HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-76 3Due to the closeness of the project to major highways and
populated areas most animal: have left the area. There will
be some lore of snakes, lizards and small rodents. However,
this is expected to be minimal. Tiiere will also probably
be u reduction in the bird papulation as activity in the
area increases. However, this is also expected to be min-
imal as the developers are to try and save as many trees
as possible.
5) CHANGES IN DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS
With only s very ,small awe)unt of the total area of the pro-
ject to be covered br impervious mate,rirl a very small in..
crease in runoff will rccuk-. The drainage patterns and no ex-
cess erobion is to be expected,
6) CHANGES IN LAND USE
The present use of the land is as an open space area. The
project will convert prYrtions of this area to commercial
use. This sboul i not be considered critical' since much of
the area is to remain in its natural state» Also much of
the surrounding properties have large amounts of open spaces
due to the size of parcel needed for a homesite in this area.
It is felt that this would be one of the best possible uses
for the land* Inspection of the site reveals that it is not
suitable for farm or grazing land. Nor is it ideal for tim-
ber production due to the pa: ,-!el size, location and type of
timber concentration.
7) INChEASED MY --NOS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES
Impact on utilities, will be small since service ii, �-lready
supplied to the area. Cost of installation of utilities
will be borne by the developer„ All utilities will be un+
derground. The Butte County Sheriff ea offic? already ser-
vices the area and no increase: to mwpower due to this de-
ve:opment is foreseen. Fire protection w1.11 ne rrom nne
California Division of F'orestry. They maintain a fire sta-
tion at Ja.rbo Gap, fivc miles to the north, during the fire
season. For the: remair E tr of the year pro..ection will come
from the Oroville Sta'ri.on. No impact on area schools or
hospitals is anticir,. ted. t s stated previous
y tlAs f Bevel-
opment will not cause arty irame diate increase In, 0_lat� ion.
There will be some increase in the use of the int secU.on
of 0rovillQ-Concow Highway and Stated Route 70, due to the
use of the proposed development. However, the effect will
be small due to good visibility in all directions.
8) EYIXT ON WATk.R QUALITY IN THE AREA
The effect on water quality in the area is expected to be
small. Thore are septic tanks and wells on adjacent prop-
iertiews. Howeveri the parcel sixes are fairly large ( 10
acres ) and there would be quite a distance betwee.l well
and septic system. All wells and septic sy,stedms have been
installed according to county recpirementso Any new wells
and s+:ptic systems will also be installed according to
county requirements Zo.r such dervelopments.
b) ANY A"NE tSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT Bf AVO'1DBD
IF THE PROPOSAL ISIMPLEMENTED
r....�..r.......+ - A--
1) There will be some loss of open spt,t:e. However as stated
earlier the development will util-ize greanhelt areas and
try to keep this loss to a minimum. The area is not suit-
able for agricultural or timber productiono
2) LOSS OF RECREATION s.'" ESS'
There will be no loss of recreational sits;s.
a
3) DISTURHANCE OF ARCHAEOL)GICAL ARTIFACT3
There will be no distuzbance of Archaeological Artifacts,
4) LOSS OF WILDLIFE NA31TATS AND RE"FIZES
There will be some loss of wildlife habitats and refuges,
but this should be confined to reptiles and small rodents.
The larger animals have left the area due to the closeness
of the project to major roadways and homesites.
5) DITURBANCE OF DRAMAGE CHARACTERISTICS
Runoff will be somewhat increased due to the increase in
impervious surfaces. The amount of increase in impervious
sur#aces is to be relatively small and thereiore the natural
drainage channels are expected to handle any increase in
runoff without any negligible i.ncrea?se in channel erosion.
