HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-110-063.
a
f .
'L
Ar
•
n �
f
C
1 '
p
40
(p
J `
butte counfq
w
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
WILLIAM (8111) CHEFF, Director
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROYILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
wk CRRTZF I,ED hIAl'L auiio Co. Punning Comm i�lophonet (91bj S38.7b91
RONALO V% McELROY
;,. MAR 2F: ter "j Deputy DIreclor
Qrovilfo, Cal+forms 1iarch 21, 1988
John L. Chambers RE AP 40-11-63, 6
9726 roti+ Road Tentative Parcel Map
Durhat, Cep 95938
Dear. Mr. Chambers;
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held on
March 21, 1988, the Agency adopted a negative declaration of
etevi-,ormental impact and approved the tentative parcel, map on the
above referenced property subject to the conditions listed on the
attached sheet.
If no appeals are timely filed -within ten (10) days of the date of
the Advisory Agency's approval- with the Clerk of the Hoard 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 Department
of Public Works for recordation within twenty-four (24) months of
the date of approval by the Advisory Agency;
If you have any questions regarding this matter, Tease contact this
office
Very truly yours)
William Cheff
$ Director of Public: Works
IL
y
WA
n Fienclonsa
s
Aistant Director
JM/ds
AttachrU.Int
cc: Plenning Department
. nr1:onmental Fealth DeptirLment
�.� 4YI.d�."6•-n .`..aA7.�? �'ee_d9i5,�'�'ia�'§i
John'L. Chambers, AP 40-11-63 and 64, Tentative Parcal Map, 2 parcels
do the east side of Lott Road across from Cummings Road. Durham area.
Public Works conditions;
1 Deed to the County of Butte 30 ft. right-of-way from the centerline
of Lott Road,
..........
2 Indicate a :50 ft. building setback from the centerline of Lott Road.
3 Show all easements of record on the final maip.
4 Provide permanent solution for drainage.
5 Obtain encroachmeit permit for all driveways, new or existing, and
construct to County standards,
6 Pay any delinquent taxes or current taxes as .required..
7 Reet the requirements of the Butte County Tire Department.
Health Dept. conditions
8Provide an area for wells and 100 ft. leachfield .Free setback around
these areas on parcel 1D,
9 Provide a 100 ft. leachfield free setback around existing wells
either within the property or within100ft. of the property
boundaries,
10 ,Provide the required usable sewage disposal area on parcel 1 B
t ,
y
44
w
I� a pay e oraadut
t
' TDt
FROW
SUFJJ t .1�'ir E G..Ld/� /• J�� Ctg
i
[
DATFs.
Ole
rpm
6,
xc� Office. of Planning a K' Res arc 1= M - 'Butte. Ccaunt
14.00 Tenth Street:, Rim 121 ! y
Sacramento, CA
or MAR 2 � 1988n5814"` ? Planning Department�a� 7 County Center- Drive
Or,ov`ille, CA 95965.
X County Clark tt t,-.
���. �f11����S, at�tjo Co. Clerk
County of Butte E3y* _( EM �__,__ bcputy
�.7EC riling of Notice of Determination in compliance With Section 211.08
or 211.52 of the Public Resources Code.
Project Title AP 1140-11-63, 64 Name
Tentative Parcel bJap & Boundary Line Modification John L. Chambers
State Clearinghouse; Number Contact Person
cif submitted to Cl>aaringhousd 'Telephone Number
John Mendonsa, Public Works (916) 538-7266
Project Location On the east side of Lott Road across from Ctiinmings Road,
Durham area
Project Description Tentative parcel Map and. Lot Line Mod
to divide
3.36 acres to create 2 parcels, 1 acre and 2,36 acres And lot clineatiollmodification:
This is to advise that the Butte Count Advisory Agency
(Lead Agency ar Responsible Agency)
has approved" the above. -described project: on March 21, 1988
and ttas .made.
(Date)
the following determinations regarding the above-described project.,
1. The project will, X will not, have, a significant effect on ,tic
environment,
•7
ursuant Evri the lmt,i c t Report wa.� prepared for this project
An Environmental, Tm qac i'
p p ons of Cl; -QA,'
X A Negative• Declaration was
-- prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisione of CEQA„
3. Mitigati an measures ._.r...�wc;t°.,, -i—were not:, made a condition of the
appt.'oval of the projeti.t .
4, A statement of overt°riding considerationsCPa'S, ?X w�7s not, adet�tnd
for this project..
This is to certify that, the final EIR with comments and respotisas and recrrd of
Prajoct approval is available Lv thex general, pubis at,
�Aut Le County Planning Department
a i✓a.rtt(It,. Center. Drikrn
Ot'.ovi l le, CA 95965
Data Received for piling ) �
Posting at 0PR
pia 1it;ttnraares_
Sill�Ltl plt1, ;SGniox k�lanner
$83,
k0V.18eii Mfth 1986
i
VTr
0
Inter-Departrhl� t �))*Memorandum
a b
ra; Advisory Agency
FROM; Planning Director
SusJEcr; REPORT ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR JOHN L. CHAMBERS ON
AP4040-11-0-063,064
pATEi
January 13, '1988
This is a proposal to divide 3.36 acres to creat�:� two
parcels, 1 at 1.0 acres and 1 at 2.36 acres. The
coning is SR-1 (Suburban-Residential, 1 acre parcels).
The Land Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan
designates this area as Agricultural-Residential.. There
are no specific Or community plans for the area
The proposal does not conflict: wi
adopted or propoth County zoning noany
sed element r.
of the Butte County General:
Plan nor any County, specific or community plan.
The applicant has been unable to
Departmecomply with Health
nt and Subdivision Ordinance requirements, and the
a s been in process for an extended per iod of
application has
time
At the time of application, the Butte County Environmental
Review Guidelines require action on
from the date -of application fol' EnvironmentaljOcts �Review. Months
90 day extension is possible. Thir
complete April 9, 1987. Action mus; ben
Plicaon was deemed
Agency by its April 4 1988 meeting.
RECOMMENbAT roN
Deny the Jotrr L. chambers Tentative. Parcel Map to create 2.
parcels on AP4040-11-0.063 and 064 noting that the Environmental
Document; have been completed and considered in making this
decision, and that the applicant has not been able to comply
with ROalth Department and Subdivision Ordinance Requirements
SRH c J ttc
cc. John L. Chambers
0 A:11111INllIX l
COUNTY OF BUTTl?'
ENVI'llONMENTAL CIIl1Cl LYs'r l7ORi`l
(to be completes by t.ead I±r'ncy)
Log 1187-04-09-01
1i BACKGROUND AP 1140 -I1 -63s 64
1 Name or proponent Jn'hn L. Charm -errs- _ w
2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable)
9726 Lott Road
..��-......�:i5ur"man► Ca. 95938
3, Project description m_ Tentative Parcel Map andBoundary Line_ MoOf icati o.n
It MANDATORY VIN11INGS 0V STGNIVICANC11- YES MAYBE NO
J)ovs the project have the potential to degrade the
duality cel` tho environm-lit, substantiz-11y recluce
tilt- habitat of a rish or wi loll, i re. speCi:es, cause a
fish or wi ldl i re population to drop below sel r-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oy
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range or v rare or endang,erecl plant or °animal. or
eliminate important examples or the maior periods
of Cilirornii llrutory or prehistory"?
h. floes' the project hEave the potential to achieve
sliort•term hencf its to tho detriment, of long-term'
environmetitnl goats? ('A short-term impact on tare
onvironment is one which occurs it a rely+tivoly
briel' period or time while long-term Impacts will
ondure into the Futurc�.)- wr tk
rhoes tho pro ,lect have impacts which are: indi.vidu-
ally I unites(, but c;umulaiivel-.� considerable? (A "
proec.t mai* impact on tivo or more separate resaurces
where the impact can cacli resource is rel.ati:
ACTS
V. ENVIRONMENTAL
•x ns o a33—''yes and 'maybe" answers are required
.�� panatj o
on attached sheet(s)) YES
MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significants
a -unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Dis tvptions , displacements., compaction or • . ,
�• overcoverng of the soil?
topography g,round surace, cChange-in cr
relief features?
d. Destruction, covering ot. modif1.catian of any
featu�r
uniqut geologic or physical res
'Increase in wind or water erosion• of. s.oil,s ,
e.
either on or offsite?
o$. beach .
