The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About056-390-010.'r� "�^', ,~ ^, -� \1^ .4 �u.:, � ,'� ` .�Vt�. ♦•.T�yC 1N` �•A i,Yi • ,.� y irti � _ ..�4 w�, e . p , c ' t � , 4 •t J,e s y t, LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH) AND BEAUTY +� DCPAR rMENT or PUBLIC'WonKS WILLIAM (Bill) CHEFF, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • oROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 Telephonet(916) 534-.4681 RONALD D, MALRoY Deputy Dlre0ot t Buffs moi9 March 17, 1986 MAR 18 1986 Blackie. Price provill®: C.c�t�' RE AP 56-05-6C 863 Linden Drive 'Tentative Parcel. Map Santa Clara, CA 950550 Dear Mr. Price; At the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agenny held on March 17, 1986y the agency denied your tentative parcel map on the above-referenced property, The project Was denied because time lines have elapsed and the applicant has not submitter the fees and information requested. If no appeals are timely filed--within ten days of the date of the Advisory Agency's approval=-with the Clerk of the Board of Sunarvisoral thia action will be 21hal, if you have any queityions regarding this matter, please contact this Office, Vary truly yours) William Chaff Director of Public Works � n Men onsa niatant Director JMjria cc Planning tl,l„7 wig inter-Departen;n ai� memorandum J, a io= Advisory Agency ' FkoM: Steve Streeter, Planning )A 5ueJtTt YTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR BLACKTE PRICE_, AP Z'-39-10 DATM March 7, 1986 This application is one on Which the environmental documents are not complete. The reasons for the incompleteness are described in the attached letter dated April 26, 1985 to RFC Surveyors. If the applicant makes a new application and. pays the appropriate fees, we will be able to consider the Highway 32 ETF and a s.te-specific initial study. The General Plan findings for parcels of less than 20 acres in size must be made for a favorable action. The Tentative Parcel Map started under the name of Karen Ferreira on AP 56-05-60a The application Was made to Public Works in September of 1979. Mr Price later assumed respoh- sibility for the tentative map application. Timelines for acting on the project have expired. Refer to Sections 15107 through 15109 of the CEQA Guidelines: Recommendation Find that the applicant has not submitted the foes and infor- oration requested by letter of April 26, 1985, and deny Without Prejudice the Tentative Parcel flap for Blackie Price, ALS Guidelines. 56.39-10 inaccordance"wit,h Section ].5109 of the CEQA SAS/8j cc Blackie Price RFC Surveyors Applicant: Marino Garbit As. sors Parcel // 58-05-61 DISCUSSION LRD Log A. Project Descr7.vd;ion 1. Typo, of projOGL: Land division of 42.5 acres 2. Brief Descri.ptiort To divide property into Lt, parcels of 3.8 ac;ces _to 27 acres,, for residential uses. 3. Location: An;roximatel, 1 2 miles east of Hwy. 52 on Altati aa, Road. T,'ie intersection of Altratina Wi th Higliway 32 is 1.2 miles northeast from the -function of H ghwra: _32 with Hi shwa 99. 4. Proposed Deri.sity, of Developmc;ttt:- 5 acre average talus remainder 5. Amount of lmpc3j'vitatt., less than 2 e�� rcen ; G. Access and Cfok .:.si Ptttrlit. Rotatl(s) : 1. 2,jni"j,.pZ east of Highway 32 via_ Altatin�;L Drive. _ 1'arcel�; eit;hc:r front or lit, within 14 mile of Altatina `7. Method or k' ,,? �rtir o 1) t „ pry ,o,1 optic Leach field system 8. Sr.,t.tt,c,e of ''„-'tt.c'x` ijtt,3taly y Indi vi dual we.JL�- 94 Proximity c•£ Peva ,r, l,irr) .> Border site, or near Alta•t;ina ,Road 10. Poterttiral. for 1ut,ttlor 1nn(i d,lv.i€, ojjjs aatc3 d uc-1opitiont Ourrent land use designat Y ; and ,gnixa ; car a L� �ui�� ser di V'103�y , P�rC O T -t _ Y »�rrrtr9-rEr+f} 8TT=== ns Il Enviroimen�t�,ti? �7tt'l,1 tits; hermit. physical EIIyirOIlmLJIt_c 1 Tox vain a. Oroneral. Topo6rnphic Clxrtx jea t,pr, Vat ritablp: level to :steep dopes; �mryed um-stoep hil.1sirl,k�c• mt i c?'kc;cp c,rtl)�ox7 A� Lii�7�!:' : `,n tca Wit);�! to VE'r' iTttiK;i U1 :�� 'k ty y �rmrater 'trhriY1 ') me area u o« 1?l ovat;(^,kt:� 14110 -It JJ) ;t`E'et A.ta.L. d Li mitizlt 1!"ac t:c: t .i ;. ,8t tit r) :;1.c�r)t oil tvIrcol..)_, _rand �I 2 501.18 ra. '1..e., raid Char"tc:ia0111.ttic:t; Toeame��1't)nf;:� Ar)€ (SOS..Clrass.VII), r �ocirxi.ion Soils, sh l.lo�y to irztiry ohallow; VOM 'II bi:,)Kt'It arld t,torly, Wall drained. b --- ` 1}�e'1.(' � t,�]''�,r i u'�iC3E'j'1� �;.CI'�(°� , ��ll t.1.1•,�taw c,C)i.,.., �.Y J.\QI.t 44Ja, a1 of LIhY' L44r4 Akl C1 ]� trt ltt Lc€ii4c� Zeno : _ Zone VIII _. mo�1 Al l c�ra.r t It al f erred i aul L BxpAoxt. Po knit rt�` b "_.._._..., c Land; ladt) l otei�t;irrl :lvCot ex`att t. 1xpanri.ve A oil Rcx't�Onti.oI Ltaw 4 Hydrolor;,y' Li.ttl,o Chico Creck canyon immed late oast of the ,urrnc cx Water site ; . _art opllOmertal tree It curt{a throua smal.l.or Ll._ic �Z ('ir nyq 1», JOE 1 or ,i_ 1�' f�1rE?: Appomciix 1w" Discussion Continued. 9-12-14-04 Limit=ed source; difficult; to obtain consistent;, b. Cround Wat:.c,aat adequat=e supplies. c. Drait n¢Y;cr -AI Dareels would eventually drain into Little Chico Cr+eek,l mike past d. Annwil Rainfall (normal):eta-0-451 e. Limiting Factors., Soil erosion 5. Visual/Scenic Quality., undelie oped canyons and ridges Vii. Aoouutic Quaalit-t High; no traffic near parcels-, light traffic on ' Air Quality.High 13iolosi oa.l :Env.i.ronnont S. Vogetation: C=haparral and Foothill Woodland,. _Mostl=y brush and martraxnitaz on sitel, oaak .ard somo »ine; in area. W.ldli.fr lai~aIA-at,;. Shrub - chaparral; wit:llin ke=y winter range. for -migratory deer herds, a critical habitat. Cultural Fnya.ronmont $" 10. Ar~chacolof"ical and, iiistaovi,cal Resources in tho area; Sensitive { area due to _ proximity of Little Chico Creek Canyon. 11. Butte Catinty Gc r oval P"_gin dosit nat:.cn: Agricultural -Residential 1PExi.stint�, Zonin ,: AA -P Gvn rral 13. Exi atin(, Land Usr, ort Untiovel.apod. upon Nand.. Altwhi.na Road; an 1 -mi nproyed grayol road. connoct s tht ,,parcels to Hi frhway 32 _ 14: SurroutroInG Areaa a Laattc! Uaa(aat : Y larimaarily undeveloped, or)(s t € paace. .Sp arpe housing.. 1 ,ci. a T7vr 10+ ac.ru;s) oc ours along,, ilii`. _ 3.2 to southwest b Zoninr, A- P. General C. Cern. Plan and.. Grazing-Q� en Land. d. Parcel S i., oo :, Various: �tsoneraall;y ().-P_0+ ac., in :(.:nte j.ate area o. l�olattlaat�.�ta; Spaar�e �'``----------` 1 MvgraiE too of Site and Aro tRura1tndryeltped foothill c anyonland., area team nt Urban Area: Chico _ (12-11, mil e:3) _ RolovanL, Sphoreo of 18. lmprovemonts St,andaards lrrba n Aveaa: N/A 19. Fire Protootion i"'OrVIC01. Forent Ranch a. Ne ar est C ounI y (Staatc.°) Fire Station:. 5 O miles north_ --:_ 10-w:1+2 mi.n « b. Watr;r Avai] aab i1i ty + l: riiZti dual well. , truck caapUa ity 20, Sohooln in Areat._ . Phico, Forgot Manch ( elementary only) Appendix V - paa� e 7b of r 79-12-14-04 III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This project proposes to divide 42.5 acres into four separate parcels, ranging from 3.8 to 2?.3 acres in size. There are no structures on the sites, although the parcels have been partially graded. An unimproved, gravel road, Altatina Road, provides access to the project area. The sites are located within IY2 miles of Highway 32, the major tt'ffio route for the area. The current Butte County General Plan designates the site andsurrounding area as Agricultural Residential (A --R.) . The ex.,,Bting zoning is A-2 General. The size; 'aid intended vse of the parcels may not conform to the requirements detailed in 'there regulations: the proposed division must meet the Conditional Development criteria detailed in the Butte County General Plan. Most of the site area is devoid of -timber, although manzanita and chaparral brush are dense over much of the property. The terrain in this vicinity is rugged, characterized b7,r steep slopes, deep canyons and weathered rock formations. On-site '.opography is less severe, having more gently rolling; slopes and level base areas. Shallow, cobbly soils make the project site susceptible -to erosion problems, andn dry p^i Ids, highly combustible vegetation would pose a ser:i.ous fire hazard to the area. A county fire station is located _0 miles north of the project site, and on-site water storage 'tanks are panned for each parcel. Scattered housing on parcels averaging 10-15 acres in size exist in this vicinity; though much of the surrounding land is open space on large parcels. Project development would not threaten any critical plant habitats or mare and endangered plants The project would, promote high energy consumption, since commercial, districts orad public services are located 6+ miles from the project site. Butte County must also absorb costs for maintaining Altatina Road after it is dedicated to the county. Conformance to site design standards that reduce hazards f, earth- quakes and soil erosiola, and mriintenance of t'h,; primary access road q Altatina Road, for surface ,dr,iin at;e, rand. cm,�,;,a Gancy vehicles could ma.t�.gate potentially significant impact, , resulting from the project. The cite specific and, cumulative -eca-wide; impacts have been found sxg'ifa.cant enouE.,h to wrarralit thr arc aration of an environmental impact report (EIR), l.'b j o; e;h,o_ z 166 i Any c r., Otruction on the site would disrupt, displaco and compact oil. cul t,a tintial Grading would potentially occur on sites with o4eep Construction should :incorporate appropriate preventive desigrr, wd measures to control soil disruption; soil erosion and re t r; % landslida 'hazar 1 s. Appendix `r page 8 of '0 79-12-14-04 DISCUSSION OF ;l NVl:ROMMAL EVALUATION (continued) le; 3b,c; lie: 'There is a high erosion potential in this a.realand, during the construction phase of the project, this potential wool be greatly ditional - rmw aterctionunoff. iThis�addi-tiox alious surfaces runoffWould could. generate additional sto cause an increase in erosion al�'h1gstho 1�s ad Mumulaa�.