Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout028-240-006• ' . / a . � . � � , 1 • x .� � e .. � i, v ,� r - � e tl �. 'o - � "- � ' e � � �,.y'.' b gyp- c � - � . ��._��`:� • / e ,1 ° ° Y. vA e • � ,. , "/• �. � • 1 � .. _. ._ (� e • �; • s ' _ a a ' m ' r e-• . 1 1 n N. e P r • • � � � • J • � � � i • • erg. t e • � • li �e A t 4, Y ' a �` e ,� ,{ 1 al� � � n � � � \ PLANNING COMMTSSTON STTMMARY APPLICANT Helen Seaton ADDRESS La Porte Road, p , 0 , Box 24 OWNER Same POT) TAA* - o .� .. 84-11.4i.S�o�. r CA '95914 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Parcel---.., Map tp ditrcie 52 .66 `acres into 2 parcels at 20 acres and 1 of the remainder. LOCATION On the west side of La forte Road, ` np oroXimateofits intersection with l�xoville Bangor' Highway, lY 1200 poet, north � � OxoV,�„ Ile area:,. ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER(S) 28 24-06 ZONING A ` GEN. PLAN -�- - DATE �.._... PROJECT CONSISTENT? APPLICATION RECEIVED 11-15 - 84 Ron i:Y ltirn n v DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN PLACE P(BLTSii�D NEWSPAPER NOTICE(S) PUBLISHED ti O. C. .P G; B. DATE MAILING LIST PREPARED DATE MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN MAILED NUMBER DATE PLANNING"I3IRECTORIS REPORT PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DATE FILED AND DATE NEGATIVE DECLAi2ATIUIV DATE ADOPTED _ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION _ DATE ADOPTED ENV; .IMPACT REPORT - DATE CERTIpIED SUS. COMMITTEE MEETING DATE ADVISORY AGENCY HEARVO DATE��• y ADVISORY AGENCY ACTION DOARD ACTXGN TO: or k NOTICE OF DeTOV 1FNA Y1t'2fi� Plannin) p a L4101 Ilk E D 7 Cuugt-, =.t'onter Drive Orovil 1-c AMI la L.... Office of Planning, and Research IWO Tenth Street, Room 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 County Cleric ELEANOR M, BECKER County of Butte , Counfy Clerk By DQpuly M11119 of Notice of L"ietermiilation in compi ance with Section 21108 or 2102 of the Public Resources Code. F' jet Title Te.n hive Parcel, Nap AP 28-24-06 HO -10-1i, seatoll Stat C earin866u Number O` 1 tic t Ferscn r1'cic�pttone lit (I. subrOt edi to clearinghcu�►) umber John Mendaiisai 'Public works (9 16) 554-4266 jet lLzcatioh On the tease side. oil LaPorte hoed, nppx;w1,, '1200 .feet north of Oro*Ul.l.e-Bangor Hfghwayx southeast of Oro'v.i.l le in cnu tt'irons; t°e of Bangor: plvitll.ng 52.66 acres into two pttrc :i s, one of ZU acres and rr,ir of 32.66 acres. '1:h?3 is to advise tl'`1' tiny Butte , ...,.....,,.........�....County- Aelvisor � 1..J1G .,qt7 nc:y or i ;ierltry ..�...� , ..».. hoz--, �,1.'pr°okrc,�d t� above-�� scri` ed pCt7j%c .1Z:" 11,15 following determinations m-11g,ardlir -5h� above described project a 7li Otte 1. A E 4 to OF N, 7 U R A, UEPARTMENT OF PUULIC WORKS WILLIAM (0111) CHEFF, Oiroctor 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILI4, CALIFORNIA 95945 Tatephonei (916) 534.4691 Ruffe Co. Planning Oftn January 29, 1945 JAN 3 1 1985 Helen Seaton RE: AP 28-24-05 C!rovilla, Callfopaiq P. 0. Box 24 Tentative Parcel Map Bangor, CA 9591+ Dear Ms. Seaton : - At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held January 28, 1985, the Agency adopted the negative declaration- regarding eclarationregarding environmental review and approved the Ter,tati,ve Parcel Rap for. AP 28--24-06 subject to the conditions as listod on the attached sheet. IE no appeals are timely filed within ten (10) days of the date of the Advisory Agency's approval: -with the Clerk, of the Board of supervisors, this action will be final. When the conditions of approval are complied with, it will be in. order for you to file your "final map" with the Butte County Dapartment of Public Works for recordation within 'twenty-four "(24) months of the date of approval by the Advisory Agency,, if you should have any questions regarding this matter, please rnnt-nrC (nice hr*F#rFs,. Very truly yours, William chef birector of Public Works V John 1`lend6nsa Ass.lstant D-teector JM:ds Attachment cc t Planning Environmetitat Review Envirotime,ital Health 'pepattmoftt Ron Craves, Associates Helen Seaton, Tentative parcel Mapt 2 La Porte Road, aparcels on (i .110 West sidto of pprox. 