"'--
f. Changes- in d,)position or, erosion
sands, or changes in �sfltati on, deposition
_
or erosion which may modtfy•the channel of
a river or scream or the -bed •,of -the ocean or
X
any bay, inlet o'r lake? • soils
Loss of prime• .agricultural lY productive,
g
outside designated urban areas?
to
h_ 'hxposure of people or property geologic
hazards as earthquakes,- landslides, mud-
„such
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
Z AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial;
77 Air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of obJectionable, odors, smoke
or fumes?
c. Altot4tion Of air movement ,moisture, or
in
temperature, or any change n climate,,
_ or regionally?
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 runoff?
Need for of -site surface drainage improve,
,
c.
ments, including vegetation removal, channel.-
ization or culvert installation?
or float of flood
d. Alterations to the course -,
Waters?
e: Change in the amount Of surface water in any
water body?
f .. Discharge into surface- waters; or in• any
including
alteration Of Surf ate. water quality,
to t.emperatiure,••dissolved
but not limited
cxyggn Or r turbidity?
g, Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
..
of ground waters?
h. Change in the quantity or quality of, ground waters,
with�
either through direct additions or
an
drawals, or through i.ntorception of
aquifer by cuts or txcavations?
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise
r publio water supplies?
available for -�
Exposure of people or property to water
related. hazards such as flooding?
�zw
4-
MY
YES
MAYBE NO
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will tho proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle.
movement? —.-..
b. Effects on existing ' iaci.lities
g �o r
.�
�
demand for new. parking?
c. Substantial impact on existing transportation
systems?
d. Significant alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of people and/or.
:goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles —
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services;
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
.�
c. schools?
d. Parkss or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f., ether governmental services?
15.
EN'BRGY. Will: the proposal result in:
a: =se of substantial amounts of fuel .or energy?
b. Substantial increase iii demand upor, existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?'
16
UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following.-
olloptinga.
a.power .or natural gas?
?
b. Communications systems?
k
c. Water availability:
�(
d. Sewer or septic tank?
X
e. Storm water drainage's
f. Solid waste and disposal?
11.
IiUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a` M n of tiny health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental healthy ?
b, .Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
1.8.
AESTHETICS. Will the proposalresult in
o strucMirof anyscenic vista or iopen to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
4-
3-
YES
MAYBE NO
4.:
PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial:
a, ange in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants_(including trees,
and aquatic plant?
CTO s
%{
shrubs, grass, PS,
p
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plants into an
c.
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
X
ment of d. ReductionXintinacreagecofs-any agricultural crop?
XC-
5.
ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial:.
or
a, Change in the diversity of species, numbers
animals (birds, land animal
of any species of
including reptiles , fish and shell fish,
benthic organisms or insects) ? _...
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare-
or endangered species of animals?
Introduction of nett species of animals into
.
C.
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
--
A
habitat?
�.
the ro osal result in
� , p p g substantial;
ncr}Ui11
. eases in e.isbin noise levels?
se levels?
b. ;XposuTe of people to severe noise
_
7.
LIGHT AND GLARE. IYil1 the proposal produce
signs .cant light and glare?
S.
LAND USE. 11111 the proposal result in a
su ,:Ftantlal alteration of the present or planned..
land use of an area.?
9.
NATURAL PLESOURCEE; Will the proposal result in
substantial:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
retources7
b of any non=renewable natural
Ddpletion
10
RISK OVU� PStT. Will the proposal involves
TIS—F-oy explosion or the release of ha2ard-
ous substances (including, but note limited to;
in the
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
an accident or upset conditions?
event of
b possible interference with an emergency
lan?
response plan or emergency evacuation
11.
POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location,
of. the human
�.striEUt, on, density, or growth rate
papulation? ,.
_-
12 . NOU8ING . +fill the proposal affect existing housing,
housing?
or create a demand for additional
1
3-
.YES MAYBE.
NO
,
19. RECR13ATION. Will the proposal T-esult in an, impact
upon the duality or Quantity of existing recreational
oppOrtuni't.es ?
20. CULTURAL RESOURCM
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
s,
historic archaeological site?'
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physcal>.
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric-or
historic building, :st)ructure or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change Which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values? _
d. Wil1•the proposal restrict existing religious
ox Sacred uses within the potential imp4C
areal
V4 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL'EVALUATION
AP 64
Ib,e,3b,c,I6- Development of at, additiwill onal h0mesite On the proper-ty
result in some disruption, displacement, compaction, and
overcovering of the Soil which could lead to increased runoff and
changes in drainage Pattevns.. The lack of Well defined drainage Ways
in the Durham area leads to occasional localized flooding as a result
of increased. runoff. t
A Permanent solution to drainage for the enfire
Durham area should be developed. Lacking such A solution each
individual Project should be made responsible for insuring that storm
water runoff from the proper ty does not cause P100dillg for other
properties in the area.
Is' The existing Parcel is located on Soilsof exicellent Agricultural
capability, but is Already too small to support economically viable
agricultural uses. The further subdivision of the Property will Make
agricultural uses of the land even: less likely, however this P
Will not represent a significant lost or roject
County. agricultural land in the
the All of Butte County is within a moderate earthquake intensity Zone
VIII. The subject property
of thy:Tuavayl Monacline, a fault 'a located approximately 6 tmilos southwest
System UnIactiv.
Construction Of buildings to uniform buildingof codesnown' standardsityfor,
seismically active areas should Plrovi&2 adequate protection to
occupants in case of Seismic ac-bivi,ty.
agg The Subject property is located in an area of high ground
withdrawal. This project will result in an additional buildingWater site
with A Well and will represent An incremental increase in use or the
groundwaters,
3j: See items lb, e,3bAc,16,
4aSee Item Ig.
B': This land division will conform to other tentative maps along the
Lott Road corridor With the SR -I zoning. rt is expected -that the
General PlAn designation would be properly Amended from Orchard and
Field Crops to Agricultural Residential ag Part of the Durham Area Plan
now underway.
l3a*t-Rfk One add ' itibnal homesite being created could generate up to
ten additional vehicle trips Per day oil Lott Road, As such, jhis
pt,OJ003 Will represent an incremental
hazards on Lott Road. increase III traffic and traffic
14! This project Will represent an inct�emental i
Public Services In a rt-
oal arA btl'Oa8e in demands for
A. Level of services provided in the
Durham area have been reduced by recent County budget constrains,
16d, 8nvirL
'�hmehtal Health studies have indicated that a high winter
81"Oundwater elevation may occur in this vicinity: The Hutto Count -,V
Department of 8tvironmi!�ntal Health may
reqUlro verification of the
R
seasonal groundwater elevation on this property.
16e: New or enlarged stormwater drainage facilities may be required by
the Department of Public Works.
20a The Butte County records : ndica.te the project Is within an area
of high archaeological sensitivity: The applicant has been asked to
contact the Northeastern Information Center at the Department of
Anthropology, Califor,71a State University for a records check of the
property in order to determine If an archaeological survey is
necessary. An archaeological survey may be necessary in order to
determine if s$.gnif=icant archaeological resources exist on the site,
and if so to develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Suggested Mitication Measures:
1 Provide a permanent solution to drainage including protection of
downstream and neighbori:,ig properties and Install the required
facilities:
2. No mitigation measures are recommended at this time regarding
archaeological resources. The applicant should contact the
Northeastern Information Center at the Department of Anthropology,
California State University Chico, to obtain a records soar�oh. An
archaeological survey may be necessary to determine if
a,.cliaeological resources exist on the property and., if so, to
develop appropriate mit.igata.on measures:
Applicant: John L. Chambers
Assessor,s Parcel
AP 40-11-68, 64
Log # 87-04-09-01
DATA SKEET
A. Project Description
i. Type of Project: Tentative
Modi ficatiox►. Farce] Mats and Boundary Line
2., Brief Descripti.ont Dividing approximately 8.86 acres into
tNo parcels, one of 1 aere and one of 2.86 acres and addition
approximately 1850 sq ft. to the parcel to the north.
3. Location: On the east side of Lott Road at the Cumm3rtgs Road
intersection, in the Durham area south of Chico.
4- Proposed Density of Development: One dwelling unit
5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Minimal, per acre.