�.vre of -the aconc�rnoa.Idie�ha.s and residence construction sites. ould be required or neGe,�sary along Altatina area. Drainage uhrannels w Road and in areas Where devclopment occurs near swu,los and streams ox on slopes exceeding 15 percent. Implementation of a master drainage plan for the entire site development would reduce several potential dxeina.ge problems. lh: Structural designs should conform to oeismic satiety standards, since subsurface Aults exist within 10 miles of thu project site. 2a: Any vohicul.ar traffic goneraUed by 'this protect Will: add to a cumulative reduction in local �,1ir quality. h: Refer 'to item 91 4a,0: Some lots in vegetation will Occur from coxtstrlaction of residenceu and nosoc.iated access rt Idl'=. New iiiaecies of plants will be introduced !nto t1,10 aret3 lire l.arlci3caping, purposos• A certain 1 amount of claa aarral vegetation would be removed in an area where soil are shallow and subjcct to Oros.ioll Loss of vegetation and develol�mu"It of homec�ites will reduce and encroach upon wildlife, 11,ibl ttat . 1:3trocluetion of household pots (ospec ally do ss may ditjplacc; klcinic: waldlifu ixi tlao area. The property lies In axe area iCit'xltifi�d ccs impc5rt4ult door winter habii at. l During construction, I1C1101,11V l t VGIs in the 4.00a will increase. Ga: Upon completi011, incr.�ea ed noisl3 , levcsls would be t�ustained from Vehicular movemexlt and reoidential 11000: and 11a r, ,_1n Ar. ri cultural Sa. The pxoject; sa to arc clarrcrxltl;yr ciril�d A .fid Uno d and diviG on Will: Residential ltlnd use c1�1ti1sifi.catio' n-. The ro��oc3cd l•llld divitai '1'11e not be consistent, with this t�eliorcll 11.1n Lain, k-2 zone also is xlot consistent with tltis 1,11)0 use ctateV;ory• 9ta,b 15a, 3h 160 Sumo natural resources would be usedin collstructio]7 'of rer i,doncev and rissoci �tLr d Ci�'tv"f '.I` roe*ad C . 'Upon air comple 't�'io use of nonrenewable ;ti`t;'SOUVOC a for h0ati)lr,i conditioning and cipplareaoRepor;�ts�ifrom�curre t rosidentswoud occur at a ai.IwcthO level, in an outl.y.in� area. ' general protect area, as well as from tlie entire 1'cresi: ranch ridoe, indicate that adequate Water suppliesarefuaqueoflyxound- difficult to obtain ;�rOM. individual wel.ls. tlajeq V g water on the site should be verif:i.ed. Appendix F page Sa of 9 a 79-12-14-04 DISCUSSIOX Or ENVlRONMENTA7i EVALUATION (continued) 11: Area -wide land divisions such as this will in( case development densities in this outlying area, potentially inducing area -wide growth and development on smaller parcels. 13a,f. Access to the project is via Altatina Road which is not an approved pAblic road connection to highway 32. Prior to approval of this entrance, Caltrans has requested environmental study of the cumulative effects of development throughout the area which would be served by this highway connection. Cumulative increases in traffic and traffic hazards is one of :several issues to be .studied (others listed in item 220). 14: Increased public service demands will be generated in this outlying area, particularly fire protection. 14e: Owners of tho project property plan to dedicate 1.2 Lo 1.5 miles of Altatina Road, the only access to the site to Bente County. The county will then have the responsibility for maintaining this outlying road. The road sl,.nlild must or excl led, county improvtMent standards before dedication. 16a,b,o: Although power and telephone lines now .terve the project sites, water and possibly natural gas will be required for new residences.r contained fuel, esid�znt:s .may choose to install self-contained and individual walls will provide water (though groundwater supplies may be limited) lra; 3h The site's capability for cin- oite sewage: disposal systems must be determi nud= 1?b: This chaparval mountainous area poses a high wildland fire hazard, especially important where increased development densities occur. 21.: One presently unrocorded archaeological site has recently been found in the vicinity. The entire canyon area i7 considered to be a potentially sensitive archaeological area. An archaeological survey should be completed on the project site and aruaao, of potential: grading work along the access road, including the entwance, at Highway �2. 22c Environmental: impact.i which would occur, and which may be significant on a cumulative area.-wido basis include: a. Disruption, displacement, compaction of sail and terrain. b. Increased drainage and soil eroLAon c. Decreased. local a.i." quality and acoustic environment. Appendix 10 - page 8'b of 9 1 IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant' effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION s rEcanunend:ed. 0 1 find that dlthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described o' an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECCMMEMED . I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and any ENVIRONMENTAL ImPAC'r RDPORT is required, Date, March 28, 1980 (Signa ure Por', ENVIRON148NTAL REVIEW DEPAiM4ENT Hevia wed by'v___—_� �� •// �'` � �C�v Earl. D. Nelson I:1VIX-6 uMontal Review Direr. -tor Appendix P sage 9" of 5 November 13, 790('9 Karen Verrei.ra, 225 Main street Chico, Ok 95926 RL: Tentative Parcel Map AP }`r 56-05-60m Log /"j 179--09-04-01 Dear lis. I"erreirar We have completed the initial study of potential environmental impacts rolatod to your proposed land division. The results of our evaluation are explained in the enclosed initial study check— list, Appendix 1140" " Because of potentially significant environaental impacts, particularly cumulative impacts related to all development which f` would be 'served by the proposed public road connection to Highway 32, an environmental impact report 's required purs tiit to the requirements of the California Lnvironmental Quality Act. The butte County lrviro=0ntal ��eview 0uidelinee require that you, as the applioant� submit ittO=ati,on In the form of a draft; yo within n 22 days from the date of receipt of a notice that an �l �,llt is rfiquired. We require a deposit of the estimated coats o UIR�prooeusin prior to finalizing a submitted draft. This cost may vary depending; on the completeness of the materia] submitted,The customary minimum deposit for projects of this type is 46004 If you wish to appoal the requirement for preparation of e;n BIRI you may file a written protest speoifyiz ; t'1 o reaoo'rtherefor f with the hnvixonmental Review Depextcment. This 'Nn•st >Jv c 4 in 15 days from the date the notice of determination was receirad j by yous if nd written protest is timely filed, an BlIt will be required: should full address all the impacts identified on the r The Zxit tha 3' the lid d�atz7:d joXplore environmentally ci�ecl�list. Additiona7.h�`� . ' superior pro�cat altornativeo and �ovid.e adcr�uate %iti6dt�.on measures that can "be applied to th�=projeot3to reduce sinifioa�xt i4pacts a fie Gounty •"''r- • LAND O'P NATURAL WFALTH AND BEAUTY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT EARL D. NELSON, 171roctor April 20 1981 Kaxcu Fex)'e�.ra 2'2S IJajn Stroot Chico, CA 95926 RB: Tentative Parcel Map AP # 56-05-60" tRD Log # 79-09-04-07. A letter was seat to you. on November 15 1979 indicating th,-Lt an env;iro1li11enta.7 impact oport`"w required for the above Aclit:ioned pro'E: �t . The Butte County Linvironmontal. Review Glr:idel ones requite that a draft E- i : R. be submitted to this del)artment within 225 stays from tyle dato of receiving noti•flca- tion that an E,T,R. is )l,egttirod, 11'1- 225 day time period suis expirod. Please contact our o.f`.ri ce withl.. :t ton days statln: yf) ,,`C intention's regarding this pro j c,k 1100 intcncl to contl1we with the application, please sch a latter requesting an, extension Or time for subiili tt0l of 1. draft E a l .lt, Which inCl'Udos the reasons 1411), the time extension is necessary, If t";e do not hear from you, 'Iqo 14111 assutlte t intend to torminato processing this application, Thank you for your attontion tri this tlLrt'clto `: i silo y, St )h n A, Streeter Environmental Review 5poelal.ist WtlRt cci kingel €, Assoc. John N1pndon.5a 'Public; Works 3 G';ote►rty Ct�tker Driu� � C�rouiile, Ccilr.fdrrtid. 5a9G5 - 't`•,laphan�: (�IGJ a,�d-�77 0 `'.yam✓`--- ` fns ..w: xs '' 60 Aa PLANNING cotpjIssIo'N T COUNTY CENTER DRIVEOROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95235 PHONE. 374.4301 ,lul• 7, l9bl RLIss Croninger Ringel and Associates 3;1, Miall Street Chicon CA 95926 RE: Tentative parcel Map Eor Kathleen Douglas AP 56-05-65 Dear Russ: ns in As per our pid plan us discussionsproce5such 11 p;arcelf tgIld bnl,-'P With -In area, we wolilC� plan to p initial. study recomm4:nclJn� a \E3at'i�'e Uetl.ac•4t7:ion regatcling ens"�irOnment l impact, A 5 acne III �n ►nun► �cn�l �rovy h�r ab�ccnle oUr policy in this area in cnns-Ldc�rinS, t PL L . tet reports I eitvirenment�i,i. clete1•minati0n. nvirenlllc,ntalro l'nearby (C�iRs� lave been roccinnlended, in the iI •t, Properties where Proposed Pat -eel slurs c,i�te Ct��Isictc,rahl)' less than 5 7c re5. Sincerely f � l � fir,,• S eph"en A. StreetOr ec iagist 8nvironmental RevieW Sp SASIht e r Tot FROMI suustm DATE, Havisory tkgency William R. Sands, Planning Environmental Analysis, Revised Tentative Parcel Map for Marino Oarbis, AP 56,05=61 March 3, 1082 This project is a proposed land division of 42,5 acres into three separate parcels, 8,5 acres, 6.8 acres and. 27.3 acres in site, for use as 11ome5ites . The project site is located approximately 10 miles north of Chico and lie miles east of State Highway 32, Altatina Drive, an unimproved dirt road, provides primary access to the site. The area surrounding and including the site is characterized by chaparral and lower foo•thi.11-woodland vegetation. most of the land. ]las been cleared of timber, except for canyon floors, and manzaiita and ether types of chaporral brush cover much of the site tinct adjacent Property, Terrain in this area is.rugged, character ized by stoop slopeso sleep canyons and weathered rock formation, Outcroppings of Lava, cap occur throughout the vicinity. The attached environmental study was Pr•oparod March 28 1080 for an earlier tentative parcel ilial subltiitted by Marino Garbis, and is sufficient for consideration of this current proposal, A Mitigated Negative Decl.aratioit regarding enviroa3. mental impacts is recommended, SUPPL N~ - NTAL IN1:(7TtAU1T MTON li item 22c ill Appendix P has been ro�evaluated and marked under the "Noll column with ,a coitiment. The coilmlent in the checklist remains the same. 2. The increase ill parcel sizes and. reduction in number of Parcels from four to throe has reduced the potantial in.tonsitY Pram adverse inipacts to the environment, obvi `lting the 11IR recommondation. potontial l.tripacts would be serious enough, however, to a, Mitigated Negative Declaration. dotei minati.on 3. The County Public Works Department will Yecluire Altatina Drive to moot public road access standards ds at the ill 4, 0 I section with State Highway 52, Alttatina Drive must uc con,�tructod to a right-of-way width or "60 poet, and be paved where it connects to highway 32 i Advi:;ory Agency AP 56-05-67. SCI -I it 80040806 Pago Z 4: The applicant must conform torthe California iorDanartMOnt of Transportation (Cal encroach- ment permit onto State I-Iightvay 32 Caltrans mayrequire the proponent Of` this, pro.