The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About038-190-004APPENDIX H i F M OF ;DIrT'f 'SK?r� h1�03'& ; p . lr�'Ri7�z Pl � i'Or, Ofgice of Planning and Reset3rch ng ep me 1400 T.tnth Street, Room .21 7 C nt Center Dri%te _' Sacramento, CA 95814 oro lle, g` ._..� or %� % x. countyClerkoferk ELEANOR M. BECK County Clerk Butte Filing. fNotice of Determination in compliance Ji -Sect ion 21108 or 21152 SUBJp=s Fllin o � of the Public Resources Cods. Project 'ift"Ie ��"�� roje AP # 38-10-04 F? 05 Name Tentative Subdivision Map Robert Skillin tate �%ar ux lVum Contact _rson e e one Nuhn 01 submitted to Clearinghouse) submi - Jahn Mendonsa, Public Works 534-4266 fl ect on 0 the west side of Stanford 'Lane, 4800 feat east of 1 Midway, Durham ares:,. — i�t+o�ect criptO Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 40 acres +/ into 'I 8 parcels at 5+ acres each. �j i G , Ws' is to advise that theButte ounty AdvisorV' Agency rr-swn4 iead"Agency or Re ponsl e Agency f has approved the above des0lbed project and has made the following determination$ regarding the above; deacribetl projects 1, Tire project " *1111, ;X will not, have ;A significant, effect on the environment.; 2 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the pravislons of CEQA A Negative Declaration was prepared' for this project pursuant to the � provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative 'Declaration and record of project' approval may he examined at: Butte County Plannl.ng Depe.rtment 7 County. Center -'D jr.,. Orovi 1 I e : CE;,-.g..5�b5 .• t 3 Mitigation measures Were, were not, mace a condition of the approval, of the project. 4. A statemot of overriding Considerations' „ WatoZ was not, adopted for this project. f Date Received far piling 10/23/85 r ure Stephen A. Streeter I Senior Plenner �..G.-;..r.. k '2 Revised janUdry � we ` Batti� Count,# I.AND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WILLIAM (8111) (Hl:r=r, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 ��. Teloplione. (916) 534.468.1 gyp. p RONALD D. McELRQY' �ann JS, 4)74 Deputy Director �'T ;1k :J .0 October 21, 1985 O�Ville, xis+ "AGI f " Robert Ski_llin RE: AP 38-19-04 & 05 0.5141 -Stanford Lane Tentative Subdivision Durham, CA 95938 Dear Mr.. $killin F,At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held on regarding environmental the agency granted a mitigated negative declaration October 21; 1985 the a en pact and approved the tentative subdivision On, the above-referenced property subject to the conditions listed on the attached sheet. If no appeals are filed within ten (10) days of the date of the Advisory Agency's action--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 Your tt p„ , y p publ�cuworks to �for recorda�ionmaithi�rittiwehe Butte County Department of of approval by the Advisory Agency, my four (24) months o1 the date If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Very truly yours; William Cheff Director of public Works n Men' onsa JM/ds assistant Director attachment Cc Planning' Health Sierra West :Surveying ROBERT SK`ILLIN TENTATIVE[/SUBDIVISIONMAP, eight parcels on the west side of Stanford Lane, 4800 ft.' easterly of Midway, Durham area, Assessor's Parcel Number t 38-19-04 & 0 Engineers Sierra Test Surveying Public Works Department conditions are: l: Indicate a 50 -ft. building setback line from the centerline of Stanford Lane and access woad., 2 Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street intersections per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval of street names. t e o Stanford Lane to the County of 3. Deed 30 ft. from.. the centerline f Butte. 4. Construct full street section on access road to RS -7 geometric standard. Minimum structural section to be 4" AB. 5. Provide monumentatioil as required by the Department of Public Works in accordance with accEpted standards. G. Street grades and other, features shall comply with file Butte County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering standards. 7. All easements of record to be shown on the final map. 8. Meet the requirements of the utility companies (i.e., PG&E, Pacific Bell, water, sewer). 9 Pay any delinquent taxes be current taxes as required. 