6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Property
Road.Fronts on Lott
7. Method Of Sewage Disposal.- Individual septic systems;
8. Source Of Water Supply= Individual wells,
9. Proximity of Power- Linear: To property,
10- POtehti al for further land divisions and deVOlopmontt One
additional'Parc el would by 'Possible under the existing
zon ing, ,
H. 'Cnvirohmental Sett;i.ti
Physical Environment:
]. Terrain
a. General Topographic Character: Relatively level, valley
terrain.
h Sloped: 0-2%.
t d Glevati art: Appi^ox imately 165 ft.
d. Limiting Factors. Norte.
2 • So3 is
a. Types and ChAracteristicAi, Vina Fine sandy loam, tgel,l,
drained and capable of supporting and extensive range of
crops.
,b - Limiting V'Udtora: Moderate Liquefaction potential.
8.
Natural Hazdrds of the Land
a,. Earthquake tot*eE Moderate earthquake intensity �.O"e
V7YL.
h Erosion Potential.! None.
c,. Landslide pot6rit3:al: None4
d. lore Hazard` unclassified,
e. EnPansive Soil. Potential"e Moderate.
4 Hydrology
a. S►trface Fater: Nobe on•-sited
bw Ground Fater: Abundant valley aquifers; area tit high
-8
groundwater withdrawal.
c. I?rainage Characteristics' -Good natural .soli drainage",
drainage solution needed for surface water runoff.
d. AnnualRainfall (normal.); 26-28" per year
ea Limit Ing Factors Subsidence potential:.
5. IJisuallScetic Qmallty Rural area with orchards
,S. Acoustic Quality: Lotti ambient noise levels with intermittent
noise from agricultural machine vehicular traffic.
?. Air Quality Good.
Bioloalca,l Environment
g. iegetation: Orchards and farmlands.
9. 44i.ldl.i fe Hablta"t Small birds and animals common to vali.ey
orchard Lands.
Milt -ural, Environment.-
10.
nvironment 10.ArchaeologiC'al and Historical Resources in the area: High
sensitivity area.
`11 Butte County General Plain designation: Pol-.,;ot: Indicate
Agricultural Residential.
12. Existing Zonings SR -1
13. Existing Land Use on-site- A home and horse pasture:
14. Surrounding Area
a. Land Uses:Generally an a�rlcultural area With a
corridor of residential ixses alons Lott Road.
b.
cening: 8R-1 and A..5
.' Gen. Plan D6AIgnatlonAgricttlt�tral Residential and
:
Orchard and Field Crops,
d-. Parcol Sizes= Generally 1�3 acre parcels along Lott
Road With SO -60 acre parcels devoted to surrounding
agricultural. pursuits.
e. Popxilatone Suburban to rural densite3.
15. Character of Site and Area: Transitional, area from rural
t e.sid..ntial to agrictiltur al.
am, 2 miles +1- southwest.
16Wear-est Urban Area'. Durh
17 ReleVant 801ereS of I-M�luences burham, Oorham Irrigation
nistrict, purham Mosquito Abatement District.
18. Improvements Standards Urban. Area No
i q. Fire Protection 5ervir.e s
a. 'Nearest County (.5bate? Fire 5tationt Station #45 in
b Wat-ermAvai'labil w3. ty F ire tartlters nnlY •
20. :;c1 r�ol s In Area. Durham Unified School District.
UMM"r SHBtT; FOR L' DxV] S'xtlNS
PI,AP COMMISSION S _
APPLICANT C1 iff Johnsen
85-03-0%-02 y�
Rt 5, Box 508, Chico, CA 95926
RESB� '..._ . .
ADD ._;' , •,
PRO�'ECT' DESCRIPTION Tentative Parcel Niap to divide 67.8 acres :,n'to L'3 pakee7.s,,
Y at 34 acres, i at "?n acres and I at 5 acres
.A
LOCATION on the. south side of Marybill Ranch Road approximately 4800 J=eet
east of its intersection wlth Midlvay, Cl i. o area
4Q-02ai35 • ..
ASSESSORrS !PARCEL NUMBERS)
ZONING! GEN. PLAN P.'gO,nCT COM18TMT?
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED 3-7-85 Blaylock -Rt a, Box -508, Chico, CA,95926
f
DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN PunLISHED
PLACE NMISPAPER NOT'IM(S) PUBLISIMD 0. C. P. G. B.
DATD RAILING LIST PREPARED_
DATE MAIL-OUT NOTICES ,14RITTEN4 �, _ MAXIM, - NUMBER
.....r , ...r....
DATE P"LANNIVG bIRECTOIPS REPORT PREPARED
FMIRGNME10AL CATEGOI{ICA ► EXEMPTION ., DATE PILED
DETERMINATION
AND ANEGAT
I\, . TVE DECLARATION �» DATE AI7nPTED ._,
._ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION w DA'Z'E ADOPTED
Vl4v. i IMPACT IMPMT DATE CERTII! IED
TI••
.:SUB.. COMMITTEE MEETING DA ...,�—
ADVIBU'NY AGENCY REAMING DATA �_�` �"�? 5�(�O /�Y---t� / x
ADVISORY AGENCY ACTION �
BOARD ACTION
{ u'
COMMENTS _ , �]
r
lj �
4
Inter-Depart" aemorandu
To:
Advisory Agency
tk
r•RoM's
Dave Hironimus, Associate Platner
sun�ecra
Enviror.mental Analysis for Cliff Johnsen tentative Parcel Map,
AP 40-02-135
DATE;
March 25, 1985
As a result of hearings at the Advisory Agency regarding the
applicant's appeal of the requirement for an EIR; the applicant
has submitted a revised project for a Tentative Patoal Map creating
three parcels, one of 34 acres, one of 20 acres, and one of 15
acres. The revision will mitigate all of the potentially signifies
cant impacts identified in the Hog Ranch Estates checklist eXcept
that to the Chico "Unified School District. As such, the applicant
must either prepare an EIR or satisfy the school district that
the project will have no significant impact ort their ability to
provide services. If the applicant ptovides a letter from, the
school district stating that this project will no longer have
a significant impact on the district, then a Negative Declaration
regarding environmental impact will be recommended.
A tachxent: Hog Ranch Estates rnitir,l Study
tr CliF ,,ohnsen
Blaylock,
3. Project description Tentative Subdivision Map
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCF YES MAYBE NO
a, Boos the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat or a fish or wildlife Species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to clx•op below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or, restrict the
range of a mire or endangered plant or animal or
eli.minatc import.'-aaat examines of: the major' periods
of Caiirornia history or prehistory? "
h. hoes the project have the potential to achieve
short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term'
environmental goals? (A short-term impact ora the
environment is one which occurs in as relatively
brief prriod of time while long-term impacts will
endure into the future,) X
4. Does the project hatre iffiP acts which are individti-
aally, limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A
project may import on tido or more separate resources
where the impact on each resouro is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those
.impacts on the environment is significant,) X.
d, Does the project have environmental effects which
W111 cause substaintial adverse effects on htunan YW 1r
beings; either' directly oi` indirectly?
I11'I'iiWINA(TO be Comj)leted by the bead Agency)
On the basis or this initial evaluation;
1/1V1a
rind the p1'oposed project COULD NOT have a signi'iicant effect
On the envi'tanment , and a N ;CATTVi: nl3CLARATION will, be prepared.
1/11E rind that although the prof osed jiroject could have a si.gnifi -
caht erect on the erivi, otiment, thc1ro will !lot be n significant
effect in this case because the MITIGATIONNIIIASUR118 described on
the attached sheet have been added to the -project, A NEGATTVr
MCLAMTIUN will be preparod;
l/1111- find the proposed project MAY have a significant erfect on
the environment, and ail UNVTIttaNi,iFNTA , IMPACT REPORT is required.
1jA'j'l;t Januat- ].5_,. 1585. _ (9 1 '1'Y tela BUTTE, "PLANNINO n'llhAnTMP-NT
David Vii:
Asuraci.ate Pl.natner
ita.viaiiueal h�.;
APPENDIX 1'
COUNTY OF BUTTE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
FORM
(to be completo by Len `
-Agency)
1,09 11 84-12-05-04
i, BACKGROUND
All 11 40-02-135, 136
1. Name Of proponent
Hog_Ranch :Estates .
2, Address of
proponent and representative (ii'
applicable)
-Rt-r-3, Box
508
Chico. Ca.
