HomeMy WebLinkAbout042-460-025U
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY SHEET FOR LAND DIVISIONS
APPLICANT Susan Storm Log$#85-10-•29-02.
Big Chico Creek Estates
ADDRESS
OWN' jR 5 ame F=L oe ICI i'CE is +dLe .
,r, r TPM to divide 1.51 acres to create three 0.22 acre
PROSECT' =93CRIPTION --
parcels, one 0.30 arse parcel., and one 0.55 acre parcel.
At the Southwest corner of Sacramento Ave,, and
:LOCATION
Westmount Dr.f Chico area.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S)
42-46-25 & 42-15-38
ZONING_
GEN. PLA(,' `) PROvECT CONGISTENT?
DATE APPLIOA°TION RECEIVED October 29, 1985
Rolls, Anderson & Rollst `Fir ree , l6o; CA 9b92b
DATE PUBuCATION NOTICE WRITTEN._ — PUBLISHED
PLACE NbWSIT APER NOTICES) PUBLISHED 0. C. P. G, B.
DA'T'E MAILING LIST PREPARED
DATE MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN MAILED NUMBER
DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S, REPORT PREPARED _
ENVIRO* SNTAI, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -- ,DATE I T."ED� —�
DETERhiiNATION
AND DA'I'S NEGATIVE DECLARATION - DA'T'E ADOPTED
MITIGA°I!,D NEGATIVE DECLAMA'T'ION - DATE: ADOPZND
ENV. IMPACT REPORT' - DATE CERTII+IEE"
BUH. COMMITTEE MEETING DATE -
ADVLSORI AGENCY HEI APING DATE
ADVISORY AGENCY ACTION'
.BOARD AC',TION
COMMENTS _.
A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIONS'FOR CONSIDERATION:
Susan Storm, 'TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, "Big Chico Creek Estates",
AP 42-1:5--3$ and 42-45-25, S parcels at the southwes. corner of
Sacramento Avenue and Westmount Drive. Chico area. Engineer Rolls,
Anderson and Rolls
Mr. Mendonsa said that a letter was received asking that the item be
republished because they have prepared mitigation measures and
now o mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact can be
re mimended,
HEARING OPEN TO 711E PUBLIC
Mille BrId, engineer, had no comment.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND CONFINED TO THE ADVISORY ACENCY
The item was cor,uinued to Sept. 29 in order to be republished.
!AWJI80RY AGENCY MINUTES g=8-236
ratal�t���'RO
i�'�zrRs ti ?�Yem
MUM
I}MI i
...,, NT
JCC) : Office of Planning and arch'I2 r
1400 Tenth Street, Roalh} Butte County
Sacramento, CA 95814 PlanningDepartment
or OCT 2 a Ig86 � Cpun'ty Center Drive
Orvville, CA 95965
_Xx County Clerk
County of Butte ELEANOR M, BECKER, County Clerk
By
Filing of Notice of Determination in complianca with Section 21108
or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
.Prof_ �c T tle AX' ff
42-15-3$ Name-----r�.�
Tentative Subdivision Map 42-46-25
.Susan Storm
State Clearinghause Number Big Chico Creek Estates
(if submitted to Clearinghouse) Con act Person
Tel.ephano Number �
Public Warks
John Mendonsa
Project Location - (91.6) 534-4266
At the southwest corner of'Sacramento Avenue and West
Drive, Chico area,
--.. mount,
L'r ecec.t Description
five Tentative Subdivision Mair to divide
Parcels, three at 0.22 acres, one at to0.acre andloneres to create
at 0.55 acre.
This is to advise that the Butte Count Advisory Agency
has a project
Agency or Res onsible Agency)
pproved the above-described on ►-29—s
��--� and has made
the follo+ving determinations regarding the above-clescriibed)ro
project:
1: The project tiYwl1, 4X will not, have o1 significant effect on t
environmetrt , he
2 An Environmental Impact Report was
pursuant to the provision: of CEQALprepared for this project
x� A Legative Declaration was prepared for this
provisions of CEQA, Project pursuant to the
3• Mitigation measures ..`x ware, were not, made. a coedit
approval of the prr�,�ect, ion of the
4. Astatement ofoveriding cornsiderations was
� x ant,
vas eat, 'adopted
This is to certify that the f.[nal 11p with comments and res o.
project approval is available to the general public at*p-
rises and record of
Butte County Planning Department
7 Ccounty Center Drive
otovi.11e, CA 95965
Date Receivtd for'
Posting at Opp, or i ,
Sete he
n A4 Streeter
#7984t Senior Planner
.T .
Title
00186d March 1986
Susan Storm
Big Chico Creek Estates
AP#42-46-25, 42-15-38
Mitigation Measures
1. Contribute $75.00
,per lot to the: West Chico Firo Station Fund.
2. Contribute a pro rata share towards the ins
Of the West Sacramento Avenue and I#ghway ;2 in
2 Int rse or improvement
�ersection,.
APPENDIX H
MICE OP DE"1'3 iMMION
TO Office of Planning and )sen ch L Fnni,ng Department
14Q0 Tenth Stmt, E2 i21 Count Canto ]) rive
.. v..�..,_„ r ,,,..r.
