Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-063~" ;' :~,~ C4UN'TY` OF BUTTE, ~T~4fiE OF' CA~LIF4R~NIA .~ ~i.esolufion No. ~~-6~ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, a private person (Clay E. Gunn, Edward VanGooden) has petitioned the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, .through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element for a change from Grazing and Open to Commercial for that property identified on Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning has held hearings on the General Plan Amendment requested by (Clay E. Gunn and Edward VanGooden) at which all interested persons were heard and after careful study recommends the adoption of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has considered the contents of the Initial Study (Environmental Checklist - Appendix F) and Negative Declaration for the proposed amendment as described above attached hereto as Exhibit B, pursuant to the CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendment proposed by Clay E. Gunn and Edward VanGooden at which all interested persons were heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the Butte Gounty Board of Supervisors does hereby adapt and certify the Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment requested by Clay E. Gunn and Edward VanGooden pursuant to the CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the land use designation from Open and Grazing to Commercial, for the area identified on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code ~6S3S9, the General Plan of the County of Butte is endorsed to show that the above amendment has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd day of April, 1984 by the foliowing vote: AYES: Supervisors Bolan, Fulton, Moseley, Wheeler and Chairman Saraceni NOES : None ABSENT : None NOT VOTING : None C~ ~. ....... AL SARACENI, CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: MARTIN J. NTCHOLS Chief Administrative Offices and Caerk of the Board By Legal description Clay E. Gunn: Being a poxtion of the j1r 1/2 of Section 27, T21N R3E MDB~x1~~, and being more particularly described as follows: ...Beginning at the intersection of the easterly right-of-titiTay line of Clark Road with the southerly right-of-way line of Durham-Pentz Road; thence following along said southerly boundary line of Durham--Pentz Raad, easter~.y for ~-b7 feet; thence southerly, parallel to said easterly boundary line of Clark Road for 467 feet; thence westerly, parallel to said southerly boundary line of Durham-Pentz Road for 467 feet to a point located in said easterly boundary line of Clark Road; thence folla~eJing along said easterly boundary line, northerly for 467 feet to said point of beginning and containing 5 acres, moxe ox Jess, appxoxi~tately 10 miles north of OxovilJe. ,~~ ~, i ) i ~ _' °a ti APPENDI;~ COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM {to be complete by Lead Agency~ile # 84- 35 Lod # 83-12-09-04 AP ~ 41 ~-12 - 7 b (ptn) "i . BACKGROUND 1 . Name o f proponent ~ Clay E . Gunn _~_____ . _ . __ _ 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable} P. 0. fox 4~.b0 Chico CA 95927 3. Project description General Plan Amendment ~ Rezone ~ I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES A'IAYBE NO a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife polf~.~lation to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number_or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate ,important examples of. the major periods• of California history or prehistory? ~- ___ h. Does the project have the potential to achieve 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 . ) _._._._ ____ ~- .~ ~, Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two ox more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ___ __,_. ci. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ____ _.