map, Log # 73-04-1:5-01. (EIR Prepared
:For .joint Project, Yuba County and Butte County
Certified 10/8/79).
Attachment! Board of Supervisors. Minutes from 1.1/13/79 relative
to the Quail Ranch (Milton Redmond) Tentative parcel
Map.
Appendix la page 9
4
Applioant: C. sonIDD. Reich* AossorI s Parcel #� 2�
zs �,0
ERD Lo 84-08-06-02
DATA SHEET' g � a
A. ProjectDescription
'f. Type of Projecuc Tentative, Parcel Map
2. Brier Description: Dividing 20+ acres to create throe parcels of
5.0 acres, 6.6 acres and 8.5 acres
3. Location.__. _ On the southeast corner of La Porto Road. and
Loma Rica Road, Bangor area.
4. Proposeo. Density of Development 6.7 acres per dw.-I,ling unit
Amount of impervious Surfacing;: Min,
6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Property fronts La, Porte Road
and Loma Rica Road
74 Method of Sewage Disposal.:,_ Individual septic systems
S. Source of dater Supply: Individual wells
q. Proximity of Power Llues: 'z'o property
10. Potential for further land divisions and dekrelopmen't None under
existing zoning
Environmental.Settin
Physica.l. Environment. -
1. Texra..n
a. General. Topographic Character: Rolling valley land
b. Slopes: 0 to 30+
2.
30
4.
ci Elevation: 170 to 200 feet ASI,
d. Limiting Z actors : Steeper slopes near Floncut Creek to the sough
S ails o.. t le property
a.. Types and 0haraoteristies: agate variant, Las Posas and
alluvial land:, all.of moderately slow permeability and well
drained
b. Limiting Vaotors: Slog permeability, high runoff potential
Natural, Hazards of the L ^nd
a Earthquake Zone: Modora.te Barthquake Intensity Zone VIII
b Erosion Potential:a�.Moderate d. Fire Hazard: Low
c Landslide Potential. '
blo4 e. Expansive BoBoilPotential:
e`ratc
high
Hydrology
a. Surface 'dater: i3onut Creek traverses southern portion 6� the
_. Appridix (a)
Data Sheat continued
c 18-10-24
b. Ground Water: Aquifers of unknown Quani.,Lty and depth
c. Drainage Characteristics: Property drains to south to I•loncut
Greek
d Annual Rainfall. (normal): 24 to 26 inches per year
e. Limiting Factors: None
5 Visual/Scenic Quality: High
6. Acoustic Quality: I•Ii:gh
%. Air Quality:, High
Biological. Environment':
8. Vegetation: Bxtremely open grassland on most of., 1 7)ronerty.
atian abitat consisting. og wi41oIV cottonwoocl� rTasses a d
ez-cp,-- —I 1' Ciie SOU- i r . r -ion o��ProPerty
9. Wildlife Habitat: Lower Sonoran Life Zone. Ripar'i.Ktn Iia its on
southern portion of property along Honcut CreeR _
Cultural Environment
10. Archaeological and historical. Resources 'in 'the area: High
arcliaeol,ogical sensitivity area
11. Butte County General. Plan designation- Agricultural -Residential
12. Existing Zoning; A`5
13. Existing Land Use on -site: -One single family duelling
14. Surrounding Area:
a and Uses Grazing land, open space, scattered resi.denti.al
uses at rural densities
b Zoning: A-5
c. Gen. Plan designations: Agticultural-Residential and.
Grazing and Open Land
d. Parcel: Sizes: 20 acre parcels to 600+ acre. parcels
e Population: Sparse
15. Character of Site and Area:. Crazing laird
18. Nearest Urban Area orhville
17. Relevant Spheres of �n�:�,�;zence: None_
18. Impro I aments Standards 'Cuban Area: No
19. Fire Protection Service: Station 75 4 I-loncut
a. Nearest County (State) Eire Station: Station 55 - Bangor
b. Mater Avai.labilityl, Wells and fire tanke°rs only
20. Schools in Area:,_Ban.;or union noillentalay School. atid. Oroyi.l.l.e union
Appendix V (b)
1847
PUBLIC HEARING: QUAIL R,4NCH (MILT -ON REDMO.ND) APPEAL WAS UPHELD
he'pu!�~lic �erng fir C�uaii Ra�cn.fiiiton Redmord) apfYal of Advisory
Agency condition number 3 regarding applying for an diligently pursue a 2.0 acre zone
change on a tentative parcel map, ten lots in Butte County (concurrent with a map For
15 IwN in Yuba County),, AP 28-03-08 and AP 28-X10-09, soutnera t corier of Loma Rica
Ro:acl and La Porte ,Road was held at this tune.
The Planning *,"', parfinent was riot prevent to answer any que;,,dons regarding
the requirement to pursue a 20 acre .o -ie Change.
Chairman Lemke stated they hal discussed this requirement before where
an applicant is required to pursue: zoning, all they need to do is pea/ the $150 fee.
and file for a zone change. He felt the requirement was a little 64.
