Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
058-260-004
a - f ' TOCK No. 7531 j,3 " Mot + FQr r M4lion bye yp --W .r C¢ .airl�rwraagr�l�i L Seconded byr`" x e'5�2-z . lamuert �,1..,..,,� Mot 'OTgIS` w� -------------- aim INSTRUCTiONS,. TO, U$E PENT APOLICANTS A `l, if applicant is noL Lha owner,�tvr, (Lan nptltnriial'iun bythe owlicr of� othCrproor Of age-nayauust, he snhmitted in order, for the applictsnt to legally sign the appliotion, Applicn}ion shall be considered void if not signed lay the owner or login agent., 2, All items on appl,icallotl'shall lie filled I'll as completely "as, lioss1111nr %f an ikeiii is a6L nplill; ' coble"pl000 iudi6tto by the term "NIt:'�" 3, ` Ct. i>a imptlrtaht tit 1, Life apolioniit supply iii accurate desorilatiod of the loor,'.lon of the propoixed project, including the follbwifagi a. Assessor's pared number(s) (from Lha tax. bills. or Assessor's ltwps), b, Street addresses {if available}. c. Distances and Slreclions to no streets, bodies of avnter or railronds', 4, slxkeen (16)copfats or h:.deLitiled jAov pal°nrr. of adequate scale to Clearly_ ,lie%v proposed build- :ilgs olcd 1mpraavonrcnts, ;folded oto 8'�' x l l laches, shoal accompany anti loll in do part of the 1"`Appffeatior' 6e Use Pari>Lik". if 04 use perro4 is npprovod,,�Ljw,ploL 15106b1 Autl,l'a ap- '+".peavey dovotopmenL plan for the pa'oogy�gllio plat plata shall iivjude [lie following Infarfnffuarlt _. it, A sealed,drawing of die'parccl(;L) boundaries, � l.;acnlio`and di`ptdusiaus ufi'nil��#3aistingand prripasecl=lnaprav^n%ent� on to proparts, .ifalutlln buiidi,ltgs, driveways, parking, areas, dolls, horide.ta-nks arid lon'ih Rieldg. c, idocat?on and anvid of bordering streets, novas reads, Ilecufby, erog-orr,aatn'll'i, 1 Bodies of water and railronds, ,c d d, North arrow find isealo of drawing . The "Applii ril lisp for ltsc: P(Mlilt" is subject to public haariligs' and approvot by; the Nlitlioing _ phlq�i't,3atl. An), sptrchil Conditions of approval shall be nfnde, a part of the approved "UAe' I'armit" and Allall ire bludi(fg on Lite applicant. The proaudures'far C.aupty nation, on use, pert, snit appltanLions are stated in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code. Planning C ontiuissiota, ilea tile basis of Life: evidence submitted zfit -tho public hr aring,mny t. usn pnrnilts %vlli;a it finds Lhat Llln prftposnd narks of tfi6, ptopariy wilt not bup,air the and ehuraaLer of Lha xr,nt its which the land lies and that'the use would not ba un-' ,rit+y „onahly ilfconfputible %rill( or injurious to surrounding properties° fit))- detrimental to Lite tttfaith aid general welfare of Lite persohe residiui, oi' working in the nr:igbborltoad oar `t.a the goneralAto rlth, ofuty and welfare of the County, . 7, to apf+r,oving a use pori-alt, lite Planning Commission may inelttde suril co'nditione as tiro 1 ' SloCrnoti . reasonal le and' noreysary uodev kite ulrCuhlstiancen to proal#nova the' talc grity [ilia, ' butte County General fthtn character of the zone, gild to see the pc�ncra�l purposes of tlLc and C ht ow `x'44, of tho'Buito C�:imav C`ntlif, .aiust'.it condloolis many include, but ere (list llhtlted � � i Lal tune' linlitatlalts, dovelopof4nc pluo'S=pproval, hours of opertiNh, fencing, doclicution of ighL .8yrty, and street and drainage Improveuwfits, Ca'Qn(1it1o15s imposed ultorf lsstionce of (i use permit lnust' w raftnontlal ralntsd 1'0 LhG f5se for lahteh the permit Is Y ... requeslad. Ai rlpplicnLion forte tis of WrtIio) are � pa Fees may he paid ill Cash or by i heck made payt l(Ic to "Teeostiver 01,11 litte County' . lofora rsuhll,lttltl,4 a Lso,' pernfil upltlia'ft4ion, ap'plictutt is refiuested �(o rlfscitss with, r�taCf all gnostiotiia abova upplicatlatt roeit(Ironic nt$, County proc oduros, 9i,nlffg rruvilslolls and possible :: x,andilfaYts r,f Lt�ppraval, ,; , >� i t/�M�o aWawz 'p�� LTi 41���°1 S $ Wt <, r [r,t: w 3U Ilant Irv� .SxiT'I rrifsa 9. bNr1,Na VNi,WYr. o .1 aJ03'1iS FL.l. ,�wiA# .7« Irl'. County Table 11ff nj.Irpp 'U1 s Vy�Tieyylito Dj.s t a4riµe 4yM �AFryM 4k M""''7�I �LUCTr�rySt4y Part. x-. . i4 ;`g"'tiiWT7Ol 4ate;x 04 M7lAtWe o. Co. DurhamAai7 cSC`ti ' 14,10t. 1`toomax Brash Preok Lstates Ut},atery.stridt vpk !io. IA:pAbJYA+WvvifiV(y/gfi:AA a]ir {$'fJ•` �\do of �Al)i�l(334ate TwOa URea. J."o tw rqgRutll`ails . x- -� Pel C;io 00'. Y y. � m•; urEu�afa �Louir iaaa ., .,�.:,,. b nn 'iez tzwn*r� znnnr Gron'a.!tLtal (#,:ky. i Bub.) Ptco) ("A l<i'rta.'dw. il.Ad.s.. 'fs val.. Myr, 0 Green Aeve�s Gridley Var:r .wabor Camp "Ii�c"ria �r Mrs alia 00. Water r 'ist p ��. 1��•� Fes thcr F0115 Union Tjako M ron e Water Pi � � N tem ITS � rF Golden Foat."ww Un -on f}M��ryt q. l�rhWar (�'�+,i) Gf`a��y.i�clp�,op yq+Cx�p�t� y� yr tpXmwfi '{�.'N �i �d Jr t Oro 16-1w..LL }� CY Yf' tri 4i Y, xMioods ha iv)1 t GQrost; 1�z7.tah, Orowi'1 e b aa►n,a High Sp in f Waters � �'��1X10 Un tau Pioneer Un4on Therutalito Union Vista Kaburil (Durham) SEOWL. RIO, EDI _,..,.•W Urb s r i b . �1 ti,l, ity � �.�• � i�..w tgl-me ASN SkOUP(Or-ni 1 -7a7v;46 Vveok Drainage Dip4s Ve'linj! "i y �a 1.n U 0 a. � yO Jaz :14'a eo fis i our ras•a� Y�� i 9id l"lld l � xs'r W 4on ppyy (C�p ,} .may IiPee�.r�''M+ ,� � yy y� U'�1.'f4 6'Ci�i*a'.i 4?�" w�:�r��I'•L w�'ry ., r/ '{,+4i5d�„1"G��eali°ti GiN� a� � l an+ re OX Loma �''i��r air SoffJ G °��O `A ITTIM.UN L, >�GT 11 ..y%Yy✓y� yb j. /�yyy� . a%tb iAaiv#A.ASa {7F 1,; '+�sM�Sl �iWuWr+Sr 4VYlu ���d}1Y�e GSI:Fal AxM wf1P!a aA«RWN:4:.%.«n.'krai:YTtLnM:rirG nM,.P'--'vit^,�'nt;SJfM�'+fro+`i`�tl.+rYWfarda+r neRSW n'�S.^a391w L 1:O � �� WY+# f SSC'Ma„pafa6.'w'M4ri�'ia�u.'°:.w'A!tUrNeW+4�WYbra �,wX}If,RM'�'.pF'b+c,wox'L:N'Y'Ar�WA ' r E �{'�.tt I ON wry w 7 w,.A� ....0 rn..aNzxt�kaey.twsarY.v>swn�.:w.r¢�w�e,�,^.«aiw axw.mi�:N�rrceata.war,Mc,rN. vol PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW'REQIICST 1�t TO: Stated Depar, of ont of 'Trai),spo rtlitiox r REQUEST, Review,& Com n. AP'IVO. DESCRIPTION OFPROJECT: ITNO 0 ,V1410 4 b allOtl thO $?Mr ft of prpwalt.' An JCS ; LOCATION: a 7 V aldm I~oy xlof�40y ttd at nY!"htn'y 7A. "Vaomm 1111z Oren# approx. 15 ruil o no h' . t'' O'rey .11 r APPLICANT: �", poral 3,t ., ADD RESS: �Kt 1, Vox 2,'�� OWNER-rI3vLw5ot"tal PLANNING, COMMISSION ACTION SCHEDULED,_________ 1, RETURN DATE REQUESTEDt kA AP e aelve& `w A119uDt 4 x' 81 it ,4jt ' ` X�. DATE DISI'RiBUTE;a: _. . . 4,t ATTACHMENTS! Copy of application & plot pian RETURNED; COMMENTS: -------------- 3 n4Y.,nFKr>•#nn+71d4.+,ke"wt+++a r� .,-w,.,Fw... a .,,. , F Z6'( `PLANtUING DEPARTMENTI INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REQUEST TO,.. EnVaronmOntal Health - Lynn Va hart Go �iI nrrthgc,, REQUEST: Review & GomM nfi , 'Jul- AP NO— ' S$-2600 Oroville, Cslifo raiq ^ � � o � Y DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:11 °�� P rm�it to alloz� the storagex of prolaana it an _ &bOV VoUnd tank on ptoporty, Zonal A_Z fli l LOCATION: on, they 4'i side of orrovill ,concow ltoael at flildwaX 770, Yankee+ araa, Upprox. 15 males north of OroVilxc. al �n;r Hoall� -i APPLICANT: Doirtr� Cnmrc�ta:r.e: a„r-=-- �r. ADDRESS: Rt. l,. Do:t Z; %a X.,, Orovillea Ca., OS965 X1111 21 1901 pVVNER: befty I!ottoli �ncrvlllm,CallfQrnfe_ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SCHEDULED . RETURN DATE REQUESTED: 1� no response Jg ret elVorl. by Auguo 4, 194 It !01411, s be aumehd s�� tl��.�t th care are na concerns reg;Lrdinig ED: 1�1R1 QAl TE bISTRIBUT� thi _ . .. prof act, ATTACHMENTS: 'Copy,of application 8; plot plan RETURNED: '7 ( COMMENTS: 2Ld�leoL:�t 2 use,Rrvemwl-- r v i , PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW REgUEST ` TO: Publk Works Jahn Xendonsa __.. REQUEST: Review & Comm DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 11;s.e permit to .allow the storage of ;propane in. an above &,round _tank on I)ropert)r. zoned -A-2 _ LOCATION:on: the W side of Oroville-Concow Road at Ilig hwa . 70 Yankee I`1i _-- area, approx. 15 miles north of Croyille.: APPLICANT Dom' Ganem. 8t oto ADDRESS: Rt 1, Box ---2-702 IC Or oyil le , Ca, - 95 06 5 . OWNER: •.T' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION' SCHEDULED RETURN DATE REOUESTED: 4{' If no response A.5voeoived by August 4, 1081 it shall be assumed that -hero-are no conterns� reg�arding this -DATE DISTRMUTM r7,/21 1,91 -. project ' ATTACHMENTS: Copy of application & plot plan, -- BuiaCu�Ptenni� i C p+nm� ,RETURNED, JUIN 2 -wl COMMENTS Q� Dow 'i .. 1 , I ..tf"=Jod 1 1 APPENDIX F DNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VORM I (To be completed by Load Agency)' ERD Log 81,-07-14-05 BACKGROUND 1, Name of PropoAent Dome General Store 2. Address and PhoneNumber a roponenC: Jeff and Kvrr01-1 Sagmeister 3.; Date o� Checklist Submitted _ 4. Agency Requiring C'o.ecklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable, se eTMI StoTago of lnflammables, AP ff 58-40-U4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of aJl,"yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attachod sheets,) YES MAYBE NO 1 Earth: Will the zoaosal result in significant p z a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic subsctuctures?' b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or ovex'cover'ing, of the, soil? c: Change in topography or .ground sur- Tacorelieffeatures or romoval of topsoil? I d, Destruction] covering or modifica- tion of any unique geologic:or physical features? e. 'Increase in ,,rind or water.erosion of soils, either on or off the .`site? f. Changes.in deposition:•or erosion of beach sands, or changes' in silta- tion, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bod of the oceat. or any bay, inlet or lake? "- g. Loss of prime a riculturally pro- ductive soils outside designated urban areas? Appendix. >± w page: J, of 9 YES MAYBE' NO h. Exposure of people or property to : geologic hazards such, as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? .... l 2: Air, Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Substantial deterioration Of ambient or local air quality? .�._ b. The creation of objectionable .: odors, smoke or fumes? c. Significant alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any, change in :climate, either locally or regionally? ` 3. dater, Will the result �.n substantial: proposal. - e` is, or the course a. Change .,n cu rr n o;:, direction of water movements? ~--< b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage rate and amount of patterns, or the surface water runoff? c, Need for.of�-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelfzation or ettivert installation? - _ ': ;i, !alterations to the course or flow of Mood waters? ...... e. Change it the amount of surf-Aoe water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in, any alteration of surface water qualityt iicluding but riot 'limited to temperature, dissolved In r oxygen or turbidity �g. Alteration of the, direction o tete of, flow of ground waters? h, `Change in the quantity or quality'��1,s�.. of ga:ound waters:;,i either through direct additions car withdrawals'y br through interception of an aquifer by _ixts, or eXcavations? r Ap x p page 2 of 5. �; p "d YESMA.Y$E NO r i Reduction in the amount of water otherwise,avai.lable for public , water` supplies? Exposure Of people or property to water related hazards such as flooCla:4g7 , 4, P1ant"Life; Will the proposal result in suT—stantial ; a. Loss of vegetation or change in the diversity of species .or, number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora, 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 replenishment of existing species? d, Reduction in acreage of any agri-cultural crop? 5, Animal,i e, Will the proposal result in substantial.' a, change in the diversity of species, ornumbers :of any species of animals (birds; 'Land animals aneluding reptiles, fish and shell - f sh, benthic organisms, insects or ini.crofs.una) ? b, Reduction of the numbers of any, unique, rare or endangered, species of animals? C , lntro,duction of new species of animals into an area or result in a' barrier to the migration or movement of ana.mals? d• Reduction oa, encroachment upon, or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habytat? Appendix F - page 3` of 9 YgS' MAXBE 'Na 6, Noise, Will the proposal result in , substantial: a, Increases in noise levels? b. Exposure of people to Severe noise levels? h7. Light and, Glare. Will the proposal Produce s gni cant light or glare? ; 8. 'Land Use , Will the proposal result in a significant a. Alteration of thw planned land use` of an area, or ostabl.ish >a trend which will demonstrably lead to such alteration? b. Conflict with rises on adjoivving properties, or conflict with establichad recreational; educa- tional;, religious or scientific uses of an area? 9, Natural Resources. Will the proposal 'result in subs tant al: a, Demand for, or increase in the rate of use of any natural resour'ces7 b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 1p. Rislt of U "pse . Does the proposal involve a risk of ,an explosion or the release of hazardous substancgs (including, taut not limited to, oil.; P pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? r 11, Population. will the proposal algal icaritly alter the Location,, distribution, donsity, or growth rate of the human.popula,tion of an area or physically divide an " established commuhit-y? 12.. llousn Will the proposal sib;" ;F cantly a9fect existing housing, or createa demand 'dor additional housing? Appendix p -'page 4 of YES MAYBE .13. Transport Wi11."the Froposa -esti t in; a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement,? .b. Significaht effects on existing parking facilities, ;or demand for new parking? I a c. Substantial impact p_c upon exist,inp, transporthtion systems? d, Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movemOlt: 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, Public 5ervices, Will the proposal have, An e ' e'ct upon, or result in a substantial need for new or, altered governmental n' services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? cl, Parks or other recreational facilities'?` e, Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other ;governmental services? 15, Energyi EnergyWill the proposal result in: A. Uso of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? '. 'b. Substantial increase In demand upon, ecisting sources, of energy, 0 require the. develop`men't of new ;t aourde9 of energy? ��Appendix T` .. page Yes MAYBE yo 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result a need for new systems, car sub- stantial alterations to the following utilities: lobn_ a. Power or natural ;gas? b Communications ns systems? G. Water? d. Sewer (will trunkline be extended; providing capacity to serve new ' development) ? _ ^� t 1 I e. Storm water drainage? _ 17. Human 'Health, Ce ll the proposal result in 4. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (ekeluding menfial' Health) ? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18, Solid Waste, Will the p-,Lposal result an any s nificdnt impaoLu associated with d waste disposal or litter u011. control?.' 01 19. Aesthetics.. Will the proposal result in the o5sttuction of any public designated or recognized scenic vista open to the public, or will the . proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? : r rwn Y 20, Recreation. Ii.11 the proposal result in an immpact upon the; quality or quantity of existing publio tecrea�. hien facilities? 21. Archeolog ical/Hi.storica.l . Will the proposa resu t in an a teration o A'' significant a`rrcheol,og ,Oa or' Historical site) structure, object or building?', Appendix F page 6 of 9 12 MAYBE N0 I 22, Mandatory Find3ngs of Significance: a.Does the project halre the potential to degrade the quality o A environment,, substantially reduce the Habitat of a fish or wildlife species, awase'a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining; levels, threaten to, eliminate a plant or animal com- munity, reduce the number: of restrict the range of a rare or endaYxEred plant or animal or ;eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does t�,., project have the potential to achieve short term benefits to the detriment ofpublicly adopted. long. -term environmental goals? a. Does the project have impacts which are indiv duall,+ limited, but; cumulatively considerable? (a project: maympact iori two or more separate resouY rtes where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but Where the effec . of the total of thUSe impacts on the envitollment i9 significant. j d, Does .`the project havo environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human baings, either, directly, or indirectly? Appendix F -� page 7:of' .z_, 81-07-14-05 , III. DISCUSSION 'OF 'ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Project: Descr.iption'` li Type ohroje.ct: Use Permit Z. Brief Description: To allow storage of'inClammables above- ground,- propane to fill small propane bottles for home use. , 3, location The Dome General Storo Highway 70 at Concow Road off Dawn Terrace Road = 10 acre parcel (the. relocated, Park [till store, now housed, in the Cathedral:ite Domes construction building). 4. Access and Nearest Public Roads); Direct access o:Cf Concow Road (existing parking area along access driveway). Several gravel roads traverse the site and area: Environmental Sett l., 't'err'ain: Disturbed site, gentle slopes surround location. 2. Natural: Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Big Bend Pault, + l mile to the north.. b, Erosion Potential' Moderate (regaonal.1'y, high) c. Vire Hazard: Low (regionally,, high) Hydrology a. Surface Water: None in chose pa oxitnity, b. Drainage Characteristics; moderate-highTunoff potential due' to oXposed, surfaced area„ 4. Visual/Scenic Quality: Regionally; high. Site is bordered by. Highway 70 freeway, 5. Vegetation: Little nature vegetation in ianmediate environs, Croon belt strip exists to east along Highway 70. 6. Butte County General 'Plan designation: Agricultural -Roslaolit;ia7; 7.Existing Zoning: A;-2/841 (proposed M-1 or C-2, Butte County Planning Conmisson), 8. Iaxisting :Land Use.on"site: Ce:aeral Store (formerly; Gathedr.. i ze Domes industrial site). 94 Surrounding .Area a. Land Uses- Rural re'siden>`.i�fl homes on 5�-1.0 Gore paxc is to east ,and south, 5+ acre parcels to north along Cciicow Road, and Iligh'way 70 ta,'east b. Zoning: 11-2, 84( along Ia j;hwy 70 posi d ER- S to wt;st; PR -2 east o.{ Highway lilt 10. Character ol; Site and,Area: Disturbed, totally modif- ed alta, traversed by several voads. ll. Nearest Urban Area: Or6vit.le, + 1:5 miles 12 : Piro ` protectio a Sexva ce a. Nearest County (StateM) Piro Statioa,: Coldeai;,Peat}er Volunteer Company, wxthan tr, iidle. 1a. hater Ava��labilt 91, 7' None, Append,::' -page &'' of E1-07-14-05 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION (continued) This use permit is to allow 'the above-ground storage and dispensing adjacent to Dawn Terrace Road, e General Store, or propane on the east sa.de of the existing Doan l The :following concerns and potential Impacts have been identified for this use permit proposal;. if the proper safety features a:re followed: during installation. and for the subsequent operation, significant adverse effects .are not anticipated. 2b Air quality may be slightly affected. due to some limited escape of propane gas during the transfer of fuel. Only one residence exists adjacent to the site, within + 60 feet, 9b 1Sa, As a distribution outlet :dor propane, this proposed dis- pensing would save fuel for 'pote•ntial'patrons who must otherwise travel. + 20 miles. to Oroville for service. 10,, 17b Theme involves some risk of explosion or leakage in the event of an accident; (the tank site is located adjacent to the Dawn Terrace access road, a.minor dirt road off Concow Road, which serves several roslidences) . Guardrails and. bumper polos around the tank would minimize this hazard from 'motor ,vehicles passing the site. t the safetyfactor. iihwa 1 Additional setback from this 70 l ios� within00 feet ous s access road ma1be necessary to increase 13a0c: Substantial traffic increases are not expected as a result of this praje.ct. ;Primary patrons would be, people v�sating this : recreational area and passersby on Highway 70 for campers, motorh.amesi and: other RVs, as we as Local. residents. I[ighway 70 traffic volumes would not likely he affected though additional Concave Road/Righway 70 intersection movements may increase (although. the majo=rity of such increases will be as a Tesult of the recently opened Dome General Store rather than for this specific dispensing facility al.ane). f Area Toads are capable,of handling additional traffic volanies. Dawn Terrace Road, however, is a substandard gravel roast adjacent to the r propane .tank. Additional clearance from the road and road improve- ments mn Play be ecessary to improve access and safetyy, 14a: The Golden feather Volunteer Piro Station could respond to nn emergency within a .f-ew minutes. Supplemental fire protection measures may be necessary on the site,. A chem�.cal fire extinguisher, suitable Car', a propane fire;, should be "alrailable nearby the dispenser. Pp l A e�ndix' a� g� � �a e $a. of J z F4t,+` $)'ikf ratl°$ Notice .5's ° r g l'o ou }1 "-kst tYr taLnXl t1i1t s� ��k�b xc hec"��ilg°,w iitlxI°.� h`�'.altl Go t`t�IikI C'`?v Prill #t8 :;#-Cr :V $. v�+ p9dL8 �'� �.�i�a �, icy �I , .=� i..,'y° 3 i , x P, v, A" �, Z,. 9 t... � M � ,, p;. ai %t• y 11,3w i - y rt p p ���wJt 1 to 0 ��'�drfrt Y� ��,�1btbf« � J�. �✓i ����.N uhf R t♦ ,� q �-aF (1 } g y y , R P•. 1110,, kaw a h !"wT a fcy r t."rti tl9#' •.' 7'^'�� lt4 f 9CA. ;t Li�. r . }.t �na�� 4i.+. f .j r�� i�4 r .. $f * 3.'A4'.�t 3 � . r �s�J p q t , piai3i x, ,'� � ,, , a 9 x {,' -jd i 1 i'c �f :+, �t�t`l °a a'i ,.�x� �r'Qtrxa� ». <, �: t . ay ,r a 1— �rye,af �:i ✓�'�{d�;, x� ,'1 iY ,4�✓�Ilil6f:.i ra ,�t' f LYN du i,J fi l�j f�,(��jiM �r �T 4.W Y. r� �iY4 �} l t r � 1 3, F., si �. � �- ,.�ay f , pc� V) -%N,-,. uz All „7 �)-%N ui +� ��sy C.t i�rf I�';�,➢ ^�.IR �" 1,'a31 �s ;, 7:;.0}t t+ ��y^�; �k�QM1r,,. �. !`: -. '�A�P ��'.�..:� "PS'4p ° CS a:"+r�p�1Ya, :f:� .:.}e_s .d.,,��.�u, g."}%d `4 E7•�y. --v. :1 r�"` �'.. 5i;1 V,Cg ,y�j� alP tj:'���p L J 111 i pl. i,,� o"x c,-, }`e p'�L' Jxl �9: e y !'YtC .��.�. the County Tio-' , �>1W ?,P, lµ - tp�ta�y�1 . ., Y E",9`, ,- t.x4 1,11"n i , . I �; a* T'', krm wN'Tv; } "'1 I s.9 ., ��'� w". • s v 11 �` 1 ' pa, `, r i o tv � si! �+, ikyl r t 9 �:� t r � 4 L t� • ,, +t�, 14 }t iPx r�A d tad an p ��ar � }�'r^ss��4� d��� 1a��]'�a� � �'�y �` .:$ P��� Ile j 0 r,A y r>� ��� rift��.@��'�" � r� a' l,�xrys��"ptt��`� �r°1, a fir' i�'��,�q!��,x `x'C9� �,,r77r�.��+L d y+d� 1 . �t`7`ii 4"SKI �s tQ "�">t;i YV•',��� �d i"�i tt.�: i.( Y��&, i} dpi d, r;"l 6h�;,.y�"w��$ia �.}�}�f +�,��1�'�t:. 1 � r'. h les, EZ .A G. r� o o It .. 115, ! >Dr Y M ,[fhi' ".lydoKt C9.� xrpa ii r ro�Atf�'"� 3 4k ;11, .; r h `" f`+ ` ti o vv County � 'Y"' 14 1'.' 4UA ..FA4 .�. "P 1.4. (t 7, itp� P I . t ¢: f( pp'� yye�tt.. rg ar- c _ iV4 { xII JtBVi-'. .. . ♦ FF Ike� ::: Joseph & Gwendolyn B41-ter��,ouis & Elizabeth Bartok ` Rt. 1, 'Box 271 $$72eeohwoocl Dr Orovil.l e, CA 95965 Alta soma, CA. 91701 58-2674 & 58-21-116 t 58-,)1-44 Barry No'ttoli ' Roy & Juanita Bechol d r; 21_$ Coa.ohado Dr. Rt. 1, Box 32B Aptos-, CA 95003 Chico, CA 9592 58-26.5 John .Rutzebeck:Tnc Johnny & Darlene Holt Rt: 1, Box 231-T 8556 Skyway r Oroville,;PA 95965 Paradise, CA 95969' 5846-6 JeXf & Xarrol Sagmeister home Ge -neral ,Store , Gerald & Inez Y'owig R t . ''I Box 272 K ; Rt. 1, Box 272 0 Orovillo, C.A, 1) b orov.ille, CA 95965 5$-26-7 A W & Norma Purcell Rt. 1, Box 27 Oroviilo, CA 95965 %"26-a Clark & Claudia Vollintine 5204 N SSiorra Rd San Bernardino, CA 92407 58-26-9 k John & Gw.en, Boynton 01 Davin mer�rjace Orovill.,,-CA 159£5 id r 5$-26W41 i r , I Clayton & Doreone Leroy P ' B ox 3$6-� r Par di CA 95969 �, s Robert & Marna, Carli, 6541 Wheolor ltd Paradise, OA 95969 G, r y. r. w Lyle & Willo Sh-ardson Rt. 1, BOXe 271 1,;- Orov�,lle,. CA 95965 4 s _� k 5-21-; r William Davis ' 11$4 A� t�la.rks f�12 1 � r Freano, CA; 95711 r C FILE: S8 -2G-04 l TO.BUTTE COUNTY PLAN NX>9G COMMISSION j STAFF FINDINGS' - October 70 1981. , APPLICANT: DOME OENERAL:STORE OWNER• Barry Nottol REQUEST. A use permit to allow the storage of Propane in an above -ground tank. AP NO.: 58-26-Q4 SIZE: 10acres LOCATION':' On the west side of Oroville-Concow Road at Highway 70, Yankee Hill Area, approximately 15 miles; north of Oroville,. EXISTING ZONING: ZONING I 18TORY: Zoxred A-2 August 29, 1955, a portion ��ezor ed S-1, January 17, 1967 by 0rd naneb #913 SUI€ROUNbING zONING: A-2. to the north and west, S-14 to t1le south and east. EXISTING LAND,USr General stdre., SURROUNDING LAND USE: Residential uses at rural densities: SITE HISTORY'Previously the Cathedralite 'Domes Indostrial site. GENERAL PLAN. DESIGNATION: Agricultural=Resid;en.tial. APPLICABLE I2FGULATION8 Butte County Code'Section 24-47. COMMENTS RECEIVED The 'Butte Cgunt 2, fj re- Department, the Departmont of Public, works , Environmental Health aril thei 's' Da 'a t ment had no comments or "otter than the eowobjections conditions listed AN ALYSIS;: Tj-ds is a proposal to install an ',_above ground tank for tisb as _A dispensing station for propane gas. The tan1 and exJ";sting ,store aro located a.n the A-2 zone. The commercial charaCtev cif the site has leen e 8; t abIished,,' first by the dime manufacturaing use noby' the general store. LE: COPY A ^� APP8ND1X 14 NOTICE Or.DETP.RMINATION1 .. L E,TN T r T0: Secretary for Resources [J 141.6 Ninth Street, Room 1311' Sacramento", CA 95814, C-IX County Clerk, County of Butte CLARK A. NELSON. ComfyClnrl 25 County Center Drive A. JACINNHO Oroville, CA 95965 - PRODS:. Planning Department 7 County Center Drive(Filed), Oroviile, CA 95965 SUBJ'EC'T: Filing of Notice'of Determination in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152' of the Public Resources Code Project Title Dome General Store AP. fit' S4'-2C-04 _T_& Karro7.7. Sagrneiste State Clearinghouse Number (If' submitter to State Clearinghouse) Contact PersonTc171�3Mne 14urnber Bettye Blair Plannin Director (916 534=4601 Project Location The Dome General Store) Highway 70 at Concow Road off Dawn Terrace Road. Project Description: Use Permit to allow, storage of inflaminabl.es above-ground profane to fill small propane bottles for home, use. This 1.5 to advise that the Butte County Planning Commission. Lead, Agency) has made the following determinations regarding; the above-described proj act I s The project -E] rai11 have r significant effect on the environment'. will not 2, An Environmental Impact keport was prepared'f�or this project pursuant to t.be provisions of CEQA, anal, was cextifi,:ed as required by Section 15085(g), 14 C'alifo'rnia Administrative Code. A, Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CBQA. A copy of the 'Negative Uoclata.tion may be examined at the Planning DepartMent, 7 County Center Drive,,Oravill.e, CA 95965, f 3. Q A Not ice of ,xemlti.on was filed indicating tli;-is project" is' exompt from environmental review. j 4,. A ;statcmeat of 0Ve1,r1(1i.T1g Consi'derat.ion Was was not,, adopted ��r thisprojoct, i 5 Mitigation measures adopted] by thr, %earl Agency' to r°educe th,e impacts of the approved project sr� /e, None /51�11t11� r Betty Bl,a.xr ri -h r Tl i. t' O r l' APPriNDIX G r. NEGATIVE DSiCLARATION RBGARDIi G E.NViRONIT`4PACT �. NOTI°CB IS Iilllt',RBY GIVIrN chat the project described below has been. -reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Brrvi,ronmental quality Act of 1.970 (Public Resources Code 21.100, et, seci,)and a determination has been made. that it wi 11 not hal"c a szgzaificant j effect upon the environment. Log# 81-07-14.05 AP 58-26-04 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTt Use Permit to allow stoxage of -inflammables above-gr.ounu nxopane to fill small, propane bottles for home use. 3.' LOCATION OF PROJECT: The Dome General Store, Highway 70 at C azacC�aty� Road off Dawn. Terrace Road. 4, NANM AND A1111RPSS OF PROJECT APPLICANT! CIO, be Dome General Story. ��yo`` Jeff �, Karroll Sagmeister, '=a�' 01 Rt. Box 272 es: 6 A copy of the ,initial stUdY roP;kardi.ng the environmental effect of this project is attached. This study was: Adopted as'prosented. AdoPte;d with rhange:j. Specif%c r►toct f3cations and supporting reasons axe attached. 