1200 ft. north of its intor,,3p Oroville Bangor Hwy. 'Cti AP 28-24-06 Oroville area. ion wi t4,11 8ngineer, Ron Grave$ Associates Public Works condition I. Provide two-way traversable access RS -8 -LO -1 tO each parcel from a county maintained road or state J.'lighwa 2. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered for dedication on the final map. 3. Show 50 ft j building setback line measured from centerline of access easement. 4. Provide road maintenance agreemont. 5- Deed to the County of Butte 30 tight -Of -way from the centerline of La Porte Road. 6. Indicate a 50 fte building setback from the centerline of La Porte Road. 7. Show all easements Of record on the final: map. 84 Provide cul-de-sac at the end of the street, 9. Obtain encroachment, Permit and construct standard road approach Providing adequate sight distance at the i Of access road and La Porto Road. ntersection 10- Pay any delinquent taxes or current taxes as required. Health Department conditions: 11. Show a joo ft. JeachPield setback from the highwater line of the creek on and 2, 12. Provo that the required quanLiLjos Of domestic v_,�er available to parcel$ I and 2. Ciro that the required usable sewage d, ParCO18 I and 2 by parrormilIg fou 18PW3al area exists o, n 13; Prove e peecolaUoh tests I lot4 on oach TQ: Butte County Advisory Agency FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT. Report on Tentative Parcel Map for Helen Seaton on AP 28-24--0 ]ATE January 16, 1885 This is a proposal to divide 522.66 acres into two parcels one at 20 acres and one o+ the remainder. The present zoning is A-2 (General). The Land Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan designates this area as (policies indicate) Agricultural -Residential., There are no specific or community plans for the area. The proposal doe% 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 DRI+nit cc: Helen Seaton Rnn Graves and Azsoci aces J STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND REGION 2 GAME GEORGE oEukME��nN, GUvarnor - 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A r RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 '• (916) 355-7030 December 26, 1984 Mr. Dave IHironimu 13utte Country Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Orov.ille, CA 95965 Dear: Mr. Hironimust .The Department of Pish and. Game has Tentative Parcel Ma reviewed Helen Seaton's divide 52.66 acres iintoP82.66-acre'and020-ac eh TPM .site i s �.,' Proposes to ,, thin the community Of 13'angor. Parcels. The The Department has no comments regarding the TP be of further assistance mental Services Supervisorpltele teease lephone If M. !h we can P e (91,6) 355Merzsch� 8nv,ron- Sincerely:, 7.030.. y Paul. T. Jensdij "Regional Manager APP1 NDI X I 0 COUNTY Or. BU-pTh ENV.IRONWNTAi, CitV11VT x T 1,1010 M, be cprnpl.crC(J 1)y Iaeh �1l ancyt BAC GROUND l"t'!g It 10G 84-11.5-01 Name of laroponent Helen Seaton 28-24- 2. Address Of Proponent and representative P. 0. Dox 24 ._----.___Ron P Crav(e%s an; CA51I aFAssoc Box 986 _.� r ----•ry - _ Oroville 3, Project esd. tion .::y. I criP _. Tentative Parcel Map ! i . MANDATORY FINDING or 8[(; NrFxCANC)? -'88 NAM 7 a. 1)peS tiie project I aVe the potential to dagrade the - Cluality of the enviratitnettt: substantially redttGc� the habitat or a< f�.sh or wildlife s�ecips., educt,allso iii fish or tvildl i re populat ion to drop below self- re et f- sCastainin levels, threaten to elinrinate a Plant or range crow tarty , reduce thc.