6) INCREASED DEMANDS ON PUBLIC 5ERV� IC� S
There is expected to be no increase in demands on public
services. The area is already covered by p lice and fire
protection and no man power increases are anticipated due
to this development. Wato-,r and sewage disposal, will be
provided by the developer at his expense. Telephone and
electric service is available and adequate to meet the
needs of tris development. There should be no impact on
schools anv hospitals as the employees of the completed
development will be- local and already established in the
4 0mmunity.
i) INCREASE IN TRAFFIC FLOW
The developmen will probably caur%i an increase in the use
of the intersection of the Oroville-Concow Highway and State
Croute 70. This will be &,t to the on and off traffic Mow
for the completed development, The effect of this increase
will be small as the A„ntersection now has good visibility
in all directions and goody traversable, 60+ access will
be provided to the actual site of the development.
c`
8) THE LOSS OF AESTHETIC SURROUNDINGS
The visual effect of the property will undoubtedly be
changed. Presently the land is vacant and covered with
pines, oaks and other shrubs, The property is now pleas-
my to the eye and it is the: devf 3,opers intention maim -
twin this app.:arance as much as possible. The proj,,kct
will be designed to conform to the natural setting.
e) MIT113ATION MEASURES PRoPOSEU TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
1) RETAIN NATURAL, VEGETATION
Every effort will be made to retain as much of the nat-
ural vegetation as possible. The on y trees to be re-
moved would be in the actual path of construction.
2) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
All underground utilities will be utilized.
3) SEWER F A ILITIES
All sewage disposal will be by septic system. These Sys-
tems will conform to existing county regulations for such
a development.
4&5) LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITW MJP,AL DESIGN
Tho project wiV be designed to visually conform to the
Surroundings as fat AS possible. Any road construction
will follow the contours to eliminate as much ctrt and
a
fill, slopes as possible. All 'eeq and shruLls which are
not in the way of construction W�%.&' t* sav,;d. Landscap-
ing of all buildings will utilize gees and shrubs native
to the area and natural colors ani Aartl.tones on the ex-
terior walls will help them to blerd into the landscape.
6) PROVIDING AID TO LOCAL.. AGENCIES__
The developers will cooperate with local, agencies when-
ever possible.
7) AIR., WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION
The development will have minimal etµe;ct on atmospheric
quality. Control devices required b�, existing Mate and
local ordinances for the reduction t air, water and noise
poi l.ution will be utilized if ,eece»ss- y. The developer
feels that these devices will not be ,,vacessary.
8) REDUCTION OF THE POPULATION DENSITY tYti' ,PHE; PROJECT
Population density will not be a pr"sb.em as this is not
a development of residental sites.
d) ALTERNATES To `:'► PROPOSED PROJECT
3) REDUCE M�SIZE C. THE 13RC FZT
I� • y
This is one possible alternate t1tat a;►ould be considered,
However, the developer feels that tk'd::, size is necessary
considering the terrain and any future commercial needs of
the area. Much of the site is is be .atained as greenk►el.t
due to the terrain. Also this size jll provide future
room for expansion as they population of this foothill. com-
I
munity increases. The site is centrally located and would
prevent any unoiga.�ized commercial development at a later
date.
2) REDESIGNING ViE Pk0JErT TO CONFORM TO THE ENVIRONMENT
As discussk4:ear:; _ ." effort will be made to d '
the project bit,.- a to a. ie 'environment,
3) MOVE THE PROJ=A4 11 is h:.` -Z ENVIRONMEN'T'ALLY SUITAW E SITE
+l.w�.�i�
It is felt that a yieve',opment of this type is needed for
the area. Considering all of the available sites in the
area this one seems to be the most environmentally suit-
able* It has available 601 access as well as being cen-
trally located„ Also, al --at all of the afore mentioned
environmental aspects have minimal or no adverse csTects.
A) GIVE CONSIDERATION TO NOT INITIA`,CING THE PROJECT
The adverse environmental effects are not significant to
warrent the elimination of this project.
e) WILL THE PROJECT HE MORE BENEFICIAL THAN LEAVING THE LAND
AS IT 15
As stated previou ?.y it is felt that a development of
tiiis type is needed for the area. The project is cen-
trally located and will be able to serve the traveling
public as well as tis local community. The site is pre-
sei.tly vacar and is not suited for grazing or farmland.