7. A public hearing on this Negative Doc larafiion was held by the decision making body,. Hearing Body Butte County PlannIngµCommissiorr late or Doterminca,txon Determination! on rh,e baa,ai;s of the Initial study of oravi,ronment.al,imp,acty the information prosontod at bearings, comments r0ccived on the f proposal tinct our own knowl.odge and independent research i'Vo find the proposed p7`oject CMILD NOT have a sigti.fic4lit jeffect on, thc* (ni v'ironmoa°l ,I y •ran a N113GA"1IVE DECLAIIA.`iION "►.s hereby ad.oiatod. We findthat tho project CCal.LD have. a Significant off ct case' -. on the ex�va,ror7ment lata°t will. not in this ,wYS ea' k . bocrause of ID attached mitigation jPicasu r,c-t, desc:Abed in. item 5 above wltich aro by this reCorataco Madc Conditions or project approval,, A con.dition�ax .N "�" VI -4, D "sCi.All.E1TIt71�f is',horeby adopted Mg, ure Cbz xaaaan;�J3ut-,-Caur%tP aar%xt Gomm, I, pf m 0 SMAL.MM ,• LARtZY UP 058 -260 - • liti - HA l ...; .. '. s it 44, C: �+ CL Larn, mallen proposed' ,Negative Declaration with mitigation measures -, regarding environmental review and Use Permit to allow 18 mobile home spaces, } 6 RV spaces, 4 overnight camping spaces, a Laundromat, and commercial retail space, on property zoned H, -C (Highway Commercial) located on the northwest side of Highway 70, southwest of Concow Road, at 5610 Skycrest Drive, identified as AP 058260-004, Oro%Ale. (CBS) (Continued openfrom December 9, 1993), ,u Mr. Sanders saidthat the item had been continued due to an error in the published ,��....... ae...:. "1' - .-A-4 ..Iww Mww 5rnrn- who+ w7e originally requestea. NOW i o spaces are Deing requestea i ne apprncant is prvpvbmg to restrict the occupancy of the park to people 55 years of age or older and that 1001/6 of the occupants' meet that requirement:' The hearing was opened to the public. Brad Fuller, attorney for the applicant, said that the 'projed will help the County `meet its senior housing requirements; The project has been modified to consider the concerns of the neighbors: Concerns for traffic, noise, water usage, and waste disposal have been addressed. The applicant has agreed to provide a space for senior activities in the u stairs of the dome. p Commissioner Nelson asked if the concerns about septic systems have been addressed? Mr. Fuller said that the Health Dept. has various requirements that will have to be complied with upon approval of the project. Information has been provided to the Health Dept, Lois Royal 11296 rYankee Hill Road, spoke representing 31 petitioners opposed to the project. The main concern is the increase in density from one unit every 5 to 10 acres to one unit every, 300 feet. There is no buffer zone around this project. ,,Most, of the parcels on Yankee Hill Road are 2 acre minimum parcels. No complete EIR has been done. This is a large 'project which includes a laundromat thati has had problems in the past. They are concerned about the water usage and sewage disposal of this =nq ct. There it a also a concern that. this project may establish a precedent. The mobilehome park is adequate to meet; the need for that type of housing. The petitioners are opt: They would posed to development for the sake of developmen prefer more commercial development. Gwen Baker, 11218 Dawn Terrace= said 'that Mr. Smallen had earlier, brought in trailers Without permits and there was gray water on the ,ground. The properly *is in better, shape now because the other property owners policed the situation and made complaints. The situation took several weeks to clean up. The laundromat was permitted. for one washer, and then 4 washers were installed which are used by the public. Mr. Smallen only got a permit because a complaint was made. According to the Building Dept:, the proper inspections Wer® not made. `Ms. Baker is concerned that the new project Nil bring up the tame typo of probiems and the neighbors should not have to, police the s(tuation. « a..,.:w..r...,•..wf.`s:i l�w_(�i ;w willrKOP P�A►iaieA+ieC4P1l►1 M�i11i lti'F ' .a �10'fUlderiv,�9_q Larry 8iggs 11280 Dawn Terrace, said he agreed with the first two speakers. He said there is no "trust" in relation to the applicant. The neighbors do not boli®ve Mr: Smallen will do what is required if this project is approved. The County should get all the facts about perc. tests, groundwater, and water ;avallability before approving the project. Mr. Smallen has a history of not being trustworthy. Jim Berglund, an attorney, retained by people in opposition to the project, indicated they are opposed to the concept of a mobilehome park in this area. Most of the lots in the area are 2, Sand 10 acre lots. This project would change the character of the area. If the project is allowed, there are questions of adequacy of the .soils and water supply. Based upon the previous approval (without opposition due to an error) brush cutting was started on the property, but not testing. If this project is approved, construction will proceed prior to meeting the requirements,, if the requirements are met at all. There are existing situationson the property which are not up to code. Mr. Berglund requested that the project be denied. If the project is approved, each issue (water supply, access etc.) should be verified before allowing further activity. Commissioner Nelson asked the Health Dept. if further information has been received? Tom Reid of the Health Dept. said no additional information has been received regarding the water supply. There have been additional percolation tests which were satisfactory, however, the soil depth is not great. The number of units would have to be a "maximum of 15 units". Tho final number of units might be less than the maximum, considering the soil depths and the location of leachfields - A' final design would have to be required from their engineer. Some things need to be located on the properly--an existing system, the existing plumbing. The sewage would have to be - dispersed as much as possible in this area of mountain soils. The requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would have to be met. The total number of units would probably be less' than 15. Thereisnot presently enough information to verify that 15 mobilehomes can be placed on the property. The total number will depend on the final design of the sewage system and soil depths. All the information needed to verify 15 spaces is not available at, this time. Commissioner Lynch asked if condition #1 regarding meeting Health Dept. requirements could' include the words, "prior to any site improvement work on the projdct"? Mr, Reid indicated that this Type of wording has been used before' regarding groundwater mitigations. Commissioner Lynch asked how that would be enforced?` Mr. Reid said the Code Enforcement Officers would do that. He did not know if a grading permit would be required: Commissioner Lynch asked what is the procedure if violations occur?' Would the Use ` Permit, be null and void or would the Use Permit be revoked? Mr. Hogan said that a revocation procedure could be initiated; He indicated that a cash bond could be required, satisfactory to County Counsel, to guarantee the necessary ; mprovemen#s. The bond would be forfeited if the conditions aEe violated, 'i �, JANUARY ��' '1i �+9 Blilie �CtUIIV'"' �INdNCa 0IUUUIfS�ICiN MiN_ - ' j, Commissioner- Ferguson said that basically the project has not changed appreciably since the previous hearing. The mitigations and conditions are in place. He would favor the project. Commissioner Bergman said some of the items which have come forward at this hearing should be addressed further. He would like to know more about the groundwater supply and the fire protection. The comments about Mr. Smallen's way' of 4dolng business should have no bearing on the issue, but there are still too many loopholes. Commissioner Ferguson said there is not proof positive about,water and sewer,, but the Health Dept. would make the judgement as to how many units the property could support up, but not exceeding a maximum of '15 units. Mr. Sanders said the permit would be for a maximum of 1`5 units. . z , Commissioner Lynch suggested adding to condition #1: "prior to any site improvement work on the project." Also a condition should be added as follows: "Require a bond in form and amount acceptable to County Counsel to assure that Environmental Health and Fre Dept. requirements are met prior, to beginning any site improvement work." That would` alleviate the concerns about the lack of knowledge available about groundwater and sewage idisposal capabilities. Commissioner Bergman wanted to be, sure that Fire Dept. requirements are met. Chairman Lambert asked if the Commission would consider reviewing a mo site pian. r -e specific - Commissioner Nelson asked if it would be proper to approve the project, prior to the tests or should the tests be required prior to approval. He would prefer to see a solid plan. He does not object to the commercial part of the proposal, but he has problems m with the obilehome park portion. Chairman Lambert asked what would be accomplished by continuing this item for more -information? Mr. Hogan said, basically, all the information that is available has been presented. If more information is needed, he would suggest granting conceptual approval and bring back the final plan for approval after the tests are done. The applicant would apparently prefer to proceed with the expense of more tests if, conceptual approval has been granted. He said that eitho approval with conditions or denial would allows this application to move forward. It was moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Lynch,, and carried' for approval as follows: Chairman 'Lynch said, according to the law, they can have a onior citizens parkt,, but not an adult only park. He suggested Condition 13 be changed from "adt ilt" to "senior citizens" park: It was moved by ^ommissioner Bergman, seconded' by CoMillissioner Fergttson, and carried to approve this project as follows: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DOTED DECEMBER 6, 1993; MAKE THE FINDINGS' LISTED UNDER ''"A"; MAKI .f THE MOTION LISTED UNDER "B" INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1 THROUGH 16. A: Find that: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with they; California Environmp,ntal Quality Acta 2. Said study and comments received thereon identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: ' a, Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agree to by the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigata such effects to a point where clearly no significant "environmental affects woold occur. b.' There is no substantial evidence before the County that the prc; as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed, Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental C;,)uality Apt and the initial study has been independently reviewed, �,,inalyzed, and considered by the Planning Commission and reflects fti,4 indepEtndent judgement of the County of Butte. 4. The proposed use, of'the property will not impair the Integrity nor, ch,r,tracter of the zone `in which the land lies and that the use would �i�t be unreasonably incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounning paty or detrimental to the , health, "safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general health, welfare and safety of the, County, because the density is being reduced to more ' closely conform to the surrounding properties and conditions ar being impos4d on the, project that will, address tfuise, light, traffic, safety ,and health concetns; and subject to the following conditions: 1: Meet the requirements of the Environmental 'Health Department for water supply, sewage disposal, and waste water disposal; for aR proposed uses.; 2. No more than 4 washing machines may be installed in the laundromat. Hours of operation for the 'laundromat or any other commercial use shall not commence before 7:00 a.m. or extend past 10;00 p.m. 3. Provide a designated parking area on the lower level of the, property to serve the laundromat. Utilize a. combination of low fencing, curbing, and . landricaping to differentiate the parking area from Skycr est Drive. 4. Parking plans for the iaundromat`and all other proposed uses shall comply with Butte County Code Section 24-35 and be approved by the Department of Development Services, Planning Division 5. As long as no building addition is required, changes in use or occupancy of the main dome structure that currently houses the general store, ;may be approved by the Director of Development ,Services. Proposed uses , shall be limited to retail uses of a light commercial character. 6i Meet the requirements of the California State Department of Housing; and Community Development for the development of the mobile home park. 7. Maintain a minimum o� a 50 ft. vegetation buffer along the southerly and westerly property, boundaries to "reduce conflicts with surrounding properties. S. Install a'pressufted water system with fire hydrants capable of providing a minimum of 250 gallons of water par minute for 2 hours (gravity flow is not acceptable). This requirement shall be, in addition to the required - water, supply for domestic purposes, ' 9 Meet the fire safe requirements of Public Resources Code 4290. 10.; Provide a permanent solution to handle the increased drainage and reduce erosion impacts by meeting the requirements of the Department of Public Works drainage standards: np,wtw��*aY•1^^.` '^nN'r"iW'C �.y."�`°"* +M�^h.+v waW4W!' `Y Hu +'n Nwn a!-.' "Y" `^ N iY:f" 4. � W "i*' ++aw{.M MYan;•..+.�77 i:,. ��.til'.'- ,... a Sc. , �. .. ...!....,a:u� ..na.o.a:p.eYC ..:�":.�y.�4.�N "r'if�{ri}:"d+'rrii9`+:Y'�' xu•rrti4'innn ,.,� Fis,._...yc�a;;.u�;i ti njtir'i' + ,' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 9, 1993 site. Combined with the two existing dwellings, the result will be 26 residences on. 10 acres for an average density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre, This density is low for a mobile home park but it far exceeds the allowed residential densities for surrounding. properties. The land to the west Landis zoned FR -1Q and the property to the south and. east is zoned FR -2. The General Plan Land Use designation forthe adjacent properties is Foothill Area Residential. The maximum density, allowed under this designation is 1 dwelling unit per acre. While the Commercial land use designation is not bound by this density limitatioin, it should ser6,e as a guideline for residential development can. site to keep some compatibility with surrounding lands. This is especially true in a rural setting like this. In addition, the Environmental Health Department does. not have any conclusive evidence that the sewage disposal capacity of the soil on site can handle the new p y nal development of the site is feasible but it will development. They do state that some additional likely be less than. is ,proposed, The park will generate an increase in traffic, noise, and aesthetic impacts to the urea which may not be compatible with adjacent rural residential land uses to the south, and west. Increased traffic on Skycrest Dr. will require that the road be upgraded to provide adequate access from . the westerly property line r Concow Rd.. Noise and light impacts may be reduced by utilizing a setback buffer of natural vegetation or a combination of new vegetatio n and fencing. The use of RVs for year around living units has the potential to result in them being maintained in an undesirable manner with resulting negative visual impacts to the neighbors. Most RVs are designed for year around living in a fixed location. The lack of storage space tends to lead to random, unsightly, outdoor storage areas. Because RV units are less expensive ao buy; full time RV spaces have the potential to attract residents of very low 'income, If the RV spaces are for overnight use, it can be a difficult task to police the length of stay of`guests and they may become de facto year. around living units. If overnight RV spaces are allowed, staff recommends that the length of stay be limited and that it is enforced by the property owner or manager, It could be very tempting for a property owner who has invested a substantial amount of money unto ' improvements, to allow full time residency, especially, all overnight spaces are not. filled: and addition, .most people who travel in RVs on an extended basis prefer parks that have shower and bathroom facilities, No bathroom or shower facilities are proposed for the camp spaces. There is also the question, of the need for this type of facility; The property is located on a State Hwy and no doubt will attract some overnight visitors passing through the area, it does not, however, seem likely that people will come to vacation or recreate because there is no convenient access to the area's main recreation facility, Lake Oroville. The laundromat is a needed addition to the community. Area residents will no longer have to travel to Z3rovilIe fora 1'aundry. The proposed location under, the should work General Store s well: A designated parking area must to be established that does not include street parking ori . skycrest .Dr so patrons are not parking in the ,road and blocking access to adjacent parcels. This is a High water 'use and proper disposal facilities for the water will have to be installed under. . permit from the Environmental Health Department. The Laundromat use may also place further limitations an the residential use of the property based on sewage disposal capacity. 'Painter Kill: .'Larry October 14, 1992 Page Two; f 2. Constructing barriers to prevent damage., by foot and vehicle traf f is , 3. Excluding livestock. 4. No artificial drainage into or the placement of materials and substances inside of the nondisturbance area. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections' 21092 and ' 21092.2, the DFG requests written notification of prdposed actions and pending decisions regarding this project, written notifications should be directed to this office. This project will have an impact to fish and/`or wildlife habitat. Assessment of fees under Public. Resources Code Game, Section 21089 and>as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is neve'ssary. Fees are payable by the project applicant upon fiii,yg of the Notice of Determination by the Lead agency. If the DFG can beoffurther assistance, please contact Mr. Ron Bertram, Senior Biologist or Mr. Jerry Mensch, Environmental ServicesSupervisor, telephone '(916) 355-7030. Sincerely,' Jam s essers - i nal Manager cc: Mr. 'Ron Bertram Departinent of Fish and Game .Rancho Cordova, California Mr, Jerry Mensch Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California t� r • y , q ,1ffjj ,' w y�++•' F `. +t lrirt�� (r� i 1t 5 y71�'7 �� `„�1 t "+n � � s ,. �:�•. . r F� �,f ,r'�'Rttr�L s{, ,�I• 1 1��� ia�r��r h�'y'i���� i+ x f�y�,.j y .,' •. y'', 1 1 r r 1 r r,Y Y7 it 4'7!$ R f 14 ' r1 111 ,Iw � r'1 � � •�„}yat i ,i,Yl, �y,,l +Y ,,,•, .� r ,1 , J r •s:, C +,; 1 •; "a, 1 ! �, , „ l rl � }1 �4('•dp<�utV�:� :N�t"�� �•� 4� s � F�•. w Y # + q Ir 1 , rr � � f 1.�q1�� � � dl +,��iaq,���{I ,�( �7 qF'I "Y���,i J t�� �+) � k 1' '�+'i Iq � �' �r� w �•7�y Q�+�'j�e''U��i��'1��`pt�1 { t g 7 r 1x +, d• ' f 1'F' - i Mn�y", x �, �- i •' if;+ r t-�r� 1 1 y k, tly rii r „r t• n r. Fr{f�,,� r, (�rF� Y).f1,>' rr*�7�yJlski'�alttaEi Colnty A Bllni.n'Dept. i yi,s.+l,�!;9}i l' i;` �;ji(•! irk '? 5 r 9 g p inti BUtte`'County Health De t 7 County Center Dr. } ,� 4A+�kfi F ,t rj rq�yla�1F t,tyFt Il 1f�r7 r'f 11le' Ca. 95965 0t,o • i. 1' Isrdt, 11.6,1,7 iF 4 ,:. {• „` • ,, <'., , fr t,-. 0 - i• ; t ,,r'.^!.+'{{9.�',�'�,'+'r'yr',f4 & 8r5+>Q3.� �! RE Smallen Application for Ust, hermit AP#50 Offic als ATTN,- Al planner✓ 4 Health Dept. y ' r ,, ,„ r r: , � •q, , l„'l of ¢li�'} �( y''� t i hereby formally suppor. t f he above application for Uso;Pe#`m�'tMr�+�� e( rappros�i�i�x;�1} The Yanke Hill-COnG-Ow arc :r now has a papulation of nn, r bt z t matly .3 to 4 thousand residents. Heing, ira the neigh + 14 ng !• 1t' Z x 1T, r, xlt'r4,,yt,i miles from & 1/ miles from Paradise, we'me. h a substantial distance co nsumin:' valuable t ime & mons in o• .dex,' .�,;, �'►t,�i' ' Y� to squire needed goods & service•;., c' p vedritt+'Y1i 1 l8 space H U,Dj :lapPro ,. ( lit, 18 • Y. The proposed items are as 1 �.►110Ws; moe,home park. t+. H.U.D. apt roved park bl.' 3i H.U.y�i.,Cr 1,�ti�'ddr1{{i 5 +, 2, 6 space R: 1 approved overnight camp sites . Family style resturatzt+' itz', existing building; 5. Small rule I l.c laundry. � ? °�tK",3�,y�b�ts�i--Mjj '` � r#tir6xt,'llii Of the above, C;hey are eitilt:r non-existant, or avaiahiliCy�t4`j�t''r''94 Fr,k,.+ , our comms„k�tl' r' is very limited �°n this area. I Cee.l very certain , I & r i e.t la y , ch rk Cha, above • F It u mnit peed & could support a_ al.IenC, The subject property is ert issxan c�irtrall located access i y 'ihe praP y ed with ample parking, plus :room � to t�xPanl. ' � h a commercial & has been u , I i r.ed cos c.ammerc,in1 or industrial �'f ' a ,I • hig w y fq y? li for the past SU years,. The ,5iiial]e:n's, upon pruchrr,"i_ng this p;rope>;tyaquired,many roblems . The land, xacr.► & buildl ngs were n serious need;% serious. p �� do The fll f�cery & U�Ali 'were o;n the brink P nhenrecutatio;n 01 the business & surrounding r ankru tc din p iin se,s ,• of, repairs & ma�.T P r, .o f b P Y had deteria.ted to a points that nlli,ny customers ceased doing 'buainetprt,l?� r itsii s e a , ig i��tl'�;� i,aiterins, drinlcinA use of was openly a lowed .ori p s 1 ' z ust over ttrlo, years ��+�r'.Fh4blRt 5s n.iny opiziion, the Sma, fall ; have in �,;) ned aver uridaeiable citulf f 11►n within our community?, ,intro a', , ;et1olvod the maj:arity of ;ths respectable- bur3iziess, doing w,hr�••'r ar I T r4 4 , r rt t �i b , t� ��, + 7 , �'I;• �y ;* 1, u Nrr A1V' r1N { , C +r tr i� rLyiN,js S' lye 91'i , p r a 04 ' i i r : Y. , APR ' �a 1992 r [ypm 1 *'��IIQaA��sV, y r r I r G, 7777 planning DeP t . J Joe ,te County YP1 HunterBut , Phil Nelson, Butte County Health Dept. April 7, 199 - Page `Five r If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to call me onse at either 534-7220 or 533 18e c nvenre$� ence- If th rer6quenis any other to this letter at your ear oppose the Use Permit, protest I am to fol ow to formally 1 can take form of i ask that you inform me of it as sc.on as possible so the proper steps. idetations of the aforementioned Thank you fox your careful cons, matters, sincerely, Ruth M. Cowan, CREA New` Owner of AP#058-260-006 112£0 Dawn Terrace Orovill.e, California 95965 ,; , 0 List and describe any other related permits and -other public,' approvals :required for this proJGot, including those.requlred by er city, reglbnal, State and Federal<agencie§: wJ 11 need State permit dor m' bid r?l oytLes Y' IF RESIDENTIAL, include the, number of units, whether units are single or multi -story In height, schedule of unit sizes, and r) type of household size expected, iF cOMMtWAL, Indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionallyoriented, square footage of sales area, and' loading facilities, 10 INDUSTRIAL, Indicate type, 'estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities, IF INSTITUTIONAL, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupunry, loading fecilltl81;, and community benefits to be derived from the project: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION, MEASURES* Identify potentially slgniticant environmental Impacts associated with the use pennit. What projoct d0sign features or spselal conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are proposed to alleviate potentlai environmental Impacts? See Attached ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING" Describe the project site as it 'exists before the project, Including Information on topogntphy, 'soil stability, plants and ani- mals, and any, cultural, historical or scenic aspects, Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Describe the surrounding properties, including iniormailon on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.) Intensity of land Use (single-family, apartments, ;shops, depart- ment stores, etc,), and scale of devolopment (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.),_ Use separate sheet for longer' responses. See Attached I hereby: declare under "penalty ;of perjury that I have read and understand the Instructions and that the ioregoing statements are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date �'" l Applicant's,signatur pate Property owner'- ura''`�-" ��'- I �..."