� nutniyer or restrict the raphe at a rare or endangert~d Iai tilt or animal or eliminate Calito important examples o°I tite mdi0l* periods pf Calit"prnia htstary Or prehistory,? b. Does thr Pt'oject have+ the potential short-term bcrnerlts to the cltia achieve etavlrotimental etritnent of liana -term, gtanls? IA short-term impact on the eaivirpnincint i:; ute which occurs in a rolaiivc;ly I t"icl' Period of time whi.ltw ;-tcarrn impdct5 tvil.l endUre into the `I"titure, Dw s%C the project Jul" iurpnets wlt.clt are ind;ividu4 _ ally ltmay 1, bttt project may c'ttntttlativvly considerable? (A mpat.t ort tWO tar more separate resources where the impact on each rt'5ottrce s v ell - Small, but wltc+t•e th(� eft'c, t �tf th totnl�ofthrso in".tcts on the Onvii'onment is signi.I"iCant, l d. J)ot*s tine prt)jt�ct have ear lncllc , will etuse ilbstantialdncl*ntWhch hein,1rys, t'ithra, clirrctly ver(nff."ectrntui ti► ri 1th1I Nr'l7 TON 1'ca lica c: c�m171, ct ed t,: tltv lead Agenvy) °' t : .:I,itat to I�IVI; I`itttt tht> proposed) proju ren the and ' Vt ATlVi�lhliClARA IONiiSini Will beHcant Pre�pare!d. anti ellrct On the .inti) di 11 tr.ltliuul;h if Pl'oposod Project e:ouid hate a s �rtifi ant t~aavlacinwnt, t-ht%rL, will not be a significant e ffect in thiw, t�ast;. becttus(' t11V MITIGA`�ION WA,SUR818 doscribed on the attached shoot have 00.11 n�1ded to tlicPro;ie�ct, A. NFGATT�+I? DECIMATION will he pl. ' Itrtx,rl , UIVI., bine) the Proposed Pro,lOct INIAL' 111"1•e as si T t•ho elivironme"t, unci ain I3NVNIONI�IINRi'Al, ]APACT RtIPORItiiso,rreet on required. DA'H Doldteniber 28, 1984 C'ti ` '1° C11t 'IiUT:CY's, PLANNING C1111pARTM.NT Its,• : _ � j,:� h David R, Hironimus Associate I.al,anhet Revkt�luc`cl ft1*: +J • j' T APP1 NDI X I 0 COUNTY Or. BU-pTh ENV.IRONWNTAi, CitV11VT x T 1,1010 M, be cprnpl.crC(J 1)y Iaeh �1l ancyt BAC GROUND l"t'!g It 10G 84-11.5-01 Name of laroponent Helen Seaton 28-24- 2. Address Of Proponent and representative P. 0. Dox 24 ._----.___Ron P Crav(e%s an; CA51I aFAssoc Box 986 _.� r ----•ry - _ Oroville 3, Project esd. tion .::y. I criP _. Tentative Parcel Map ! i . MANDATORY FINDING or 8[(; NrFxCANC)? -'88 NAM 7 a. 1)peS tiie project I aVe the potential to dagrade the - Cluality of the enviratitnettt: substantially redttGc� the habitat or a< f�.sh or wildlife s�ecips., educt,allso iii fish or tvildl i re populat ion to drop below self- re et f- sCastainin levels, threaten to elinrinate a Plant or range crow tarty , reduce thc.� nutniyer or restrict the raphe at a rare or endangert~d Iai tilt or animal or eliminate Calito important examples o°I tite mdi0l* periods pf Calit"prnia htstary Or prehistory,? b. Does thr Pt'oject have+ the potential short-term bcrnerlts to the cltia achieve etavlrotimental etritnent of liana -term, gtanls? IA short-term impact on the eaivirpnincint i:; ute which occurs in a rolaiivc;ly I t"icl' Period of time whi.ltw ;-tcarrn impdct5 tvil.l endUre into the `I"titure, Dw s%C the project Jul" iurpnets wlt.clt are ind;ividu4 _ ally ltmay 1, bttt project may c'ttntttlativvly considerable? (A mpat.t ort tWO tar more separate resources where the impact on each rt'5ottrce s v ell - Small, but wltc+t•e th(� eft'c, t �tf th totnl�ofthrso in".tcts on the Onvii'onment is signi.I"iCant, l d. J)ot*s tine prt)jt�ct have ear lncllc , will etuse ilbstantialdncl*ntWhch hein,1rys, t'ithra, clirrctly ver(nff."ectrntui ti► ri 1th1I Nr'l7 TON 1'ca lica c: c�m171, ct ed t,: tltv lead Agenvy) °' t : .:I,itat to I�IVI; I`itttt tht> proposed) proju ren the and ' Vt ATlVi�lhliClARA IONiiSini Will beHcant Pre�pare!d. anti ellrct On the .inti) di 11 tr.ltliuul;h if Pl'oposod Project e:ouid hate a s �rtifi ant t~aavlacinwnt, t-ht%rL, will not be a significant e ffect in thiw, t�ast;. becttus(' t11V MITIGA`�ION WA,SUR818 doscribed on the attached shoot have 00.11 n�1ded to tlicPro;ie�ct, A. NFGATT�+I? DECIMATION will he pl. ' Itrtx,rl , UIVI., bine) the Proposed Pro,lOct INIAL' 111"1•e as si T t•ho elivironme"t, unci ain I3NVNIONI�IINRi'Al, ]APACT RtIPORItiiso,rreet on required. DA'H Doldteniber 28, 1984 C'ti ` '1° C11t 'IiUT:CY's, PLANNING C1111pARTM.NT Its,• : _ � j,:� h David R, Hironimus Associate I.al,anhet Revkt�luc`cl ft1*: a a♦ V. ENVIRONMENTALACTS Exp anati.ons of all "yes' and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheet:Cs)) YE8 MAYBE N0 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant; a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or -.a=' overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features" XC d. Destruction, covering or modification of any �— unique geologic or physical Features? e. Increase in wind or Water erosion of sols', either on or off-site?' f. Changes in deposition nor 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 Take? _ X. g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils .�:. outside designated urban areas? ?C. h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides; mu.d- slides. ground .cailure or similar hazards? x 2. AIR: Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? i b. The creation of objec%ionable odors, smoke or fumes? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, locally or regionally? X 3: WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. 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 ran f? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization or culvert installation'? 5' d4 alterations to the course or flow of flood - waters? e. Change in the amount of suriace water in any water body? f, discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or -turbid it,,'? k'c� g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through lirect additions of with- drawals, or i:Erough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? r I . Reduction in the ~mount; of water otherwise "--' available for public water supplies? 'Ile j. _ Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? } 2 4. PLANT LIFE, YES MAYBE; No will 'the proposal result s a• c ang`e in the diversity in substantial,; of any species of ! �f species, or number shrubs plants (including trees, b. Reduction Of numcropsbersdofaantiunique,)? ., or endangered species Of plants? orC. �C Introduction of new species of area, or in a barrier to the �.lants into an normal replenish- ment or existinb species! d. Redu, l Ian xn acreage of any agricultural crop? w 5 • ANIMAL LT>;R. 1Vi11 theproposal proposal result . a mange in the diversity of species,xorsnbnl tint t�]. of any species of animals (birds including reptiles (birds, land anitltals , fish and. shell fish, bertthie organisms or insects) b Reduction in the numbers of any unique)rare or endangered species of 'Of an s? ---• X c• Introduction of, of species of animals into � an area or — -- or movement of animalsll ? barrier to the migration d• Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ G.o ISE, Will, theosal a. Increases in existing result levels? ibstantial b Rxpos►1re of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE, YVil1 sxgthe Proposal nifxcant lzght and. glare7xo osal produce 8. LAND USE, llrill the Proposal ,* salt in a subst`an zal alteral tion of t land use of an area? l present ur Planned 9. 1`IATURAL R1JSOURCES Will t1, rr :� ?C substantIaI p �osa1 result in a. Increase in the r'a•te of resources? us; of any natttra' b: Depletion of any nonrenewable natural, 'resources? — l0 RISK or, UPSET W r' k' 1�i the proposal, involve. a, A rxsrA 0f explosion or the release of haZa'rd- ous substances (including, but not limited to oil, Pesticides, chemicals or event of an accident or a set cunditioradiation) in the b: Possible interference with an emergency g y Plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1.1 . POPULATION, pi '� Will the proposal alter the location, K xs latio�.on, density , or growth rate o tlle human noptxltion? �. 1 . HOUSING, Will the proposal affect eXisting housi ol` create a �Ietrtanl for additional housing`? ng t 13. Y TRANSPaRTATTf)MJrTRCULATION. Will the ES AiAY-l31I 1, NO --- result in: proposal a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parkin!] 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 aterns goods? e. Alterations to waterborne; rail or air traffic? --�- -'� f. Increase in traf'f'ic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists -�- or pedestrians? 14. PU$%IC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an e.f'fec,t upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services; a. dire protection? b, Police protection? k Ci Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities: e. Maintenance of public faciliti^ss including roads? .c f. Other governmental services? - - ENERGY, Will the proposal result ir, --Use T of substan°tl i, cmotints of fuel .or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon. existing sources Of energy, or require the developm,�nt of new sources of energy? ,k 16» UTILITIES, Will the propsal result in a need for new systems; or substantial alterations following to the a. Power or natural gas b4 Communications systems? C. Nater. d: Sewer or .septic tank? --r� c» Storrs WatOT Arainage? f. Solid wasto and disposal,? 