Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041-330-052• ' � ,:� ar •4� 2 �� �. ,. � `• ,. • Q... ,•. � � 1 o � / ' _ � \�,/ 0 f � ` Y y. .V @ '` e ' + r n �' � aJ � � �' e. � . •. i �, , y. 3 + ! , . , ; � . •^ • �; e ' i t ., l i e �. A � � • � } � t � /, e . L ,� ./ - ,H . � a ' „7 • h �,�+'/ t ,/" /je_ 1 � +f) I� sS'ION �(JMI�iA1 "� . SHEET VOR LA_ L -1-V �C3�1�. pL1',N....--r11:llG . M . Leah Matin ApPLICANC_, R - 186, OCTS 95965 t. Laoa:oville,„ ...,Y ADDREsI� OWNER_ - same -- 2 parLJ(-* 0 - ..�''..r�va�+'e,rM�� TSM to divide 94 acnes to create PROJECT DESCRIPTION-�. 1 at 5 acres and 1 at 89 acres roximately•► 4 .Cce an both sides o� Pentz�Road app. LOCATION both - Highway 70, ConcoW a with ea: r�i' intersection tion-__--_....�........._.^�.-.-.-_.-�.--..,..�..,_,. northerly - Its I r 41-33-52 & ,3 ASsE5S(f ' S PARCEL NUMBERS) �„u,_..-...--- ------�-`�-------�... GENERAL PLAN Grazing & 'PRt7�'LCT CONSISTENT?,__— ZONING U __ -Opren "Lani_ GENERAL FLAN CONVORMANCE RERORT_ D � n gp-pLICANT SIGNATURE LAND CONSERVATION ACT CONT,42AC7'S 1986 Nvve�mbeY 190 pA01 APPLICATION RECEIVEt7_� -. Lippincott -Guth Associates A 0B BOX ENGIN�;ER�p_, W Gb Box 671, Paradise, CA69 ..- ADD RE5S,.. DATA; PLANNING DIRECTORS S REPORT PIE +Al lil � CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - DATE ENVIRONMNTAL � NEGATIVE DUCLARATION DATE DETERMINATION ADO�'TED�� AND DATE .� MITIGATED NEG. DECLARATION - DATE ADOpTE0-__ .__w �,�.. ENS» IMPACT :RtpORT - DATE - -- STATm, Ot7S"'Il X10. EE MEETING 1 ATE � '4, � e ..:: �.. ..mom : _ SUB.. COMMITT w 1 ADVISORY AGENCY HEARING DATE—:.�.-!M�`� ADVISO y AGENCY ACTION_ ,,_,b__,,, -,-,: APPEAL HEARING BUTT; COUNI"Yr�"'f �n/t�vt'' «r•. I c CtJ�7 Inrd " (iF,NCRAL PLAN 83 roto ANCC RCP01 Jravtllti« CaVifor►ua FOR PARCEL MAP OR 8MM, U11n VY5I0N MAP r°�h ✓4^` P 1":0,it(lit Items 1-4 to be completed by applicant: 1. Applicant Name snd address L6 ff°rl M 2, project Description 3. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) ��-33 � � 53 nPar 4. proposed Use r pct T r r t� The following items are to be completed by the planning Department; Current zoning Land Conservation Agreement General Plan Designation`r__�"� App'li.cabie Conditional Criteriyg_i Not Applicable YES NO Agricultural+,ices identia,l 1. Agricultural Compatibility 4--, 2, Water & Sewer Capacity '- 3. Adequate Fire, Facilities' 4. K.)ad Capacity & Maintenance 5,, Accts; to Commercial & Schools Orchard & Field Crops 1. predominant 5-10 Ac. Parcel Site .- -- 2. Vicinity of Urban Boundaries 3 Agri.c. viability not impaired ---= Staff Determination; Project does does not G� substantially conform to the Ceneral Plait and zoning. 1: e Ott ,11; gcyt;s D LAND D V15zoN, z Ari AWARE Or, "1`tlll ABOVE STAFF , Dir`IE Tilt 1t�tLNATION 1t1rCA1tDING Tt1P, CONrOtti`IA= WITH `112, CCNERAL PLAN I:NG AS NERAL AND r1�ot� %rte Signature of Applicant Dated g t D 1000 (,revised 6.1 r)) Rune Co. Manning Comm. JUN '0 IS/ 4. Oroviil04 Lalitornia A 5EISMC HAZARD EVALUATION EOR J THE LEAH MARTTN F'ARCEL Section 30 T^1 N; R4S Ery Beh hl.-:e, Ph. D egi sten ed California a GeOI OCJi st No. 1246 JL(Me j 1987 INTRODUCTION The OroVi 11 Earthquake of August l, 1975 6emonStratO4 the . need for � rev B e aluation within seismic hazards �±ht.n u �� � County ~ . '� e� #z ce Prior to the Oroville EarEhq���v', Bu�te � County w8a �um b' b1l�hed 6v from earthquake damage. A map ��W relatively safe r JunMiMgs (1975) shows only one fault in Et ut (.0 County having. That fault is movement Y*ithin the last 200 years_ ����orlc� mo , th � of O�ovil1e between I ed appro�lmate1y E3.4 miles sou eas fractures from that -Fault, later Wynadot�e and Bangor. surface ra u1� name' the OIeve1and Hill Fault, resulted from the 077S Orox/1lle E=-�-thouake. ' ' ^ / ` - INTRODUCTION The OroVi 11 Earthquake of August l, 1975 6emonStratO4 the . need for � rev B e aluation within seismic hazards �±ht.n u �� � County ~ . '� e� #z ce Prior to the Oroville EarEhq���v', Bu�te � County w8a �um b' b1l�hed 6v from earthquake damage. A map ��W relatively safe r JunMiMgs (1975) shows only one fault in Et ut (.0 County having. That fault is movement Y*ithin the last 200 years_ ����orlc� mo , th � of O�ovil1e between I ed appro�lmate1y E3.4 miles sou eas fractures from that -Fault, later Wynadot�e and Bangor. surface ra u1� name' the OIeve1and Hill Fault, resulted from the 077S Orox/1lle E=-�-thouake. ' �' r s � ^ ^, ! , ^ ^ In 1963 Burnett published a report entitled, Fracture Traces .. in the Tuscan Formation, Northern California,' which was -k f orerUnner to the publication of the Geologic Map Of the Chico Monoc1lnu and Northeastern Part of the Sacramen�qValley by Harwood, Holley an ou 1 d o Nas in 19e1. The|C1(aYe1and U11l Fault � f cJh��n NondczIine (1975 (]roville Earth7Wake) and the map o t11n . suggested �northwest trending system of poLgnLol1y active feo'1�s and fractures crossing central BUtte County. �� initially Burnett (i9s� 63> used aerial photogra�h�` within the Tuscan �orm�t1bn becausede11nea�e� fr��turnw traces 6 they are generally not visible from ground level- In this st u y both aer{a1 photographs and infra -red varisoAn analysis mere used � to initially locate faults or fraatu1ate�res which were � -=i e identified in the field whenever po__-�� . For the purpose o`F this� report, a fracture trace it a small disp1acementj linear fe�tur^e ^onsls#ing of topographic* vegetation or soil a1ignmentu visib10 primarily on aerialrarely photos° Such features are � i� ��ai�t�r� co�tiMu#ut for a 6����anc���of �reate� than one mile. =� d or thousands of �ra��ure� �ompo�ed of many hundreds , ���ces aro ~ — --- _- hiIe faUlts Are more di4ci�etev having lerigthsgrea±er than one d 1 m�n� m11e and often display m-at4rabl�� is�p a�e ° -rho Officeof 8clenco an�d T���n�I�gy, n thel,~ 1�70 roport b � ' entitled Earbhduak*� Hazard Rmduttion u� e* 0M�p� �h�t dileneate rolAtive kinds -�d 6t-�gremt Of gen1tglc hatat'dm,aro at ' of �} C) 10 yet ��reand no �L\1�y sa���fa����y ��� ��r nqua�� (_ l�� � that v�i1a610 +oy^ Ahy urban arOa. I% it-, ree `� h��a�d� i� a � � {��l mor� thanr a��d in �h� nea� +ut�ret4i1l - - e - 1 *s ���h m�p� p �p '� crGtrclr 17 appro;•;imatons and Coll tinun bo rttlde re 9 decisio 9=►rdi rrg tl7ei r deta 1 Indseal e. n n wi -A have to. Therecare three pt_�bl i shod seismic ri st., maps 13 t, passible to est1rtlaite a , Clio wh•kcll C7t.tlto Cot.rrrty, gua140 if)L. These pnsi �i tis maps show for I�►"�ohsties ti. Moth�ied VI, VII' and V.I or VZ I r r ran i fM, t.,l, > Cat4tttEY. The mans suggest that espech;( it � 1{t,t4Ea, �r�r mi tilt t be appropriate an average M. M. �►►1;� ppropr ate For +tato County. Table _ns , V of ,, y asseasmcnt criterion e shOWs dor Clot b tht� claintic�o a fishing M-11, intensities, Cacti nn shOUld be ati do maps Cover,i n et•. ,rci sed in t_tsi ng small scai o ro- 9 l large areas bec ga. onr=i1 i "They should ause as Richter servi; as {i gam) states general i hde; maps rem or planningwhich the t=n at,tthgri ty should pass to 9i floor Ft7r l tical i ti es mi. crorogi anal i z whore constrUction i 4C7Eion maps Monti oned intended," maps . are not cc:) et1 rhe three fore— not 9oneral i- Y saEi a"Factor �a+ti .From Y bocausr� they are more deraiYod Orov"le dart maps, I*artuhaEel hgt.ta�so o°r' 197.