._,._.e,_ .,. ,.-......a..... -...-.....,-.1..._ _ _ �:;-.-.-.t .., _ w... :kL... moi;: Staff said if the hearing is continued to a date certain it does not have to be re -noticed. t ; Jim Berglund said he is representing the neighbors who are in opposition to this project. He said he had more names on a petition to submit. He said he has a problem with there being a Negative Declaration issued for this project. He said the problem is not necessarily with the store, but with the mobile home park. He said there is an alcohol and parking problem that exists at this time. r Brad Fuller, representative for Mr. Smallen, said there are no plans to have any business that is not compatible with existing uses, Mr. Smallen has done a great deal of cleanup of the facility. He said Mr. Smallen plans to build -a house and be a resident F of Concow. He said this site is the only commercial center in the area. He said the laundromat is proposed' for 4 washers and 4 dryers only. He said the soil survey is not final. He said Mr. Smallen is willing to do what he can so the neighbors do not find ! the project offensiVo. He said there was a question of whether the smaller dome structures were legal. He said the permits were issued and these building are a pre i existing nonconforming use and are legal. He said the well was tested and can support 20 gallons a minute of pumping. He said they plan to meet with the neighbors on i September 30 and he will keep Mr. Sorglund informed' of any meetings. He discussed putting in a gravity tank for 20,000 gallons to help with fire protection. He :said Mr. Smallen has no plans fora bar:. Commissioner Lambert asked if there was a concern with the water usage from a laundromat from the Environmental Health Department? Craig Erickson, Environmental Health, said the Laundromat its a high water usage. He said there are some questions on the sewage disposal and leachlines. He said the leachlines will need to be expanded for the ;laundromat He requestea' if thin is approved, that the Commission limit the number of washers in th'e permit, Ginny Snider said she chose to" live in Concow because they wanted to get away from over crowded cities She said the rentals in the proposed mobile home park will, be a problem. She said when people rent property there is no pride In ownership. GWen'Baker said Shia lives behind this project site. She said she was concerned with parking. She asked if the project was divided into two hearings, would there be an Elk for the mobile home park portion? She was against any more continuances because the neighbors haves to pay a lawyer.,to attend these meetings and people have to take time off work to attend, She asked that a time limit be put on this project. She said ince the last meeting .Mr. Smallen has moved in a mobile horns and has started construction on the store before this use permit is approved. 'Staff, said the mobile home was previously approved when the zoning wasAy2 and Is legal; ;•�y-+., M ha+"`y5r °SNm nny�, �+:ae xrcwi+ ui'+w.� a km var�e..-.x„ap^- , , , , wMwn.W w p ,4.y„aw; mar' , �„ }3U' CQ%ANDTi1G Cor>MxSxitr:�1JTS S�ptb"'r 23,93 r -,ter PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 4 OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96986.3397 TELEPHONE, 18181 63©•7801 FAX: 1918► 630-7786 April 4, 1994 Larry Smaller 1215 West Llndoi Avenue Chico, CA 959228 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Use Permit, APNo. 058-2,60-004 Dear Mr. Smallen: Enclosed is your validated Use Permit No. 92-19 to allow 15 mobile home spaces, a laundromat, and retail commercial uses on property zonedH-D located at 3610 Skycrest Drive, Oroville CA. _ Should you have any questions regardingthis matter, please contact Craig Sanders of this office betWOOh 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Very truly yours, %P ar K. g n 796 Certified Mail Receipt No Insurance covorrlge PI in a ager Provided C10 not use for Internati0nal'M60 .,Ino eyf[ naa P iQ'aavw(See RBYerSe) BKH:bd ent it Enclosure 'ale & vp c�l W0 cc: Building Division Postage 2 land ©evelopr>lent Division -- Environmentat Health COrlfllad Fee Sp"Clnl Delivery F8o R0100led poltvory Feo nHotq 9000lpt ShoEving C) to whore & Help Liolrvotdq fiolUCtl f9oegfpl aff6l'vi6g toWho t ,tf fo-&'Addto's olDelroty MTAL Postage p a Foos- ' Postmerk or DAto M a C a 3. Provide a designated parking area ori the lower level of the property to serve the laundromat. Utilize a combination of low fencing, curbing, and landscaping to differentiate the parking area from Skycrest Drive. 4. Parking plans for the laundromat and all other proposed uses shall comply with Butte County Code Section 24-35 andbe approved by the Department of Development, Services, Planning Division, 5. As long as no building addition is required, changes in use or occupancy of the main dome structure that currently houses the general store, may be approved by the Director of Development Services. Proposed uses shall be limited to retail uses of a light commercial, character. 6. Meet the requirements of the California State Department of Housing and Community 7evelopment for the development of the mobile home park. 4 Maintain a minimum of a 50 foot vegetation buffer along the southerly and f westerly property boundaries to reduce conflicts with surrounding properties. 8. Install a pressurized water system with fere hydrants capable of providing a minimum of 250 gallons of water per minute for 2 hours (gravity 'flow is not acceptable). This requirement shall be in addition to the required water supply for domestic purposes, prior to any site improvements. i 9. Meet the fire safe requirements of Public Resources Code 4290, f 10. Provide a permanent solution to handle the increased drainage andreduce erosion impacts by meeting the requirements of the Department of Public Works drainage standards. 11.. 'Improve all interior roads serving the mobile home park and RV park, including Skycrest ]Drive,, from the westerly Property boundary out to, Concow Road, to a minimum of an RS -7 road standard. State Department of Housing and Community Development road standards shall apply if they are more stringent. 12. Meet requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control .the Board13. Occupancy of the mobile homes shall be restrictedto persons aged 55 years or older. The mobile home park shall meet all State and' Federal regulations governing "adult only" mobile home parks. 14. Provide at least 1000 square feet of space within the: dome store building asp a in halUrecreation room,16t park residents. Jill Y,. 1124 CO-MMl.'NfTY DE\'ELOP1fEtiT '%:0N9. V. CQ1xfu'btTY D;`. CITY OF FORTDRAG .Ga� CITY of FOFETi � 204 Cal.App,M 1124; 251 Cai.ftptr. 709 (Sept, 19881 3 Z(}t CA,App.3d f • Classified to Ca [No. A037754. First Dist., Div, Three, Sept. 29, ., Zoning a �.+ tificafes COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COM1vfYSSYON OF MENDOCINO statutes o" COUNTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v,. tion or co CITY OF FORT BRAGG, Defendant and Respondent, `Y': establishr.,4 work upo b with a got,. evidenced ercy, htnr• S0*iN1.4RS' tom, c:, analysis, check 'ev' action 6 a ublic houstnls a..enc • F concluded An an t _ y p } or a writ of mandate directing,a ` , proceed t; city to reinstate a conditional use permit'Which it found to have expired, or (see C ro set aside its finding that the permit had expired, the trial court denied the ::�, Arn.Jur-2t writ, and denied declaratory relief to the effect that the ordinance Was ���• unconstitutional. (Superior Court of Mendocino County, No. 49915,'` Arthur B. Broaddus, .judge)�.L (2) Zoning at . tificates— , ,r ,. •;rs tate a cor , fW The Court of Appeal reversed with 'directlons, holding that the trial court arm council's erroneously construed a municipal cede section as intending to cause the ,; properl} s automatic P:piration of use permits when the;permittee has neither actually the perm rr' tnsufficiel7 used the land' for the purpose stated in the permit nor substantiall,y begun construction work necessary for the use. The court held that the purpose of impacts,, a -..: statutes or ordinances providing for automatic expiration or revocation of ",, where evic -�- cm•ironme use permits when work is not commenced or use established is to prevent 1}• based it the reservation of land for future purposes when the permittee has no good ezith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use,; Thus, altha4h erty ow.ne s• the permittee had not commenced construction, the record clearly derriori•3• (3) Zoning ar. strafed that the permittee was proceeding with a good faith intent to coma - ' • mencc cti•ork upon the proposed use.. The court therefore held` that the tificates-- ermit Was io ert issued and had not expired. Nor could the trial eourt'ti ,',� • dltfonal us p p p S' p R notice and ruling be upheld as an attempted rica'tion ofahe permit, since the permit•'; a'use perm tee Was not 'afforded notice of the city council's intention to consider council* f revoeiltion of the perrrfit..(C�pinion by -Merrill, J., «With Vl'7ite, P:.,J., and notified or, Harry -Deal, d„ concurring) permit, an j � no good taith intent to presently commence worst` upon he proposed use. Thus, where a permittee Was proceeding with a good` faith intont to commence work upon the proposed use; as evidenced by the permittee- s obtaining of financing„ purchase of;ro P P r erty, hiring of architects and engineers, performing borings for soil analysis, arran in Kcheck review; hegtral c u�ro n,and _mandamuslssliproon eeOf Plans for plan, mandate directing a � concluded that the permittee had failed to sho« a b y j to have expired, or proceed in the absence or actual' on-site c1011, a c0'on faith intent to . I coup denied the = the ordinance was ,? [See Ca1.Jur,3d, Zoning and Other Land Cbnirols aunty, Ivo. 49935, Am.Jur.?d, Zonin Planning, § 28 ,1 § 130; g and (') Zoning ;and Planning § 7$ --Conditional Uses ---Permits and Cer- tiofir, t1fic z use ermit n . that the trial court stat -8—Conditional upY^ln �the`tr al court writ of mandate, to reins red �n upholding a city ndin,g to cause the ,'' council s determination that a conditional use _permit had been im,= gas neither actually ;?�'` properly issued, where the city council's determination µas based on ubstatst`iahy begun +'� a '' ih'e pertnittee's failure to demonstrate use of the permit, the hat the %` insufficiency of the perrnittee's declarations to mitigate environmental purpose of 3;; ` impacts, and inadequate notice to neighboring ro ert o n or revocation of Is to prevent -` P P Y µHers, but , 1 enh onmental impact was super�9uous a the P Ject's -tittee } r.' l _ , and the c� has no good t round' e. T _ '` t, y based. its fi Ce of use of rhe ermtt did exist ctta�on tl ncro hus, although ; nd�ng regarding notice on Whether all neighborinb prop. -d clearly demon= Q . K erty owners actually received notice. P th intent to eom� , ,re held that the ,>'� !3) Zoning, and i'lannin 28— 6 § Conditional Uses; Per and Cer- d the trial court's .rz tcficates�-P-evocation , - Limitation of `funic pAo' 4s PoKer.--, , Con - since the permit- + A ditional use permit may not be revoked arbitrartl tion to consider, y notice and hears Y without cause, and '' a use permit. Thu'.mhere a pe�in to a was not aPet eorc3�dto revocation of shite, P. J,,, and council's intention to consider revocato n of _ notice Ord,city, �.' ermir `� :,= ° notified only that the, hearing Would con ern the e,ppiraton of he permit, any, attempted revocation w•as a nullity„ 106 CO:MMOaTy Dt VELOPMENT COM. V. COMMUti►7-Y CITY OF FORT BRACG' RT CITY OF FORT 204 CaLkpp.M 11:4; 251 Ca1;Rpir. 709 [Sept. 19881 Cal,App.3d 1 COU\SEL ar Bragg plai . �- William Bernstein and Mulholland, Bernstein Peterson for Plaintiff and 'j ' 19 units of 10% r, Appellant.. Following n John L. Cook for Defendant and'' Respondent. t �ti administrator A ' the Sanderson s sewage, and dra • = '- a cost of S95,M ° rY: al studies, expen C►PINION' ,fir survey and a tt IERRILL, J,—Community Development Commission of Mendocino On July 3, 10'', County (CDC) appeals from a judgment denying issuance of a peremptory CDG by letter of writ of mandate directing the City of ,Fort Bragg (Fort Bragg) to reinstate a both the Cypress conditional use permit which''t found to have expired or to set aside its 1' -'i" that a planning fl, ";ng that the permit had expired. The judgment'also denied declaratcary }: �. Sanderson ay relief to the effect that a'City of Fort Bragg Municipal Ordinance is uncon- 'Z stitutionl, Although CD{ 'fol T ;`�� administrator, /a issue' in this appeal is the interpretation of Fort Braog's Municipalz rermit on July 2 Code section 18,76,100 which provides for the expiration of conditional use ? `z� Fort Bragg, City, permits to one _-ear of the date of issuance '"unless substantial evidence of • �'7, ]98�, and re' use ►s in ro ress p g :'" We hold the trial court erroneously int,,;•preted this it 1 . ` y the statute as regwrin actual on-site consiructiOn. Accordtnal , we reverse . . � original USP : •.»' judgment, urination' of the . J3 counciI's` decision 'e• �• 'Thereafter, on l �� � Lj determine the val'' On October .6 195,. CDC a public housing Bragg' agency, and Fort B '38 hiring of`numerou entered into an a q g p ies to cooperate in the devel- a agreement requiring both parties `` 11,00 for constrr ou opment of affordable housing; CDC agreed io obtain federal funding tot the ;p submittal of plans' project and Fort Bragg agreed to facilitate construction by grantirig vari attorney presented' antes u0bue reasonable and necessary, Thereafter, CDC transferred '.a ,t had not expired 'b preexisting Department of Housing and urban Development (HUD) 30- Further, the cit y - unit housing c6mmitment from uninCOrporated Vielr�OCInO C4trnt} to Fort Panirulac requiter. Bra HUD a rta'ved i�f the dei elo Ment of 30 units of of%tdab;e housing g9 Pp P , unrnd funds for t, on Z sites located by CDC; 19 units a1, 53I Cypress and 11 units at 558 'q'as awarded to a South Sanderson Way, In this appeal we are concerned on] titiiith the South '. } permit, the, bui Sanderson Way dn•eloprnent:At the heart,' thnr objections to CDC applied fol a use permit 'as to the Sanderson site only. It did not initial April 1953ti', apply for a otic permit as to the Cypress site asit hall been informed• by the' introdui e a blight' c 't �VELOPSIENT Co.t. V ,fit CONINW-14 TY D[VELOP tEV7 CObt. >1I27 ITY of FORT BR,%GG it (wIT!' of- FORT HRAGG 1I,Rptn 709 jSrpt. 19881 : 104 C.il.A'pp.3d 1134; 251 CARr(r. 709 [Sept, 19881 -- _ I'urt Bragg planning director that a' 1980 use permit for the construction of ` 19 Units of low•-cost housing %,as still valid. 'son for Plaintiff and. Following notice and a public hearing, on April 26, 1983, the zoning` ' administrator for Fort Bragg approved CDC's proposed 11-unit project at the Sanderson site, subject to numerous conditions such as water pressure, c sa%vace. and drainage. CDC thereafter purchased the Sanderson property at a cost of 595,000, obtained HUD approvals for engineering and architectur- -sl itudies,expended S85,000 on L rchitects,civil engineers, soils engineers, a survey and a topographical map, ion of Mendocino ` �' on July 3, 1984, Fort Bragg's building inspector, James Fite, informed . ice of a peremptory�:, CDC by letter of the amount of fees required for CDC's building permits on 3ragg) to reinstate a :=' �., both the Cypress and Sanderson sites. In this letter, Fite also advised CDC ar to set aside its�'- , that a planning department official discovered that the "use permit far denied declaratory - + Sanderson Way, had expired at of April 26, 19$4.^ 1rdinance is uncon- �'` �• Although CDC did not request an extension of USP 9-83, the zoning administrator, fallowing pubiic hearing, granted a one-year extension of the Bragg's Municipal »; 1984. When a neighbor a Baled this determination he per on 7uly 24, pp of conditional use Fort Bragg City 'Council conducted its own extension hearing on August t3ntial evidence of 27, 1984, and reversed the previously granted extension. CDC'-s position ly interpreted this throughout these proceedings was that an extension was unnecessary as the gly, we reverse the, original USP 9-83 had not expired. At the hearing CDC" requested a deter- ;,.. t• urination of the validity of the original permit tlotwithstanding the ;city - _. R ~ _ council's decision coticerning the app+.� 1 Thereafter, on October 2.. 1984 the city council 2, Y conducted a hearing to _ and Fort Bragg y- dctermtne the validity of USI' 9-83. Citing CDC's expenditure of funds, _ erate in the deveI hiring of numerous engineers and architects, removal of fixtures in prepara- -al funding for =� Q,: tion for construct' on, continued processing of the project with HUD and ;x by van de artment to obtain a ermit, the cit submittal of plans to the buildin pp granting aC transferred a attorney presented his recommendation that the city council find the permit hadnot expired based on evidence of CDC's substantial use of the permit, meet (HUD) 30- :' I Further, the city attorney informed the city council that because of the o; County to Fort ffordable housing "�� ^' particular requirements of the HUD approval process, CDC could not `contract i; f 11 558 expend funds for the building permit fees until the construction units at ;: .,.�+ ly; with the Sout was awarded to a contractor. Upon the payment of these fees and a valid, use permit, the building inspector would issue the necessary building per- mils. At the hearing, future neighbors .of the Sanderson project expressed their objections to it on "the basis that. hey had not 'received notice of the 'only. It did not initial April 1983 hearing at which USP 9-83 was granted and that `it would informed by t'=t he • 'h: introduce-a blight to the community, The city council found that USP 943 , 1128 COMhleN;TY DEVELOPMENT COM. k COMMUNITY DE' . CITi` OF FORT BRAGG CiTY OF FORTE - 204 Cal.AppJd 1124; 251 Cal.Rpir. 709 [Sept, 1988) ...-tom = r 2t}3 Ca1.App.3d t t was 'no longer valid as CDC had not .demonstrated substantial evidence of "x'rt.^, The court also use of thepermit 'beforethe expiration dater In addition, the city council; application for ..I found that. the conditions upon Which U SP 5.83Was approved did not •y�, sufficiently -min ate the ro ect s environmental im act on 'traffic, drainage y S P ; `' The court del and water in the area. Finally, the city council found residents did not April, 26, 19830 zoning hear- vague. It found t hle of interpretat receive Adequate notice of the _ administrator's ing, �° ' W monunderstand: pose of the ordin At a December I7, 1984, public hearing to reconsider ° its decisions of permittee has "'n', August 27, 1984, and October 22, 1984, the city council reaffirmed its 4 permit nor subs'. decisions. X.. '[Ejvidenc the land' to a st. On November 20, 1984, CDC and Rhonda Hornbeck,t a Fort Bragg '4 't Th: also resident eligible for occupancy iti low-cost housing financed by HUD, filed -a > court petition for writ of mandate seeking administrative mandamus (Code Civ. USP 943: In resr' Prot.;- § 1094.5} and traditional ,mandamus (§ 1085) relief concerning the .:� �:', not performed su city council s determination that CDC should not be granted an extension y,;- talions of city o of USP 9-83 and that the initial permit ;is invalid. On, April 25, 1985, CDC and Hornbeck amended their petition to include causes of action for injunc- 7,E , tive relit, estoppel, declaratory relief a5, .to the validity and enforceability of fs Municipal Code section 18,76.100 on its face and as applied, and for man- ?` validity of L'SP dames relief concerning the issuance of the building permit.. Trial as to the administrative mandamus petition was held on January 4, 1985; trial on the(1) CDC argt remaining issues was held on July 1,5,'19.86, Cade section 18i:/ '. r use permits whet( The judgment denied CDC mandamus and injunctive relief and in the �- ol purpose stated ir declaratory relief action determined that Municipal Code section 18.7.6.100 ,� �; necessary ,for the is valid and constitutional. In its statement of decision the trial court found j1 ;•= found that CDC'. that Fort Bragg had not abused its discretion in finding ISP 9.83 Was Way site constitut d. or by `reversing the zoning administrator's extension of the ;permit: invalid i agree and hold th 1n connection «lith the permit's validity, ;the trial court found that USP 9-83 ��" for ;lack of substa; expired on April ?6, 1984, because "no substantial work" had been done on Crary to atithoritr; the property. The court set forth hat under th.e terms of M6nicipal Codc i section 18,76:100, "'substantial evidence; of use iri progress" had not bcen It is settled th, autcimatic cxpit t demonstrated' by CDC, noting. that tdsidential'use had not commenced on' the property, and on-site construction expenses<had not been incurred. The cir;a use .e: court "slat ed"[t]he only activities undertaken by CDC with respect,to this,: Purroses when th site related 'ts steps :preparatory` to its application fora building permit:"` t mcncr upon the' p 35T [74 Cal.Rptr' _ 1I its statement ordecision, the trial court dismissed the case at to Rhonda Hornherk, J yCal Arp,3d 636, b -'All ruhlicr slat utor ' rcfcrenee is to the Code or Civil Procedure unless othcrwi+,c noted, r and +' the ,buildin de a 'In` addition to Fort Brasg; the petition also named [ tpo G. Mcskis: Andre-.Scliadc Maithew, V. Huficn mcm6crs dl the city coGncil,;5s rctnortdents: Iiy pictriul order, 1,hc IiC11' u'hclhcc tiie cap'' 1 P nit automatic tion aga nit these iridividual5 was dismissed. cx' Irati, 's a: 1129 DEVELOPMENT COSI: K EVELOPMENT CON. V. y„ CITE OF PORT BR, GG CITY OF FORT BRAGG t uLApp•3d 1124; 251 Cal.Rptr, 709 (Sept: 198g] : - I rl i COtif vlL;v1TY D 1 • Commusi-rY DEVELOPtiiCtiT Co"' V CITY OF FORT 1130 CITY OF FORT $R +GG o4 Cal.App.3d . 709 (Sept. 146FJ 5l Cal.Rp►r. 04 CaLApp.id 11 a: � • lex t the ropriety cif reveal made an on-site 'inspection of the Jnaa co pfin► with determining P er'�' rOceed may o ert ,found that the lack of e d tot retie v sthecPermit. The Court Of of p Pr p , y , ,' such a Stan -y, construction. Xi perm ttee s dilatoriness and refusehis cess, the t rnou Appeal held that the official abtil eaten►t oftcon cru tioln►alone' does not . - P 'vl uch cork, s lord. As the court observed, ' approval at ea show w-hether; a permittee is ready to proceed .. �' invariably board, in overnmental and oured.g tip" court to apply"a work must be done on the drawing be vi•ie ded` and in p ick and shovel may 3d at p. 641.) The court y: offices before the P San Diego., supra, 19 Cal,App• +ti (,Vlor-gan V. County ofh _•, f�) We must reasoned that a standard concerned nstve with is involved, isnunreason- R r lex and e: p hood faith , especially when a comp or direct relationship to whether a a on court affirmed ��; cation of the eXl able - and "bears no necessary <s': the local agency. the judgrnent., intent to commen siian�e of a wsrit of exists."' andamus req Ma �; findings that, nc the trial court's is 638.642,) ,;,,L•, erl issued in permit, (Id.p at PP y to renew the p rrient roject herein involved complex gov- ; �v CDCs' develop P The city cotxr, As in ?4'foegan, 4{ three specific fat ro%'al Of each step or ; erntnental and financial cam n�red reviewtUDd PP a financier of.this p or the three s e of use development, reqp ` studies, _�:' cost housing to architectural and engine. ring y-�. negative declara from site', location; the, term of the use... _ project,;� insufficient tc �- bidding or the acttial constructio hirodtarchitenetsland engineers for requt- _��� urchased the land, Fur- wzti' ter, )"fid '.tha* permit, CDC p pursue the project with HL'D', :,�``; hearing 'w'as not Site studies and continued to actiN'ely P reason a building " found the city co" then, the city couroil had been informed that the only ; discretion and''w not been issued, other than the determiii �e s. T)ae city council per: had a� the butldtng perm permit, was CDCs failure to p ment was that HliD�s cr 3+ The trial court" aid b the contraetar to whom the y ,= of Municipal Col' afe s be nonpay was also informed that the re 5 review process demanded such r there was nn Sub' successful bidder on the construction contract had not •+• J. was awhrdeds. A . plans to the Fort Bragg s'ect's enyironr been determined at the time CDC 'submitted its p procedure had been,of the tori Also, the cit` ins ector for re lie 198�t�beCausegof thebc'►dt��s building permit :�c;. building p and August •? it was to determir, dclaved in Yuly cal of the use permit extension. , or'an app P •e• property ow tiers" + review' process and because proceeding with a -,. •, demonstrates CDC ivas p ;C3) Addt"tiona: 1 he record in, case clearly' on the proposed :use, It :is undisputed that Y rr "� tion of the peril'; good faith intent to con i 6 .. �P commitment from HUDI that it t tsttcm ted revocat:j ursued and obtained :a funding 000• hired architects and 1 -' Tv P CDC 'p ro crty at a cost of S95, , p,lrchascd the. Sanderson p P re^onstruction work,at a cost of 585,000; '� M1/1s ver h�z•c decide ctigincers, for the performaAce of p ` ' 11,76,1%1'4 0 is ttric6Rstit ' S crforrried; arran6cd for the removal of two small str`�n '� ,mit. w•e need nor, cnr, had soil hortng p ins cation for P ' � 'Prix real due pragcs�; and' submitted glans to bort i3r�gs s building p ;; tion olegt„1 protec lot' :10res; ial court"s dctcrmtnation that siib5ianttal evidence of check review• The tr ' uew 4, not shown" because of the absci'�ce of actual on-site const"ruction ti. i vF -VELONNIENTCO.Mi V. Co.NIMUNITY DE VELON-4ENT CONt. V. ' z13i CITY OF FORT BRAGG CIT OF ;FORT BRAGG al'.Rpir. 700. [Sept. 1q88 '104 Cd.App,3d 1124. 