HomeMy WebLinkAbout056-080-041..�.' �
f R. P '{t��� °
e Imo;
� •
•
.. �i.
�/ ..
.. � �. ,'
� ' �
� rya
..
„ .,.
. t.' • ren
I
�
I
A
i
t ,
I
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY SII E10 FOR LAND MVISIONS
APPLICANT Ed Greenlee Log 85-09-19-01
ADDRESS --
1073 Via Verona Drive, Chicoj CA 95926
OWNER Same
PROJECT DESCRIPTION- Tentative Parcel Map diViding 10.00 acres to create
two 5 -acre parcels.
LOC911ION— Between Vilas Road an un -named road, approximate,ly_JZ2 mile
South of the intersection of Vilas Road and Gates Road,Cohasset area.
PARCEL NUMBER(S) AP 561-08-41
ZONING . TM -5 GM PLAN. AG-RESI PROJECT 00M�ISTLM?
DATE APPLICATION RE, CETIJ"� 1) September 19, 1P85
C.W. - Bachman, 3012 2He Esplanade, Chico,
DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN- PUBLISHED
PLACE NIMSFAPEF N�')TICEW' PUBTAIPET) - 0,- fl. 13. ::I- B.
DATE MATIANG LLT PREPARED.,
DATE MAIL�OUT NOTICEO WRITTEN
DATE PLANNING MEOTORIa DEPORT rREVAREM-
CAT l-,,u0RL0AL LeXEMt-ITION PAIM FILED.
DEM 'AINATION
AND DATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE ADIOPTED
MITIGNIED NEOATM 1-'E,�LARATION - I)ATE ADOPTED-4�--?.--'��
ENV. INIVAOT M-,PON.1' - I)AXY, CERTfFIbly
SUB, !.wATE
ADVIG(., ! AGER Y HE'ARINl DATE—
ADVISORY AGEN"'Y ACTION
BOARD ACTION
C 0 M M EIN TS
BU T. COUNTY
GENHAL PIAN CONFORMANC RF1'OR'P ' C'fo,Co P►
FOR PARCEL MAP OR SUBDIVISION MAP C �nrng '
Items 1-4 to be completed by applicant; �.� C3ra,nrb, -alifp
1. Applicant Name T. ri, . (Ed) Greenlee
2. Project Description 10 acres located on Vilas Road, Cohasset
3. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 500$-41
4. Proposed Use To create two individual. parcels.
The following items are to be completed by the Planning Department;
Current zoning '7--- 1 " 5 land Conservation Agreement
General Plan Designation (_
Applicable Conditional Criteria; Not. Applicable
Agricul: to ra'l-Residential. YES NO
1. Agricultural Compatibility h
2 Water & Sewer CapAcity
3, Adequate Fire Facilities x �_
4, Road Capacity & Maintenance K
5. Access to Commercial & Schools y
orchard & Field Crops
1. Predominant 5-10 At, Parcel Size
2, Vicinity of Urban Boundaries
3. Asric. viability not impaired
Staff Det;ermi.nation; Project does does not
substantially conform to the 'General Plan,
,�Y s
Staff Signature Date
AS T119 APPLICANT FOR 'rill, M-Q0rST411 "1 AND D1VJ,1,1 ON 1 AM Aw`.'�T Or,Wv. AlAmr. C'1'Arr
DE�`;MTNA; 10'1' I7110 -Nn Tia CoNI.ORMAN08' WITH :1110 GENCAAL
hwgtee
�.�� l�.gnature a'' ":~x►yli'ant°
�p
APPENDIX 11
C,E or Ur,A`% q
�„JLWio pj.[inning. Dr�rtment D.
Tia office of Planning and Research ter,
7� o� y Ci Drly ,
1400 Tenth Stmt, Room 121 -»------- urovllle,
Sacramento, CA 95814 -
ar �:ul I�NO M, DECKER, County Clerk
Co� Y oferlc to �t•tµ[1-t pepui
�W, m dance with Section 211 ,t.. Y
tal3ECT Filing of Notice of Determination in co p
y 0$ or 21152
of the public Resources Code.
Tentative parcel tap
..,..�..�......,.... -- liame
OS-�i Ed Greenlet
(if subnnittr,d to Clearinghouse) (lG) 534-4266public Works John btencion. ....