S=amento, CA 9581+ Oroville, CA 959405
or 0�T q J
X County Cleric
County of Butte -ANOR M, BECKER, County Clerk
SCi'B3 : Piling of Notice of DJffn1na it•on-i`n with Section 21108 or 21152
of the Public Resources Code.
PFoject Title AP it Name
Tentative Parcel Map 42-46-25, 42=15-38 Susan Storm
State C earan us Num Contact Person Telephone Num
(gg submitted to Cleraringhc+lse)
Public Works John Mendonsa (916) 534-4266
ect LocatlOn At t �... ,
he southwest corner of'Sacramento Avenue and Westmount
Drive, Chico area.
eCt DeSal tip Tentative Parcel Map to divide 1.51 acres to create five parcels,
three at 0.22 acre, one at 0.30 and one ,at 0.55.
Thb is to advise that the Butte County Advisory Agency
(Lead Agency or Responsible, Agent -y
has approved the above described project and has made the following determinatlans
regarding the above described project:
1. The project _a will, L'Evill not, have a Significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environs ental Impact report was prepared for this project pursuant
to the prov Blom- of CEQA.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA.
The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be
examined at
Bunte County Planning Department
7 County_ Center nrivej 0,x,1"• CA 95Ah5
34 Mitigation measures L, were, , were not, made a condition of the approval °.
of the project.
4 At to t of Overriding Constderatibns was, vas nit, a,dora Y foe
this
Date Received for Piling 5-30-86
•igrfafi,A
Stephen A. Streeter:
S��e,j}n. ifrlforplanner
{ V��4•,ww+rrwrwr.w+�ewriwwr
,q AL -ii td Jano ary 1983'
Susan Storm
AP#42-46-25, 42-15-38
Tentative Parcel Map
Mitigation Measures
1. Contribute $75.00 per lot to the West Chico Fire
Station Fund.
2. Contribute a pro rata share towards the installation or
improvement of the West Sacramento Avenue and Highway
32 intersection.
Butte
Ir {i f 0 t r r M' I to LI i
r �~ �-•`�� I h, A t tJ RAI t r°. A l i P 1 Ik
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
WILLIAM (6111) CHEFF, o,lrpotor
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
CERTIFIED MAIL Telephona: (916) 534.4681
RONALD D. McELRl7Y
BUffe Co. Planning C*MnU Deputy bitectar
SEP 3 0 September 29 1986
Ocovilie, Ca ! eir"!A
Susan Storm RE: AP 42-1.5-38%42--45-25
c/o Rods, Anderson and. Rolls
TSM
965 Fir St.
Chico, CA 95926
Dear Ms. Storm'
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held on
September 29, 1986, the agency granted a mitigated negative
declaration of environmental impact and approved your tentative
subdivisionmap on the above -referenced property subject to the
conditions of approval listed on the attached sheer.
If no appeals are timely filcad--within ten (10) days of the date o
the Advisory Agency's approval ---with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors, this action will be final..
When the conditions of approval are complied with, it will be in order
for you to file your "final map" with the Butte County Department
of Public Works for recordation within, twon,ty-four (24) month,-, of
the date of approval by the Adv-, "y Agency,
If you have tiny questions regarding this matter, please contact: this
office,
Very truly yc,urs
William Chr,:f f
Director of Public Work's
x
Jahn Mandonsa
Assistant Dirrctor
Jul/ds
cc: Plonn-ing Dcpartment
i nvi.ronme)ital Health Department
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls
Susan Storm,
TFNTATTV> SUBD1VtSION MAP, "Big Chaco Creek Estates",
AP 42-15-38 and 42-46-251 5 parcels at the southwest corner of
Sacramento Avenue and Westmount 'Drive, Chico area. Engineer: Rolls,
Anderson and Rolls
Public Works conditions:
1 Deed 30 feet from the centerline of Sacramento Avenue to the
County of Butte.
2 Construct one-half street section on Sacramento Avonue to RS --2--A
road standard with vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk and
2" AC 8" AB, SC 250 prime; fog seal and 95% relative compaction.
3 Provide monumentation as required by the Department of Public
Works in accordance with accepted standards..
4 Street grades and other, features shall comply with the Butte
County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted
engineering standards.
5 Provide permanent solution for drainage,
"6 All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
7 gleet requirements of Butte County Fir: Department or other
responsible agency:
8 Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with, Butte Count
requirement•, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of
PC&B.
9 Pay off assessments.
10 Meet the requirements of tile utility companies (i.e., PG&E,
hone water, sewer),
Pacific Te1.ep_ ,
11 pay ally delinquent taxes or current tares as required,
12 Place note on final map regarding payment of impact fees to Chico
llnifierl Schc,oi District,
Health Dept. conditions!
13 Tndi:cate on tho Mali those wells that are .proposed to be destroyed
under permit, and connect; dwellings served by the well to the public
water Supply Prior to recording the final Map,
14 Provide a letter or other documoatation from the California
Water Service Company stot.l,,►g that they arc willing and able to
supply domost3.c water to the project.
1.5 Provide n letter or other doc.itmentatuion .from the City of"Chico
stat.ing that they are willing and able to supply sewer service
to the Project,
SUSAN STORM, TSM
i 1.6 Place a note on the map that states: "development of parcels
within the project will require connection to a public sanit7ry
sewer."