17, HUMAN HEALTH, Will the proposal result in a. Greatxon of any health hazard p or potential health hazard (excluding mental health),? b, Exposure of people to Potential health hazards? 13. AESTHETICS, Will the proposal result in the o s cion of any scenic vista or view open, to the public, or 117i11: the proposal result in .the creation of an ae to public vie10 Sthetically nffens5.tte site open .4- YES MAYBB NO 19. RECREATION., Will the proposal result in an impact �^ upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a• Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?�� b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical, or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object's c. Does the proposal have the potential to causo a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing—X religious or sacred uses '-.,ithin the potential impact area? V DISCUSSION OE ENVIRONME.ML EVALUATION AF 28-24-0 See attachtnen't 1�lSC1JSS7DhI�DF ,€hJVIRQiyME _`" __ AP 2824-46 1bl W ,favb,f Some displacement, compaction soil will occur during construction of heaccess .road�toerin Parcel 1 and the development of g a� the the parcel, any effects a new hOmesite. a Proposed generated b Due to the size of 1F►5 All of butte County i's Y such word will be insignificant, zone Vkli The subject within a Moderate Earthquake northeast of a property i s located a q Ini.ens ty fault trace that i s part o f Pprox i matel y i more specifically, Pairt of the Foothill Construction of dwellings the Cleveland hills Faults Dear Zone, sei smi call 9 to Ifni farm 6Ui l di n Standards y active areas should provide adequate Protection Standards for residents in case of seismic activity, protection 'for: 3hc A well drilled +or the proposed homesite will . since only 1 additional this is not considertap aquifers of unknown quantity, d a significant e•ffectparcel is tieing created, 5dc The subject Property is located within the neer herd habitat of the t by the California Department rofoFish eer non critical .winter herd Policies being endorsed Parcels less than ZC► arses Should be created in areas and dame indicate that no new This project Conforms to that policy. ea- su ch as this.. 141 16f; Though not significant, this , incremental increase in demand for projptt will re pr._osent anpublic services in a rural- area, ^4ae The subject property is located in an area of high archaeological sen Y• An archaeological survey hat performed and clearance recommended; ham constru,cti on activityHowever, been :historic ,.. reveal evidence of subsUrfaCeld future mater ial , a qualified archaeol I su should brohistnric or immediately in order to assess t g Cultural r he impacts of the contacted resources involved. project to the Appehdi.x V - 0480 6 Applicant: Helen Seaton Assessor's Parcel 28-24-06 Log # 84-11-15-oi DATASHEET A. Pro1pqt_PgMctigtioh 1. Type of Project: Tentative entative Parcel Map 2. Brief Description: Dividing 52.66 acres into taco parcels, one of 20 acres and one of 32.66 acres. 3. Location: On the west side of LaPorte Road, app►wUximately 1200 feet north of Oroville-Bangor Highway, southeast of OroVille in the townsite of Bangor. 4. Proposed Density of Development: N/A S. Amount of Impervious Surfacing.- Minimal 6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Property fronts an LaPorte Rol --%I, a publicly maintained road 7. Method of Sewage Dispotalt. individual septic systems 84 Source of Water Supply: Individual wells q. Proximity of Power Lines: To property 10. Potential for further land divisions and development; Existing General Plan policies would allow densities as high as I dwLalling unit per acre B. Environmental Setting Physical Environment 1. Terrain A. General Topographic Character: Rolling Sierra foothills b. Slopes-. Generally 0-15%1 some areas up to 25Y. to the north c. I Elovation: 750-850 feet ASL d. Limiting Factors: None 2. Soils ai , Types and Characteristics.