9501K
3. Project description Tentative Subdivision Map
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCF YES MAYBE NO
a, Boos the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat or a fish or wildlife Species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to clx•op below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or, restrict the
range of a mire or endangered plant or animal or
eli.minatc import.'-aaat examines of: the major' periods
of Caiirornia history or prehistory? "
h. hoes the project have the potential to achieve
short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term'
environmental goals? (A short-term impact ora the
environment is one which occurs in as relatively
brief prriod of time while long-term impacts will
endure into the future,) X
4. Does the project hatre iffiP acts which are individti-
aally, limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A
project may import on tido or more separate resources
where the impact on each resouro is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total of those
.impacts on the environment is significant,) X.
d, Does the project have environmental effects which
W111 cause substaintial adverse effects on htunan YW 1r
beings; either' directly oi` indirectly?
I11'I'iiWINA(TO be Comj)leted by the bead Agency)
On the basis or this initial evaluation;
1/1V1a
rind the p1'oposed project COULD NOT have a signi'iicant effect
On the envi'tanment , and a N ;CATTVi: nl3CLARATION will, be prepared.
1/11E rind that although the prof osed jiroject could have a si.gnifi -
caht erect on the erivi, otiment, thc1ro will !lot be n significant
effect in this case because the MITIGATIONNIIIASUR118 described on
the attached sheet have been added to the -project, A NEGATTVr
MCLAMTIUN will be preparod;
l/1111- find the proposed project MAY have a significant erfect on
the environment, and ail UNVTIttaNi,iFNTA , IMPACT REPORT is required.
1jA'j'l;t Januat- ].5_,. 1585. _ (9 1 '1'Y tela BUTTE, "PLANNINO n'llhAnTMP-NT
David Vii:
Asuraci.ate Pl.natner
ita.viaiiueal h�.;
t
IV. ENVI RONMENT aL ACTS
•xp an•'Ftzons 7 ,1 �
a •'Yb. "` and "n.bLP1 a "s a're .ire ir`:ed
Y 'ans Q,
on attached s-ti'eet (s +
YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result -in signifl+�ant:,
a-.
Unstab'le catth db�iditiohs off'' :fin- change in;
geologic subst,fVctur:es?
b_.
Disruptions', disp=lacements, compaction .4,r-, .` .
oi�er` c�'`f,' `teaoilg
x
c
goverin
Chane in topography arround �suirface.�
reTief teattires
d.
Destruction, covering; or modification of any
unique, geologic. or physical features?
e
Incre,a$e.111 Zd1TiC� or Watt's er siori„ of soils,
either on or o-ff site.
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion :Of beach.'
_. e osztion
sands, or than es In sl d
g p `
or eroslcn M1ic,h may modify the, .channel, of
a rivet` or stream or the bed ofthe ocean. or
any .,bay, inlet or lake?
g;.;
Loss of prime agriculturrally productive soils
utsidedesignated areas? -.
h.
Exposure ufPeoplorpro Property geologic geol0 is
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slide8, ground failure or similar hazards?
2. AIR.
Will the proposal result iii substantial:
a.
kir emissions or deterioration of ambient
air
b.
cquality?a
The crew .on of, objectionable odors, smoke
or fumes.
C.
Alteration. of air movement, inoii r's, or
temperature, or any change in c:'
locally or regi6hally?
3. WATER W.111 the proposal. result in sbstantial:
t�
Chan es In currents or the courseor
direction of water Movements in either
marine or fresh waters?
b4
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
c.
Need for o 'f -site surface drainage. impaove-
meats, including vegetation removal, channel-
ization or culvert installation?
d,
Alterations to the course or flow of flood
e
Change in the amount of Surface water in any
seater body?
f+
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration bf surface water quality, including
but not limited to t'emperaturo, dissolved
ozygetl or turbidity?
'
g,
Alteration of the ditection or "rate of flow
Of ground waters?
h:
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions of with-
drawals, or through in-terceptidn of ari
aquiger by cuts or txcavations?
1.
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
j
b:cliosUre of people or propel`ty to /eater
related hazards sucli as flooding?
t
YES
YES MAYBE NO
r •
4 _
.PLANTt,fLlFE j1"J:.1 -the, ro osal.
4 �. �,py,. P resvf� t in "�s tan•txa� :�",�
.
.
a. Change- in the diversity of spedies,. ,ci1.r number
a
�w
_
of any species of
of any plants, ( including trees ,
rase , „oro s
> p,' and aquatic p1 ants )? rL
R G
b. Reductionof the numbers Fan}► unaque, rare
or endangered species of p,'l, ants:?
Qc. Introduc,t,lon,,ef now sP6 -ies of plants l-n;ta an
area,p
o. a .norma . re nosh;
_
ment of,.existinGrspecies?
d. Reduction in acreage of any Agr,cul,tural crop,
S.
_4NIMAIa tir-E. , "Will, the prodposal res ilr` ifi ,sui 5tddtial
a. Chan 'n i the diversity o'f species; or" numbers
of any species of animals• (birds, land aniiMd s
including reptiles, fish Wand shell fish,
bentfhic organists' or insects)?
b Redui:tioiY i'n 'the numbers of any unique, `rare
or endangered species 61 animals? _.
G. Introduction. of new species of anit did into
an a•rea'or result, in a barrier to the migration
or movement of, anmastng
d• Deterioration to exist:
fish or wildlife
habitat.
G.
NOISE, Will the proposal result in substantial:
a.--Tncreases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7,
LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce
signi � n laght and glare? s
8i
LAND USE. Will the proposal, result in a
substantial alteraltion of the present or punned
land use of an area?
0.
NATURAL RESOURM.: {Nils: the proposal result in
substantial;
A. Increase gate of use of any natural
resources?nythe
X
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural
resources?
10.
R18k OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of explosion or the release of hatard-
ous subst�inces (includXng but not limited toy
Oil, pesticidesC ma in the
eventofan accidentorupsot condit7ons7
b, Possible interference with an emergency
re.-,ponse plan or emergency evacuation plan?
11:
POPULATION, Will the proposal, alter the location,
def city or growth rate o{
y - the human
n
poibut non
12
HOUSING,Will
ilthe proposal affect existing, housing,
H nd for Additional housing's
_
MAYBE N0
f,
11"A
13, TRANSI?,ORTATION/CIRCOL&-TTwi. 1'�Y�7 the p7�o �?S r,
-result in:
Generation � . � �-, vehicle-
a.
ehiGlE:: k
'+
lx,
? f substantial additiona
movement?-,
o, .. � park! aoa t�.eor
a, Gc.ne
b E f�c'ts" eXist� no Pg�
dor` new`'parkin` g.
demand trai'spoxtaiion
p w
C.
substantial a.m act, 'on existing
s Stem attexns '.
d, Significant alterat�ans to present
le and%or`,
of czrculata°on'or niovemen't of p p; _
g aeon to ��raterliorne, rai''1' or { aa.r�, `trdf a fic
0o ds
e. Alter' o motor veh�.c1,
es,
f. ,Increase in traffic haza'ds t..., _
bicyclists:or-
pedestra-S,
l4, PUBLTC'SERViCES, 1V11 the proposal have an effect
pon,
or result in .a need for new orliered
u
governmental servic*e's'
a Fire protection.?
b, police protection?
c, Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational faeiltn�tding
e. ftintenance of public facilities;
roads? I
ervices''
f, other governmental s
15. ENERGY. EV11 the proposal result in:
a Use of substantial amounts of'?
uel,or energy?
Substantial netgy)sorirequiredtleodevelopmeni
st�urces of energy � �, _---
of new sources of energ}r
16. UTILITIES. Will the prop
sal result in a need for
ter systems, or sut�stant al: alterations to the
fallowin ..�:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? : S-
c Water:....r.. :...
d Sewt;r or septic tank? f
e
Storm water drainage? lL-=
f, .Solid waste and disposal?
Will the proposal result ins
17, RUMAN KEALTH. health hazard or potential
a. Creation of anyThental �.. _..--
health hazard (excludinotential health
b, Exposure of people ,.o p
hazards?
18. AESTHETICS, Will the proposal result in the
o structs on of any scenic vista or view been to
or �v�ll the proposal result in the
the publico offensive site open
creation of an. aesthetically to public view?
YES
MAYBE ...
Mrt .. a ro osal result ine impact
;hg . RECREATI:ON . 0.11 th p hp
il—y of existing x.ecxeGational
�.
ar uan
u on the quality.. Q
P
oppo'ttunitiee?
20 . CULTURAL; RESOUWC ' .
