HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-05 DAVID & RUTH MANTHEI REZ (9)i,
i
i
Jay Haves - Development Aare. ement s Annual Rev l ew .
(File E13-25)
(Continued open from March 25, 1987)
i
Staff stated that Dan Montgomery of the County Counsel's office
had
rnador►mended continuing this item due to pending litigation.
It was
rmovvd by Commissioner Lambert and :seconded by Commissioner
Forbes to
trw tlnue this hearing, open, to May 27, 1987, at 10:30 a.m.
The motion
tpaosed by the following vote:
g
'Forbes,, Lambert, Lynchr Walter
i tlCx45: None
1✓�a.i�i7 Peabody
tiil'Ot VOTING.: None
t
7 ;
fI
ds stfi6* "'' . Y�' � } ��`''� 1,87
87
.'
n
i
1
Dan Hays Devel22me1,,it AQr.eemen ► Annual Review (File 8a-25),. t
Staff`P*tated that this really involves three property owners: Dan Hays)
Cattlemen's, and Andrew Wood. The Commission's attention was directed
to staff's memo suggesting continuance of this item due to. litigation;
Chairman Walter asked when a decision might be reached staff stated
Perhaps March 27
On a motion by Commissioner Lynch, seconHed by Commissioner Forbes and
unanimously carried, this item was costitinue'd to April 22, 1967, at 9:op
CAmmissioner Lambert asked, with many owners involved lin a Development
Agreement) what if there is a problem with ,just one? Staff stated that
the regUirements' apPiY to the title holder of the property.
Committloner Lynch stated that the Commission heeds to be able to single.
gout non -compliers; staff assured him that they can,. Commissioner
!Lambert asked If the who i.e thing c;o:j l:d become null and void; start said
moo:.
04
....,,
Dan Days Development Agreement Annual Review.
Ch.4.irman Vercruse stated that she was n6t happy with the, development agreement
and was not happy with the project,, she wanted to know about revoking the
dev'e;iopment agreement,;
'staff disc4ssed the request by Mr. flays et Al for consideration of a 1915 Act
Bond, and 13t«ted that the Board of Supervisors determined that they would not
support a 1915; Bond proposal.
Co=issioner Lambert, stated that she did not like the project either, but there
ware no Violations of the Development Agreement:
'There was a brief discussion on the Humane Society moving to this area.
It Vas moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Lynch, and.
Unanimously carried as follows,
A. Note that the planning Commission has conducted the annual. review of the
Development Agreement and finds that there have been no violations of the
Development Agreement to date. If any exceptions to the Development
Agreement are proposed in the coming year, the matter shall. he referred to
the Board of Supervisors for termination or modification proceedings
pdrsuant to Resolution 84-160 (procedu,06 for Development Agreements),.
CpIJN` Y PuNNIm. COpwgSiw t�lNU - 1��arckt D,..: ;19`d
,f
Annual keview of Dab► HvVs Development Agreement (continued
open from x/7/85)
Staff stated that there- has not beer, any activity an the project at
this time. Staff said that, Mr. flays called on March 7, 1985 and said
that Plays were pending but nothing had been done
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Walter'
and uwlani m,ously carried that the Commission acknowledge review of the,
Development Agreement noting that there is no violation (no activity)
pit this project.
p
� Vis
� , ,ky,".�..�. y rY*r4�tiY r�rarw lam �'�.r,�e e w�*+AN� '�,✓ - a w #!au>;'k+' >f.�,aw�, �.t
ymw4l "i.1w.'aA� 1. �fl R'. m\ IVB .IY N� �f MLI
Y.JIry
�r�� .� ,. .�, "�1tt�l. C't'Y:t�a..Q7'+�1t x1wt;f'I�t ��`� �*w' „I�r�►� � �1. ��i . L'���s� °
r
Pan is s -Annual Review of T3eVe'lopmeftt A1greem;ent 83-25
;Staff stated that they .had sent Mr. Mays a letter picked u regarding rbcs hearing
by registered mail that had not been
P p yet. No other building
Permits have been applied for This matter could be held over and Mr.
Rays contacted by telephone,
Commissioner Lambert discussed the development agreemellt on the
On Pent z axed. Clark Roads. In that case, I; e knew what the dev
,9,01119�� tcl as.,a,9,01119ro be; in the Hays Development Agreement, they do not. elome
It x�as moved by Commissioner Avis, seconded by Commissioner hehrxrtxn that
ihce there were .no applications fog•,
permits, 'no development, as of March
15, 1334 there was no violation of the development agreement.
Ayr-'S; Commissioners Arris, VerctuSe;, tehunin, Lambert, and Chairman
Schrader
�W)ES No one
ABSENT No one
ABSTAINED No one
=Notion carried.._
J7W.1 yr4'�iti.'F 1Y' ,G' ,� �k'�49 WAJe t�t3�.7yb��llT °'F' ����.�..ii� `"` ��b�F,��,[l�" }i.,
Janlldry 25, 1983
F
675 83-68 Ordinance approving development agreement and ordinance rezoning
property.
MOTION: I MOVE FOR THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMEJT
AGRErAMENT ORDINANCE 2332 AND ORDINANCE 2333 P=#02NING PROP .RTL
FROM "A-2" (G7:N,8RAL) AND ''A-40" (AGRICULTURAL 40 ACRE
PARCELS) TO "I1-1" (LIGHT ,INDUSTRIAL) , pROPERTy LOCATED OL,
BOTH SIDES OF STATE RIGIMAY 99 AT THE DURHAM-OROVILLE HIGHWAY,,
PENTZ ROAD INTERCHANGE, XDJ ENTIFIED AS AP 40-13•-22, :23 AND
24, SOUTHEAST OF CHICO., ,
S 2,x
VOTE. ] X 2 N' 3 Y 4 Y 5 NC (Mot do carried)
k
ii
0ARI t� SUP R18ORS �T7 JtTi S J ntz ry 2 5,-
i
83y
environmentalimpactand reidncpfrom "A-2"(general) and "A"40rding'
d. -44 Pudic Hearn Date Hays proposed ne ati�e declat;ation� rega"
(agricultural 40 acre pdreels) to "4-1" (light industrial) with
a development agreement for property located on both sides of State
Highway49 at the Durham-Oroville Highway, Pentz Road interchange,
identified As AP 40-13-22, 23 :and 24, southeast of Chico.