�i and Ys the ' P►' ovide tltC accom some ddi ti onal panyi n. valt-table't terChacl;s infer n rQgl'='nali ��tx g, matt o '�o►' ttit? n ci F s _ ° mi cro— ei smi c risk within �utttr cot.,hty. MODIFIED MERCALLI SARTHQUAiE INTENSZTY SCALE I. Not Celt except by a very rew under .specially ravorablc circumstances, (I) II. Felt only by a rew p=eons at rest, olsccially on upper froom of build. Ings. Delicately suspended objccti MAY =wing. (I to [I) IZI. Felt quire tsaicably hsdoot , a• pecially on upper floors or bwldings, but many people d^ riot recognize it as An earthquake. Standing motor. cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated, feel) IV. Duriahg the day, Celt indoors by many, outdoor by a few. At n;ght, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; wall's make creaking sound Sensation like hexes truck srriking boding, Standing motorcars rocked nosiceably. (tV to V) V, Felt by nrly cvtr;rone, many aw'xk-ed Some dish= windows. etc., broken] a rcw tnstanees of cracked plaster, unstable objects . .,. overturned. ptsturtsaneca of trees.. + poles, and' other tall objects sotaedmcs noticed, pendulum clocks VI. MAY Fest scop. (V to VI) y all, many rrightened and run outdoors, some heaw furniture mored; a rew instances of Callen plaster or damaged chimneys. 02—S., slight. (VI to VII) VII. Evcrrnnoa}' runs outdoors. Datthag+e x0flirible in 5uildlnzs or good design and construction; 111**1nt to modrratt in well-built ordinary structuem tim idrntbl� in poorly built or badly: deaigncd strucnirct; Sime chimneys brokcs, • Notl'ccd by pcmn, driving trzecowrars. (VIXI-) TABLE y 13 VIII. Damage Jlt;sht in specially designed structures; cowridnable in ordinary, subjrsntial buildings, with partial collapse; Vo -at in ,poorly built strsr. tures. Panel walls thrown out or Crime sutictures. Fall of chirnneys, factory stacks. colu mtltr hx0numenaL, W-16- Navy furniture tncrturr cr Saod and mud ejcr;trrl [ts small amounts Changes in w'rlf watrs. Per. sons driving motorcatoy disturbed (VIII+ to Ir,C) IxDamage eontrderablr in specially designed structures; well=d�igncd Ctame structures thrown outat cd Plumb; great in substantial 'buiidir V. with partial collapse. Bwldings shirt.. ed off foundations. Orotund cracked conspicuously, Und-Mind pipet broken (IX+) X Same we11-bruit w%oodcn smuctvreti destrtryed� r»cwt masonry and rranse structurex dcatrayed with their ftnun• dations; pound badl} cracked. Rads bent. I-ttx1slidcs considerable trom diver banks and steeo slobea. Shirted sand and mtsd. Water•:plashed (slap- ` per) over hanks, (X) XI. Few, it a remainitain rna:nnrY) structure Broad ', Bridges d,,r y j Cisxurei in ground. Un, dhn'ground pied nct' comoletely out of service. F-arth. sltrinps and Land slips in 'soft 8rc,und. 'Rests 'bertt- �ca ly. .XII. Datrugz Gita[. 'haves seen on g sound surface+. [.iitcx or sight and level distorted. Objects thrown upwatjd into air. 6 THE CHICO MONOCLINE A monocline according to Longwell, Flint and SaUndors (1569) i s a one limb +1e,','1UrL-, on either side o -f- Whirh the stj-�-ktt are horizontal 01- dip Uniformly at low angles. FigL(r1j.) shows cross section views o+ monoclines formed by folding or aulting. The Chico Monocline has recently been described by Harvlootl Helley and DOUas (19&1 Fa gUl-e shows thelocatit- .)n o the Chico flonoclinal AX' i n, and other lineaments and 'taWtW bordering the northeastern edge o+ the Sacramento Valley. Burnett (196,x;) S tLtd i od +I-aCtUl-e traces in the T L t G C -'A n Formad i on v4 1-1 i c I., generally 5ccur along the a,,q 1 S of the Ch i co Monocline, Prior to Burnett (1963) 'FaUlts, with the "I ascan Formatiort, along the Chico Monocline Axis, Were consred small displacement f r a C '%" U rO 5 formed Buri n g the + 1 e -, t i ng of the mortbclinei Between Richardson Springs and TUSCan Springs thero oxists a +racture zone aPPrO>timatOlY SO miles long and appro,,,,ima ely 2. C.) t miles wide along the a X i,S of the Chico Monocline. These fractUrOs generally have Short lengths and trend in a Mbrthwosterly direction, The +raf:i:Qr1r=?S are steeply dipping, as most O�P them have dips v)ith 10 degrees o -r, yL-1-tic-1. The mai4imLtm probable vL-rtjt.jj s60-Zkration is approjIlim.-kt-6�1y 31) met, rs (98 feL 4 Lb i lost of the +r--\cttre!3 1 -h -WO little or no verb c.11.0p an but the largL-r �,L-V-tjaa].rare tions se are encountered bt'Ewoen C01asset Ridge and t)\/e:CrL:tsejj:. The Prodbitlihabe movement alL)ng theC L, f )- Ltk . t re appears to Int:* west side doWh With little or no h01-1 t: a h Separation Tht= geologic ovidenco suggests that Mbs, the V 6 THE CHICO MONOCLINE A monocline according to Longwell, Flint and SaUndors (1569) i s a one limb +1e,','1UrL-, on either side o -f- Whirh the stj-�-ktt are horizontal 01- dip Uniformly at low angles. FigL(r1j.) shows cross section views o+ monoclines formed by folding or aulting. The Chico Monocline has recently been described by Harvlootl Helley and DOUas (19&1 Fa gUl-e shows thelocatit- .)n o the Chico flonoclinal AX' i n, and other lineaments and 'taWtW bordering the northeastern edge o+ the Sacramento Valley. Burnett (196,x;) S tLtd i od +I-aCtUl-e traces in the T L t G C -'A n Formad i on v4 1-1 i c I., generally 5ccur along the a,,q 1 S of the Ch i co Monocline, Prior to Burnett (1963) 'FaUlts, with the "I ascan Formatiort, along the Chico Monocline Axis, Were consred small displacement f r a C '%" U rO 5 formed Buri n g the + 1 e -, t i ng of the mortbclinei Between Richardson Springs and TUSCan Springs thero oxists a +racture zone aPPrO>timatOlY SO miles long and appro,,,,ima ely 2. C.) t miles wide along the a X i,S of the Chico Monocline. These fractUrOs generally have Short lengths and trend in a Mbrthwosterly direction, The +raf:i:Qr1r=?S are steeply dipping, as most O�P them have dips v)ith 10 degrees o -r, yL-1-tic-1. The mai4imLtm probable vL-rtjt.jj s60-Zkration is approjIlim.-kt-6�1y 31) met, rs (98 feL 4 Lb i lost of the +r--\cttre!3 1 -h -WO little or no verb c.11.0p an but the largL-r �,L-V-tjaa].rare tions se are encountered bt'Ewoen C01asset Ridge and t)\/e:CrL:tsejj:. The Prodbitlihabe movement alL)ng theC L, f )- Ltk . t re appears to Int:* west side doWh With little or no h01-1 t: a h Separation Tht= geologic ovidenco suggests that Mbs, the 9� r 0 3 rtnt+x fir= Intl 'Mrmmi S=w Fz , A Hinp %ult (f=ont block) P.- Iasi,.-jRv into manccl ne (rbc blocx) (cam-parm Fig,, 1-7-12"0. VI 75 ;+•i �73 Figure.. 2 B Schemadc Wustranon of a monoclin, 1_ZL'Y r 4 FIGURE Z • (2 poes of Monp ii ai Flexures Formed ,by V'aultin,g 8. "s �Qoq j L• D Magofia'ME' i PceddletPO CMCo n; x / y r J111"' c. Lax ..... ' '✓ Photo lineamrnt Proh•, --'` _a61e Pault Foulty diP indicated It known, I i herallto South y` Paf�rme Gridley w. 0% . �74; l to SCALL or •; am--r--•-� �--�--��.