Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-54 EASEMENTS 1 OF 21. 1 s 1\, 'I \ ,�' � r ^ ,t 9 � . � .s ,.�T�MT ' ' w , • � � 1 .b. .. . f �. 5• � i � + Ijj 1 � - i ' � `I - , i ^ i Y h tD � � , 1 I i , 1 � 1 � � �� � � 1. .a PLANNING CUMMISSION SUMWZY SHEDS 41—PYLTICA14T IV, Scott and Bridget Rutherford 7174 Mark Road, #2, Paradise, CA 95969 4dnM1Wwl'!1 iP.�p.M.W....uww �. (At"NER Same OJMT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 44.1 acres from TM -40 to TM -10 On the west side of Doe Mill Midge Road, approximately 5 mikes south of Highways 32 via Schott Road Doe Mill Ridge area, 10* miles northeast ASSMSOR ° S PARCEL NUMBER S) ZCNING TM -40 GEV. PLAN PROJECT CONSISTENT? ba'>MM��M�'+a3M1Mm.1. Mm�oM DATE APPLICATION RMEIVET 12/17/81 DATE RFMONIVG PEPITION SIGNATURES JHECKED/!'I ,l fe -r 2. I PERCENTAGE 1, ,DATE LEGAL, 'DESCRIPTION PREPARED OR CHECEED ...L.,� �. ..���... }ASE PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN `T n�-. .�,. PUELISIM,D =� -- DATE DSSPLIVY AD PREPARED PUBLISHED ,P'�LACE NE41.SVAPER NOTIOL" (S) PUBLISHED PG. B. DATE MAILING LIST PREPARED ,DX2E MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN NAMEDN(TKB_ER 'DATE COMMISN110N EMIBIT DATE STAPI+ FINDINGS PREPARED 1 VTRONM-"I12AL ,,�CATEGORICAL EXB*TION DATE VILED DEEMINAI ,ION :..�.�. . D DATE NEGATIVE DECL' A.RCmm wilE ADOPTED �S� `A -<k ENT. IMPACT REPORT -- DATE CERTIFIED .,�,.... 'OTHER �,..,...�,. ..�,. COMTS81011- ;RING DATES 00MMISSION AG T ON ✓ » ." .�iiG.;iew�a.wcvf'....mr.L / / .. ��.,; ..lis.l'w�@ .tri C �7 I r �• �1 f>) r v � f 834 ADOPT ORDINANCE '2283 PUBLIC HEARING: SCOTTAND BRIDGET RUTHERFORD PROPOSED LEGATIVE`DECLARATIONiREGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND REZONE FROM (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 40 ACRE PARCET�S) TO "TM --10 AND 20" (TIMBER MOUNTAIN - 10 AND 20 ACRE:PARCELS), PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF. I30E MILL RIDGE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 32 VIA SCHOTT ROAD, IDENTIVIED a .AS AP.62-02-70, NORTHEAST OF CHICO The public hearing ot1 Scott and Bridget Rutherford proposed negative declaration regarding environmental impact and rezone from 11TM-40'' (timber mountain - 40Acre;parcels) to "TM -10 and 20!' (timber mountain - 10 and 20 acre parcels), property located on the Westside of Doe Mill Ridge Road, approximately five miles Sout' of highway 32 via Schott Road, dent 9 ified as AP 62-02-70, northeast of Chico was held as advertised. Bettve Kircher, planning director; stated they had received copies of staff an UYS s, Planning Commission minutesandmaps.. They fOunfk it to ,be in conformance with the General Plan: Tiearing open to the public. Appearing: No one. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Saraceni-, seconded by supervisor Mosele And unanimously carried, noting that an envirotnmental document has been prepared and considered, a negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of 4 p d6 9 used rezone from "TM -40" to "TM -10" and CEOA b_ ado Leda finding that the ro `� p p Tm-20 is conbistent with the Butte County General Plan policies; Ordinance 2283 rezoning AP 63-02-70 for w. Scott Rutherford from "TM -40" (timber mountain- 40 acre parcels), 'to "TM -10" and ''TM -20'' (timber mountain - 10 and 20 acre approx- imatelyfive miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road identified Road, r�arcels) property located on the West Side of Doe Mill Rid ► :identified as AP 62+"02-70 110rtheast of Chico was adopted and the Chairman authorized to .sign. BUM) OF SUpEAVISORS MINTUTES - May 1-1) 1982, x ri 71 713 P1,181i+- HEARING BATE SET Public hearing for consideration of the 9 da vas set mental proposed for May ]7 X982 °TM-10"1mPact and rezone from n negative declaration at 10:00 a.m. and TM_20t, TM-40 (timber regarding enviton- located at the (timber mountain - mountain 40 west side 1;0 and 20 acre acre Parcels) to south of Highw 32 °f Doe Mill Ride I�arCels)y,property of Chico Y via Schott Road g Road, approximately for Scott and grid , identified as Ap five miles get Ruthexfo,rd.; 63-02-]OJP northeast nARD 0 'SUR ItVlSbR h rN'UTE8 t BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 261INUTES - April 8, 1982 A. ITEM ON 1114ICH NEGATIVE DE LARATION REGARD ING­ENV�tENTALI .iP� ACT HAS BEEN RECOTZJENDED' 1. Scott and Bridget Rutherford Rezone from TM -40 (Timber Mountain y 40 acre parcels) to. TM -10 and TM -20 (Timber Mountain - 10 and 20 acre parcels) property located on the west side fe Mill ycaapproximately 5 miles south ofHigh�ay 52via ShottRoad, identified as AP 063-02-0-070-0, more particularly described'as TM -10i The S ' of Lot 4 of that parcel map of record in rtap Book 63 on Page 36 on :.File in the office of the Butte County Recorder. Containing 22 acres, more or less, northeast of Chico, Thi -20 The N 'w of tot 4 of that parcel map of 'record in Map 'Book 63 onrPage 36 on file in the office of the Butte County Recorder, Containing 22 acyos more or less, northeast of Chico 82-64-1-24 Mrs. Kircher read Analysis, Surrounding Land Uses and Zones, attd Recommed- ations from Staff Findings dated April 4, 1982. There gives no correspondence. The hearing was opened to the public. -10- BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION M- !N, I7TES - April 8, 1982 3)roponents: Scott Rutherford said that in regard to the 5 conditional development criteria pointed tip in the Staff Findings that there are 3 veispells on the property --one that produces 12-15 gpm, that there are nQ l logs but the other 2 wells are 60 and 110 fe�1t deep with 8 to 40 soot of standing water, that there is a partial water system with a 1210 gallon tank and that his plans are to install another of the same' size;that he has deeded access on Crown Point Road in addition to his :access on Doe Mill; that the acceptanr.e of lower fire fighting standards is a condition inherent with living in a remote area and that his plans Vere to remove brusli clean up the slag, etc, that lie has already cleared or 3 acres; and that there are other parcels in the area of the same • z a g project g precedent. �i�e as lie �.s re ti�stin and. this pro ect would not be setting a of the 'property .end TM -20 for the south y �d that TM -10 for the north 1/2 1- was noted that Mi Rutherford had agreed. wo p p y uld be acceptable. Louis Camenzind, 2194 Oro Chico Hwy, 'Durham, recommended that the Stage Geologist should look at this entire areafor mineral deposits before there is development. . In response to Commissioner SchradW s question as to how staff coulci recommend Genial of this project and the approval of the brake/Isom one within 3 miles, it was explained that Drake/Isom was a full-blown PAC and this is not, that this is a different set of circumstances. Opponents No one. The hearing was closed. There was a motion by. Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Schrader, to 1. Note that an environmental document has been prepared and considered and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and 2. Find that the proposed rezone ('82-54) from TM -40 to TM -10 and TM -20 is consistent with the Butte County General Plan policies; and 3. Recommend that f Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance to rezone File 8' 54 (,AP 6�-02.70) for IV, Scott Rutherford and Bridget Rutherford from Tit -40 to TM -10 and TM 20 (TM -10 for the iiorth 1/2 and TM -20 for the south 1/2) 4YtS Commissioners Behunin, Bennett; Schrader and Max: NOES; Chairman Lambert who said she would have to go along With sta'fis recommendations; ABMT44 No one Motion carried. -11M FILE: 82-54 Page 1 TO: Butte County Planning Commission' Staff Findings - April 8, 1982 -APPLICANT tiV„ Scott Rutherford V, Bridget Rutherford VIINER Same REQUEST Rezone 'to TM -10 from TM -40 AP NO.: 63-02-70 LOCATION 1Vest side of Doe Mill Ridge Road (Doe Mill Ridge area), approximately 5 miles south of Highway 32 via Schou Road. LAND USE: predominantly open, rolling :foothill and canyon land. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; Agricultural -Residential EXISTING ZONING: TM -40 ZONING HISTORY': Zoned A-2, August 29, 1955; rezoned TM -40 February 10 1976 by Ordinance #1682. PARCEL SIZE: 44.1:1 acres SURROUNDING Lk%) USES: Predominantly undeveloped open space, with highly dispersed single Family dwellings. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN Agricultural -Residential, DESIGNATIONS- Grazing and Open Land SURROUNDING ZONING; TM -40 to east, and west, TNI -20 to 'north, TM -10 to south SURROUNDING PARCEL SIZES: Range from 20 to 40 acres., APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Calif. Government Code Sectiol. X5860 (zoning consistency iq1th Cen+-,ral Plan) CON TENTS RECt MD Eutte County Public Works "��urther creation of Parc-ols in this area MJ 11 impact roads nat are already inadequate;. Butte County Dnvironmental Realtll: "No objection %o rezone. Any. division o�velopment must cottiply With niinimu- usable set;age area on each parcel (Z acres with minimum 2 foot of soil,'); and the r�ttte County Subdivision r . FILE' 82-54 Page 2 Staff Findings, 4/$/82 Ordinaance and requirements of the Butte County Department of Public Health.'" ANALYSIS: This project is a proposal to rezone approximately 44:11 acres from TM -40 to TM -10 on land located in Section 29 Township 23 N, Range E on a USES Topographic Map. The project site is located on the west side of Doe Mill Ridge Road, approximately 5 miles south of: I.11ghway 32 via Schott Road, and 14 miles northeast of Chico. 