MOTION: THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA MET AND THE PROJECT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
MID THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE ENTERED INTO.
S M
VOTE: I Y 2 N 3 Y 4 'Y 5 N (Motion carried)
MOTION- x MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2330 :REZONING AP 40-12-22
23 AND 24 .FROM "A-2" AND "A�40" TO "M-1" ONLY AFTER
THE DEVELORMENT AGREVUniT HAS BEEN FULLY EXECUTED.
,S
VOTE: 1 Y 2 N 3 Y 4. ". 5 N (notion carried]
��A�b Q� Sll.P1�Ri�I�C�,itS I�I�llt'I'�S =w-
41MAV 18,4! 1#
1
Ill. PUBLIC HEARINGS - coixtinued from 12/2/,92 CLOSED
:Ian. !,lays - Rezone Prov "A-2" (General) and
"A-O" (Agri cultural 40 acre parcels to
(bight Lnd-ustrial) with a development agreement
for property located on both sides -of State
Higbivay 99 at the Du rha a-0rovile Hwy., Rentz
Road interchange, identified as AP 40-13-22„ 23
and 2.
a Cont✓aani'ng 85.34 acres, more or less, southeast
of Chico
F U NO. 83µ25
s
sz=dal=``ix-ss
In response to Chairm7'n Lambert's request that Commissioner Betnelt
clarify his ins ill atioAs--made during the last two hearbigsi--that
there had been unnecessary delays of this Project, hecommented that
thisn off-the-cuff remark about which. discussion would not be
a ro}�ziatis time.
T2` i
row
1
w �
Chairman Lambert reminded the Commission that the hearing was Closed;
noted that a copy of a letter from Caltrans had been given to the
applicant's Tepresentative, Mr. Nelson, and to Commissioners earlier
this evening together with Staff Pindings and a memo from Steve
Streeter, both dated December 9. She added that Counsel Siemsen had
been in a day -long hearing' and that his oilier duties had precluded
his giving time for review of the revised development agreement for
this project, and that Istaff had added. Condition 2: "Any modifica-
tions that County Counsel may recommend", to cover any technical
points that he might raise concerning the legality of the language
of the document..
Commissioner Avis pointed out the impossibility to develop to the
exact percentages to total acreage as defined at the bottom of Page
3. As a result of the ensuing discussion, it was agreed to add the
following at the end of the second line on Page 4: "(iiii) The per-
centages above are accurate ithin 5%+.11
It was also agreed: to add to Page 3, 7. (a) "vi) adult book store"
and to change Page 9 (f) to read "The
pond to be constructed must
be constructed to meet the requirements of the Butte County Mosquito
Abatement District,"
Commissioner Avis asked what would l)itevent the applicant from planting
ragweed for landscaping ping (Page 4i8. (a) . 1t i�ras noted that there are
no set standards. Commissioner Bennett said he felt that '.econaicti,c
necessity would demand that there be landscaping.. After a lengthy dis-
cussion during which all commissioners expressed concern, it was the
consensus of the Commission to add to 4.8.(a) after "plan", "acceptable
consistent with landscaping standards for adjoining urban areas." Also,
that on Page 70 10 (b) change "county" to "Planning Commissior111.
The follouting proposed conditions (8treeter's memo of December 9)
were discussed, but no recommendations were made;
14 Installation of a traffic signal. on 'Pentt Road just
east
of Highway 99 at such time as traffic warrants
are reached.
An assessment district, covenant or other funding mechanism
is to be set up to provide fora the signal installation if
it proves to be necessary,
- improvements, .. '
2. Landto 5�,overthe wiwith buildings and.to be limited
res rema1nilrig after deduction. of 1.5 acres`
for open spaces..
3. if traffic generation occurs to the point tShat Highway 99
to the north of Pentz Road reaches Iyevel of ervice B
(2:000 vehicles per hour), staggered hours of operation for
employees and car or van pools are to be implemented in
addition *o utilizing tie County bus system..
_5`
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COHNISSTON
MINUTES - December 9 1982
In response to a question from Chairman Lambert, Mrs. Kircher said,
"Yes, this is your last shot for 10 years'". Commissioner Avis pointed.
out that if both parties are agreeable the agreement can be amended
at any time.
Commissioner Lambert said that she felt that not all of the concerns
of the property owners in the area were taken care of; that she had.
Concerns about drainage and traffic; and was not sure of the need for more
X-1 zoning, at this time. She enumerated M-1 stites around the Chico
area---adding that she felt thit this certainly would ,look like
leapfrogging, at this time, and, that she would be unable to vote for
the project.
Commissioner Schrader said he did feel-that there is a need now for
gasoline, a, restaurant and possibly a motel.
Motion was made by Commissioner Behunin, seconded by Commissioner
Bennett,
A. Find that the environmental documents have been considered,
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
have been completed and recommend adoption of q'Mitigated
Negative Declaration regarding environmental impact; and
B. Find the project ,subs t4ntially in conformity with the policies
of the Butte County General Plan; and
?G. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors enter into a develop
znent agreement (as amended earlier this evening, 12/9/82)
pursuant to Resolution 81-229, for propertyidentified as
AP 40-13-22, 23 and 24 (Dean Bays), subject to the following
conditions.
1. All conditions presently listed, in the development
agreement.
2 Any .modifications that County Counsel may recommend.
Additionally, for uses normally requiring a use permit in the M-1
zone
1. Comply with applicable regulations of the Butte County
Air Pollution Control District.
2 Comply with applicable regulations of the Mate Regional.
Vater Quality Control Board for disposal of Wastelvater
and hazardous wastes..
Meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, 1,979
.4.
i
i
13VTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONNtISSIOIN
'MINUTES December 9, 1982
edition, as administered by the Butte County Fire
Department/CA Department of Forestry.
q, Any modifications that County Counsel may -recommend.
Res p„zea ':hat the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance
rezoning AP 40-11-22, 23 and 24 from A-2 and A-4.0 to Ni-1
(Dan_ Hays o ft) yq th deuelopm_ont agreement is fully
executed.
AYES Commissioners Behunift, Bennett, Avis and Schrader.
NOES: Chairman Lambert.
ABSENT No one.
Motion carried.
x
Commissioner Bennett commented that he felt that it is much better
,to have too mach M-1 zoning rather than not enough, and that..the
economic situation Vill control the timing of deve::o'pment.