251 Cal.Rptr. 71019 [Sept. 1988) -site inspection or the N bears no definitive relationship to the purpose of the Fort: Bragg Ordinance. on demonstrated the nced developme t, a good faith In 4 complex, government financed n Intent to --rmit. The Court or roceed may be established in Several ways,.'exclusiVe Or actual on-site ipplying Such astan- constrUCtIlOn, in light or the evidence of the complex HCD approvalpro- ztion al I one does not cess; the amount or funds already expended by CDC in precorittruction )deed I (M]uch I work-, test borings. surveying,'and CDCs diligent pursuit, or HUD and local' Mental and banking approval at each stage or development, it was unreasonable for the trial id mortar pouted." co urt to apply a standard concerned with the extent Of construction aldne.4 at p, 64 1) The court ent of construction, volved, is unreason- ,�hethera good ralth (2) "We must next consider whether the trial court's erroneous interpre- irgan court affirmedi tation or the expiration provisim prejudiced CDC and requires reversal of ency ing the local ag � 'VIE ;V> the judgment. Thus, we must examine the propriety of the trial court's findings that, notwithstanding the permit's expiration, it had been improp- Q; crly issued in the first instance, olved cohhPldX gov- iarcier of this low. i ealid, relied on The city "council, in determining that USP 9-93 wasim 1 of,eaph step of the syr three specific factual Briclings; that, CDC did riot demonstrate, substantial ,ring Studies, to the 7 evidence of use of the permit; that mitigation measures' contained in the, ae term of the use negative declaration And conditions of approval for the project were tilgineers for rcqulm :Fut. 'sufficient to mitig te environmental impacts on traffic, ,drainage and war in a ,t with HUD J!�N,ministrator's ter,, and that Written notice of the April 26; 1983, zoning ad ilding reason a buildings area. The trial'oburt hearing was not r cived.by property Owners in the e of invalid use n o found the city council's decision, and findings did not constitute an abuse A �S The city council discretion and were supported, by the weight of the evidence., we t vas, that, -HUM A&toi- to whom the The trial couri's determination does riot withstand analysis. By the, terms act had not, n contract Sz6t 1 7 1 Q its It, expiration would only occur if or Municipal Code ion ' t 6. 0 Bragg to the Fort Bragg, J progress, rhus, citation to the there was no evidence of -use, in 'r .. acedore had been Project's environmental impact is super uousM tO A determination or dxpied- . building permit tion Also,the city council "seems to Javc been , under theMisconcep on that ,drmli it was to determine whether notice was actually received by- all the adjacent property Owners as opposed to determining if proper notice was given. proceeding with a is undisputed that, c to construe riA di- (3)", Additionally, even if we were I Court's dinminia- HUDthat it , tion of the permit's invalidity, based OnA� ,these. reasons, constituting an 0 red architects and attempted rev would ,not be, savedi A p revocation or: the permit, the judgment wo 'a cost, of 585,000; two Small strut- , 'As we have decide , d the instant 4pocal, on rfic,bdsis of the validity ,cif the original Use Pero pection, for "Plan mit, "A'd O'ced not, consider CDC,'s constitutional ariuments that Municipal -Code section !V6, lob' is unconstitutional! Vague; that the expirad '1 1 d -Ives permittee 6f on provision, cpi )Hilal evidence o pdodural due process; and that the city counci,sdecision dt invalidity constituted A Viola - site construction t. 116h btequal proiddtion4 Po , 1132 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COM. r. C1Y OF F TORT ,BRACC.._ 204 C31.App.34 1IN; 251 Cat,Rptr. 709 [Sept: 1988j 'municipality's power to revoke a permit is limitedi A conditional use pertnit may no"t be revoked arbitrarily without cause. Furthermore, notice and opinion(.��, hearing must be afforded a permittee prior to revocation of a use permit. (See City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishap (1960) 180 Cal.App,2d 657, 665 [4 Ca1,Rptr. $471, cert. den. 364 U.S. 909 [5 L.EdAd 274, 81 S.Ct. 2721; Trans -Oceanic 011 Corp, V. Santa Barbaro (1948) 85' g pp•' 716 1451,) Iviunicpal Code section codifies 8x76.1 ]t) these procedural oeeduralP.2d p due process requirements pertaining to revocation. The record is clear that -CDC was not afforded notice of the city council's intention to consider revocation of 1.rSA 9-83 at the 'October 22; ^ 1984, hearing. The hearing solely concerned Ithe expiration of the permit in _ dight of whether substantial evidence of use had been demonstrated by , - CDC. Any attempted revocation is therefore a nullity: The judgment is reversed and the cause rernanded. The trial court is ' directed to order reinstatement oi- use pernliit USP '9-83 and issue a writ of mandate I, commandingrespondent Fort Bt•a;g to issue a building permit: ) . Appellants are awarded costs on appeal. . White, P. J.,- and Barry Deal, J.,; concurrent. i s , s; 11 ' So 207 CLAP. 4t l n rt � t PEOPLE V, BROWN GOAT HILL TAVERNV. CrrY.Oi COSTA 1u1EsA [Doleted 1503-15181 1519 .2d 513 [May 19921 b Ca1.App.ath' 1519; 8 Cal.Rptr. d 385 [May 19921 .; i Opinion (5ammon v. Stare Fdrm Fire de Casualty Co.) - ( on pages '1503-1518 omitted..' , (No 0011143, Fourth Dist., Div. Three. May 29, 1992.) GOAT 14ILL;TAVERNw Plaintiff and Respondent, Y. ' CITY OF COSTA VESA; Defendant and Appellant. u�Uhihf,112Y ,A tavern, which had been in operation for 35 years and existed as a legal nonconforming use under a city's zoning ordinance, applied for a renewal of a conditional use permit that allow cd the tavern to use an adjoining space as' a game room. The city, intending to close the tavern, denied the application, based upon complaints received from neighboring residents and businesses. ! The tavern sought a writ 'of administrative mandamus (Code Civ, Proc. 1 § 1094;5) to Compel the city to renew the permit. The trial court, applying; ! the independent judgment test, concluded that the city's denial was not 1 supported by the evidence and granted the Writ. (Superior Court of Orange County, No, 644919, Greer Stroud; Temporary Judge. i) The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held tlltit die trial court properly applied the independent judgment test, rather than the substantial evidence vested right. The: court testheld that the citysince the 's action�n a ttn� the business did ' affect a attetned y p d to close not purely economic privilege; the right. to continue an established business was sufficiently personal andimportant to preclude its extinction by a nonjudicial body. The court also held that the denial of an applicadan to renew a permit merited a higher level of judicial review. Rinally,:the court held that the trial court's .decision was supported by substantial evidence, since the tavern • owner presented favorable evidence and there Was no showing to distinguish the complaints about 'the tavern frorn other possible causes. (Opinion by Wallin, J., with gills, P. J., and Crosby, L,'concitrring.) JJ HEADINOTES l 1. Classlhdd to California Digest of Officil Reports a (1) zoning and Planning S j9 IngUses=—Existing Use: Although a city's. zonlno ordinance required a conditional use permit �' Deletcil oo direction of.supreme; Court by order.dated October 29_;1992, tPuxsuSgt to California Constitution, article VI, section 21:, dap 11 � t ` GOAT j IL TAtiiiN! �u i r r _ mr 152p d G.1,APP•4rt'. t 191 atiltVRO4. 't � (� •. m 200 for any establistun ent serving food Or b�v�rst6efi ��+I1y11 mit i X41 tl Of tht' trrtt! Cl�tntti�i' i1t»�t�� residential zone, a cause, ncc�under diff llont QN'tler llltt �� legal nonconforming c[atiop in its prC;tetlt(eClIIC1t9'ktt�l"(1C11fltltn[� l�lgl �1i had been in continuous op ent of the zoning ordinances 1111 and Planning §g0,.....,C,o►ldllitltltrM"1'g Xt+r=w7 W1 141 f pal 2b) Zoning a � (1!k lifCtl �rsltrt 1 nil 4, 01 w�ew- li►tjq(t "Oaot ,�tYt1( 111 1 tsr�l� inial Revievi�—�Standard of R�Jt11�„ for writ oa administ";tttietfint#,lt1�i! -_In a proceeding endcnt jut om"'tlt• t it tt?" eil�t§ tIt.1111i1 did not err in applYin° the indep ftlllt� �I )"If=11 licadou for a t�1refn c ntlitioV tt {� �� MI 4 1 Ja 1i oini�t din ryi.rr�e J of a renewal app had all4Wed sought to close the,, pier / rr rltl t� b"O 47,101:rf JJ Nlvhrare the city ratioty.or�X, xr"r/1��f av��ner's right. to continued op✓ , a 4m) 004 ift �itl l� l7 Jit J tFl Qat noncortforsnimg� us~:f r over �r J fy rY IJy j !% y� ryOq L 1L:� *�tinl �uft�4015 4015wfit, ty '% iT 'iTw l Im-. 25ntiSla-+ .� ;i'sf w �1Ct�tH f' t 11 p I/JJgpJ9J�1aT r"( m w.� 1. t► c,�y��j°,/,.�jf '�.y+�p 9yi7yt}�'d not y a� �' �,.jr�, ! 'f 9"T'�b�40 lw,�f'°�Y/�:I7�},{+y�ylt��{r�' r}y, � . b ' '2 �:i�,u`s�,..' T��0. t At a �. . :"4 +.�+' i,+..a+x �at�"fb .Sk,+,..^�.' w'F`Wf. • y.� �:}tl.R.#r �`j/n� =e"=i3"S3 Y r y #IV3'«�P! Vim 49 -. ' i �a�a� � ^�, , Ax IM x � �'J'J'i" w --» �'°�"' �..�,re*£; tz" 'A- 'y'�,:3✓.mac a� �»,s*�°a.n t n' k � ;°' �� ,� 'a � >�a�'t%C "!+*�'i��" �M �' tot - VA GOAT HILL TAVERN V CrrY OF COSTA MESA MEsA lTY OF COSTA 1992j ' RpMU NS (May 6 CaLApp• ;th t3t9; S CsLRptt2d 3�S (Tti9sy 19921ght l f a 200 feet o Which` development. When an admmistrais otherwisen vested, andects a when that acquired or is .thin permit existed as a: has been legitimately right is of a fundamental nature from the standpoint of its economic to the individual :rship and name, it ttion before enact-' aspect or its effect in human terms and the importance the life situation, then a full and indepcndeat judicial review of that 't in is too important to decision is lad catcd, The abrogation of such a rtgf 'it to exclusive administrative extinction. e permits --Judi- - the individual to relegate Whether an admiiustrative decision substantially affects a fundamental basis. Although no till ►menf Test. , judgment nus, the trial court right must be decided on a case-by-case - vested riah formula exists by which to make this determination, counts are to a city's denial exact exact ess sensitive to the preservation of purely economic interests: use permit, which for a game room, (3) Zoning and Planning § 30 --Conditional Use Permits--Judicial Re- Decision to Close Business, --A g the permit. The uch had existed as view. -Economic Ynterests--City's city's denial of a renewal application for a cotid1tional use permi adjoining which the owner it vested right and t which had allowed A tavern to operate a game; room in an Space, did not affect purely economic interests, :and thus review under the and result We an established to preclude its •." . the independent judgment test was proper, where purpose the city's deClSit]Il was toSshut down the tavern. The :City's "aeC1Si0[i, �. lal co urtys review st, rather than the of which interfered with the tavern owner's existing use of his property, involved interests sufficiently vested and important to preclude their extinction by a nonjudicialbody. 0691,18 'W itkin (6) Zoning and Planning § 3O -Conditions Use Permits --Judicial Re - g of an application to 254.1 w.l v(ew•--Dental of Application to Rene—De>val use permit a heightened r udicia al Re- its—Judicial its ---Judie renew 'a conditional erner; $tied, the powepal - once a use permit has be .n properly of a municipal- if die permittee does nothing :iglu. Thel grant strati;ve or quasi- ity to revoke it is limited., Of course, obtaining the permit, it may be revoked, Where a, permit has in- ;e with Code Civ, If the beyond been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the permittee has the acquires a vested property right ve action). mental' vested right, carred'material expense, permittee to the protection of Which he or she is entitled. When rim t fails o if the pe A on the evidence supe orted by the acquired such a vested right, it may be revoked 'with reasgnable terms or' conditions expressed in the permit W111 consider only " comply public necessity,,, A compelling granted, .or if there is a compelling p use for a lawful ental evidence. If o t ntal� vested noh , public necessity warranting the revocation of a perit business may exist where the conduct of that business constitutes a are supported by nuisance. (7j Zoning and Planning § 3(l --Conditional Use permits --Judicial Re- decision in a procced- inistrative Man- V1eµ•ubsfantia: Evidence. The trial court's' that the evidence did not ghts: - The term ° i,° o far writ of administrative mandamus; ia� a tavern's conditional to determine the r, Support a city's denial of an application to renew ,no is, tis proeeedi a• : r,Y�¢.. use permit, was supported ;by substantial evidence: g to land use and r'� Y N V! �i K• 1523 Y OF COSTA MESA GOAT HILL TAVERN V. CITY OF COS-rAMESA ! t0d 385 (May 19931 6 Ca1.App, h 1519. 8 Cal,Rptc2d 385 1h14y 19921 Y Ziemer purchased Goat Hill Tavern in 1!984 and invested approximately :e of complaints owner presented $1.75 million in its refurbishrrlcnt: In 1988 hve knocked out a wall into an y her of incidents adlottaing commercial space, Wainb it into a ame room. He tJid not :obtain , building ermts or land use approvals. After the fact, he applied for a 1 coffee shops in P :omplaints about conditional use permit for the expansion. Conditional use permit No. 88-132 was approved by the planning commission` on September 26, 1988.= One of the conditions was that approval of the expansion was for a period :of six I months only, Prior to expiration Goat Hill Tavern could request renewal of the permit. ine chard R. In September 1989, following citizen complaints of noise from Goat Hi11 Ri ' Tavern's parking lot, the city's planning staff discovered the conditional use permit had expired A request for renewal was made and approved in adenE. !' December for tlu"ee months; In March 1990 the, city renewed, the permit for another three months but added a condition limitinb the tavern's hours. Goat W11 Tavern filed suit, asci the court stayed enforcement of the hours restriction. The action was tits- n was granted a missed when the three-month period expired. 5) ordering the aial .of Ziemer's The city held a public hearing on Goat Mill Tavern's request for a third o renewal of the conditional use permit On July 1.b, 1990. The staff report, avern,to recob- accompanied by over 100 pages of documents, was not given to the tavern's and to tenew the P court arced in I attorney until the Friday evening `before the Monday hearing. Goat Hill business Which Tavern requested a continuance to adequately respond to the lengthy report, ndent judgment the city council refused unless the tavern agreed to limit its hours Of operation in the interim, Ziemer, xefused; the tlearinb was field and the conditional use, permit was denied:, y arterial street, y, The property In Goat Hi11 Tavern's ensuing second administrative mandamus proceed is expected to ung, the court concluded the city's, refusal to continue the July 16 hearing 2the term "conditional use permit" is misleading as it connotes the issuance of an actual zone, abuts the tt door; document Setting forth the `praperty owner's Use rights and the conditions imposed, Upon, that i use. The city's practice, apparently not uncommon, is to not issue an actual physical permit for any document when it grants a conditional use permit. Not does. it adopt a resolution approving or f a Ce5ldenU :' denying a cooditionaI use permit Rather, the city`s planning, staff submit an applicant's . request for approval of a conditionally permitted use to the planning' commission along with r And panne, has a 'scoff report explaining , the project, recommending approval or ,denial of the use, and e 19$5, before i' proposuig'conditioos of approval.`If, after a pubt a bearing, the planning commission ap- foCe, eXi5ted as - proves of be request, the approval and actual conditions imposed' Upon the applicant are tiL1E wa.S' iSSUed s.' L noted in the minutes of the,Mee ting and written on the staff report. The ayplicaot i# then given i notice of the piannag commission's action, wbea we refer to Goat Hill Tavern's "conditional r use permit" we refer to the approval of its expansion as described in the staff report cad the rated, prior to the i conditions ;noted on the staff retort and in the minutes of the September 26, 1988,, planning Comm15510r1 meeting+ :ref ti 7.� AT 14ILL TAVER14 Y. OF COSTA MESA 1524 6OCa1.App tr.d GOAT` HILI, tAVE dtli t3 9; $Cal R7 385 (Ma 99j, P ' y ' 6 Cat,App.4th 151 J; violated Ziemer's due process rights. The -city was ordered to hold anew y'' reported at Goa hearing on the renewal of the permit.: It was Lrid in December 1990 and the vicinity, 10 had tavern's application was again denied, and only 5 had The following facts regarding Goat Hill Tavern were adduced at the hearing. Tenants' of the apartment building abutting the tavern's parking lot Goat Hill T'av and some business owners began com lainin� g P d about the tavern in the summer 1989:. The reviewed the cit « issued 1. of complaints largely related to late ;right in the permits ,noise parking lot and trash. In response, conditions were imposed on earlier expired and wc` extensions of the tavern's conditional use permit which required additional 7: operation, security guards, decreased noise levels and increased cleaoup. The owner of the apartment building testified that on three ocCasioas after July 1990, people were milling about the tavern parking lot about 2 a.m., honking horns , r., and yellin.�. At least one of his tenants had moved because of the noise and Goat Hill lav others were threatening to leave, Several apartment tenants wrote letters complaining of noise and fights in the parking 'lot, and of individuals .. } Proc., § 1094.$) vomiti ng, urinating and defecating on residents' lawns and fences. trial court, a 1; l. app ��; decision to deny Several nearbybusiness-owners made sirniIar complaints, stating Goat ai and ranted the M11 Tavern was no longer a neighborhood tavern but had become a popular vested property r' nightclub. The staff report summarized 19 reported police incidents occur Hill Tavern was a ring at the tavern between August 1990 and /Vovemiaer 1990. They included ('a) The city r incidents in the parking lot and complaints the tavern exceeded its capacity �' standard of revie' and its patrons were drunk in public... Goat Hill Tavern " of whether substr Goat Hill Tavern submitted apetition signed by 1;035 persons, including 248 Costa Mesa residents; supporting its permit renewal application: Decla- rations from its janitorial company indicated the tavern had expanded its L_ or quasi-judicial a" area of cleanup beyond its own parking lot: Numerous letters from Costa Mesa residents, area businesses,. and civic and charitable groups supporting '+" Angeles (1974) 11 the tavern's application were also presented. t4=' County of Los An- Judicial review'm Goat Hill Tavern presented evidence'. suggesting as explanation: for the ' •. ✓ • 1094.5., complaints was the large number of homeless and transient persons who ;'-R ' frequented the area. A nearby city -owned parking lot was known as a + If an adriliaistt, congregating; area for homeless people, Additionally, the Hclm bar, adjoiainag « , r;� right, the trial cru; : the tavern, could he the cause of the complaints. Zicmcr was'not allowed to r h4 and find an abuse' Bross -examine complaining witnesses as to why they believetl Goat Hill `s ,Ya�, weight of he evid,, Tavern, and' not the other possible sources, was responsible for their com- ��' p Assn. 1974 C ) l l ;C laints. Although at the bcptnnin„ of p the mayor asked each p tr °' the hearing i 3 <; Civ. Pioc,, 10 § 4 witness to provide such an explanation, aup o witness did so, and no follow- '` ; trial court's findIn questions were asked, Club v« Galijomic Cal;Rptr. critics The tavern submitted police reports of incidents at all similar establish-'. r Coastal Com. 19 man ts within the arca for the previous 90 days. Nineteen incidents were If the decision doe v� , TY ,OF COSTA MESA744 GOAT HILL TAvERN V• CITY OF COSTA MESA 1525 ptt 3d 385 (May 19931 ..d 6 Ca1.AppAth 15:19; 8 Cal.Rptc,3d: 385 (b1 y 1993) to hold a new reported at Goat Hill Tavern. But, of the 18 bars and coffee shops in the. tber 1950,and the vid Ity, 10 had a greater number of reported incidentsfor the same period and only 5 had less ;than 15 incidents. adduced at the 'ern `s parking lot Goat Hill Tavern also submitted, the declaration of a paralegal who had Id tavern in the reviewed the city's conditional use permit tale, She found 79 conditional use fightnoise an the permits issued between 197' and 1990 with term limitations which had Posedon earlierexpired and were not renewed. Many of the businesses were still in gaited additional ?;. operation. ' Jp. The owner of ; After July 1990, 1 1-o honking horns of the noise and ats wrote letters " Goat Hill Tavern sought a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ,, I of individuals Prod., § 1094.5) compelling the city to renew its conditional use permit. The Peaces, trial court, applying the independent judgment test, concluded the city's decision to deny renewal Of the permit was not ,supported by the evidence ts, staring Goat and granted the writ. 'The court specifically concluded: that Ziemer had a come a,popular vested property right and, to terminate the use, the city must establish' Goat incidents: occur- Hili Tavern was apublic nuisance or demonstrate a compelliag public necessity; ). They included (za) The city appeals, contending the trial court applied an incorrect ded its capacity standard of review. It argues that Ziemer hard no fundamental vested right in Goat Hill Tavern and, therefore, the trial court was limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence supported the city's decision. Mons, including Iication. Decla-` (3) The grant or denial of`a conditional use permit as an administrative d `expanded its i ,' �, ,4. or quasi judicial 'act, (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Communry V. County of Los ers from Costa r Angeles (1974) 11 Cal•3d 506; 517 [113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 R2d 121; Smit: v, ups support(ng' 152 County of Los Angeles (1989) 211 Ca1.App.3d 188, L [259 CalRptr. 2311.) Judicial',review must be in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section anation for the.. ' �r•r 1094.5. t persons who `+z -• known as a '; If" an admin.astrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested bar, adjoining ;•;, right, the trial court must exercise its ;independent judgment on the evidence not allowed tv,r and: find an abuse of discredon if the findings are not supported by; the ved Goat i Hill weight of the evidence, (Struniskyv. San Diego County Employees;Redrement for their Com-;, Assn: (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32 [112 Cal,Rptr. 805, 520 PN 291.'' See Code or asked each Civ; Prot.,, § 1094.5, subd. (c)) On appeal, we consider only whether the d 60 follow-up!34' �.. trial court's finding is1. supported by substantial evidence. (Whalers Village Al o, Club V. California Coastal Cam. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 240, 251 (220 ;s CaL Zptr, 2 ;criticized on other grounds in Surfside Colony, Ltd. v, California til edofish- � '*�. r Coastal Coin. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1269-1272 [277 CaI.Rptr. 3711.) idents were inc ;�' . , n`r ` If the decision does not substantially affect a fundamental vested right, the 3 i 71 ` GOAT HILL TAS GOAT HILL TAVERN' V. CITY OF COSTA MESA 1526 6 Ca1.ApP,dfh 1519; 8 Ca1,Rptr.3d 385'Nay 19921 6 Ca1.A Pp 4th 1St' trial whether the findings are supported by substantial court considers only w light of the who]e record. (Strumsl<ry v. San Diego County The courts test to land use nigh, (See H. ; evidence in the I1 Ca1.3d at P� P y 2.) ,Erri to ees Retirement Assn.; supra, (1 986) 42 Cal: Mesa (1981) 1 The threshold issue on appeal is p Ziemer had any veStO Vie' (4) prelintnarilyn we Coast Regions , mental right to continue operatio f tavern "[t]he `vested' in the sense of `fundamental vested rights' 'to For examph note term an admirustrative mandamus of judicial review ..•the s'vest which comps ( but nc determine the scope d rights' doctrine ng is not synonymous with .. California, setback, reliance on the , proceedin-] to land use and development" ,(Whaler's ,'When ange u dmiaistrative decisib V. on 173 Cal.App•3d at P. 252.) line. The cour'a on the Com., supra, is otherwise `aht which has been legitimatelynaturesred fromrthe stn❑dpo int of its - affects' a rim reliance its independen :. and when that right is of a fundamental in human terms and the de P� t 660> the zonir economic aspect or its effect .. • ntejudicial life situation, then a full and in -P the .individual in the riht is review of that decision is indicated because [t]he abrogation of the s administrative In Sta;isan t: too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive e ParkOwners' 'an IVio3d P eraut to rem( and expended extinction," (stn Il�arcos 149 38 Cai.Rptr. 29d1,}'internal Marcos (1987) 192 Cal. I492, 1 [ concluded that , quotation marls ,omitted:) right to consU independent it decision substantiall affects a fundamental Y his subsequen Whether an administrative vested right must be decided on a case-by-case basis. [Citation.] Although no determination [citation] courts Com., supra,: 1 exact foririula exists by to make this of purely economic interests. [citation.] (� Th'- are less sensitive to the preser<ation 'fundamental' and `vested,' ,the issue in each Tavern's renes In deciding whether a right is cted right is deemed to be of sufficient significance case is whether the "`affebts judicial power," are not N Motor VI to preclude its extinction or abridgment by a body lacking 1991 Monica Rent,Control Bd. ( ) 325]. Howevt - [Ctatian.J;"' (3�1 Ocean Ave. Corp. v. Santa [279 Cal Rptr. 636].) pendent juga. onstrates that 228 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1556 Iied to the ex ansion. Goat HUI Tavern iThe original .conditional ;use perr7ut only' app P. Had the wty, denied the ctinditiolan use '. +_ Tavern'S perm Cxtinction by c . providusly existed as a leg l oonconforrntng .use, e room eXF uOted In !09& after to Close ostructttbe game on, of the groom and revert to is wben it was fuswruid f in San Man permit ptes.umably'the tavern o have a been required original capacity. 