'rlle general vicinity surrounding the project site is commonly identified as the Doe Mill Ridge area, extending several miles between two canyons north- east of Chico and south of Forest Ranch. Foothill-imodland and chaparral types of vegetation occur in, surrounding canyons and slopes farther south. This area of the County is generally undeveloped. Predominant parcel sizes tango from 20 to 40 acres. Although the proposed ,zone (TM -10) would substantially reduce the minimum parcel :size for a residence in the area, the zone is consistent with the General Pl,a.ri designation, Agricultural -'Residential, ivhich conditionally allo.s parcels a minimum of one acre in size. The applicant. has ;Lated that lie wishes to divide the existing parcel. into three separato parcels, ,two at 10+ acres andd one at 20+ acres in size. The applicOrit's reasons for the rezone request are: "The property is presently zoned TM -40, which allows only 1 residence per 40 acres. It has been heavily logged Witli.in the last 8 years, taken over by a heavy growth of brush, therefore, not growing much timber, not is it being farmed or lived on. T'would like to gradually reestablish the timber and restore the land moreto its natural state and. l am finding the cost prohibitive. I have a relative and a close friend who would each like to buy 10 acres, and who share my views on the use of the parcel. We would each like to eventually build a single family residence and share the costs inherent in maintaining the propertY, and in order to do so the need 3 separate parcels. Also, our intended use of the property conforms tothgeneral plani�a.nd use of the area, which appears to be singlefamily e General Plan Policies. The following. Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria have been adopted as General Plan policies, and apply to areas designated Agricultural- 1�e51CiEantla7.: 1. Compatible with ne,igiiboring agricultural activities. 2, hvidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. �. Availabi'ity of adequate fire protection facilities. 4. Adequately iii Intained approved road access with sufficient Capacity to service the atea. y �s and 5Ch0015. S. Reasonable accessibility to commercial sorvi�c� 0 FILL 82-54 Page 3 Staff Findings, 4%8/82 An,alysis of the policies that yield, the five conditional criteria of the Agricultural -Residential, designation of the project site reveal the b,llo +ting 1. There is little significant agricultural activity in the area. 2. Water availability on Doe Mill Ridge is a serious concern. In dry years many residents have water brought in from elsewhere as wells dry up. In normal years,, summer well production is sometimes limited. Deep wells are required which may be im- practical on lot by lot basis. Evidonce of adequate domestic wager is a policy of the Land Use Element,. _ 3. This project is in a high fire hazard area. General Plan policies indicate the densities should be 'limited and/or adequate access be provided. Presently, the only emergency access is from the north, through the Forest Ranch area, 10 miles + away. 4. As in 3 above, access is from the north, through Forest Ranch, along Doe Mill Road, which is not paved to the subject property. Policies indicate that residential densities should be correlated with the traffic carrying capacity of the circulation system. A second, deeded and ;adequately ma.Lntained route is required in order to provide adequate through circulation for the length. of Doe Mill Ridge. S. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District.. Most major shopping is in the Chico area. Access is north up Doe Mill Road through Forest Ranch, then south aloncr State Highway 32 to Chico, a one-way p of approximately 20 miles. A second access route to the south would reduce the tri distance to 6 to 10 miles„ Sl3Rf O NDINC LAND UGIIS' AND 20N135: Parcels to the east, 'north and west of the project site range from 20 to 40+ acres in size. The parcel. (AP 63"02-12) immediately south of the site is 40' acres in size, though the property lies within an area ..,oned TM -10. Most surrounding lands are either Undeveloped, or have a single residential dwelling oil the parcel. With the exception of property south of and adjacent to the subject par- cel, contiguous surrounding parcels are zoned either `f'Mw20 or TM -40. 'Beyond the contiguous parcels; properties are zoned TM -20 TNI -40 and i+R-�40. Parcels range from 40 to 160 acres in siae in these zones, A rezone to TM -lo lvould allow development at greater densities than currently exists in this vicinity of Doe Mill Ridge, Predominant par" cel sizes range from 20-40 ,acres on lands surrounding the project site. Former parcel AP 63-02"74 and parcel. AP 6302-72 immediately South of Page 4 , Staff Findings, 4/8/82 1LE : 82-54 ` parcel was rezoned to TM -10 August 11 1978. This rezone t applicant'sY General nT, r.edates the adoption of the curr�o�merLan parceld Use B631n02�'74nlia}sesubsecLuentl.y �bl.an., adopted .October 30, 1979• each 10± acres in site. arcels, Caen divided into four separate, p ared that accordance with CRQA, an environmental document was prep T -accordance e Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The •nt disagreed with the staff determination and was unable ti) comply pplica IR I,ra.s iith the 'recommended mi ; app oned therrlRn-require11�1ent�to the rBoard of ;�gl fired. The applicant appeal 1982, to find that t Supervisors. The ^oard voted, on 14tarcli 16, -h,,ere no potential Significant imea.ltof�the EIR in the project lementat�on, and upheld the appplicant s apnea 'p;EC0A1�11JNDATIflN and 1 Note that an environmental document has been Prepared considered in accordance with the provisions of CFQA; and Find that the proposed rezone (82=.54) from TM -q 0 to TM -10 is not consistent with Butte. County General Ilan policies; and ne AP 3 Deny the adoption of an ardinancem+�loc}acresipet parcel.), �p2-70 to TM -10 (T�.mber Mountain, m�.nim If the C0111mission can find conformity rvl.th General_ Plan poloa.es where in size in areas a rezone would allow parcels less than ha 20.acres designated Agricultural-lteslden l: Note that an environmental document aofblelye prepared and considered and ve recommend adoption Declaration in accordance with the requirements of C)QA, and from TM 40 to TM -10 2, Find that the proposed rezone county General Plan policies; olicies :is consistent with. the Butte County a said Recommend that; the Board of Supea'visors adopt a resolution 3 for IV. Scott Rutherford to rezone File 82-� 54 (AP 63-02�-"r 0) (Timber bJountain- avid Bridget Rutherford :from TM -40 to TMw1.0, 10 -acre parcels) BS/hd Attachments -*Location Map TM-40 1 �a 29 TM-20`f'' Fo;"S?'r R izezoma AR /.J-O2-•7q T M `�`4 0 i{ 1 TM'-40 T M-40 . r d FR-40 r �•32 A aA=2 FR-20. f FILE N6, BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION A PL'I6A0WNE—Ri 'J„sir R 0 U 8 8 T EXISTING ZONE SCALE L"o'Z z UBLIC HEARING W. SCOTT, RUTHERFORD' APPEAL OF EIR REQUIREI ENT ON REZONE ;FROM: " M LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DOE MILL RIDGE `ROAD, APPROX. TI�-40 PROPS VE MILES SOUTH OF HWY 32 VIA SCHOTT ROAD, DOE MILL RIDGE AREA, TEN MILES NORTHEAST OF CHICO, IDENTIFIED_AS AP 63-02-70 The public hearing on W. 'Scott Rutherford appeal of the'EIR requirement on a rezone from ''TM --40" property located on the west side of `Doe Mill Ridge Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, Doe X 11 Ridge area, ten miles northeast of Chico, identified as AP 63-02-70 was held as continued: Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of the appeal. Mr. Rutherford agreed to Consider the north one-half of the `&operty as twenty acre minimum and the sbuth one-half of the property for an acre parcels. Hearing open to the. public. Appearing: Scott Rutherford. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. chairman Wheeler advised she had an opportunity to do some driving l in the area and it is fairly' flabThis would be one 20 -acre parcnl, and two k ten -acre parcels. The county approvL,:! a negative declaration fora 20 -acre pared.', Sus, to the north. of this particular property. The move tent in the area is some downzoning'to tei+ ari parcels. This request seemed to be compatible with the downzonng in the area. ' On motion of Chairman Wheeler; seconded by Supervisor Moseley and carried, the appeal of W Scott Rutherford of the EIR requirement on a rezone from "T14-40" property located on the west side of Doe MiA Ridge Road; g �' Ridge Approximately five irides south. o£ Hi Mira �2 via Schott. Road, Doe All area* ten miles northeast: of Chico; dentified as AP 63-02-700 was upheld for an application for two ten acre parcels and one 20 -acre arcel; finding the maybes listed in Appendix V are not considered as potential impacts and are to be changed 'to no in the appendix. CONTINLi� TO t"CH •16, 1982 AT l0•].`i A. I - PUBLIC HEARING:W- SCOTT RUTHERFORD ,APPEAL OF TFIE 'EIR. REQUIREMENT' ON• , REZONE FROM "'TM -40"' AND '!TM -]l)", "bPERTY 7,OCATED O'N. THE WEST SIDE OF DOE MILL RIDGE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES 1,MOUTH OF HIGHWAY 32VIA, SCHOTT ROAD, DOE MILT, RIDGE AREA, TEN MILES NORTHEAST loF CHICO, IDENTIFIED AS ;AP 63x02-70 eal of the EIR The public hearing on the W- Scott Rur,herrord app requirement on a rezone from "'TM"40" and "TM-�10" Property located on the west side of Dole Mill Ridge Road; approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Sclztt:t Road, Doe•Mill Ridge area, ten "miles northeast of Chico, identified as AP 63-02-70 was held as advertised. Bettye Blair, planning director, stated this was an appeal of the environmental impact requirement on a zoning. They provided the environmental analysis and initial cheek list that, material. yshould thes in the oBoardychooseg in th theirconcerns are sated e Pp tion they should go down through the study and to accept the negative declara revise those items listed as maybe and place them in the no category. The Hays rezone is immediately south which was ;achieved in 1978. At that time " it was discussed the effect of lowering the acreage to less than 20. They are concerned with the traffic and wildlife habitat areas. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Scott Rutherfords applicant, stated originally he had not thought of the mitigation on this half. They would like to have three parcels. TO Live on the north one-half anti friends on the south one-half. There s "TM -10" zoning directly to the south and "TM -20" to, the north. He £efthe impact repot:t was a large expense for t:pro parcels. He is asking tnz a negative declaration aupervi'sbr Dolan questioned if Mr» Rutherford was suggesting he would w.ttatti go hs application to be amended so :it would be' from a timber r zone to 10 acr,�'t for the lower one-half. her» Ru!a�:r; nrd indicated dies. Chairman Whc{ lt,r indicated' she would like a delay of one Week in order to visit tha site Z'14 ',c0k With the applicant. The open hearing Was dont: ntied to March ld , 1082 at 10:16 a.m. DOARD Op 5ttppRVl8dit5 �htjNoTtS Atari h 9 lg$Z PUBLIC HFLARTNG DATE SLS , The fPI . ,,,,.. i public hearing dates were set . e g9 ch 9 10: 1982 at 15 a.m. was se, for con¢iderat�, i1ecott Rutherford alpeal of the ETR requirement on rezone fzom " TINT -10, property ].Heated on the west side of Doe Mid]. Ridge Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott. e. Road, Doe Rsdge area, ten miles northeast of Chico identified .asp AP 63--02— ' P'61bz,Uftry 9j � $2 Melsrin Corry etal {David Ka'ding X .28, Nimshew State ChIca, CA 95926 856 E. 16th Street Chico, CA 959`26 :63-02-015 x 5~=ce Vincent etal Harry R. Gorman, Jr. P Box 278 246 East Main Street = zi-est Ranch, CA 9.5942 :Bozeman, Nit. 59715 :.P 63-02-056 AR 63-02-081;082 '. xd F Elizabeth Enns lz i., Box 191A CA 95926 65-02-0578 bony Santos 0 Box 119 est Ranch,_ CA 95942 ,63-02-058,059 —2mitarian Fellowship 0±4 Chico ' 0 Bax 3509 =hico, CA 95927 AF 65-02-063 y y 1.a 1' r G. Forester 0. Box 155 '.c,rest Ranch, CA 95542 x* 63-02-067,068,060 %.. S. 5 B, L. Rutherfox -1-4 Clark Rd., #2' W z nadi se, CA 95969 63•-02-070 L. Vybieral t - S"ll Park Tree Lane =noma, CA 95476 9 -Ap 6.5 02-07 ,even Northcutt etal F, �;S Ironwood i %catille, CA 9565E Y Ald 65-02-072 ; y winiam Scutt bavls V .0 Box 731 r.il'ton Cxtyl CA 95951"t, Ate' 63-02-073 t,C. Sorenson F'Box 1.31 Z%Izo3 CA 95927 f ru 63-02.070 t 7.1 �r LL APPLICATION FOR REZONING Ir BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION i APPLICANT; Readand follow Instructions as set forth on reverse side of this form. Applicant's Nanle._,w.' 5_ZL S.�.� Phone No, I Applicant's Melling Addeess.q1-i -Q'ka-y—V'�C1<.,_-' 3;.'5'o►rLL( j App4cant's Interest In property (Owner, Lessee, Other) Q —vlg' f' { Owner's Name I3"m�(:L`��k�U.= Pho�neNo. ti owner's Address ` �l.�®Ld�Q.L_�(d.�+ T ltt li Assessor's Parcel Number (s) a -I Q Present Zoning.. 40 REQUESTED ZONING Vvttllimensions �.iA11- a , c of area {s to be rezon r' nti �ta4 r'! <<� 1 _._ yin !, �.3 N1 2 3 y" ,E. /�I a N�t�, �4 5 , a� .:i3- l , a 1 hcrQ 011 I 13'73.13 gall ` �.,..• wr �vwc r�. i �¢ ��� C \ Q�]: QYQ t 1Q.J '5 CiQCit_ l iwh:ean AtnL cueV.1oian�, p+ s"P �. •Tht YtQatres�- lood, o -F W�s,4R.w' l,b�u�lc��4)e.. �Id•lo L t� i 1,� l�ro.l' :�`1 ►`� prose �� z��1 `Crn_�{d� %PWL0A caal,owe> int'Xl� OV) t' nsv oninAV b1`Wl YtkS�LL�4.�L Applicants s r aso - t b Y'b c VW �Ck1 ` tVN1C1 P�Y'y Y1dY'" �_ 'I VICla¢�.>^+` fo�rw�2,clor e8rr� .Lt-t..tr3�C�kc10 ra�"G;a s?1�11� du _� a v. 01Ve: o 11 si^ %uiil ?51 o wti A v\ '1 e P 4 � b-Wue" � tutor✓- a rElCSve.. c� C.CAo� -l'u^i�v Who wou`lc� ¢ate liKl� b� to aewe.s,a d_UJ1�b S4�tt1 a. '1CtUs �A . LVQ. WpXLktat !t ave.ti� tU r� fie,. Ott 1 t^ 56 e.1 �CQ, av ce. • 1� stn lnnaiv� A�v�ivy ��¢� tro ric , and. tvt by e o cin ' LL F v etilawx� Iia ou.�r- IV,,aw a 11 . of SIC 4-o ¢ Conforms I, 1 app s +txvA .1LI V-61 dery CLC 1 Hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the instructions and that the foregoing statements are true, complate and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. � gated „L.L�J f !i±�.�....,4ppfic;5nt's Signature _ w r Protect File Number, � !-Mral Plan Designatlon (50L V PAFT in 'rA6�, RequesFConsistent? t t` LOcatlUn�� y,�,i.l'`� ,, �cT .k � fp``l . � w}t�✓�' A+T '•g 4..,. � ,�'+ � �. ,�' � �..� VERIFV:, `'""A,P, Nunrk�ertsl ►cul'}o Ca,rlamiitigr �'�C&a"tion Description bI `" Oktvnershlp _-"""legai Description of Area t �,,,'" Proof of Agency (if needed) ��5 Maps of Area UJ —present Zoning Ut7rl,villo, C�lifntgt u, i . o s tante Application Received L; '-Y Receipt No, .,_ � "I %_ ,�� li Appliratien Taken by �y, �. ' wro Receipt Prof ect APPENDIX E 'Date Filed t 5. Environmental Information,,Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 'I. Name and address of developer or proj eet s`pon of ��.,'\.c�.t-_ �-t��►Q.�- �.�-�er�t�Yc-� �i7y C)Cc.r� ��! :tk: pr Address Address of project: Asscssot's Block and Lot Number, -ra W p ,3 IFr, W.W.� 1. 3. Name, address, and telephone p number of person to be contacted concerning this project. W, 6CDAt ak-- 'RriJc d.: Ru~4)gt� ea��� co,nce I� 4, u',,pe of project: (i.e. rezoning, subdivision) VQ."Za Y\ � vra ,v e-,r,<c•, L'►< e . , 1—k i! c , ---�— and ther ic .-. And describe atpo,ectPermits , ;sc�vr��lio�;- r,nnvrl approvals required for thisrj, incudingthoserequiedby ey, regional,state an federal Agencies! lb ��\ 1 v\ -1VI rid sa o... Exi sting zoning district I N\ -_ 40 `l. Proposed use of situ; i PROJECT DESCRIPTION' g., Site size, 44,,l 6k.0 "L.$ DomeCv.06111iing nmo 9, Square foots of building(s): 0n 0-0k , Mhz de 6ro..* D F G 1 rl 1961 10 Number of floors of construction: r1 Oruvilla, C&III&.00 OnL. OY" oAk O dint of off-street parking p-govided 11 °ca, w� ro Z io je, rca �r,v� st C-'zwii' t. v�.iclev�C¢ a�l��ee is 1 . Attac ►ts�.te�,deve op`mment�plan. o.Y�ktv.c��i 13, Ero osed scheduling, �.pC N P 1 PCV% du..d e ►ro es d!- Fh�s `\,Cv�¢► `llta_• Ce�C� uc.huv nI' l ov" �411 l4. ACs %ciat�e�d�projects dur,hc� �l�Rr�uw�w,e�r- t�ISa, Naw 1.5 Anticipated incremental development: , 6z' e., ' f wrCr-\ 5 v.7 & c ► ui 11 Q.t� t �, r;Lq ,1 �.k' �,S �5 v1 Lo1\'*Jl -C k'Vve-nc� l� � i lcl ��- icl e.vr Q,, � ` kt Y'G11 O'aV\'4 V� t o owe,, `D C�V(015 �V' is �a stb\ r. tl�► 11 V\6.uQ, a 6'v`r\t-6'V\X.i� � 6 idem 0h v\ Appendix E - page I of 3 -- 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedu:.e of unit sizes and me of household size expec�-.ed .Th,-,wQ, LUM Yin � Y(L5*% � ai L O;� ,1� 1000 .L -F lL r lY� c�ttN�CA.S �OY\W!e. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city r� c.li- onal l OY C.o�nnv,nloading ted square footage ca. sales area and to fa.i lit_ies . I£, If industrial, indicate type, estimat* 1 employment per shift, andloading facilities . t3ov%. , 1,9. If institutional indicate the major function, estimated .anployment per shift:, zstimated occupancy, loading facil3.t-iep, and community benefits to be derived fromthe project. t'Jo .— 'M6A4uMov cLa If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning $application, state this and indicate clearllr why the application is equired . On ai:�ac it8- Sha ' r i Are, the follo,�d-ng item,,-, applicable to tti� project or its effects? Discuss beibW all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary.). YE S NC. 21. `Change in existing features of any beaches, lakes, or "4118, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22', Significant / ex otin residentialg-a in areas or vistas or vistas from 8 public lands or reads 23. Significantly change pattern, seals.=, or character of general area of project. 24 . 8i ifi.ca�'�1. t al"no lnts of solid Ali ,te fi litter'. i-;mcc.d cid itao� a.. lY\ `'tYl�., �{LIV"w'\ d�- �Q�N\� aFiL. ��" �'�1C. �-��','`V�`Q.�IV\'S � ���G1 k'Q'�idC.Y'iC.R..a,�.,.. b , ._ _ l.� G�, 25, nge in dust, as smoke, fumes or idol in vlci.11•' tj7: 26. � Agnif i.cant change in lake, ,:ream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage 27: St'cstantial change in existing noise or vibration levels it the vicinity. 28 Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more, _. 29, Use or dibposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable's or explosives. Appendix t " page 2 of 3 'YES NO 30 Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to par•t of a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project Site as it exists before the projects ;including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural-, historical or scenic aspects Describe any existing structures on the ie and he use of they stru tures. pry c7�dre�.cWed 5h¢A�t' ly�� H�tlw���7 ��-��f 34. Describe the surrounding prope de/s inc u ing informat on on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. 'Indicate the type of land use (residential., commercial,. etc.) , ,amtensity of land use (ane -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) , and scale of development.,, (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.) on OJ kO_dVNQ_a stn u-+ CERTZFrCATiONa I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in' the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and inforinaltion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. L9 I _ %� U1 Date � �• (Signat re For BAN Co. wlanuiny' UEC x Y 1991 - Or�v`Jie, Cali6o"ra�tt Appen,diX E - page 3 of 1 �• y � S e• Yk!3 CO 4 Ir - Co m w T w u i, i a (! i'—it`rr-41- ` = X1!'1 �`` f �36. ! b4 F62 u9r u. � R � = ___ �� � ♦ 1. u }y �J N�y LA A 4 z N `u � �w O CO O NLo _ 4 C �n m10) Co Co ti r � �•arrl r� rrrt .. �.: s9�rr t`, r � ���\ v r\. •t y lY i �°Yttnt�tn • — ON Kv ki LM LM 'DA PIN 10 ',s X �\ 4 CLk-k, no bu:�lcli,-� s or ��e pro �avr rXA- �I�,�s -1-i - -re w t 1 b -�v a v� •. , +rte. 5 i,•� wig i ch Nre. iyj l0.V a� A kn-i ►n ovj o .l l CT p�roxi 1>,r,a=i e tPoo z.e-s ca -u 4,2o. a � p�i�ct-ic,' >nVol�re CL rlC2.o ¢. . )C- lave e✓ -,a. o n it cc�.