E�i11, t e proppsal result in the alteration:.
a,
6 the ,lettriictior, of a pr. eha sto'ric or
of
�iilothe propesalogesultSneadverse phy's'ca`]•
b. s r
aesthetic effects to a pre- r ob'ect.
or „ st ro a , el. rxc,
building,
-..
histor.ac of
C Does the proposal have the p ential 'to cause
nlq'ue
irould affect u.
.. a . h. �lcu:tturalg�alueswhich
F Y n .
e thn i exa.st� n`g � elf giou�
d . ��lil the propos l res'tric't
or 'sacred uses within the potential impact
area? ----
DISCUSSION OF ENVTkOENTAL_EVALUATION
�Sy
a LiJATIOI :W-40-027155
'CNV IR'C]NMErI`FAI EVA__.
_--
DYSCilSS a BiII
tative Subdivision to create
s1de'aarM'aryt5"
This project is, Ten vacated tan the licant �s
�� o ety project the apP
and, one 32 acre' -Aat,- ran pr P
As f the P n place of the
of
�tiona11Y
art a
fatal of f our fish ponds i
Ranch Raad south of Chico. the pond
proposing
developinga.,
W1`th' `home sues hear an , airport` kn 'be "
eci strr�g cattl ` p 'ice 'per'mi t f or r as shown on ttie
licantjas 'apPl'ied for a' 5,' Ei,' and, were
the apParcels 1, ?, �� �,
p e airportthe
Located on
proposed Impacts associated with th
r0.3' t and. O saussi On' of
Tentative ;tal,d vision I`1I for °that p
stud ` vii 1 l be l i m-. :t o i teals that
dzs
CU "iri 1 study
inl tia
the ar"�al _ y In' spore Gases 'thxa may involve th'e
alp t` in :this sut'divk'KCaon '
ectl y ef' I eCt "the
dir disF i� compa[tio 19 d
airport as well. � ansi ,
,.trent, il ing
f theca nei ld du upt on , c re ads and Vu
lb: There "Will be c e to devl.;lopmen
overcoveri hg ° 1 acements of soil Will I;al� � �► � ��
sites. Wla3or dxsp onds
construction of the fish p
1co See item lb
compaction, anti avercovering yN fS
lacernent, disruptianI result in
The disp a patterns which may ,
le: changed drainag p bath an anti off sites.
sail may r estxl t i n � he soils,
increased erosion potential of t
rri aced pasture land will be eemaoved from
of 1 g . acture 1 and may _ cafe
be
1g Over lOt7 acresWhile 1pt� acres of.p roduCtian, r
ails in t
cattle production. ed'
s. Produciog.orchards are la
cansidereii slgnY�icant in terms Of cattle P
area are cohduoti roj�ertyto ther crap West, and east*
to the south,
ad a acen�. to P i s locate 1 oa atede aPPeox earthquake
. d wi thi n � a " � prnsc i mately cS
lh� Ail of Butte County ra ertY is
�bne 111. Tho' subject P P a fault xoht of unknown
intensity building codes
south' west of the Tuscan hlonocl i to uni form j
mi1� ravine at
activity; active aces
' areas Shaul dl P Severe ground
Canstructzon of real e
stand aids for cel smi ,cal l y cast= of se smi c act off i sh pond dikes
protection to reside=nts In a loss' in integrity
result in of any dikes should be
disolacemeht
may ConStructian '
engineered
the
it
ft C, during seismic activity.
ensg-tltl hod sp as to retain _ elle,
in vehicular movements Within the area due and
?.a,b c increases airport) and fireplaces t
woad stove., :.
subdivision (and the ► result nb e increaseltalitY
and. other adtivities:mai ,
residential burning neral deterioration of ambxentaffe t
smoke fumes,
odors, and a ga.: atter to advorsely
Soot
particulate M
ire the area orchards',
neighboring ohd 'surface may create a
mac.
lhtrodlactian of as Much fa tnb�ien roiroin�'the area
local increase,. in humidity . - an�1 eartstructinn o•f
ands; grding for homesxte, pass
:sb: Creaticin of the ponds
rates and d'raihago patterns and p..
absorp -
roaamount and rat' of st-irface rUnaf F in the areal
roads will cliant�e
3c: Constructionof. ,thea ,! or �rp
Ponds, and, grading,j ads: and, hoMesites ,May
result in a heedface drai.6 i g improvements.
+or offs -site sur drainage i mpr oV s. t
e d , by
Ze: TL%ch- as,...+or+-y acres. af, ;watqr surf aca Area, willbe Cr,eat
,,,
this project.,af..,
reasons, may, --
Dra,:Lhing ofd ,the, +-ish ponds,.+or maintenance. -or, re, , result
in ad scharge1r,ito surface wa'ter: in theinity. Discwater,
. ,
may, by substandard qual i ty.,
Water � from, the + i sli ponds, wi III most likely ,be obtained ti irlough,
h:, Wa+, ' � ' '; ' '
t e se t' -,qp6rt,y_,js �ocated x,n an
h ' -,L% of l.s. The su .3p -c, , pr ,area af, heavy
_', hor i Si a
awal and I and subsijenc igh p enti,aji
jround.w_q��er,wlit_
Should fish pond dikes fail due to seismic activity or other
causes, residents, in the area. could, be'suojected. to, localized,
1. 11 I I I ; I ,
fIo6ding.
el',�d by hu(nes,', lands a i ng,, . an
4a: Irrigated pasture will be replac p 1.
fish ponds.
4d: Over 100 acres of irrigated pasture will be lost -from production.
This, will be replaceO by 30 to 40 acres- o+ fish pond area.
Sc: The project will result in the introduction of a new specira-ls of
animal (fiSh) into the area.
':-a; Development of 24 hbmesites on thi property will result in an
im.-erA,liAse in residential noise in an area now predominantly
6b: If the use pat -ii1it -tor the airport is approved and an airport
established, the development of 24 homesites in proximity to the
airport would, s4b.�eci: re��idents of those properties to aircraft
related noises.
B-. the policies of the, Butte County General Plan indicate that
residential densities in an area such. as this should not exceed 20
acres per dwelling Unit. The proposal its for 5 acre lots; four times
the density suggested by the General Plan. General Plan policies
relative to proVislon of public Ser-Vi,CeS, transportation system's, and
preservation of agricultural lands ihdicates that this proJect does
not, Con_FOrM, to the policies of the BUtte County Gehe-Oal Plan.
10: Aircraft related acci,depts associated with the proposed airport
on --site could lead to risk of e>tplbsiOh or the release of hatArdoUs
substances.,, on the subdivision lot properties or Within the fish ponds
themselves.
11 See item_G
A project of this mature in close OrbRiOtity to intOht1YV
Agri cul tLtral lands f tho southeast and west could yield an i.,Aucement
far other Oroportiesin the area to embark on similar prbjetts, thus
removing ,even more agricul'turAA !and from production.
I 1 The rjrojott 44ilrl result in the t3eneratiMn U+ ihtretstd traffic
congestion, I'lajheds,and nbfte from additional,traffi:c> cir:+c'uYating. in
the area, particularly on the Midway. General commercial services
necessary fob ; nasi
t.Al use did not occur in this area q
necessitating greater vehE'tle travel and circulation unto, more central
rea. Additional traffic movements at Midway
portions of the urban a
and Mary BillRanch Road will increase'traff''ic hazards on the Midwa
y
14: This project will result in an ir.crease d6martdf f'or 'p%iblie r
services in an area beyond the existing urbahi2ed sphere, particularly
fire 'anti police protection, `school's, wind` °maar.tetzance of pi►tilc roads.
necPssaeen tH,e s t_e and " f'ah I� AWenue I+ or l
Improvement o+f I the Midway' hetes
and 1 /2 'miles) .t�ii1l be ry �ijidh d+_t elopment of res�`denti al
r
subdivisions in the a're`a as a� esult i'n` increaseo' traf"firs circulation►
14c ' ^property is located within the Chico Unifi7ed' School
Sub�eck
Vi s't'ri ct_,, Thes'cFao6l district and' rthe ,butte County ; Board" o¢
Supervisors have deterf6ined that thero is a'condition of overcrowding
in .the area schools. Additional residential developmea,,t° .Will
represent a significant impact nn' the d%sta'ct
',5 ability to provide
services
15: This pro.3 ect wi 11 result i`n ncr•eased� .engery use �, n an outlying
location.