6be would' assume; tbcrefore, tbat in approving. or denying renewal a the the city only sought to terminate the expanded use However; the. city tavern out of supra, 192 Ca . plaintiff propet conditiooaf'usc permit, is arpb ar that by dcnyirig rcacwal of the permit it intends to force the t all The Goat"HO i'Tnva' itC L t0 Op4 a Cad Fal ,�. building: Affix._. testo e court business. city, nOn000 ruing use." ghI nshts prctnisinter- 6: that the tavern , Ee conditional y Capacity under tbG out of business. �+ ., ,' j3 , category of th in the expanded COndllional use pencil puts tbeCtamvern twined and idenying renewal of the wt do not consider what6er a diNcrcot fbc issue has not been raised by either part)'. to elo the fiamc ronin Substantially at '. plated by BixG' ] Because P g y y al nonconforse datd of review would Apply if the cit' was ons +attem tin stag m ng use for over 3S has as a 1eE ;- 242)) [ and I_ts P operated opposed to an cottrc bvstne ss which P years, �� ,� Y OFC057A MESA GOAT HILL TAVERN V. CITY OF ;MESA ESA 1527 0.2d;385 (May .19921; 6 Cal*p�4th 1519; 8 Qd.Rptr,2d 385 Way 19921 - ,Y :d by substantial The courts have rarely upheld the application of the independent judgment to Diego County I test to land use decisions. Those cases have typically involved classic vested rights,,(See ,;Ialaco Engineering Co. v. South Central Coast Regional Com. (1936) 42'Cal,3d, 52 (227 Cal.Rptr: 667, 720 P 2d 15], Anderson V. City of La :y vested funda- r Mesa (1931) 118 Cal.App.3d 657 [173 Cal.Rptr. 572]; Stanson v, Sun Diego reli ninarily, we ; Coast Regional Cam. (1980) 10.1 Cal.App.3d 38 [161 Cal -Rpm 392].) ested rights' to alive mandamus For example, in Anderson the city ;issued the plaintiff a building permit a five-foot doctrine relating, ' i which complied with the standard zoning ordinance requiring but not the specific plan requiring a tea -foot setback. In good faith iifornia Coastal` setback, reliance on the permit the plaintiff built her house within seven feet of the'lot tratve decision herv✓ise vested, r line. The court concluded once the plaintiff had completed her house is and the trial court correctly applied tandpoint of its tdodp i t reliance on the permit, her rights vested its independent judgment in reviewing the city's decision denying a variance .. is from the zoning. (Anderson v. Ciry of La Mesa, supra, 118: CaL.App.3d at p. pendent Judicial J 660:) ,)f the right is administrative In Stanson the coastal 'commission told the. plaintiff that he did .not need a V. City -of San permit to remodel his restaurant. In reliance, he obtained building permits 2901, internal : and expended substantial sums of money remodeling his building. The court concluded that under these circumstances the plaintiff had acquired' a vested right to construct, his building and the trial court should applied the a fundamental .have indP endent judgment test in reviewing the coastal commission s dental of judgment .] Although no - ,p los subsequent permit application. (StansonV. San Diego Coast Regional •itatlon] courts i ]- Com., supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 50.) sts. [Citation.] ? (5) city Urges that any' rights impacted by its denial of Goat Ville issue in each .,' tThe Twiern s renewal application are purely economic interests. Therefore, o at si atficance 1 rights are not fundamental vested rights. (Champion Motorcycles, Inc., V. dicial power. „ New Motor Vehicle Bd. '(1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 819, 824 [246 Cal.Rpir. rol Bd. (1991) ? 325].) However, a review of .cases considering the application of the lade- > pendent judgment test anti the definition of fundamental vested rights dem- onstrates that the rights affected by the city's refusal to renew Goat Bill al _rail Tavern Conditional,;wd f Y Tavern's perp it are stiff ciently vested and' important to preclude their loom ezpausloo, extinction by:a. nonjudicial body. add revert to its g renewal of the In Sun Marcos MoFiileltome Park Owners` Assn. 'v. Ciry of San 1l?arcos, lowever, the city C, tavern nut> of supra, 1,92 Cal, App.3d 1492, a city rent control commission denied the owner's application for a rent increase in a rent controlled tinder the sande rigbt to operate plaintiff property building. Arming the trial court's application of the substantial evidence "fall into the less "sensitive e;ttricably inter- ut of busiacss, test:,:the court found requests for rent increases categoryof the 'preservation of purely economic privileges', and do not ether `a different substantially and fundamentally impact the individual in the manner contem- game room as, 35 plated by Bixby (v Pierno (1971) 4 Cal,3d 130 (93 Ca1.Rptt `234, 481 P;2d use for. over is progeny. (;San N3rcos Mobilehorte Park t�wrters Assn., su 242)] add i '' pra, 1528 GOAT HILL TAVERN 1. CITY OF COSTA MESA ?i ' GOAT HILL TAvl: 6 Cs)4tk .App.1 6 Cal.App.4th 1519; 8 CaLRptr.0 385 [May 19931 192 Ca1.App.3d at p there is no contention, nor does the 1500:) "Here, " parking spaces evidence suggest, that if the Commission denied the requested rent increases, tenants but got r,' of the park owners would be in such an unfavorable economic position they ;et Availability I would o out of business. Thus, the Commission's decision does not sub- g �° ` t control board pA and that the a p o stantially affect the property owner's ri ht not to have his property taken 11 and subject to th awayfrom him. [Citations,) Rather the decision restricts the return he can;, those. units r.. -obtain from his property." (!d. at p. 1502.) ?c' ,or test Similarly, in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1976,) 59 Cal.App.3d 293 uf,,m entl $ s y p nonjudic[al' bad; 130 Cal.Rptr. 8141, the court held the substantial evidence test.applicd. to an Owners Assn., administrative decision requiring gas stations to install gasoline vapor recov- t , there was no ant ery systems because it impacted; only economic interests. "We are not escalation of ren p resented with the enforcement of a rule which effectively drives the Oil �� tin ;use t; preexisting Companies out of business, At most it puts an economic burden on them p increasing the cost of doing business. In weighing the relative importance to f (2b) Goat'14 individuals in he life situation, it is manifest the Oil. Companies' right to p �wrt nonconforming continue releasing gasoline vapors into the atmosphere is neither ftlndamen- including substa. tai nor vested," (Id, at p. 305,) rt,•_= e thed Similarly, in Standard Oil Co. v. Feldstein (1980) 105 CalApp.3d 590 " o whit beh e roo tion of the perm[ 4031, the substantial evidence test was applied to an admin- r�. ist�'veidec decision. An air pollution control district ;ranted Standard permis- We cannot coc $lot, to construct a low-sulphur fueloil facility; subject to the condition that operation of his l it shut down two of three other refinery units while the new facility was in cit so stronpl operation• When Standard proceeded to operate all four units, the district ,*w Py continue ogeratir hearing board found it to be in violation of its permit and forced it to shut; tial investment, down the new refinery. The court concluded the action did not impact a' fundamental vested right because "[Qhere is no contention that Standard will w: Interference W be driven to financial ruin by the action of the District;, there is not even a serious than the contention that this particular facility will be forced to operate at a loss and �ti conditional use p " p. 04,) The only impact of the deei;ion gas reduced profits.'• close. (Id. at ,L personal, vested . body,, In San Marcos Mobtlehome Park Oxners' Assn, v, City of San Marcos,' t supra, 1`92 Cal;App.3d 1492, Standard Oil Co,, V. Feldstein; supra, 105 While cases a] Ca1.App,3d 590, and, Mobil Oil Corp,' v. Superior Court, supra, 59 t z are few, we v hol p Ca1.A �.3d.293'; the courts held the administrative actions tin licated urcl pi p p y t~r, ^• ---- 1Aococrally, a bode econorrlic interests because there Were n0 COntentioII$, nor evidt:nce, that LhC Y sanoma (1987)` 190 S ' s or cause them to lose the[r actions would force the compa, out of business �, :�. upheld the issuance t property. !-be opposite is true here. The avowed purpose and resuit of the ;; ,� -' use on he coQd tido a city's decision is to shuf down Goat ;Full Tavcrn. y :: = „ v. County of Los Ani„ utterly implausible tb !, In 301 Ocean Ave. Corp. v', Santa Monica Rent Control i33d., 'supra, ?'8 ti y Tavero_ in eXcbapge fc Nothing W the docutr Ca1,App.3d 1548, the landowner's ,rights were found to be fundamental :: inslaacc sugsct6 ibat Vested rights: The owner of a rent controlled apartment complex with fewer y, the permit Were dente 0 'V, OP COS MUSA GoA"r',F{t1ch�15►), 1�tCITY �1��Ol ((ll MA !A 9(+ Itt,20 385 MA 19921 6 CAA C31,90 01f; Y parking sPares th011 aparullnt►I�S lead �liiKli�11� kn, CIlSr docs the P f' a alflo 10'llgoe'l1-I� JAII'M 1n 1111,111�'1)(l11� C11� fllC(�1ltC !#�a d Mint Ihcrcascs, tenants' but not to a11, t�4 position tht.y Availability of patkun v�tui ticit �i trt Of 11Ct� M�1it�l� 111yff1CCC11C.t111p �I!!� ���1� 1l#l�� convol board maoc a Odt ardruld 11m,pltfking mm"' A;1111411 to dollnot subs c a artrfcntm It,/�' t,x.tf11 C1111t �irsll jltll! 11l I�lr IlkiCijl lfll I� and tim the p Ss �roptay tai -cn and subject to tilt rt:nG Cts lt�t1J! � i llirCr7G'?:� `�1tf'r,ilrlt;r MIA IM/1 C!l Illi l�l�sl'919{1Irl1 11c rttirn h can. for. those urtica tit gtnvt��1 a1)��qi�g 6��;��:cr,,. 11! r("+llll,;Ili�ll�lf� IIIA P 110 , 04, c.�tdn found, fhl JUf�yfACS31 i��SL � ,1i � N x rr v 5�lFx3�itadF j�"��;t9 �� �/em�j 2�'�' 11ti�i�11'��111! �A$ .Q aaanis � ' :fir 1� r� � r✓ t%fil r�%tt r'rr ' frl»/�l�lrr/irt l r /rit!% � �.r(� �� � '�" lord ���� rfa r 4,1 MIA t-a pp.litt�l �m ark syr r' '�d rr� � fry � f �1 �1/A1 . N•� l:K�'tia. ��tr. Pkv/iY�etcrpi;i ..✓,,�� �.r (� 4x'j .. �G`..r r�+ Y+iM �i Y���d:.l�it,rt X«. fAw ow�,. Z+F�".r,� ¢t ��,.:+�.pp� �yJ � y�� y� ,,��'�,/� r'•/ ,(/ �'>r' A'�,�..+J�,i, wY ,t FlA ��/ � �J/f�F'J�R ',' .,��;+�ti'�".,;:4� �yi "" t�s1f:3lit., ' .'^��J ".�.i "f�'!�� .`�a� `3t. �'r ✓ '-- IV ts it, t4=-`a'�t'��Y+arta+" "f —121:��i�a+ TV : Mi31 A; Par".1 1K4 tea =tears•- r y ''#". u i�vx +ff r r� 4 4rox r j Yom- ""` __...... ..�,r,,:.x.r�.r+�W!^✓w�i 'fir' .�`:,/ +tial x+. ez zX'` 4 --,:"''.wry'. ✓,i» uw�.� i :.T.>+ �.`.,�*X": : `. a..+... �+..�.'�'n-'y-+.'tea., - ,•^,. '�" .ay, ,,,�,�+: ,n ,-�' v�l��•r �� `.A��' �C"'.�A„'►�'t� K,�i�,�'�A",v�r:r'irl?Y� 'F ,�,r•,��Kt� a .� rv+w�'u";'� a...�: �d �..�ir. '�,,�� °""�-s" .� a�^h Y.+, Y. a'"��' r' yN'+ �` ,�, � i'i�5fY4N�wXt ^Y � Yi .JM ✓�' SI P✓'i � %Ti S�.(� ����.+i/��.'Jv ' % fw�„ � •,,,�,� .� i.i+wnw+s .wi- � .s ��r''�',�rrt�.r'r.vrwoM4ri'' ".Wrt�"�,"M�'.�;.r+'A�>,�Aa* .�'IJ.°�� 'iPR '' .gyp 0(�t�� � au.. r�„ .,�.,, y'#.+,r,�,�,�.,. >�v�i...b�,.kr .k�'"r .,��'>' � M"'y.H: d�„►. e�^ ?�{x�pM'�.r+�' s✓ �, . 7M-,a.xrr' ,,,, ; Yr 'aa"` »4 �' .P i ''�'`' r ,���v�sP�'�'•g-> "di� i�;r'trj{$` .� ��ia�.. '""' Ails. ixyMq,-�lrt�++MxF "'" .,,._.,,..;a.-„'�!-r`.«' c�cw,,.w '.e""•',a ;A!'ir�`�k�,,�✓.::�srr't t Y�yy,�.., P1�''yx'"a'W.-^r"+* '�------"w-- .�',�}ws,"d�".�aJlvrx `�u3' '✓'"Y`.;��..+*k-+r .'+�'1'•r�'"Y 3,"/�'�""� .�S�r1�'.r+°+Y,+?�d.�r�.fr"�� '. F.x Kt%e "4i+ke ".*'rm ..owY4.yu:. . rw+b• +.i'W+'✓ � �N: n � 'I d”, � ".dyay,ygq.. � w .p.4b".+. .r"'"'«—+� 1 .�i . +of r +:�" .: •,�4' H .rP' � �{.k �w�, V4�,+F?: ,.�,. � ...a .,,,y .,�a-� y'�'+�� �� �'"r rs1�`�r,,,-�✓ �. :e%r!".` i��`"" ;+�°^�.e"^�y��i,A"°.� �`r`�a n -'+e i E?',.+"',;$;, ' ,a'rA �r'4s �+k✓� �aY:r '++..� .. .y+w•a+..�°`'...C^ w"',e�, � . � �M�''r'^F+'"... � 3y=". G,;� �� u .'" J`+.�t� .04� .F" J.., . .. GOAT HILL 'TAYER14 U. CITY OF COSTA MESA � r GOAT N1UL'TA1, I' 6 Ca1.AppAth 1, . 1530: ti ppp,4th i519; B.CaLRptr:2d 385 (May 19921 z Fort Bragg (1 . We might conclude_ differently were this, as the city attemptsto suggest, a seeking a conditional use per to begin a denying renew ' simple case of a property owner use of property, But it is not. Rather, Goat Hill Tavern is, an existing business' �� ! which has ope%; vested right of . and a legal nonconforming 'use.. the iadependec , The circumstances presented are more like the revocation of'a conditional use permit than the mere issuance of one. The .c;ty has a practice, common in use nal Y man cities, ofissuln limitro ertdtawnerm stew thencoadidol abuse use permit "expires gth p p y '' Althoug h the on appeal , permit At such time, the city argues, the property owner is subject to the he or she experienced when the condi- � test, forma Coastal ' same discretionary approval process tional use permit was originally obtained. Renewal is not simply a question the also Strumsky Cal 3d at p. 32 of whether the property owner has complied wit1h the conditions of permit. Rather the city's action on the renewal request can be premised upon for its issuance in the first instance (Gov. Sion. any of the discretionary" grounds Code, § 65901) because the' city views the renewal as a new request for a The evidence ' the city counci permit deny renewal o Costa Mesa's practice i to do nothing about "expired" conditional use When a complaint about a (a),) While the and businesses ; permits and to allow businesses to continue. as here, months after the conditional use permit expires, the witnesses wrot business arises, city demands an application for renewal. In the meantime, the property invest in the property and the business, but Ziemer introdu . at the tavern owner liar been continuing to faces the possible loss of his conditional use permit for reasons other than vicinity, The',, Tavern fry:6 failure to comply with its original conditions. Goat Hill7avet (6)° Denial of an application to renew a permit ;merits a heightened has been properly issued the power of "Once has r t The cit 0-r.- judicial review. a use permit municipality to revoke it is limited. [Citation.l Of course, if the permittee p uhlic nuisance operation,,`the e' does `rxothing' beyond obtaining the permit it may be revoked. [Citation.7, has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the this claim.'becat. nuts Where: a permit has incurred material expense, he acquires a vested property right to obtain a perrriittee to the protection of which he is entitled. [CitaEons.] When a permittee has acquired such a vested right it may be, revoked if the permittee fails to reasonable terms ar conditions expressed in the permit granted- 7 ST�e city relies t comply with [citat o,,ns] or if there is a compelling public necessity. [Citations.) [9(J A - the revocation of a use permit fora i. y; Smith the court tid` county s denial of e camp lling public necessity warranting !Awfulbusiness may exist where. the conduct of that business constitutes a ,. operauoo before the no suggestion in Sm nuts once." O"Hab�cn v. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1971) 19 Cal,App.3d", C'al.Rptr. 48-'i]; TrahPOeeank Oil Corp. v. Santa Barbara- nonconforming use Tavern never built Furtbc 151, 158 [96! 269 (1548),85 Cal.App.2d 176 (194 Rid 1491" see also Upton v. 'Gray (1969) '' forming use. a renewal of a coed. av~a1.AppOld 351 (74 Cal.Rptr. 7831; Community Development Com. v. City of r j ,: `V CrrY OF COSTA MESA, U*ptr 2d 385 (May 1992) GOAT HILL TAVERN V CrrY OF COSTA MESA 1531 6 Ca?,App' 4th 1510;.8 Cal..Rptr..d 385 [May ,1991.1 attempts to suggest, aFgrr Bragg (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124 (251 Cal.Rptr. 7091.) By simply fuse permit to begin a i denying renewal of its conditional use permit, the city destroyed a business isan existing business which has operated legally for 35 years. The action implicates a fundamental Vested right of the property owner, and the trial court was correct in applying t the independent judgment tests 26611 of a conditional t practice, common in zl' When the conditional the conditional use tier is aubject to the Although the'trial court was required to apply the independent judgment cad when the condi- test, on ,appeal we apply the substantial evidence standard. (Barrie v. Cali - forma Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal�App.3d 8, 14 (241 Cal.Rptr, 4771:; See of simply, a question a a� '• also Strumsky V. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., supra, 11 e, conditions the � Cal.3d at p, 32,) (7) evidence supports the trial court's deci- in be premised upon 'Substantial first instance (Gov. ,eyes request sign. for a' . The eyidenee:before the trial court is the same evidence wWch was before ' . the city council at the December 1990 hearing when it made its decision to Wl conditional use , s deny renewal of the conditional use permit. (Code Civ. proc„ § 1094.5,,8 bd . (a},) Whilethe city had evidence of complaints from neibhboriig residents Complaint about a b:•; and businesses, ?�iemer also presented a great deal of evidence, Several perrrjt expires, the time, the witnesses wrote or testified favorably to Coat Hill Tavern. Additionally,, property£ Ziemer introduced police records showing the number of 'incidents reported 1 ;the business, but at the tavern were less than at most other bars and coffee shops in the reasons other than � • g „ vicinity. There was no showing to distin„uish complaints about Goat Hill o J fined Tavern from other ossible causes , including the Helm bar, which adjoined Mill Tavern; and the homeless who frequent the area. tits a heightened x :.► ed the power of a• The city,arpues that,even if it is required to prove Goat Hill Tavern is a if the ;permittee , public nuisance ter there' exists a compelling public necesslty tb terminate its 'oked. [Citation.1 operation, the evidence below supports such a finding. We need not address ince thereon the =r _4 this claim because it is not properly before lis. The city has not yet attempted ed property right y to obtain a nuisance determinationi a permittee has ermittee fails to • ':' e' permit granted 4r' ;t3t10nS.1 [9[j A °The city relies Heavily on S�rrith Y..Gounry 'of Los Angeles, supra, 21'1 Ca1.App.3d 188. In smith the court held the independent judgment test did cot apply tO judicial review of the ltSe ermit for'.a r : ` ' p county's denial Of a condition ai use permit far an adult business. The business bad been in SS corlStltuteS a ,`', 19 .Ca1App,3d : .', g� operation before the county's action, presumably as a nonconforming use. Howeaer, there *at no suggestion in Smith that the adult business had any right to .continue in operation as a legal , 3'anla Btirbara nonconforming use had it not applied for the conditional use, permit, Here, hid Goat Hill l gray (1969) 269 f �� Thies sever built its game room expansion, it would still be;operating as a Legal noncon• forming use: Furthermore, Sinith involved a new application for a conditional use permit, not CO»f V. Gzry of = =' a rencwaJ of a tionditional use permit. For these reasons we find Smith unpetsuasive, i ` :. t .Y _ _.. .. .. 11 1$32 Goer liiu TAVkRN v Ch7Y OF COSTA MESA , r., 6 Cat:A 4th pp, 1519; 8 Ce1.Rptr.2d 385 (May 19921''„`^ The judgment is affirmed.y;` Sills; P. L and Crosby,, J., concurred; wr^ A petition for a rehearing was denied June 16, 1992, and appellant's r petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 13, 1992: Panelli, J., and Baxter, J.. were of the opinion that the petition should be yr granted. SLS. • F' 4 iVL, ,i 'Deleted on drec: 1 JVD- iOMING ENYOTHER APPLICANT R ECEIV EO FROM.- - USE PUBLIC RECEIPY --- TOTAL-,- PU BILIG LAFCO VARIANCES OOCUM ENTS NEA LTH DATE - - NOr RECE\VEO WORKS PERMITS - a, Van PLANNING DIVISIOIU DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT :SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OHOVILLE, CALIFORNIA 85966.3397' TELEPHONE: (916) "041601 FAX; 1816! 638.776E December 15, 1993 Larry Smallen 1215 West Lindo Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Re Use Permit, Alb No. 058-260-004 Dear Mr. Smallen: On December 9 1993 the Butte County Planning Commission initially approved your request to allow 15 mobile home spaces,: a laundromat, and retail commercial uses on AP No. 058-260-004. However, it was later discovered that the hearing was published and held at a 9:00 a.m, time period which was in conflict with the continued time set at a previous hearing on the project, which was set for a 10:30`_a.m. hearing. At 10:30 a.m., the Planning Commission rescinded their previous approval and continued your project open to January 27, 1993 at ,9:00 a. m. Please disregard the previous letter dated December 13, 1993, which was sent in error. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me between 8:00 a.m. and 4;00 p.m,, Monday 'through Thursday, Sincerely, William Farrel Director of Development Services Craig B: Sanders Associate Planner' WF:CBS:bd cc: Bachman &Associates point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. b. Thera is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the initial study has been independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered by the Planning Commission and reflects the independent judgEme��+;, of the County of Butte. 4, , The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity nor character of the zone in which the land lies and that the use would not be unreasonably incompatible with or injurious to surrounding property or detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare. of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general health, welfare and safety of the County, because the density is being reduced to more closely " conform to the .jurrounding properties and conditions are being imposed On the project that will address noise, light, traffic, safety, and health concerns; and B: Move to adopt' a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures and grant a Use Permit to allow an 15 space mobile home park, a Laundromat, and retail commercial uses on AP 058-260-004 (Smallen) subject to the following conditions: I Meet the requirements of the Environmental Health Department for water jj supply, sewage disposal, and waste water disposal for all proposed uses. 2. No more than 4 washing machines may be Installed in the laundromat. Hours of operation for the laundromat or any other commercial use shall r not commence before 7 am. or extend past 10 P.M. . 3. Provide a designatedr parking area on the lower level of the property to serve the Laundromat. Utilize a combination of low fencing, curbing, and landscaping to differentiate the parking area from Skycrest Dr.. 4. Parking plans for the laundromat and all other proposed uses shall comply with Butte County Code Section ?4-35 and be approved by the Department Of Development Services, Planning Division. 5. As long as no building addition is required, changes in'use-`6r occupancy , of the main dome structure that currently houses the general store, may be approved by the Director of Development Services. Proposed uses shall be limited to retail uses of a light commercial character, 6. Meet the requirements of the California State. Departmentof Housing; and Ip � �,� a �' ® ur✓ a � � � .mow. � _ d L•ilyli .� A N i �. September, S, .1';'90, Enclosure 1 AREAS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE .5250.00; ANNUAL FEE APPLIES Municipa itY Permitted Area r x,: Alameda County The permitted area .of the county is the westerly side of the county which drains to San Francisco Bay. ' 2. Los Angeles County The permitted area consists of the five h drologic, subbasins which drain into 'the Pacific Ocean' as follows: Santa Monica Bay, Upper Los Angeles River, including Sycamore Channel, _Upper } San Gabriel River, Lower Los Angeles River; and Lower San Gabriel River, including Santa Clarita Valley. The permit - does not cover the cities of Avalon, Lancaster, and Palmdale,, A. Orange,,County The permitted area is delineated by the Los Angeles County line on the northwest, the San Bernardino County line on the north and northeast, the Riverside County line on the east, the San Diego County line on the south, and the Pacific Ocean on the southwest. 4. Riverside County The permitted area is delineated by the San Bernardino County line on the north and northwest, the Orange County line on the west;' the San Diego County lids on the south, and the Santa Ana/Colorado River Basin Re! ionaI Boards' boundary line on the east (mountain crest) 5. Sacramento County The ;entire county except for the incorporated City of Isleton. 5. San Bernardino County The permitted area it delineated by the Santa aria-Lal ontan' Regional Board boundary line on the north and 'icor theast, ,the Santa Ana- Colorado River 9asin`Regional 3oard boundary; line on the east, the San Bernardino-R:ivers%de y .r y hiunic_ putt. Permitted Area County boundary 1°ine, on the south and southeast,; the: San.-Bernard,%no- prahge County "boundary line on the; southwest, and the, San Bernardino - Los Angeles County boundary line on the west. 7. Sa'n, Diego, County The permitted area is delineated by the San Diego County lines on uth, the north and sothe Pacific Ocean on the west, and the San Diego/Colorado River Basin Regional Board boundary on the east (mountain Cres -t), r' 8+ Santa Clara County The Santa Clara Valley Bastin Portion of the county containing eleven hydrologic subbasins which discharge into wate,rcours,es which in turn flow into South San Francisco Bay. • �. f tl r; r tq, _2. • TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THIS GENERAL PERMIT Construction activity includes clearing, grading, or excavation thatrasulta.in soil diaturbnnce, Of att lelsc1 of 1683 that five acres r 14r five aeras of. total land area. Constrnetion activity that rgsults in soil disturbances development or 'bale requires tt peratit if (tie do�s,truction:activity is part of a larger common plan of Lina and rade, by g g drauli ' to maintain original aL ' Donatruction activity does not include routivo maintenance it include, emergency construction activities eegt,irrd a � capacity,( or original purpoa> ?f the facility, nor does h the lo cal Regional Water Board that, a i to protect public health and safety, Dischargers may confirct.Wit particular routine maintenance is not subject tc this genbral permit. dischax�es from those, portions of a construction project which include dredging and/or filling } gtorm Wate,x ursuant to Section 10 of the to regulation by the U.S.