�.It � +`�� � � •�+'• Mlt,�o I iue' ve, Yuba CPtr_'ierywf�ls Figure 3 `Lineaments and faults in the n©rthwe, -ern s erran 9 fracturing and displacement is lal million yearn or older. Barnett (1963) suggests that the fracture system formed It a result of stouctural readjustment of the On= Formation in response to +oldinq. The fractures probably do not ontend to great depths as evidenced by ground water quality of Tu5can and Richardson Springs. Not only are those mineral spring: cool, but they are saline and have a high sulfur Content And are associated with natural gat seeps. This suggests that the water is derived from Marino sedimentary units of tho Chico Formation which underly the Tuscan Formation along the western edqu of the monoclins. The fractures appear to be loss continuous south of Chico. At the scale used in Figure 1, the fracture system along the axis s? the Chico Mhoaline Appears to be in approximate Alignment with portions of the Foothill Fault -System south of We Orovillb. Figure 41 taken from Watkins at W (1986), shows that the fracture zone along the monoclinal axis is in approximate alignment with the inferred boundary by poen the shelf and slope and basin doposits in the under. yiog cretaceous deposits of the Chico Formation, It it probable that the mon"clinal Aoxury ir the overlying nompatont deposits of the TowAn Formation is the result of Wdino and Vacturioo at thio Imatiom in tesponty to compaction of the +W-OraiMod matorialz within tM Cope and basin deposits due to the weight o+ the tvorlyjmg geologic Materials. Tho in+urAd change imtho slope at this location would also produce flnuring within the Tuscan R3W R2W R,`v R7: R2E RdE R4E � T28NAc T27N1 �. '� 5� Tvsk rG� I •� J 1 do y T2,N �. 1 tie TUSCAN SPRINGS T24N I p1 I I I �� p ha� 1113ANTELOPE Ci�E—tC a i �, ,fl mQ MILL CREEK T23N._ `�,�-+1buQ 4EE ? CRE: K - I bQh BIG CHICO E= CnK, T22H=' • I bu BUTTE CREv( I Tatty r'� ' P" PcNTZ AREA ,.z � I rPRJ� t20N I T19N `IUl • I p 1m KM I. Early Campanian y� outcro P of Chico Format(pn , Wostern limit of Tertiary volcanic outcrop . . Sas field With production from Forbes Formati m on gas tfe"d With and/or Guinda Foproducttvn from Dobbins ma shale 41. P�oxxmit r of the VZaCLure Zane along the A:�i,s oy t i a Change i n S1.ope and a Change , to to F' Pine-inegrain C1:asta,c the Chico ico Coarse dograined Deposits in the bnd,or�,y nc_ Chico Fay:nation r 1 1, meter i alss. Along most of the length of the wr-t-e relieved by •folding with some small (JISplaa.ortlortt: fraCtLtri_ng. Most 0+ the smell diE-placement •r-r8CWr°ing l: pito p1Ace between Cohasset ridge and Dye Creftk. No h storl ca l movement has beon recorded for any of the faults or fra'7tLtres as "ng the a„ i. s off' the Chico Monocl ine. 1^ THE FOOTHILL FAULT SYSTEM AND THE 1975 OROVILI.„r;I:(II'�'1II�CAKE South of the town of oroville thc�r,e are a 11 ultllkl- of prominent-, faults and lineaments which are a part of the I'l:ioi�i� ll Fault System which e.;tends along the eastern margin of IIto Sacramento and San Jaaqui n Valleys- The Fouthti l l Fault tlysLem is not comparable to the fractt_tre system within the CI' IGO I'lonocl.ine even though their striF4es appear similar at swmQ' Itlap scales. Some of the major differences between the two systems include- Ii nclude1: The faUlt5 in the Foothill System have: a more north- south trend than the trend -for •fractures which delineate the axis of the Chico Monocline 2. Major faults within the Foothill System extend horizon- tally for tens of miles, while the fractures within the ,,. 'Chico Monocline are significantly sV oF^te1". ._,: The fractt.tres within the 'Chico Monocline are nearly vertical while the established fault pla"Ims withii• the at- Foothill System dip le5q "etesply to the east or wesk. 4. Fractures within the Chico Monocline are probably shiall_otJ fractLtres t'tile measured focal de Oio for' earth-, gtkAkes within tho Foothill System are a gttl ricantly deeper Figure 7 shOk'J5 the locations ref the +ractLtrt!!I in the Chi c,o Monod i ne and the major +aul is within ti -to Foothill. -Fault System - The maJc:W' faLtI.Ls within the Foothill System in SbLtthorn Ekktte County are the p'aynes r'tU4' , Swai rt :,avi ne end 1::Ir ti ri e Creel. Faults ,r which are also shown' in Figure 3. On AUgUst j , 1975 an earthgUake having a Ric) MagnitLIde of 5.7 too[, place soUth of 01-ovi l l e near the town of Pal-ermo. Fi gUre 5 shows the location of the AUgLtst 1, 197;5 01) i center and maJor 1 i nesments associated with the Foothill FaLt1't; System. The AUgUst 1, 1975 earthquake and aftershocks prodUced a gone of ground cracking 4-.Z miles east of the epicenter Which Was st_itisegLtehtl y named the Cleveland Will FaUl t Which is probably a northward ex tonsi on of the Swain Ravine FaU1 t shown on Fi gUre 1. FigUes 6a and 6b show the Cleveland Will Fault in more detail Wi thi n a year after the main shock the ground cracE,s ­along the .,l t?vel and Hill F C' ault e„`''tended for a distance of 5-3 miles in a general north-south direction. FigUrr; 7 shows the location o°f the main epicenter and the epicenter locations for considerable nUmber- of aftershocks. Figure a shows how the foci of the larger aftershocks define the Cleveland Hill FaUl t Plane as dipping 6z dQrt-ee r to the West, Cal cUl at i ons show that the depth. to the focal point along the fatal t plane for the main shock was appro,-t motel y 6: 1 mi les» The faUlts Ni thin the Fooll ill FaUlt SytaU1111 were formed Millions of years ag0 Under a different stress rogime tcompi ssion�l> than OXists today. C;UrrontIyI r,LAvera) eitperts bel i eve that the ob servod f AU1 t movertients ar*t:) cAUsed by a reactivation of the older fault ;planes Undt+r an erttens ont�l struts rogimo auvt sea++.w =7 c W M "41(11 fNi"errK.. 11 x y. AI 1 .r� rC7w12c1*E OR44."" ()r.lghfp no Iwo ABORIMATIONS ` re.' ,•is„- J 0o° GwrI. 'tP*w-ww m► vaY'Nw. i.,, w � ore.► urns hasp ^sc fpm W"Ahe t1! Ocrl.+i4.,M" area oras rmrT% co, » kA -IAA rest "4 Ale � Hca s _ , i 1.,. ' 1 �r ►9 d S I„ "41 -., s U1ee f vttr tr.n �.e f ur.wr� Lt..I.• r:a kit. vsm.elrn7- . y i�� tit,�..nw11w i�.� M1Y�i�.r11,:,.r.0 - \ 4eerf7w�r 1 f� w000a�wn•csrr.� �r�Yutr�ara /'i �.' ^��r �i �� J �—_-• u'fwfwcYy , Figure ► ;.. Majar, 1" ni m ren ts.. rz S" ,cth* Tls th(twing �piaratr`on. c i�cat c"�� .._ s i t �ra fc` fau t ti ng assv'Sr"'I.:ntsO� eace,r s milli CROVILL�V '- �;�•a71 w 0:4 x ZIP RA -SNAXI: -C1 POfN♦�` .E' atvt7lr fr=111 Ear Q. PAl 3M NILI ,, irr N FLA ? FL T� Clls ME i •�� ✓ C• .�• ..7�iaAiiGOR, � I2Ina C'-- ----.._ o r �_ kA Figure 6 A Ceamcrpn c sU'r'aca ' area, But _e Count , s , C l zve I and N l l poincs of c,-oss-s c ionll0 IIsII Indicace 2nd Figure Fr•r 200.0 ' CLz ELANO HILL FAULT RAI , ESNAKE nINT` 1400 y l000 , . 11YANOO i i E SURFACE i G RABANGgjq RFaC , j SWEOES SURFi1� 500 Figure C, 8 Gross�ser� ` ....ian Viers iii' the W� I r� � � tj �`�t ��/• dfssec-.ed mountain frcnc to the easel }andocte arid. Bangr r gccmarph i c surfaces and Gies f utk �rc�ss-se�Fon end pciht-t "A" IIaiII�r� shCgnnor;h, in vicinit• or wr Clcvctand Ff LI� ort map, FI gurcr i w I r , a, i 5 Qd=3. -- mare 0 . «t�„m��,,,,•��--• 0r,. -2 9� " Q .,� p'' legis t6 1.0 ORV aa m, .. ` «., *:w, r n•5. ..l,r. any +•rrxlNl�• a w-, ,, r O Orovlle0 C Q r South Oroviile Q Q 0 l Q O� O n f O p � �pv p;njecson ��'� l� of Ault l plane to l sur�ce a O ,O `lainshocit O aurr L5. 