16e: See item ab
17bp See attached :letter from Butte County Mosquito Abatement
District.
a:
The sG►bject proper y is located in an area of high eircheological
sensitivity. The entire area 'has 'been disturbed by agricultural,
at vi t es i n the past. E>;cava* too far construction of the fish ponds
�;hould be tnohitnred for archaeological Kites of significance during
con5tructi`on.
Attachments:
Letter fram.Schools q ict.
Letter f rbm Butte County Mos ui t.o Abatement Di'Atr
!Sst ares
F�5se55caF' ,„s: Parcel ,�, , ,
Mo. nch 4C1.-Q"135,r.1,6n„
gpp�.;;cant;: 9'
,
5 q ,
,�. _ Lag ,
DATA_�HEET
A. ftg,lect.,rD% cri
r
G e '
Type ,.oi Pr. i oto
Tentative Sub, IV scan ,Map f or 2.4 parcels (in
i; TyP. use permit, for, 4n,, aii�pat. t) . „ arcel,5, of
oon junct,i;can wath a.: ° _ R 14,7 acres, ht-� into 2,4 p ,
2. Bri ef..Deacription:. Dividing
5; aca`es each and: one parcel .of 32 acres.
On £he south side of Mary Dill Ranch F2aad,
3. Location. the Midway, south. of, ,Chico,;
atel, Z/4 mile east: of ,,. 5, acres. per dwelling t
appr`o�im k of DeV.elopment.
u►n
4. Proposed ,Dense �y ' mina mal r Y .,/4
5,
Amount. -,Of Impervious Surfacing: F.P
Public, Roadie
a oxImate
b. ACCe55,an
d Nearest
mx l e .via, .Mary
Bill Ranch, Road:,: tic systems
1. Method of Sewage Dis{apsal Individual SeP
s. source of dater supply: Individual 'Wells
q. Pro- s mityand -
of Power Lines:,: To pr��oriy
ia Potential for furtherlandow120s tot -e minimu�meParcel tsizes.
General Plan and zonzncw s
Some potential for even smaller parcel -
Terrain
P. Env_ironmental__S�tti�n_g
P1���%cal �Env_ronrnent^
l„ ra hic Character: Flat valley land
Ai. General Topog P
b Slopes, 0-2'/.
c. Elevation: 195-210 feet ASL
d. Lime ticig Factors. Mone
Soils Viorisva loam, Vina loam W:i:h
a. Types and C;harae,tclaytics�
cobbles, Redding loam. Shallni�a soils and cobbles are
common in the area.
Factors: 'ahalloW soils in some
Vii. Limiting ar-eaai
Natural H{azards of the Land uat e Intensity zone VIA
aj Earthquake Zone: Moderate Sarl.hq
b. Erosion Potential: None to slight
c. Landslide Potential Mono
d. 'Fire Nataed': unclassified
e,. E>epartsive soil Potential, Moderate
4. HydrologyondG e;tist on -sites historic
a. 'Surface Water: Several p
drainage swales traverse p�-:Party.
b. Grounc! Water: Abundant valley aquifeet
drain's generally to
c. l?rainag
e Charaoter-i sties: Property
the sbuth And southwest towards Durham•
C1. Annual Rainfall (normal): ra na en thaeaeterie�ics due
e. Limit.og Factors: Uncertain drainag Well
to regr'tadng
in the area and distance to neturalg
dcefinod drainage ways•
x _ ,
5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Goat
b. Acoustic Qualit)r: Good
7. Air Quality: Gond
Hi ol';tgi ca.lEnvi ronment=
- --
S. Vegetation: Irrigated farmlandSiYz Ranchrds, ,riparian
habitat tri the north along Mary
'Lower Sonoran. Life Zone, riparian habitat
q., Wildlife Habitat;
along Mary till Ranch Road.
� Cultural_Env_ir'onment_
14. Archaeo2,ogsca2 and Historical Resources in the are -ie High
sensitivity area
11. Butte County General Plan designation: Orchard and Field
.Crops
12. Existing Zoning A-
1-. Existing Land Use on-site; Farm land and esti5t ng homesites
14• Surrounding Area;
a. Land Uses': Industrial to the north, agricultural uses
elsewhere, scattered residential uses at rural densities.
b. Zonings A-21 M-2 to the north, R-1 to the east across
Butte Creek.
c. Sen. Plan designations: Qrchavd and Feld Crops,
Indus Lri al and Low Density Residential.en'20 to 4
d. parcel Sites% 114 acre to 150 acres, geral l . Y
acre parcels
e. population: Sparse ric iittiral
M Character of Site and Area: Ag
16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico
17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Chi ca
1G. improvements Standards Urban Ivrea: No
1q. Fire Protection Service:
a. Nearest County (State') Fire Station: Station 4144 in
Chico, Station 445 in Durham.
b. Water Availability: Fire tanker only
iia. Schools in Area: Chico Unified School Distract
L
+,
041C; 0 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT',
11-53 BAST SEVENTH STREET
G"zfCO, CALIFORNIA 95926
891-3004 e�
Detember 12, 1984 0,`�
rill
Butte County Depa-,,t.nenf;, df Public Works t
7 County Center 1D,,tiwe
)rovi3l,e,, Calif. 05965
"ttn 10 11-71 MendV-'3S;1
SUWV..L�a Tentat;i,u& Map for the og Ranch Estates Subdivision
AP No. 40-02-•335 & 136' _
Dear Mr. Mendons!;:t c
The project in c~;restic.JA is located within the area serves' by Parkview
Elementary School, Chico Jr. High School. and Chico Senior" High School.
The district's ptojecfi ions indicate that the project in question would.
lead to the crvAtion Of 24 residential unit3 which would be expected
to generate 5.57 students at the elementa*o level (K°-6), 2.37 students
at the junior high leVel (7-9), and 2.37 students at the senior high
level (10-12).. Those students, when combined wits students generated
from projects xax the Same school attendance area, wou ,d place Parkview
Elementary Schox)l, Chico Jr High School, and Chico Sri 'High School
beyond capacity.
The bitt't ct's projections indicate these projects will generate 545
additional. elam;rotary students within the parkvie,4 Elementary School
attendance ares, althOtigh there is only additional capacitor for 40
elementary students, 533 additional junior high studehts •Athin Chico
Jr. High Schon_.;. ette"nuance area although there is only additional
capacity fc;r Gs jilhirar high students, and 577 additional senior high
students Vithin Chico sr. High school attendance area although there,
is only additional capacity for 569 senior high btudents. Thus, the
I incumulative effo:ct of approval of these projects, including the project
School, and Chicoosr. High�Shool 5O5, 465i`Y School, Chico �runlrxr high
. , p
capacity.
5, and S students beyond
It should be Voted that the school district has previously :submitted
documentation to the Board of Supervisors regarding coiditions of
'g your i -P pormtion a co of
Overcrowding, and the Board held a hearingon this sub ect on January
10 1984. Iain �enclosin for copy the lettei
t
.+�%b �
�
^I � �,�
e +
Butze County Department of Public Works
December 12, 1984
Page 2
P
which Martin 17. Nichols, Chief Administrativa'Officer, wrote to the
President of the Chico .Unified �School..District Board ,ref Education,
dated Febru7
ary , 1964 (oopy attach6d) Mr. N�:chois itdicates that
the Board of supez'risorsw 1t .. supports thd, document:atibn on corkd tions
of° overcrowding...." Thur, the Board of Supervisors has recognized
that overcrowding exists in the Chico Unified, School. District.
The cumulative, effect of. approving '� and, ,divisions within the area
served by Par iew Elementaiy SA.,o01" Chico d'r. "High School, and Chico
.1r,. High School,, including the project in question, is; significant and
adverse because ofathe conditions. of ,overcrowding discussed above.
Please advise how the
cumulative impact ,s to be mitigated prior to
approval of the subject project.4
sincerely,
Robin G. Thonpson
Business tanager/Comptroller
RGT:vv
cc: Neil McCabe, Attorney
Developer/Applicant
.a
. IS d -
.. GAJ j' �W � t •, ��.
os o Alikf&i NSC' IDISTRIC
DISTRICT OFFICE. AT 5.I IT LARKIN ROAD' OF OROVI
E: CORN WILLIAM E. HA2ELTINE, PH, p.