-4io tkn �1 (L P0515i619-, CseryUal ova�,, a� YQSi�ekiCe, �x- L1U o; %Qq �-I-Qv V-\ . v� u reslclo loe..., U��, w©gi d alio 1►1 ;s�-� , a�O 6 ;1rJ ck �t�:�-cc-,.1:�, -1.1�e, c��•�- c�� ~}-hoz.. y� L IOWU8 lc1 011, by 3 s a e_. r� id exec e$ LOvxz � ) m l i e� �4 o be c -b IQ- •{-O t s uz Ira 4Ll,1 a ye, �c��rce l i loco_ A b [?a i 11 tui 1 1 c� pwoX < <rC�F�L� Lt b acAt.e.s do" lo.ve.1 a CLr) Y)5i s4 -s c)-� �0 o� (Laal V,rno1-1 t to c�4- k �l a c 4 1 1"� c �� 1� Q ��lc� t�7 j e.1 u -1-�t �n 0� 40- �t�-�- . �'`'j c� c� cx �t (Lcncd�eV)0,4 -tV-�l�iv4�pna 0'Lqq 'Q�xsd.5 cl raf du-AN- U e�. , u xnccc3o �u-, Oak bcn l ra:� �� -� v�+n 1--, �"Ina� � I f S es�.v�,� v �.w � � r •I-� v,�rav� za h i `��. ro e.r i t:c� V �1 �hrJ "� ire Ira �r rwr s b F 1n-- 1� P'_ j Wa ��:C1.� t1�%11G�1 ��U2 �OIYi?.-.�.erll � co��tcl o ��; to 1v4 0 � sitb( 10 (L usc` a t , i� ., �rr�-C�� r pcs•f- etY, i r�e-,� rars� �osf©h fX( �; ,�✓ .�-`�,�.. �1.►�,�rv��,� 1i'�k� � � � t���'1d. ��a•�%-, Y 1'1't t71. i'�11 b I y� 515`7 ,dal do -Lr �c� K�, � a z: c 11 'e .� c� c� �, dcc m6 (0 V) a-k�11�� . (We, YY-) (,W` LLyO_t � i g�n�i-Cct� o1'- sc e v)1 c, T1')LVe. OatL v)O 5u.c���c �. 5 ►n �..x f4��C¢,InC.e, On 4) Omit Co. rlahilfny'Noftk DEC 1.7'1961 UrUvifla, G�li#orate ���y t �a�nyne.a��rti.l �er�ria Ccavi�) ?YO ?Vr� 2,5 G-r2 Co\l e.� o-8 wi�1 to he, samC,, e 5 �t- ►mctr)zy , v'169—v Poen oa1� C�nd,e.a: s c�r,iv�naJ� -�. v-5v��1 Co:.li-�a�-��ct i�rd l�-�a� c� a, 1►��.a.. � �1ack�c�� du..R;x-� e�•�o a . or ebb i w � , e o- v,nlN -R �cun by S cow iG GLb� CA6 o-S � - 0--)�. Gcx Y1 C� 2�� � Y wl Y12.. `� , lloy a U,Se_ 1 r ~acv- b 0.0.nv���v� ►res c1 e.o 1a-i.l w i-4 �, °1� �-e1a-1i U�t toga�-Q-x c ► �Tvrv,a d ire Ci�ci c� Le.v� a•o �e� 4o�, x e� +re. o-y c l s ov~► � So c c' 4- q- Na �k-tom a+re, -kwo � ac-ra. �L� taw , �.a �t.k-ce_.�s w 1-� � �-, 1/4.1 °4-a tl�.. �� � �> Q F i-4,e� w ►r o a.h� cw �, �Y n, . o c .s to o o -, d W o CLC r. air � - " , e, ce.� � -the. u.+r�-��c�Y�d a+r-e✓a oxc. e:�4)un — 5 oY blLkn� U-SC8 C 51n k� L �-�wA;l 1",0 es1des zhc� �rQsiclekes 11 TO �%o wl�r�uiny :ra�jjABe a E C "l 'i981 Coruvillo, Collforia 82-54 inter=Departm, fill Memorandum Planning Commission Yom,. William R. Sands, Planning Department �. Environmental Analysis, Rezono from TM -4 81 _12�-1 7.01-10 r to w. Scott Rutherford) AP 63-02-70, Log ., January 20, 1982 re ect is a proposrj:l to rezone approximately 44.1 acres This p" from TM -40 to TM -ib onSGSnTocl lographicocated nNlapc 1The2proje�ctshipe 23 N, Range 3 E on a p roxiIIIit'elY is located on the West side of 32 Doe Schott Mill �Road. The general: five males sou identified vieinity surrounding the project site is commonly as the Doe Mill Ridge area, extending several miles between two canyons northeast of Chico. The site exists at the lower level of a yellow pine forest. Foothill -woodland and chaparral types es of vegetation occur an the County isagenerally anons and d veloped. %aaither south. This area of the County Predominant parcel sizes range from 20 to 40 acres. The site exists within an area identified as Agricultural. -Residential on the General Plan map. The attached environmental study -Aas6 cepa ed 68rathend 6�ezone application by G. R. FoxesteT, (Log #80-08�-27-0'l) and identifies potential Impacts that wminimum Of ould occur in a rezone from,^�duc0edtpotent�al]yhserious adverse size of 20 acres per parcel impacts to a level of a_nsignaficance Su pl einertal In ormation In Appendix p (Initial Stuqdy) uestions concerning potentially slgnfcant adverse impacts on speca�ac qualities wr ItNoll ithin assessing environment must be answered "Yes", "Maybe", The following items from the the probability of Occurraence,ItNoi► w, - a comment, would be referenced Appendix I', of the r000sed determined as "'M Lbe" in the In ial Study '. project' le increase �n wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?` Change in the diversity o;- species), or numbers or any 5a: mals ncluding 'reptiles) and shellfish,, benthie organisms)insects or microfauna� speca:es of ana:mals (birds, , land an� fish Planning Commission W. Scott Rutherford AP 63-02-7`0 82-54 5ct Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of -animals 5di Reduction of, encroachment upon, or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat.. 8a: Alteration of the planned land use of an area, or establish a trend which will demonstrably lead to such alteration,. 8bt Conflict with uses on adjoining properties, or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses of an area: l3ci Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems,. 14a pid"r+ protection,+ 14ei Maintenance of, public facilities, including roads. (The folloAving handwritten pages Were submitted by the applicant as part of the rezone application, and are included for information. := tw t -r C., Y)O b u�'6c1i v� s on 4� e. pro p uyr , ,1 aA- 41 ,N t s )ri ernQ ,!—) i 2... 4uL4uxL, ,et E. w�li )Oe, - voyn &Ne.: 4o �r .. S�v"�c•�1+z-=a-�v.i�� Ye- c . S 1 CI s Q- 1 Zc$ a. �L) �� w`i plaw� a�- �-�-r� s Ai w-4. , 1�:,.,�e,� .e,w-1-In�� Ptro pn � �e' C,?9roK►yY-6A .Uz 1')O00 a5t.�. LnQ61QQs �licc�.lic�Y a�nc �ti a�� bl+z.; c��►nQX-c� l .�: plan chc� V� ?Ye6o-A-4t.�, zc%noc�, ~�-�m - 40,w��c.1 V11 L- C) ar-k-LS, Coj�- a. YQ-. C'- iue.-� jctriC C . lU KJ I.LL , C:IC.�C"'0-15 Ck1hU, \O(k 'w L 44 aerie_, be.Iw(,-un 4�-)L 4nr u—, � o -S, cw\ bP. o-blo., ka , L�a\rcxA i clex)c.e.S, L CI Ye- C>rLV-,2:, w5 "rO V\CWe- r F 14A.1 cLc'� t, (x��i'�G� i61000Jr0_3 CN-� DO0-11 ���z ,and\ cons, i:51 C - 4WO Y\no11*s IZv I 406 OPIv-) kouuI 01 4AII, ,L � cls v ` 5to�yiv �c1ya\ nL' . LL) -b �1oc Q,8 la�axi���a � $ r`e vs a O, u�l{ucl�, - , �.,,es wrucl r 4,r tL4 cel h� a� ,J` UjCI, .ter v7 ncpa u.re✓ h is ra lm C., � �� .. L- LLTA-in cr Y -Y-\ .�-►�zOr. V r l � ,L.. C�. - c� a to i I r� tc� v1 za h i c . "eY A -o,' ��(Y)Q'�v1 1 iur k eek b in ,Q ' p!reclO+r �'� r-,c� •13 � M3 is -Vo, C\* i��e",� .,� o�ay s �.c y �S v�� s i ��-t tied and �Q )V' �.,C,4 �b a.� 46(4 �, si v�,c v ,d Xlve,YO P4t o am&s u.a4�c �� � civ Y,i i 4c�. b P� 1z�a cL -, �scr u c c Cis L trF Ib �w .� c' Vr � wr � � td o$ l l b2 ` uSey '�-i-c�bl -1a +rO3io Y) , us �.�.'� � �-' �,. � Cca.l. � �o t. � i c �: �i�1 1 t b ti Y o� 1 i �.� C�.i�1r' c�Yi pct � � i o v° c►,:,1: t,WL Y -)O (,W 4-LLN-o-L) kltt4 wx (.CLk �c) 1"tl oA- 02tiAit 1) , I Pr, c ��►+na4. 1,� t�nu�Y� . , �E �ti9� �� Scka...1 CcZ.l-�av-rt�ci, Ib�rc� {i -� dcx t Y1Q .� lack � a. j cur o ©�t'� cca!s; otder Su-*-Aic, ttc-�6 ct-�`c��r c�5 �i:, c rr� ht tcc�.�-��K Q.svic,, , yv'Q c� 1 Ci Q.V U-' i �! 1 -1-tuQ-' �, 1\d �r-1 c rc_( u�s�.. is r `4 C X1.1.1'' c.7 � SOLJ--{- 4w o L� ac -r - irLY IC � dr d e ci �- to Co10s t f%� t t/ u�r��^�Y1rt1 I `ted L10 ceC'ri12. fix to d X15 csin 1Q- , C�-�e ,vr- �� p�czAs. q , l 1 0�3 L5Qd t +e- cih w�Side+r�CQs n t''o• i'l�f',ffftty ��� qp yn ��� .1 rr✓ I�Jal Planning Commission W. Scott Rutherford, AP 63-02-70 82-54 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed project would renew potentially significant and adverse impacts if developed to maximum densities ender the proposed TM-10 zone (10 acres per parcel) . To mitigate these potential impacts, lower densities would be required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. REQUIRED MITIGATION (The applicant may propose an alternative mitigation measure, equal or superior to the one listed l)elow.) li Rezone the 'project site from TPI-40 to TM-20, ce:; 1V. Scott and Bridget Rutherford The Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Department to work with the property owners of the Doe Mill Ridge area, P%ping this process the appropriate poliz4ies were discussed and the k.eprsrtment indicated that the Conditional Criteria listed Mn the Afo.'icriltural- Residential designation for parcels less than, 20 acres oxe •iot 'it is recommended that this px,i)ject generally present. As such, be denied. Analysis of the policies that yield the five conditi,oiial criteria of the Agricultural-Residential designation reveal the following 1.. There is little significant agricultural activity in ,:he area 2. Water availability on Doe M , , Ridge is a serious concern. In dry years many vesi.d+ents .eve wager brought ;n from elsewhere as wells dry up. In normal years, s=immer well producton is sometimes limited. Deep wel s are required whizh may be a.m- practical on lot by lot basis. Evidence of adoquate domestic water is a policy of the Land Use Element, s, This project is in a high fire hazard area. General Plan policies indicate the densities should be limited and/or adequate access be provided. presently, the cinly ewergency access is from the north, through the Forest ',�,anch area, 10 miles + away; 4. As in .5 above, access i.s from tIlie north, through Porq;st Ranch, along Doe Mill 'toad, which is not paved to the subject property. Policies indicate that residential densities shoulJ be correlated with the traffic carrying capacity of the circulation system. A second, deeded and adequately maintained Toute is required in order to provide adequate through circula":ion for the length of Doe Mill Ridge . 