It also would not be a go.sd site to reserve for tindxx
production as discussed previously. It is also impor-
tant to note as the development proceeds the assessed
value of the property will increase' thus adding tax
income to the +county. It is tl►erefore felt that de-
veloping this land will be mich mo,.e beneficial than
leaving it as open spare.
f) IRREVERSIBLE 24PACTS WERE DISCUSSED FULLY IN SECTION D
g) THE PROJECT'S EFFECT ON GROWTH INDUCING FACTORS
1) WILL THE DEVELOPMENT A11VPLk.CT OTHER PROJECTS
As this project is compltzted other possible projects can
r
be expected on the undeveloped portions. There may be fu-
ture needs for a service station, travel trailer park, etc.
2) WILL `HE PROJECT CREATE A DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL S
The purpose of this project is to provide a con *eial cen-
ter for the existing population and traveling public.
3) WILL THE PROJECT TOPEN 'i' AREA FOR UPUER GROWTH
The population of the project area is already growing larger
every year. The project could have a long range effect on
population growth as it would provide services not present
at this time.
4) NATURAL AND LEGISLATIVE BARRIERS LO CROWTH
Where are no knovn natural om legislative barriers to growth.,
'tire county General Paan calls for one to five acres per dwell -
inti unit.
5) WILL URBAN .SPRAWL RESULT &`hUSE, OF THE EROJECT
Foothill areas of Butte County comprise 23% -x the total land
area. Mountain lands comprise 31% while 45% of the county con-
sistes of vr,lley lands. Well planned projects �.ach as this in
the foothill areas helps �to reduce urbani sprawl into prima ay-
ricultural lands
-- - _ - ,
_ - - ,^!�•�M'•�•LaJl�il' ...� Vsq. .• �a i.. .. .....yw .� '. .: �w _. ..*..' P.Wr.. •. ••., �.. � � �.Y��.. e• r e y -r r.rwe•i^ ^� ,Y M :,/ Yr.:'w+'w af. ♦ ,I+�tq s. .+� � � .;.` —,
r V
T. 22 I1. R°. 4 E
F.45ACt
21
\✓ +�.
-�. y.50 26 Ac
r
,) 3 �--►
I _.. .
35 At 46 A
� n '�.,� , 29
:�4C Ac
--------------
•-" X391
c�. 1750
9r ' �. 1✓/'� .. �. 79 A b
r.. 7lz
M C r Y y 1
71
12
4 ,. ....-�.._ 1 p h Iry -• .
1
2J-42Ar
ZJ At
`w
51
��Aq`�!
6!
145 9 AG•
V
Pie
46.5•C ,•
!!a
��11-711
f.
r
41 r rI rerr
017
^� •.
M
OT NUt3trhS SHOWN
�1 "„�
!
�.. II J
t. 7 C �CLE.7�a
40 HERITAGE LAND COMPANY
P. 0. E30X 38c)
PARADISE, CALIF, 95969
15144 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
1) Environmental Data for the proposed Stafford Heights Dev..
elop►t by Kendall Engineering and Planning of Oroville.
2) Final EIR for a rezoning north of Chico, ;Project number 75-
14, by The Butte County Planning Departwj� t.
3) Draft Environmental Impact Report for Castle Rock Subdiv-
ision, by McCain Associatee,oir Paradise,
4) Architect - Millard Frankie, Chico, California
5) John Hamby, licensed surveyor, Paradise, California
6) P. G. & E. in Paradise for population figures.
7) Post Office in Oroville for population figures,
P,) California Division of Highways for i;xaffi.: count.
9) Butte County Sheriffs !department.
10) Butte County Planning Department.
11) Butte County Assessors Office,
12) California Division of State Forestry,
13) Butte County General Plan.
c.
C
n
r-8-1-733
18. C RI.9PIN9 ,TMiN D► and SCUMv RUA U and LeROY, DAVID - RPvtow of
informationsubmitted toxfard p pparation of draft T. i. R. an propoRed�
raxonA (lio_ p,,= I4o. 75410'J) from A- and 5«Ii to C�2 far 42 aar a„
morA or logo, located on t mqt *ido. ofwy. 70 at Concow Road
Intro eti;an, approximatoly 3 jailoq north of W. Winch Bridge.