. � mile
�� O Between Vilas Road and an unnamed road, a ppi mately
south of the intersection of Vilas Road and Gates Road, C�qr."'sMea�o.....
X a CF1 a~hive parcel. Hap dividing 10 acnes to eveate two 5 -acre
parcels
' } to advise that i;ize Butte county &dVisoryAgency....�.�..� ... ,"
lea Agencyr ksp n`lt� l�gen
i� approved the r�boe�i described project AnCC hos made the iollowin� d�texrnls��atioa�3
rewding the above described projc,�tq
�v1i1, wall not, ha�vo n signifcn��t offeck on the environrnento
10 11le projectsunt
All �nvlronmental Irnl c Re r t was prepared for this prolett �
"2. to, the pxav151ans of CP.QA.
A N�
�,tiv� Declaration was r�i�parcd for �tlls px�jec�t isuant' to tPt•
x
provisions of CEQA•
'11ze EIR C,r NegatiVe Declaration and record of Pro)mt Wroval may
r,uannlned at;..
W 1311 tte ty1111� C711et1%Ct�iI11g rill tllt.x;.r..»3
, ( Iltigatlutj o-��asur
es we �o, . were 'not, made a condition of 010 a,pr"Val
of the; pro).
aya !l statemalf of overriding Considerations M w� "
was not, adoptc� for
this projedtio
6-286
Date Receivedfor Filing ,.�...,,...„..;-....��. Sin 1�rw
5 hell A, Sl:ruut.er
Senior plannner 11
%LoVIs C1 sativaky IM
Ed. Greenlee, ',tentative Parcel Trap AP 56'-08-41, Mitigation Mensure;
1. Show on the final map homesites located on areas of less Ulan 209 slope.
Homesites to be located near existing roads and/or existing dwellings
in the area. (Mitigates erosion and deer herd impacts).
t E
TO: Butte County Advisory Agency
FROM'. Planning Director
SUBJECT: Report on Tentative Parcel Map for Ed Greenlee on AP
56-08_41
DATE'. May 22, 1986
This 18 a proposal to divide 10.00 acres to create two 6 --acre parcels.
The present zoningi
s TM -5 (Timber Mountain - 5 acre parcels). The Land
Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan designabes this area as
Agricultural Residential. There are no specific or community plans for
the area,
The proposal does not conflict with County zoning nor any adopted or
proposed element of the Butte County General Plan nor any County;
specific or community P18ni
Recommend approval subject to the following mitigation measure'
1. Show on the final map homosite8 located on areas of less than 20%
slope. Aomesibes to be located near existing roads and/or existing
dwellings In the area. (Mitigates erosion and deer herd Impacts-)
III
tote: An archeological survey has been completed and clearance is
recommended.
CC*. Ed Greenlee
C * W i Bachman
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE
of A PROPOSED PARCEL SPLIT
NEAR COHASSET► BUTTE COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
By
Kathryn Kel1.y
Archaeological Research Program
Departmentof Anthrop0].00
C'S U. Chico
Prepared For:
Bachman and A850clates
3012 Esplanade
Chico, CA 95926
April 1,98()
In order to assess the potential archaeological impacts of
a proposed parcel split in Butte County, Bachman and AssoCiate$r
representing Ed Greenlee, contracted with the Archaeological Res-
earch Program at C.S.U. Chico for a intensive on -fool sUrlteY Of
the two proposed 5 acre parcels. As currently PrOI)OSIMI, the par-
cel split entails dividing the current 10 acre parcel into two 5
acre parcels.
The project area is located East of Cohasset or) Musty Buck
Ridge. The legal description is the North � of the South � of
the 8outheast 4 Of the Northwest 4 Of section 13, 'I'lownship 24N,
Range 2E6 The project area, a rectangle 1.320 x 330 feet, is in
yellow pine and black oak forest on a gently sloping ridge. The
area has been logged and roadst skid trails, loading areas, and
slash piles associated with logging are num I erou.s.
prior to fieldwork a complete record search was done at the
Northeastern California Archaeological. Site Inventory office.
Records indicate that there no recorded sites in or near the'pro
-
ject area.