- Oct to satisfactorily adess issues that xis, Jude, but are not limited to, stor14 preservation of vegetationacts , traffic llaxards, drainage, Y archaeological/histor cal 1) ip1-required project, 11liprovemenits effects generated by the , 1 p also be to I4igb�vay 32 andI a C7aayowl ore Allder tatina Drive connects tv thin the stateright-of to Highway 32. S. 'rhe attached map 9110W$ four proposed puunty.Jaltransk,and tthe 5 to I-Ixghway 32 under xoview by the Cothat an be County planning Departmonthoave �actsLo c approvingbtl�ese prepared to full. assess 1 connections WR8 lkt, 4 MITIGATION MEASURES (The :followillg mitigations, or alternative mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, equal or superior to those lie`,2d, are required :for project approval.) 1. "trosion eintrol measures shaI be implemented at the time of construction. Those measures shall include: a., ltevegetate "' OVposed soil surfaces or use other soil. stabl.li,,ation techniques. b. Stabilize all, graded areas 1�rith surfacing of gravel or pavomont, prr:imeter l)ernls, or oquaXly effective )11e;i15L1r C5 . c. Stabilize storm grater runo.f r channels N-rith installation of Culverts, riprap rocl( lx.ning, energy dissipating s, ructures, W, equally effective nloasures. d. Conduct o:•rth.YL-i, during the (try scason only. No o p(�sec1 (a:l s,t'i faces shall be left unprotected (luring the winter ral)1y season. 2. place propel°ly sized and installed culverts in any drainage courses crossed by roads Or driveWn,ys, . Design mid buildroads tllat conform to the terrain, .following contours as much as possible gild avoiding steep embankment cuts. 11oa.d grad .s shall trot exceed 1S u. 4. Locate building ,Ates o)1 ".reas 'loss than 2016 slope, unless unique Site fac:'torr o1^ sit(. cle, +;tL (lctttolistl°aces ntitii;ation of (giros i.(r11 ha a.ra , , 1<etaill i1atl:tral. vo..( 1'.„bion her(, 1,01,10va,l is not essential for site development. G. T>ey:liiteter Ce °iaig Shall nog l:>c tod Alhic1 �goul.d c-roato a barrier to We )1�1ri a- 1 1110'V -ollot CL 7. Con 1 o ^n1 to the .Cc” ' ot�t-ing pros oct-lop measure 'recommended bar the Butte County JIi r'e ll(.�a�7rt�i�Gt1l /Gtci i l e� t�nxa ilepaa�t mei7t or %orcatry Cl A water sti P l Cor re l?rot e'.ti on will � 1Va it ru r Si15�1.� ; t � y . ! n 7e �egtta.rod. llolvever, if tho domestic water storage has a ca�pac�ity of 1,000 gallons or nloro) a fire department .r s1.a11ed. `:i"he .Case doparttiont must connoctioit shall be a oil be notified, of any such coatitier:ti�inSuch ��a connect point must be so located that It is read.l.ly accessible to fire dopartmont rq.lipment. MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) 8. Arrange; for an archaeological survey of the site by a qualified professional archaeologist before any s•i,te preparation or development occurs If any significant cultural resources are discovoroc?, the tentative map is to be referred back to the Advisory Agency for re- design of the Irian and/or determination of appropriate mitigation measures. STATE Of CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES A0ENC.Y EDMUND G. BROWN JR„ Goy tro OO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 2 ; ,1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 (916) 355-7030 V 1 April 23, 1980 _ 44, co r; A P aroY;(;2� C�1ity... ms. Bettye Blair Planning Director Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Chico, CA 95965 I , Dear Mai. Blair i The Iki,artment of Fish and Game leas revieWet the notice of Preparation for Marino Carbis Tentative Parcel Map (SCE( 80040806) ind has the Eoll,owin3 concerns: 1. The eumulative adverse im;)arts of devulopment on rhaparrnl and foothill woodlands habitat and Oepenelen;t wildlife spot ien should be evaluated. , 2 Tmpsct> on deer -wrote- ran o, ui)land and ftong:lme wildlife speclos should be identified. 34 secondavy impacts on and tiff site to habLtat and wildlife from pollution, domestic pets, human disturbances, watershed alteratioh) utilities, and erasion should be identified 4i Potential erosion and sedimentation impacts on Little Chico Creek should be identified 5. Mitigation measures for impacts on habitat and wildlife should be specified. 6 The anvitonmentnl chetIttlst dons not accur.atoly reflect potential project. impracta on habitat and wil.dltfe. Thank you for the opportunity to exprasn our concernso 10 eto bent W 'Lassen KaBiiSttinl tlrinaB,er 0 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 01' PUBLIC WORKS LAND DIVISION REVIEW REQUEST To: )LI j- i of Firy_ DATE: 4-12-82 AP No.: 5G=d5=60 RETURN BY: 5-3-82 PROJECT.' DESCRIPTION: TENTATIVE PA -CEL MAP APPLICANT: Blackie Price (formerl, Karen Ferreira ENGINEER: Ringel & Associates, Inc. CONDITIONS AND/OR COH4ENTS; Fire Protection Requirements: In the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan, this area is classified as a high fire hptzard area. The first four fire engines responding to this area are as follows: 1. Sta. 24 Forest ,Ranch 13CFD (Vol. Fire Co.) 8 minutes 2. Sta. 23; Forest I#anch, CDP (Seasonal Only) 13 minutes 3. Sta, 4.4, Chico, BCFD 20 minutes 4. Sta.,42, North Chico, BCFD 22 minutes Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO., Butte County Advisory Agency FROM` Planning Director p sueJECTt Report on Tentative Parcel Map of Blackie Price on. AP 56605-60 a DATE: Tune 1, 1982 This is a proposaltD divide 1645 acres into three parcels, 2 at 5 acres and '1 at 6.5 acres. The present zoning is "A-2" (General). The Land Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan designates this area as. Agricultural -Residential, and the Safety Element indicates that this aree is in a high fire hazard area. There are no specific or community plans for the area. The proposal does not conflict with County zoning but may Conflict with adopted elements of the Butte County General t Plan The five conditional criteria of the Agricultural -Resident al designation are applicable Specific comments are as follows: 16 There is little significant agricultural activity in the area. 2. Water availability area. a serious concern in the Porest Ranch/ Mill 3,. General. Plan policies indicate the densities should be limited and/or adequate access provided in high fire hazard areas. 4. These parcels would reresent 17 1a and nd 15 created an Altatina Drive, a cul=de-sac road. Twenty parcels it the maximum allowable Ona cul-de-sac road; if approved the Marino Garbis tentata.ve parcel map; AP 56-05-61, would, create 3 parcels (014-16). S The site is located within the Chico Unified School District,, Access from Altatina then ynuth and westtoChicoaoneway trip f10o12 miles P Additionally, it should bo pointed out that a confU ct exists with the tentative map in relation to certain policies of the General. Platt. The project would be or may be, inconsistent with ' the General. Plan policies tog a) correlate residential density to soil, slope and other` natural site characutistics, availability of water and sewagd disposal and other public facilities (;Land Use element, page 34) b) relate residential densities to intensity and compati- bility of adjacent uses (Land Use Element, pa=gre 34) ; c) regulate development in identified winter deer ranges to facilitate the survival of deer herds (band Use Element page 41) (State Fish and Game considers 40 acres a maximum density for doer ranges); also, Section 66474(e) of the Subdivision MAP Act that the design of tentative maps are not to "substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.1' d) control development in watershed areas to minimize erosion' and water pollution (Land Use Element, page 32). Due to the above noted incompatibility of this project with the adopted policies of the General. Plan, a denial is recommended. Until such time as specific zoning is enacted which reflects the policies and land use designations of the General Plan, these types of conflicts will occur. The Planning, Department has previously indicated that a minimum parcel size of 5 acres in this vicinity would be appropriate provided other planning criteria from county and state agencies could be met. Resolu- tion of these policy interpretations Will ultimately need to come from the Board of Supervisors. The following condition would be appropriate in light of conditional criteria N2 1. Provide evidence that adequate domestic water is generally available Ila the vicinity. Another condition/mitigation measure is as follows: "Show homesite locations in a cluster arrangement to reduce impacts to migratory wildlife.' Attached is a copy of the State Clearinghouse letter summarizing the input from three state agencies on the Marino Garbis tentative parcel map. In light of the comments from State agencies, an environmental impact report (ETR) is appropriate. A prelim- inary draft EMR has been prepared for a study area, .including a public road connection to highway 32 and the project site which