Mr. MaKepman a-tatwd thm the in£ormtion oubmittmd toward* r paration of
42g. LSC. va,* ad that, hos d dual with
aa o of C-2 in th 'v wroo at they► t tb* 3nvact r*40vt
ERC MINUTES
10/27/75
76-17-1-814
10. CRISPIN, JOHN D., SCHOTT, RUDOL'F, AND LeROY, DAVID - REview of
Draft C.I.R. on Rezone from A-2 & S -H to C-2 for 42 acres, more i
or less, located on W side of Hwy 70 at Concow Rd. Intersection, i
approve. 3 mi. N of W. Br.,ch Bs-idge. Project No. 75-76.
The Committee suggested that a further mention of solid waste disposal be
done. Indirect impact on area schools should tilso be mentioned. Mr
Flanery made a motion for acceptance and to file a Notice of Completion withl
the changes. Mr. Toussaint seconded this motion.
AYES: Jay McKeeman, Howard Toussaint, Gary F'lanery, and Tom Moungey.
NOES. NOne.
Motion carried,
ERC MINUTES
1/19/76
0
75-5-1-99,q+243
4. CRISPINr JOYN V. ar.., x
AP 5n--19-144 & 140 (portloiz)
S-11 Lo C-2 for 42 acre., more
70 at it's intersect -ion with
the W. `,ranch Bridge,
0
'i LF and LeROY, DAV 11j, RT.;ZONE (75-76)
an", AP 5e--21-04, & 78, from A-2 and
cr loss, located on west side of Hwy
Concow Rd., approx. 3 miles north of
Mr. McAchren stated that he recently viewed the site and informed the
Cottee that the property is densely covered wi4h vegetations pines,
chaparral, and anita, 3s of rolling topography, unlevel, and in some
places very steep. The Butte County �'eneral. Plan shows this property as
TiMber-rMountain. ate also informed the Committee that the General Plan
does show Commercial along Hwy 70 it Jarbo 04p, not at this intersection.
The General Paan Text, the General Plan Land. Use Map, the Open Spacedement of the, ljeneral Flan, and the Conservation Element of the Genexral
Paanr all speak �Lgainst, or at least not in favor of, commercial develop-
ment in this area. Mr. Mandonsa, mentioned that there has been a consi-
derable amount of lot split activity immediately to the northwest of the
ddZe area located on the property. The Committee reviewed the Chacksh+eet
and made findings on Numbers 1, 2, 7, ll, 16, 19, and 22. The Committee
aoarmented that the reasoning for ab YES on Noss 7 and 16 was because, with
a montercial zone, any conr,_� cial development on the property would ini-
tiate large scale cuts an--?. fills and removal of vegetation. Mr. Stratton
made a motion to equire an Environmental Impact. Report on this props al
on Findings Nos. 2 & 3. This monose was seconded by Lt. Mickelson.
AYES: Patrick MoAahrent -ohn Aendonsa, P_av, Stratton, Lynn "ranHart, and
Ken Mickelson.
NOES: None.
Motion carried.
ERC MINUTES
5/12/75
76-3-1-999+509
16. C111SPINt aOHN U. , SC1400T, RLYi mr, AND LeROY, I?AVID - Review of
information submitted toward preparaion of draft L . T . R . on a
rezone from A-2 & S -T? to C-2? fcr 42 acres, more or lros, located
on W side of Hwy 'ILS at Conconr ltd. intersection, approX. 3 miles N
of W. Branch Bridge. Project No. 75.76.
The Committee members gene., -&l .y Jolt that this infomat-ion was non -substantial.
Also, they applicant. is to lie natiLic�d that the information must be submitted
in Draft E.I.R. faro~ as required '-)y State Law, not in outliner folm. He 3s
to be notifa.ed, alcor that he can mntact many engineers or surveyors in this
area for mid in preparing this information, or he can go to a local iibraxy
or the Planningaxtment to view' previously prepared draft UIRs as euau Wla s.
ftis item was �ued *Ad removed fXVA the CONKittOG4s agend& until MUO
owolete information in proper form is submitted to the C aeittee.
VIP(!
9rq/75
0
DETFAKINATION R5 SIGNIFICANT EFFBGT ON L�NYIRQNM��1'�
John D. Crispin, Rudolf Schott, & David LeRoy, P 0 Box 386, Paradise
Applicant's Name and Address
AP 58-19-144 & 140 (por)
Rezone (75-76) AP 58-21-04 4/25/75
Type of Project Location or Parcel No. late Rac&ived -
An environmental impact report in required for airy project which may have a sig-
nificant effect (substantial adverse Lapact) on the environment. Effects include
environmental consequences of both primary and secondary nature.