A Complete survey Was conducted by the author; accompanied
by rJruce Wmpler representing Bachman and ASSOCIat(IS on April 16,
1986. The 'project area was covered in 5-10 metei- Lrahsects. Al-
though the exact boundaries Were not located Mr* Wal'npler felt that
the boundaries were closely approximated.
The on -foot surVOY failed to locate any notablo cultural fea-
While Clearance is recommendedt should sub-
tures or materials,
4.
qUeht development Or Construction activities encounter cultural,
materials, a professional archaeologist should be called in immed-
Ately to assess their SiqnifiCanCe,
■
•
PtoJeCt• Vicinity i
s
C
•
Area Surveyed
November 5, 1985
COUNTY OF BUTTE
Department of En1,3.ronmen.tal Review
#7 County Centel: Drive
Oroville, California 95965
RE: Ed Greenlee parcel neap
AP # 56-08-41
Mr. Dave HironiWls
.Butfe Co. Planning C.,,n
Nov i 1 5
drOV1119, 4.alitorrfj,A
near Mr. Hironimns
suggestedThis mitigation
measures tfor er lthe �rresponse
above referencedprojectbreceved by our office
October 29, 1985;
With regard to item #1r my client is willing to comply with this
item in its entirety.
To comply with iter 42, we have contacted Mr. Tim Manning to do
the archaeological survey required.
Very truly yours,
c' y
C4 'W, BACH,MAN
CWB ch
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING DESIGNING
8012 The r splahad% Chico, calilomiti 95926 Teiephona (915) 342.4166
my rind the propobvdproject COULD NOT have n significant effect
an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
�proposed
1 e : l,�iVi r*nd that altlr�su1,�h the rrdaida:�t�dl project could have a signifi-
cant effect an the environment, there will not he a significant
effect In thi cost because the MITIGATION MEASURES described an
the attached yet have been ridded to the pra j ec 1, A N8CA1 IVE
I RcLARATtON wit i he prepared.
I/n rind the proposed prolavt. MAY have ai significant effect on
” - the environment, hud an ONVIRONMPNTAL tMPACT REPORT is required,
-
ttA'fF ; Catobet 25; 1985 (o.'Ly ol: '1101"1'11 PLANNING 11EpAlt' 1,t1;N'1
David n flii:o►iimus Ass date Planner
Rev i UWod 1.)v
0 0
APPHNll I X P
COUNTY OP BUTT11;
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(to be completed by Lead Agency)
Log It 85-09-19-01
I. BACKGROUNI1 AP tt 56-0041
1.
Name of proponent ED GREENLEE
2.
Address of proponent and representative or appinab'iv)
�.Ed_.G.z.eerrlae_.._.�� --.-„...� .--ss.�.,.�, ��..-.�..,.....•_:n..�
C W ---Bachman... ,
1073 Via Verona Drive -, 30l-2_ The .Esp ,nad_e_,-.._,x
Chico, CA 9592,6 G1jgo,�CA 95926
S.
p ro j o t description Tentative Parce1,„Q
ll. DiANI)rATORS' 1-1 DI dr f, SIG FICANCE, yq tlAl�"W;
NO
a.
Maes the project have the potential to degrade the
equality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to olimitate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important e.amples, of the major periods
of California history or prehistory''
.
b.
Does the project have the potential to aehirve
short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term,
environmental. goals? (A Short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief period of time while long-term impacts will
endure into the future.) • _�
c
Does the projCCt have impacts which Erre i.nciividir-
ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A
project may impact on two or mote separate resources
where the impact on each requr".rce is relatively
small, but where the effect or the total of those
impa,4ts on the mirooment is significant,)
d.
Does the project Live environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse erfects an human
beings, either diredtly or Indirectly'
111. ItET RMINA'1'It1N t l'a be completod by 'thv head Agency)
on
the basis or this initial vval.tlatignt
my rind the propobvdproject COULD NOT have n significant effect
an the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
�proposed
1 e : l,�iVi r*nd that altlr�su1,�h the rrdaida:�t�dl project could have a signifi-
cant effect an the environment, there will not he a significant
effect In thi cost because the MITIGATION MEASURES described an
the attached yet have been ridded to the pra j ec 1, A N8CA1 IVE
I RcLARATtON wit i he prepared.