0 o 5 r�3 O p �l 3 4 0 CJ O K+laiaears FIGURE Epicenters plotted from the Orov lle earthquake sequetice, Fedt',iart tiizouah uI 19 i:1�, S"ne black square designates the location dithe seismb the J » Uroville station. The ve:aca1 dinned line represents 'the projcctian to the stir£adte of the fault plane (s1 a also Fig=4). (Courtexy Of Ca ifarnia Depart rrierit of Water pesaurcesr] r r 5 bistanac Odlometers)' F I412 10 8 6 4 2 0 n , 1 • 3 •, • r ti 6cam• • FICZJRE • 8 � • Side view through the. Earth's 6 ctustsoutheast of Oroville, Cal- • ifornin, showing the locations of the foci of some of the larger 9 earthquakes in the 1975 se- quence, projected on an east- 10 west crotb section. The angle of dip is 62. (Courtesy of W: Sava11 age, D. Tochero and P, Birk holm] i? t aO ESTIMATED SEISMIC HAZARD FOR THE LEAH MARTIN PROPERTY The literature and data suggest that 8uttT County is Within an area Of low to moderate earthquake intenqitios which have relatively long recurrence intervals which aro accompanied by minor ground rupture and of?set. The California . DepartAmont of Water Rosourcez (070 conclude that there is MOVing in Lhoir study Which would indicate I Richter Magnitude for mnoLher Oroville-type'Earthquake greater than 1-6.5 (the August, 1975 magnitude Was 5-7). For comparison purposes 7 the 006 San Francisco Earthquake had a Richter Magnitude of Sol, A magnItud e *f 6-5 would only be observed near the epicenter and would exponentially Q1wKiZh with distance from the epicenter. Figure shows a prolimi Mary isoseismal map for the August 1, 1779 OrOville larthqyaks. onaithe California Department of Water ResoQrcas (079) suggest that the m,"Jmom ojjsot from smother OnOville-type earthquake Would bw 2io inches in the vertical direction and f& inch in the horizontal direction. The, quostion Of seismic hazard in the Chi ca-bNovillt not., essentially butomos one of estimating the degree Of attOhuntiom With distance +r OM a PrOPO" WcOMKV for In ortjM;ted Maximum Richter MaOmitUdO Of 60, Mott techniques for esti coati Q rock a=WratibMs at TUM&icin o+ "tanto from a +*Olt 00 Oarthquaho epi center utilize data and mothodblog'" "MilIv it th000 dIVEOPId by .r Ae I7' ie sr i:r Ile )w Ixr 1210 fid y fl.iltf 91.'•/1tt1AIII iT IisItIisIt, .00 Of It 3got 1LLC tiIts iIAitt A III I G lf'771 itiI1i12-1 1 t 13 1 1 ,......,. NEVA I A Cal.1FORMl,f -4.I ♦. t T � i ' i it 4 it ➢ j 1 �t � IV- iii i P f 1 f/l.f 7 • � (. , ...r+rrr 1 111 � 1 ♦ i . ♦ �i ! it • a ror rrit .r Ae I7' ie sr i:r Ile )w Ixr 1210 fid y fl.iltf 91.'•/1tt1AIII iT IisItIisIt, .00 Of It 3got 1LLC tiIts iIAitt A III I G lf'771 itiI1i12-1 1 t 2C) Schnabel and S e P d (197 . Acceleration data bbLairIO'd by t h Ca I i + o r n i a Division (:)-P Mines an,., Geology f19/t5) io shown, Figures I C)a and lob. Figure I C) b shovjs L IT C, rocle accelerations in the Oroville-Chico area are jp,a-, , _ tjILIn t h o i rif erred from the regional models of Schnabel g1ld SL Us- 9 a micro-regional .ed 197:3) . technIqUe based U[Jon Mecls-Wrecl roc; I, accelerations from the 1975 Ortoyille Earthquake: AnCI aLEL_nuatiot,I curves similar to those developed by Schnabel and Seed, it i possi bi e to estimate M aX' i M U M probab I e. rocl, accel erat i ons associated with another OrC"""e-1--kYPr-- earthqUAI,Ie hay, ing a, R*ichtr--1r MagnitUde of 6.5. Fi g Ur e 11 shows that the Martin parcelas ri average elevation Of a 0 P r motel Y 6-1•c:) f Oet and is located in the nortljoast i /4 of sec 3t,) T'21 N 7 r\'4E. FigLtrb 12 shows a s i ng le geologic Unit 0Xposed Within -the e P,=,rcel boLthdaries, namely the I U Pentz Sanustone member of the Calaveras Formation. The quaternary AllViUIn SOL(th of the parcel is compo sed m-� recent sands, silts and clays depe_ttited by a tribUtary of Dry Creelti. Wi th i In theproperty, the Pent; Sandstone Member of Cal ay0t-as Format- ion -'Ys the d',sPl- northwest st�ri tr, wh i ch , i Mg foliations vertic-,�! or have a mtoop 477 to 04 degree) eaztWard di P. The Pootz SWICA-1,t0ho Momber consists of sheared and pyrocl,,:kV.Lic foal d into a t ight I y t-OtTIPf'-%sodj OvOrtUrried tyhcjjrje. These rocj,;:i3 ore 4re dl-ainL-d and liqLtjf,-.jCtjcan thOU16 not be , ra Oroblom. • • rA,d�a MUM Figure 10A — --• N s•O • 4 0{toritl,r C,o (41 G -U4 e' Arc T.�T 1+RLao K O.mt m e M•rprrtte' 0 '10 20, .. RM o JS'.aital�e"rot`T=� leYtdia ---g1'-+k trae't•0lrl ooeaL.Ka=• tib. orwdjYw tt luttae�: tm ae+Rl�s� - - t1L -U w +r�enisa� is grew Axw-"c Y t X1+1 .! tl. •*•+mei Ts 1 t +{ • I ' E'z'crure JOB , + 14 2tTo 1 • f y ♦ • I �.rRR Wn • 1. ,n' . r,. a R.. • { J.S hv1. j,j tf m KaalansTjti� dh t.ak CNY i+n6 .i daYihd W Cer►l Ll. 1JiJ S Tji p� ljJ "a" to Ica k. - lµ 2 i , •' is + 19 tr I�. FIGU�� 11 Fault and Linea ments 4Xi th-n the Leah 'Martin parcel 1e1ar 1 "r hP 4 ;arcrJ�' W aSI,IU, abr'il1 µj Dpkec�� 0 >r 7; 1 19 tr I�. FIGU�� 11 Fault and Linea ments 4Xi th-n the Leah 'Martin parcel 1e1ar 1 "r hP 4 ;arcrJ�' W aSI,IU, abr'il1 µj Dpkec�� 0 2 FIGURE 12 Geology of the Leah Martin Parcel f j = lona FornlatiOn r Calveras Formation (pentz Sandstone Meml.ror) El = Quaternary Alluvium (Mine and Dredge Tailings) Two outcrops of the lone Formation are noon the north boundary of the property (see figure 12). Tho gold boarinj gravels of the lone Formation wove hydraulically mfnod throughout the Cherokee area. Duo to their higher clay contoot, the lono gravels Are generally less permeable than tho ouaternary Alluvium. VigUro A shown a map of faults and linUamen& within the parcel boundaries. The photo lineament approgimattly in the northoast, portion of the property (highlighted in yellow) may be an extension of the Foothill Fault System which is more pronounced mouth of the city of OroVille. The some fault is dopictud as a photo lineament in Figures I and it. The faults and linoamentS shown on Figure if within the prop. rhv boundaries ware observed on sit phot=, inTarad film and were chocked in the liold on Ounb 2, IIS7. The two lineaments southwest of the inferred Foothill Faint Lineament may represent secondary jimoamenhN unrelated to the Foothill Fault System because they are loss Pronounced and have a different strike. Nevortholesm, as a Pr=Utiohlry MOazorfj no permanent structure Would be located within 75 lost of IMY lineaments shown on Figure if. AddiViOnallyj steeper portions of the property mmy be subject to ground WIMping and should be ayoidod as buil tali ng tits,j Figure 14 from Sthmsbal and Kod, 071 provides a Method for 00MOMg WiMIM roc accolBrat itins at the Martin property. W tW lineament located Oman tht northeast boundary of the property watt to become active in a fashion similar to the 0rbViI10 r",!r FIGURE 13 Potentially Acti vo Faults Wi i,hl n Butte County EarthqUaille of 1975, the ePicenter WfJL(ld be 2-9 miles west C),F 24) L linilaMent at a depth aS5LtMe a distance of b.1 S. 4 mi I e�,s. According to t--igUre 14, it, wo Miles and a Magni tUde of 6.5 M the esti(II, i M Ll m rock: c at the center of the pr� AL-(,(, . -tppro, OP01-tY WCUld tats : c "" om Ek t e Y 0-46 g '56 The California Department Of W,, Resources (197Y) describe earthqUak'o hypocenters for A t. (� I, af tershocf from the 1975 Orovillt: EarthqUaj,�,e. ,,.9 in the DWR report SQg,ost that L,.,L The aftershOck, data Preaen1,,()(j . Wirth r t h Magni tUde of :Z,.o or greater WOL(ld OtCL(r qUakes having a Ri chtol- than 2i5 Milos, at a depth not shall ower the An epicenter Of :��'5 milf-s on at lineament w i L11 1. n I t ttrtin prol:)erty V)�'Lh a Ric -IL hter�1agni trrye Of 6.5 WOUld p I aC: L the fOcUs 2.8 Miles from the Pt-operty. According to FigUre 241 a 6.5 megnitgUde 2.8 Milos from the Property WO Qld ProdLtce a rorl,. elerstion of p p r i M All bUi I di hgs alld foUridat*j,ons ShoLild be engineered to Withstand Of 0-58 g1s. a rock acceleration Estimations of91-OUnd Motions from ear6thCjQaj,.,,es zciehce. The VariOL(s physical processes that is an irjt:4.,.,,act an earthqLtake a I- o not well U'hdoj-ztoOd Place ClUt"ing di Stri bUti olls and statistical Man'/ empjric�LAI rotations Used t o .t i IT,, grOL(nd motj;,MZ are hot acie do.F.IML Ito d, COMPorisaE above, Upper-bOLUIdae*y V111LIOZ �01- Pea -14 ground acaLi +Or the Leah �jat-t i n site WL:3rlt-� Used b Q'aU%e C)+ vil-abiom at the in ezt1matitig resgid al 'Zei t- i tai involved ,nQ4�tj an A "OSPOhse ground to oarth,CJL18A�4e irltet ..51 t Y. . bol levtd that tome oMPirICAS. tLWVQS Underosti mate 9rdQndi,,, L When the F 27 0.9 0.3 .,.. 