- Wyandotte soil meries, 20 to 40 inches in depth, moderately Slow permeability, well drai nee b. Limiting Factors. ShalldW tails in area, slow permeability n Appetdik V (a) AP 28-24-06 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake IntLri-,.,`N-,y Zone VIII b* Erosion Potential: Very high C. Landslide Potential; Low d. Fire Hazard; High e. Expansive Soil Pr,,'-,ential-. Low 44 Hydrology a. Surface Water: Two tributaries of Wilson Crv­k travewsm the property, one from north to south and dnqtrom east to west b. Ground Watert. Aquifers of unknown quant i,,-,, anO depth C. Drainage Characteristics: Property draimt;� aj,h--site, drainage ways, thence to Wilson Creek to tho d. Annual Rainfall, (normal)-. 30-35 inches per yetAr a. Limiting Factoest., Setback,:, from drainat;e wqys S. Visual/Scenic Oualityi Good 6. Ac:oustic Quality: Good 1. Air Qualityt. Good piolo ie,al Environment*. B. Vooetatiorl: Blue Oak, interior live Oak, grassed., and, t9iq�!,vir p.& h e 5 9 Wildlife Habitat: Lower Sonoran Life Zaneq non-cr-it,,-'aal iiinttw­ doer herd (Mboretowh Deer Herd) Cultural Environment-._ 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area; High sensitivity area. Survey revealed no visible 11. But:�w County General Plan designation: Agri tUltUral-Residential l2. Existing Zoning.- A-2 1:3. r=xis�,Ihg Land Use on-site: Agricultural land, unii, tI.n4»;Ive fan i,' dwelling 14. 8ue"I-ounding Area., a, Land Usets; Agricultural, rural residential u,_Atti, townsi-Ite of Bangcjr to the -southwest b. 'zohihq: A-21 A-8 to the north t. Plan dosignations'. Agri cultura,I-F(etidenti', I ;ar.li Open Or?,I Grazing Land d. Pjrcol Slzi5is-. i to 300+ acres. Most in 20 to 40 r Wige. o t-opulatidnt Generally spar%eq population cr-- iter adjacent t.t,� property to southwest in Bangor. Appefid.lx V (b) 0 0 a 28-24-06 15;. Character of Site and Area: Rural townsite, slowly developing into surrounding agricul ural -ands 16. Nearest Urban Area: droville 17. Relevant Spheres of Influences; OWID 18. Improvements Standards Urban Area: No 14. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) sire Stj�h:on' Station #€55 in Bangor, Station #75 in Honcut b. Water Availability.* Fire tanker only 20. Schools in Area; Bangor Union Elementary School: District and Oroville Union High Schaal District Archamogical k0connatsaancc of the Proposed Subdivision of AR 28 -24 -dpi bear Bangor, Butte County, California. Prepared For: Ron GraVes associates P. 0. Box 986 Oroville, California 95965 Prepared By Peter M. Jensen Jensen & Associates 41 Skymountain'Circle Chico, California 95926 December 1984 1 Introduction and Project Location In order to assess the archaeological impacts of a proposed subdivision projec'., involving approximately 52' acres of land located between Oro -Bangor Highway and La ° Porte Road within Butte County, California, the firrr, of Ron Graves Associates of Oroville contracted for a complete records search and on -foot reconnaissance of the parcel. Accordingly,, on Wednesday, December 6, 1984, the author conducted an intensive, on -foot reconnaissance of the project area for the purpose of locating and recording any evidence of prehistoric or significant historic use and/or occupation. The 52 acre parcel (A.P. No. 28-24-06) consists of an approximately, rectangular piece of land located about 1/8 mile north of' Bangor, California, within a portion of the northwest quarter of Section270Townsirlp 18 North, Range 5 East, of the USGS Bangor, Calif: (1947/1969) 7,5' Series Quad. (see Project Location/Survey Map). The parcel occupies a portion of the wedge formed by the Oro -Bangor Highway and to Porte Road immediately north of the intersection of the two, and is dissected by two ephemeral streams, one located within the west half of the parcel and running north south, the other located along and parallel with the southern boundary of the property and flowing slightly north of west. The current proposal Calls for subdivision of the