will help to expedite the process. Specific findings will need to be made in response to the Potters from the Department of Conservation, Caltrans District 3 and the Department of Fish and Game. Though the letters pertain. directly to the Garbis proposal, the commentsare pertinent to the subject property which is adjacent. At this point, it appears doubtful that Caltrans will, clear arty further encroach- merit permits onto Ri.ghway 32 from Altatina Drive without an MA addressing their concerns, 2. A private applicant cannot file for a public road connection with.Caltrans and the -California Transportation Commission. R Such action must originate with the county,-environmental docu- ments would be drafted by or on behalf of property owners who would benefit by the public road connection and then be reviewed by the County. Therefore, the requirement of obtaining a public road connection onto highway, 32 is an unattainable conAge dition,onncyprivate project, resulting in a moot action by theSAS:sb .,, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE j 1 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH " " 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95914 MMUND G. MROWN JR. (916%445-0613) } oovcnNop April 12, 1982 8u'tc:Co' 6armIng COM Ms. Bettye Bair AIR 14 1982 Butte County Planning p Department rovillo, C�lforafA 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 y SoWE)CT SC`d# 80040806 NI MNO GARBIS TENTATIVE PARCEL Ka Dear Ms. Blair, state agencies have comTented on your mitigated negative declaration. If you would like to discuss` their recommendations or concerns Contact the stars from the appropriate commenting agency. l]ERA12an L- =, SERVATION '.Co minimize enviroMiental degradation resulting from the project, the depart - Ment recommends usage of the enclosed ;E as; Ian and-Sd 7i Control %anelj:!�ck a ra guide to minimizing ernson from project -related construction activities. Dc�`YrzTrm 0.3: The EIR to 1e prepared for public roach connections should address atand"ard safety features necessary for a public road intersection and address the rrr- corns of the Urban Strategy as previously stated in the district`s comments dated May 22r 1980. Da0_At'1".: Ii MT OP FISH - AND GA�i - T e Department o% Fish and Game recommends the Tentative Parcel Map for Marino Oarbis be de-nied h0cause of its adverse impacti,, on wildlife. The land division would create parcels les' &;an the 40 -acre minimum necessary to ade•:4uataly protect 'key deer Anter rar�lge: The subject area is within key deer winter renge which has been designated an Area of special Biological, importance for the migratory Past 'Tehama Deer Herd. IME! 28M ARE SM9- IES o� ccAmzTs 181 THE Gunn kiss cMY. 5."c -.A may fotrially resptind to the agencies' cofter.,ts by writing to thMr inulud3- 1' ing the state Clearinghouse tuttfber on all such correspondence, )tau should „tteinpt to resclVe any colleerns of state agencies -fore taking furtYter action on the project. Once you have responded to, the colt -tents, stdt.a Review of your draft envirornenta:'` tloCument Will t�-, complete. 1 Ms. Bettye Blair 2 !� April 12, 1982 A recent Appellate Court: decision in S1eclry�,oun o� St Win; i ataG clarified requirements `or responding to review comments,' Specifically, the court f A Gated that �, ,tents must be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding importance warrant an override of the suggestion, Responses to comments must not be conclusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experimen- tal t:al data, scientific authority or explanatory .information. The court .further said that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agencYr the Notice of Deteimiration must be filed with the Secretary for 'es ( well. is with the County Clerk. ourc,as, as Please contact, ,Atna Polvos at (916) 445-067.:1 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ephAr a iamson �11/Y 1/YriGZ��.' State (1�11oaringhouse Anna Polvos State Clearinghouse W/ap Attachments cc: Ken Fellows, DWR A M u` Inter-Departm`p'� 6U�m�rnndun Advisory Agency f aaoM: Stephen A. Streeter, Planning sueJECTI Environmental Analysis, Tentative Parcel Map for Blackie Price, AP 56-05-60 DA're: June 2, 1982 i The attached initial study for the Karen Ferreira tentative parcel map on the same site is sufficient for cons idoration Of this current proposal, In light of the pertinent General Plan policies and information received from State agencies x on the tentative parcel map for Marino Garbis AP 56-05-60, an environmental impact report (BIR) is still deemed to be the appropriate determination. The original configurations were revised ;'o yield three parcels of 5 acres or larger in size; the V rst map had two parcels of 3,5 :end 3.8 acres with one of 9 * 2 irr,es . { Mitigation measures are listed ul; 1.7" 4 :ached page to address the conce,riis of erosion and preservat in of wildlife habitat • This area has a high, erosion poten.ial and is designated as an Area of Special Biological Importance for which 40 acre minimum parcels are deemed, necessary, The Fast Tehama Door l-lerd utilizes the stbjer:t arca. The high fire hazard is another Key concern in this area. Response ti=8 for the first `-,qr engines arc 8y 13 (seasonal only), 20 and 22 minutes. live,i the response time for the first engine may be insufficient to salvage a structure in the case of a fire. It should be noted that +rildland firs protection is of utmost importance to the California Ilepartmont of liorestry, Additional wildland aroas are apt to burn in the event priority is giv0ft to :fighting a structural fire, The California Department of Porestxy/Butto County Fire Depart - Mont recommends the foilotqirig fire protection measure Mater Supply: A w for supply :for fie protection will not Ge required, tiotVCV04, if the domestic water storage system has a capacity Of 1.000 gallons or jmmorq, a fire department connection shall 1)e installed, The fire department must be notified of any such coainection. Such a connection point must be sc `tocatect tlia i, it is readily accessible to tho :fire department + gc Apmient, a�ibasi:cvFirettprotectiont°requivementZaVOUndL building0st�ructures p g ( 7 is s, s , Advisory Agency TPM for Blackie Price AP 56-05-60 Page '2 June 2, 1982 Inpm was sought from Caltrans ort the tentative map. Their comments are contained in the attached letter received May 28, 1082, A copy of the original letter requiring an gIR is being forwarded to the applicant since ]Caren Ferreira, and not. Mr Price, was the recipient. Further information Will be ;Co�rthcoming in the Planning Director's report for this project SAS t lk't Attachments cc: 3lackie Price Rinbel Assoc. I� �4 i AP 56-05-60 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.. Utilize standard erosion control measures and construction practices to minimize erosion and other -construction impacts. 2. Show homesite locations in a cluster arrangement on the tentative and final map to reduce ;impact:; to migratory wildlife 3. Design and builcl roads and drilreways that conPOTIq to the terrain, following contours as much as possible and avoiding steep ombtnkTnent cuts. grades not to exceed 15 4 As' isor's Parcel # 56-05-60 D ,�'.� — ERD 'Lo 75-09-04-01 f A re at : Karen Ferrc�r�*�, LSSGUS� t�7N � � A. Pr ... �,'� .;ct Descriptip 1. Type of pro j t ct : Lot FOlit of 16.5+ acres into 3 parcels y "wNief Descrip'cion Division into l parcel of 3 5-4• acres. l of. 3. 8+ acres and 1 of 9.2+ ecres 1�i". sincrle-family residences �i Location: Approximately 7+ miles southwest of Forest Ranch, 8+ M"'—s northeast of Chico- and approximate) mile west of Little Chico Creek on the_.east side of Highway 32. t . Propotied Density of. Dovelopmc-xtw : One DU Amount of lmperr !Ou ;�urfaci"G,: Unknown Adjacent to Altatna Drive approxi-- w Access and Nearest Public load (::a) :------- mately '� mile west of )Ii hwa 32: `�. Method. of Sewage D . pOS,ll: jndividUa.l septic tanks Source of Water Su��ply individual proXimity of Pows�,-r Lini ,o i Run along Highway' 32 -,Cotelatial for iui-,t1jor lan(i d�.vlsiorlV, axil d.evelopltlOnt: Current land use designations And zoning regulati°ns would allow fox further divisions. 13. rft,%riyozMenta]r S(.t t;in .:o �'r,�� sisal Errv'a.rnz�mE.nt�. c t . �'era�airi a. General. Topor"rapllio, medium --steep hillsides b. Slope:: Range from 5 t:o �J 5 ori parcels 1 and 2 and up to 30% on parcel. Elevation: ApproximatelY800 feet Slope_ krricl Clrax';rc,fi; :�Nl `�oomes-pent2 Association � 13rowh, slightly ,. Typ -o , . acid soils_ with somewhat excessive drainage► moderate subsoil.�er- meability, medium to rapid runo , low inherent fertility U 1,mai,aatt 1{"ac.o,, None _ Natural. HaZ-arils of the Lnnd a, L:.r 'tlrc u,Ike Zone : Tuscan, 140noc:lino Within -S miles to .the southwest I'Yi.l"E Hazard:: ch Jpx riSoil y0, ni l i.�Moderate, .ei' i Low. a tri aC�o Otto y��Little Chic,, Creeek ap elroximaty . 5� miles to ;she N r ri l southeast Appond,jX V page 7a of 9 Discussion Continued. b. Ground water; Unknown c.; Drainage Characteristics: Natural drainage would flowtoward the west and southeast d. Annual Rainfall (normal): Averages.between 35 and 45 i.nchas e. Limiting, Factors: None 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Excellent 6. Acoustic Quality Excellent "J Air Quality: :Excellent Biological lnvironment 8. Vegetation: Native grasses,chaparral and one biqcrer_P` 1 2 9. ' Wildlife Hhtil at : Chaparral and grasses _ Cultural Envirorme:it t 10. Archveological and Historical Resources in the area: N , known to exist oto the site Ili Duttu County General Plan designation:_ Upen-Grating l._5 acres pet DU 12. Existing Zoning: A~2 13. Existing hand Use tin--s:i Lo: Vacant_ 14. Surrounding Area., a. 'Land uses!Vadaftt b. Zoning: A� 2 a e. Gen. Plan dcsi,natiox:s : Agricultural Redential._ d. Parcel. Bizu$t Vary between 42.5±acres and 5.34± acres e. Populatior.: Very low 15. Character of Date and Area : Rural foothill 16. Nearest Urhar, Area:— Chico approximately 8 miles to the southwest 17o n.elevant Sphores of 1111lue"CO! 8 improvomento 2tandar(l.W Urt)m1 Area:., 19. Vivo Protection Sorvico a. Nearest County (Gtato) Piro 8't,abion.,rorest Rand, approximately .7 anile b Wator AvailabilityT r, itruck OLpacitV only. 20. i Schoolo in Area: Elementary school in Forest AAftQh Appendix V page 7b 09 9 TIT. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This proposal is for a lot split of 16.5+ acres into 3 parcels of 3.5+ acres, 3-8+ acres and,9.2+ acres. The project site (AP #57'-05-60) is located apptoxiEately 8 miles northeast of Chico and 7+ miles southwest of Forest Ranch, on Altatina Drive. The topography is characterizdd by medium and steep hillsides with slopes ranging from 5 to 15 percent in the eastern section (on parcels I and 2) and up to approximately 30 percent in western area (parcel 3). Soils are of the Toomes-PentZ Association and vegetation consists primarily of chaparral and grasses. Elevation at the site is approximately 800+ feet: Rainfall averages between 35 and 45 inches per year. The Butte County General Plat Land Use designation for this area is Open -Grazing Land (1-5 acres per DU). Zoning is A"2. The site and surrounding areas are vacant and open for at least a mile in all directions. lbj ce The Construction of residences and associated access roads t . pact and Cover Some soil. 'Zf residential would disruptt remc4�lcon lesser slopes, topographical changes development is rosi:rlcted to the and soil disruptions could be minimitedi le, 3b,c: There is a. high erosion potential in this area and during the construction phase of the ptoject)this potential Would be greatly increased. Construction Of impervious Surfaces Would'gene L,4:e addltiOhAl t-Lottwater tuftOffa TM.b, additional runoff could tau: a an 'Inctoa.se in erosion along tied edge of the access roads and resiClOtIlCle d0ft8truc- tjoyj sites. nrainage ditches may be necessary along the Access x0ads to reduce the erosion potential and to prevent flooding, This is a outulative aonceri'i in this av!5a- r-lid generated by this project will acid to 2ai Any vehicular traffic a cumulative todliction in local air qualit'yi 4a,c: Some lots in vegetation Will Occl-lt from cbnsttuctioh Of residences and associated accent roads. . New specit of plantse. wil), be introduced into the area for landscaping PUtPO908- Sc,d: *,joss of vegetation and development of homesites will reduce In4aroduction of household pets iin'dendnoach upon wildlife, habitat,. do 0 �Ome W31alife in the area. (especially qg)k may 'dj8plac Appendix F - page 8 of 5 79-09-04-01 6a: During construction, noise levels in the area will increase. Upon completion, increased noise Levels would be limited to vehicular racvement and residential uses. 9a,b, 15a: Some natural, resources would be used in cotstruction of residen%es and associated access roads. Upon oampletion., the use of noi.xenewable resources for heating, air conditioning and appliance opbration would occur at a sustained. level. 13a,!: Access to the prcject is via'Altatina Drive which is not an approved public road connection to Highway 32. Prior to approval of this entrance; Cal,* ns has requested environmental study of the aumiulat. ve effects .2 development throughout the a~ a which would be served by this highway connection. Cumulatii 40reases in traffic and traffic hazards is one of several issues to be stud:�ed (others listed in item 22c). 16a,b: Electricity ,and telephone lines run along Highway 32 and will need to be extended into the site. 21: �:,ie presently unrecorded archeological site has recently been found in the vicinity. The entire canyon area is considered to be a potentially sensitive archeological area: An archeological survey should be completed, taking in the project site and areas of potential grading work along the access road including the entrance at Highway 32. 22ct Environmental impacts which would occur, and might be considered significant on a cumulative basis i.naluuo Disa.,uption, removal., compaction and covering of soil. Increaaed erosion Decrease in local air quality Loss of vegetation Deduction in: wildlife habitat Increase use of energy and natural. resources Generation of traffic on Altatlna Drive REVIRED MITIGATIMMEASM8 I a) Adhere to proper site maintenance practices during Construction. b) Replant disturbed areas as noon as possible after construction is completed, c) Construction activities should be restricted to dry woather months. SUGGESTED MITIGA:I?IOX k18ASURE Drainage ditch s �pa�r be recess aloe the accoss roads to reduce eros. n poen*RL a.L dnd to peeve flog Ing Appendix 0' - page 8a of 9 IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION" ri s rEcommended. I find that although the proposed 'project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DPPLARATION IS fi.ECCMM MED. eI find ffect the proposed project noMAY have a signif .:pant on the t and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date /- �. (Signature) For: 9NVIAONMENTAL REVIEW DrWaRTRAMT Reviewed by, Eer+l D: Nelson F',nvironmental Review Director App0ndiX F W pare. of 'i tie StY m'11M PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 PHONE: 534.4601 June 25, 1982 Blackie price 86.3 Linden. Drive Santa Clam , CA 95050 Dear Mr. Price }fie sent some items to you earlier this week, but the Planning Department position concerning this project may not have been clear, Basically, the requirement for arc environmental. impact_report (BIR) still stands based on the initial study and J,etter prepared two and one-half to three years ago in the pall of 1979. The environmental determinations is not changed by a change of property owner - Ship, as has occurred in this instance: Normally, a 15 day appeal perioeI is provided when an Elft is required* in this case, there is no appeal available for the EIR requirement-: }fie received notification from the Environmental Health o vision that their office is ready to consider a tentative. map on the subject parcel. The Advisory Agency could schedule this project for consideration except that the draft tIR has yet to be submitted. You may wish to consider reapplication -with payment of the appropriate fees: A new tentative map should then take into account the factors of concern to Caltrans, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the potentially .significant impacts discussed in the initial study checklist and within the supplemental memorandums, including the+ Planning Director's Report. It is possible that a revised 1 designed to incorporate and implement the application, g ' comments from the sources cited, would result in a different environmental determination. In the event that a focused Elia was still deemed to be necessary, a revised map could elim i2ate or minimize tie discussion of certain factors such as wildlife or erosion impacts. �I Blackie. Price June 25, 1982 Page 2 The EIR should further address the key factors in the initial_ study and supplemental data including effects related to erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, traffic generation on Altatina Drive and Highway 32 and the ctimula.tive effects of development throughout the area which would be served by the public road connection onto Highway 32. Mitigation measures would need to be developed to eliminate or reduce, As much as possible, the potentially significant factors. Alternatives to the project would be part of the environ- mental document. One such alternative would be a two parcel land division with the homesites clustered near the proposed cul-de-sac. If you have further questions regarding this project, please contact our office. Sincerely, R tel nen A. Streeter Senior Planner SASsb cts. Gunnel and Associates To: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Department SUOJECT! Highway 32 Public Road Connections - April 10, Hearing DATE. April 5, 198 The purpose of the public hearing is to .allow input on the three proposed road connections with the assistance of Caltrans repte- sentatives in a support capacity. Since the road connections would ultimately be reviewed for approval by the California Trans- portation Commission, Caltrans staff will be able to respond to questions on steps to be taken subsequent to the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public }fearing on April 10, we would recommend that if public input occurs which requires that responses be made to those comments, we would request that the Board make a "motion of intent to certify the WR subject to responses to the specific comments" and continue final. action on certification of the BIR for at least two weeks to allow staff to prepare the responses. If your Board determines flat no response is necessary .Chen a J recommended motion to certify the >IIR would be "Because we have v reviewed the contents of the draft llnvironine tit al Impact Report; the comment-,,, received thereon, and the yespoils es to those comanents 1, therefore, move that we certify that the final t-Invirotunental Impact Report has been completer) in compliance with the Califoania EnvironmentalQuality Act Guidelines and Butte County Environmental Review Gtiidelines,it It would also beropriate for the Board to forward a recomittenda4 tion that either A the three proposed road connections at 10 utile Rouse, La Castan iirive and Altatina Drive be approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) or 13) recommend that w only the 10 Mile House Road and the Altatina Drive connection be approved by the CTC with a frontage road connecting 10 Mile House Road with the residc;nces in the vicinity of La Castana Drive, (refer to alter• -hive 94 on. Page 43 of the 1,31R). In addition, tht, toard's recommendation oat the mitigations listed. on )age 31 of the IiIR would be of interest to the CTC, Funding mechanisms for improvements at the intersections With Highway 32 are an integral part of approving now public road connections. Mitigation measure #2 would address the funding of highway improve- ments, Require that funds be deposited with the County ;for improvement o.f public road approaches to Caltrans stajtdard8 as a condition Of approval for all: proposed land divisions and subdivisions served by those roads. N� •• Board of Supervisors taghway 32 Page 2 April. 