R
VXLf: No, 83-25 r
TO: BItT`'J-'. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS, December 9, 1982
APPLICANTi pan Hays
REQUEST: 40acre Rezone from
parcel.$)to
"A-211 ('General (Light
l and !'A-401:
Industrial,) with a
development agreement for ProPerty located on both
sides of State Highway, 99 at the Durham-Oroville Hivy.
Peutz Road interchange, identified as AP 40-13-22,23
24
SIZE, 82.6 acres
COMMENTS fi7��T'1'S 1 4 -'CF I'V .D
Pu blic h1orks "Road's in this area. meet County standards."'
Environmental Hearth: ,xNo. objections y:o rezone. any dovc1otaplolit
o �cl �r si.on `ii ll dr�pl ► ivith the Buttc County Subdivision Ordinance,
the County Septic ` ark Ordinance and di chargo requirements of -
the Calit:ornia Regional later Qual.i ty Control Board. Approval of
rezone is not a guarantee that parcels its the area can be 6eve<l.oped
on scP-:i.c tank systcris duo to naini.mal so,,.*Ll depths and hardpan layers
throughout -:he area."
Ca.ltranS: letter of ,foV-cmber 2, 1982 distributed on Novc; er,
4, 1.932.
PCS#h: "ire have reviewed the abovd-doscri.bed roan and find that ISG&S.
h2� tiro electric tran.snissi,on crossana Parceli,, Nue
toga. no building clause within those documents, we request that the
right -of -Ways and the recording information be added to said map.
These documcnts wore recorded in the Butte County Recorder s Office
-in Pooh 95 of O Plcial_ Records at F'a e Sol and in Book 2a3 f
Official Records at Page 225
P01.1E. also has an. S-illCh hi , g]l Pressure gas transmission ,inn crossing
Parcel. a. This line extends frona the northerly boundary lige of
Parcel 3 ly iang tvi ,hin the north half of the Orovillc-Chico iJag� vay..
Tfi tha,s road is to be abandoned, PGh ��il,l require, that sa.i�i road be ,
Vescrvcd a,s a public utility ea.serient,
YOU' havo �n r ,
y y rfuos-tien� .please call the Division's s T�a,nd t �-1•����r anent;.
in Chi.ca at 345.5527., Extension S2:"h"t71r •IiI K.'`111 oJ.ciY".2yL. i "Unabla
t cve fire Low
...
&FTy rr�tteT acs until a d+:vn10PMe.»t atop is Provided. it
ANALYSIS:
This is a proposal to rezone the subject Property for light industrial
and commercial uses. Most off: the Land (the 72 acres east 0:6 Ilighway
)9) is surrounded by undeveloped property.. The 10,6 acres located
West of Highway 99 lies south of ar. existing area with industrial
uses. 1'Iater would be provided by individual wells. Fixe protection
is pesentl.y :available in Durham and. at Butte College. Sewage disposal
would be by conventional septic tank-leachf: eld systems or seepage
pits. Roads in the area meet current standards, though. Caltra7is has
expressed concern about the long-term capability of Bighwa.y 99, par-
ticularly the section north of the int,�rchange, to accommodate the
increased vehicular . traffic Which could potentiallyresult from the
project site and nearby parcels. There is an exiscing industrial zone
and Qeneral pian designation just to the north of 'Che Westerly 10.6
acres.
The Environmental Review Checklist discusses the
proposal an relation
the .Land Use Element. 'The discussign on Page Si of the initial study
lists. Possible advantages of light i.r dus
in the subject area, trial/comrnercia]. development
The signing of a development agreement betWeen the applicant and the
County of Butte xs essential dae to the project location and ;surf -sand-
ing land uses. An open --ended . razone to Ott -1 without such an agreement,: und,
could result in inappropriate "industrial uses at; that location, sig-
r.ificant traffic, 'Visual and drai.ztage impacts without public disclosure
Of- those iMpacts and a commitment to mi.'tigate those factors,
Comments relative to the Industrial Zoning Eactots (rage 54) of the I
Land Use Element a2°e as follows,
1. E;wzstin�; types of 1p.dustri.al use in the area. The lndur trial/
commercial uses in the area are clustered on the Ile5t side of
Highway 99 to the north-nortiitrest of the 1t�.6 acre parcel.
andsautozdismantling (ya5rd) hKelco avepnoirtsetlas' -Steel i�iiil supply
exist'
area in. terms of compatibility tiaitl surrougdo gpus lent for the
2. Parcel sizes; The three parcels of 10.6, 15 and 57 acres + in
Size are more than sufficientxn size to accommodate"poton-,�ial
small to llige industrial/commorcial uses:
s. Effects on ad `scent uses 1-. .ter uala ty air ual it noise
trafiC`ond s e`er ty nd,nvxon�rtenta�,1# `' 'm?iese
�.-
actors are dscusse zn the environmental checklist
4. Local desires. There has not been oxtensive public controversy
ar. , __T—from yone or tA�o nearb y , Out
nets the area, tan motofists pass bypthisrsoc ��reirn fand
gl easide9nts.
and Pentz Road on a regular basis and their iliput; s1lot l,d have
.� FILE NO 82-25 Staff Findings, 12/9/82 Page �
some bearing on this prpposal
rni.tigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impact is
appropTIa' a p, Jvided an adequate development agreement is signed.
OthoTwi.se, the Planning Department would again recommend that an
1rIR be prepared, for this project.
7a:OMhtENDATIO
A.f pind that the environmental documents have been considered the
requirements of the California. Rnvironmentai Quality ,pct have
been completed and recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration regarding environmental impact; and
Find the prnject substantially in conformity with tete policies
Of the .8utty County General, 'Plan; and
Recommend that the Board of Supervisors enter into a development
agreemew pursuant to Resolution 81-229, for propert;r identified
as AP 40-13-22, 23 and 24 n, fl
(Daays) , subject to the following
conditions
1. All conditions presently listed in the development agreement.
2. Any modifications that County Counsel may recommend,
jddit onally, for uses normally requiring arise permit in the M-1 zone:
I. Comply with applicable regulations of the. Butte County. fir
Pollution Control District,
Z. Comply with applicable regulations of the State Regional
Water .Quality Control. Hoard for disposal of wastewater and
hazardous wastes.