8i The p''oject site is located in the Chico Unifted School District. Most major shopping is in the Chico area. k,cccss is north up Ube �rI�11�2Road to Chico,a�one�way�tx}iP-ofeapproth along State a throughapproximately 20 miles Heigh y A second access route to the south wotild reduce the trip distance to 6 to 1.0 miles 1f the following conditions are made part of the approval, a finding of conformity with the General Plan can he made provide circulation to a publicly maintained ,road, via at least two routes, 2. provide evidence of adequate domestic hater. i File # 82-54 tater-Departmen a l Memorandum Planning Commission ,. William, R. Sands, Planning Department f tnvi.ronmental Analysis, Rezone from TM -4.0 to TM -10 for W. Scott Rutherford, AP 63-0270, Log # 81-12-17-01 January 20, 1982 This project is a proposal to rezone approximately 44.1 acres from TM -40 to TM -10 on land located in. Section 20, Township 23 'N ,� Range 3 E on a USGS Topographic Map. The project site is 1,)cat'ed on the ,rest side of Doe Mill Ridge Rand, appaoaimatel)r five miles south of highway 32 via Schott general Road. The vicV.11ty surrounding the project site is commonly identified as the Doe Mill Ridge area, e:rtending several miles between two ";anyo,ns northeast of Chico. The site exists at the lower leve" of a yellow pine forest, T'oothill-woodland and chaparral types, of vegetation occur in surrounding canyons and s`,opes farther south. This area of the County is generally uldeveloped+. �� nankin c l sizes rang: from 20 to 40 -acres. The site Predominant parcel sizes exist." identified as Agricultural -Residential on th^ 6eneral Plan map. The artachod environmental study was prepare for the rezone appli •�.ation by G. 8 R, Porestor, AR 63-0267, 68 and. 69 (Log # 80-08-27-01) and identifies potential impacts -~.hat would occur ill a. rezone :from `1'M-40 to TM -20. Tile minimum Off' size r5f 20 acres per pal -cel reduced potentially serious adverse impacts to a level of insignificance. ;ltippinental znormati on Tn ,Aptyendix r (Initial Study) questions concerni119 potentially sipilicant adverse impacts on specific qualiti,cs within tine environment must be answered "Yes") "'Maybe"", or "No"'in assessing the rrobability of occurrence. The following items from the refol •nnced Appendix F: marked ''No" with a comment, would be. dote- Y'All:ed as r"Moyne'" in the TnIti al Study of the 'roposeCl projC.t le increase in rVziid or water erosion Of soils, eithol on or off V. y site's 8a,. in the diversity Of, species, or numbers Of' any specios of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, ;Gish Gond shellfish benthic organisIlAs, insects or tiaicrofauna) A Y Planning Commission {U. Scott Rutherford AP 6.3 02-7 82x54 Y Sc! Introduction o new result in a On species of to the animals int an area, migration or rtto�re111eyit of or 5dc Reduction oencroachment animals eX-1 3 -ng fish or tai.lali echabitat. °n, or dete"10-ration to Bac Altex•atzon of the z trend which Will demorstrab� land use of y lead to suclina�irea; or establish 8bc Coni`lict taitii uses 1te�•ation, with established reczc��taon4�led Joining properties scientific uses Of an educational, , ' °r conflict aa -ea, a t oiigious or J -5c Substantial impact upon e�a.sti�i • g trails'portntion s 14a, .pi,e Protection. Y'Stems 14ec Ataintenanco Of public -fac. �.lities s inclucliri p, roads , ages ('Tire following Ilandzvzitnazo ne were ���pi,xcationtandblarethe applicant as part of tl�er included for information,) �v-- tk-C., \-) C) bLxu . to 5 0v -� A-V 10- ?yoP0-.,r�� �� ��i� i-iY}n�,. 1.�� -`Ik .�.��.. `-' � G��'1 G�r•tic-�..;�t�� � `S`1`-��� ������ a-�.� ►� ��;�e �,�,� ��1°l, �\rr� � �+�1''1 - L�7,\,a:11�irl C d i= �z.L4O ac-VL'5" jvq�k�c"iUQ-, c'nd ('a�o� OYtYic1c rh 1u �r }wylo�-Ovk-o.c.1 bLA. l l c u.;U�. A OA -so 1\k,c. 4� "�� -sc1 �14s�. ;�,� `�� L1� •-F-qc L�L1 �.c..-e ;wvCC� bi.4-1hc.- 44n\ -x -L, Of- LV.:)) VI r k.1. j�Jt�.l�`� � C��-y' � �.t?�''��L,4ry"'C"L�`fi..`.. '<�. `�lC��.a�r'�C�. �f l,►wn1+'`.'i. C.�r`a 1"°�y. �.�t�.,ti':t2�a 1�.•'�.� � %""�Gl�v Ctiy k"k'L��ti1�t~CG��uVnCia:.1°Vlilt 1<L�'?a�Clt1C� C.Y1S\�;yc �tll I�Y�OI�y rIMOP1*t''1 q'�CcUj a0'1 �ti d i C O'd 1� pyo "�' U— �Z) C �V �u X 1 v X041 LL C t 4 C� �° `t v'�`1 O'j t „ VYt�ck 17 LL ck5 Cn r,;kk-aC. w�� r'�':;c� �ka9�4�� t""�� o-IcvY`�,c.� vxJc '�a :« ► . civ ,c�'� �Oc 4. cxa'k .. c � �a\ :•°, —►SNI- i 1 se"Im .r w w li: �`� cl ��.����1�,e1 , 'Si c. 4')L, ,j Y''O W V' �-t t \5 l �J x �' ` Y)6,n Z z t ► it7�. 1t wC Y 1412 ar` i � t(YIN +��� � �! �; �.�r'ti<•��ti'\�aU�4`\1.�a"1 U...Uu.�C� ���:J�rt+k�� 4�>rC`C�ili�_]��l tJ 1�4 k V'1 Y :`ika'y-vL 5; �"~1»�"�l �;� lc> ��� YS � C1 k`nC 4`w'. � CCS �U. b' 0J i+ roti ��vti, rJ Ckj COY' SLC -V)4 c tre:; ,ep —5 ` b1^ `i` "..L ccLy" IP'l1-1�'!rttc,yr`1 -4u..�"� "tkN111 J _ `E0 y b•r l 1 p { v. k".rc C�ti`��� 5�i41 FtE a , c� . t v� a �a� v7C� rt z why ir�� �a.x-�LA Hcai c �, Ckv °t �A� ►� ` �vv7a, .} ,L� v-� c,� jai Y-)e `j lr� -;�•,z. v-5v.�,.t, C��i ���r� � �. 4� Y-� l r �¢... c�c���`� � �• ��} 1 t�,.�,�, t � •, ;�:: ��U� �1. � •• to r�.r=ckwv.�b►4._>p�re oce ,,tet � Q-s�c�,kq— r , a C-5 C +r} 3t,� gni t ccc,�h� a .c.��4kW ' - cl�ZQ--v � � ' tawccG (. c�c v ��� .� a to u. d 1 C31�1 fir' 1C1 x Nta - �- aV"' �cNG c'' pct lUzk, -4 w L�b b.r =� i'i ► , YLC�S �r2. tLl110 ~ F VL4 4-6 1 `�c�-c�1 � tx�� �;.�,� ,�o � �-,�� W o ctC �-.�., c�-�-c�,1 b(L\,Y LIStt C c'Slt"1 `� 4�wv\ �'1�45C C DECxr�� oeuvi`lo, eiif�r ir`a Planning Commission 11. Scott Rutherford, AP 63-02-70 32-54 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed project would renew potentially significant and adverse impacts if developed to maximum densities un(Ier the proposed. 'IM-10 zone (10 acres per pai,ce l), To mitigate these potential impacts, lower densities would be required, A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. , REQUIRED MITTGATIO (The applicant mar propose an alternative mitigation measure, equal or superlor to the one listed below.) I. Rezone the project site froIll TM-40 to TNI-20. Cc'. 11. Scott tantl Bridget Rutherford The Board of Supervisors directed the Planning Dopartment to work with the property owners of the Doe Mill Ridge area. During this process the appropriate policies were discussed rind the department indicated that the Conditional Criteria listed ii, the Agricultuval- Residential designation for parcels less than 20 acres are not generally present. As such, it is recommended that this project be denied. Analysis of the P011CIOS that yield the five conditional criteria of the Agri cul tural - Res id ent it.11 designation reveal the -following: 1 i There is little significant agricultural activity in the area. 2. Water availability on Doe Mill Ridge is a serious concern. in dry years many residents have iqater broughit in from elsewherO as i�ells dry up, In normal years� sumliier well production is sometimes jimited. Deep wolls are required which may be irn- practical on iot by lot basis. Evidence of adequate domestic water is a policy of the Land Use Element. 3. This project is in a high fire ha :arca area. General Plan policjesijldic,-.i,te the densities should be limited tlimi/rr adequate access be provided. Presently, the only emergency access is from the north, through the Forest Manch area, 10 miles + away. 4. As in 3 above, access is from the north, through Forest Ran(.h, along Doe 'Mill Road, which is not paved to the subject property Poli,It,s indicato that residential dcn8ities should be correlated with the traffic carrv'L1111 C,'Paci ty of the eircitlation system. A second, deood ;end udcl'qj.tately maintained route is required in orJer to provido zadewutte through cl-rculation for tha length of Doe :Fill RldoL*. 0 S. no, pro.ieet site is located in the Chico Unified School District, Most rea'or shoppinL; is in Hic, Chico areta. Access is north up Doe Mill 1�oad through Mores Ranch, then south along State jj j tv N' trip of apptaximate'ly 20 miles. Oway 32' to Chico, a OtIO-Wa A second acce.ss rouru to tho south would reduce the trip distallcc to 6 to 10 miles. If the following conditions are made part of the approval, a finding of conForptity with the c;enoral Plan can be made; 16 Provide circulation to a publicly maintained -,road, via at least two routts. 2. ProvidL, evidenoo of a(losquate domestic water, APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) ERD Log # 80-08-27-01 Plaiining File # 81-19 BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent George, E, Rosemary Forester. Phone onent: 2. Address and P. O. Box 155 est and CA 95942 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Proposal, if applicaETe- from TM -40 tca Tint -2d; 5. Name of AP 65-02-67 6.8 6 69 'sout]-ieast ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS anq�jors are (Explanations of all "Yes" and "maybe" required on attached sheets,) Y i. S MAYBE NQ 1. Eatthi will the proposal result in significant: a, Unstable earth conditions or it, changes in geologic substructures? b. DisruPtidns- displacements, com- , the soi17 paction or over covering Of d. Change in topography or ;Found sUt- removal of face relief features or topsoil? d. DestrtictiOni coveting or modifica- tion oy unique an ,ique gologic or physical teatut"? e, increase in grind Or Water erosion the site? Or. soils, e'i'ther on or Off f, Changes in aepositioll or erosion of beach sands, or Changes in silt&- deposition or erosion t1hich tion, deo on modify the channel of a -river or may stream or the bed of tha ocean or any bay, il1let or lake? JCUlt'Llrall y pro g. Log$ of prime agt ignattd dog duct soils outside urban areas? Appo-ftdik F - page 1 :01: YES 'MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ° 2. Air, Will the proposal result in. 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? Qv 3. Water. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates; drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of Oj surface water runoff? c, Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal., chaanelization or culvert installation? u. Alterations to the course or flow of .flood waters? e, Change in the amount of surface water in any dater body? f. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h, Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? e� etidi r W page g of 9 YES MAYBE NO i . Reduction in the amount: of trate- otherwise available for public water supplies? j, Exposure Of people or property to water; related hazards such as floodin ? w---- Plant Life. Will the proposal result i.tt substantial.: a. Loss of vegetation or change in the, diversity= of spec .os or number Of any species of pla.rts (includin trees, shrubs, grass, cops, microflora and aquatic plants)? bi Reduction of the tiurbers of any unique, rtiro or endatigored species of plants. G; Intrt)duction of new specsi(-q O plants into an tr.1.: ea, or in a. barrier to t'll"�Y'11a int Of rho 4rk�Plenishl' ek�istin►, .r`fpoc l.oW-a d. RL,(Ju ;tion in actear,e of attiy oult ural crol)? 5. Animal i�fr ,, 14i 1. thep,.'oposal. result ..r} in s y al Change in tho 010t8itY Of species, or Minib e r s t) i. any .s poc i e s of animals 0 lydf; , jand animals i including vc.jpt,i.l.t?.1, fish and. shell "' fisll, t1.Ci" s t". organisms, insects or , t g i,C)13 C�i ty'gty �y1ldTryltC'1 any giC'tl:ti: Sof t,[Lf�a.'Y�i�'.l, �y. C.?n L odlu t.l. o-a OC 1.1.*\l opocies of a1"1irui Ls -In arra, or result in T"Iovomorlt of 4a, i t't,1EW"? "'on o', tIpon, or dl�i"t!1"i ctk"r1 t" 1:t1i1 i"0 C ' 1,ri� i'Clt? f L�ili L5]" ori l.� l Ce 11111) U-aL ? -= Lit�ptttdi.x ' " ,page 3 of 9 YEAS MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. increases in noise levels? �y �• b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?« 7. Light and. Glare. Will the proposal ':Uicant produce sz light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a significant: a. -Alteration of the planned `land use of an area, or establish a trend which will demonstrably lead to such alteration? C • b, Conflict with uses on adjoinin, properties, or conflict with establiohad recreational., educa- tional, religious or scientific uses of an area? w �� 9. Natural Resources, Will the proposal resit in substantial: a. Demand for, or increase in the rate Of use of any natural resources? b, Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of U set, noes the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substance:, including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ll. Population, Will the proposal signiicantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area or physically divide an established commanity? l Mousing, dill. the proposal . signx. ,cantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additiaaal Nous irg? k Appendix r - page 4 of 9 YIDS MMt NO 13. Trans�or..tat-ion/Gir.cul.a.tion. . Will. the proposal zesu t in; a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Significant effects on -existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations' to present �' �:ulor movement patternspeople I ofand/orgoods? r e, Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in tra,ific hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ^� 14. Public Services, the proposal have an e tect upon, or result in a substantial need for new o]' altered governmental services in any of the following areas a. fire protection? b. Polito Protection's C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational + facilities? e Maintenance of public favi "%els incl.udint roads? s f, Otter governmental so' vices? lJiler All the p-I-Opo'ial result in: a, Use of substantial amounts of fuel or nnergy? b. Substantial increase: in demand upon existing; sources of energy, of require the development of neva' sources of encL ,y*' 1.6, Utilities, VIM t_hO M.+op018al result In -T Rd,-07for new systems, or sub- stantial alteration-, to tbo following utilities: Appendix V page 5 of 9 YES MAYBI NO a : Power or natural gas? b., Communications systems? c. 'Water? d. Sewer (will trunk line be extended, providing capacity to serve new development)? e. Storm water drainage? 17. Human Health, Will the proposal result in a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding meatal health)? G b. Exposure of people to potential health haza.tds7 18. Solid Waste, CJill the proposal resin,: y in anysig ificant ,impacts associated with solid waste disposal or litter control? 19. Aesthet:ics. Will the proposal result in t le obstruction of any public dosignated-or recognized scenic vista open, two the public, or will the proposal result in the Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public vietg7 2 Il o Recrea _ Recreation, All the proposal. result i,,iimpact upon the quality or in an quantity of existing public: recreate ` 1:ion: facilities? zl , Ar chool.o Ical./llistorica]. , ' Will the Proposa re8u tr M an a teration o a signitriaant archeological or hist_oric�ll site, structure, object or buildlnb? } 2 ,anciatnry l+i iidtls r� Sig ttiJ �.caitcc , A. Does tho project have the potential to degrade the qual.i � y of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish of wildlife population- to drop below s el Appendl x T .: page 6 of 9 YES MAYBE NO sustaining levols, threaten to eliminate a p lint oy an 'mal com- omamunity, munity, 'reduce the number o3: restrict he range of a tare or endangered plant. or ana,mal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California. history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term benefits to the detriment ,of publicly adopted long-term environmental goals? a, Does the .project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (a project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is nalat.ivel;y small., but where the e.i:fect of the total o those impacts on the environment is si;nificant, .__. d, Dees the project have environmental effects why; -h will cause substantia adverse efioccs on human beings; either directly or indirectly'? u. Appendix V page 7 tat:' 0 t, �1:.heet cont�nuod 80-0&- 21� b. Ground. Water, Available at great depths in variable quanti ,' =s - c. Drainage Oliaracteriat-ics:_.:.tastern t�o,,�t i on Ara3'.'R vi t t e -Cmaejc western portion drains to :Little Chico Creek. d. Annual ha.inf'all (10 rinal) : 55-6011 e: Li.miti.n�s 1♦"ac't ors V14 sual ScenI6 Quality: High 5td mo intain area_ 6. Acoustic quality: Very low ambient noise level 7. Air Qual ity : . z1 X1.0 : ical_ tnviyonment Vegetation: YeIllow Pine Forest ` tran8ita on to chaparral to south) W:Ll.dld.i'd Habitat: Transition La.f'e' Zone W-Ultural 1✓nyi. x oniftont. 10. Archaeological fund. Historical R000urces in th'c area i Low to moderate sonsitivitZ< 11. Butte Countt°y General. Plat designati.oli: ;ticultural Residential and Crazing 4 _Qpg Laid l; i oting, %+t3n7.11�'O- 41LI *Mb0r hiounga a A0 =a minimum t��rcels'i -11. txitf.ln lana H,o or1-site. Open forested land tstlr one residence. . 14. Suvrol)ndi n .A,rC-3 a. Land; Uco :_ Open .fore•s'ted land with, ispg,rse_d residences on b. Zoninp; TNI -!40 tNM-20 to rt. ,, Vk,,,40 to E, TWA0 further S* C;. Gon. Plan de ., Qnpa`ttionk :,Agridultur4l , Residential to to Crazing $ Open nand d� . ParCe1�y� 8�y:,3 a IS yy il itCha acter of �"area 16, Dearest 'Urban Area... Chieo, .10+ miles (via Selxott Road 17 Rolev=.b SpIlor. eu of L'1�Iuenca 18.i p o Y �:. i-aw1 It z : M' M 4w.da M's UrbttmAwbrti �.... . ': ..: .. .. ...... Forest kanch VolunteetC8 t County (St,atac) lire St;atjon: Station Z�l 8 Mi, atvaYr b: Wator Avai.5.zibill.ity,? . bolls; fIre truek tcaj)aq-ity_. Schools in V'ot. ,S;t katch...Chico. Appendix li' pago �b of 1114 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following impacts have been identified fQr this rezone proposal._ The main concerns relate to the suitability of the IV acresi for division into 20+ acre parcels and the poto�ttial trend which may be created to rezone other nearby properties w.i.th TM -40 zoning. lb: Development of additional: access roads and of building sites on 20 -acre parcels (6 for these three parcels) will disrupt soil to a greater extent than will development on fort= acre parcels. Develop- ment on the 6 potential parcels will involve disruption of soil and alteration of topography as a result of grading and excavation on gentle, moderato and steep torrain. le, 3b: The erosion potential is high to moderate, considering the 55.60 inches of annual rain Call, deponding upon tpecific area slope and soil 'vegetation coverage. Previous- road development in the area has rosulted in some erosion. Doe Mill Road is badly eroded in many places. Ad.ditional access road development and building- sate grading may result in increased runoff: and erosion, lhi. The mountainous terrain poses possible landslide hazards to people and property, 3f': Any sediment generated by erosion of the Land, as a result of grhding or other soil disruptions, may be doposited in Little Chico' Creek or Butte Creel:;. 