17 Place a note on the map that states: "development of parcels
within the project will require connection to a public water
supply."
18 Connect the existing dwelling to the City of. Chico sewer system.
The following mitigation measures are also required
tg Contribute $75 per lot to the West'- Chico Fire Station
Fund.
20 Contribute a pro -rata share towards the signalization of the
Wett Sacramento Avenue/Highway 32 intersection.
ap
nater-nepaimetaG Aem®randura
TO: Advisory Agency
FROM, Planning Department u
suejr-CT'. SUSAN STORM, "SPM, AP#42-15-38, 42-46-25
DATE: July 18, '1986
An environmental review of the proposed was]ect cti as
conducted November 26, 1985. App
then that mitigation measures ed
would be required.
These were outlined in the initial study. Mitigation �a
measures were never submitted.
The one year time line is up October 29, 1.986• Please
ory
--
schedulethis ends asin
item on which environmental
n September on the Advil
agenda
documents have not been completed.
LTjmc
u
I.
ri
_ u
nl I NDtX 1,
COUNTY OF 13U'1 t Tl
H75' (JNIl1ENTA CHECKLIST FORl41
Cto be ctlmpleteretg cy)
I
BACK_ _ GROUND Log N 85-•10.:29-02
11TH 11 42-46-25,, 42-15-38
1. Name 01' Proponent SUSAN STORM
2 Address of proponent and representative
Susan Storm Cif alrpllcable)
Rolls, Anderson & g Chico 'Creek
Bi
Estates Rolls--~-----�<» -
5
Fir eet
Chico, CA
>>. project description Tentative Parc_�Re1 Map �xlY�
MANDATOkY FINDINGS 01-SrCIJIFICANCt
8, Does the YIDS IAYi3R NO
project have the pt tential to degrade 1,hc,
quality of the environment) substantially redttco
the habitat at a fish or wi.l;cllife species, causer a
fish ar wildlife population to drop
sustaining levels, threaten to eliinatetvaspla�tt or-
. animal community, reduce the number or restrict t}re
range of a rare or endangered plant or restranimaor
eliminate important examples of the malar periods
Of California history or
prelra star y.
b, Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term benefits to the -�
environmental goals? detriment of long-term,
environment is ane tvhl( Occurs in impact or. the
brief period oC One
ladle curs in a relatively*
endure into the future,) term impacts will
c, Does the project have impacts which are lndividu- i
ally limited, but cumulative)
prejec t may impact on tt40 oi° mttaeurces
Considerable?
but Where the impact ou- eacoreseparteresources resource is 1'elatiVel,y,
tvhere the effect of the total oi` t}ros
impacts on tho environment is sil;ni ficant.
d, S
Will the project have envirrniltental. effects which
bei cause stlhstantial, adverse efl'ec-ts an human
he{,tlgs, cii:her diroetl.w
art indirectly?
1 T 1 • Dt,7' "WITNATION (To be comp l eteci ')Y'the 1,cra�t Agency)
On the basis or this Initial evaluation y
T%IVI; find the° prcrl,crsod project C()I11,I) NOT have a sll,;ni f ic,an
an the environment, and a jectTCO 1)T;NOT NOT
W.9I1 t effect
UIVE find that althoughhe prepared.
c ant effect on 'the eliv,j ran111011t i therolrwtoll�t c0111d have a si ,
effect ill this cast bac;rus�a the { 0 slgn•,fi.cantni f��
the att;lehed shoot have LIS , iITI'GAT1CN MVA8U,R ill described oil
Dt'C.I.A$AT'f0N will ho r , n r1.�idecl to the project. A N GAT 1�i:
pa
1IlVt flnd the proposed pro it°e F MAY have effect on.
sl �
the ctinvl rtrnme itt, and err 1NV1Ri►Nr11;NTAl', IMPACT REPORT is re u' '
t,nlficxant
MIT.November 26 19$ q a.t eel
COUNTY Or. 1111'1"1t?, 1) ANNI'Nc DIIIIARTNIINT
Laitr� �•'�; 'I' l.e �r
Asse late Planner
Reviewed by.
;� .... •n .+s ,yam '� .,,r�%}
r
I.
ri
_ u
nl I NDtX 1,
COUNTY OF 13U'1 t Tl
H75' (JNIl1ENTA CHECKLIST FORl41
Cto be ctlmpleteretg cy)
I
BACK_ _ GROUND Log N 85-•10.:29-02
11TH 11 42-46-25,, 42-15-38
1. Name 01' Proponent SUSAN STORM
2 Address of proponent and representative
Susan Storm Cif alrpllcable)
Rolls, Anderson & g Chico 'Creek
Bi
Estates Rolls--~-----�<» -
5
Fir eet
Chico, CA
>>. project description Tentative Parc_�Re1 Map �xlY�
MANDATOkY FINDINGS 01-SrCIJIFICANCt
8, Does the YIDS IAYi3R NO
project have the pt tential to degrade 1,hc,
quality of the environment) substantially redttco
the habitat at a fish or wi.l;cllife species, causer a
fish ar wildlife population to drop
sustaining levels, threaten to eliinatetvaspla�tt or-
. animal community, reduce the number or restrict t}re
range of a rare or endangered plant or restranimaor
eliminate important examples of the malar periods
Of California history or
prelra star y.
b, Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term benefits to the -�
environmental goals? detriment of long-term,
environment is ane tvhl( Occurs in impact or. the
brief period oC One
ladle curs in a relatively*
endure into the future,) term impacts will
c, Does the project have impacts which are lndividu- i
ally limited, but cumulative)
prejec t may impact on tt40 oi° mttaeurces
Considerable?
but Where the impact ou- eacoreseparteresources resource is 1'elatiVel,y,
tvhere the effect of the total oi` t}ros
impacts on tho environment is sil;ni ficant.
d, S
Will the project have envirrniltental. effects which
bei cause stlhstantial, adverse efl'ec-ts an human
he{,tlgs, cii:her diroetl.w
art indirectly?
1 T 1 • Dt,7' "WITNATION (To be comp l eteci ')Y'the 1,cra�t Agency)
On the basis or this Initial evaluation y
T%IVI; find the° prcrl,crsod project C()I11,I) NOT have a sll,;ni f ic,an
an the environment, and a jectTCO 1)T;NOT NOT
W.9I1 t effect
UIVE find that althoughhe prepared.
c ant effect on 'the eliv,j ran111011t i therolrwtoll�t c0111d have a si ,
effect ill this cast bac;rus�a the { 0 slgn•,fi.cantni f��
the att;lehed shoot have LIS , iITI'GAT1CN MVA8U,R ill described oil
Dt'C.I.A$AT'f0N will ho r , n r1.�idecl to the project. A N GAT 1�i:
pa
1IlVt flnd the proposed pro it°e F MAY have effect on.
sl �
the ctinvl rtrnme itt, and err 1NV1Ri►Nr11;NTAl', IMPACT REPORT is re u' '
t,nlficxant
MIT.November 26 19$ q a.t eel
COUNTY Or. 1111'1"1t?, 1) ANNI'Nc DIIIIARTNIINT
Laitr� �•'�; 'I' l.e �r
Asse late Planner
Reviewed by.
;� .... •n .+s ,yam '� .,,r�%}
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPA'C`TS
xp' anations o a 1 ,t1 1� O
on attached sheet(s� yes and maybe answers are required
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant; YES
a Unstable
MAYBE No
earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
o. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. Destruction, covering or modification of any
unique gc,,logic or physical features?
e. Increase in wind
or water erosion of so.is,
either on of off-site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands., or changes in siltatior;, deposition
or erosj�n which may modify the channel. of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, ;inlet, or lake?
g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils r`
outside designated urban areas?
h
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
-�`-
mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
AIR. Will the propozal result in substantial
17 Air emissiono ox deterioration of ambient
air qu41ity^
b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke°
or fumes?
c. Alteration of air moveme,,t, moisture, or
temperature,
.or any change in climate,
locally or regionally?
" WA1ER. Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Changes in
cu:rilonts, 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?
C. Need for off-site surface drainage improve-
ments) including vegetation removal, channel -
nation or culvert
installation?
d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
water,,?
e. Change in the amount of surface Water in any
water body?
f. Discharge into surface Waters, or in any
--
alteration of surface water quality, i,ncludi.ng
but not limited
to temperature, dissolved
ozygen or turbidity?
Alteration
g. of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
h. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or whit'
---�
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excava•hions?
1.. Reduction in the amount of jja;er otherwise
available Eor public water
supplies?
J6 txposure of people or property to wateC'
hazar,js such as flooding?
related �.._
.`
YES MAYBE, No
4. PLANT LIFE.
Will the Proposal result in substantial:
a. CNa—nge in the diversity Of species,or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs) grass, crops, and aquaticants
b. Reduction Of the n P! )?
umbers of � any. unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of Plants into an —�L
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
mOnt of e:icisting species?
de Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
ANIMAL LIFE. Will the � —K-
a. proposal result in substa
Ity Of species, MaNg—ein the divers' ntial:
cies) or numbers
of any species of animals
including reptiles(birds, land animals
,
benthic or fish And hell fish,
ganisias Or insects)?s
b. Reduction in the numbers of
az,
or endangered species of ani ,,Z unique, raro
mais?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into
an Area, or result in a barrier to the mi
d. Or movement oanimals? gration
f
.Deterioration to exi8tiT,�g fish
h a'b 3. t at ? I or wildlife
6. NOISE- Will the
proposal result in substantial;
T�i
a. Increases n existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of People to severe noise levels?
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Will the prop. -sal produce
sig Rican j
t and glare?
8. LAt4D USE, the Proposal result in a
--Fs
land tant'al 0:1 alteration the pres
and use of an area? ent Or Pl9nned
0. NATURAL RBSOURCtSi
sustantxal Will the proposal result in
Increase in the rate of us
resources? e of Any natural
b. Depletion of any non renewable
res."itirces ? natural
10. RISK OF UPSET Will the proposal involve:
a, A TisT�`07 ex -plosion Or the release of hazard-
Ous substp)-ces (including, but not limited
lo Pest" ted to,
0i-Cidos, chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or UPSOt Conditions?
b,
Possible interference with An emergency
response Plan or emergency evacuation plan?
gOPtUrLAT't0i� Will the Proposal alter the location,
1
s 1
U �,,J'n � d e r, 'tv
population? Or growth rate Of the human
12 H(lUSTNG: Will theroposal affect existing, hous,
Or Create a demand
proposal
additional Housing? lng
ki
t.