10. Construct public road approach at intersection of Stanford Lane and access road: 114 Developer to provide all necessary traffic safety signs, including stop signs, Health Department conditions are: 12: Provide a 100 'ft. leachfield free setback around exist tg wells either within the property or Within 100 ft, of the property wuhdaries. 13. Show a 100 ft: leachfield setback from perennial and 50 ft» from seasonal irrigation ditches. 14 Locate and if necessary relocate e twage disposal system serving the existing dwelling out of proposed easement road. The following mitigation measure is also required 1. Any additional drainage runoff generated by the construction in. this subdivision will be reviewed by the Butte County Public Works Department i�termD p r a �" 'Memorandum r� 1 Butte County Advisory Agency FROM. Planning Direfstor susie-c'n Report on Tentative Subdivision Map of Robert Skillin on AP 38=19-04 & 05 oATc; October 14, 1985 This is a proposal to divide 40± acres into eight parcels at 5± acres each. The present zoning is A-5. The Land Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan designates this area as Agricultural -Residential. There are no specific or commu, < ty plans for the area. The proposal does not conflict with County zoning nor any adopted cr proposed element of the Butte County General Pian nor any County, specific or community plan. Recommend approval, with the following mitigation measure; Ii. Any additional drainage runoff generated by, the construction in this subdivision will be reviewed by the Butte County Public Works Department. DRH/ss INTRODUCTION Tile owners of an app'ro'ximately 40 acre parcel of land at 8941 Stanford Lane near Durham, Butte County, California (see Project Location Map) have. applied to Butte County Planning Commission for a permit to subdivide the property into eight Lots of about five acres each. This undertaking and any subsequent development of the property has the potential for adverse envir- onmental impact, including potential impact to any cultural resources that might lie on the property. Acting on the provisions of the California Envir- onmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulations, the Planning Commission has requested that a cultural resources survey be perfcimed prior to granting a land -use permit. Acting on behalf of the landowners, Sierra West Surveying of Paradise contracted with Professional Archaeological Services (PAS) of Paradise to undertake a records search, archaeological survey of the lWoperty, and this report of the ;findings of the archaeological study. The records search and archaeological survey were performed on August. 231 1985, by PAS Director Alfred Farber. Assisting with the field survey was archaeologist Paul Bowman, PROJECT CONTEXT Geographic and Environmental Setting The project area lies in east -central Sacramento Valley within western Butte County, California. Central. Durham is approximately two mileta (3,2km) north and slightly west, The property is on the former floodplain of Butte Creek which flows about 0,5km to the east, and which is now confined to its channel by a levee. Sacramento River lies about 12 miles (19,3km) to the nest, The f1°+t, level parcel is situated at an, elevation of 140' (42,7m) above mean sea level. The project area occupies the extreme northern edge of the Nelson 7,5' U80S topographic quadracngle, straddling Townships 20N and 21N, Range 2E. Ethnographic. Background This area is the former domain of the Northwestern (Valley) Maidu Indians, one of several linguistically related groups of people who spoke variants of languages classified within the Penutian linguistic stock. The Northeastern or Mountain Maidu occupied the Sierra Nevada uplands to the east, and the SouLhern Maidu or Nisenan dwelt in portions of the valley and mountains to the south and southeast: The three primary divisions of Maiduan-speaking peoples are thought to have spoken related; but mutually unintelligible lang uages (Riddell 1978,370); While the mountain dwelling Maidu depended on game for much of their subsistence along with acorns and other vegetable foods gathered during sea conal forays up and down the mountain slopes, the valley dwellers were