I/n rind the proposed prolavt. MAY have ai significant effect on
” - the environment, hud an ONVIRONMPNTAL tMPACT REPORT is required,
-
ttA'fF ; Catobet 25; 1985 (o.'Ly ol: '1101"1'11 PLANNING 11EpAlt' 1,t1;N'1
David n flii:o►iimus Ass date Planner
Rev i UWod 1.)v
r
d
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL zMe_ (,'TS
Mxp anations o a "yes" and ''maybe" answers are required
on attached sheet(s)) YES MAYBE NO
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significants
a; Instable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
c Cbange in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. Destruction,, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical Features?
e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soaks,
either on or off-site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands; or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which miy 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
outside designated urban areas?
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthgiiakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards?
2, AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial.;
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke
or fumes?
c. Alteration of air movement, moi-.sture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
locally or regionally?
3. WATER, Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Charges In currents, or the course or
direction of water movements in either
marine or fresh waters?
b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
c Need for off-site surfa,:e dvainage improve
menu , including vegetation removal, channel-
i.zation or culvert installation?
d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
e, Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body',
D�:schar�c into surface waters, or in any
f
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolverl
otygen or turbidity?
g, Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
h. Change in the quantity of ground ,raters,
either through direct additions off:' Wi.th-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or eXcaV6tio11r?
i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise.
available for public water supplies?
j. Bxposure.of people Or property to water
related hazards such as Flooding
X.
L
YES
MAYBE NO
4.
PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial.
a Mange in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees',
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
�<
b. Reduction of the numbors of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species?
}_
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
S.
ANIMAL T,IFE. Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. MA-ge in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell fish,
benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
`LC
d. ,Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
X c'
6.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial:
T. -Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7:
LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce
srgni icant light and glare?
8.
LAND USE. Will the proposal. result in a
substantial alteration of tho rresent or planned
land use of an area?
9.
NATURAL RESOURCES; Will the proposal result in
su stun` t a1;
a. Increase x,11 the Tate of use of any natural
resources*'
b. Depletion .:if any non-renewable natural
resources°
10.
RI8X OF UPSE' Will the proposal involve:
a. A rsy a :plosion or the release of hazard-
ous subst i:;es (including) but not limited to,
oil, pest]. des, chemicals or radiation) in the
event of ' accidont or upset conditions?
b, Possible u.tevference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Ilo
POPULATION, Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, "en;si.tyy or growth rate of the human
population':
12,
+he.tic� Iforpadc
orUcrea.te r�itllcl i.tional.thousing?g housing'.._ , ..
i
YES
rIAYBBEE NO
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle
movement?,
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
Substantial
c. impact un existing transportation
systems?
di Significant alterations to present patte–as "-
G
of circulation or movement of people and./or
goods'.,
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? -.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, —
–
bicyclists or pedestrians?
X-C
14.
PUBLIC SERVICES. W41-1 the proposal. have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services;
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection;'
c. Schools?
--"
d, Parks or other recreational facilities?
'X.c
e. TIaintenance of public facilities, including
`
roads?
f. Othe.• governmental services?
..�_.
15.
ENERGY. Will the proposal -result in
'_ls`e
a, of substantial amou;izts of fuel .or energy?
:a Substantial increase
in demand upon existing
sources of energy; or require the development
of new sources of energy
k
16.
UTILITIES'. Will the propsal result .n a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following.
A. Power or natural gas?
X
b, Cummunications systems?
�-- h
c. }Vater availability. __..
d, Sewer or septic tank"i'
e. Storm water drainage?
>11
E. Solid waste and disposal?
---
17.
HUMAN HEALTH, Will the proposal, result in–
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential:
health hazard (excluding mental health)!
b. Exposure of.
p people to potential health
hazards?
18,
AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the
obs�i truction of any scenic Vista or mew open to
the public, or Will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
,1° 1
YES MAYBE
NO
19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in ,at impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea.ti:o gal
opportunities?