land into several 10+ acre parcels, each of which woul4 lator be subjected to homesite development. In view of the potential adverse affects of future construction to cultural resource: which might exist Within the area, Butte County and other regulations required that cultural resources be fully inventoried and formally assessed prior to project approval, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 , as amended (16 U.S.C, 470), and procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800), This report details the results of the required archaeological survey and inventory and provides appropriate recommendations, All floldwork procedures followed guidelines provided by the State Historic Preservation Office (Sacramento) and are in conformity with the highest professional standards. Records Search Prior to going into the field the archaeological records of the Northeast California Information Center (CSU=Chico) were examined for any existing recorded prehistoric or significant historic sites Within the project area: In addition, the National Register of Historic Places was also consulted. No sites are currently recorded for the project area or immediately adjacent parcels, , <�-7. 2 - Ethnographically the project area falls within territory which was occupied the . Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow Indians (Riddell 1978: Figure 1). Although the ethnographic data do not identify any sites within the Immediate project area, this information in combination with the results obtained from Previous archaeological surveys (e.g., Jensen 1979; 1982; 1983), suggested that a number of prehistoric site types could be located within the area, including the following: (1) aboriginal middens located on benches adjacent to springs or overlooking small tributaries of Wilson and Honcut Creeks (the former is located about one mile to the southwest, the latter about three miles west), (2) aboriginal milling stations, including bedrock mortars and metate slicks, (3) isolated finds of aboriginal lithic flakes cnd artifacts, and (4) historic sites dating to v8F'ious time periods between about 1850 and the present and reflecting various activities, Including mining and homesteading. Such sites have been recorded within the immediate project vicinity and throughout Konkow Indian territory generally. Fieldwork As noted, fieldwork for the project was conducted by the author on December 6, 1984. The on—foot survey involved Criss-crossing the rectangular parcel from east. to west 4H survey transects spaced approximately 15-20 meters apart. Examination of the surface involved inspection of all 'road outs, holes and other disturbed areas for evidence of subsurface cultural material. Vegetation consisted primarily of irrigated Pasture grass; a minor 'riparian' association has taken hold along portions Of.the western -most of the two seasonal streams which dissect the parcel', although this did not prevent a thorough exam+nation of the project area. Survey Results and Recommendation No evidence of prehistoric .or significant historic Use or occupation was encountered within the 50 -acre parcel: In view of the negative results achieved during btj(h the records search and field survey, archaeological clearance for the proposed subdivislot,, is recommended, However, should uture construction activity reveal evidence of subsurface prehistoric ar historic material, a qualified archaeologist :Should be -Immediat.ety in order to assess the impacts of the project to contacted the cultural: resources involved. References Jensen, Pexer M g on 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Overview for the Proposed Southeast Chico Development Rrojact: Report on =ile, Northeast California Information Center, CSU-C;hfco, and Cook & Associates, 00ville. 1982 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Honcut Creek Ranch Subdivision near Loma Rica, Yuba County, California. Report on File, North Central California Information Center, CSU, Sacto. 