some- what more sedentary and tended to specialize on riparian resources along with acorns (Riddell 1978t314-875)., k Archaeological. Background Based on unreported excavations of site CA -BUT -1 located between Durham and Chico as well as on a number of site excavations in the nearby foothills_ to the east, it is known that this area has been continuously inhabited for the past several thousand years. Based on information from the foothill investigations, a five -phase archaeological sequence ,has been proposed as follows (Olsen and Riddell 1963; Ritter 1970; Markley 1978); Mesilla Complex 1000 B.C. or earlier A.D, 1 Bidwell Complex A.D. 1 800 Sweetwater Complex A,,D. 800 - 1500 Oroville Complex. A.D. 1500 - 180f' Historic Complex A.D. 1800 present The Historic Complex represents the historically encountered Maidu Indians, and Markley (1978) proposed that the sequence is unbroken for at least the last ?000 years, implying Maidu presence for the entire time. Some archaeologists ('e.g. Farber 1982; Clewlow et al. 1984) have Speculated that the Mesilla Complex might represent the remains of the Maidu as well, or those of a i.lose;ly related (i.e. Penutian-speaking) group, Others (e,g Ritter 1970' had earlier proposed that: the Mesilla Complex might represent the remains of hunters and gatherers who spoke variations of a Hokan language, According to Ritter (1970), each succeeding period within the sequence is characterized by ever-iftcreas-xng s+dent sm, socio-political complexity,, and specialization on the exploitation of acorns and riparian resources, PROJECT RESULTS Records Search A search of the maps and records of the California Archaeological Inven- tory, Northeast tnformation•Center, California State University, Chico, revealed' that no historic or prehistoric archaeological r`. xces have yet been recorded within a one -mile radius of the project area, Field Survey Methods The project area consists of 40 acres of :flat; level land covered by a dense growth of grasses. It was surveyed by means of systematic parallel traverses spaced about 20m apart. A total of 18 east -west transects were thus traversed; They were walked in zig-zag patterns to increase ground coverage, The dense grasses masked much of the ground surface, but numerous percolation test holes and 'water depth test holes that resulted in the scraping of areas about 3-5 motors across afforded us many exposures of the bare ground. Survey Results The systematic examination of the ground surface revealed no evidence of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources wi"thin the project area, Although aboti,ginnY habitations sites are assumed to have clustered near the banks of Butt.. Creek in this vicinity) it is assumed 'further from the wetness of the ground during the late summer that in the winter and spring, when the as Maidd ��Wremost liyto aitheaelley villages, the -project probably y toowet andspongy to havebeen habitable. a � I RECOMENDATIDNS Given the apparent comp tete absenceof proposed subdivision isresources on he p QP recommended. archaeological clearance with respect to proposed Howevea:, the possibility is recognized that the deoseBgrasses that cover proper, and/or sediments deposited during flooding the prop Y Thus,, it is further recommended that if inask prehistoric cultural remains4 future l f and es development uchmas househfloorseoryhearths, and/orreveals the �human skeletalacts, cultural features s qualified. remains, activity on that locnsb�1csulteduld cease tomevaluateythetsignificance of professional archaeologist ca the remains and render mi-igative recommendations, REFERENCES CITED Jr.. D. Ambro, A. G. Pastron, S. G. Botkin, M. R. Walsh C1e411ow, C • 14. , i 1984 Stage ll: final report for CA-NEV-407 archaeological data recovery file, Caltrans, Marysville. Program. Report: on Farber, Alfredg NevadaCounty, 19$x. archaeological excavations at Chalk Bluff Ridge, California, with a new interpretation of the Martis and Programlle Complexes. Publications of the Research Archaeology g Chico. Anthropological Papers No. 3; California State Uttx�ersity, Markley, Richard E. 1978 Archaeological excaMatAiothesisthCalifornia 'State 1University, Chico. California, 1975. . ! D1sen, William H. and Francis A. Riddell California 1963 The archaeology of the Western pacific relocation. P Archar�ological Report State De artment of Parks and Recreation 7 Sacramento, Riddell, Francis A. Volume 8, 1578 Maidu and Konkow. In Handbook of North American California, R. F lttiizer, ed.) pP Washington, D.C: Ritter, Eric W. l archaeologys culture history and culture 1970 Northern Sierra foothill process. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication No. 'l ppi 171-184. University of Californ'a, Davis. NELSON QUADRANGLE PROJECT AREA CALIFORNIA - 1.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) OURN9,3AM Y,3S Nl. . SE14 GHICO 15' QUADRANGLE: OfJRN 1 e 605 1,606 2070000 �FEEr 121 ' T20N BM 37 ,3 a �s • F � T A i •X/� � n �,p o �e r j.,ddd � BM 135 t 139 f 13 v y �. ✓/"'^ Esquon 141.a 1 r 1 barnd t� 8M 132 �/ �y _. Z8 BM 137 q B io o 2 4 r �" ee d * .. t r^r -ter vv*'X'--y 1 r. r i�s•"'t` 'Y.. -n M- g.», ".7 T r, I. APPENDIX r A COUN'T'Y OF BUTTE EN'V'IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (ter be complete. by Lead Agency) Tog ft 85-03-04-01 BACKGROUND ,AP, # 38-19-04 4 0,5 1. Name of proponent Robert Skillin 2: Address of proponent and representative (if applicable) 3. Project description Tentative Subdivision Map__ II. MANDATORY PINDINGS OF SIGNIPICANCII YLS MAYBE, No a, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub8tantially` reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or Wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plaint or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important extmp es of the major periods of California History or prehistory's b. Does the project have the potential to achiave short-term, benefits to the detriment of Long-ttxrw, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will aiidure into the ,future.) c, Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total f those impacts on the environment is significant,) d, Does the project have eovirol".04't" y ,t1" ••t q Whiell will cause substantial adverse effects on hUMan beings, either directly or indirectly? 111, DEMMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: IME rind the proposed project COULD NOT have a silniricant effect on the environment, and a NEGATTVT: DECLARATION will be prepared, T/Wr-i find that although the proposed project could ]nave asignifi: cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in thi8 case becaLaso the MITIGATION MPASURI?,S described oil the attached sheet have: been added to the project. A .NIGATIVH CIIrICLARATION will be prolsared_, :/IVL rind the proinosed project. MA's 1lave a significant effect on the environment, and an I NVIRONMIINTAL IMPACT RT PORT is required. DATIi; April- 2, 198-8 c' rT)' OP BUTTH, PLANNTNC D11PARTMENT 1 4 . B y fiiu � A88o to P1a r' Reviewed by: , f4 I. APPENDIX r A COUN'T'Y OF BUTTE EN'V'IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (ter be complete. by Lead Agency) Tog ft 85-03-04-01 BACKGROUND ,AP, # 38-19-04 4 0,5 1. Name of proponent Robert Skillin 2: Address of proponent and representative (if applicable) 3. Project description Tentative Subdivision Map__ II. MANDATORY PINDINGS OF SIGNIPICANCII YLS MAYBE, No a, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub8tantially` reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or Wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plaint or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important extmp es of the major periods of California History or prehistory's b. Does the project have the potential to achiave short-term, benefits to the detriment of Long-ttxrw, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will aiidure into the ,future.) c, Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total f those impacts on the environment is significant,) d, Does the project have eovirol".04't" y ,t1" ••t q Whiell will cause substantial adverse effects on hUMan beings, either directly or indirectly? 111, DEMMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: IME rind the proposed project COULD NOT have a silniricant effect on the environment, and a NEGATTVT: DECLARATION will be prepared, T/Wr-i find that although the proposed project could ]nave asignifi: cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in thi8 case becaLaso the MITIGATION MPASURI?,S described oil the attached sheet have: been added to the project. A .NIGATIVH CIIrICLARATION will be prolsared_, :/IVL rind the proinosed project. MA's 1lave a significant effect on the environment, and an I NVIRONMIINTAL IMPACT RT PORT is required. DATIi; April- 2, 198-8 c' rT)' OP BUTTH, PLANNTNC D11PARTMENT 1 4 . B y fiiu � A88o to P1a r' Reviewed by: , 3 , WATER. Will th- proposal resu a. Chalges in currents, or the course or '+PAC IV. ENVIRONMENTAL 1� X�---. - ------r S T ft �I b TT d anatons � aim yes and. mrvbe answers are required C.� J . , on attached sheet(s)),, YES M" z :'x�- NO 1. EARTH Will the proposal+result in >signi ican.t: _O a, t7nstable earth conditions or in changes in or the rate and amount 0f surface runoff? Need for off --site surface drainage iml•rove- g gtinslsdiuctures? __,_. compaction 7r b. Disruptions ,s lucements., compaction-) ._.... X� overcover ng of the soYl? --.- ----. c. Change in topography or ground surface ; relies features? ---- --~ d. Destruction, covering or mod"fic ization or culvert installation? flow of flood unique geolog ic or physical features?eafeatures?features?-� of soils, 1.. e. Increase in wind or water erosion X either on or off-si,.te? f., Changes in deposition or erosion of b`eac:h waters? Change in the amount of surface water in ani, sands, or changes in siltation,deposition may modify the channel of f. or erosion which a r3V'er or stream or the bed of the ocean Or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Toss of prime agriculturally productive soils alteration of surface water quality, but not limited to temperatures dissolved outside designated urian areas? b• ri. eologic p' hazard,esuch aspearthquakesrtlandsto lides, mud- } elides, ground failure or similar hazards? of ground watWts? Change in the quantity of ground waters, or with- 2 AIR. Will `the proposal resu�t in substantial: Aix emi.-sions or deterioration of ambient a. air quallty r b. The creation of objectionable odors, Smoke or fumes? _--' c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or aquifer by cuts or excavations? Reduction in the amauri;t of wager otherwise emerature; or any change in climates , locally or regionally`;' --. 1t in substantial: .lable Exposure of people ox property to related hazards such as flooding? 3 , WATER. Will th- proposal resu a. Chalges in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either b. my gine or fresh waters? drainage patterns, Changes in absorption rates, c. or the rate and amount 0f surface runoff? Need for off --site surface drainage iml•rove- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization or culvert installation? flow of flood �-- 1.. Alterations to the course or X e. waters? Change in the amount of surface water in ani, k f. water body? Discharge into surface waters; or in any including alteration of surface water quality, but not limited to temperatures dissolved b• • oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or gate of flow } h,. of ground watWts? Change in the quantity of ground waters, or with- —' either through direct additions drawals� ar through intercoption of an i. aquifer by cuts or excavations? Reduction in the amauri;t of wager otherwise iivt for public water supplies 7 °watex .lable Exposure of people ox property to related hazards such as flooding? ti r, ) - YES MAYBE NO 4.PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal x.esult in substantial: a Ziiange in the da versify of r>pecaes 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 area,in a„barrier to the normal replenish- fr Pient f,existin, species? d Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. ANIMAL LIFE Will the proposal result in substantial: a:. G tinge in the diversity of species, or numbers of animals (birds, land animals of any species l.ntluding reptiles) fish and shell fish, b,rnthic organisms or, insects) b. Reduction in, the numbers of any, dhique, 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 animals? i. ,Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife x haL;.tat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: X a: I=ncreases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LI'GiIT nD GLARE . Will the proposal produce sunt ant light and glare? �- 8 LAND USE. Will the result in a ,proposal su stantial alteration of the present or pl.awied land ase of an area” - 9 ► NATURAL RESOURCES-. Will the proposal re s>xlt in su stantxal: A. Increase in the rate of use of any natural, resources? b Depletion of any nun, r=enewable natural resources?' 