0roville, Calif. 0.2 p earthquake (ML Z41.7) z Stone Canyom, Calif. o0.6 earthquake (M =4 7) Probable uppir b^uric! 0.4 M 7.6 03 x M � 5.6 0.2 IN 1 5.2/ / \ 0.1 312 6:4 9.6 16 32 611 96 160 2 4- G /ca 2a .4..> v f vo DISTANCE FROM CAUSATIVE FAULT, Itj KILOMETERS l i l t, RE 14—Range of horizontal peak acceleration as a function of distance and magnitude for rock sites 'in the Western United ; States from Schnabel and Seed, 1973), 1 a p^. :;ample, distance to the epicenter zs less than i �� Miles. nor e Figure 14 shows a ground acceleration of OM q'o for a Richter° Magnitude Of only 4.7 which is well above the Qjryot4 of Schnabel and Seed (1971) . Nays ( 1980) suggests is vvv coal, points ar(L" oxceptions or outliers or that the curves davel.opE: d by Schnabol end +d are oo Tow at distances class to tho fault, A plot Of all tke acceleration versus distance data from which the 1.79 9 valise was selected suggests that thy 0.70 g value is indeed an outlier-. It should be remembered, however, that ground accelerations considerabaly higher than 0.50 g' are possible at the property due to the fact that the prediction OP future ground Motions is not an eyact science. The ostimate of 0.58 gIs merely represents a reasonable esti mate based upon current i &Wmati cn and the state of the art for the science of seismology. A should be remembered that a rock accel;oratinn of MS 9's is conservative because it is based upon a single historical event (the Owbvil.le Larthqulk.e) on a previously inactive lineament. Additionally, this l i neam of has not been historically a;cti ti's' north of the city cif Orovi 1 l,e REFERENC08 Longwell, Chester R., Flint, Richard F. and Sandpr w, John k., Physical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969, Oh 0 Harwood, David S., Halley, Edward J., Doukan, Hinhool Q. Geologic Map of the Chico Mononline and NorthoanLovn Part of the Sacramento Valley, California Dept. of tho Khorior, U.S. Gool. Sur., Mism. Invostigations Series Map. 1-1010 t1t62' 000) 1981. 8urnott, John L., Short Contributions to Cal ffornio Kology, Fo aC: t Ur e Trakes in the Tuscan Formation, Northern California, Calif Div. of Mines and Geol., Special Ropopt 821063, Guyton, J -W -j Scheel, A.L.1 Earthquake Hazard in Northeast California, �Rwgional Programs Monograph No -1, GoliForniv State University, Chico. Jennings, Charles Wil Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines K Geology, Geological Data Map, No. 1, 1975 Wakinsl R.,9numi S.L., and Russel l, J,Si, Pal eigeography of Late Cretaceous Clastic Shelf Deposits, Northeastern Sacramento Valley California, 1985, unpub*ishedl in revieww California Department of Water Rezourceal The August 1, 1773 oroville latthquake Invostigations,8014 203"781 669 p., reb0979 schhaboll Poe., I Seed, H;Bij Acceleration in Rock for EarthqUakos in the Wootton United States; Bull of the Seismological Sot. of Ameri,Vol. 61, NO.21 p. 501-516, 197Z. SherbUone, R - W - I & Hauge, CA., AW California Div. of Mines Geology, Orovills, California Earthquake 1 August 07S, Special Report 124, 151 pi 1975 - Real l CjK., Topotxd6j Tom,, I Parks,DA., Earth Wake catalog Of California, January 1,1900 -DecOmbW 11, 1074, Caji+&jv. of Mines and Gvoloqyj Special Publication 52, 1978. OrsenSelder, RiWolMaximam Credible Rock AlLoloration from Earthquakes in Cal i?OtQajQli&Divi 0+ Minot 5 Aoltqy' Map Shout 2,*_',j Revised, 1974. Hays, W.W., PrOCL-CILWOZ for Estimating karthouako Orwand Otiono, U.S. GYbl.Sur. 006PIpon 1114, 77 pj 1580i N Cr OF' �lvT ERMZr,r �.C�N '.1•yca; Office of Planning a� Res rc '° 1400 Tenth Street, R i� M = Ilutt o C; "i1iAT(3 NEOM t^A1.IF-0 NLA -THE RESOURCES AC,fiIJCy OF FISH GAME ----�= �rDEPARTMENT nuWEAnN. 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, $UITE A RANCHO CORDOYA, CALIFORNIA 95670(916) 355-7020 `tiSJ UE JUL ~ 31987 Ms. Jane Dolan, Chair Butte County Board of supervisors Administration Center 2.5 County Center Drive Croville, CA 95965 bear Ms. Dolanc In response to your June 3, mitigation, it remains the parcels 1987 letter regard n deer Department's within the deleted mitigation fees. recommend anon habitat areas be suk�`g that Sec to The basis for this recommendation is that even though values have been degraded b 5 habitat significant additional habitatavalues�will be development activities, development. out action in deleting such areas to the added des gnatIon was not :intended to represent that these areas no value, m deer range had Since degradation of deer habitat values has already occurred it is better to deflect development to'theso areas ch in rred, mai:itaIn undeveloped areas for, deer. Order to as a In to provide for both devvelopmentaandwdte protection. presented' r habitat Our recommendation of feesfor future develo was part of a total acka e. pmen.� in these areas Possibly be deposited g In DLit. vier mitigation fees coin d ed in the County Fish and by that cammission to fund habitat -i rovementame fund for use such improvements could thus mitigate habitat to mens. projects for deer, st to develop- If you have further questions � easeEnvironmental Services 5upervi,sbrr telephonet(916) Mensch, Sincerer, ) X55-i3Q. James D. Messarsmi;th % Regional Manager Yilw+'e� I (i STATf- Or CAIIFQRNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 7 1701 NIMUUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 (916) 355-7020 JUN 12 198 7 // Wi l.; 4—s+u4, s µ. —A—r • , n i Bute t:o. Mnntng Cca = jUN 2 51987 i?rOV010, C"40MIA r�S,O4,i"� �rlLLir4i4ih.arp Ms. Jane Dolan, Chairperson Su too4\.°)l Butte County Board of Supervisors uc�A�1l')or 25 County Center Drive Orovill,e, CA 95965 - Dear Ms Dol.ans The Department of Fish and Game provided the Butte County Board of Supervisors with two reports (December 2, 1986 and April 15 1987) regarding migratory deer in Butte County. regarding a dog Control ordinance. Since that time, we have reevaluated ouz previous recommendation Bxisting State law preempts the area of dog control for protection of wildlife. Therefore, We withdraw our request that the county adopt a dog control ordinance. 