• Army Corps of nginaera (Corps),, p a which axe subject ulacion under this general permit. $action 404 of the CWA, are excluded from tog liivers and Harbors Act and/or are, h owevgr, subject to the ce'rtificatio'.1 raquiroments of Section 401 of the &ksaid f ortions othe project h P' be via the certifir-deWn process; Storm water discharges from dradgo spoil placement Whic five and moat addreased disturbs Corps juriodi,"%..a '(upland sires) and is part of a canstrsiction activity Which scours outside of of land ;are covered by this general permit-'- . or more acres 06TIFI0ATibN 1iE2UiRE`fENTS )and where, the construction activity is occurring it reaponsib: r 5- DsSCRIPTION_OF CENE[tAL.PERMIT 'CONDITIONS 4 The following is a brief description of the 'major prcvisiond'of the general permie and the basis 'for the general permit. Dischargers'nhould read the ,general permit-errefully. Prohibitions This general permit nuthorizas the discharge of storm water associated with construction activity: from construction altos. It prohibits the discharge of materials other, then storm water and-all discharga2 which centain A hazardous substance in exacts of reportable quantities established at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) 117.3 or 40 CFR 902.4 unless a separate IMES permit has been issued to regulate those discharges. Effluent Limitations Permits for storm water discharges associatad'with conattuction activity must meet all applicable: provisions of Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA. Those ,provisions require controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best available technology caliy achievable ;OAT) and best ,,Coilveiitional pollutanH control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants, And more stringent controls necessary to meet water quality standards. It is not feasible at this time for the State Water Board to establish numeric effluent Limitations. The roasons why establiabment of numeric Off 10"t limitations is not feasible is discussed in det,.il in State Water Board Ordars Nos;. WQ 91-03 And:WQ 91-04. Therefora$;the effluent limitations contained in this general permit are narrativa and include the roquirsmont to implement appropriate pollution prevention control practices and/or Best Management Praetices (BMPs). The DMPs may include treatment of storm hater discharges, slang with souroo reduction, which will constitute BAT And BCT and will achieve, aamplisnco 'witih water quality standards. The effluent limitations constitute compliance with the requirements of the CWA. Hcwevar, if storm Water Ris1harpsanalWatersDoardemay�Adopt A general pormitwhichraplacesgthi,s�general� 'may be amended, or the appropriate �' y atandards to be ae '-permit to include additional efflftant limitations necessary to achieve water quality stantlardsil Elimination or reduction of non-storm water discharges is a major goal of this general permit. Non-storm wat;,er..disehargas include a wide variety of sources, including improper dumping$ spills, or lnakago from storage tanks or transfer areas. Non-storm Hater di.schatges may contribute a significant pollutant load to receiving waters: Measure$ to control spills leakngo, and dumping and to prevent illicit coanectiona during construction ,can often be aidkeased through HNPs, This gdnat4l P b P discharge of-, materials ether than storm water, The gonatal, permit$ howavar recognizes that'certainnon-st:ormwater discharges may be necessary for the practical por>ormancts and completion of construction projects. Such discharges include, but are not liated top landseapo irrigation of erosion control measured, pipe flushing and tenting, street washing, and dewatering: $000. discharges are allowed by this,gonaval permit if the discharges era (1) infeasible to eliminate, (2) comply with,fiN4's as described in the`Storm Water pollution Prevention Plan, (3) do not cause or contribute t6.4 violation of water quality standards, and (4) are not required to be permitted by the l0t,Al Regional Water Board (e.g. $ some Regional Water hoards hexa adopted general permits for dewatering ditch- get). Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan'(SWPPP).= This gene 11 permit requires development and implementation of SWPPPq emphasizing storm water 9liPs 4 This Apprahch provides the flexibility aecasaary to establish control, practLoco which can appropriately address sources of pnllutaats at di£feient cbnatructi6n. ddtivities.., All dischargers tifust prepare, retain at the construction sitd, and itaplement a SWPP. The 5*?p has two =Jot objectives; (f)l to help identify the court" of sediment acid other pollutants that a�£oct the quality of 'storm water discharge's and (2) to describe and ansuta the it4plomeaFation of practices to reduce sediiaent and ochzr pollutants in storm water discharges. The SWPPP must include BMPa which address source reduction, and, if necessa"y, should 'incldde BMPa which require treatment. ,, ST&S ii&tn B&S Mcis CONTROL t" (kT. [iAT •BQ1m) wibik io. 92-OFt=lifi� 9A'f'I€1DbL YOIy_7fAO .b7s(91esCE RT.'ix['v1A• Off OiST tl (HPD&4) GFR AL PBJBHiT tie. wododo s r WASTk 61MM RCSIZQUIRIil =S (i DiW POS n.. ry bIsCElA1 UM OF MM QATES RUMn ASSMA'Y'ED taw CWSTRUCPIOO eC1� VM The Stats'Water Soerd finds that: 1. ltedoral regulations for contrplling pollutants in storm water runoff discharges were issued by the U:S. Environmental protection Agency (USEPA) on November 16, 1996 (40 Coda of Federal Rogulations (CFR) Parts 122, W i and: 124)• rhe rogulations requite discharge's 0f Atorm water associated with conatruction activity ncluding,cl"ring, grad(except'o0rations that result., in :.. lh�urbanoe of Its$ than five acres o£ 00th! land area and which are not part of a larger common plan of Ad dovelopment or sale)i� to obtain a NPDES:permit and uo implement Baot Available Technology Economically Achievable- (BAT) and Beat Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT} to reduce or eliminate stari r water pollution; y. 2. This general permit shall rogulate pollutants in discharges of storm water asaoeiated.with eontttrueti,on r activity (storm water discharges),,exeapt from those areas on Indian lands, the -Lake Tahoe Hydk0logic Unit, and where the storm avatar dischatge is determined ineligible for coverage under this general permit by th.;e California Regional Watar Anality -Control Boarda (Regional Water Boards'). Attachment l eontaina addioase.s and te.laphono numbers of each Regional Water Board office. J. This ganersl permit does not preempt nr 6uparoode the authority of local stores watar management agencies t.. PrO1:itJirj -gettrltt, or: control.. $toren water dischazgtla.. to sapatate 5t6rG 6ei7er Syflteiil6 or..Other watortoursoa within their jurlsdi4ti0a� as allowed by State and "kadnral law-1 To 'obtain authoritatioxi Eos current and fututn:storm water discharges pursuant to Cilia: genaYul permit, the owner of a site whore cohstructi.on activity occurs (discharger) wust 9uhmit a Notice of Intent (No) and r: appropriate fee to the Stata Water Board,. Diuchargdrs who submit a NOI and appropriate fen era authorized to discharge storm water under the terms and conditions of this general permit. 5. g e subject to this, general permit, or an if an inPdividual NPDES etmit is t6sued to a disohar ar otherwis" alternative ganeral permit is subsequently adopted sihieh'covers storm water discharges regulated by this genote! permit, the applicability. of this general permit to such dischatgea is automatically terminated on the affactiva date of the individual permit or the date of approval for coverage under the suhaequ6nt general petmi.t. ,, 6. This action to adapt a ODES permit is uzempt from the provisions of the California Environmentai Quality Acte i q;California (Public Resource's Coda Snctioh 21100 et sa ), in accordance with'.$ectioii 13$89 ox the Cli£oYn Water Code.' 11 in u racent ruling, the ninth Circuit Court of Appeala invalidated the exl<mpton granted by USEPA fox stQlea,water dieeharges fromil sodisturbances Leas than Five 0,cres but remanded to USEPA for further agti0nz This general permit may be thopened1j. as necessary, to ;accommodate a redefinition of the types of std#;t water dischatges tsat Gust be berth ted, r r� o . r r O:. SPECIAL PROVISIONS POR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY; r' F 1. All dischargers must file a Not and appropriate Foo for construction activities conducted, at each site as required by Attachment 2i !Noticeof intent--Coneral Instructions. 2. All dischargots must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Section A: Storm Water Pollution Preventton'Plan. (SWPPP)n 3. Discharges of hon-storm water and allowed only when necessary for performance and completion o£ ' construction projects etre where they do not causo or contribute to.a violation of `any water quality, standard. Such discharges must be described in tho SWPMd, Wherever feasible, alternatives Which do not result in discharge of non-storm nater shall be implamentad, in accordance with Section A.7 of the SWPPP requirements,,: 4: Al dischargers must develop :Lind implement almonitoring program and reporting plan in accordance with Section B: MonitoringProgram and teporting Requirements: 5. r All dischargers must comply with the lawful roqutremonts of ,municipalities. counties, drainage - districta, and other local agencies regarding diacharges of storm Water to separate storm sewer systems or other watercourses under their jurisdiction, including applicable requirements in municipal storm water management programs devaloped to comply with NPDES permits issuedby the Regional Water , Boards Lo local agencies. 6. Ail dischargers must comply with the standard provisions and reporting requirements contained in Section Ce Standard Provisions 7. The discharger may revoke (canool) coverage under this general permit by submitting to the State ,Water Board certification, in accordance with the si.gttatory requirements Of Section C: Standard Provisions, Items 9 and 10, that construction activity has boon completed, that all olements of the SWPPP have boon completed, that construction Andequipment maintenance wasta hava boon disposed of properly)- the"t the ;site is in compliance with all local storm water management requirements including eras3,onjsedixent central requirements, policies, and guidelines. In addition, a discharger may revo°Ke (cancel) coverage under this 'general, permit when ownership of all ora portion of the project has been traasferrod. Tha new owner must comply with the previsions'of Section A(2)(c) and B(3)(b) of this an tht Not from the now owner when possible. general permit. The revocation should accemry 8.This ge-+49.41 permit will exipre an Au gust 20, 1997,' Upon aissuance of a NPDES general permit by the State Water Board, dischargers subject to the va�.ssued general parmit may be required L'4 file a revised NOI; D. 1(EGIONAL WATER BOARD AUTHORITIES! 1 Following adopt°.os: c this general permits, (egional Water Soares shall: i a, Iiaplomoat the provisions' of this general perms`. Implementation of this general porta" may include; but is not limited to, reviewing SWPPP!, reviewing monitoring ropers!; conducting compliance inspe4tiens,:hind taking onforcomant actions:. b, issue per i.s es they doom appropriate to inditidiiai dischargers, categories,of'dischargersi or dischargers in ,A get)graFhic area, Upon issuanod of such permits by a. Regional Water Board# the affected dischargers shall no Iongar, be regulated by this general poclit, 2=: Regional water Boards Inay Pr=ovide guidance to dischd govs.on SWPPP and Monitoring Program implementation. r Section A: STORM WATEVPOLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 1. } Ob jectives A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) s hall be developed and implemented for each conatructiort site covered b this general permit. The SWPPP shall be certified in accordance with the signatory y $ requirements of Standard Provision C.9'< The SWPPP shallbe developed and amended, when necessary, to' meet the following objectives:. a. To identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with construction activity '(storm 'water discharges) from the construction site, and b. To identify, construct, and implement storm :water pollution prevention measures (control practices) to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site both during, construction and Alter construction is:complated. 2. Implementation Schedule a For conatzuction activity commencing, on and after October 1, 1992+Che SWPPP must be 'developed and implemented concurrent with commencement of construction activities; b. For construction activity commencing prior to and continuing beyond October 1, 1992, the SWPPP must be -, developod and implembited by,Octobar 1, 1992. c. For ongoing construction activity involving a change of ownership of property covered by this general permit, the new owner must aceapt and, maintain the, existing SWPPP`. g, Availability.,, The SWPPP shall be kept on site during construntion activity and made available upon requeat:of a representative of the Regional Water Board and/or local agency.._ r , k. Reouired Changes Ai The dibeharget shall amend the SWPPP'whanover there is a change in construction or. operations which may affect the discharge of significant quantities of pollutants to, surface watersi, ground waters:,} or A, municipal separate storm sower system. The SWPPP should alsi, be Amendediif it is in violation of Any condition of this, ganeral permit or has not achieved the general objectiva of reducing pollutant's in storm water discharges. _ b. The Regional Water Board, or, local agency 'with the L`oneurrence of the Regional Water Buard., MAY require the Cischar er-to amend the S41PP.. q g. ° S. Source Identi=iCation The.sWPPB s + i r.poeahtial sources which az likely, to'add significant quantities Shall— rxS� ide' a tion ts. p descr_ , ppollutants to storm, w star discharges or which may, result in water diacharges from the censtructicr. site, Th. SWPP1? shall include, ata tiaiWua, the,,faliewing items,; r� , at " � � � kv'f • 3 1 i � t'� 1 y 15. Rooponer Claude This general permit may be modified, revokod and'reiesuedp or terminatod for cause duo' to promulgation of amended regulations, reeeipt of USL�PA guidance concerning regulated activiti'es, judicial decisions or`iu accordance with 40 CPR 122.621 12 .63, 122.64, and 124:5. 16. penalties for Violations Of Permit Conditions a Section 309 of. the OWA•provides significant penalties for any person who violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318r-, or 405 of the CWA or any'parmit condition or limitation implomonting any such section in a permit issued undar Section 402. Any 'person who violates any pormit condition of this general permit`issub3oct :a a oivil penalty not to axcoed $25,000 per day of such violation, oil Val! as any other appropriate sanction provided by Soction 309 of the CWA. b: The Portor-Cologn- Water Quality Control Act also provides for civil, and criminal penalties which in some cased are g..,atar than those under the NA 17. Availability. - A copy of this general permit shall be maintained at the construction site during tPhstruation activity' and be available to operating pereonna . 18. Tranofore This general permit is not transferable.' A new owner of an ongoing construction activity must :submit a ' N07 in accordanco with the requirements of this general permit to be authorized to discharge under this - general permit. An owner who solld property covered by this general permit shall inform the new owner of the duty to file a 1101 and shall provide the new ;owner With a copy of this general permit. 19. ,Continuation of hxpired Permit" This general permit continued in 'fordo and offect until u new general permit Is issued or the state Vatar V Board rascinds-this general permit. Only those dischargers authorized to discharge underthe oxpi'xing„' goneraL permit are coveted by the contihubd general permit, c i I.OWNER Name ntact Person. _ Co Local Mailing Address Tide I A Glty StateZip Phone II. CONSTRUCTION SITE INFORMATION A. Developer Contact Person Local Mailing Address Tide City J!t!at!ej�Z1Lp Phone LJr i' LL County B. Site Address L. State zip Phone City A — 10 1 J_L_1_L1._L. _L._l_1 C. Is the construction site part of a larger common planT 1yes, Hama of plan or devolopment of development or sale 7 ❑ Yes ❑ No1 1 . j 11 . MM D'D Y Y MM D D Y Y D, Construction commencement date E. Projected construction completion date III. BILLING ADDRESS Send t'o' Name ❑ OWNER CI DEVELOPER Mailing Address I I f i I I' 1 I I I I I I I- I t I- t ► J_:L ❑ OTHER j15nier!Worrmat(66 City State Zip at right) I— IV. RECEIVING WATER INFORMATION Does;your construction sites storm water discharge; to: (Check one) 1, ❑Storm drain system - Entersystem owners name t l f 1 I I t 2. ❑ Directly to Waters 'of U.S, (64,100r, lake, creek, ocean) 3 ❑ Indirectly to Waters of U,8; B, Nane of closest receiving Water �1!. STATE USE ONLY —m —�„ —��t WDIDalBoardzQi ica, 1�1n 6,iz � n Date NOI Received NPDES permit Number � W Qrder Number a Ar oun Rec��- , J rA ••{amu. 5r., ..1.. r :.n: .fn .w ... ..:... '... .. pG4,iG DEFINITIONS "Hast Management Practiaes" ('!MMPs"):means schedules of activities, prohibitiona of prdeticeat maintenance P r g • p iOnedure0 and'other'mana rmont racticed to prevent or reduce the pollution of watera of the United States, BMPa also include treatment -requirements, operating procoduren, and practices to control site runoff, spillage at loaks, waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage., 2. "Clean Water Act" ("MA") means the Federal Water Pollution'Control ,Act enacted by Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Laws:9S=217, 95-5761 96-4831 and 97-117; '33 USO. 1251 at seq. 3. "Constructibm Site" is the location of the construction activity. 4. "1{on-Storm Water Diachargot' means any discharge to storm sewer systems that is not composed entirely, of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NP-DES Permit and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. 5. "Significant Materials" includes, but is not limited to: raw materials; fuels; mats rials as solvents, detergents,' and plastic pullets; finished materiels such as metallic produota; raw materials' used in food processing orproduction; hazardous substances designated under Section 101(14) of Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation} and Liability Act (CERLOA); any chemical the :facility is required to report pursuant to Section 313 of Title III of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SAkh),; fortilizers; posticidea; and waste products such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with ,storm water discharges.- 6. "Significant quantities'' is the voluma, concentrations, or mass of a pollutant in storm wafer discharge that can cause or threaten to canoe pollution, contamination, or nuisanca; adversely impact human health or the environment; and cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water .quality standards for the receiving water: 7. '':Storm 144tdr":means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff;and drainage. It excludes' infiltration and runoff from agricultural land. 8. Pollution means thF man-mademan-inducethe biological) and aAct rSection a502(19))c "or radiological integrity of avatar (Clean Vater Pollution els means Pollution also means "an alternation of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree which unroTadnably affects o ther.c:the waters for beneficial uses,:.or facilities which nerve -these beneficial. uses.^ (California Water Cada Station 13050(1)) 4, �'Contaminatioa" means "an impairment of the quality of, the watars of the state by waste to a dogree which creates a hazard to the public-health through poisoning or through the spread of disease .i including any equivalent affect resulting from the disposal of wastn, whether or not waters of the state are affected:" (California Water Code Section ;13050 M.) 10. "Yuiaanco" meana "anything which meets all of the following requirements: (i) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the contest or an obstruction to the free; use of property, no as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment, of life, andpro part ; y (2)affects at the same time an entirecommunity or 'no1, hbovhood, or any aanaiderable number of pardons, although, the extent of ,the annoyance or damage+ infiictad upon P iadividu3la may be dna dal• q , (3) occurs during or as a result of the. treatment or disposal - of, wastes," (California Water Coda Section 13b50(m)] 11. "Isocal Agency" moans any agency; that is trvolved with,'providing review" approval, or oversight of the construction site (a) construction activity,; (b) erosion and sediment controls, ur (c) storm water discharge`. 5 $ : V proposal, for 18 .mobile home sites and 5 Fcspaces,.!'+ t , ,6. Additionally,as we have previously noted, the plans for a restaurant above the existing store have been abandoned. The area is planned for expansion of video rentals, gifts and apparel. Mr. Smallen has requested that we enclose copies of signed letters of approval for his project to be included in the Planning Commissioner's packets. If there are any further questions I can answer at this time, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will look forward to an early scheduling of this project before the Butte County Planning r1immission. Very truly yours,, Co vv BACHMAIV' CWB jb ... Planning Department OCT 5 '1992 Orovllle, California .11.4 • , ����",'�'��- 4,494 + •„,i,��_ ��M. sir / PLANNING bIVI94, SION, PARTMCNT OF'DEVELO.PMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY ' CENTER DRIVE : OROVILLEI CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELENHoNE: (616) 538.7601 FAX,. (916) 539.7786 September 23, 1993 . I Larry Smallen 1215 west L ndo Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Re: Use: Permit, AP 'No. 058-260-004 Dean Mr. Smallen: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held September 23, 1993, the public hearing was continued open to December 9, 1993 to r, resider+ your applicationfor a Use Permit. - This meeting w, be heldin the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any question -3 regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, ,Q Paula Leasure Principal ,Planner PL:bd ��/�'�':, ,r � .�, � � �� Problems & Concerns / Smallen Proposal Page of 6 only a gravel road as a boundary is Dot uniform or reasonable. (Yes - the proposal will result in significant changes in this area Item 11. The proposal will alter both the density and the growth rate of the area. There s no getting around this, The immediate populationwill more than double with this one project. (Yes - the proposal will result in significant changes in this area,) • Item 13, a, Riglt now we have between 18 to 25 vehicle trips per day on Dawn Terrace. This proposal will increase that to between 225 to 27A additional vehicle trips. This ;substantial additional vehicle inovement, For the County Planning Dept. to answer "No" here is totally Irresponsible. (Yes - the proposal will result in significant changes in this 'area.) A Item 13. c. Our children need to walk down these private roads to get to the school bus which picks them up off Concow Road in front of the Dome Store. The added traffic will directly effect their safety. Since mobile home park can only be; a bedroom community, all residents will have to commute to work in private vehicles since there Is no public transportation. The additional load will, create a waiting line of six to eight vehicles trying to turn onto Concow road; every morning from eight to ten, In the evening the congestion will be worse. All mail boxes are located just off Concow Road. The congestion around these mail boxes in the evening will effect both residents and customers to Canyon Lake Market, invariably accidents will happen. Again the privately maintained gravel roads do not allow for this kind of traffic, (Yes - the proposal will result in significant changes in this area.) • Item 13. f, See comments for Item .13. c. The County'is only looking at County roads in this report, They ]lave given no consideration to the privately maintained easement roads all residents depend on for complete access to their properties: Ms'- the .proposal will result In changes in this area.) • Item 14, a, The proposal will effect fire protection In the area, otherwise they would not have asked for a pressurized water. ;system with fire hydrants: 'This answer should be Yes. (Yes - the proposal will result insignificant changes in this area) • Item 14, b. Right now we do riot have adequate police protection to take care of the problems surrounding the existing Dome Store and Laundry. The addition of this proposal without a change in ,the level of management. can only compound the problems. .) (Yes - the ro osal will result in significant char esin this area.) • Item 16. d. The County agrees that the soils on site cannot support the sewage generated by the proposed site. ,Again to answer this question with a "Maybe" is irresponsible, (Ye.; -the proposal' will result in ignificant changes in this ;area.) ; a Itern 1,60 f, Tire former inhabitants of the trailers which were illegally placed on this site disposed of their, garbage by throwing it into their septic tanks. The tanks backed up and sewage was running into the road ways. Around the area are numerous piles of improperly buried garbage and trash, The FILE' NO.: 058-260-004 SUITE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 9, 1993 APPLICANT: Larry Smaller OWNER: Same REQUESTS Use Permit to allow an 18 spade mobile home park, '6 space RV parr, 4 space campground, laundromat, and additional retat7 space foryicieo rentals, gifts, and apparel AP NO.: 058-260-004 „ SIZE; 10 acres LOCATION* Located adjacent to. Hwy. 70 just ciouth of Concow Rd. on Skycrest 'Dr., Concow EXISTING 'ZONING FR40 ; ZONING HISTORY; Zoned FR-10 on Aug 17 1982 by Ord. "02 SURROUNDING ZONING: FR610, FR-5 FR-2, and HC'_ SURROUNDING LAND USE: Rural residential land uses �4,arround the site SITE HISTORY: 'Thep�rcaperty v�ras originally t`-eveloped,as a sales office ;and manufacturing plant for CUtthedralite Dome ,houses. The main dome strt xture was converted to a general store in 1981. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS- Commercial APPLICABLERE GULATIONS: Butte County Code Sections 2447,,14-113 1 BU -rE COUNTY pLANNING CO1kIMISSION -STAFF FINDINGS - June 9, 1993 site. Combined with the two existing dwellings, the result will be 26 residences on 10 acres for an average density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre. This density is low for a mobile home park but it far exceeds the allowed residential densities for surrounding properties. The land to the west is zoned Fit -10 and the property tothesouth and east is zoned FR -2. The General Plan Land Use designation for the adjacent properties is Foothill Area Residential The maximum density allowed under this designation is dwelling unit per acre. While the Commercial land use designation is not bound by this density limitation, it should serve a5 a ;guideline for residential g development on site to 'keep some compatibility with surrounding lands: This is especially true in a rural setting like this In addition, the Environmental. Health Department does not have any conclusive evidence that the sewage disposal capacity of the soil on site can handle the new development. They do state that some additional development of the site is feasible but it will likely be less than isproposed. The park will generate an increase in traffic, noise, and aesthetic impacts to the area which may not be compatiblewith adjacent rural residential land uses to the south and west. Increased traffic on Skycrest Dr. will require that the road be upgraded to provide adequate access from the westerly property line to Concow Rd.., Noise and- light impacts may be reduced by utilizing a setback buffer of natural vegetation or a combination of new vegetation and fencing. The use of RVs for year around living units has the potential to result in them being maintained in an undesirable manner with resulting negative visual imparts to the neighbors. Most RVs are designed for year around living in a fixed location, The lack of storage space tends to lead to random, unsightly, outdoor storage areas; Because RV units are less expensive to buy, full time RV spaces have the potential to attract residents of very low income. If the RV spaces are for g y police the length of stay of guests and they may become overnight use it -can be a difficult task to de facto year around living units. If overnight RV spaces are allowed, staff recommends that t ie length of stay be limited and' that it is enforced' by the property owner or manager. It could be very tempting for a property owner who has invested a substantial amount of money into improvements, to allow full time residency, especially if all overnight spaces are not filled; In addition; most, people who travel in RVs on an extended basis prefer parks that have shower and bathroom facilities. No bathroom or shower facilities are proposed for the camp spaces. 'There is also the ;question of the need for this type of facility. The property is located on a State Hwy and no doubt will. attract some overnight visitors passing=;through the area, it does not, however, seem likely that people will come to vacation or recreate because there is no convenient access to the area's main recreation facility, Lake Oroville. The Laundromat: is a needed addition to the community. Area residents will no longer have to travel to Oroville for a laundry. The proposed location under the General Store should work well. A designated parking area must to be established that does not include street parking on Skycrest Dri so patrons are not parking in the road and blocking access to adjacent parcels. This is a high water use and proper disposal facilities for the water will have to be installed under permit from the Environmental Health Department. The Laundromat use may also place further • p p ty d on sewage disposal capacity. limitations on the residential use of the ro er base 3 APPENDIX # impact �." Ea��stoe�an�ental: Cicfis, Eva6aon-of;Envae�onsrra:n#a[ IVe, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS- YES MAYBE NO DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALU ATION I_ EARTH,.; Will the proposal resultin significantz -- _ - a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic - X The proposal will not affect subsurface earth conditions. " substructures?- - ..... -..- _ - h. -- Disruption,. displacement, :compaction or _, .x - - This proposal will resOt in some disruption, displacement,::overcovering, and' --_- - oVercoveringof the soi_1? - - -. _- - - compaction of a significant portion of the site_ Overcovering;=will be - -- limited: to the mobile home structures and ,paving, if any, it is anticipated - - -:- that at. least 50% of the site will be disrupted-.: Thiscouldresult in some:. ' erosion impacts and, increasedr run: off, from the site. - - - c. Changer in topography or grr;,ndsurface: rel ef:-- _ - X - Slopeson the site are c-nerallylbetween :0 and 10%.. Some minor land-leveling. - features? - - and earth work will be equired tolcreate level mobile home sites, :However,'- - large scale changes in ;he topography are not necessary. - - d. Destruction,. covering or modificationIof any ':. X The site has nounique physical features. - unique geologic or physical features? e_- Increase in windIr or :water erosion, of soils,,:' _ X The proposalmay cause: some erosiondue to disruption. displacement,-. _ either on or off site?' - - compaction and'overcovering of the site.."-here are no water courseson site.. -' Drainage from the new structures and reads will ,have tor be handled in a.,_ manner that meets the requirements of the Department of Public Works_ i£ concentrated,. water may have to bei kept on site' through some sort of _- retenVon pondand released after peak flows have. passed. If more than5 -. - - - - - -. acres, of the site is disturbed the applicant will have to obtain,a storm: water .permit from the State Water Resources Control Board:,' ,' --- - - f. Changes in deposition-of erosion of beach sands, x - The proposal will not affect the deposition of soil .or erooion: in any - - _ or changes in,-rsiltation, deposition or :erosion - - ' waterbody.: - - -_ - which may modify the.chariel of a river or stream - - - - -. or the: bed of the' ocean or any, bay, 'Inlet or lake-'- g_ - F.oss of prime: agriculturally ;productive soil's - X This proposal 'does not representa significant-.Inss of prime agricultural' '. -- outside designated urban areas?' - - - soils-- - Exposure of .people ;or property to geologic -.- X All of Butte County is in a Ftoderate 'Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII_ The:: ' - hazards such ° as earthquakes, landslides_; - _ Subject property is located approximately Z miles: From the Big Bend Fault::. - _ - mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? _ - - Construction of buildings to U.0form Buildingr Code standards, for seismic zone.- --. S, as required through the building permit application, will..: provide adequate.. - - protection to occupants in caseof seismic activity_ - t= AFR. Will the. proposal result in substantial: - - - - - - a, Air emissions -or deterioration of ambient air -. - X- ' The proposal will not affect air quality because- the increase 'tic the number-, _ - - qual:ity? - .. - - .-- of vehicle trips; is not significant: The creation of objectionable :_-odors, smoke or X - The proposal will not :.create objectionable odors. smoke or 'fumes. - -; fumes? Alteration of air .movement_,. moisture .or- - X -. - The proposal frill not affect the: :atmosphere. - - tempeeafurg,..or any changer in :climate,:: locally.-. ---"- - - or regionally? _ 3_ - WATER.. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes -in currents, or the course or direction . _ X:. The proposal will not affect any watercourse.. - - - --'_-- - of water, movements in-'eithermar'ipe or fresh:-_ - ---- - - - - - - - " -- waters?' - Eva of Env�ronma ai 4. frn a P E' �r®� aeniaf Ctieckdfst' WE - X The proposal may ry> It in an ihuease in surface.yrater runoff due -to reduced w _ b. Changes fr.absorption 'rites , drainage :patterns., absirption from imprrvious surfaces, and in a change in the drainage pattern or the rate ::and amount of surface runoff?. - they site. However., no significant adverse impacts are anticipated because - -- -_ - - - on a. solution to-'drainagev111 have to beinstalled-:thatmeets the requirements of the Public Works . -.Department.. The nearest stream:.course i'sapproximately away- X No off` site drainage 'improvements are :anticipated to be, required for this - c.. e Need'for'off-sitsurface drainage improvements.,; _ including vegetation -:removal,.channelization or - project._ - ,. culvert Installation'?;, X the proposal will :not significantly affect any flood- control channels - 'or - d. - Alteratsans to the -'course -or floe, of flood - -- waters?' _ - - -- watercourses.: _. e. Change fin the amount of surface water in any - X The. proposal will not affect any watercourse. - water body?- _ X'.. _ The proposal :has some potential to affect surface water quality due: to - f. Discharge finto carfare wafer's, or in any. from sewage. There has :been a past history of failed septic _ _ alteration of surface water: --.quality. including -. - contaminati-6 systems on the. property. .This impact car; be avoided by the propprones.- - but not limited to. temperature, dissolved oxygen : -. installation, of approved. sewage. disposal systems that meet the requirements '- _ or turbidity?' - - - - of tie Butte County Environmental Health Department sand Regional Water - _ - - - - Quality Control Board,:. Siltation resulting from ,erosion causedby road and u _ - - driveway construction and grading of building sites can be contained on site . through dispersal of drainage.' waters in vegetated areas orra retention pond. - - - - - The site doesrereiveignificant amounts of rainfall, up to 60"- per year_ - -_ Due :to this high: amount, site preparation should Abe limited to the.. - :_-- --- -:: - tradl-,ional dry season to reduce erosion on disturbed soils. of pesticides, Additional storm water contamination from residential use , herbicides,-petroleumproducts, and other pollutants-: The proposal will not affect the direction or flow of ground waters. Alteration of the direction or rateL of flowofX ground waters? - Change in the quantity Orr;qual,ity of ground X.. The proposal! will not. directly. affect any aqufe.•_ P P - h. - waters, either through direct additions or- withdrawals,-. or through interception of an _ - - aquifer by cuts or excavations_' _ X: A water system that meets the requirements of the. State Lpartmentof Housino, .#11111FFF i_ Reduction in the amount of water otherwise and :CommuniYy.Development for -a mobile home park, will have to he:i;is£a1J'ed _ available for public water supplies? - - X - The.: proposal: will not`*Xpose people or property Exposure of .people or property to water -related - -- - - - hazards such as. flooding? - - - - 4,. ' PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in subst'antiaT: X- Tho: ro osal �wil] £at ;affeef-the divert,ty of plant life on site, P p _ - a. - Change in the diversity of _species, or number.of - - _ - _ any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?. - -. X- The. .sit t i_ nor <r zo mrea Yhat :s considers_! x-";<-!-nsitive kz-;..+.-i» ' b_ Reduction of the numbers of any, unique, rare; or !' - --- `"y�- ---- - - - endangered::species of plants? _- .plants.. -- ' X The proposrta.i Il result in the removal of == a't+= frees•_ `The. Department 'c, Sntroductr-�n of new spa es'of plants into art - of' and 'Game -is concerned over k>i' at loss of oaK woodlands and urea, or in:a barrier to the normal replenishment - proposed' seve-i. i0tl' Air -s --o r-ed.Yr; z, JcR. trees_= -: -: �1ior of existing, s edes? - - g' p - _ a,.& no and',endanyered species at „"tis -time and do not nave to be protected _- - - by law- In as muchas this property is zoned for commercial: uses, the _ - clearing of some of the property will be necessary to provide services to the - -- - - - community.: This is -not seen a ,:: si'gai'`icant impact. The. replanting of lost '- - - - _ - - oaks: and protection_ sof the remaining trees shouldbe advisory and not - required in :this instance-..: tui oar tai i the icl�st * �vaia a opt a vetop' ': l i�pa -- The site does not contain any agricultural crops and is presently developed`: -. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural eropT, with a: store, residence and several pre-existing :mobile home sites. - 5_ ANIML LIFE_ Will the proposal result in substantial,- - - the diversity or mcnber of animal life: - Change in the diversity of species, or numbers __ Ch X -The proposal will not significarl , because the site does not support significant animal life nr habitat. a_ any species of animals (birds, land: animals incTgdingreptiles, fish and.sfie7lfish.:benthic - - - '-_ organisms or -insects)?? - - - X - The site contains no rare animals_ - b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique„ rare or - _ - - _ endangered species of animals? - X The ';proposal w'.77 not-affEct existing animal life. ' _ c, Introduction. of new -species of animals into an area;. or in a barrier to the migr-aticn or- -- _ 40— : - movement of animals? - - - located in an area designated as a development area on the maps d.,. - Deterioration` of existing fish dr wildlife g The site is :.. - to Butte County by the California-pepartment.of Fish and Gan•.e... such _;- -.' - habitat? _ - : - provided - - - - Development: of the property will require payment of mitigation fees. when fees- are adopted by the Butteaounty -Board of Supervisors_. ,- - - The :could result in aincremental reduction in Oak. Woodland habitat:. - the life -- - - .'proposal Thishabitat is considered important L-ecause it:' provides most of. speciea..-. See the ' _ -- - sustaining .:requirements needed. by nF"nerous ,animal - - - - - - discussion for item 4c,: - NOISE., Will the proposal result in substantiaFr - -.. in the creatthe - Sn_reases fn:-:e%fisting;noise levels? -- -- X. The proposal xi11 result in as increase_ in noise - aper y due to increased residential densities on the property and at. 'the _ - :; - - vicinity - increase in traffic. people camping can often be noisy. By locating uses this impact cart be camp sites away fron surrounding residential may resu'it in Tater hours of operation and mitigated. The addition of aeafe with, surrounding residential: uses may occur. The addition of :a _^ , conflicts 1-aundromat will provide a needed service to the:[area but wialso increase, _ r #helaundry. - - - - - the number off people hanging :out around the store: wailing=for to 4 washing machines.- This limited number _ ' _-- - - - - -' - - - - - - - the; applicant is asking for up: - - -- should not have a :significant impact. on the neighbors. --.` X The proposal will not expose people to severe no levels. .. Exposure of :people tosevere -noise levels? in l ight-.or glare erected on shit. or AFib' GLARE. Will tfie proposal produce significant -- X=.._ The proposal tresult inert.=_ in the vicinity- y_ This dea depends or. the amount of seearity, lighting that is impacts to LIGHT 7. _ _ light andlglare? _ _ _ installed. Trees and:. vegetation can be retained to reduce the neighbors-. - - - - X - The proposal will notalter the;lan@ use planned: for theproperty_ he "sone - subject a use g_ LAND�USE. Will the, proposal result in a substantial allows for the considoration of a`il of the proposed uses re in the area same alteration'of the present or planned. land use of an .area? permit. -However, given the limited commercial zoning for purposes. In _ - consideration should be given to not using it residential General :Plan designation is Foothill- - - - addition, the: surrounding residential Residential with a maximum density of I dwelling unit per acre and a, Area. zoning; of 1 dwelling., per 10 acres. The proposed residential densities are on the surrounding panels. .- 's'ignificantly higher than what would he allowed, to limit the number_�of mobile homcsbe - --- The -planning-:commission may wish - -- 10 on a 10 acre parcel_ RV spaeesshould not .-- --- - - _-- than units _ limited to no art be for pto noart living units.. The need for overnightspaces in this area is questionable since there is: no major. recreation access in the:_area. 9.. NATUPAL RESOURCES.. Will'. the proposal result in ' :, .. substantiate- a_..: Increase in the rate of use of any natural X- - -- The proposal will not affect :'any natural resources. - - - resources?- ; b.. _l Depletion of any nap-renewable,natcralS resources? X_ The will deplete: propossT not any Datura] resources. - -' ' 10_:: 'RISK OF UPSET_ Will the prgposal involver: - - - - - - -" A risk ofexplosion or, release of hazardous X. The proposal will notinvolve the use of hazardous mater:' tm, nor is located' substances (including, but: not limited to, oil, - - close to any facdl:itfes which: store: or utilize: such mat-arisrs. -- pesticides;. chemicals or radiation)in the event - - - - - - -, of an accident or upset conditions?' - i b. : Possible interference with nn emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?' X- The: proposal will not affect any emergency services.:. - '+ 11_--- POpuIATIou.. Will the proposal alter location, X The. project will result in a higher residential densi.iy than is allowed an - distribution, density or _-jrowth rat^ of the human - the surrounding properties:. The proposal will -allow for a density of ' poo;aation2.; _ - - - - approximately 2.6 dwelling units per acre if the 18 mobile home sites and 6 - - - -�. -.- - RV :sites are. considered permanent spaces. In addition there will. be 4' = - - --_ - - - - - camping spaces, a store, a restaurant, and a:laundromat on site. This will' - result in a. very intense land'. use when compared to surroundi,,.- - ngproperties.. - - - - - - - The. -adjacent: land is. in a Foothill Area Residential designation which does - _- not Allow densities greater than 1 dwelling per acre and can haus densities: --- _ - - - as: Tow a,I dwelling unit per '40 acres,. Adjacent zoning'calls for 1 dwelling-. --` - '- -- - _ unit per I0: acres., It is recommended that residential Aens:i'ties on this -I - - - property not exceed dwelTirg unit :per acre, Thi's,reduction will make the _' -- - - - project somewhat :more compatible with the surrounding -:General Plan - - - - - designation and land uses._ - 12.- h6USING_ 1J ll the proposal affect existing housing. or X' --. The proposal' will not significantly affect housing demand: - create a demand 'for additional: housing? - - - - TRAASPORTATION/CIRcuLATION. Will the proposal result I= -- - - �- ' _ a. Generation;; of substantial 'additional vehicle - - -X The proposal will represent an incremental increase intraffic in the area_ - , movement?: The total project will generate between 225 and -270 additional vehicle trips' per day. The roads in the area have the. capacity to handle the additional - --`` traffic without affecting the level: of servi ce.i - b.. Effects on existing parking facilities, or -demand - - - -'R.. The proposalwill not affect parking because the proposal will have to, comply ' - for new parking? - - with the parkingrequirements contained within Butte County Coder Section 24- 4 - 35- 35.c. c.Substantial impact- on existing transportation -,.. X'-:., The proposal: :will not represent an increase in congestion and -..maintenance '. _. systems? - ": - . - - requirements. on area: roads._ - -.-- - -- _ '- d.-- Si nificant alterations to present patterns -of, - X: The _proposal will not alter tl,e present pattern. of circulation in the area_ circulation or movement of people and/or gzods?' - e_ _ Alterations, to waterborro, rail or air- traffic? X The proposal will not .affect rail or -air traffic. - f. ,Increase in::t.raffic hazards to motor vehicles, X- The proposal. may result in anincremental increase in traffic amd related- bicyclists- or pedestrians2 - - -- traffic hazards in the. area.. :Additional turning movements across-=Stat.Kw - 70 will be Increased- .'There is an existing left turn lane an Hwy_ 70 that. may need` some improvements to handle the increased' use. If the existing road - - - - - -. approach. does not meet Cal trans standards, it will have to be,upgraded'- - - .. 14..-. PUBLIC SERVICES_ Will the proposal have aw effect upon, - - or result in ;a need for new, or altered government services: a. Fire - protection? - - _- X The? proposal will result in an incremental Increase in demand for fire, ---- - - protection in the, area. The `Project is in, a very high fire. hazard, area. The "-' - - - Butte County -lFire ':Department/CaNfdrnia Division of Forestry has - 'indicated`- - -; 4 . '- - - - - - than cumulativedevelopment in: rural areas willij:pact. their ability, to. - _! -- - -- `- - provide: fire protection: -services..- They have stated that a-; pressurized water! system.Qith fire hydrants that can provide .a. -minimum of 25019allons:per hour - _ - - - - for 2 -hours will be required.. X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for police: - : b. Police protectionT- - - protection in the area. The Board of :Supervisors has adopted a; Sheriff' - impact mitigation fee that is eollected.. at the time ofbuilding permit submittal. Since the is a mobile, home park. they County building Department will not Issse permits PermitswillbeA'ssued by the State. The :condition - - for the collerticn of Sheriff impact feeswill be made a condition of the us'A permit. - - - - X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in :demand for school: �> C. - Schools? - _ - -_ - services in the area, All new residential -units allowed by this project will - he. subject to the collection of school impact fees, as allowed by the School �- - Facilities taw and adopted by County ordinance. These fees: are collected at -.- -- - - - - - - the time of building permit application. : While the lschool :district -maintains� . [-'-- -.-_ -_ - - - that the allowed fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from: imposing: additional fees and takes the position that - ' the existing 'fee structure: addresses the impacts of the project. X The proposal will not result in asignificant incremental increase n demand -! -,: - -' d. - - parks�.or other recreational fadlit:es? - - - - - for park and recreation iaci_lities in the area_. -: of facilities, including, X The proposal will not result, Ina significant incremental. increase in the - in the Maintenance .public need for maintenance of roads and other public facilities area. - roads? '- X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for all other f_ Other .-governmental services? - - - governmental servicesin the area that ,%ail? be off set by the additional, - - property -and sales taxes generated. - 15. ENERGY.- Will the.proposal: result in:.; X The proposal will not utilize substantial fuelorenergy - :a. Use. of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? I _: - - X - The proposal will not substantially increase thedemand for energy_ - - b. Substantial increasein demand, upon :existing: - - sources of energy, or require: the development of new sourced of energy.'... 16. UTILITIES. Will- the proposal result in a need.. for new. -, systems, or substantialalterations to the following_ X -- The wl apt_ -affect, electrical -or naturalgas distribution Power or natural gas?- _ proposat.power. systems. X The proposal will not affect communication systems. - - - b. Communica�iorts systems? - X -- The proposal will require a water supplysystemahat meets Stale requirements- ,- - :. c - Water _ - - - -. - for a.mobile home park:: - ---. - X� The proposal 'will have to meet the requirements of the Butte County, ;'.. - -. d. Sewer r or septic systems? - ha Environmental, Health Dept. 'Indications are tt,..:giver. the parol'size, the soils on site :can not :support the sewage generated by 'the. proposed; uses. A reduction in the number of living units may be:, required, X The proposal will have to provide a permanent solution for drainage. '-, --. e. itarni,water drainag'eT.. - .. " _ X The project is: in an area where regular, garbage: pick up: is not requi"red:. - . - f- Solid -waste and'disposal? - - Since the proposed density is similar to. urban densitiesitI& recommended -. 'the ,- --- _... -.- -- -. that some type of regular .garbage service be provided as a. condition of - - _ use permit._. - I7.. HUiqAN,,HEALTH.`- Will the proposal resuTt.-in: 8 7777777 Enol ron e t Che cies * Evala�afion.. e # ErMronmenWI7n apt ' Creation of any health :hazard 'or potential hazard' - X As long as proper sewage disposal systems are installed and health hazard. maintained, 'the -_- - a. (excluding mental health)? : - - proposal will 'not create. any- , of people.to-'potential health hazards? -', -% -- _ The proposal will not axpose people to any health hazard. 6r Exposure they -:result in the.obstruction X- The'proposal will not result in an aesthetically' offensive view because it - I8. AESTHETICS. Will -,proposal: or will the to the public,' .-- isconsistent .with surrounding development_ --= - of any scenic Vista or,view open proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive siteopen. to, the public view? X The proposal will not result in an incremental increase in demand. for park Ig_ RECREATION Wi lthe proposal result in impact. upon the and repreationfaci7ities. and .. - - quai:i:tyorquantityofexistingrecreational opportunities?' ZO. CULTURAL RESW9CES. a.. Will. the proposal result in the alteration or x The: proposal will not affect archeological sites. - destructfon:. of a- -prehistoric or historic- ' - archaeological site?' -- - - - - - - _- -'--. b. -_ Wi7lthe proposal result in adverse physical or _ X Theproposal -will not affect historic sites. - - aesthetic effects to -.a prehistoricorhistoric - _ - -- buildings structure: or object? to X...-; The .proposal will notaffect cultural resources.- " -c_ Does: the proposal have the potential cause;a : physical change wfAcb-would affect unique athric - cu -values?` d. WIT the proposal restrict.-existing:religious or -X The proposal will not affect religious resources_ - sacred uses within the potential impact areal DATA.. SHEET A- Pro'ect- Descrietioa.: 1. - Type Of. Project: Use Permit - - _ 7=. .. - Air Quality._ Good'.: ' 2'_ - Brief-Descr pti n: Use Permit to allow an 18space mobile home 'park Biological. Environment: with ff RV spaces, 4 campIng spaces, a Laundromat, and a: :cafe in'anA4C Vegetation; Yellow pine forest, manzanita.. 3. Location- Located at - - soutfixest corner oc`Concow Road and Hwy. 70,:- - 9-� - - -- Wildlife Habitat: Small birds:. and animals common to forest ' Concorr - lands. Critical winter habitat for the. deer "hard. .. Proposed Density of Development:. 2.5 dwelling units per acre - Cultural Environment:- -- _-� S, Amount of lmpervious Surfacing= Moderate., 10- Archaeological and Historical Resources th+�-area: 'Low, sensitivity-- 6- - Access bnd Nearest Public "Road s - The ( )- property has, access to Concow. - 11.:- - Rd -via Skycrest Dr. - - Butte-Count-�GeneraT Plan designation: Commercial' y g _ _ 7. -- Method,of Sewage; Disposal. -Septic systems_ 12. Existing Zoning: HC'. 8. - - - Source of Water Supply: Smsil.com�nunity watersystem:� � 33-, Existing Land.Use on-site: Store and residential v..ts .