5 1984 Mitigatioij measure #3 also has a beaxingon road construction and maintenance. Form an assessment district to maintain all pxaject area roads. �✓ to County standards. I n summary, this hearing ws somewhat different from other hearings that the Board holds in that the decision to actually approve the public road connections is within the jurisdiction of another public agency, S.n this case the California Transportation Commission. The public hearing is being held within the County in order to facilitate local input. If you have questions about the procedures for the ,April. 10 hearing, -please contcct the Planniag Department prior to next Tuesday. SAS.-Ir Attachment 'i '.i a. " Tworenis ions to t`he EIR suggested by Caltrans in a telephone coY%sor; ation of April 4, 1984. Page 23 last paragraph delete the word "factor" in the ninth line so the sentenco begins to read: "Rased on a peak hour of 140 ...'1w Page 29, second full paragraph delete reference to "900 feet and 'upper highway speed of 60 m.p.h.". Substitute wording would be: "... assuming operating speed of 50 m.p;h. ; 60% o,E the roadway has a passing sight distance of 1500 feet or greater. d r; 11 a { 2 LAND OF t`IATURAI Vv'VAIIII AtiF) 'or,AU TY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLF. CALIFORNIA '95965.3391 PHONES 534-9601 Russ Croninger April 26, 1985 RFC Surveyors - 301 Wall Street Chico; Ga. 95926 Re: Tentative parcel Map for Blackie Price AP 56-39-10 (formerly 56-05-60) 'P r; Dean Russe You recently asked what would be necessary to reactivate the tentative parcel map (TPM) for blra Price, In reviewing our records, we requested a $220,00 fee to proce.ras the map of Mr, Price in April 1,982. b'o'unty records do not show tlsat this fee was ever paid. The original environ mental review tee of '$100.00 which way paid 3n September of 1979 by Karen Ferreira was .applicable to the 1979 project. Any subsequent applications required fees ,in accordance with applicbble regulations. The Highway 32 = certified by the Board of Supervisors on April 10, 1984 and subsequently used by the California Transportation Commission will serve as the primary environmental document though supplemental information specific to tha property is rerluired. Tilt CTR summary states: "Although this CTR is not intended as a blaster EIR for all future development in the Study Area, tho. document may suffice for some projects, and require only supplemental information and analysis fat other development", An EIR deposit to cover the cr:4L of the previ- ously certified LTR Copies for the TPM processing will be assessed. "Che following supplemental information is required for processing of the 'Tentative Flap: 1, Reviow of the mitigation measures in the final ETR for the Highway 52 public road approaches (listed oil pages 13 through 16) as appli- cable to this project, it is recognikod that not all of the mitiga- tion megsutes apply, but those that ate pertiilerit need to be addressed, Refer to the enclosed pages with the 50 mitigation me ,ures from the EIR, 2. An archaeological survey is required due to the high sensitivity for such cultural resources in this vicinity: A list of local consult ants is enclosed for your use. You are free to utilize another qualified archaeologist not listed, it a survey was previously Jana, a-COPY Of tha letter will suffice= out records do not show that such a survey was over completed. i Russ Coni.nger Page -2- April 26, 1585 3. As mentioned in a l:ett,- - 11,„. Frice of June 25, 1982, an alterna- tive proposal for two pot . 10,-lould mitigate a number of concerns, If it were possible to a qt, on an additional 3.5 acres via a boundary line modification with an adjoining parceli two parcels of 10 acres with clustered homesites would be much more likely to receive support from the Department of Fish and Game. Nine to ten acre parcels predominate in this vicinity And are more compatiblewith the Agri- cultural Residential designtion of the General Plan. Staff recommendations for 10 acre zoni;,g in this area have been made as early as 1977. The Jori, Green TPM on AP 56-05-44 was approved by theAdvisoryAgency in December 1980 with parcels of 6,50 11, 13, and 8.8 acres. The Marino Garbis TPH on AP 56-05-61 was approved by the 'Board of Supervisors in June 1982 witli parcels of 8.5, 6.8, and 27.3 acres. 4. Updating of the initial study is required, The document was originally prepared in September 1979 and updated by memorandum in June 1982, The current method of assessing the magnitude of :impacts and tite circumstances have changed sufficiently since 1979 (or even 1982) to justify the current review of the proposal., The Impacts to the Chico Unified School District and the Migrator+t'wildlife impact are two such changes since 1982, We will, continue processing this application upon receipt of your responses to the issues raised, 3 copies of the. tolitat.ive map and the submittal Of a $220.00 ,fee, You will ba notified of the amount for the Gilt deposit After the supplemental i0form6tiQ1 is completed, if you have further questions, please contact our office, Sincerely, S, A, Kircher Director of Planning Stephen A, Streeter Senior Planner SAStIr Encs, ; Pages from Certified EIR of highway 3 (pages 14-17` 20, 27, and 31-36) Consultant list cc! Blackio Price 863 Linden Drive Santa Clara, Co. 95050 Public Works letter only Br vi.ront 6htal. Health - letter only H Ewa Corridor: Potential impacts from erosion at the sites proposed for public road catnections include destabilization of roadbeds and shoulders, siltation of drainage charnels, and removal of topsoil on adjoining Land. Erosion hazards to highway 32 and associated i:orridor P improvements would be satisfactorily mitigated by design stand- ards required by Caltrans for all modifications to state roads~ highways and right-of-way land. Similarly, c oai.oll impacts to private property immediately adjacent to the state right-of-way would be mitigated by Caltrans design standards. 5tuay Area: host erosion would occur d►,,rirtg construction -- grading for roads, especially side -hill outs, would contribute to both wind and water erosion. fare=;ion may also occur in sloping areas cleared of vegetation and not replanted after project completion. Increased storm runoff may erode the banks of existing or new drainage chAnnels,, unless deoign standards adequately address ►site-speclfic conditions. Compliance with County standa,.ds for construction of private roads to serve new parcels, and conformance to "tie County grading ordinance will partially mitigate this hazard. W ti.gatiot t. 1. Private xubdivision roads; should/will tye built to full County stastdards and be peiviitely maintained as such throughout their miltntonance cycle. A lower standard may be considered reasonable for roads which will only serve as let access and will never be sutabia to become County roads; 3. The County should/will require gradin~, permits for erosion a►litigation and control on all now developments and road ;encroachments to provont aol.1 loan during and after road development Itttivities; 4, Adopt and enforce a gvadiN ordinance for all new roads;. 5. perform all Vegetation removals encavut:ioh and grading activities during -he dry won hs, of the year, 6. Rdvegotate exposed sl.opna })riot t., onset of the: rainy seasou i 7. Establish perimeter ►lit«► berms for each building site duri►tg coastructtan to inhibit erosion and to reduce the potential for diltn „ be cni -i: W Into Suess ahantte,lu S. All parted or rubion raVps shall incorPOtate spoci:.fie� drainage irA »o q, ment�it recomm ►tided by the hutte county beportment 0 �►'r.:i,c Slorkg before approval is granted; 9. The County should assume maintenance responsibility only for roads which meet full County improvement standards. {See also; the Report of the Cohaeset/Forest Ranch Planning Area Cowaittee (October, 19831 —for—additional suggested mitigatiol meaaurea.a Earthquake Activity and Fault. Usplacement A primary effect of an 'earthquake is ground shaking --the horizontal and vertical vibration rsf the ground that can result In damage to buildings,, piped, storage tanks, etc. Secondary effects include liquefaction, lurchingo slumping and rockfal.l. The severity of the ground shakLng depends mainly upon the distance to the epicenter of the earthquake, the strength of the earthquake, and nature of soil and rodk at the affected site, The California Division of Mires and Geology places all of Butte County in a ''*,ow" Liarthqunke severity zone. The site lien within the northern extension of the Foothills Fault system, which is generally considered capable of producing a magnitude 6.5 earthquake on the Richter Scale, It is reasonable to expect an eutthquake registering 6,51with the epicenter located 20 Miles from the ai.te; to impact the project area. Maximum probable intensities from earthquakes range from VI to V111 on the Modified Mercalll Scale, which indicates impacts to otructures associated with 'earthquakes having an intensity t11 or greater. An intensiKy WIT would result in moderate damage to unreinforced masonry stNdtutea and slight damage to reinforced well-built structures. Oo evidence of 'recent ftault displacement has been vocorded in this vicinity of the county, however, lineaments visible on air photos of land prbposed for development as Uidwefl heights;, three miles southeast of theproject sites arty probable faults. The date of their last Activity is not known. b Cal forridor., Comiola iceall h design standards required y public road approached to state h,ighwnys would adequately mitigate seismic hazards. Study ,1r�a: Compliance w Lth seismic safety standards in local and state building codes would adequdtely mitigate hazards to atructurts built within the site area: Hits atinnt. 