5, ?Meet tine requirements of the uniform piire Code19 9 edition
as administered by the: Butte County %ire bepa.rtment/CA
Department of rorostry,
4. Any, modifications that County Counsel nifty► recomMer d,
D. Recommend that the.Soard of Supervisors adopt an ordinance
rzzoning Ali 40.:13-22, 2,3 and 2.4 from A-2 a.nd A-40 to 11-1
(Daae hays) Only after the development agreement is fully= executed,
If the decision: is to deny this project with a development at
then. reement,
'
A6 Note that the environment4l documents have been considered in
making this decision; and
'.ind that the project does not conform to the policies of the
Land Use ;11.ement of, the General plan involving tine compatibility
Of industrial activities with the surrouxtding area even with a
s
it
S
PLANNING D13PARTINJENT' S RhSPONSF TO CALTPA '° o' .;3 TTBR OF 11%4r 7,
Tit further discussions with Bob Skidmore , ,-aA. Gene Absbier of
Caltrans the following comments were
The findings of Caltrans are still that '_he project would cause
the northbound section of Highway 99 to >,�ea h level of Service E.
Figure 2 on. page 13 shows the average (,Iai.ly traffic (ADT) count
to be 13, 000 on Highway 99 to the north of pe ltz Road. The present
peak .hour figure is 1350 for this location (I-epresenting a level
of service between B and C; level. of Service C is 1400). Theis
calculations based on the range of ? ig7jt ,'nlustrial and commercial
�
hour figure Cti:o-,7a' design volume ?I`.'rYt; slot,* that the nett peak
uscs indicated in the traffic assess v�ji lcl lie ? an increase n"
Y g � 1,16, of
766.
The letter indica that, as a result of ;heir analysis, "This
development woulel 'Coduce tine level. OL $ervi.ce to between h and p."
We hive requested that Ca.l Cran.s forwarr'l their traffic calculations
supporting their findings. Their an--tl.yss, of rile "worst case''
i
traffic projection is substantially zsigher than the figures shown
in the traffic assessment.
I
it ,should be clearly noted that the traffic assessment does not
represent a commitment to the speci,'Ic light industrial and Com-
mercial uses Listed: The study is leant, i.o disclose ,oite scenario of
what insight occur. ,
The final comment concerns a s atemant on page 9 of the traffic
assessment regarding 25% coverage oC the gross developable actes.
Though a, misunderstanding may have occur?:ad on the part of Caltrans
in interpreting the ,sentence, the ked,: factox, is that trio intensity
is based on square footage of huil8ings and not buildable acres:
The
next ction of the traffic tr dy indicates the tnethodology used
per type, o filand use. Building floor area was included in: the
Calculations, i.e., vehicle trip ends
ng area.., per 1000 square feet of build-
ifafter Teviewing the calculations from Ga1ftans, it appears t} ei.r
figures are too high by a magnitudc of four due to the I'MI,` of the,
gross developable acres' statement on pace 9; than that sign i fa cant
point will be disclosed prior to a.:tion by the Board of Supervi ov
on the rezone and prior to signing the development agreement,
f
4
w
COMM,811TS BY STAPF AIND COUNTY 'COUNS}M ON RIIVTSI D DEV1aLOPYtI:7'
AGREEMENT SUBMITTED DFCIfIMER 2, 1932
Planninn Department C(imments
Page 4 - Amend date in paragraph (I) to 1.0 years from the date
! the development agreement is signed.
3
.Page 6 - (j) Disclose hazardous waste disposal location,. a
condition is proposed to cover this factor via reviety
by the agate Regional Water (duality Control Board.
Pago 6 - _ _
g • (1) Are the setbacks .from the property lines or center-
Bowe of the roads? Centerline of the road is the"
normal procedure and would be acceptable.
The condition, as Worded, seems to apply only to
tI~e two easterly parcels. The addition o "find
Durh".-Oroville Flight,+ay"" after '".Peutz Road" in the
sentence would clarify the condition.
Pages ? to 1.0 - Counsel's inP t is being sought, particularly for
address these sect;iorts tvhi.ch aci the legal obligations of the
}
County of Butte in rolatior to the property oteiners.
` Wage '10•- The expiration date. for the agreement would be 10 years from
thedate of signature (on'" 19J3.
County Counsel Comments:
County Counsel has been unavailable for comment on the revise`
+ d
development agreement since the Planning Commission last met on
December 2 to discuss th:'s project A condition has been included to
add, as part o the agrcOmcnt, "any modifications that County
Counsel may recorltttend'". TCi .; condition may also avoid referrals
by the Board of Superv_fsors to the planning Commission for minor
revisions (Section 24-2-0 ref the Zoning Ordinance) . iVe anticipate
giving a verbal report of Counsel's comments on December 9 at the
continued hearing;
_77-
' M
I3r1T"i"i; COUNTY PLAN TNI(,' COrRHISgTON
MINUTES December Zai 1-982
n . ITEM ON 'WHICH NEGATIVE DtCLAFUTI ONT
Pan hays L;etone Froin "A-2" (General) and I'A-40" (xlt;txcR�glt�,x•,t�
40 acre parcels) to +'MI -VI (Light Industrial) with, a tlea0hoi trent
agreement for Proper-ty located on both sides of State tii, Ilt'�ay
99 at the Durhan-Orovi.ue iit y., Pentz Road interchange, it'ienti
t.icd as AP 40-13-22, 23, and 2141 _
StOre Itreeter reportod ;lint the Proposed revised development pit" � a
+ e l y R• ,: y ,, *a gement
B'��cd been rect�ivecl b staff carl.�.c:r soda. and at neither st'ctCf,, County
Colins 7 or an of 'the Comiai;ssioner tad had a .a ance to ieviojjr it eX-
'tOnSivelyj that earlier there had been a. mecfiing between the
Counsel. ,ind staff and that this revasion t-s'�s the outl,t"otvth Of
Oil.$ faceting; Olt st-a f had not had ting to make recommendation—s', for
ne+cOssary conditions anti that he would recoirtme.nd continuance tent ► t Perhaps
0cetaiber 16.