Fi t,LE AIRPORT
ON LARKINROAD icROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 MAN eq - IE gYjnoHMttt1Y'AL13T'
;
PHONE; (916) 333603e
342-7350
December 18, 1984
' Pres'ently,.; there :arc''segeral ntis veto 5oisr�es „18
q ocate�I ois or
near. thezproposed subdivipiou sar
ite
Thes,a
i
- t�' - �' °? *• , ' era H •.
i.
t rock its on adjacent at hold Ovate
P prop9rl-y th ., w
r
after pastures' on the proposed °site stei flood
't r ,
2: exoeasive gatior of °any of theexi st3hg pastures
on :.the proposed date.
tie request' that the following mitigations be. auded:
1. All low Areas within the proposed.parceis-,,tan
filled and that the north end ',of par;.al s
20, 21, 22, 23 and7 not be heavily' irrigated
as this results in grater standing in the rock
ite.North of Tia bill Raneh:Toad.
p ry .
2. That the following language be added to the
C.C. & RIs of the individual parcol deeds.
IrAny irrigation of the individual parcels
shall be done in a manger thatµd 4s nog
produce mosquitoes.+►
}
T
CI x f f John seh
200 Stillwater Dr.
Chico Ca. 95928
Doc. 15, 1988
Martin Nichols, County Administrative Officer
25 County Gtr. Dr,
Oroville, Ca 95965
It is vith deepest regrets that, I am writing this 1-atter.
After of years and over 400 phone calls, 1 finally got a response
(dater Nov hl, 1388) to my inquiry ,f the Planning VepLlt.
determina,ions. I had hoped that thY response would be honest,
concise, and to the point, It was not.
I had originally asked ONE basic gQez1-,xun That question in beseJ
on these far ,s
On May 4, 1384 r grit, a latLt,*- From the Plenni , Dapb, Mating
that "the proposed does not, conflict, with County 2oning nor any
adopted or element, i r the $t.tte County ventara l Pian nor
any County, specific cr community plan. That, "proposal"
conte i:,ed a rJ acre perce l..
On Nov 13, 1304, 1 got, a 1-atter fr--m the Planning DeptL,'
stating that a new peoposal tiuntaining 5 acre dH
conflict with the General plan in that. the general plain
for, 20 acre minxmum5, ( f i•.e acre arcs -ls were not 0..� . )
There were no cheiiges in county F-ala.ayy between %he f.wo dak;wN,,
My questlon wap a simple one; 'WHY! THAT QUESTION WA$ NEVE
ANSWRRSDI
I had purchased all my lends based on thab first �arr3
intended to create a cluoLor of 5 acre rehchetes which
ihcoepordted a fish farm.
Following is a :page �y page answer to 411e. 1•cCab%ya letter.
Pape 1 pada. 2. An analysis should h-ive bean done promptly sari:
wie i it had been, Council's office sl-nb MUCH MOO ' time giving
me excuses as to why } hey hedny t, +znya anything then it would Uaka
to hoha!tt,ly antvdr THE QURsTION.
The "left olib xntormation" was clearly xdent rigid, end a copy
,or it wan atteched to the P6b 17, 1987 letter to Nervy Wallace,
That lettae to Nervy t4allnce was referenced in 't4he June La, 1988
letter. At least twice, copied of that Feb 17, 1987' let�,er were
"lost," and I had to send dupl tc`C to ro�ies.
P-2 pare 5. January 15y 1385 is way ;past Lho Nov. )9, H94 date
of the determination of non conformance and is t�hijm a moot
as is the remainder or the disr~ussion.
'there are, how6ver ti -number of inaccuracies t hat I would 1 i)<e
. pti
T
Lo correct,. t`osi, all of the "impacts" Were addressed in the E.IR
Cited by M.idwey Orchards, our neighbors and most of their
solutions applied to us. The remainder of the "questions" came
about, because we had proposed something NEW: A fish
Farm/residential project. Sk Tse of the uniqueness of },ho idea,
some, of Lhe "questions" were etpect ed. Others, l ike the proposal
b,v Stave Streeter that we put up a fence around the ent.iro lake,
so that no ons* would fall in were ridiculc,us. Tahoe and thousands
of other lakes are not, fenced, ALL OF THE. I(JUEs'rIONS COULD EASILY
HE ADDRESSED AND MOST REQUIRED NO MITIGATION, JUST EXPLANATION,
The continvencet had nothing to do with the EIR It wee
continued I % use of promises by board members to finiMh khe
zoning requirements for the area, Che eppl ii..ati•-zn was i"KJINO TO
EE DENIED because on a +:onflicf, with t:he general plan (5 acre
Parcel stZ6) NOT because of an ETR. M would make no sense t�+�
Work on an ETR or have county employees spend any Utrie reviewing
it it the project was doomed to denial because of zoning
confli.cb. WHAT ACTUALLY happened, is shat the %theel;s o
Oovernment, tvrned so slowly, that the time limit ran out before
the zone change came 'about", We were denied because of b zche
conflict, not because an EIR wasn't dine.
Page 2 pare 5. We have built f,he fish pond and some houses and
an airport. 'ihe fact, thaw they all co-exsisL beautifully says
vamething about, ell the "gvesti.ons " The "questions" have all
been answered by the facts proven by oui^ existence,
Page 2 pare 7 The unreasonable delay re-Ceered' to here was caused
by ly s pointed out that the
) not the tlRv
inzuningh(5lacret
denial vas for a conflictgn
Page S para 4. The 'project was denied way bet'or'e any of these
environmental impacts were brought up. Denied wet Nov 131 t984,
Tbds argument, is a moot point. The only question is the
11cont1ict with the Oemeral plan'"
Page 8 para 5 & 6 i. Of the 50 or so paecals in +'aur area,
matt of them are less then S or 10 acres. Theke fire tome largo
percels in the erem but one mein doesn t get one vote per ►acre of
land owned, nor do fat people get to have more votes because of
their size: It more than 2_5 of the 'S0 parcela in the ares are
lesti than 10 acre3, then I could say that the predominant size is
5-10 `acres,
2 We are in the vicinity :5r urban boundaries:
8 THE STATUS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION HAS NCREASED
ABOUT 10 TIMES) We do thin without, p-3sttcidobj feeLili eeaj
burning, spraying or tiny other hazat-dour opeeat.iona asso%ziated
with moats fsrma. This is the 6stehte of compai ibtlity of houses
ails rishh farming,
Cour harvest of cet,f,sh Lhis year was 'beyond our expectations
peke S pere. 7 & 8 The oi-qument khat we did not, +'.omplefe the wtli
Lt a. moot: point. 'Che regoetbo-d delays were uuggeat.ed by the
Advisory Agency. The reason wet bacauto they were doing to deny
v
ve on the basis an non Conformance with the plan (the S acre
parcels). The delays were to allow the Count„y to finish Lt'N
zoning changes, wbi,:,h would hopefully mace aur cappl�cxatt:)n Ilu,
conformance". Th^ delays were to avoid a lot oe work by myseiF
and the County with regded to fhe EIR, all of which '+porkk wooed be
for nothing it the -zoning d id *not change.
OF COURSE OUR APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE ASSUMPT"ON
(based on the May 41 1984 letter)'THo4T S ACRE PAP08LS 010
CONFORM
Aeter 4 years, and a lot of paper work.; the 'QUESTION"
remains vin answered.
What t would kik.; L6 have yeju «a,-plain is why one memo tram the
p.lenning Dept. dated May 4 i'--+e4 stat,ey khat a g aC:►^e parr,e �knes
,"kc:OT with County Flans and e econc? memo deted Noy i'3'
1394 states that 1 S acre Farcel WIE8 cOnflict with th-e general
plan it's that sample. The fish farmi and o!rport have no'.hing
to do vit,h my gtjestion, and have nothing to rho with the answer.
All references end Wi est ions et-garding the EIR coma about after
Nov lg, 1994, and m;-e moc-b points.
y
hs�
INTER -DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
TO: Martin Nicholrs., County Administrative Officer
BY Neil H. McCabe, Chief Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT Request for interpretation - Cliff' Johnsen
DATEz November 21, 1988
This memo is in response to your memo to this Officla dated July
1, 1988 regarding a letter from Cliff Johnsen
1988dated_ June 18�
.
The Issues
In his letter Mr. Johnsen indicates that he purchased some
property in 1984 based upon incorrect information issued by the
Planning Department. He acknowledges that former County c�tzn
Harvey Wallace, in response to an inquiry frGm Supervisor OUnsn,sel
C
had looked into the matter and had expressed the opinion on April
9, 1986 that the Planning Department had not Erred. However, Mr.