Earl Nelson, environmental review direci•or,, stated he Felt there was two
options, whe her to condition this proisct orfind the area rezoned. From his departments
stand point they suppor• the policy of the general plain.. There are large lots in this area.
Supervisor Winston que;boned if this property was subdivided into 20 acre,
parcels and three months from now I am in cneifor:n ty with the zooe and he wanted to
cut it into 4 to 5 parcels he would run up tigainst the General Plan that has been
adopted which says the density will go to 2-0 to 40 acres.
Mr. Nelson stated this arao was within the Rei dentia) Agriculture zone
and it applies here. The Pian -ung Department was aware or the coiflicis with the
General Plan and he Felt it should be directed to. Plahiing sfaf. .
�
Hearing open to the pulflic, AppeGrin
g`
I. Mi I toil Redmond, 'Yuba City. Mr. Redmond stated he was a part owner
and he had had an extensive EIR pi°epared for the property . He had gone to a lot of
--Xpense and time. He was not in Favor of four way splitting. -He felt the project was
beuuHful the Way it Was, If he were in a position of buying a parcel he would have
the opportu►tity to apply for a two way split. He felt that four way splits should be
Prevented and that through 'Public Works, Enyironrnental Review and Plarriing staffs
this would not be ollowed. All he was as!ting was that it remain as it "ts. The response
time for fire has been From 5 minu'es to 19 minutes, There is a school in the area,
the 111,01, school students still go to Oroville, It was no` a good dreg for high density.
Supe;,-✓isor Dolan felt that the 20 ac►+e requirement was in the best interest
of the land,
SUPERVISOR WHEELER ABSENT AT THIS TIMEw
• ✓`t j
Mr. Redm did ►not feel that four way splitsw��oo•d for anyone.. If
an individual had ?O acres and it was toga large ne should at least have the opportunity
to try to fividm it. I,
Chairman Lemke stated that anything less than the 20 acres
would reque,ted` to automatic«Ily require a General Plan change in the area before less
than the 20 aeras could be broken up.
Mr. Nelson felt this was a qu.e,;tioti that should be directed to the Planning
Department. As long as the Ge;ieral Plan map governs on the zone, 20 acres would
be the minimum unless that could meet the requieements,
Dan Blackstock, county counsel, stated that the zon ng is suppose to be
consistant with the General Plan. mere could be no ra anin u•
There is some problems with the coni istanc•� L�e:St,, The Ft;
g Mess it is consisrctnt
rero►7e ;end the environmental feet are $325. 1h the rys for both the
Chairman Letnnke felt all an individual has to ado is go an apply with the
$325 and h:, consa;r he is diligent pursuing a zooe change. He felt it was a sham...
Zoning.Mr. Blackstock felt it was not a sham bun• would bring cojn�istancy with the
Hearing clod to fihe pilblic and confined to Nhe Board'.
On a motio+l of Supervisor Winsto,l seconded ,
the +� l�L��71 0>'' 1d J by Supervisor lvloselgy that
p, Quail Ranch (M►lto�7 ;Redmond} of Advisory g ncy
applying for and dill e,tl Pursue � e ., � A e � tOLditio�n 8 regarding
g Y p` a ,_0 act_ _ori, cho�iga o:l a te+5hal ive pa -cel :naps ten
ION in Yuba County), AP 28-08-02 and AP 13-10-09 southe
Rood ast carne: of Lorna Rica
Rood and I a Porte Ro+�d be upheld.
Supervisor Dolan stated she -
d►d nog think the condi-
acre would a e►
acre -none, she did not think it was a sham, P. Y fog• 20
they could divide 200 acres into I O acre: People e::ptct that b buying +
in the area g It, the,
cel
y !rn ►s
16 a -
is
1Nilliamson Act and it fits, it fits the 20 acre zone and iffY shouldbe ry
A future orc pcnlied here,.
p _I owner would have 0 ltastle lie wouldn►t want Four r
p.ircelilg,
Chairman Lemke stated fhut ,he was anticipating that eve►••
out there was :going too►je to ado it« yo ie that moved
Vote ori the mot -011,
AYES: Supervisors Moele , Winston a
NOi:S, Sup�,evi'sor Dolan Y nd chairman Lemke
ABSENT: SupEj vjsor Wheeler
Mot cln corriod,
x'CC
COON x'Y 130APD OF SUPU'PIVISOAS MUTING -Noveinoe r 13, 1079
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
PLANNING
Septembor 27, 3.984
220 GRAND AVENUE
OROVILLE, CA. 95965
(916) 533-2068
Butte County Planning
7 County Center Drive Buffe Co. Planning Comm
Oroville, CA 95965 "'110 Co. P I lanning Comm,
Attnt David HironimUs .0rov,112, California SEP Po n 1984
RLI: YTentative Parcel, Map
Llohnsoa-Reich
A.P. #28-10-24
Dear Dave,
1 respectfully rquestion the aced for an Envivonmental impact Report
in conjunction with the proposed 3 way division of 20 acres. While
I appreciate your concerns, I believe adequate information exists
to develope a miti4atoA negative declaration.