OhAirman Lambert said that she would certainly want Coupsol
hIs document and make r,ecomnendatxo.ns Prior to any action by the
CvMfii.ssion, and suggested that early, on the 16th ini.-lit be zn atai :t`opriate
' Daae --perhaps 6:50, since tate agenda is already Nervy for thot Ineetx:ng
11 "i;ssioner ?vis requested an oppoxt unity tot)torotagh,ly rovIet�" tlt 5
pet)Posal�-that no waycould he plat ca.�tch -up,,tonight,
C'OmMissioner, Bennett recommended that a 1Jllole evexiitag he devoted to this
project—maybe. December 9. Tile dc,veloper said that he would prof;Lr
December 9 tO the 16tli.
Cilairma.n Lambert Openad the hearing:
Dart Hays, Jr., s
at i0pakb briefly cOnCerning the history' of t),,s� projel.:hexa
rot*aciaerl, ngthl tiie "Tr' affi,c Assessment"' for the area', cXPressed
concern regard .n,g thin disparity i.n the rcmarLs ;from Caltra.tis in refer-
noced corrospondenco and the trtacff c assessment. 110 said that the do-
vclopers Would favor the location of 84 sit-dO n type restaurant, Small
r,.Anatf act:ttring,, gasol_ Brie service, a cOnverta.enc e stare, a motel and
t"
a IM sto a.ge. a.t tl. s loc;at,on.
Barl 'Nelson said that :iow, that there is sdine mechanism to oLi ccticwoi
i pPl7* coed tir�tts on strc)a a isr0j)osal as this, that it is only nec.essary�
,.a fii aline it, that he and Nils c:l.i isteti,ll caoiit gate in error � t4 ay*
l;osstbl.e with the Gottfity.
Th re teas noone else desiring tO sPoa°k. APtar a short disc.us.;i,on
concerning ci:",n it, a da.we for coitti1113ar3ce, ro,�,
L1011 "as ;tirade fit}„ LOm7tx'is.S coliox~
i
D •, ITEM ON WHICH NIEGATT VE DECLARATION
REGARDING EAVIRUN►�E TEAL ZTIPAGT_►tihS PRDVIQUSLY ADOPTED
Dan 1•1ays - Rezone from "A-2" (General) and "A-4011 (Agriculturali
40 acre parcels) to "Ni -1" (Light Industrial) with ? development
agreement for property located on both sides of State Highway
99 at the Durham -Oroville limy.; Pentz Road intercha,,ige identi-
fied. as AP 40-1322, 23, and .24.
,sieve Streeter reported that the proposed revised development agreement_
had been received by staff haxl er today and that neither staff, County
CCounsel or any of the Commissioner had had a chance to review it ex-
tensively, that earlier there had been a meeting between the applicant,
County Counsel and staff and that this revision was the outgrowth of
this meeting, that staff had not had time to make recommendations for
accessary conditions and that lie would recommend continuance until perhaps
December 16
Chairman Lambert said that she would certainly want Counselto review
this document and make recommendations prior to any, action by the
Commission, and: suggested that early on the l6th might be an appropriate
mime_ -perhaps 6=30, since the agenda is already Iida-vy for that meeting.
tC°oanmissi.oner Avis requestLd an opportunity to thoroughly review this
roposal--that no way could he play "'catch-up"tonight
Commissioner Bennett recommended that a whole evening be devoted to this
1iroject- maybe December 9. The developer said that he would prefer
december 0 to the l6th,
Chairman Lambert opened the hearing.
Dan Hays, Ji,, spoke briefly concerning the history of this project„ then
reviewed, at length, the "Traffic Assessment" for the area, expressed
concern; regarding the disparity in the remarks from Caltrans in 'refer-
enced correspondence and the traffic assessment. He said that the de-
velopers would favor the location of a sits -down type restaurant, small.
Z:anufacturaing, gasoline service, a convenience store, a motel and
as mini -;storage` at this location:,
Earl Nelson said that now that there is some mechanism to effectively
apply conditions on such a prwposal as this, that it is only necessary
wo ,Einalize it,' that he and his clients will cooperate in every way
p risWith th
ible e County,
r
There was noono else' du ring to speak. After a short discussion
concerning a date for cun.ti.nuancemotional made by Commissioner
..5�
4t, r
EUrTE COUNTY 'LANNING COMMISSION
44'l'NtrThS - November 4, 1982
V€ ADD ITEMS
A. DAN HAYS REZONE TO M- 1--PENTZ ROAD AREA.
'The following memorandum was delivered to the Commission earlier in the
evening:
µ, Stephen A. Streeter, Planning
5 Rezone to M-1 and Development Agreement for Dan Hays, Pentz Road
and Highway 99 (83-25)
November 4, 1982
In the memorandum sent to you on October 21 1982, it Was indicated
that the Commission could hold a hearin on this
as November 18. Ile believe nothat the earliestptheect proj project, acou
teas l.d
be heard would. be December 2. The reasons for that date, or a
later date, are listed below. Most of the comments stem from a
review of the draft development agreement by staff and County
Counsel.
1. Specific comments on the draft development agreement and
project are;
1. The agreement does nt.t provide information about
what uses are to be EaVeloped on the property or
the timing of such development. . Staff cannot make
a finding of compliance or fault without such infor-
mation.
2.The condition about submittal of high traffic generating
uses to Caltrans is not enforceable. Caltrans could
certainly revieW and recommend but their input Ivould
ndt lead to mandatory compliance.
S The agreement Would expire in ten years: If little
or no light industrial .development were to proceed,
the M-1 zoning would. remain on the property Without
a development agreement as a guarantee of the type
and quality- of development that would occur.
44 It is unclear how the development agreement would
affect future land divisions of the parcels. It
appears that when a such a land division is proposed,
the County and the property owner would need to reviet�
the a9teement for its applicability.
5 The; development agreement is equivalon.'t to a use permit
With co edit' ns It Mould allow all r,J_l (Light ,industrial)
-g..
�^ A
i
]BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMISSTON
MINUTES -'November 4, 1982
uses, including those that normally would require a use
permit. The only exceptions would be those specific
Uses omitted. In other words, once the County and the
applicant sign the agreement, there would be no further
hearings for use permits or site development review.
6. The environmental evaluation should properly consider
'
more than the original traffic, visual and drainage
impacts. Multi -family residential uses, light commercial
and generall commercial uses could be placed there unless
omitted from consideration. The only specific omissions,
sofaris a restriction for "a junkyard, for theurchase
sale or storage of scrap metal or any similar use". If y
uses other than light industrial were proposed., the
County may have concerns beyond what could be addressed
at the time of a building permit. Asan example, a
proposal for a shopping center on part of the property
might raise questions as to the economic effects on
nearby commercial centers, particularly those near and
within the City of Chico.