0 0
4-
c
13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. W;�,11 the
,
YES MAYBE NO
result xn. proposal
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle
movement?
b. Effects on existing;
parking facilities, or
demand for
----
new parking?
c. Substantial impact on Oxisting transportationsystems?
`----
u
d. Significant alterations to present patterns
Of circulation
X
--__
or movement of People and/or
goads?
e Alterationsto waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f,
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
-.-r.,
--
14. PUBLIC SERVICES, Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or results in
a need for new or altered
governmental services
a. Pure protection?
bi Police protection?._
c. Schools?,
d, parks or other recreational facilities?
e. �4aintenance
of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
.�..�
l S.: ENERGY iVi l l the �'-'
a. Proposal result in:
T-. s'e of substantial,
amounts of fuel .or energy?
b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources
of energy, the development
of new sources
energyauire
_ _ ..
164
newLSTS, iVill the p l
result in 'ystems, or substantialalterationsatooed
following: thefor
a• 'ower or natural gas?
Communications
tystemS?
C. Wates+.._
� availability-.
d, Sewer or septic tank?
..�
Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
..
17, HUMAN HEALTH, Will the proposal result in;
a•red ation
of any health hazard or pote;ruti a7
health hazard (excluding mental,
health)?
b, Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
"'..--
.- .
18 AESTHCS, lVil,l, the proposal result in the
o6structaon of
any scenic crista or view open to
the the
of
proposal result in the
eapan aesthetically
thetically offensive site open.
to Public view?
19. RECREATION. YES.
""---- Will the
MAYBE NO
H-- proposal result i.n an impact
upon the quality or
opportun.'ties? quantity of existingrecreational
204 CULTURAL 'RESOURCES =---
----�
.
� al result in the alterat''
of or the destruction of ton
a
historic archaeological siteehist°rc or
; b. I'Vil.l the '�
Proposal result in adverse phys4cal
or aesthetic effects to
a prehistoric or
historic buildin
C. Does the g> structure or object?
1�roposal have the potential to cause
a physical change Which
would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d• Will
the proposal restrict existing reli io
or sacred uses within the us 1
area? potential impart
..—
V. DIS___ CUSSION _ OF ENVIRONMENTAL
EV,,�LUATION AP 42-46-25 and 42.15-38
See aktached:
]DISCUSSXM OF ENVIE ONMENTAL-1EVALUATION AP 42-46-25 and 42-15-30
lbt Development of four homesites Will overcover an estimated 19#000
to 14)000 sq- ft-
ab'c: Full on-site drainage is required on parcels of less than I
acre. Ths most efficient moans of handling drainage is annexation to
CSA 79 (Big Chico Creek Estates-. The CSA also funds street lights.
Two would be required for this map. An alternat',ve method is
compliance with the Nitrate Action Plan, installation of all frontage
improvements stubbed out and drainage trenches. B6-ause of nitrate
levels) the Health Department is not likely to apPr,ove the second
method.
6b. Operations at Ranchaero Airport w"' subject resldants to
periodic high noise levels. since the pr serty is not under the
approach zones Airport Land Use Commission review Is not necessary.
13c: Four additional homes will be constructed as a result of this
map. Average dally traffic is estimated at 10/dau- or 40 total.
Though not a significant amount) it Will cumulatively Impact the
Intersection of Highway 82 and Sacramento Avenue. All developers are
requested to contribute their fair share to improvement or realignment
of the intersection.
4a: Fire sot -vice it provided by station :444, 3 to 3-1/2 miles soUths
,,last of the Sotithern Pacific Railroad tracks. COF does not operate a
station west of the tracks. When In use, the trains can block cross
streets for 20 minutes. CDF has proposed to purchase 1/2 acre west of
''o and build a station. All properties within the s�rvlce area are
.rid to contribute $75-00 per lot.
jf: Development Will Increase demands for _011 County services.
-,sl have been anticipated In the urban area and can be provided
cos%; ofFedblvel Y-
14at Building permits will be subject to school improvement fees
(approximately $660.00 per lot).
16dz The Nitrate Action Plan establishes 12,000 sqs ft. as the
minimum lot size capable of sustaInIt-vj a septic system. According to
this criterion, Lots 2, 3 and 4 are substandard. To comply With the
Nitrate Action Plan the applicant could;
*
redesign map for 122,000 sq. ft-, lots) Or
M place a no -development easement on two parcels until sower
lines are extolded.
17bl Nitrates represent 8 health hazard to Infants and elderly
206: Butte County MaPS Indicate the tltb may contain arthaGO1601c6l
resources. A survey will be required to determine what If any Impact
development will have on cultural 1-696Urcosv
.6-
t .
r
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursue annexation to CSA 79
#
Contribute pro rata share towards i
Avenue/Highway 32 intersection. Improvement o'f Sacramento
Contribute s75.00 per 10t to West Side Firo Station Zmprt;. y^�
Area Fund. nt
# Note on map: Residential development may be subject to school
Improvement fees.
Comply with Nitrate Action Plan.