In rosponse to your discussion of onviroprIental evaluation, I have
the following commonts, 1.b, l.c agreed I'a Deve'lopelilent Wil.L be
restricted to areas of less than 20% slope due to location of leachable
soils, J,g ;ria , Porte and Loma Rica Road provide a buffer bottieon this
proposal and grazinq land. Bob Willoughby stated that such a buffer,
coupled with low density, minimizes that conflict, 2,a Sou comments
to 11. 3.b No comment. 3.f The Osgood Ranch irrigation ditch,
traversing the southerly end of the property procludes runoff Into
Honout Croak, 3.h Thera is a good well existing on Parcel 3 of this
proposal, 3.j Development on Parcel 2 must be above the leachable
area which is a minimum of 125 feet from the stream. Physical con-
straints imposed by the tjoalth De1jartment would keep aeV0l0PMQftt a
minimum of 400 feet from Honcut Creek. 4.a Agree. 4,d Soo l,q,
5.c, d. A(jrecd, however, there is currently pressure on wildlife by
trespasser parking near the bridge and gaining access to the Creek.
There are also many incidents of people shootinq from the bridge,
Increased visibility provided by development of Parcel 2 should
diminish, this pressure, g. �Aftcr reading the minutes of the 8oard
of supervisors, I'm not sure what their intent was,
WILLIAM W. G50019 JOHN D. CHRISTOr-r-r:KSON KENNETH C. Lr-NHARbT
arcel in Quail Ranch that our firm han l �xct0d for
11. This is the third L� firm. :�i,Vt'3 discussed
percolation and is the first by another engineering f,.
of failing tests oft Parcel 3 by
the probability of the creation of a Lyn substantial
Vanhart Or g
Ur- P1111" w'ount of4 `fir"".son of
you to discuss this with either Mr.
the %ealth Department • - , 1' Cx �1 'to
i don t believe that the 7-10 V.T.D. ars: valib`wlJenaltr�jNo UUMMent.
13.a. � 14, 1Ga,
ruraj r :silences of this nature 13 . c • , mail Manch awl 1:110 sites
20, p,11 archaeological survey waa conducted on � Quail Ral)(111- They
recorded during the p p The tnjt',�l+;ration
the
. for
consisted �
f bedrock nc�rtar Oii f 1ongDthe�Strea tttiougil �.rubttt.
offered was to not construct roadways or utilities
�. offer the following., l• Limit dcveloPltlent to area
�s mitigations 2. Limit fencinfJ to '"field"
northerly of the dsr�ood irrigatir�n ditch.
in not to exceed live strand barbed Wire or four feet in height and
fen.c.. g
to areas north of irrigation ditch.
ti anon 1.. would ;protect riparian h Abitat, azc�taecalo4iCa1 sites, and
t li g
water �;t�,a1,�,t�* c.� South Hancut C
:our.cr..k.
will p
rovide for wildlife movement and further Protect
Y,titigation 2:
riparian habitats
s point out that :small ijarcel$ c:Yist i-11 t"'le
in conclusion Z �•rould like and that commercial services c...:� r� 3.n Loma Rico
vicinity in Yuma Count,+
alticlt are
l e: than four utiles away.
pies zectfully subMitted
G, „ �; i Cx r' tat"�T f t SC1Rv 7NC 'pLANNiNG
4
Wil.l.iam W. +2ed.da.sr L.S.
�N VG%JM
aU'TTE Cc',IN'I • Kite r.� , ,•
GrN RAL P: AN' REPORT
For. 'zriIiGt i. 1.1A 0 SUBDIVISION MP r
Items 1-4 to be conplered by ap,pl icant C`r�tiy;lr, 1;;144i., a
1, Applicant Name
2. Project Description 1*w,--Z•
3. Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
4'. P. opos ed Use. _ ell..r'/--' / � /�..�"' �"�,l%:•��'�i•r`
The following items are to be completed by the Planning Department;
Current zoning Land Conservation Agreement . _ •" y' �+,.
General Plati Designation
,Applicable Conditional Criteria; Not Applicable
Agricultural -Residential YES NO
1 Agricultural Comp; ibility x
2. Water & Sewer Capacity cr
3. Adequate Fire Facilities
4 Road Capacity & Maintenance
5. Access to Commercial & Schools e'
Orchard & ri.eld Crops
1 Predominant 5-10 Ac, Parcel Size
2. Vicinity of 'Urban Boundaries
34 Agrc. viability not impaired
Staff Determination; Project does does not X'
substantially conform to the General, Plan.
x
Comments! L tw't
�.
7:
�-'` . .%� ��A1 ,moi~ ••'"'" � ��".Jd.� �+-n.i \�.+').ii",9 a 7 �;:, .i � � C'- -
r+
•
Staff•y�'
S a nature »
AS TETE APPLICANT FOR 71i.E R EQUCS71M I -MID DIVISION, X AM 4ARE OP THE ABOVE STAVF
DgTEPI-UNATION ItEfArOW G Tilt CONTORI-IANCE WlT14 Tllt GENEMt PLM.
mated Sigliature 61 Applicant F
Englnwswsurvey0es-rann1rt,�,
220 Grand Avenue
OroVifle, Gr+Nfprnia g5565