1 appreciate the Board's cooperation in working with us to resolve the subdivision/deer issue in the county. Ropefully, this issue will be resolvnd soon. If the Department can be of further assistance, please contact L7erry Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, telephone (916) 355-7030. Sincerely, es D. Messer mith _ gional Manager /ATEOF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION. 2 170I NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 (916) 355-7020 .SAN 2 2 198 GEORGE iir. john Merid'onsa Assistant Director Butte County Department of Public lVorks 7 County Center Drive Orovlle, CA 95965 Dear Mr.. Mendonsat The Department of Fish. and Game has reviewed. Leah Martin's. Tentative Parcel Map (.TPM),a proposal to legally divide 94 acres into two parcels of 5 and 8.9 acres each (AP 41-33-52 and 5;3) When the Pentz - Magalia Highway was constructed through the property, it divided the land into two parts (5 and 89acres each). The Assessor Parcel Map then incorrectly showed these lands as separate parcels;. Now, the applicant has applied to officially designate them as two separate parcels. The property is located about six miles southeast of Paradise on the Bentz -- Magalia. Highway, The site is within the designated winter range of the Busks Mountain deer herd. Subdivision and development of the pare -el will adversely affect migratory deer use. Subdivision of lands intosmallerparcels has an adverse impact upon migratory deer use of their ranges. As; lands become divided into parcels smaller than 20 -acres, this impact becomes more evident. Deer use becomes impaired, migratory movement affected, and the availability -of forage drops. below that level necessary to sustain herd numbers. As parcels become 5 -acres or less, the lands are -no longer considered as being able to support migratory deer use. In order to mitigate impacts upon migratory deer, habitat must be improved and protected elsewhere to compensate for the loss of viable deer ranges. Subdivisions have adversely affected more than 40 percent of the critical winter range in Butte County.. In an effort to resolve the subdivision/deer conflict in. Butte County, the Department has recommended in a December 2, 1986 report a series of actions for the Board: of Supervisorsto implement (see copy previously sent to YOU). The subject TPM site is within. an area, where further development can Occur if mitigation measures are implemented. f r' Mr. Mendonsa Page 2 The TPM site is within a portion of the Bucks Mountain deer herd that has been affected by parcels less than 20 -acres. Therefore, we would not obiect to the approval of the TPM if the following mitigation measures: are implemented.: 1., The TPM for the 5 -acre parcel be subject to a deer mitigation fee, to be adopted by the Board of Supervi-o s. 2. Perimeter fencing of the 89 --acre parcel should be I i?nited to barbed wire To allow passage of deer, the should. be constructed of five trands or less of barbed wire. The top strand should be no higher than 48" above the ground, the lower strand no less than 16" above the ground. 3. Dogs be controlled and not allowed to run.free, pursuant to an ordinance to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors 4. A 100 -foot and 50 -foot setback buffer be established along each side of all permanent and: intermittent streams;.. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Jerry .Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, telephone (915) 355-7030. Sincerely, Jairces D'. Messers with Regional Manager rj T Inter-Departii�ptgl Memorandum rot Butte County Advisory Agency FROM; Planning Director OUbJCCT: REPORT ON TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR LEAH MARTIN ON AP441-33-52,53 July2, 1987 This is a proposal to divide 94 acres to create 2 parcc7lai 1. at 5 acres and l at 89 acres. The present zoning is "U" (Unclassified) The Land Use Plan Map of the Butte Goth y General Plan designates these properties as open and Grazing Land. There are no specific or community plans for the area When this map application was accepted, the "U" zone required a specific zoning district be in place prior to creation of parcels less than 5 acres. The map complies with the ''U" 1,one in effect at the time the application was accepted: The General Plan on -"site is open and Grazing with a 40 acre � minimum. The applicant has requested a 5 acre pp.rcel which on its face is incompatible with the General Plan. However, two events have occurred which impacts the General. Plan finding. The first i Advisory Agency Page Two The Department of Fish and Game has commented t ct has the potential to adversel that phis Herd. They recommend that four mitigationBmeasuMQ p�;o r limits.o These mitigation measures inc l:eg ain 13ror include deer n perimeter Ion r hel'CX fees, permanent and ntermittentgstreamsentS, t and set -''- � ' �. �Gks fr�?►Tt letter, Fish and Game has modified their posito of the control ordinance. Dog control is no longer recotpt�'1h n c:l�'� a dock The subject of deer mitigation fees has come a ed. Board of sjjpervisors who has as of Yet to ,ado p be'.'����e thc' could be conditioned lc pay fees, it adopted , pt t!Ilf The map Thea pr�.o�. l�c� map 1;caaordal:�.on. applicants representative has agreed to strew" and limitations on fencing Pursuant to Fish and GInSide r setbacks Recommend approval subject to the followingc regie,t. 0 Show all faults and lineaments editions within the subject identified b property. Y the geologist 2. No permanent structures permitted within 75 ie �- or lineaments mapped. et o; an Y faults 3, Map the steep Portions of the property with the assistance of ' the ged.�.��gist which are subject to f areas should be designated as no residential These sitesi development 4. All buildings and foundations should be withstand a rook acceleration of 0.58s. engineered to 5, s" Designate a 100 foot no development setback from a streams, and designate 50 foot no development s all intermittent streams,Any 1S, permanent setbacks from r a. it perimeter fencing proposed to be linyited to barb 41ire, The fence should be constructed of ed Of barber; wire With a tap strand no higher than or less above above ground and the lower strand no g at 48 inches ground; Less than l6 inches 74 Pay deer, mitigation fees if adopted b recbrdation of this map, Y Ordinatce prior to 8. Obtain encroachment Permits from for any new drivewaysontosPentz-Maga anent og LT:jmc 5 �.a Highwayublic Works cc: L'PPincott-Guth Associates Ya C �. LIPPINCOTT-GUTH ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 671 1007 BILLE ROAD 0 PARADISE, CALIF-011NIA 9506(,)-0671 (9 16) 877.4300 (9 16) 877#8877 CO, Manning Comm, April 27, 1987 APR � 97 b/ OrOV1110, cooforala County of Butte Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA. 95965 ATTN: Lat.ra Tuttle, Associate Planner RE; Tentative Subdivision Map AP 41-33-52, 53 Leah Martin Dear Ms. Tuttle: This letter is to notify you that tie have contracted with Mr. Jorry Behnke to do the GeoloZicai Report on the above referenced application. We expect to receive the report in approximately 3 - 4 weeks, and will fomard a copy of the report to you as soon as we receive it. if you require any further information before that time� please don't hesitate to contact us. very truly yours, LIPPINCOTT - GtJTH ASSOCIATES USCG C, Prator sc AI'1'IiNlll \ l� (t)llN�l'1' t11� Iia"I''I`I? i;t5t°Ilit)N1`lrN'1'Ata Atli k l c "cCil�ency) lire ronti�l etriiT 1.og It AP It 41-33-52 & 53 Y, _BACKGROUND Leah Martin 1. Name or proponent proponent and representative (if app'1 3 t'nlr'1 i�j Z. Acldress of pi 'o 1 L,i ncott�G;a�h Rt. 1, Be.,, 186 p,o. Box 671 rova e, a. 95965 ---ter Paradise, ca. ��9G9 v__...