Have an archaeological survey prepared.
Applicant: Susan Storm Assessor's Parcel #
42-46-25 and 42-15-38
Log 44 85-10-29-0
DATA SHEET
A. Pro -• t Description
1. Type of Project: Land Division,
2. Brief Description= Dividing two parcels totaling 1.51 acr-os
to create three at .22, one at .3 and one at .55.
3 Locationg At the southwest corner of Sacramento Avenue and
Westmount Drive, Chico area.
tib. Proposed Density of Development: 1 d.u./parcel»
5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing 10-15r..
6 Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Sacramento Avenue (Parcel
5)5. Westmount Drive ( Parcels 1-4).
7. Method of Sewage Disposalz Septic systems proposed.
8. Source of Water Supply. California Water Service Company.
9. Proximity of Power Lines: To original parcel:
10. Potential for• further land divisions and development: None.
B. Environmental Settime
Physical. Environment
1 Te ra In
m„ ineral Topographic Character: Level.
b. ',pe,s 0-2V
c Til twat i on' +/- 1701.
d. Limiting tactors: None.
2. Soils
a. Types and Characteristics rarwell Loam - well draining,
good Supply of organic matter.
b. Limiting Factors. Moderate liquefaction potentlal,
subs) dente potent i a i°
3 Natural Hazards of the Land
a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate.
b. E coos i' on Potential None.
C. Landslide Potontial: None,
d.Fire Hazard., Urbanized.
e. Expansive Soil Potential. Moderate.
4. Hydrology
a. Surface Water: Sig Chico Creek 1600' south.
b. Ground Water: Contaminated with nlirates in immediate
area -
c. Oralnage Characteristics. Generally south to Big Chico
Creek
d. Annual Ra i nfal 1 (Normal 5 e 22-24"
e. Limiting Factors* Nitrates are a health hazard.
5. Visual/Scenic Ouality= Scenic suburban.
6o Acoustic Ou6l1ty Faiir) sporadlcally impacted by SPRR and
Rantrhaero Airport opdrat i ohs:
7Air fit,. 81 i ty Good
m
ical Enyirpnment
ornamentals, walnuts.
g Vegetation: Urban ohers, squirrels.
9. Wildlife Habitat*- Lim' ted to birds, 9 p
U.
Cup tUC9 Env t^onm011_
Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: Higf►"
10. LoW-Dens i ty
11. Butte county General Plan designation
Residential. A -SR.
12. Existing Zonings
13. Existing Land Use on-site. Homesite• few Walnut
14. Sur -rounding Area: l ngl e-fam l y res'i dent'l al v
a. Land Uses
orchards.
b Zoning: A -F R •
Geri. Pian designations= Low--DensitY Residential -
C. .29 to 7 acres
d, PP -cel Sizes::..
e, population: Sstablithed residential area
15. Character of Site and Area'
amongst walnuttrees•of Chico.
1,. Nearest Urban Rrea=
i"- � ion •: ., ... _. .. __ _.._..
x
P` ' iw'fu•r+
L PP�• . i,. P•.w' . T/F IIL ,h 2 d. 'u T
2 I '!� ♦. F.k�+. ! { : \' i t r NV
,
}blii1 1 y'rrrl,.,yp',M f P C.CMI4YAS4;RT:fY\1/.'J:7LWYi.y.1CJC+[bi h{iM:Y M- W�^^'
„ 1
r
�, . �,. ,:\ r, w'� q4, _ : r��Y w 7Yh,K,i •A ... .... - ./ ' �'' "F�': h"r Xm'Y a \
' ,•. � � 46�5_.......,i. o . �°%!C'r o�,aiC:, �«�. ✓"',�A;+` j
146101
lip
V'" 1(),,;PE
�,.60
Y
,I"RA AjrlV;
U,5
441
9 j
+
y
1 '
' - //�r�'" ,�'1 r � -M r� x#.' .,.�'/,' �i ,r ...�'} \,7 f�, /��,7-'. •,� 1 x'#` � �. �'-r_`_
wy' W k+ l . ' w * Yi � �S . , Iy ` " XK , ,,,. !,,,,, tJ �P 'ye. ,)`, V.'.,.r ,• i '�t'3 " f
46
w
T pe
xrdr
k�-'`. �,r"'K
x
y
ji+
4N-7
1. =y ;7: rJ p � x�I. 1f• u'.. '� �Kr�t-tl \ rL l�*✓� �.. �uvi' ?
r kr �
x „
a
l,r1m�r,���t..r"•"�.�x.* � ��ir :.. d„! ,�r.� ,, Nr,;"', ..x. } lr^.., F, .t:; ,u�:," i,'.y.`.r. „ei4� c ,-«.w
r
,
f
G 41160 CREEK ESTArES, UNIT NO. 4.
PORTIONS OF LOTS 18,20 ,�/ Pnd SUB. dOHN BI DW 'LL RA nICH
Efl
X41 r
s 000 11'54"+[ l?a.2J �..,....ft, 001 50urrl 1
20\ 2.1
;•1 ."19
114MAW
SLr� rT N w
r
� dr
s i7 p"' 0 AC
11v r C. (tru
0.30 A0
. qp ;
, ,z.l
ash AC.' �� 1r � _ rr � ?�?.