___ III . DE'PERAIINATIQN {To be completed. by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial. evaluation: I/WE find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ~`~ on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I/Wh find that although the proposed project could have a signifi- cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant e~#'fect in this case because the P1ITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on 'Y~ the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I)A'1'}i: January .3, .1984 ~.. COUNTY OF BUTTE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Lour ~ . u~ttle - • Assistant Planner ite~riewed bv: r IV. ENVIRQNMENT4L IMP.r.CTS xp anations o all "yes " and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheet(s)) YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either an or off-site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, ar changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. bass of prime agriculturally productive sails .~ outside designated urban areas? ~_ h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure ar similar hazards? Z, AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? C.~' b. The creation of objectionable odors, -smoke or fumes? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, 'locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either h aters? f i w res ne or mar b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ar the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Need far off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- izatian or culvert installat~.an? ~ ~~ . d. Alterations to the cauxse .or flow of flood • waters? . ~ e. Change in the amount of surf ace .water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface watexs, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved ozygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction ar rate of flow }~-~ ground waters? of h. . Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions of with- drawals, ar through interception of an .~y aquifer by cuts ar excavations? /~ i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? -Z_ YES MAYBE NO --- 4. PLAINT LTFE. Will the proposal resui-t in substantial: a. C ange in the diversity of species, or nu:r~3~er of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers 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? .' 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal resui*_ in substantial: a. C ange 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 ar 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? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ~. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LTGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce s~.gni scant light and glare? ~, $. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a su~stan~tial alteraltion of the present or planned Land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources ? ,~, 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the :~ti. ~ event of an accident or upset conditions? b. 1]ossible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, ~istributa.on, density, or growth rate of the human population? i2. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ~~ ~ ~ : ~ -3- . ~ ., r'. YES rzAY~E No 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand far new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods ? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUELIC SERVICES. Wili the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: a, Pire protection? ..- ~ b. Police protection? ~ _~ c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. A4aintenance of public facilities, including roads? ,~ f. tither governmental .services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of~substantial amounts of fuel.or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ,~ 15. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b~. Communications systems? c. Water: d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any he altli hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ~, 1$. AESTHETICS. Wi11 the proposal result in the o struct~on of any scenic vista ar view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? -4- V, x ~a Mx~ ts~ Nu l9. REGREATTUN. Wi11 the proposal result in an impact upon the quality ar quantity of existing recreational oppo-rtuni'ties? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will t e proposal result in the alteration of or the aestructior. of a prehistoric or . historic archaeological site? ~ ~• b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d, Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? DTSGUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 41-12--76 lb, 3b: From 10--300 of the site will be graded, compacted and ov er- covered by development. On-site absorption will decrease proport ion- a11y and surface runoff wi11 .increase. 