10. RISx.OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve; A xis ole explosion or the release of hazard - a. out substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides', chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 11. POPULATION, Will the proposal alter the locations istrs R,on, density, or growth rate of the human population:? _ .�.,_... 1,2. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing! Y�y YES MAYBE NO 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Will the proposal result in a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? x c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? c- d. Significant alterations to present patterns' of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ei Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? "" X f. Increase in traffiv hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or. pedestrians? X G 14. PUBLIC SERVICES, Will the proposal have an effect upon; or result in a *deed for new or altered governmental services; a Fire protection? }CG b. Police ;protection' c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities?� e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'? f. Other governmental services? 15 ENERGY: Wi:ll the proposal result in: a. se of substantial. amounts of fuel -or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of s energy?, 16. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b. systems? c. )later y: tenications av i1ab�.1 it d:. Sewer or septic tank.? e, Storm water draine ge?. f. Solid Waste and disposal?IX `— 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in a. Creation o of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? , b. Exposure of people to ;pote lti,al health ,hazards 18: AESTHETICS, Will the proposal result in the o s``�u tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to publics view? Y�y YES MAYBE NO 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Y. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a« Wz1l —t -h - 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? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethn,4,�, cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? x V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION F 05 Set attached g F. L4! r(cl_E-V1PLUA3:10N AP 3e-19-04 and 05 lb I Z -:,b I c f 16ei There will be some overcovering and compaction of the soil dtAe to con5true',ion of c,.Aght homesites and approxtimately one-quarter Mile Of j:Atcess road. This will lead to an increase in mmoff, since %oils, in the area are generally poorly drained. At the ,resent time, the drainage runs to the west to the Sacramento Northern Railroad right--o+-way, thence south to creeks and swales that eventually enter- Butte Creek. This additi C:Inal runoff may require that drainage vL-ruct'Ure---4 at Stanford Lane be enlarged or improved. 1g: At the present time, the sLtbject property is used as irrigated pasture land., 'This pro.Oct Will reinove approximately 40 acres of irrigated pasture irbfn Production- Considering the amount Of grazing land in BtAtte r.ountyj this is not a significant amount. 1h: An of BtAtte Cot.mty is within a Moderate Earthquake IntensitY Zone VIII. The subject property is located approximately two miles nartheat-it of a puzzible lineation associated, With the Foothill Shear Zone,j and aporoxim,zxtely siX to eight miles sokAhwest Of known traces of the- Foothill Shmar Zone. These traces are of unknown activitY- Construction of hohlevl to uniform building code standards +Or seismically active areas should prrAde adequate protection to residents in case of Seismic acti° Y. 4d: See item 19- 6b: While the subJtct,,,', operty is adjacent to the Sacramento Northern Railroad right-of--'WaY, tno ra.tlroad is no lUmqer in operation and it would not represent a -mLteo- st �e-ce in the area. 8: This project vi,11 represent a tm ;Ltimg trend toward development .of 5 -acre r8ncht-tte% 1, 0 home%ices in the area alDhq Stanford Lane. 1:3a I c I f: This project will gOhOrawe an additional 50 to 80 trips a day on Stanford Lane. Pot-tionq o+ Stanford Lane are oat row, and blind 'A5e in tra++it will lead to a st" 11, curves ex%st- The increL in traffic hazards in these locations. 