1.�
O Y
035 w� x
r «
r
fi4. J6 BD.t7C7 BO.cX) r +��'*�- ' �. r
��Yu..
109 1113 . „ 0 l ,� ,
� CIM
r';<
/16a IJ "M l0 4jF M �.Ci” .✓ r "^.�n "i ."
W
o
CJ 29 AG
"
L4 /J
49000
N
031F Ac.
i «
430.6
of� 1 1-52„50
w
D�nl% �y 1�I /h,) �� h'�y y�/� l/`Jahr ,
.Ci`�# �y"1l" "'Y O`i`. 10 �WQ b - .cr- Ili , ° .
a.
N
JW
036G`.�; 3r”
., c>, � ✓ to �..-/ ,.ta �.�.....
" , • rFt':'�ai 0s A` Gji Jt7 t 1.3c' fir' «
.._w4R A 1" 9 3+ {:as Y."L y TRA /1, %�/��.,
V 1 F. 60'. d �7 �,'� " 'i A 4>�. � 1 A Y i+u.
:. 7w,F E > � - r r�,,r�"• 1:::���r.. ,.,'.. 1,7f� �.,� f
.•� + " d F y lr3 At; 1+I5
„ r
Y: }
+ impsigoo " p
131G GHIID �!� r ,.�
CRZEK g6rA'1'rS U""r F'Vp: 41 A�1>~3.It. RK 91 1O5 P AWAY IS,19,9s, �,�.Jlr�`�,,� �7i� a�', fto,;:! �ra`lit;
�f1d sU�
JOHN ffislJEGL P
Archaeological Reconnaissance
of Ap842-15-36 on Sacramento avenue,
Chico, Butte County, California. auk® Co.. Rlarwt.►ng C,gri
SEP 17 1966
OrOV1116, calaOT
Prepared For.
Rolls, Anderson & Rolls, Inc.
965 Fir Street
Chico, California 95928
Prepared By:
Jensen & Associates
Archaeological Consulting and Research
41 SkYmountaln Circle
Chico, California 95928
a, -
In order to assess the archaeological impacts of a proposed
subdivision project involving approximutely l acre of land located along
Sacramento Avenue in west Chico, Butte County, California, tho firm of
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls contracted for a complete records aoarch and
on -foot reconnaissance of the parcel in compliance with recommendations
received from the Butte County Planning Department. Accordingly, on
Saturday, September 13, 1986, the author conducted an on—foot
reconnaissance of the project area for the purpose of locating and
recording any evidence of prehistoric or significant historic use and/or
occupation.
The i acre parcel (A.P.042-15-36) consi'st's of a rectangular piece of
Land located west of Chico and on the south side of West Sacramento
Avenue, within a portion of Lot 20 of the Second Subdivision of the John
Bidwell' Rancho, Butte County, Callifornia, as indicated on the attached'
assessor's parcel map. The current proposal calls for subdivision and
further development of the parcel. A single family residence with garage
and other structures already exists at the north end of the parcel, the
present project would eventually result in similar development of the south
half of the area.
In view of the potentialadveise effects of future construction to
cultural resources Which might exist within the area, and. In view of the
general archaeological sensitivity of the region, Butte County and other
regulations required that cultural resources be fully inventoried and
formally assessed prior to project approval, pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Alit of 1966 , as amended (16 U.S.C. 4.70);
and procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR
800).
This report details the results of the required archaeological survey
and Inventoryand provides appropriate t•ecommendatlons.
procedures foilowid guidelines provided by the State Historic Ar fieldwork
Office (Sacramento) and are in conformity with accepted preservation
standards. professional
ftecor�js Search
Prior- tog oing into the field the archaeological records o
California Information Center (CSU—Chico) were examined � the Northeast
recorded prehistoric or significant historic sites within the0r ony existing
In addition, the National Register of Historic Places was P ject area.
sites are currently recorded for the ro'ect area ori also consulted. No
parcels. The well known Patrick Site mmediately adjacent
southeast,, and elsewhere within the generalCvici BUTnitre is located to the
Village sites y re other major native
particularly along Undo Channel to the north and Big Chico
Creek near downtown Chico. However, no sites are
currentl re
Within or immediately adjacent to the present project area, y corded
i
Ethnographically the project area falls within territory Which
occupied by the Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow Indians (Riddell iX978iF Was
Figure
1). Although the ethnographic data do not identify any sites '
I area, this 'information in combination With the results obtainedWithin the
Previous archaeological surveys and excava ions her from
Jensen 1978; 1979,• 1983), suggested that a number of Prehistoric
(e,
could possibly be located within the area, Includingthe site types
4boriginal middens located on knolls on either side o fol owingc (l)
'ndo Channel; () aboriginal millilig' stationsi f Big Chico Creek and
aboriginal lithic flakes and artifacts, and (q) various t) eSsolated finds of
dating Periods between about 1855 and the types of historic sites
es have
beereo time , . _ present. Such
.orded Within the immediate project area and throughout tKonkow
Indian territory generally (e, g i Jensen and (teed 19 79)
7)
s
and Inventoryand provides appropriate t•ecommendatlons.