1e,f: Any increase in surface xunaff has the potential to erode soils and deposit them as 'sediment in drainage ways and the creek. lg: Pentz and Petexs soil series have a high suitability far ext ensive grazing. Sma11 parcels are not viable for grazing; the lass of 5 acres is not significant. 1h: -Butte County Safety Element Maps indicate foothill fault deline- ations run through the property. Pxecise location of the fault wi11 have to be determined by a qualified geologist. Building setbacks from the fault and adherence to the Uniform Building Cade for seismic areas will minimize hazards. 2a: Viewing only the proposed project (as opposed to full commercial buildout), it may be that the net result is a decrease.in air pollution. Persons residing in the area will not. have to travel as far for gasoline and food stuffs. ~ ' 3c: Butte County Public Works requires fu11 drainage improvements on commercial buildings. Storm water-could be pumped to Clear Greek 3/8 mile west of the property, or xeleased as sheet flow over the re- mainder of the ariginal~parcel. Tf s~o~rm water is released as sheet flow, a flow easement will be necessary. 3f: Storm water ,runoff will carry with it petroleum products and hydro 'carbons washed off of roadway surfaces. ' 4a;b,d: Na significant vegetation is growing on-site; a sma11 vernal pool has been mapped 3 miles downstream along Glear Creek. -5- AP 4112-7b DI5~Ci1SSI0N OF ENVIR'ONMENTAL~ EVALUATION {continued) Sd: Flow levels in Clear Creek should be sufficient to dilute pollutants washed off of paved surfaces. During upset conditions (leaky fuel tank; etc.) fish may be adversely affected. ba: Noise levels will increase with activity but will not be significantly higher than that generated by Highway 191 (Clark Road), 7a: Lighting on-site could be noticeable against the primarily dark surroundings. 8: Currently the property and bulk of those surrounding it are used for grazing. No where in the vicinity are thexe developed commercial uses. General Plan designations within the vicinity are Open and Grazing and Agricultural-Residential to the east and along. the 191 corridor to Paradise. Butte College is Quasi-Public. No. question that the project will significantly change the existing land use. One Could d1'sCUSS whether it will result in a change of the proposed land use. A number of years ago, Butte County under- took a planning study within the central Butte area, of which the project is a paxt. Even though the study was never completed., staff notes indicate a need for a small commercial center to service local residents. At this time one must travel a minimum of 7 miles for gasoline or food stuffs. Comments on .possible impacts to Butte College operations and environs pending notification from the campus administration. 10a: 5tarage tanks and distribution-lines could Teak gasoline into the sail, water table or surface water. Following fire department and 05HA standards for storage. and handling~of flammables should minimize possiiale safety hazards. 11, 12: Commercial centers effectively make open land mare attractive for development, particularly residential development. From that viewpoint, commercial uses can be growth inducing. On the positive side, area residents won't have to travel as far far services. Negative impacts include: Increased service demand in outlying areas. Wide range of environmental impacts resulting from development including its effect on grazing operations. In order to quantify the growth inducing capabilities of the project, staff discounted all. lands under L.C.A. and those which have Open and Grazing general plan designations. Neighboring sections 22 and 26 have Agricultural-Residential designations and AR-MH-3 and A-2~ SR-~5 zoning. They are the areas most likely to develop as a result of the project and total 1280 acres. . Appendix F ~ page b AP 41-12-76 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued} 13: Traffic generation is tabulated .by use: Cafe 162 ADT/1000 sq. ft. Gas 990.1 ADT/ac Market 426.7 ADT/1000 sq. ft. 322.6 ADT/1000 sq. ft. ADT Range 1828 -2242 Assuming l0e cr oss use Total: ADT Range 1646 ~ 2018 Required parking by use: Cafe Market Gas Traffic