Additional comments Will be made at the meeting. If, after
reviewing the status of the application and hearing from the
applicant, it it decided to schedule the project for an upcoming
meeting, we would recommend the date of December 2, 1982.
-Steve Streeter reported that the application had been received about 3 1,%2
weeks ago. A letter from Caltrans noting their concerns about traffic teas
alSO given. to ,the Commissioners
C'amm.issioner Behunin reported that he lvould be unable to attend the meeting'
of November 18 and requested that the meeting be set for December 2. it
was the consensus that this should be done.
Staff will get as much information to the Commission as possible ahead of
that: date.
Documents from the past about Caltrans* concerns regarding traffic floly in
ghat area will be prOV ded Commissioner tehunin, since he was not on the
�'_ + e time of previous hearings.
C�rr�,�zssion at th
L
y:16
ban Hays - Rezone from A-2 and A-40 to M-1 (Light Industrial)
on property located on the east and west sides of Hwy. 99,
north and south sides of Durham Oroville Hwy. & Pentz Road,,
Butte College/Durham interchange, identified as AP 40-13-22,
23, & 24, 1 miles southeast of Ch ca
it was announced that Mr, Hays had requested that the public hearing
on his above referenced project be set for Pi; b'lic hearing on either
October Z$ or November, 11, ,1982,
Mrs. Kircher said there e was no way this could be dune; 'that the
appeal period on the rehearing expired last Friday and that a complete
_triplication has not yet been received by tht,r Planning department,
discounting whatever was handed in tonight which,has not been
reviewed She explained, in detail, the mawidated regulations which
must be followed in handling projects and again emphasized that the
theright to make an application prior to 'the expiratiantof`'the year
project recently approved by the Commissionomerol
from -date of denial.
he `yeax
Earl Nelson, representing the applicant commented that how the 'pro-
ject is handled is a preoedural technicality and that the Board :of
Supervisors and the Commission have heard it all before and that
pursuant to the previous Negative Declaration a Conditional Negative Dec.
can be done its 2 minute that a development agreement is not a
significant change; that. the Applicant is bj:ing tttade to jump through
more hoops and that delays are extremely co:;tly
CII,01rman Lamb6tt took exception to his eh<ar,ge.of delaying the projeeti
Commissioner Bennett said to speed the pry'"ect up was ,just common
sense, that this way is only time, money Mid grief Commttsioner
UP. . Commissioner Bally upsets him to see ,projects ]field.
Schrader commented that it re ►► y g
p BehunYn inquired whether onl the chap es could
be looted at and addod that those involveco must have an opportunity
to 'respor0
Staff agreed to give a progress report 6h i6his project on the 21,st,
7
CA
95927
4C -1:z -,S, 3 40-13-44
Ad? -=z. Eaq on ,Ranch Inc. Aldred Inc
l? 111Q - Box 349 B. flubbe lla CFA
CA 940,7 4 615 4th St'
Orland, CA 95965
4C-:3y9,26,27cS 40='i4�-4'�' 9
M, ry A��-.Lstrona L.0.
& J. Bothard
BOO. 2�' P.0_ BOX 105
Du�r]hstw, CA 95935 Durham, CA 9597'
14 40-14--62, .
ltpnent Gurstel & Amita Gore
' Malgam ways Ste.0 P.i7 Box 6
P r;� Cordova, CA 9567E Durham, CA 95933
20 40-13-22723,24
Vin� Z. Vhteloc :` Dan & Jean lays
,fit y 2 186 $
P-0- Box 3040
Du ,. 959398 Obico, CA 9592
40 2'13-2
T.Ff, 8e D.J. Maines -box
CA 959318
4C-'�5x529,:-1 Rinoel Assoc:
CAI„�T� a 331- 'iYal l Street
,P-011 Bax Q (] Chico, CA 95926
1f
x {� 0
az— a lle, i J JGA 07
140-13-318, 40-14--27'740
GY+. &Z � eaAor
"' Sanders
t. I ,S6x ''208 .
*-z I CA 9593
X.E. r-% B. Lang1f rd
L2520 r% .tie .11w ,
Chico t CA 9591%.
8.30 Cc;x' Uaa St
Chico t CA 959P
40-X13-43
BU�ea'�, CA i�9t
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 15TH day of March
2983, between. DAN HAYS (hereinafter referred to as ("Property
Owner") and the COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
(hereinafter referred to as "County").
RECITALS
This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts.
1. Government Code
556586,65869.5 authorize the County
to enter into binding development agreements with persons having
legal or equitable interests in real property for the development
of such property;
Under §65865 the County has adopted rules and rectums
lat.ions establishing procedures and requirements for consider-
ation of development agreements.
3. Property Owner has requested the Cliun.ty to consider
entering into a development agreement and proceedings have been
taken Into accordance' g
with the County's rules .and regulations.
4, The Butte County Board of Supervisors has found that
the development agreement is consistent wvith the
Butte County
General Plan; and
5, On
1983, the Board of supervisors of
County adopted Ordinance No. 2342 a
�pprovilg the development
agreement with Property owner and the ordinance thereafter took
effect oil April 14
e A 1
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree:
1 Definitions. In this Agreement_, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(al) "County" is the County of Butte.
(b) "Project" is the development approved by the County.
(c) "Property Owner' means the person having a legal or
equitable interest in the real property as described in
Paragraph 2 and includes the PropOrty 'Owner's successor in
interest.
(d) 9°Real Property" is the real property referred to in
Paragraph 2.
2. Description of Real ?property. The real property Which
is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. 'Interest of PropertyOwner. Prc,,,..erty Owner represents
that he has a legal interest %n the real property and that all
other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the
property are to be bound by the agreement.,
4. Binding Effect of.Agreement rhe burdens of this
Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the+
successors in interest to the parties to i.t,r,
5. Relationship of A arties. It is understood that the
contractual relationship between th& County and Property Owner.is
such that the owner is an independent contractor and not the
agent of the County,
�2i
r w Ei:feet of transfer of Rea] Property ti _Another
6. -
:jurisdiction,,,
if all or a portion of the real property which is
the subject of this Agreement is annexed to or otherwise beco`ies
a part of a City or another County, this :Agreement terminates.