procedures foilowid guidelines provided by the State Historic Ar fieldwork
Office (Sacramento) and are in conformity with accepted preservation
standards. professional
ftecor�js Search
Prior- tog oing into the field the archaeological records o
California Information Center (CSU—Chico) were examined � the Northeast
recorded prehistoric or significant historic sites within the0r ony existing
In addition, the National Register of Historic Places was P ject area.
sites are currently recorded for the ro'ect area ori also consulted. No
parcels. The well known Patrick Site mmediately adjacent
southeast,, and elsewhere within the generalCvici BUTnitre is located to the
Village sites y re other major native
particularly along Undo Channel to the north and Big Chico
Creek near downtown Chico. However, no sites are
currentl re
Within or immediately adjacent to the present project area, y corded
i
Ethnographically the project area falls within territory Which
occupied by the Northwestern Maidu, or Konkow Indians (Riddell iX978iF Was
Figure
1). Although the ethnographic data do not identify any sites '
I area, this 'information in combination With the results obtainedWithin the
Previous archaeological surveys and excava ions her from
Jensen 1978; 1979,• 1983), suggested that a number of Prehistoric
(e,
could possibly be located within the area, Includingthe site types
4boriginal middens located on knolls on either side o fol owingc (l)
'ndo Channel; () aboriginal millilig' stationsi f Big Chico Creek and
aboriginal lithic flakes and artifacts, and (q) various t) eSsolated finds of
dating Periods between about 1855 and the types of historic sites
es have
beereo time , . _ present. Such
.orded Within the immediate project area and throughout tKonkow
Indian territory generally (e, g i Jensen and (teed 19 79)
7)
3
!! Fieldwork.
As noted, fieldwork for the project was conducted b',, the author o(l
September 13, 1986. The on -foot survey involved criss-crossing the parcel
examining the surface for evidence of past use and occupation, and tho
exposed subsurface areas (i, e. , rodent middens and holes) for evidence of
buried cultural material.
Survey Results and Recornniendatiort
No evidence of prehistoric or significant historic use or or;eupsation was
encountered within the protect area. in View of the negai;✓e results
achieved during both the records search and field survey, archaeological
clearance for the proposed subdivision is recommended. Howover, should
future construction activity reveal evidence of subsurface nrehistoric or
historic material, a qualifiC' archaeologist should be contacted
Immediately in order to assess the impacts of the project to the cultural
resources involved.
References
Jensen, Peter M.
1978 Archaeological Test Excavations at Three Prphistoric "i`�s w til r
the Mendocino National Forest's Chico Tree Improvement Farms
Butte County, California. Report on File, Northeast *�alifornio
Information Center, CSU --Chico.;
1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Overview for the Prc+po.::ad
Southeast Chico Development Project. Report on File, Northeast
California Information Center, CSU -Chico, and Cook & ANsc.ciates,
0rovi1le.
1983 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed'Masok SubdiViclon
Project on Keefer Road, Butte County, California. Report c,r` File,
Northeast California Information Center, CSU -Chico.
/f
4
Jensen, Peter M. and Paul R. R( -ed
1979 An Anthropological Overview and Cultural Resources Inventory of
the Northern Sacramento Valley and Southern Cascado Range.
Sp,,cial Publication of the Department of the Interior{, Bureau of
Land Management, Redding District Office.
Riddell, Francis A.
1978 Maidu and Konkow, IN, Handbook of North American Indians, Volume
8: California, Robert F. Heizer, Editor, pp. 370-386. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C,
United States Department of the Interior
1983 National kegister of Historic Places. Federal Register through
December 31 1983. Washington, D.C.
0IDWEL L 2 nd. Sug T. 22N. R. / E. M. D. B. 8 M.
!4 42 IT
h- z
ti
R9 i I. 1 i SO
y _ j 6NA�' NU r ,�WOt7D ;SUB
rMae•!do t_ { o
/6 sac A •Nro
1.30 150 110 , 00
330 a0.::3 . -i
19 j 2D c-.r94S. S4CRAMENrO
m�L �i2 PARK 'SUB. &f.43
160' � �1
O O 2� { 2 :20 4 44 ! 23
a v `.J n ` J
jT, �8 4� 5.GbAC.'G!' ' UNIT 2.)
6..3 AC.
5OVl�G ci ..- rsnT dC r
53ZZ3 rJ39! 414.11 26485
AC 25^ ss4 Ar. 7.as , . 7,q, AC • : - 6/G CH1C0 CREFX
AC
4 .ES ATES bmr4 { '
22
47 !
: i• I : r I
. " r
o ,
4
i . 0
12! 1'. 7
' rbc.
U2 4L
-S o� '• • ."4c 1•Vf'. ".fix Ja
I
t�'yrA I PAI 50.15 576 !AO /
ti
Ir
R1q OL1.E1 TaLEAG0r•,oration
g
--Si9ElVCyE ONG�`,'��
TI-ftS PLAT IS hOP REF
U IS NOTA+ PAF3T` OF THIS REPOST
AUG, 9 3
Assessor's Map No. 4 2- /5`
aidweii Pnd sob, meo. Bk, 5 P;,. 2r Couhty of Butler Calif.
March, 1955
_ .. _ , _. ,:.. . � . _..W. �.• ......... » . ... , , . , �� _ � .fir..; :�=.:::- :.-�:-� - �`