counts x 1325 - 219 x .33 ac = 327 x 3975 - 16961 x 3975 W 12822 1 per 3 seats or no less than 1 per 200 sq. ft. x 1325 = 7 1 per 200 sq. ft. x 3975 - 20 - 43 Pentz east of 191 - 1050 (1983) west of 191 = 1770 (19$3) 191 at 70 - 3100 (1981) 1Department of Transportation 2Butte County Transportation Element 3Section 24-35 specifies 8. On similar projects staff has recommended 4 since automobile repair/service is not provided. Traffic generated by the project will be a substantial increase over what exists. Of greatest concern is the impact to Pentz/ 191 intersection, in texms of volume,. travel speed, and access. If access from 191 is utilized,. turn lanes might be necessary to minimize traffic conflicts, and an encroachment permit from Caltrans is required. Access onto 191 would create safety hazards, and minimize traffic capacity of the intersection. Staff recammends access only on Pentz, located as far from the intersection as possible. Appendix F - page 7 AP 41-12-7b DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION (continued) 14: Response time for the first 3 fire engines are adequate. Butte College Volunteer 4 minutes #45 Durham 6 minutes #b3 Oroville GDF 10 minutes 1ba: PG~E has indicated their transmission lines crossing the property will have to be relocated at developers expense; otherwise the required setbacks may make the site unuseable. 16d: Environmental Health has notified staff that adequate sewage disposal capacity will have to be proven prior to any development. 16e: Provisions for storm water drainage wi11 be necessary. 17b: Potential health hazards include exposure to high voltage transmission lines and earthquake activity. 18: Much of the central Butte area is unspoiled with sweeping vistas of the foothills. II. c. Project cumulative impacts are those items checked with a "Yes" or "Maybe" on the initial study. Area impacts from this, Chateau Park {Dan Hays Industrial Subdivision) and Parrot Ranch include: traffic generation overcovering of the soil drainage erosion destruction of area vernal pools population increases growth inducement impacts on grazing operation. government services impact an existing setting ~ economic viability of commercial enterprises on Butte College Campus • Appendix F - page 8 _. Applicant: Clay E. Gunr. Asp .~or's Parcel # 41-12-76 DATA SI3EET ERD Log ~ 83-12-09-04 A. Pro.~iect Description '~. Type of Project• General Plan Amendment and Rezone 2. Brief Description:General Plan Amendment from Open Land F Grazing to Commercial, Rezone from A-160 to C-C on 5 acres ,~„ 3. Location: Southeast corner f Pentz roads 4. Proposed Density of Development: Store, cafe, gas and parking 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: High 6. Access and Nearest Public Road{s}:Pentz Road, Clark Road intersection 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Septic $ . .Source of Water Supply : We 1 ~. g Proximity of Power Lines: PG~E line crosses property 'ID. Potential for further land divisions and development: Unknown B. Environmental Settin Ph sisal Environment: '~ . Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Upper valley/lower foothill b. Slopes: 0-5% c. Elevation: 300-310 ft. A.S.L. d. Limiting Factors: •- 2. soils a. Types and Characteristics: Peters: 6-24", dark gray, clay, well draining. Pentz less than ZO", dray, brawn, sandy loam, moderate Permeability, well draining. _ .__ ,_ b. Limiting Factors• Slow permeability, slightly acidic 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone:„Foothill Fault Zone through property_ b,~ Erasion Potential:Sli ht-Moderated. Fire Hazard: Moderate-Extreme c. Landslide Potential: Moderate e. Expansive Soil Potential: High 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Clear Creek ~/8 mile west of site. Zone A 00 oun ary. nr,.,,n,~,... ~, Data. Sheet continued ~ 4.1 - .~ ~ - ~~ e b. Ground Water: Unknown resource c. Drainage Characteristics: Soils well draining d. Annual Rainfall {normal): 30-35 inches e. Limiting Factors: slow permeability of soils ~. Visual/Scenic Quality: Hi h1 scenic foothill vistas 6. Acoustic Quality: High_ _ 7. Air Quality: Hi h Biological Environment: 8. Vegetation: Native ve etation, grasses, scrub brush 9. Wildlife Habitat: Livestock, birds, small mammals Cultural Environment: 'l0. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: Law 'I'I. Butte County General Plan designation: Open and Grazing 'I2. Existing Zoning: A-160 -~3. Existing Land Use on-site: Vacant ' 'l4. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: Butte Co11e e, dr crops, irrigated pasture, rural residential b. Zoning: A-1b0, A-5, P--Q_ _ c. Gen. Plan designations: 0 en Land Grazin A ricultural- Residential d. Parcel Sizes: _b40 - 20 generally greater than 200 acres~_` e. Population: Sparse '15. Character of Site and Area: Rolling grazing land 16. Nearest Urban Area: Paradise, 7z miles north, Chico + 12 miles nw ~7. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Butte College campus 'l8. Improvements Standards Urb an Area: Outside of urban areas 1g. Fire Protection Service: CDF #63 (Oroville) 10 min. a. Nearest County {State) Fire Station: B•G. #45 (Durham) 6 min. u b. Water Availability? Pum er truck 20. Schools in Area: Butte College within Durham Unified Appendix F. PH{LIP A. LY©QN Consulting Geologist 2948 San Verbena Way, Cbico, Califamia 95926 (9'16y 343-927T January 12, 19$4 SEISMIC HAZARD A2' CL2aRK AND PENTZ ROADS, BUTTE COUNTY INTRODUCTION A 5-acre parcel located on the southeast corner of Clark and Yentz Roads is being proposed for a change to commurzity- commercial zoning. Because of the .proximity of the site to a fault shown on the County General Plan Map II-~1, the County requires an analysis of seismic hazard on the site. I exam- ined the property on January 11, 1984. Topography of the site is gentle; maximum relief is between 5 and 10 ft over the whole parcel. A flat, bench- like area forms the western part of the site, whereas a meandering, intermittently--flowing stream course and associat- low ground occupies the lower, eastern part. GEOLOGY AND SOIL The site is underlain by sandstone and conglomerate of the Tuscan Formation, on which rests brown to reddish-brown soil of the Tuscan series. Tuscan soil consists of a thin cabbly loam overlying a hard; cobbly clay; a hardpan at depths of 8 to 24 inches is common (Soil Conservation Service 1967). Sedimentary rocks of the underlying Tuscan Forme are inclined very gently southwestward; they ar~~np~~t and moderately-well indurated, and overall.u~'Fi uld;, Y~a~e moderate permeability. ~'~ ~ ~ ~~~°~ ~t°JA~~ SEISMIC HAZARD A map accompanying this report shows the location of the - Lydon page two . , ~:. January l2, 1984 ~ ~- parcel, faults scaled from Map IT-l of the County General Plan, and lineaments either observed on infra-red air photos or mapped by Harwood et al. (1981). A lineament consists of aligned vege- tation or topographic features, usually visible on aerial photo- graphs. They can be caused by faults, but also by non-fault features such as changes in rock type, layering within rock types, or mineral banding. There is no evidence from either air photos ar site examination to indicate the presence of a fault on the parcel. The two faults shown on Map IT -1 of the County General Plan were not seen in the infra-red air photos, nor were they mapped by the later work of Harwood et al. {19$1). Nevertheless, the parcel lies within the northern extension of the Foothills Fault System; faults within the System are generally. considered capable of producing a magnitude 6.5 earthquake (evid- ence is summarized by Div. Mines and Geology Staff 1979}. Parts of the Foothills Fault System that gave evidence of activity dur-, ing the 1975 Oroville earthquake are thought to extend north and northwest, to coincide with the Chico monocline east of Chico (Dept. Treater Resources 1979) . Following the 1975 earthquake, a Consulting Board for Earth- quake Analysis re-evaluated seismic hazard in the Oroville area, and recommended that Oroville Dam be considered potentially sub- ject to a nearby earthquake having these characteristics: magnitude 6.5; maximum horizontal acceleration 0.5 g; predominant period 0.4 sec; and duration (a ~ 0.05 g} 20 sec (Dept. Water Resources 1979}. An earthquake having about these same charac- teristics is probably a reasonable expectation anywhere within the Foothills Fault System or its proximate extension. Secondary earthquake effects can include liquefaction, lu~hing, and differential settling. The compact, clayey nature of most of the soil on the site indicates that liquefaction and lurching should not be a problem. Differential settling or spreading