7. Specific Restrictions on Development of Real Property.
In addition to zoningclassification, the following specific.
restrictions shall also govern the use of the propert�!
( ) Permitted uses are those permitted by the M-1 zoning
classification of the County of Butte as in existence
on the date of this Development Agreeme�it except the pro-
perty shall not be used for arty of the following purposes -
(i) junk. yard;
{ii.) auto wr-^king yard;
(iii) a business engaged in the purchase, sale or
storage o'« scrap metal except when conducted entirely
within a building;
(iv) any residential use;
(v') industrial or manufacturing uses generating
industrial was Le water: w f*h the potential to contami
nate surface dater or Groundwater unless such contami-
nation threat is mitigated to the satisfaction of
the County gealth Department and the State Regional
Water Quality t'ontrol Board
(vi') adult bitiokstores.
(b) At no tine during the term of they Development Agree-
Tient shall any of the types of utxe of the propertyndi-
dated below exce0d the corxespond'M—d percentage of the
total acreage within the teal 'property:
W3
:..........
�µ} Uses requiring a use permit under the presant
M--1 zoning classification 43
(ii) Uses under the present M-1 zoning classi-
fication permitted without a use permit 11$;
i) Commercial uoes permitted under) the present
C-1 or C-2 zoning classification. 36$
The foregoing is included as an indication of tho types of
uses and mix of uses permitted and is not intended to
Indicate that a use permit would' be required for any use,
since the conditions herein imposed and having been agreed
to have superceded the necessity for the use permit process.
Additionally, the :Property Owner agrees that not less
than 10% of each parcel within the Real Property shall
remain in open apace.
(c') The maximum density or intensity of use shall be
as permitted by t 4e 14-1 zoning classification- and the
subdivision regulations `..,f the County on the date of this
Development Agreement.
(d) The maximus height of any building shall be 35 feet:.
(e) The maximum size of any building shall be 90,000 square
feet.
` (f) The construct on of, improvements to the property
will be commenced as soon as purchaserand/or' tenants, can
be located. The construction will be completed by December
310 1992,
kmpro�emehts Facilities and Services. PrOperty
Owner fagredi3 'to provide the following public improvements,
facilities and servicers
4
i'
�y
r
(a) Property Owner shall, as part of each buil i g permit
application, submit a landscape plan consi.%' Ont with
' accepted landscaping standards for adjoining ""ban areas
whish shall include a landscaped area between highway 99
and the 'property and landscaping of not less than 1% of
each !parcel as it develops.
i (6) Property Owner shall install and maintain in good
a:
condition landscaping of the portions of the property
required by Paragraph 8('a) said landscaping to be installed
tinon each parcel at such time as the fina�(, inspection on the
first: building in each parcel is performed.
(a) Property Owner shall submit drainage plans to Caltrans
and to the County Public WorksDepartment in conaection
with each building permit and shal.1 include relocation
of the drainage course traversing the portion of the
property an the east Side of Highway 99 at such bill)--
as
il)-as the final inspection on the first building constructed
on the east side of Highway 99
(d) Property Owner will install such drainage facilities
as shall be reasonably required by County or Ca.ltrans
pursuant to Paragraph 8(c);
(e) All: lighting installed upon any parcel..shall be
situated or shielded so as to minimize distraction to
passing motorises on Highway 99
(f:) Any pond constructed on the property must be con-
structed to meet the requirements of the Butte County
mosquito Abatement District.
..5e
(g) If any materials are stored outside a building they
wall 'be shored behind a sight obscuring fence not less
than six (6) feet in height ;no part of which shall be
erected within, the road setback area.
(h) Before each parcel is developed, approval from the
County Environmental Ho Department must be obtained
for sewage disposal system and water supply.
(;i) Submit plans to the County Fire Department for review
and 'recommendations at the time of application for each
building permit. Meet the requirements of the County
Fire Department .for on site fire protection measures prior
to final inspection. on each parcel as it develops.
(j) At the time each parcel develops, provide receptacles
as needed for the disposal of hazardous chemicals and
6; substances, if any.
II
(k) meet the requirements of the utility companies#
1
particularly PG&E for natural gas and electrical. service.
(`l) Locate any !Ise not permitted without a use permit
under the Myl zoning classification as it exists on the date
of this Development Agreement a minima' of 600 feet from
pentz Road And 200 feet from Highway "99
(m) Locate access points to Pentzl Road as far from the
'interchange ramp ;4onhections as is practical.
(n) Employ energy conservation measures per the prbvisions
of the Uniform- Building Code
(o:) Diligently pursue, in coordination, faith` the Butte
County Public: WoOltt Department, the potential establishment
.
!! of bus stop locations, (Butte County Area Transit System),
1'
f
near the parcels, for �use, by future employees and patrons.
(p) Submit development plans to Butte County Public Works
for review and conditions for appropriate road sections.
(q) Comply with applicable regulations of the Butte County
Air Pollution Control District.
(r) Comply with applicable regulations of the St.Ate Regional,
Water Quality Control Board for disposal of wastewater and
hazardous wastes.
a Meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Cod,e, 1979
edition, as administered by the Butte County Fire Department/
Califo
rnia Department of Forestry.
9. Effect of Agreementon Land -Use Regulations.. The rule8j
regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the
property, the density of the real property� the, design,, �improve-
ments and construdtion standards and specifications applicable to
development of the real property are those rules, regulations and
official policies in force at the time of the execution of this
Agreement.
This Agreement does tot prevent the County in, subsequent
actions applicable to the real property from applying new rUl4s,
regulations and policies which do not conflict, With those rules,
regulations and policies applicable to property as set forth In
Paragraph This Agreement does not prevent ;the County ftom
den 11 yiIng or conditionally apptovl'bg any sUbseqUent, development
ptojedt, Applidatidn on the basis of existing tules� regulations
and pblic.ies4
{
Of Compliance with Agreement,
10 Periodic Review o ���^
.t
ia) The county shall review this Agreement at least once
every twelve-montheriod from the date this Agreement is
executed.
(b) During each periodic review by the County, the Property
Owner is required to demonstrate good Faith compliance with
the terms Of the Agreement. The Property Owner agrees to
furnish such evidence of good fa th compliance as the County
in the exercise of its discretion may require.