�,a.k Tentative Subdivision Ma 3 project description Il, 1`tA TQPY FINDINGS of SIGNSFICANCI: y T`1AY}�C 140 a; Does the plojecenviertnmen t have the potential substant:ially reduceegrade the quality of the cause a the habitat of a fish Or wnitoidrap�below �self fish or wildlife pop, last or sustaining levels, threaten ter eliminate a p animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? --- b, Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term, environmental foals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long—term impacts will endure into the c: bogs the project have impacts which are indivitl- CA ally limited; but cumulatively tons iderablo'r` p0 more may impact on two or store separate resources where the impact on each resource is relafthy stnnthe effect or the total oof chose I!, but Jhero vironment is sl g:ni r1 eant, i Impacts on the on - d [tours the project have en4 i ronmelttV' effects which will cause substantial Altivel•se erects on human beings, eit}ierlirt:ctly or indirectir'" I1 C . 1)� Iirk1 A'I 1Z)N (Tohr conrple'tcwtl Mai' tlrc 1,c�ti�! n�enc�"� on tile: bcts"S, Or this init i.11 ">t►lurtticrnl I/Wl: 1`irttl HIL 111.0poso l ltltt,le�"1 `11 �tl t I,AIt�iT1t)Nlinkr►tr�111rtbe proparca, 1r1t�1 . � I,JI',i: t ttcl that hitt)u, 11 t mt� )V011tltt�rlt'l tali l�nctltrlt4�tl�tlt tigr�1 r c antrr� k tlnt c' f rt'c t till r hC t'it4 t'1`rect in t•'h1;; r� �' br:cr►tlw��. t'hrk' rll'I'lr�:A'11CiN hti As;llltl',�l ��ie,c'ribed cit tltc �lt't�►chrc �Itc'et htrrc' h�'c+rt ndtlr�l t �, t4tc' Iii tt t i�ut , A N((1A'riV% ltd t LAI+<�+`I lC�tk v, i 1l hr 1�►•rll,rrrl'1, t o)t 1/111: iind fht' ht•U1„a;�c'cl plaj�'c"t �L\) Ittt�tw ,; IMPACT rrl±oo 1ltr �'tlr troltltl�'ttfi , r►tl�l rr'Mi 1:?1"i It(rNMI 1 it pl1 AC."I` I I I'f11d'I` 15 rrrC1u31'eCl �l t't111�'I11'I,11 , h1,11{�fylir, ill pAirtiV.tr JanuAtj� 5, �.gg7 � . � - Laura R. Associgt 1�` e' -t`` 0 TV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS xp.,anataons o-'�1 '"yes" and "maybe" answers are required n attached sheet(s)) oh ,CES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. will the proposal result in significdnt.m< '5—.Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? W r b. Disruptions.,, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change, in topography or ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of 4ny unique geologic or pAysical features? _ e. Increase in grind or water erosion of soils either on or off-site?.� f. Changes in deposition oz erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion :which may modify the channel of a river or Stream or the bee of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas?` h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards''such as earthquakes, landslides, mud, slides, ground failure or similar hazards? 2= AIR. Will the proposal result in substanti.ali Y.-- Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? _ c. Alteration of Air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, locally or regionally? 3 WATER. 11111 the proposal result in substantial: a—Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? bi Changes in adsorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- izatibn or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _..., .. e.g `n any amount of surface water x water body? bischargc into st,rface waters, or in any alteration of surface water duality, including but not limited to temperature, dissol%cd oxyge?' or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow k Of gt=ld Waters? h. Change in the quantity or, gUal,it' o� ground v7c��Cxs► either through direct additions or With- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwi,3e available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 2- 0 M the proposal alter the 10tationt 11. POPULATION, W h rate of the human _jstrj7FU'tjon� density, or growt a populationl affect existing housing, V HOUSINC, Will the, proposal affe ousingl 14 or create a demand for qddjtional yES �YBE N10 Will the proposal result in substantial: 4. PLANT LIFE, or number t� diversity Of species, Te- in the a. C Fan trees, of any species of plants (including plants)'? crops, and aquatic grass, rare the numbers of Any unique, . Reduction of b. or endangered species of ' plants? of plants into Mi -1 _Y' c. IntTod ct'on of new species u I barrier.tothe normal EM area, or in a ment of existing species? icultural Cropi of any agr d. Reduction in acreage LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial,. 6-N- _L I F I.: 0 f species or numbers —IM—A-L div9TSitY a. CFange in the s of animals (birds, iand animals of any species I and shell fish, tiles, fish including reptiles, . nsects)? benthic organisms Or 1 rare in the numbers of any uniqueP b. Reduc-,jon or e ndangeTed species of animalS9 ls into of new species of animahe c. Introduction Migration T esult in a barrier to t an area, Or or movement of animals? fish or wildlife a. Deteri6ration to existing habitat? 6. NOISE- Will the proposal result in substantial-. levels?. Ey a. increases in existing noise of people to severe noise levels? b, Exposure 76 LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce rE tant light and glaTe? significant result in a 8. LAND USE Will the.PTOPOsal re janned. of the present or P s stantial alteration Land use of an Area? I S. vti,ll the proposal result in NATURAL RESOURCES. 96 substantial',the rate of Use of any natural a, Increase in ___..-- resources? -renewable natural bi Depletion of Any non resources? RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involvet V —T the release of hazard - n or ,a i �S, 'I �O OXP'08'0 not limited to, ous substances (including, but n - in the or radiation) el,licals oil., pesticides, ch upset conditions? ox event of an accident . n emergeftcY ith vacuatiOTI Plan! b, possible interference Wa response pian or emergency e M the proposal alter the 10tationt 11. POPULATION, W h rate of the human _jstrj7FU'tjon� density, or growt a populationl affect existing housing, V HOUSINC, Will the, proposal affe ousingl 14 or create a demand for qddjtional y Mt4Y1 NO RLOl7 A'1'IC1N. will the proposal. result in an impact 19. q of existing recreational. uli0: i� ie duality or quan.'ct oppo rt'uni.ties? _., 2'0. CULTURAL RESOURCES. t e proposal result in the alteration a Ill of or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? rop sal resulterre chor��f�i b. Will the proposal,adi or aesthetic res historic building, structure or object? �..^ have to affect; unicli�ose whchthwov�lc�tential c, Does the proposal a physical change�2K..> � ethnic cultural values? the restrict existing re7i�;t�tts d. Will proposal • or sacred uses within the potential impact area? V. DISCUSSION OF EPJVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION a :USS I :_-ENV 7.RONMEN' AL EVALUATi:[1N AP 41-33-5? a�t(�l 53 seps ai.tl 1 rnm AP. �ntzgai i fa i-II�I�way . A'i i l"�n►gh Assessor's Parcel No. 41-38-53 was ha : - i ca l Y ar�at l f111 under ;t,l tm Map 4t,11_33 -E52 with these aratede i t i s not -~ 1 legal 1 sap Parc�� I 1 � 1L was physicall''a land division was necessary. ' A Mat , Theref ore s Intensive ve graz I na t_JUt i" uses ry ar r rive n,i"„g �, i ace I' obi u. y Linder a Williamson Act contract for inthe f and petition for cancellation i was receird ved ongoardt 1 evel March of 1 )f� a 1986. The can cell approved Eros 1 ran is le, The Dorado soil series has h r�toi^mwaon PO tar,concentratlon- of concern along road cubsbobserving Points fthe followin Erosion can be reduced by g mltigatlon measures on l Ut I l i ze the existing st: i ng road cut onto L.ot 1 subsequent development of for access. 