of soil could be a problem when saturated, plastic soil under a large building is vibrated vigorously during.. an earthquake; this would be equally true of incorrectly-designed or -placed fill. The problem . Lydon' page three- January l2, 1984 could be aggravated i•f part of the structure is on thin and part of it on thick soil or fill. Adequate mitigation should be pro- vided by routine engineering project design and surface treatment prior to placement of commercials-type structures, CONCLUSION There is no evidence of a fault on or adjacent to the parcel. The site, in common with others in the region, should be consider- ed potentially subject to a nearby earthquake having magnitude 6.5 and peak horizontal acceleration 0.6 g. Differential settling or spreading of soil might be a problem, but should be mitigated by ordinary engineering practice. REFERENCES CITED Butte County,'1977, Final Butte County General Plan: County '' Planning Department, unpublished, Sec. II, Seismic Safety Element, 23 p. plus maps, scale approx. 1:250,000. Department of Water Resources, 1979., The August 1, 1975, Oroville earthquake investigations: Calif. Dept. Water Resources Bull. 203-78, 669 p. Division of Mines and Geology Staff, 1979, Technical review of the seismic safety of the Auburn damsite: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Special Pub. 54, 17 p. Harwood, D.S., et al., 1981, Geologic map of the Chico monocline and northeastern part of the Sactramento Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Map T-1238, scale 1:62,500. Soil Conservation Service, 1967: Report and general soil map, Butte County, California: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 33 p. plus appendices, map scale 1:125,000. r~L~ ~' ~' Q-i-~_ Philip A. Lydon California Registered Geologist # 144 Enclosed: Map showing location of parcel and nearby faults and lineaments r r i •: ~ br r- i I '7 r, '~ j~is ~%if1 ~ ~~` \ !~ ii 5l. i -•~~.i~7'( „` - , . ~~ ~ rr' -~~~ `i .n(. /J r l ti:•u'f~~./ ~!<rn l ll. NiliSl~lr.. ...r:.~C •I~ 6';' ~ 11 r r r !~ ' ~f r I ,~' ,~~~ J ..,~, fJ) ti,,~-~ Ji «f~ll~si41;.`';",1 IACATION OF PARCEL AND 'f: l ., y~ • ~ r, ,f~~ ' + ;1~-, .~~ ~ ~ ,~ r ,~ f; ~~ NEARBY FAULTS AND :~ ~ • -' - ~ ~1~. ;, g ""~ ' S ~ t:ti~' ~,ti ~ LINEAMENTS 1 ~~ ~ ~ ==~~- ~ ~ ~ : ~ ,, - ,,3~ ~~~I?%•l~i~'~~(~;~1~`!! . nt~S}~11~1`.k1',Gr~l1~Cr~-v~ L. '\, -/ ~ °`` ~;, r" ~~ ,.~`\ Jf. '~~`~.. ~ ~ LINEAMENTS ~~,~.`~) ~. /, I !`'-~ h! ~~ ..,:: ,~,'~~ ' ~,::. 1„ . from air photos • ... ; ~~• _ ~r . / ~ .f~ s'~~` .~` ~ ~ i`1 ~I~ r~• ~ from Harwood ,~ .. ; s .1~, • ~~ ~~ ~~JV et al. 198]. t ~~ ~ ; / C. +~~ ~~ ~,~ J X91 #i •.h6 't~~ J llff,, ~ 7 ~ ~`~ FAULTS '~ i'~•``~~~1 , ~' J ~ 8 a from General ' ~ . _ k ~~ ~__ ~~ ~ o Plan Map TT -1 ~, ,J ~ d' ~,'`' o ~ P.A. Lydon Jan. 12, 1984 ~ ~ ~ • ~•xb~ ~ :~ 1 e .~ ~ ............ n 7 , ~ ~ ~ ~e+ ' •.. . C•.. . f ~ ~ _ ,i ~ ,_ # ... I ~'~~ . - ~ , ..... r L..~ ,, --.,~ ,, ~~> ;'i ~Y~~'...:.:r r,i te~ It ;~ .. ' ... ;: ... . .. ... .. ., .~ ~. ~ ..za..:~• ~: ` .''l ~ r~ ..1 ^ J ~ ~ Vii.. ... ~~ •j ~::~.' ^~.'• wok.. ,~. r ..} D ••~••': 1 ~~'` .. -sir :.:a:~:~ ~~... ~: - t ::':.' t'i'. ~•~~ 'x' -r ~ .... _~ .,. `.fir; .~.I .. p~~ -~ ~ ~ ~ r- ., i C .:f ~j ~. •~ iq: •~ .y ~p t I ~`.%1 ~-~^T?O•:!~` t ,240 ~- ...~~ •~ .n~., '~-, f.2~ #1. - a f 7 - - 39°3T3+ ~~14. 4~. •IMTRR/q/I.f10LOO1CA~.Ywv[r,MrA.NIMOTOM,PL-}.7O z.eo+;av°r°r ~Eioat~~ ~2~~3T~ ' ~17~"' E. '~, ROA© CLA55tFECAT10N .'~. t MILE Heavy-duty ~.~ Light-duty -~----~ ~r~~ rood taoo FEET Medium~uty .~..~- UnimproNed dirt ......... •• 1 KILDMETEN t~ 1 State Route -- . cur ~,~~„~, th` r_bHVON.C-4LiF. ~~ Clay E. Gunn AP 41-12-76 (ptn) File # $4-~5 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Gas tanks installed to comply with the Uniform Fire Code and N.E.P.A. handbook #30. 2. Install a 10,000 gallon water tank with drafting connections. 3. Authorize PG~E to move all power poles affected by this project at developer expense. 4. A geologist's report was prepared by Philip Lydon who con- cluded the Foothills Fault does not run through the property and does not constitute a serious hazard. 5. Install drainage facilities as required by Public Works. 6. Limit access to Pentz Road, located as far from its inter- section with Highway 191/C1ark Road as possible, as shown on the site plan submitted January 17, 1954.