(n) During the periodin .
review at the end of the ninth
year, the parties shall consider an extension of the term
Of this Development 'Agreement;
ll• Amendment or Cancellation ng A-4reement
., This Agreement
may be amended or cancelled in'Whole or in part onl_ b mu
Y y tual
, •-
,consent of the parties and it the manner provided,for in Government.
'Code §;6,5868, 65367 and 65867.5,
12. En—f—O r c e ment. Unless amended or cancelled as
Provided
in Paragraph 14, this ,Agreement is enforceable byany party, t
p y o it
regardless of any change in the appli
plan, cable general or specific
zt�n,ng, subdivision or building regulations adopted b Y ;' the
CountyP which filter or amend the rules, regulations or of , ,
lea
g D•ing permitted
uses of the land, density, design, improvement
a� ver
d constxuct.ion standards and specitflcatljans.
13 Events
o Default. Property Owner is in default under
this Agreement uPoh happening of one; or ;more of the follow*n
events or condition
(a), I a material warranty, representation or statemen
made or furnished by Property Owner to the County conLained.
In this Development Agreement is false or proves to have
been ,false :in ;any 'material respect when it was made.
(b) A: finding and determination by the County made following
a period.` review ander the procedure provided for in Govern-
ment Code §65865.1 that upon the basis of substantial evidence
the Property Owner has not complied in good faith with one or
more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
14 Procedure. upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the County
may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with
the procedure adopted by the County.
(b) County does not waive any claim or defect in perfo.r--
mance by property owner implied JE on periodic review _the_.
focal agency does not propose to modify or terminate the
agreement:
(c,) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a
failure of a "third person:
(d) That adoption of a law or other governmental. activity
—aking performance by the app,licat t unprofitablih or more
difficult or more expensive does not excuse the pi>rfotmance
of the ;obligation by the Property Cwnet:
(e) Non-performance shall be excused only when it i0 prevented
or delayed by acts of God or an emergency declared by the
Ptesldent or GoVernor.
15. Damages tipon Termination. In no event shall .Property
Owner be entitled to any damages against Count/ upon termination
of this ;Agreement for the reasons and pursuant to the procedure
set :forth in Paragraphs 15 and 14
16. Notices. All notices required or provided for under
this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in. person or
sent by certi.f ied mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be
given to County shall be addressed as follows:
County of Butte
25 County Center Drive `
Orovi'lle, California 9596,5'
Notices required to be given to Property 'Ownershall be
addressed as follows:
Dan Hays
P. 0, BOX 3040
Chico, California. 95921
A party may chcngp the address by giving notice in writing
to the other party and thereafter notices shall. be addressed and
ttansmitted to the 'dew address.
17. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms.
(a) The singular includes the plural,; the musculine gender
includes the feminine, "shall" is mandatory, "may" is; perwiss. ve
(b) If a part of this Agreement is held to be Invalid, the
remainder of the Agreement Is not affected.
(c) if }here is more thanone -signer of this Agreement
their obligations' are, joint and soverst.
ry, J
man.
1ie time 11l11imts set forth in this Agreement maid be
extended b, mutual consent o.
Y � the parties in accordance
with the procedures for adoption of an agreement.
18. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall expire
an Ma
_ ch i 5 ► 1993..
IN WITiNESS WHEREOF, this, Agreement has been executed by
the parties on the day and near first above written.
Af'�PROVED AS TO FORM-,
C'OUN.,'Y OF BUTTE
By
AN, C. a i r o t -e—
3utte COuftty Board of Supervisors
ATTEST.i
ELEANOR M'. BECKER, County Gli':rk,
C
nd e.x fa Lcir; t,3,erk of tl7e Board
By/ ,.�oe
i
.> ,�. . � 11.E _. ' I � • ea
EXHIBIT
whe land referred to herein is described as followa;
that certain real property situate in the Coun'I:y of Butte, State
of 0a;lifornia, described herein:
350X:NNING' at a concrete monument where the line between the properties
of the Chca,s. F. Lott Land Co. and the Leland Stanford Junior University
f,,ntiq,, isect;., the Easterly line. of the Rancho Esquon which line for the
;P%jvq,c>se o;EY this description will be considered as bearing North 400
,210'Vest'; thence along the l.inb between the Lott and Stanford properties
sottzb 89-0 49 1/21 West, 1999.4 feet to - a point in 'the center of —heCoari ,y
.io,ad from Chico to Orovi'lle as said road was locat;,ed prior to Jaituary
's.,, '1921 ; 'thence along said South road as the sarne was located prior, to
January 1, 1921- South 520 32' East 1336.5 feet; thence. South 690 59
Z- st 932.1 feet; 'thence South 410 281 East 2226.2 ,feet to the point of
n,tersect,ilon of the said. County Road with the Coui'rty road leading to
Cherokee- thence along said Cherokee Road North 8130 38' East 982,0 feet
, e Nconc rete corner of n the Easterly line. of, tho Rancho Esquon being
t'v a concrete monument on
Section 86, 'Toiwnship 21 North, Range
2 ;East,—M»D.B. & M. thenct;, North 400 21'West 36K)7.7 feet along said
. ..
8,...naho .pane to ,the; point of beginning. ..�"
E;Xf E?T1UG THEREFk0?4 a strip of land 80.feet eet wide as described in a Deed
from William M. Bradshaw,, et ux, to Mabel Claire ":Safford dated February
I 5�, 1941; and. recorded_ February 6, 19�+1,, zn Book 25+13 of Butte County Offi-
c�Lal. Records, at 'page,241.
P'AR:Cc,L p
,Lot numbered 3 of 'the Southeast quarter of Sectiolli 25, Township 21 'North,
Fia.rige IP East, M.D.B. & ISS
7-1 aC£P1-r:riJ;G rumnx-rno�f, said Pz�&els A and B r anyPor-1-jon thereof
as contained-in Deed from Ellwood Orison BrbLd"shaw;, et uUx, to State df A`
�lacli:£o �r9ia, said Deed dated Jurle 121. 19� and racc,�rded October , 99511
in Book 604 of Butte County Official Records, at sage 277.
*ALSO M�PT= those parcels described in • the Deed to K tate of California,
recorded �ruly 719 in Bco? , 1920.of Of J-Ae0ords at gage 411,
A to EXCEPTING that certain pardel described in the bleed t0 the County of
Butter I:ecorded September 17; 1970 in rt3ook 3,634 of. O;Ic,f icial Recoirdsr at
Page 211.5.
y.
I
y
C.-