14- Though not significant, this project will represent an incremental increase in demand for pL�blic services in a rural aroa 20a,. The subject property is located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity- Am SLkrvQY %houl d be performed to dor ermine Whether any -,.tkrr.baeal o9i Cal sites exist on the property, and if so, to dettt"MihO suitable hlitiqZkti-OM Measures Ila: The project has the potential tO have A signi-ficant iMpact on archaeological artifacts that may be located On the site. An ar,chaeoloqical tL%rvqy %4Iotjld be performed in order to dutormine if any archaeological sites mxit,,t or, the praperty% tidt The Project COuld generate addii-iomal runoff Which could adverzoly A++oct neighboring prorertiUs if the dr,imEqe -Y$tem i%rot adoqu.Ate. L6W w Assesso parcel Appl, i cant RobertS6 i l: l i n 38-11-04 and t'r5 Log EMMA p'Y��DescriLrt3.tiarr I. `type of projects Tentative Subdivision Map 2. Brief Descriptions 'Dividing -approximately 40 acres into S parcels of approximately 5 acres each. ,. Locations on the west side of Stanford Lame; appy blimately _. and approximately 2 miles south of �/�4 mile e�dt of Midway Orovi l T e -Durham Highway, in the Durham area. 4. Proposed Density of Dwyelopment: 5 acres per dwelling Unit - 5. Amount of Impervious Surfaciogi 'Minimal, Vii. Access and Near -est Public ROYJAS) property fronts On Stanford Lane, 7. Method Of 5e.+rage I)ispodal : Individual septic systems' 8. Source of Water Supplyt individrutal wells' q, Proximity of pcMwer Lines To property - it . roximial for further On divisions and development: None, under existing %Ching, k7 S�rvir`'anmQrrtal. Sena �g �;h si u.al Cnvi r-onmel7i' 1.. Terrain a, General Topographic Charartcrt Ott rtt valley ,.and. b. 51apes: ter to 2/.. C. Elevation: 140 feet above sea level d. Limiting tactors: None. , Sand Vina Clay t,somepaor surface a* dr es and Characteristics; Y what slaw drainage;: and poor '3ubsttrface draxnaqO, percolation* b. 1�imitng far*tars: poor drainage and slaw percolation, w,. Natural Ha ,Ards of the Land a. sart,hquakce Zones Moderate t-�art.hqoake Intensity 'done b,, Erosion Put:enti" Slight. c, Landsl itte potential-., None d. tire Hazard: Uncl.aSQUod• e. Expansive Stri,l �'atential.: Moderate to high 4. Hydrology Nene air Site a. Surface Waters b. Ground Water: Abundant valley aquifers. c. Drainage Chaff acter~`imticsn Generally poor drainage, thoains to the south to roadside ditches. d Annual Rtimffl1. (norymal) : 24 to 'fib imches per year. e. Limiting 1=0000M Area of high groundwater withdrawal, and ar a of potential subsidence. 5. Vi sinal /Scohi c woalityt 000d. 6. Acoustic Oua'l i. ty: Good , er i rids orf agricultural 7 Air G?rtalaty: Mood, e .,copt during p burning. Lolat� cX onn►en S;. Vegetation: Orchards and field crops Small 'birds and animals common to the val l OY ). Wildlife Habitat. lands. rul��tr-a�, rO.�irc►ement: �1t7. Archaeological and' Historical. Resource% in the area. High archaeological to CounntyaGenerraltivity. 1 Plan designation: Orchard and field t` 11 craps. 1 . E>,i5tin'g Zoning: A-5. land Use on—site: presidential tiles and field crops_ i..;. Existing 1.4. Surrounding Area: Land Uses.: Orrharcis and field crops and residertt'tll ttst~s a. at rural, densities- b Zoning: A--5. Glen. plan designate OO — Orchard and field craps• C. d. parcel. Sizes; Generally 5— to �O--acre parcel.t, e. population: Rural residential. Site and Areat Fringe area rural residential on 15. Character of small ranchettes• 164 Nearest Urban Area: Chico. 174 Relevant Spheres of Infl;,%ence: None. No- Ia. improvements Standards Urban Area; 19% Erre protection Service;15M hit ar'at Coonty (State) Fire station: Durham Gytati a b Water Avail.abil tv: Wells and fire School tankers c3n1Y. District. 0, Schools in Area: Durham Unified