'None proposed. � (0 o wig i} n � n b �' H. HYDROLOGY, IMPACTS Surface Drainage - Flooding tti hwa Corridor: An increase in storm runoff is expected upon completion of roadway improvements' Compliance with design standards required by Caltrans for installation of drainage facilites, grading, energy dissipators and revegetatian of slopes, Will minimize the rate of. runoff and potential for flooding. Due to the small percentage of increase in impervious surface area in compt►rison to the existing amount of highway area within the project area, the increase in storm runoff is dkpected to he insignificant. Study Area: Little Chico Creek 1.9 the only permanent stream in the project vicinity subject to potential. flash flooding from surface storm runoff. Several, drainn9d channels and occasionally steep sloping land would contribute runoff to the stroam.. ntual DevelopmofLseveralrmiles othan 0 untmp raved new frond►n totsterveethose construction sites %yili 'increase 6totm runoff within the prnjr,r.t site and Adja:ent properties. Tha amount of runoff would be secomodated by Little Chico Creek, Lributary drainage channal.s and drainage improvements constructed to titre standards of ►'he County Public liorka beparttnent. Mitigation: All parcel malls ,and subdivision inapd shall intorporate spj;r.lfied drainage improvements recommended by the butte County Public W tl-s. Department before approval is granted. Water Quality. Nighwrly Corridor' There are no surface water bodies in the immedint► vtgi lrty of t1le proposed road connections that would receive aLot0i runoff :from road improvements at the deddea iocationts. Stud Area: Site development In proximity to Little Chico Creek or natural drainage channels discharging into the Greek may inntributedto on attirm 'runoff, of sedimentatian and toxicity he ltitigatiorl;. . X,1. Consult the California Department of fish and Canis before initiating site improvements that would contribute unfiltered ®token runoff directly into Little Chico Creek) II xi implement measurtas rdcotllmended by the state Department of push and Game ddaigneu to protect Little Chico Creek before undertaking any+ atte itnpravemcnts i t A ,_ t I � 3. A11 parcel and subdivision maps shall incorporate specified drainage improvements recommended by the Butte County Department of Public Works before approval, is granted, Typical drainage, improvements include installation of culverts, pipes and energy issipstors, bank stabilization, excavated and cls+Bred; drainage channels, contoured road shoulders, and to a lesser extent, bridge construction. G. AIR RqLLITY IMPACTS The primary source of emissions from project development wruld be vehicular traffic generated by residential buildout. Stationary emissions would be negligible. Table 2 Usplays the composite emission factors for a mik of vehicle classes -- estimated for 1982 and 1995 in grams per mile --for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO.) and total hydrocarbons (T11C). Assumptions incorporated into the following analysis include, Total buildoutr 107 dwelling unit Average trip length (ATL) per D/U- 13 miles Average number of trips (ADT) per D/U per day- 10 Average trip speed (ATS)n 46 m.p.h. (Based on 15Z iof ATL :in project wren at 20 m.p.h.; 15% or ATL .in urban area at 30 m.p.h.; and 10% of A`rL on high%oay at $5 m.p.1l.) Vehicle mist; light duty pasaengerd 71.701 light duty trucks 1$.521 medium duty truck- 1.12% heavy duty gasoline truck*- 3.312 hfeavy duty diesel trucks 5.731 mdtorcyelesu 0.93 Ambient temperature- 15 degrees r, Operatibnal mix! Gold athrt- 21% hot start- 271 hot stable* 521 (Dote: No estimated parameter its included fora variable afficiency mist for all, vehiciea. New vehiclo efficiency is assumed. Viguras for vehicle mix, ambient air temperature and operational "mix ata based on data in Supplement 2 To 1*0cedure � nd 116618 for t§tintr�tin�p On-kdad, Motor Vehicle L�sn_iaai.ov�s J f�ne 19A1, E-2-200 publiahrd by tho state Air Resources Busrd.,, based on the above 'figures) the total d aunt of mt 1es traveledOMT) pf r D/ti per day equals 130, The grand .al of miles traveled (ADVMT) for the entire project at full .ldout (107 b/Os)' in 1955 equals 1.3,910, In 1982 the ADVMT for 1$ blOa is calculated to aqual 1950. D. HABITAT AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS Highway Corridor:, The amount of vegetation disturbed or removed within the improvement areas of the three. proposed road connections would total less than two acres. A botanical survey of areas that would be impacted by toad improvements wan conducted in April, 1983. No new, populations of rare and endangered plant species were discovered. 'Less than 10 Plagiobothrys seriptus individuals were identified near the southeast corner of the l,a Castana and Highway 32 junction; since this pyant is not endangered and occurs in local abundance, no significant impact is expceted. Habitat within 100 yards of the proposed road connections east of highway 32 would be directly impacted by disturbance or removal of vegetation, noisc and a probable increase in traffic. The amount of habitat aftected, as a percentage of available habitat in this ridge area, is considered negligible. Study Atea:_ Several potential rate plants may exist within the boundaries of the larger project site. Plants of special concern include the rare and endange red Red Bluff itusii (Juncos leiospermus) and Butte County Check Hallow (Sidalcea robunta); rare but not elidangtrad plants that may occur on the project site include Astragalus paupercul,us, Calyeadenin cosi"tifolia; Mimu lud glaucescenst Polygonum bidwelliae,and Plaginbotht'ys scriptus., The 1,500 acres of project area also Serves as a habitat for a great variety of wildlife in the foothills, including resident and migratory deer. ttemoval of substantial amounts of vegetation and an inoreane ita human and domestic animal populations may adversely affect indigenous wildlife, unless carried out pursuant to a regional conservation pian. (See Appendix "B" .for full text of botannical report.) Miti,ga lora All parcel and subdivision mapta sbal,l require that inittal environmental studies be ;performed on project site's as part of th•a conditions of approval. Mitigated Negative Declarations and Mb should be considered as a means of reducing threats to endangered and/or rare plant species and wildlife,- Development ildlife.Development that occurs should be in conformance with a regional wildlife tonservati,on plan and Conservation Llement in the County General plan. timitod open spaces should be planned to assure presetvation of deer migratton routers► E "LAND USE IMPACTS Uph, way Corridn,r._ Less than two uc:rt a of open, though partially improved land, will be :further graded and covered with impervious surfaces. 'rile improvements would alter a fractional am,6unt of the total acteage in this urea: The impact is mi lthal. 20 Mitigation: 1-A. Zone all land within the present Agricultural - Residential land use classification one of tva following': A -S, AR -5, TM -5, or FR -5, subject to findings of conformity with the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed for this land Use classification. These zoning and development criteria include: a. Compatibility with neighboring agricultural activities; b. Evidence of adequate water and aewase disposal capacity; c. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities; d. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service .the area; e. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools. OR 1 -,ll. Amend the at neral Plan classification from A -R to foothill. Area Residential (FAR), and zone this acreage A-5, ARt5 FR -5i or TM -S. These zones are identified an "consistent" under the FAR land use designation, and are not required to meet conditional zoning and development criteria. 2. For .land now designated GOL and zoned A-2, rezone to TH 40. Remaining Acreage currently classified CAT, is now zoned 'TM- (� 40. 1 14 i private roads have a right"of-way 60 feet wide, a minimum road width of 20 feet, and the surface covered at least once with a layer of gravel. Current traffic volume for the two roads is estimated at 126 ADT; by 1995 this figure will have grown to 899 ADT, an increase of over 600%. The high erosion hazard to soils in the project area, combined with heavy rainfall and an vast increase in ADT by 1995, pose a serious hazard to road stability and. erosion of adjacent banks extending below the road Eroding road shoulders may decrease the carrying capacity of storm drainage channels, or completely obstruct them, and potentially increase water quality hazards to Little Chico Creek. Potentia], erosion, safety and circulation prohlems along with recommended mitigations—discussed earlier in this chapter under subsections Land Use Element and 'Transportation Element (Section E, Land Ilse Impacts) suggest that current county standards for construction of private roads --particularly foe drainage and safety improvements -must be substantially upgraded. rtit "ti 1. Construct project area roads to county standards; unlesa roads exclusively serve as driveways to interior lots; �h 2. Require that funds be deposited with the county for improvement of public road approaches to Caltrans standards as a condition of »pproval for all „proposed land divisions and subdivisions served by those roads; 3. Form an assessment district to maintain all project area roads to County standards; 11' Vie. All road dystems, both public and private, should provide for adequate emergency Access for evacuation of area residents and access for emergency vehicles; 1� 5. Land development applications should asaces the Potential impact on traffic accidents and estimate the impacts on law enforcement; r 106. The couty shall assume tesponsibility for maintaining. only those roads built to county standards. (NOTE; the effects or tumulati,ve ADT on Highway 52 and the Chico urban area are didcussed in Chapter XIV of this document.) C. NOI89 IMPACTS- The. Butte county Noise Element primarily dddresses ambient noise levels that interfere with common outdoor living activities, or activities conducted in dhclt'sed spaces. The Element states that a maximum community toile level of Ldn 60 �t V d lb Q7 06 .