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a. Will the proposal result in, the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? X
h. will the proposal result in adverse physzcal
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physical change srhic}i would affect unique
ethnic cultural va'Wes?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP 56-08-41
See attached.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIM AP 56-08-41
lb,c,e,fy81b,c,f-' Development of two homesites on the subject property
result in some disruption, displacement$ compaction and
overcovering of the soil and related changes in topography due to
grading activities that could lead to an Increase in storms,,iqter runoff
or a change in drainage patterns resulting in erosion and possible
siltation of the surface Waters In the area. Particularly vulnerable
Is the middle branch of Mud Crook located to the east of the subject
property. It it recommended that homesites be located in areas of
lessor slopesq preferably to the north and west of Musty Buck Road as
shown on the Tentative Parcel Map.
11 -it All of Butte County Is located within a Moderate rz8rthquake
Intensity Zone VIII. The subject property Is located approximately 4
to 6 miles northeast of the Tuscan Moriocliney a fault system of
unknown activity. A historical earthquake epicenter occurred In the
general area with a magnitude of 0.1 to 3.9 on the Richter, Scale.
Construct-lon of any buildings to Uniform Building Code standards for
selsmIcally active areas should provide adequate protection to
residents In case of seismic activity.
5d: The subject property Is located in a noncritical winter deer herd
area, The Department of Fish and Game has recommended that no new
parcels of les'; thzn 20 acres be created in such areas. The subject
property Is Ir. t, ad in an area of 110 -acre parcels, and two 5 -acre
parcels exist diately to the north of this property. Due to the
sue -rounding par"al sizetf this project should not create a significant
Impact If homesIbes are located close to existing roads and dwellings
In the area.
alli: The Butte County General Plan designatet the subject property
as Agricultural-Resldeotial. Five conditional criteria must be
present In order to find parcels of loss than 20 acres In conformity
with the General Plan. Of the five conditional criteria, four are
significant In discussion of this projecti Water supplies In the
Cohaszeb area are known to be limited In some cases. If evidence of
adequate Water supply can bo provlded� then conformity with this
condiblonall criterion exists. Three other condltlbhtkl criteria relate
directly to the location of the Property In respect to the roads In
the area and thelt- toodibloh. The Tentative Parcel Map shows access
to Parcel I to be from Villas Road. Vilas Road Is a County-maintalned
road but Is not cbMstrutt-ed to County standards. 10 periods of
Inclement weather V118s Road deteriorates badly and tould become
impassable.. Proposed Parcel 2 shows no access other thin Musty Buck
Road, which Is not a Coulnty-malhtalnOd road. Like Vilos Road, Musty
Buck Road also deter lot -aces badly during periods of Inclement weather.
Department of OublIc Works conditions will require 60 -foot -wide deeded
access to publicly malritalned road for, both parcels. The roads must
be built to Subdivision Ordinance standards. Due to the condition of
the roads in the area and the distance from public'services, fire
protettloin and access to commercial services and sLriools is Ilmitod.
The closest f Irlo protection Is Station 42 1 f a volunteer station,
approx1mately 6 minutat away. Station 492) a seasonal statioti, 18
aPpr6XINIately 8 minutes 'away but It hot Mahhed dUrIng winter months
when Most sti-Wttord fires statistically occur. The nearest full-time
�6"
to service the area is Station 442 in north sp medical
manned stOP
ation Major commerc}al seroasset Road
approximately 29 minutes away. Ch
faci1ltlChand ditheSCohassetrRidgeaarealisCsubst
icandard.
between Cho an
While. development of two homesites an the property project
not
��+ this praJect will
create a significant amount of traffic on lts ownp t een
Cohasset and between
fic
rep
resent an incremental Increase ir Cohasset area,
�
adding to ImPacts . already s
Chico and Cohasset• See also discussions regarding roads n
and 11
e in demand for public
of additional residential dwellings on B -acre parcels.
14 Developmentwi'11
in a remota area will represent an In Capacity
See also discussions On items By
1 and 1.3
services in rural areas. Road maintenance and
particularly be affected. Mosquito
l7: See
the attached comments received from the Butte County
Abatement District.
1� located in an area s
archaeological
o; The subject property survey
will be pece
saryinodeto
and if so' '0
nsivity. An archaeological n the Pro ertYq
seif arci~$e0109 Ica, sites
st
dete~mlne ;iate mitigation es,
develop approp
;: 7
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 'WORKS
LAND DIVISION REVIEW REQUEST
To; Butte County Mosquito Abatement District DATE; _ 9-18-85
AP NO. 56-08-41 RETURN BY: 10-9-86
PROJECT DESCRIPTION': TENTATIVE PARCEL. MAP
APPLICANT: Ed Greenlee
ENGINEER: Bachman & Associates Engineering
CONDITIONS AND/OR COMMENTS:
Within the area of the proposed parcel map are a number.of black oalc trees.