3h: Groundwater supplies are limited throughout the ridgetop and nyon are} and adequacy' of the supply for any specific area is un - ca Yells with a flow rate of up to 20 gallons per minute have been drilled on, parcels to the north belonging to Anthony Santos 4a: Development on twenty acre parcels will cause more loss of vegetation than would occur if forty acre parcels remained as the minimum. Considering the high erosion potential and high rate of rainfall) preservation of vegetation to maintain soil stability is important. Sa,c,d: Development at the twenty -acre density will reduce wildlife habitat. This area is ley winter ran4ge for migratory deer, The California knish and Came Department considers development at a density greater than 1 residence per twenty acres to be detrimental to wildlife populations 6a: Residential use on 20 acre parcels in this ridgetop area near the Butte Creel; and the Little Chico Creek Canyons will increase noi8e lit; the area clue to vehieul tr traffic, wood cutting, etc. Appotldix F -- page- 8 of 9 8`0-08-27-01 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued) Bab: The rezoning of the subject land to T,NIL20 may not be reasonable for all three of the original parcels. Though the land is adjacent to a TAI -20 zoning district Which lies to the north, the terrain is a key difference in this case, The Planning Department indicates that AP 63-02-680 the parcel traversed by Doe Mill. Road, is the only parcel which substantially conforms to the General. Plan criteria for Agricultural Residential and the proposed zoning. Steephslopes and the provision of acceptable access are con- stxaints f two parcels. If a trend trezoladspresently`zoned TNI -40 continues, there may be cumulativeproblems relativeerosion 7;,,ater`availability, and a greater demand, for public services and utili ties tin this remote location* '. ll: rive additional residences will be potential :from the rezoning. The area has a very low population density and is a. relatively remoter isolated rogion; While the general area has experienced considerable land division activity in recent years, few actual residences have been constructed in this Doe Mill Road area. 13c: Roads in this area ('Doe Mill Load, Schott Road and Crown point Road) currently receive light use:. The Butte County Public Works Depart- went states that all of the roads in this area are substandard. Crown Point Road- a possible access route to the parcels o is a narrow, gravelled, circuitous mountain road ,(sections of pavement are evidellt in places) with severe erosion along portions of the road. Portions of CtQo n Point Road may be inaccessible during the rain and snow season The easiest access ,'o the parcels would be f . rom Doe Mill Roadvia Schottr Road and t-ii.ghway, 3 however, this route is considerablylonger distance wise than via Crown Point 'Road from ,Highway 32. The,, county -maintained section of Doe Mi.11 Road ends more thana mile to the north of the parcels. Traffic flow on Ilihway 32 ;just south of Porest Ranch has been measured ► f Caltrans at 1750 ADT with a peak month of 2700 ADT (average daily traffico 1979 calculations). 14a Canyon and tldgetOP areas such as the subject properties pose a high Wildfire h,,tzatd to rosidences and lieople, considering the remoteness of the area, t110 litrtited accessibility to the propertyM and the natural wildfire potential of the steep, Vegetated canyon area-, particularly during the hoto dry summer season. The nearest fire protection service is the Butte 'County Vire pepal and Company # 24 in porest Ranch which has 1.5 voluate t firemon on-calll and tivo engines. This station is Located in the central portion of Porest Ranch approximately eight miles by road froni the canyon property (via. Appendix P page 8a of 9 80-08-27-01 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ,EVALUATION (continued) the existing gravelled access roads, Doe Mill Road and Schott Road). A fire engine can respond from Forest Ranch within 20 minutes to the. Road/Crown point Road intersection under ideal conditions. For parcelsofoe Mill the size proposed, the Butte County Fire, Department P foresees no impact on their .Eire protection and rescue capabilities. Increased residential use in this area will ,generate additional demands for fire protection service in an isolated area that currently has very littlo residential use. Residents must accept a lower level of fire protection than is typical elsewhere in the county where fire stations are nearer. 14b -f: Very minimal public services currently exist in this remote area, Forest Ranch is about S miles away via Doe Mill Road and Highway 52 is about 5.5 miles away via Crown Point Road across steep canyon terraini police protection is marginal in such a remote area. 15a Substantial, amounts of fuel would be consumed by residents who would need to travel to Forest Ranch or Chico for most goods and services. 16a,b 'Lines for electrical power and telephones would need to be ex- tended from further up Doe Mill Road., 176: Soil conditions and slopes on the o arcelsolimitstthe t�irea su'table`for leach field placement, l will be necessary in the consideration of actual land divisions in order to find sufficient usable area for leach field placement (greater than two feet of soil on land of less than 30� slope), 21: .Archaeological resources exist in the general area, though. no ,,ecorded sites are known to exist on the property. This ridgetop land is not considered as sensitive an archaeological area as the .lairds along Little Chico Creek, to the west or Butte Credk to the east. References, 1. Initialstudy for rezone from TNI -20 to TNI -5 on AP##s 63 01.1.031 107,109 F, 115 (Halstrom, Quiggle, Stratton; xtller) , hRD Log Its 79-06-05-01, 70-06-06,010 79.07µ02-01, 79-07-02-05; 2i tIR on t1lo Rezoning of the Forest Ranch A:'rea, Project Number 75-90, November 1975. Appendix V - page 8b of 9 a IV4 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluations I'fi.nd the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is rEcommended- I find that although the proposed project could have a, significant effect on the environment, there: will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been ;added to the project., A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMEIVIJED' 0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ` Date October 15 ► 1D5t u' M.a- _ (5�,gz�ature ) For. h'W DEP4�1m,',KNT Revieved � Earl D. NelOOn ` nviro=ezatdl P.evi" Dx•ertox Note. T110 Planning Department has � ihr'e yttap of the Doe r )) nide area which gives a good overall picture of land d v�.saoris afta tOftil,g act'v't'y 1n the region. �per�d page,of ti Omni V.' r A t T In "I B 'L A :j tl PLANNING COM�Al SSION 7 COUNTY C'!NYER ORIVE - OROVILL8, CALIFORNIA 94965 PHON E t 534.4601 .January 2.0, 198'-) 111. Scott and Bridget Rutherford 7174 Clark Road, #2 Paradise, CA 95969 RE: Rezone 82-54 AP 6s -Oa -70 j Loo 0 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rutherford: An initial study of your proposed project, an app'llcation for a rezone troui TM -40 (Timber Nijountain, 40 acre parcels) to ,rm-lo (Timber 'Mountain, 10 acre parcels), 1ndir.'ates potentially adverse impacts to the environment CreEev to Appendix 5 and memorandum}, Sujtable iidtigat-ion measures are reqUired, as part of the iroject, to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Otherwise, an environinental impa.-t report is -required pUVSUftnf to the CaIiEornia Environmental Quality Act. An attached sheet lists a possible 111itigation, you may uso; howeveryou may propose an alfcr-riative mit i;.,tt10T1 MOZISLIVO eCtItally 01' 11101`e effective than the one recommonde4. An ea r I v response to this notiRcation, sent to °thioffice, WL' 1 CXPC� litO the SChOLILIlIng or your project, if our office does not receive a response From you within 15 clays from the date of this lot -ter, we will assume that You corLCUT with the stated mitigation measure. 11 you have any quer tions i please call this ofTice bet"ween. SiOO a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. ,A s s o c-1 a t PI a ri el o I. WRS 'a lk t Attachment W. Scott Rutherford 7174 Clark Road, No. 2 Paradise, Californ.i:a 95969 January 27, 1982 William R Sands Associate Planner' Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Re Rezone Application 82-54 Door Mr. Sands Your concern for preservation of the environment in and around my property on Doe Mill Ridge is commendable; and I am in agreement with your goals. I hope we can work out a method whereby three parcels can eventually by developed while at the same Lima malhtaining the rural environment of that area, Y Feel t'te mitigation you suggested in your letter of January 20, '1982, does have merit, and T would like to apply it on a portion or the property, specifically the north half. However, thr southern portion adjoins existing TM -10 zontng and I believe two move 1'0 -acre parcaI8 would not be unduly detrimental, to the environmonL, especially since conditions can be applied in connoctlon with a subsoquent parcel map to mitigate erosion and w:i.ldl:ire impacts, etc. Tho, other conctr rn a- ti,+t:tf`fio generation; road maintenance, and .land use - soom relatively Minor for a 3-parcol division involving such largo 'parcels; I sincerely hope we can proceed with this rezone based on Lho: compromise I suggested. If you still feel a rezone to alloW 3-phrcels must have an kl;R, please explore the possibility of processing my rc ono requt:Ut using a previously certified LIR Fxom another project in the area, If neither of these options iv possible, please consider this letter an appeal or the ECR PbOui.rement niid schedule, the appropriate hearing. Ih view of our common goals, wu should be able to work out mutually acceptable solution: Please let me know your conclusions. I will contact you on Wednesday Pebruary 3, '1982, to discuss your response. Sincerely, Scott'Ruthetford zMd co: lent►tr prov�S'�c Ct,1�4orwtb µ APPENDIX G NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMEN'T'AL IMPACT 1 I. IN?QTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the project described below has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions or the California Environmental Quality Act of 1971 (Public Resources Code 21100, et.. sen.) and a determination has been made that it will not have a significant :effect upon the environment. Log It 81-12-17-01 AP 63-02-70 2.. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 82-54 Rezone of approximately 44.1 acres from TM -40 to TM -1.0. and TM -20 (TM -10 for tlhe nortli half and TM -20 for the south half) . +y :LOCATION OF PROJECT: On the west side of Doe Mill 'Midge Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, 10+ miles ne of Chico NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT APPLICANT: W. Scott & Bridget Rutherford 7174 Clark Road, 92 Paradise, CA 95969 S. MITIGATION MEASURES: None of this project is attached. g - A copy of the initial stud regarding the environmental. effect This study wis Adopted as presented. Adopted. with changes. Specific modifications and supporting reasons are attached. A public henring ori this Negative T1eciara ion was herd by the decision maRing body. flearing Body Butte :County Board of Supervisors Date of Dete °min8tion Determination: Ort the basis of the initial, study of environmental impact, the ift`ormation presented at hearings, comments received on the proposal and our own knowledge and indopendent research, We find the p, :iposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a R;EGATIVt DECLARATION is hereby adopted , 'Ile find that the project COUL;V have a significant effect on the onvir'o'nment but will not in this case because of 0 atta.chod raiti.gati.on measures descri.bod, in item 5 above which ate by this reterenco made conditions of Project approval, A conditional NIEGATIVt, ECLARATiON is hereby adoptod. o i na ttlre Hilda `1lrheel.ot, Chairrria - Board of Supozvi sor's Title -- YJUP+ 4 192 Inter-Deparfinental Memorandium _c Butte County Assessor's Office Butte County Planning Department ZUWcr If. Scott Rutherford CATS- May 20, 1982 0, Pursuant to Section 65863;5 of the Covernment Code, , he g parcel/������� ,identified as _.63-�2 yp Rezone from Thi -40 toTMIOVC zoning district. Gragt,d a variance to allow Issued a conditional use permit for cc; Property owner s s f t i 6' ORDINANCE NO 2283 AN ORDINANCE ZONING PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTES STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24-29,. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of ;f 'California under and r > pursuant to Chapter 24-29 0f the Butte County 3 icode of said County DO ORDAIN �s follows SECTION I. The hereinafter described area situate in the i t S County of Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby i i zoned as a This -10 Timber Mountain 10 acrea�rcels p District and' 7i such area shall be subject to the restrictions and restricted uses: , 8 and rngu1j;+ions pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-177. 9 Said area say zoned being located in the unincorporated i 10 area of Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows:; 11 The ,S 1/2 of Lot 4 of that parcel map of record I in Map Book 63 on Page 36 oil, file in the office 12 of the Butte County Recorder. 13 ' Containi tg 22 acres, more or less, northeast of Chico. Iel SBCTX41114 2. The here naftor described area situate in the � xJ County of Butte, State of California, Shall be and it is :hereby to zoned as a "TM -201, (Timber .kottntalft - 20 acie pat els) District, and 11 such area shall be subject to the restrictions and restricted uses 18 and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Stiction 24-180; 19 Said area so zoned being located 'in the un' ncarporaterl 20 area of Butte County, Chi%o, more po.rti.cularly described As follows.. '� in Map Book 63 on Page 36 on file in the offiG� 1 X31. The N 1/2 of Lot 4 of that arcel taa.. of record 22 of the Butte County Recorder, 23 _I Containing 22 acres, more or less, northoast of 'Chico, 24 SECTION 3, This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby 25 declared to be in .lull force and effect from and after thirty (30) !Ro days after the date of itsass, e And. before the i ex rati011 of p � p 'i fil 1 fxfteori (15) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be ;i members of the Board of ,2pu ;,published once with the Hanes of the me 3 18upervisars voting for and against it in the Oroville Mercury, a ; ;newspaper published in the County of butte, State of California. 5 r PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the t. ,6 1County of Butte; State of California, on, the lith day of may f 7 1982, by the following vote: t 8 AYES; Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler s 9 NOES None f i ie o ABSENT: None r ].1 NOT VOTING: None E rrmdn 1'J Butte Co,sw Board o f ,.Sbpervisurs 3 k ATTEST., Meanor M gecl*er , County Clerk -Recorder and x-officao Clerk of the Board 15 b ,17 18, 20 22 23 94 `O APPMXH IoNOncE OF DETERMINATION TO Secretary for Resources L E [] 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95514 F D County Clerk, County of Butte MAY 1319$2 U1 25 County Center Drive Orovi l l e , CA 95965 ELEANOR M. BECKER, County Clerk FROM Planning Department By . X- JACIN"fi-I� Dep ly 7 County Center Drive (Filed) Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: riling Of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code Qi _1 7_11)-() nn r Project Title Rezone AP 63-02-70 Vo Scott Bridget Ruther_C State- Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to State Clearinghouse) Contact- Person Telephone Number Bettye Blair, Director of Planning (916) 534-4601 Pro ' ect Location On the West si e d- �. ge de .� oa , approx i five miles south off; .Hwy, 32 via Schott Road, 10+ miles nc of Ch;i Proje t Description: Rezonc of approximate!), 44.1 acres from TM -40 to TM -10 and Thi -20 (TM -10 for the north }int and TT( -20 for the south half aAIL .LZ Z LU ti, uVJ. b 7 LIIU L -(;[I(! burro Uou11ty boaZ•CL o.k bupervisors (Lend A�;tticy'.�_.,."_'_ has made the following determ.inatior-3 regaz ting the above -d.escrib ed Pr-Oj ec°C ; 1„ The p `oject �t}i 1l 11rive a s;ign,ipicant effect on, the environment. will not 2. o An )nvironmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CWand was tortiPied a; requirod by Section 1508 :(g) , 14 California Administrative Code. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CPQA, A copy ofthe Negative Declaration may be examined at the Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Orovilie CA 55965; i. A Notice of Exemption was filed indicating - this project is exempt from environmental rovil ow, 4 A statement o� Ovorriding Cons idorfttion 0 was, was notj adopted for this project, 5 Mitigation measures adopted, by the Load ;Agency to reduce the impacts OC the approver! prof ec'C a None re Stephen A. Streeter 2/82 Senior Planner a w. coun LAND OF Nfl.Ylr1-'A I r, ELEANOR M. I3ECKER cOUNTY'CLERK - RECORDER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 25 COUN`T'Y CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95465.3375 Tclephonci 534.4551 ,z=----,;errtcountyclerk. Nlcee Llndqulst 534.4551 tiClork,Etoard of Supervisors, cothy Pitts S34.4371 :,Ess-. i��corder, GwenEerland', 634-4691 may 12, 1982 W. Scott Rutherford 7174 Clavi, Road Paradise, Ca 95069 Ret Rezone File 81-5;4 Dear Mr. Rutherford At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors held hiay 11, 198'2, Ordinance No. 2253 was adopted which rezones from CTim'ber�l�.ountatit - 10 acre tl 1I (Timber 'ITN[610" and 1► � t+ � � property located on the west side of noe Mill Ridge Road; approximately. five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, identified as AP _63_02ti70; northeast of Chico.__ Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely; FtEANOR M BDCKER County Clerk -R Corde and Ek -officio clerk of the BUttO. County Board of Supervisor ErtB :lr - Inter -Depart '',hit Memorandum spa Board of Supervisor: Planning :r W. Scott Rutherford, Rezone, Suggested Motion; p May 4 1982 If the Board's decision is to approve this project the suggested motion is as follows.- A. ollows:A. Note that an environmental document has been prepared and con- s dered and adopt a Negative Declaration in accordance With the requirements of CBQA; and B. Find that: the proposed rezone (82.;;54) from TAI -40 to TM -10 and TNI -20 is consistent with the Bunte County General Plan policies; and 3. Adopt an ordinance rezoning .AP 0-02-70 for W. Scott Rutherford from TM-40to DI -10 and Thi -20 (TM -10 for the north 1/2 and Thi -20 for the south 1/2), and authorize chairman to sign, /1x s a A �kpplicant 11Scott &, Bridget Rutherford 'Owner i Same equest Rezone of 44.1 acres from TM -40 to TM -10 F 20 Tocat-ion: on the W side of Doe Mill Ridge Rd., approx. S miles S of Hwy. 32 via Schott Road. Doe Mill Ridge area, 10+ miles ME of Chico. :ate Action. Requested; 12/17/81 Number of Parcels 1 Acreage: 44 .1 Ia=ing Commission Fi ndings i 1 • Note that an environmental document has been prepared and considered and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements of CEQ,Af and 2. Find that the proposed rezone (82-54) from TM -40 to TM -10 and TM -20 is consistent with the Butte County General Plan policies,- allu Planning Commission. Aotiont Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance to rezone Vile 82-54 (AP 63-02-70) for Wi Scott Rutherford and Bridget Rutherford from TM -40 to TM -10 and Thi -20 (TM -10 for the north 1/2 and TM -2.0 for the south 1/2) 'oto 4-1 4'S Commissioners Behunin, Bennett, Schr<der mid Max SOS Chairman Lambert ABSENT 0 ABSTA:CN : 0 9 10 ,.Loft ffu tie coup LAND 0 NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY CLARK A. NELSON COUNTY CLERK— RECORDER ADMINISYRATION BUILMN6j KOWME220 -• OROVILLE, 'CALIFORNIA 95955 relephonet 634.4551 25 County Center Drive is t- =m -..t County Clark, Nicea Lindqu;st 534,4551 +Clerk, Board of Supervisors, Cathy Pitts 5344371 w fiepistrar of Voters, Eleanor Backer 534-4761 A aTlecorder,Gwe,n Ferlerld 534-4691' April 21, 1982 W. Scout Rutherford 7174 Clark Road paradise, Ca 95969. Re Rezone File 82-84 Dear Mr. Rutherford. At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors heldApril: 20 1952, a public hearing date was set for May ll, I 1982 at 10:00 a.m.; to consider your request for rezoning from 'TM -4011 (Timber Mountain - 40 acre parcels) to "Thi -10 and 2011 (Timber Mountain - 10 and 20 acre parcels), property located on the west side of Doe dill. Ridge Road, approximately five miles south of Highway 32 via Schott Road, identified as AP 63-02-70 northeast of Chico. The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 2S County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please con- tact this offxCe Sincerely, CLARK A. NELSON CountyCIdti,—Recordet and Bx=o-fficio Clerk of the Butte County Board of Supervisors By _ ssistant Clerk tote B&ard lit