Johnsen claims that mt. Wallace was not furnished ','..,;ONE PIECE
OF INFORMATION THAT SHOWED THEM TO BE WRONG." Mr. Johnsen
indicates further that he has repeatedly
this omission but has not received it andsalle�•esntia�tlhea"... as
treated very unfairly and that there was ars alleges
cover--upwin _
the matter."
An analysis of .this complaint 'i's difficult at this point in time
and is complicated by the fact that Mr. Johnsen has been involved
in at least four separate map proposals ,involving Assessor's
parcels 40-02-135 and/or 136 on Mary Ball Ranch Road., The
analysis is further cotnplicated by the fact that Mr. Johnsen does
not identify in his letter of June 18, 1988 what the "orae piece
of information" 'is that Was not furnished to Mr. Wallace and
therefore "Left out" of his analysis.
it appears that the gist of Mr. Johnsen's present eomplaixat is
that his second' proposal' (to divide AP nos. 45-02- om and 1'
36
into twenty-three 5 acre parcels, and one 30 acre parcely was
.improperly determined not to conform to the General. Plan and was
improperly denied. Further it appears that the information Mr.
Johnsen believes was "left out" of this offices
evious
analysis was the fact that the Planhing Department +on November
19, 1984, determined his second map application did not conform
to the General Plan even though it had determined on May 4, 1984
that the first proposal (whichincluded. one 5 acre parcel) did
not conflict With the General Plan. He apparently is arguing that
the November 19, 1984 clr:termination was suspect. because there had
relative not beenany Planning Commission determination in the. interim
' to ��ona�n� po
salt the justified the PlanningYbepartment's hangerof posit anea Which would have
p
I t
The'FaCts
The 5_I CUssion and Anal y s s beheslow
assumed based upon the followi nq
facts are incorrect, our
assumed facts- If any of
conclusions might differ.
On February.0, 1984 an application was filed. to divide AP
42-02-136 into four parcels, namely two 20 acre parcels, one 36
acre parcel and one 5 acre parcel (referred to in this memo as
the first proposal). Although the application was made under the
name of Joe Camenzind, Mr. Johnsen was apparently involved in the
project, assisted in the filling of the application and had
obtained or was in the process
s obtainingti eOn February 5,an interest n 198e
property. (Hawevor,, at a later point
Mr. Johnsen and Mx. and Mrs. Camenzind► in separate lett>rs,
indicated to the County that Mr. Johnsen no longer had any
interest in the purchase of or processing of the parcel map
application pertaining to AP 40-02--136.
on February 13, 1984 the Planning Department
County deteineGenulthat
l'l is
proposal did not conform with the Butte
However! on May 4► 1984 the Planning Department changed its
position and determined that the proposed map did not conflict
with the Butte County General Plan. on May 14, 1984 this map was
approved, with a mitigated negative declaration.
on November 19, 1984 the second proposal war. filed. This
proposal was to divide AP nosy 40-02135 and 136 into twenty
three 5 acres lots and one 30 acre lot. The application was
filed the es of Johnsen, Houser, and CamenL, nd. Also on
November 1,9 1984 the Planning 'Department concluded that this
proposal did not conform to the General Plan.
oh Januar, 15 , 19 8
5 an initial environmental study was done and
an environmental checklist form was completed AS to the second
rs and 23
proposal.. The checklist a,ndicates 12 "yes''" annvironm ntal
'maybe" answers regarding potential substantial
i
mpact and it was concluded that an tnVironmental Impact Report
(IR) would be required. The applicar►ts a��pealed t��is
E
requirement and, after a number of continuances, N�h ad appeal swab"
agency?` denied the appy �l: on February 10, 1986-
made to the Board of Supervisors, but the applicants dial not
submit the required environmental documents.
Discussions at the Advisory Agency indicated that there wexr, a
number of concerns regarding this second proposal iftcludi llq not
only+ the question of parcel site but also the r�:ixture of user
(res dentxal, fish ponds anti airport) See, for e}:ample, Advisesry
Agency 'minutes of March 4► 1985.
On April 21, 1986, since the environmental documents for thea
project had not been completed, the project was denied pursuant
to Section 151.09 of the CEQA qui.del,ines 4 Section 1,5109 prova des
`► agencit may disapprove a project;
:�n part that . an in mGeti.rg
app I" cation where
there is �snreason��ble delay
requests ;
2
Meantime; on March 7, 1985 Mr. Johnsen filed his third proposal
(a parcel map Application proposing to divide AP No 40-02-135
into three parcels of 34., 20 and 15 acres, respectively). ('Mr.
Wallace focused on the action relative to this proposal in his
memo of April 9, 1586.) On March 5t 1985 the Planning Department
had determined this third proposal, conformed to 'the General Plan
but commented that- "Chico Greenline policies apply. Zoning to
be considered by the Planning Commission on March 7; A-20 zoning
may ultimately be approved. The proposed 15 ac. parcel. will be
evaluated with the criteria for the Orchard & Elieid Crops
criteria and the Greenline policies; a recommendation to modify
ri
the parcel to 20 acres may result...." This proposal was denied
by the Board of Supervisors on March 4, 1986.
.In August 1986 Mr. Johnsen and Mr. and Mrs. Houser filed another
parcel map application (the fourth proposal) proposing to divide
AP No. 40-02-135 into three parcels of 28.55, 20.58 and 20.03
acres, respectively. This proposal was approved by the Advisory
Agency in October 1986,
Discussion and 'Analvsis
The first proposal was initially determined not to conform to the
General Plan. Latert it was detarMine6 not uo conflict with the
General Plan and was approved creating four parcels: two 20 acre
parcels, one 36 acre parcel and one 5 acre parcel.. A mitigated
negative declaration was, approved as to this proposal.
The second proposal would have created twenty-three 5 acre
parcels and one 30 acres parcel and would have involve P.
potentially incompatible mixture of uses. Numorous pote : a3
environmental impacts were identified. Thus, it. it reauily
apparent that the second proposal was substantially difforetif
from the first.
The ,L nd
Lnd bse Element of the General Plan contains the following
conditional development criteria:
1. Predominate existing parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 actem,
2. Adjacent to or in the general vicinity of urban boundaries.
3. Present status of agricultural production will not be
significantly impaired,
considering the above c3.rduMstances and the conditional
development criteria, it would seem improper at this poal.nt to
second guess the Planning bopartmett in its det-erniihation that
the second proposal did not con -form to the General Plan.
Ptirthermore, and more importantly, the applicants deo-liried to
complete the required environmental, review process as to the
second proposal, Thoy had an opportUnity to subhUt the required
environmental documents and pror.ee,! with ,.he proposal, It would
be improper now to speculate what the outcome would havo hL-en if
they had chosen to proceed, in effect, the second PtCP,*_)s1l was
Abandoned by the applicants, who ts_lcto.0 instk:,tad to puLtsac t Meir
3
LAND
OF NATURAL WEALTH AND Q[AUT1'
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
WILLIAM (Dill) CHp-FF, Director
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE < OROVILLS, CALIFORNIA 95965
"a Co. planning COMM Telephones (916) 534.4681
r� pAR lb
« J lbb6
[A
RONALD D, McELROY
Deputy Director
March .5; 1 �S
�'t'OYI)18� C,311fOi'ii�l8
r] a fi Jobnsen
Rt. 3) 508
Re Tentat5,ve Pgrrel Mit ,
.Box
Chico. CA 9592E
- uC_C_�75,
`
Dear Mr. JohneezL:
At +he regulsr meet:i,l:tg of the Butte
SUDervisor-q held Mercy 4 '19SF,
County Board of
the Bc and denied
a�apea.l o.f tahey Advisory Ag-ency's
Your
denial of your
Tenta- give �aroei Mat ASW 40-2-135.
If YOU Should have ary gLiest ons
Fl ease celntac,t this office.
regarding this matter,
vary truly your-,
William Ohetf
Di rr�Ctor of Ptibl 1C Wor�.s
qq
pt
p
ohn, P endonse
AF18i$tr3ht Directory
Jm/ h
BY)vj ronmen�al xealti
X3;1, aye f►i.k
._ ., ., ..^..^..' bYi =V:.' l.• + .,. y.,.,.es q..ranro.:k:r rw•"INit", .. W.,•4H•:r.:o-.,
-