2. Limit the creationtbacknfromwtheaSwalei• and 3' t`la l rhta 1 n s 50 ft. no -development se - .the .construction of 1 ofd: Approval of the land divisionTN6 -O allow Onsite are not classed �' y residence on Lo proximity to the ch a single family ort facilities, such as prime agricultural• Their 'Valuet11 selforhsuppp etc. holdings. The parcel could be P processing poultry, as storage, warehousing, and limited P "cal A 9eolog lh An inferred fault crosseosde brminehwhatfiffany hazaparcel r' theVault may survey should be conducted t as represent. Appropriate mlti9ation measures sues should�bapIdentified setbacks, or alternative construction techniques within the survey- . A 50 ft. no-development.setbartencledld bato l imitnthenadltar otloneof Bb: to This setback ► s i n t,wa i es on -sl �- � localized drainage patterns. Groundwater is 31h Both parcels wll be sersred by individual wails. plentiful In the area. The only limitation to h hat some of plen resent is the occurrence of high groundwater If groundwater groundwater may Pthe the Health the lower, els ne ass ry)thrtheugM applicant a141 1 1 be not l f' l ed by monitoring is necessary, oeparttnent • arty f` anted in the dens,lfied winter 1 1 s w 1 ai i n an i 6 e north half of the prop perlphcrles of the .r;l The range* On property such as this io ry and ad-jacent to a tronsportatlan corridor, cieveio{tnortt aern�is rr_tnoe is not expected to adversely affect the migratory p,tt riens 1 ty s i t e Wil i be circulated t o the Department Of Pith and Game Io.over` ,nt 6 o f the future homes I tri ori parcel corns Pl scemenl on within f 1 00a f{;Gnofethe Bentz. Ilia9ai i n h i ghweY , may reduce ithe 1 r c 6b The Sou' fern pae i f l c Railroad line i s 400f l e� noY`1•i�a�ast of Parcel 'te �� tab l .e° no i se 1 eve 1 s �a f l,3 d8 l v .n the 1. Residents will be exposed to periodic' nol levols identified in noise level falls within the and arcep round c� General plan for a9ricu,tusouthreas secondCnoise souplaygrre. - I mad i ;.etc y at the school m ro er,ty l s deand Grating i'�Y the Butte Bounty s i gneted Open>3. The p P Gen'21`411 Plan 'Land Use Element. The minimuril, parcel C"'eabl()n of a 5 acre parcel SI -4e Is 40 acro�s. Could be growth Inducing. does not comply with thc� General Much Of Central But Plan and Grazing. If this map were approved Butte is d0tignated Opon and fold density over that anticipated. development could Occur Db an eight processing this reques4- The only approprijnte mechrinism for or application �p Is either a General Plan Amt4r-j dM Because of lack and approval Of a variance Pr ent and Rezoneo Of conformity with the Gen f rOm the _ IbhhIng Commission. to be denied Under Government Code S General Plan, the map will have Ilt ,�Pprovaj of the map wil, ection 66474A. homes ite on Lot 1. allow for constructio It Will contribute to a small n Or one additional areas Of residential uses on the fringe of a grazing community. 13ai Future traffic generatiois estiatd at less than 20 trips per day. This Is an Insignificantn Increaseminetraffic. 141 Any development Services. In Outlying areas linct-eases cumulative it Is not the Individual demand which tl"K� demand for public IS significant, but its effect Which taxes service capabilities. time staffed fire station Is #68,11 mil The nearest full Provided by volunteer station 425 4 mil -t to the South. Backup it 16 authorized positions, and 13 filled.as to the West. Station 25 has Per call. Average responsp�js 11 Person.; No Patrol activities are conducted in the area. levels, 2 deputies -call basis Provided 00 an emergency On Police p,.otect-lon Is serve the entire s, only, At Present stafft High sti-lool Students will south County. be butted thirteen miles to Set -vice Impacts are community Wide and rer,ujre regional solution County Service Area, S such at 4 community Community Service Distritt, facilities district. or 0 Mello Roos i Apt:) i 1 an .i;: Leah lYlarlt i n Assessor's Parcel it 41-33-52 and 58 Log # 86-11-19-01 DATA SHEET A Pro-lect,Description 1. Type,of Project: Subdivision 2- Brief Description. Division of 95 acres into two parcels of 5.99 acres and one at 89 acres. S. Location On both sides of Pentz-Magalia Highway, approximately 1400 feet west of its 'intersection with Highway 70 4. Proposed Density of Development 1 dwelling unit per parcel 5- Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Minimal 6. Access and Nearest Public Road(;-):' 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Septic tank ntage on leaehfiepntz-Magnlia 8. SourcO of Water Supply- Individual Welld s 9. Proximity of rower Lines: In immediate vicinity 10. Potential for further land divisions and development. Division would permit construction of one single family house. B .'en v�nme9nta l Sett i nq Phys1cti1 Environment: I. Terrain a.. General Topog'-nphic Cf)aracter: Parcel 1 rises from the road, then levels off, Parcel 2 has 2 knolls then is rolly b. Slopes: 5-,2 0% c: Elevations 580-740' d. Limiting Factors: None 2• Soils a. Types and Charac•taeristics: Doraio 8-20i'' moderate permeability y gravelly loamr • y medium suitability for range use. b. Limiting Facto F2olly to hilly, rock 3. Natural Hazards of tho, Land a Earthquake Zone: Inferred fault crosses north end Parcel 2 b. Erosion Potential. 141 911 C. Landslide Potential.. None -moderate d Fire Hazard: High -extreme e. Expansive Sail 'potential Low q. Hydrology a4 Surfacee l2. Water : Parcel Small swa l e at r5orth end Of 1-118rce l l crosses Pa b Ground Water: Potentially h 1 !jh ground wO4Or on Parcel P- d- Drainage Characteristics West, south-wow;t d Annual Rainfall (normal) 401* er. Limiting Factors: .. 5. Visual%scenic QUblity: Views of Pentz foothilis, railroad gr~ade 6• Acoustic quallty: Fair, Impacted by railroad Operations. ?. Air Quality Coad B hnr;a 1 _. Env ronrrieh t -8- - `�apotntion: Grasses 9. Wildlife Habitat. blue oak, digger wior i range, ill oodlan) pine, nteria o Foa�e, w 1 n bet da�r� herd Cul +curd &lEnv J r onin� e_ n 1.0. Archaeological 11. Butt and Historical e CoC°untY General Resources in the 12- Existin Plan designation: area: i,piy 13. g Zoning; U S Exli-H Open and Grazing sting Land Use 14. Surrounding Area., ph-site: Grazing, residential o a, Land Uses.:. n Parcr� 1 northeast Spring Valley School, limited rural b.. Zoning: �, S-H i n9 land res i d talltial 'en. Plan designations: Residential Open and Graz1n gr Aoriculturnl d, Parcel Sizes; e, Populatlon; N' S0 Wr 160, S: 870 Ee 15, Cherracter of Sit Sparse 16. Nearest Urban Area." paand red: Graz Grazing community 17. Relevant S i'aradise '9+ mil s 18. Spheres of Influence. N/A. Improvements Standards 19. `� Fire Protect`i or•, Sery i ceUrban Area N/A a. Nearest County Y CState) Fire Station= 4 b. Water Availmilesab11)t - # 5 i 63 11 20- Schools ,� in Area. Y' ranker Truck Golden Feather Union, Oroville High School'