1983 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Masek Subdivision Project on Keefer Road, Butte County, California. Report on File, Northeast California Information Center, CSU-Chfco. Riddell, Francis A. 1978 Maidu and Konkow, IN, Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8 California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp, 370-386, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, p. C, United States Department of the Interior 1983 National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register'through December - 31, 1983. Washington, D.C. pROJECT LOCATION AND SURVEY AREA. , 4363 Wit X , 0 s % J 00 so F NN Al _ 1 Y - _- '`'-. _'k„i �'� � `•,`\,��'',�"' ^r:�,'o. y .� —14 Pros e iI IooO ., • ! � `--y-,•``�` 0 it I ' v` �3angor ---".- r),7 , ;/ a 0007 t u61000�, p to � • \ -+ i-' bi Y7 �`� J � i , �� t�, �..� X83 • � o n `,�,, , \ 'ti « �a4 r (� a `�, • Jr' o. r pp � 39 22 30 INT[RRYRwUtoUD01CAL►URYM RCsf6YurVIR01rYl" rAYA 1216&30" 36 25',. C 11 M� ro CAuP, � X38 639 « L 'o I MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION x•11°il 0 Modium'duty Light-duty '� o Unimproved dick �t,�- •_ CALIF Nw14 bAPit700 16' oUAORANtlL'E BANOOI� CAWS' pUAbt2hNGLELGCATIQN 0912.5—'�W12122 5/i,5 �iVVISItin'.�.Ir+'�,t,Y,r,nY1+h't�ntr{r�`r11 hq 4In 6ieti1,71;IC�Y1 A 22492 survey lit ccopul.31I'ei', Pfllll r` rl,, r lu 1 11s'pavt,In' ,I e,i 1947 ° Willot t z r:,r w IYau I�+',,ri FYn, t ,'r,,1,t1 , trlt.nn 1'ktava voolonv1W) 1009 lltr'r li,i tti u� 'it It'll I• i I / lr.r. L. A0 1161 I� Nw-:5i~RICS X899 .. � �. wf/ray. �{'r•y..�1�i.� yw. - .. � . Y, ' ate✓ ..aP.,`ti, �(yr+n:"\, r.,,,M `= LAND Of NATURAL WJ'-Al`fH ANr) aFi,U � PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE •- OkOVILLE; CALIFORNIA 9,5965-3397 [november 21, 1984 PHONE: 534.4601 Helen Seaton La Forte Road P. ©. Box 24 Bangor, CA 95914 R8: Tentative Parcel Map AP 28--24--06 Lg ;t' 84-11-15--01 r amu,; his. Seaton: In reviewing your proposed project for potential effects on the environment, we havo come to a point in our review where we need additional infOtmatxon. c Ywr ptoject li;, s in an area where archaeological sites have been :recorded ansa ,)o, 1ttially exist on this development site, so an archaeological survey by a qualitied person is necessary before we can complete our review, At thio early stage cf project PrOcassingt we have identified this neer] For archaeologi,ca'~ 1fnrmatic a wc�.��as- of site sensitivity, ane' ars: asking .for the survey at this 'Gime � o ,ccd;:� wuhsequent delays. Nage.ver . afteY` further project evaluat?.on, additions! ins')n",�ion may be necessary in order to complete the environmental evaluation,, We are enclosing I Copy of a list of local const Lltants fOr your information. If you have any questions or, cwtments, Pleaso contact this oft-ice. Sincerely, 8. A. KIRCHER Director of Planning k t bavid R. 11itonxmus Associate Planner 'URH . lk t cc; icon Graves and Astyoc BU'T'TE COUNT GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE I2�PORT FOR PARCEL MAP OR SU D`r:V'IST N DIAY Items 1-4 to be completed by applicant', I. Applicant Name and address Helen Seaton La Porte, IID. , T3ay�or. ra. 2,. project Description Parcel Map. 3. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 28-24--06 4. Proposed Use Farming, The followi"g items are to bt�= completed by the Planning Department; Current zoning _.. band Conservation ,+A,, graeriteat' . &o General Plan beg ign'abiori'�llrCe'!Dr Applicable Conditional Criteria: Not Applicable Agricultural -ices identi.al YES NO 1. Agricultural. Compatibility 2. Water & Sewer Capacity 3. Adequate Fite Facilities 4. Road Capacity & Maintenance 5. Access to Commercial & 'Schools Orchard & Field Craps I. P tominanit 5-10 Ac. Parcel Size 2. TI.,_-.intty of Urban Boundaries 5. Agric4 viability not impaired ` Staff Determination; _Project: does does not substantially conform to the General Plan and zoning. c Comments:�rJt�r1_y�''�,c� Staff Signaturec �-' . ., « Dale 2 e",e ._ AS TETE APPLICANT FOR Tat R90M I D LAND DIVISION, l Ali AWARE OF 'Tiff, ,ABOVE STAFF DETMINAMON REGARDING �,njE CON OI01ANCE WIT(; T112 G> N1 RAL PLAN AND ONING., • C Dated. Signature of Applicant ,�- � - , P-41 D 1.000 tevlsed 6-80