-- :, - - - - 9- Procimit of Power tines: Toproperty-,,14-- y ` Surrounding Area: - - - a. Land. Usesz -Rural residential, land uses surround the - ' Potential for further land divisions and development: Little - - property " potential for further Aevelopment without a coar�-jty sewer system. - b+ Zoning: FR -2, FR -5, FR -10, HC -- - -' - - c.. Gen`.. Plan Designation:. Foothill Area.. Recreation - d.- -` Enviromaental.Setting.' - - _._ -. d. Parcel Sizes_ 2,rto 1D acres - -._ - - _ .'.- e-. .. Population:.. Limited Physir_al Environment: Character, of Site and ,Area: Rural Residential Terrain'. " a.. General Topographic Character; Gently, slop-. 'ng; - 16. Nearest Urban -Oroville,:lapproximately 15�miles away -' b. _ SloFes: 0 to 10% - - 7 _ c- Elevation: 2000 feet above sea level.i'-� 17- Relevant Spheres of Influences. .N/A -- - d.. - : Limitin3 Factors: None = - 18-.. Improvements::StandardsUrban .Area: No Soils. - at. T„gpes and Characteristics-- Mariposa soil series — Gravelly y - lg- Fire .Protection Sao'ce: - - - - silt TOM. 20!' to 40" thick, moderate permeability, well a- Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station f37, `..' drained, moderate erosion potential, medium timber - _ volunteer, 1 mile away. Station 36, year around. �cdF' - roductfon P potential - - approximately 2.5 miles away. - b. Cimi£ing,Factors: Sewage disposal - _� � - b- plater Availability: Fire tankers only. :.. _ Natural Hazerds of the 'Land - 20- Schools in Area: Golden Feather Union. School District.- Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity one V111 - - - -- ' Erosion Potential:.- Moderate; "-`- e.. Lands_ ide, Potential-- Moderates- Fire::Hazard: --_ High: - .' --- - _-. e., Expansive 'Soil- potential: Low ,.. -.. 4. Hydrology. a..- Surface Water::' None ' b- Ground-Waterz Unknown:., potentially limited. Drainage Characteristics: The parcel :drains to; the south. --._ and west:: _- d'- Annual: Rainfall (normal)- - 50 to 55 inches r Peyear- Z: . ,- Limiting Factors: None . 5- Visual/Scenic. Quality: ;Good.;- - 6. Acoustfc Quality: Fair,: the property is impacted.by road noise from - - - - - Hwy-- 70: EIdoIRONMENTAT icEFEER CE 'MATERIAL T, Butte County Planning Department.. Earthquake and Fault Activit - Man 11-1, Se_smtic Safety E empnt 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. OrovlZe, CA: > CH2M Hill, 1977. Agricult;ral Preserves Man established by 2. Butte County PZan*i:�g Department. Liquefaction Resclution No.. 67-178. Oroville, CAI Butte County Planning Department, 1987. Potential Map--Il-2, Seismic Safety element 3.. Oroville,_CA: CH2M Hill,_1977.' 13. Nation>_'_ Yjoiod insurance Program. Flood i lnsurance Rate maps.- Federal Emergency Butte County Planning department_ Subsidence and Management £gency, 1989. -I Landslide Potential MAD 111-1 Safety Element. orogille, CA: CH2M Hili, 1977. 14. USGS Quad, Maps Cherokee, Calif. 4. Butte County. Planning Department ErOslon 15., Soil Map, Chico (1925)/Oroville (19261 f: Potential Dian 111 2 , Safety Element-- OrovIlle, CA:: Area.. United States Department of CHUM Hill-, 1,077= Agriculture. I' H. Butte County Planning'Department. Expansive Soils 16.. Soil Survev of Chico (1925)/Oroville Man 111-3 Safety element.- oroville,' CA. CH2M, (19261 Area. United: States Department of f, Hill,. 19.27. Agriculture: {-6.. Butte County Planning Depart.«enL. Noise element -Oroville, 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte Man IV -1, Scenic Hiahwav element CA County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and CH2M: 'Till,, Facilities Map. Butte county fire - =- 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic-Hiahways: Department and California Department ot Forestry,: 1989. Man V-1, Scenic 'Hiahway.Element. Oroville-,. CAI CH2M.Hill- 1977.,- a Butte County PlanningDepartment. Natural 'Fire Hazard classes Map 111-4.`Safety'Elemen - +` ` Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, -1977._' 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological -. Sensitivity M_ app.. Oroville, CA: fames,P. Manning,: - - - - - 19$3. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA _ 11. Northwestern District Department of ;rater Resources,. Chico Nitrate Study Map Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 1, , . n t , , . t ' t. x ��•! d,4! ! : e 1 }i 1 I•rw (. , (7 }t(G y�,, it{�{`'�,'SJJUI�Y1 jt :s '•' Problem; an the premises, I know feel Canon La y kesl tKarke , & f';C$tlr,r„•, (�,r,1:H premises' ara , an asset to our coinmun'ity. Further in �� 'uialif ied ', i , , a �M1Y 'opinion th{. Smallen a are q to 'man r s;;•4Y„ .� y., operate t`he above in an acceptable manner to me & our,,cop, 14 Y� I a1s;a believe ov era11 't Wi7;ll ba fux.,ther ixnhanced by: the iePad,rlitioluea hays been, i.mproWed • � ns to our cammuni y Re;aper:tfit! l ; Y o t Name AI Addreitsem /%�' />CZ`-cepRV a..; C C y r • 1 ' � 1 t�+ ,V irk"- �t h7;•i )r. .:e q{ }^�� �` 1 �� ! 'i ( (q tF. { S , , i�. r °r :. t S !- -tt + �. , nz 7, i '•`i i it iA V�;.. x ,r'. x{t , ,t , ( }�( (1 ay%� I ( 11 x• 't he pxetni es., ^ 1' know Peel, .Gr�nyon T,a%ees Market, ; pxem�tgeq, are"44, a6ijet to our t,ammuni ;ty. IL i • Si �•x. i N �n ;x; �iarthar, in my opinion the Smal,len'a are qu'alifiad to manage & operate the' ,above' in An acceptable manner to lmra & ou`r, cammun t I al sR' hplieve, P arat`e )6,4Pu�p i d by 'ci►e a addIt•io Will be. furth' r • ixnhance , , n to our'''s� ! , Rps1)ectfu11Y� s , 1 (AFI tit'x .,. � +t •. I, r, �1 r �. Irf�3 1�, .,!r,, .>,, R. d? (,, ,,t, r� 1' (f x. i r, �Iv ,II .�, :.;E 1 i' +• r , fjr• ' i know feel G' "prob3 ema o,n the remises , I , anyon k'es Market, ' it ' w La premises• are an asset to our coaruttnitY, ' Further, in my opinion th{ :,mallenr9 are qualified to manage ? 'aperate' the above in, a,n accepl :atlle manner to me & our community a ;:r < •; I also believe, b"veral1 pi°o��er�ty v��,`lues have been improved b 't w ,P r li•nhanced by thetse additions to our comnun.ity, i be, !r + ur t he t, t R`es, pet t i it ly, y 1rOt'!�t✓a='� N ain.e Ad Y,� b ';}§ i ' y i�-,j.rr•Iib 4 xF' fi a 1 tj, i r il° 3 x li • Y A P lh y it f i T kntf w feel da*d,n ,Lakes ;Mar%et :<8p t Cs pr0blems �on the pr'emises'. � ., r ,i li fi�{{r ._ la T f 4T I IN til 7 1 t, i y' f ' premis$e a; a, an a88et .CO Ou,�r CCIinwitni`y. ^ • rurther, in my opinin'r. th i im3llen:' i ax's gjualif i,ed ' tZa �anage�t �7' y : t„ ;,�tw rx ' & operate; the above in an acceptiikle manner to �'me & Pur'.commsns�fity. ,�,1t i i Y 1 1 I also bel.iave, overall. p, ti Iter ty values have been 'improved & ` r`I01"i il`1 be further i-nhaneed by theist- additions to ouz community'. „�It, 'A IP w t' ( (ll 'lly f it { 1lt t �� l Respe ' , r,.• f 3,;t , t' I pati { � i, Name_ _ , n u.T hti� Address".lot I�h�t� /�J1J, J�cC�• p MI;, 111+ city�, {t7t ,�i yt ii! ti r 't l ., t �,, ' ,i t • �. ,,. , w � 1:" �'c � t"3��i�};�,i++��'�y {� r,IM �i x�p,y,,� �y ", t tY_�•,I ` i��'s `,�i;+ `' ,{. •' ' i ti t' t Y �V t, .J 1,§A� y problems on the remises. I knit^; feel, Canyon, Lakes Market & �tsiigs; ' $" •'i4 premised: are an asset. to our cowiwinity • ,, 1 ' ^ Further, in my opinion tht� ualii;ied to manage x �Y r e n an acne t'.1ltlelmannerato m <. it & our tcommunity r it t'� operate the abav P I t �i,t{tit,,. also believe, overall pr,iit.e'rty values have been ,;. !rt` !` dill be. further izthancby thet;i' additions -7- to our community,.- adrr; 'i t I yf�fY Respeu 1 1 uIJoy I to r~ , , 14aii r Name_ Address:, �;E S' /IC�z•! :, , „.Y+ city..__ �iY''',-% F"`"!� / A� '`"� L �', r/ •.i 11 �$r�i ,i , ¢ 41 problems on the premises, T know 'eel, Canyon I�ak.s Market, premises are an asset to our ct�mmuttity. +t; Further, in my, opinioin the Snsallen s are qualified.to manage & e i:ru"te the above in an dude �tah1 a manner to fie our community. p I x a],so, bel.it~ve, overall prop;arty valties have been improved will be further inhanced by t'IIage �tdd113ons to OUt cosrmti;pity qAdd � r G, prorilems on th_e premise"s. t I:now f°ee1, Canyon Laken Market, & It R. ) p.re`mi_sea are an asset to our t:ominunity. t, N. Further, in my opinion the. Sma:llen's3 are qualified to' ma,naSe p rp tab le manner to me & our community. & o este the 'above in an acc,_ to 1 also believe, overall property values havebeen improved b ui1.1 be further inhAnced by these additions to our community. i R,uspec.tEtil ly • Ad d r e ('1 t ,y A: = r.''' ti,) ;f _ i { ' 4' d� y'ti'f #��a+l F,1,,lrlt=i=.ttirui'� + =4 1r Ji t�•,� i iR !S-• t,i 1 i r • �:1. 1 it ,+ t. < , . , _ , .. •1 ,) j � I tt ,.,;1'j r i�•�;frf���; �.�+�1�; �'��r.il�f,{`fr,�j=,'i',1r t� 1{ �: �� prnble>�!a an the premises . t know feel, Canyon 'Lakes' _Mgrkets,6 ,,�1:�i�s{�tiR}�;;'f; ' ' �tt' 4i tit' rem,iAes ar@', art asset to our Community.! p • tis Further, in' my,',opin•i,on the = Smallen's are i ualif ed to ',M, na e+ t, , �, opdtat,e the above'in an acceptable manner to me & our .commjini,ty;4,',t� +':1 : t s tsr,+t' t 1 also beli;sve, overall property values have been ;improved' .rtl.r will, be. fur tiller inhanced by tl►ese additions to our community`. ., I','�4 r �. it '�t • , •' ' 1 ,►�, b Respuctful.ly,'1 r IC t t i :A : ti in e c Address. , now- .t ''1 _» _ •,.: -.. � P 1,11! Sk��r r tri» b � ct r= + ,. e� - . • . I t = 1 r r="' �+ � � t la ��r ,�ir=l �tt':r�=. r problems on 'the premises , Y , nl+ £eel, Cany o' n 'T akess Ma'rkeitt &•r`i.tirs,'1ti��,sj�` premises are an asset to our comilu �iMy purthe`'r, in my opinion. tItr Smallen's ar.e tluali'fi,ad ,t01.1h ag'1k`['t,j10;�,� & operate the above itt an- acre p1 .+h1e manner, to me &' our I also be] leve, overall p! operty values have been ; mproy ' wil-1 be furEher'nhariced Eby th�t:s+ , R d d i t ione do our' communi.ty.�� t �{ RaBurt 1'uil y 7 t , �, , r r� ' 4i i+i14l�i It1 = A�ame. �" �� C> �% i4 " 7/;:' j e'rt f=r'1i`+ . t" .f Addrtlr+. r 7 i 'T ° r' i ,j� r ro'b eine oti. he premises I k;,Vrica £ee1,'' Canyon L` kea�� Market �, 0reTot's ef3 axe; la ft ssaet to our clllnmunity,, s. Furthor, in in o inion `lw, r tl p C Smal],e:n a tits q�ualif fed to,,maria�e'ti', & aperat.e the above'in an acce�,! able manner to `me &` oua c:ommu�n�ty.yrrj�jytEr -. I ;a1bo belfeve , overall property values have bean"it.,16rr,vnd &0!-M,I�tiij will be further InhanG.ed by thine additions' to our Reapectful7y,, . ryt >r '' t I •f (i 141`.. l i Name , r"'..�"` , ♦ , +, t ter, . Address Z�' I.' r ,. Cityti_ t i•M A ' • � ; r ' r ; 1 t' i,' t,i` rT �'' i� �r 11,Ya',!5 ' problems on thepremises.'Ari, I ktlow feel, C�3nyon i,akes Market,.&tj'l�.Ka„•.yir premises are an asset to our community . 1 6;A Further, in my opinion the Smallen"s arelquali£iRd tormanage �YtiI �rt,r: ' & operate the above in an acceptable manner to me & ,our commu►iSYu,,r,,3r= I also believe, overall property, values have, be improyed'•r ilk i -it t;'4�`.;-1 be further inhan`ced b these additions to our coMMU' y tt'7l t y , f ' .`Reeptill,t J.ly, ',f i, i• 1 ; r,,'�,, fx Name c.�/jJ r 'rl�r 4'yr addrE+Ss � C�_.� r City t19 +' 77"' +art' f ' •, °r. 1 I ! + 14- 'iol problems on the premises. I knit r feel, Canyon Lakes Marktit',&'ita J l ryryj r premises art •an a'saet 'ta our eoill illln;ity• 't+��0'.Vt1 . Further, in'my opinion Hit Sena 11 en lb are 4ua-li£,ed'to:,Pid11aRe�';�r{;��,'„''” & operate the above i,fir an acce1)1 ible mariner to mer our„is`ammun1ty,j,V!j,1q-V' , t ,. I also believe, overall � ! "Perty values have been :impro�red',6e�'� �;ll.•r'• r ' i t s wil]. be further , ;I' , ,r�4 inhanced b,y thc: atiditisoneo out oonimunit. 1 �• r r , , t• , , jieapol' I lul l 1 y 1 ,'I ..,1,r Vd •''rr , • '! i, a 1jrl .c , r II 1 ,V Name �L'(y L.+e7J �"�', �(, r IIi+' fit i•r1 r • Addre'l;,. ��°3�. Cca� iZcj r` 1 yt, , !•; C i t y d CZ�i c.c �r^c. C Q. Q q ro.S-t' � r 'r 1 r77777 .: t prc�bleme, do ,th'e premise's. kwo:61 Fees Can n Iia ke premises s are an aset s l�ar�tefi; further, in my 0pInioa 010Smallen ' a are �qual�.fied s �J S operate the above_ in an accept (ble mannar, u' 1 4, me & o i comma+}t� T also believe, overall pi•r=perty values have been improved will be fu hanced }i"n by the:;t+ additions to out ' mtttunity, V1 ,rH,,+(, f f , Respec 1 full ' y, Name ;ru tjyJv., Addrer;: r sr i P. .' i problems on the premises. , % i•,�i,,;+°zr•{,rxP I know feel Premises are an asset to our Canyon Lakes Market; & its community. !, Furter in my oPiuion the Smallen'J3 are qua,lif.ied to manage & operate: the above in an acre table mann err to � P me & our. community, I also believe vveral] property values have been improved & Will be further, inhanced by these additions to our community. Respectfully; Name C Address w C i t y` f 7{ . }} _;. (,+ d,�er6i rl'I '1i 1, ' ( 1 ,1 k ,i3 t' i ' t, (-problems On thepremises ( i; Z JCJJOb/feel, !+� +� ,i=.J+'i 1ra(•l�t1i��}'ie''� J premiseo ar.e:Canyon't�ake.e Ma'rFkatt +"j'r�, an assetOut, to rf Further, sin m ,� +„ �i,,r�( , y opinion, the Smallen's are qualifies toJ;managJ+,;a%,,4J , J' & operate the above in an ,acceptahe manner % r. t ;',,tl . I also` believeI to me &' our„(comm,jpity,;,SFW i;'tir.(a' d al , ,. overall 'prfa �ertY V u'es have ' } ( n h a been ; m f Sl�j!y f ' t: tvil7 be further n;cpci b thesl� adds n:.; Prb tAd�+;�; Y 0 t:�ions� .,, 1'�u+ +�4 (M�+� "+ to our c,oMrOUM ty ” _'(' ,J�6 Jr ink 1_ Mill Res ; u l l y, "� r �,• '( �(` i, it �' 7J ' , a �; ij i', _' ♦ �°. Y '�w.-,•»'.-'—' w�• •� t" t � 1" 'f * N 'hy�'�' t1A Y r 1ff q Name,'r •�/lam t 1. Addr:J;t/ F cit ��� d 1.1 Z a- ' 3 r � !! .' 4 L ` 5i. i 1 lt ' yr T �l t, !S �y ryl•�f? n 1i 1 {" 5.th,;i {fit' 1.J`hi;tj=,i •r. i • 'Problems on the rgmisea. C i 't h �`�t�',r��a� ! p p I kniiG' feel, � anyon'C,akes,Marketlr &!il$'kd't�,r,i!r�,' premisea are 'an asae.t to our cowti unity. Further,; in my opinion- than Smallen�s are uallfi,ed to ma.arsg®,>if:4 r' ► r r ! � 1, '1 • . 1` ! ,7r �+1�.;`i�« ' b operate tike above n an accept manner to me bi nu:ri,comm�nn�'Cy;o;i ;� `s;,!'`•: I al ao believe, overall pi ++hex ty values leave b�eri .I:improvai'�►a t. t {f p , t will n`haaced b thea' aaaitions to 45ur commghit '': (,, s;,, i'ii i• be further i y Y 1 !� j+ «r 15(y ti 4. «. t;,'. �, • ids Rea TTp�u, i I u� ly i s;' y', J 1i« 1. M � , I.,' 1 Name Addreii /-T City_ ' <!! ) t ,); r r•1 15 +I i ' fir.{ iii rr .'•' i s « i,�rai , � , p;' i {Gs(�;�t�.r,� Yr;Rr� :f i.' # S f �- ! `« i Li{" it IA���'''14 ri 4tAl. •, "�� • p r.oblema on the premises. I know feelt (an on Lakes Market. premises are an asset to our community. �.ARK 'r t. ., « r 711✓e'. r! r► (t + ,!,'�i '«lrrl r ;Further; Vft "thy' apiIWilt e . 61 rj's ark operate the above in an acceptable manner tq rime ¢r y FutmHny�'n, z 'ado r�'q'eVp. «p'vs}}1 ji'pj?te}�t'�i Z�(lp hove eett'`mxi}�led l ,i 'r , ! r , i i . i'' f •I , t f , p r x; "W e, x:� ,h xr, # hanG d' by frhtr�'c�° 1s(di t a.n9 tQ 0ur pommuniC t if I Ir t .r, A• I•t ! 1 �..� r �:, r , -. ,�r p r, d,',f d c5 « � ,.. { , !. ,, . rr irl., a tf i r, ,,. r•: •+, t� rl irr r7. ., .h ,� "i'S ��t1. +� Is , Rd, apectfully, }, a Name 44dresa'j. `f 5'"_% 40'F City 6 s:'')N CatitJ G..,A G r r c ' 1 �rr, it i• „r + I ak : r r { { I r 't, « , I« y �.l�t r' d i n, +ii� t'..:., ` rprob1amq- 6 -it the p'r;omises. I know feel i Canyon Lakes Market, tat ',rr lf�rt.+I pr tsaa are an asset to our community. ✓ , Further,. in my opinion the 5ma: len'•s are qualified to manage " & operate: the above in an acceptable manner to 'me, b our community, '✓ i I also believe, overall property value'shave been improved &, gill by furthex, icthanced by t h e a a additini,s t.0 our commanity. ! Respectfully, , ' r city It "�+• r ` i p'robl:ems on the premliae's I know feel C_an on ak s. M'h & +j�''ati premises are 'a'n asset to Out cu{s monity, i _T, {•I +i it ' x'� N` a; f lE:urther, in my opinion, tho S'mal.len's aret �ualified to mand e�t'y 23a1141." s & operate- the ,Above in an ac'cej)t:lhle manner to me &'.our :c ^inm'1 it T � I also believe over rt+ )er '' p ty values have been,;imp roved , x <v'ill'pe further inhanced by thetio additions to our:' com»un�.tyr. ,•'' 'i.... Reaps v 1 Fully,• „ �', '- '�1'.•iC'r ,�„. i �:!},{ , Name 1�� X92 y7-�u�, ,' eft+',�t, rt. a s. Addrea'`s ,r , • r , At + problemb on the remises. P ” I knave feel, Canyon 'makes Marke,t�, , 1,;,, t j; remises are •an asset mmunity P t Go our cu V-7; , Fr, Further, in my opinion. the .Smallen's are tualif led to;,,manRgefir"++"*' { & operate the above' in an acceptable mannerto "me &' au .lcommu,nii�yas:' t also believe, overall pro.petty values have been ;improVOd,i &_ �;!� I+iil"',f w11,1 be further,tinhanced by these additions to ou;r camutunity. ,'�,�'.`�:• �. Respoctfully, t' Name f j f City, l ue%__,_ • t. t . i P premises. 1; Icnww feel+ Canyon Lakes Market, Irl•+"{ ti robl'eme oh the & its premines axe an ar3eet to our t,usf,tts,f nl ty, p j f .; •, Fur t iotr i ` ;, x �, u f, t+,1 n'my"apldluir,'t1+f, ,m:�llin b :i d }� '{{rl operate the above iii an Act:crt ;c l,l,t nunw r r:b me &''otic' co�mup� I also belidV.el overall pi"r►.} c.rty vrt,lues ttidve been{: lmArpyed will b , further' i'nhaticed by t.It0 sly .•tddl,t.;t,ons ti a; our commun! Cy: i t•+ t lies 6 CIully. Nang•= • 1 b, hN S 1 �+•r , l 1a4 ' f.r 7 11 ,�, .. � 1 i ( , n ,A IF 1 f .� �' ' . , t � M�7 1 f i di�'i /r s • , !, , i , •; ,•,. r;,..t.��r, r"t, w� wu,,l I' t� t t ,� � f f: , , � f t „�" , ` , t ti ;� + 1, . • , _e7' `�- 4 V . m C �. a ,� 1? 9i " -(j ,,'•" ,:j g IZ5G °b Zia X20 �� 7 as 77-5-77 53 �� L � S a-� �+-1 �a N o� L!-s V'-1 -_ DATE 'RECEIPT - Na: TOTAL. HECE�V EO PUBLIC WORKS LAFCO ' - use PeRm$T VARtANCCS Ptaeuc DOGtIM ENTS zoRtNc. env: NEALTN 6—et APPLICANT' RECEIVED:FROM 11 1 1 aM f�,,e+• 4 t t p Y i 1n 1 f J � i S '. '. Y 1 I I` i " 1, •� 1 -- t' it 1� y w LXXX' i4. S3.griifieani atouni's o :gal XXX. 2.5:. Change, in citist, asl�;"; smoli 26` eant chan;ae 21. lake r�{,.gt�ariiity,' Substiat'i.aJ Gh`ango`« xri ;e toL s 7e�e i h s IC 11 t� X, -.x _.� �'� • Site oil filled } .and '\1°° 'on XXX w� ,,(S{' UY C� 1fg5�, pf ")dte11t3. SLt iT �S tO: C� sUb, tg,Xit',,eS,, a`� c'ttliil r , a, •, � I 1 � .i ' 19iBi� .No lir g. E�cpo ure �, peop e or .propex y to f eon o ha'iI �g �� arils st�ch as earthgiakes P' lancishAos, mudslides, ground fail,re car' similar° hazards? , 2 Aii,,proposesll result r. a..Su bstantial deter;ioratf on °'o£ aanb int a r qu'alit .A'Y'. Prwi ,b, 'eke creation of obi ct enable odors c. S g, 1 Icant alterat on cif ai'r mr�rement, moi�:ture or temperature or >any 'change irk rcl�mate, e thoz lo�alZy or tegibn&11,y`? 'Kate .. rjjr Z ti'ie pz'aps sad' 'result in substan i a . chars, qo-s in cut,± J.'sc`ia�trs'e ox d3,xectio af- water mo�;ements b changp in absorp l- n;ra,'t�s, draihage', patterns,'', r the ratE "and.. u amount: a surface tiv'af.�Y .r�inoff? A1tPia't�o293f'to Ui'.rp 'thG' CO Off. f OW of n f�,or. la Watets P a •i'� : d change �,n tik:.'"`amoUn sttrfac� W er in r,i..,water,iodyr x.. , e : )j' charye 4-ntOL' `s irface "zaater or, ].Tl any a7.�extlon r Su,rfa,ce 4latar " q . I q ms.d tb, � qua, it ;ndludifj'q a, ti, a`myp�,e:��rti�re�' 'chi"x1910 O axygan 1r rib1i d.1:V- ry' _ yr :Altirai ion 'i the di rection Jr 1 v rate of '� ow c�`," ground wa:a�-s?`" ` IV g. ange `:i nil the qua iter ogrotind 1J . w+ ers, e her; through dreet adds ti ons, , `th'rough �brl withdrawals, or intercepta:on of an aquifer by outs or eco«vat3.;"onS r%' t,� „ s' X ,, P Ap en`di F� a e '2„ of.,`13 4t 1/� h r d7 VBS MAYBE NO fi? k: ' eduction'." i'n the smoiint of` water ti f �} •othearwise av'aiI ble tar public water s►appiies? i. Exposure of,.people`,Or property to, water related'° ?azards surh. as flooding? 1i ;Plant Life . W;a 11 the proposal resu] t ii i s s j Change in'the diversity of species,.or 1; number of any species of plants (a nc`luling trees,` shrubs grase; cropst.miczoflore .r, and,',squatic,' pl��nts) ? h. R,er action Of the numbers„ of any .titnique� rare o endangered species �or plants? _ (f c , In.rociuctyon'iaf new': species of f �at;�° an area, or iiia a baizriez to,the .': ( . nprma;L ,rePleriishment ofexisting speca.es? Rdtic�-�'ion iii ' acre=age "of any ag.rictt].tural 1l crop`? Animal cif e. ,1 .TiUll the proposal result `in Sub tart a%x, CYange in ;thedriversity ;of spec�,es, a, numbers of any -spec cis of animals (bards,.. "land animals including rept i]es,;;fish` and. ' shddiifa.,shy ;�benthic nrgaiiisms insects or IAdtofauna)? r �" L Reduction of,te numbers ofn�r unique rare ar,. en,cangeed Species o anilttala? C Introduction of new;species': o animals r into an ares, or r,esulin a bare er to 6 ,`' -the'inicgration or movemerit of 'animals ci Deterioration to ex stIng' fish wi'xdl,ife 11 bitat' 6;. Noise. Will the ro os l ssult.:.lin sub.�tantial� 1 :;-0 I�• 14crease.s in. noise jc"vels? qY cit b, y'posure of people to'seV0rt, noise levels?`. „ 1 f. 1 Q r Appendix F page t x a r I twl U8 MAY9V a NO 7 1,:Lcjht, and ,Gxare Will,,the proposal produce si`nxa'cant 1igh or g:lae! >; "Land''U'se, C`�.11 'the proposal result in� 8ubstan al altaxat on " of the p1 U's e 0, ` ari axes? 9 Natural: Resourc;ss, 4ti Wi17 tfip e roporatip, sl re 11t �.� substaht a1: I� " a . rncease in ,the rate j'oi use ; of any .,.,natural relsouces� b .'f� Pepletiar of any nonrenewable natural° rasource' , 10 « Rislt,: of U set . boas «the J prorio a °. involve r'';'o an, eX�].osian or, the Yel.ease ofr i hardcus substances (including ;but hot I- m `,ed ` to, � 'oil j pesticides., �ohemioals or raclIatli onj ino the event of an accident up5,et ,condi'ta.ons ? Po'pulation. Will therprap,osal sit�rii.£ cant y' alter tt1G' IOC tion 'distribution, 'dehSi'ty or growth rate of ,the human population: c� %area,? sn 12 :: Housgf; W11 thepro sigfia.�icanl� � ai=£ect exis�'�nc� housing,l-,",q.r creat -i a � � r 'A ei�iand 'fo-z r tiaha] housing., t. a ' 13 . Tran4 o:r a of rJC rculation Wa . l.' the prip1 re . in:' r' Y ,S i Ir a.' Generation ,,-, substantial aad t,31 4 1 ryek��cu Zar m'a vement? b :: Sigral o, asnt 'effects ori e�;asti ngparkins faGeila ties, or demand dor nett parlang'?" t 4 c . Sub'stafiti;al impact tappn elxisting u trahsportation systems. 41, ci.,�gnificarit alterations to pre.seht pattern"s of circulat,a ari Or ffiavei?ten"t "arid%oz ` poop] a goods? A�lteratioh8 to ��aterborne, rail or air' tza ;.,clh' r, r , ! �= s�ppetidi V' page 4 o 8 1 x r 1 i•' r 777, - 8 . Ake hetios, `` will the j?roposal result in the,, ". obs,tx�iCl:ion' pf any PU .;-ic designated" or .. recoyn zed scenic vista open•+ to, the public; or w1ll 'the `propa8al ;r'esul in the, dreat,-4 ' o an aesthetica iy offensive site , ,opera to publ vipw*?, , r n` Reorda ion. W31 the prop zesult iri u l impact upon h ,quaI ty or quan tity of a*isti.ng , t pub`lic recreat3.onal facilities"?' ;� Arch o4io ica ; ' Hid-ttor,ica�. , Wa.11 r i 't pro posal, resin t i an ,a� term a;r��., p a signiican - archeolog.ica or+hist�i ica side, I� object b btai ding? �'� a2Z . Manc3atar�" �iriciings o£ Sign�f�'icarice " '' �� �� ��� .,:: Does the pr o j e wt leave the' potential" to 'degrade the ua'1'it of �� nt" � g the environ e' , ,. substantial:ly reduce the habitat of a f '31, sh" c►r w%ldl1, species; ra ise a fa,5h ,, or Willd;'�ife a" ul txo P p a' n' oto dxop below' P sustal�tin .�� g level., threaten to " e_limina I e a plant or an al' c'6mmunity reduce the' number ar re`st" rict the rw'nge ' u a rare or endanger64 Plant or,animal 1, eliminate important e!,karrtples ;o- the << , .major per%od,.g ,.of dalitorhia hi,, story or ehistory `"' r,Aft b. noes the `�prpjec'< have to the po ntaal �,a, " r achieve ghbrt ��term�>he�riefzt to the c_'etri,ment ,of ptbl'bly. ado ted p lop 9 ;term "environmental goal S? v ;+ fix, boas the project"'mpaGs' wh''ich mhave �. a,xe individt� j,.iy ,la i t .vely doM§idetab.le? ect' 'may .ampact !gin ;two pe more �keparate-asot1td,, s where the ,limpact an each resource relatively �asma1 "y" abut wh-re the effect �I ,3 cid the . 'to a, o.�7 f those impe�ctrs`cin.., the,, 1� 4" h enva;rgrltlient is signficant��,�, ` a � } v d`. goes the" project have i v . o�it�ental 1� effects which wi11''cause slibst�x't a j 1 .l adverse e y f' ec`es on' hiima being; ` either diregtly or indirectly?�, Pr y: a ;f , 4 Appei?di:x F °- page, 6 ,o, 8 'i l 196 11 rJ ( fb ! %y 1, R f 1 ,t` 1'na 't 6 s — syr rl "n/f � nt}r ^`f i rp y ce wl a' �� ' r 7 it 1 3d r k ,,r j)� �:�• � i rr' � fJ \' t ��' /' ' � 1 tl, �� t r r qct d,! ,� J' u.ryx ojf r13, dt If A A..,r �. � � • f/)l �� Fel O MEARIN 0"L�...��lUto �M`n•;;,;- J1'`'{y r n •��^�' r , " �U`X' "� �(,yr` * '1 6 lo I r „ PPARI'MN'I''S TBRb PAf�T1�fF:�"'C' "L.l �flElti 1�� r4 R lQUtIsIr Rpl 1 w` A AP No 0 ( bESC.RIPTION OI~ PROJECT: � �11 l fit- 6 " i 1Y � } ! uk lil itC ��l f 31f� Fu; liti. tCa 127tM'11.1 f3 �' rl�,t i; ;t tttc . bU iyl s .y RZTerra n8, Z 7 j Si yy 11 1yy � �} f L 013 , i, • ]' FWiir•' """'..^�"+4. �w.Ks'�.1 :...r'j..�««6•i..1F,"W.. f.�rf.`rI °•7..Y it '1 fi �I ,'1 ter �,p ' s• bv,. n -��"�". C BOARD QED, `'lQ 'JNG, ) p " Ab�UST�7ENT ACI'I,ON 8 H,,'DULtb 4 s lkL fi 7I RE7,"UTtN 'I��1" •tLQUl~T,U:r.ib,,, E1� ac,Gioni DATA DTSTRiBUTED:/1I:7;�' 5 AT'TACHTIENT.S: Crap}! �bf apb� ic�at1 11 and plot all 11 F, T RN:E U � " -li , w.l:.-W...:..rw���:."..r+.�.u�.;7, �'1�--......1 F '..:,�.^*�...�-•--�+-�:..,a-�....-,.,..�....wHt.-....ter "Jf , CD.,� ellf tV ,� .�u 11, Ia MY ', If a i�' I t? r "r� � ly a " v "i ✓ � 1 � I �11 � 11111111 �. r l 15.. 1 N J.ld \r Ir�74t ' J: i� 7 �/y DHy+J Ir .. ,y, I •fit u Cat 6, ra tart �, I n ).ro 4n �. \l G..• T C 1, r .J r� .V IIS i, erm, to ,gyp '`S' 2 6 0 4 C j 4' b y h�.t� x�o -sponse, �9 ,dttr' t xs o� �c..L'0 )e :7: 7 'emi c �. ► ; i %t thzt t ] t T1 3xal ar�� . ''One, clp ,1 r your u a ����'mi t No 17w 5, `�a al I��}xpa�s� nr� 1 u£actiming�f a d t sl; a ht ; a1�ai 6 Ica e�rrt n ed p � rc ti've no, !)oiEled ally TlotulralOG� '�0 1'lS. Ore, .1"E'��iy S E ,; { t.l�Mhc!a-.t,, ¢¢�171fhf2 y��yf¢�l�`�� �1�9{e��1N.'iy�, �t��� �;� �si�(lr�IA�q�, MQ �A y�����y�})I1 yyyoyy�l 4 b.. Zionin V�6 a� �4t 4+.7 5+!iit.\ YM 4n .rJ' �rL V1.1 1LY ` ,14Ar`I{7j/,lend req �� itJi�;�tttitbS�Ce",r y.at�r.ve p0,14""at.�'<,.I hala cj yo t hue any c tie txoris , t� a GG, fOlb1: fto' au'r diflca. �1 Dir r r� a , 1�!r i it 777-777777�11 4t tl w� 55 i\ ''t i � •t7 ; I� �� G l r. s,t , 1, IP I iii , •r �Unua:ry, 16, 97 � 1 1 it r Ric 1 0 iA � U 5 2 0, n iY . C4 ""Y.A i.•Jt �a:.iJ ' 11 Qx� r�itr Ie%t te1dplYdxte 6+6i►�tc�n, a �c tas�pd ares unci• one GonY b TO �1Se pOft�t s Flo;. 0 3s x� m nu a Al.ulr aGa 1� 3 es p61ns , ,r pT1fi e ' it "t1a bt r ��, A,CO3 pfxoe• ' .I�fb n i S w'� T ' i• "C1L T i 5 _n ,:bp0i d0n� et�� c �e.�.iX C��aarman , tm.dnt OhA etlixrxl the cox} im 9 6, ' Bettye31air, of `Fitt�.i'3g /lid i ti " ix-