Rain water collects in cavities within the trees and breeds mosquitoes
The particular mosquito that.is produced is one of the main vectors of dog
heart worm disease. This problem can be significantly reduced by .finding
and filling the water filled cavities.within trees with sand.
w8..
LD 1170 (Rev. 6-80) y
}::40"W M
i
11 Jim ShaPror, Senior Operator
r
0
SUGGESTED MITIGATION MEASURES
AP 56--;q8-41
Show on the existing final mala homesites located on areas Of less than
slope. Homesites to be located near 8Xi
ex
sting dwellings in .the area. (Miti9ates erosion and deer hard..
impacts.)
2
nded
Archaeological og l ca 1 impacts • C No m i is i lgat i on measures are recam � n
�gorder
at this time: An anif;cant9archaeologicalsitesnekea
stgn the
to determine if si�s to develop appropriate mitigation meast.Ares
property, and if soy
relative to archaeological sites:)
0
Applicant: Ed Greenlee
A. :Pro feet !2escrJpti.pj:1
ICA
46
Assessor's Parcel
56-08-41
Log it 85-09-19-01
1. Type of Project: Tentative Parcel Map.
2. Brief Description: Dividing 10 acres Into two 5 -acre parcels.
34 Location: Between VIlas Road and an unnamed roadp
aPProXiinately 1/2 mils south of the intersection ofVitas Road
and Oates Road, Cohasset area.
4. Proposed Density of Development: 5 acres Per dwelling unit.
5. Amount of impervious Surfacing .i Minimal.
6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Via private road
approximately 200 feet to Vilas Road for Parcel 1. Parcel 2
via private easements and roads (Musty Buck Rood)
approximately 1/2 mile to Gates Road thence northwesterly on
Gates Road approximately 1/2 pille to Vilas: Road6
7. Plot ! of Sewage Ili sposa 1 : Ind ivIdual septic systems.
S. Source. af W"4;e). Supply., Individual wells.
9. Proximity of Power, Lines: To property.
10. Potential for further land divisions and development*. None
under exIstAng zoning.
0. Environmental Setting
Physical Environment:
I. Terrain
a. General Topographic Character: lylouhtalnous rldootdps.
b. Slopes: 5-16% on the westerly portions of the propertyo
lrldre6$109 to a09 and gretiter on the easterly portions of
the property,
ca Elevatlun: 3020 to 8370 fejt above 898 level.
d. Limiting Factors." Steeper 910pes on easterly portion of
pl-operty.
2. Soils
a. Typos and Characteristics.* Aiken Sall Series on most of
the property, 0enorally well drained with moderate slow to
slow permeability. McCarthy Soil Series near the middle
branch of Mud Creial< on the easterly portion of the
property$ generally we'll drained with rapid permeability.
(McCarthy Soil 86rlOt 19 10 an area of 9"IbePer SIOP08 and
not suitable for S00bic systems,)
b. LIM14,-Iho Factors; Slow Permeability.
8* Natural Hazards of the Land
a. EorthqUbko Zonet. Moderate Earthquake Intensity zone VJJJ,
bw Erb-qloh Pdtdntlalt Moderatb.
c. Landslide Pdt0hbIbl'- Low to Moderate.
d. Fire Hazard: Extromd.
e. Expansive 8611 PotohtlAit Moderate.
44 Hydrology
aii Surface Water' None I00041 -ed on site.
,,10.
b. Ground Water: Unknown. Land drains generally south to
C. Drainage CharacteristiMcs: Creekand to the west branch Of
the middle branch of ud
Mud Creek. (normal)- 55-60"-
d. Annual Rainfall ors: Possl,blY limited groundwater SUPPIIOS�
el. Limiting Fact
5. V,sual/8conic Quality: Higti.
6. Acoistle ...Jrnllty: High.
7. Air QU3114',y: High.
Fir, sugar Pineo Interior
a. Vegetation'. Ponderosa fJ1n,es Douglas Black Oaks.
and California
Live Oak, Incense Cedar
9. Wildlife Habitat: Noncritical winter deer herd area,East
Tehama Deer Hee-d-
it nyronment
and i-listoridal Resources in the do
1ra: High
10. Archaeological
archaeological sensitivity area.