`' dB is required "to provide a suitable noise environment inside buildings... This standard may not be low enough to permit unhindered speech communication outdoors. Speech communication is severely hindered 10 -len background noise levels rise to 50-55 dBA" Highway Corridor: Highway 32 is identified as a "highspeed" roadway, where noise levels greater than 60 dB would be expected within '200 fee: of the high°Tay. Since existing residences are now located beyone 200 feet from the highway, traffic noise levels for most peLiods throughout the day and night should be acceptable. Study Area: No significant impact, is expected. Mitigation: Require future subdivision and parcel maps to identify an excessive traffic noise zone extending 200 feet from and parallel to the pavement edge of SR 32. Construct noise barriers, require setbacks andinsulate residences to reduce noise, to help avoid residential/traffic corridor conflicts H. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS Schools- Highway don ido;r: A vt:ry slight increase in AAT would be expected from bus service and other vehicles trnnsporting students to and from Chico area schools. This is not considered a significant impact. Study. Area: Students within the project area would attend schools in the Chico Unified School District, According to the school district, the following reserve capacities were calculated for the "1981-82 school year: Parkview Elementary Schoolid 130; Chico Junior High School- 300; Chico Senior High Schools 400-500. School officials estimate that the student population. Within the District aver ges .43 students per household. Full project buildout (101 dwe,llt,ng units) would be expected to get►erate 46 new students. Parkview Elementary School and Chico Junior high School would eneh receive approximately 25x (12) of these students, while an estimated 22 students would attend Chiito Senior High School; The impact of these new students would reduce theresent, reserve capacity at Parkview Elementary School by 9X; at Chico Junior High 'School by 4%,, and at Chico Senior High School by 4z- 6%. These impacts are not considered significant. Projected reserve capacities for schools in the Chico Unified School System for 1095, when project buildout Is scheduled for completion, is indetetam nate If schools sorvi r; the projeet area were at capacity, then the generation of any now students may be considered significant'. P Mitigation: , 1. Arrange for transfer of project students to schools that have reserve capacity; 13 2. Add temporary classrooms to schools at capacity; �J 3. Formulate a development impact fee for all subdivisions (creation of. S or more new parcels) to defray additional exPenses to the district. Police Protection -. Corridor. None. Study Area! The construction of 92 more residences in the project now exist) would slightly increase the demand for services from the Butte County Sheriff's Department. The area is not regularly patrolled, and response time to the project site averages 10'-20 minutes, dependtng upon the location of patrol vehicles. No plans currer.11} exist for increasing law enforcement in the Forest Ranch area. Many tesidents, decision - makers and Sheriff's Department administrators consider the above response'itimes inadequate Mitatibn:, Nolte proposed. Fire Protection iii hwa Corridor: None. Study. Area, Uevolopment of the proposed p:tiPject w01 Increase the demand for derVices from the Butte Cbunty Fire DepartmentjCalif ornio Department of Forestry: Narrow unimproved roads constr'uc'ted over difficult terrain will increase tesponse times to future residences located in th(: more remote areas of the project situ. Response time may exceed 20 minutes for the first engine for several locations in the eastern portions of the project area, The fire dtpartment cunsidcts a response time beyond 20 minutes inadequate for effective fire auppressioni Mltigatioil: Futura development in the ace& dhou9d implement dl. recammended standards by the 4CF/CDF for 'road and bridge deei,gtt, construction materials, site pf.apara'tion and maintenance, and itatal'lation Of individual and/or community fire protection fariliti'ce+ For fire prevention and structural safety) the fire department includes the follot "L requirements%recnmmenilAt,� ohs, which could become conditions appiled to home builders at time of construction: 1'c A ane -half each spark a.rreattna tteah screen be installed on chimneys for fireplaces And woodburhing stoves; ?{ 2. Roofing and siding materials should be constructed of fire resistant materials; 3. Clear all flammable vegetation for 30 .feet around ail structures, unless erosion hazards are created; otherwise mow grass and remove all dead fuel on the ground from within 30 feet of any structure; 'rq 4. Construct fuel breaks between homesites according to fire departmen+ specifications. 1 tlClitl�� l Hi hwu Corridor: No significant f ,_,f�.,Y� $ .mpae}, expected.. Stud Area: The following impacts are expected to occur only in the project area as a result of expansion of utility services and facilities required for future project residences; Natural Goa and Electricity. Power lines may need to be extended to dlEferent areas within the project site. Pacific Cas & t rn c E) has not identified any special problems withprovi g service to the project area. Natural gas in riot avaiable to thin area. Mitigation: None proposed. Water: Domestic water in supplied by individual wells o+i each ,F).Aro-el. Since the butte County Hnvironmental Health Department required proof of water for approved of a patcei or subdivision map, this adequately mitigates i tide.terminnte water availability. Mitigation' Hone proposed. Sem bieponal Sewage disposal for the project will be accomplished by individual septic tanks and leachfields. The Butth County Environm+antal Hoolth Department regulates the inetellaton of theae systemti. Projsct site conditions must meet Environmental health Department atandardd for approval of parcel and subdivision maps. This County agency adequately mitigates potentinl sewage disposal impacts. Mitigation: Hone proposed. Telt, hh6dg. pacific Telephone Company pvbvidea telephone service along Highway 32 and would serve the project area: 'the 34 Company has expressed no special problems with serving residences in this area of the county. Mitigation; None proposed. I. ENERGY CONSUMPTION Hi hwa —Corridor: No significant impact expected, 5t_Z Area: Aftnv Full buildout, project traffic will generate 1,070 trig, per day, assuming an average of 10 trips per dwelling unit p� y. Based upon an average trip length of 13 miles, total logged mileage from project traffic would amount to 13,910 miles per day. If the mix of project vehicles averages 25 cn.p.g., project traffic would consume 556 gallons of ,fuel per day, or 202,940 gallons of gasol.ne and diesel per year. This ercent of the total consumption would likely be less than 1.0 p vehicular fuel consumption of county residents in 1995, and is not considered significant. The typical re— fence ih Butte County consumes an average of 15,065 itilowatt-hours annually. At full buildout project reoidencen would use approximately 1.6 million kilowatt-hours per year. This consumption would amount to a very small portion of total residential useage throughout the county in 1995, and in tot considered significant. P Mitigation- Mitigation measures would include extra building iIndividual nsubdivisi in and Line of solar energy for heating, on project designs should confo" to passivo solar access criteria specified in Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Acta J: CULTURAL RSSOURCES Highway+ Corridor: A profeesionill archaeologist conducted a Harvey in the vicinity of the proposed road approaches and along Highway 32 for several yards in both directions from existing road locations. No evidence of prehistoric or early hidtoric activities were discovered. The report states that "no prehistoric remains were expected due to the Jack of Outface water . within. the61 AtCdts:i Ahthbugh the old. Humboldt 1V,14d passed through thl,s area of the county, no evience of �xi6hence Vila observed: Wagon ruts from this historic road exist north and ©ouch of the project area, but have likely been dedtroye4 by the present highway on the project site. No 'significant impert is expected from project imp1emohtati0t1 (See Appendix "di tot 'full toxt of archaeological report.) c Ritigatiort:. None ptopodr d 1 r 0 35 u Study Area: Significant prehistoric or early historic sites potentially exist elsewhere on the p10ject site, particularly along the banks of Little Chico Creek. Sites may also exist on proximate bluffs or major drainage channels. ?� Mt�ions The County should require the c mpletion of xrchaeologica~l surveys in sensitive areas prupo, d for lana division 'before any improvements are initiate~ and as a condition of approval for parcel and subdivision mapa. Mitigated Negative Declarations and EIits should, of course, be required wh,�re potential impacts appear significant. VIII. UFFECTS DETEBi4INED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The following project effects uppn the physical and urban environments have been evaluatzd as insignificant. This means that adverse impacts would be of ouch low intensity or magnitude that substantial mitigation would not be required to reduce them to wn acceptable level; however, in certain areas some mitigation measures have been recommended simply to assure minimal iopacte'- inview of potential, adverse cumulative impacts. Effecto Found Not Significant I. CeOI281 Subsidence, volcanism and expansive soil haxnrda in the highway drri.dor and Study Area. frocks -lidos and landfalls in the highway corridor. 2. Hydrology Vloodtng and pollution of surfaee water from urban runoff in the highway corridor. 3. Airunlit begradat ion of atr quality in the hightisy `corridor and Study Ates and county`: 4. Traffic An increase in traffic hatards and congestion in the highway corridbr. 3b