114 Butte County General Plan doslonation.
Agr1dultural-Residentiali
Ig. Existing Zoning: U50 on-5-'�,TM"l. to. Vacant woodlands.
13. Existing Land
14. Surrounding Area' open land, and, scattered single-family
Land Uses: Very sparsely Populated. west; TM -20 to the
dwellings.
b. Zoning: TM_ 5 to the north, south and
elst.
Agricultural-Residentla"'
c. Gen. plan designations'
S". Generally Jo -acre and larger parcels to the
d. Parcel Size h and west- 16Ut
-acre parcel to the eas.
north, sout
e. Sparse. population: Area= Remote rural forested area.
15* Character of Site and
16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico.
174 Rel OVEint SphereS of influence:
ie. ImprovementsStandards Urban Area- No.
19. F I e
-e Prdteck60h Service:Cohagsbt Volunteer
a. Nearest County (State) Fire Sttion'
a
Station 021) Coh6sset se"Onal Station 429y and
stot Road Station 442s X0-26 miles'
b. Water- Availability: Fire tankers an ly
20, Schools In Area; Chico UhlflOd School District'
-11-
C
0
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1163 EAST SEVENTH STREET
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95928-59..'9
(91.6) 891-3004
September 27, 1985
-atte County Department of Public Works
.;tn John Mendonsa
7 County Center Drive
Orovil.le, CA 9565
8U;3JECT: Tentative Map for the Ed Greenlee Parcel
AP No. 56-08-41
bear Mr. Mendonsa:
The referenced development is located within the area served by
Cohasset Elementary School, Bidwell 7unior High School and Pleasant
Valley High School. Please be advised, as per Government C:odc Section
65973,
the schools in the District are already overcrowded however,
Butte County Ordinance No. 2463 was enacted to enable the District to
quately met
'n the 1985-86 school year. It is anticipated that the junior and
meet elementaryhousing needs and those needs should be a e
during
senior high schools in the .District- will be able, in existing
facilities, to accommodate projected enrollment increases during the
rowding is substantiated by comparing
upcoming year. The school overc
tYie District's enrollment
es3.dentialincreased
devlopmen�tsrtoothetDa�tr�.ct'abschool
generated by .proposed
capacity data.
School Enrollment -Capacity Compati8ohp
School: Total Scher ooe Enrollment
Capacities Plus Pro? ectad Fnral lment
Students)_ From Prop seoedd DeveJ.o mp ants Dafferen�e
Grade Level. .�
Kindergarten 11083
1,459. 376)
7,288
2 869
1-6 x,419
2,385 31583 (1200)
7-9
1 3,543 (841)
0-12 2,70
t
Butte County Department of Public worlts
September 27, 1985
Page 2
Given the current school attendance boundaries-, the impact of proposed
residential developments on Cohasset Elementary School, BJ44well
Junior Hied: School and Pleasant Halley High School is as fellows:
1. Cohasset Elementary School can accommodate 22 additional
students in specified grades and the proposed residential
developments in the school attendance area will generate 3
additional elementary students.
2. Bidwell Junior High school can accommodate 317 additional
students and tha proposed residential developments in the
school attendance area will generate 1,226 additional
junior high school. students.
3. Pleasant valley High School can accommodate 143 additional:
students and the proposed residential developments in the
school attendance area will generate 1,163 additional senior
high school students,.
The District is not opposed to approval of the referenced development
if said approval is made conditional pursuant to Section 9(b) of Butte
county Ordinance No. 2463. 1n this regard, we -request that the
developer be required to place a notation on his final map stating that
issuance of residential building permits or mobile home installation or
hookup permits for residential dwelling units is subject to the
payment of school fees pursuant to Butte County Ordinance No. 2.463 and
Resolution Noi 85-4e.
Sincerely,
Robin G. Thompson
Business Manager/Comptroller
RGT:vV
CC,. beveloperfppplicai-it
Weil McCabe