The following questions shall be used as guidelines to decide whether to make a
negative declaration or an environmental impact report. (If answer is unknown,,
write "unknown" in yes/no column.)
9. Will the projezt involve cunstrULtion of tecilities in an
area of geologic haznrds? X
ltd. Could the project change existing features or involve con-
struction in special building permit areas Along the Sacra-
mento River, the Feather River Floodwn,*, in anv area subject
to inundation, in an area in close proximity to anv river,
stream, lako, reservoir or natural drainage: channel: � X
11. Is the project one of a series of cumulAtive &-tion, which
although individually small, may as a whole have significant
environmental ivpact`;' X
12. ''ould the (:reject brt ich any published national, state) or
local standards relet.ng to solid wnsto or litter control'; X
0-2
CRECKLIST
US NO
1.
could the project. significantly change present uses of the
project area? (See. Notes.)
-X
2.
noes the project significantly conflict with the Butte County
General Plan or any element thereof?
X
3.
Could the project affect the use of a recreational area?
(See Notes.)
,.. X
4.
Could the project have a substantial and demonstrable neg-
ative effect on an area or feature of aesthetic value".
X
5.
Will any natural or man-made features in the project area
which are unique$ that iso not found in tither parts of the
County, St • .e, or dation, be affected? (,See ::otos.)
X
6.
Will the project involve construction of facilities on a
slope of 25 percent or greater"
X
7.
Will the project involve signi£itant cuts or fills?
X
8.
Could the project cause substantial flooding, erosion, or
siltation?
- X
9. Will the projezt involve cunstrULtion of tecilities in an
area of geologic haznrds? X
ltd. Could the project change existing features or involve con-
struction in special building permit areas Along the Sacra-
mento River, the Feather River Floodwn,*, in anv area subject
to inundation, in an area in close proximity to anv river,
stream, lako, reservoir or natural drainage: channel: � X
11. Is the project one of a series of cumulAtive &-tion, which
although individually small, may as a whole have significant
environmental ivpact`;' X
12. ''ould the (:reject brt ich any published national, state) or
local standards relet.ng to solid wnsto or litter control'; X
0-2
13.
Does the project areOr the project site serve as a sitat,
food source, nesting place, source of water, etc. :+'o:• ra«
or endangered wildlife or fish species?
X
14.
Could the project significantly affect fish, wildlifa, or
plant life or cause substantial interference with the move-
ment of any .esident or migratory fish or wildlife species?
13.
Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the pro-
ject area?
X
lei,.
Wi,t° the project remove substantial amounts of vegetation
including ground cover? X
17.
Could the project change existing features of any of the
region's watercourses or other bodies of water?
X
18•
Could the project result in significant change in the
hydrology of *he area? (See Notes.)
X
19.
Could the project significantly affect the functioning of an
established community; (See Notes.) X
24.
Could the project physically or economically result in the
displacement of Community residents?
X
21.
Could the project significantly affect an historical or
archaelogical site or its setting? (See Notes.)
X
22.
Could ..ie project serve to encourage development of presently
andevelvped areas or intensi£v ktevelopment of already devel-
oped areas'; (;,,�Le Notes.) X
23.
Are you aware ok a substantial body of opinion (present or
anticipated) thAt cnnsiders (or will consider) the project
or its of ect to be adverse to the environment?
X
24.
Will the project create new or aggravate existing health
hazards?
X
25.
Will the, project involve the application, use or d& sal of
potentially hazyrdous materials in an amount sufficient to
cause a substntitital tadversv r3 _u L,., (Soo otcs.)
X
4b.
Could the project generate significant amounts of dust,
smoke, gas, odors, or ether air pollutants,?
X
20.
Could the prosect generate significant noise?
X
25.
Could the project Taus. contamination of a public water supply
system or adversely affect ground water?
X
29.
Could the project s gnificantl„ affect tho potenti.l use,
extraction, or conservation of a natural resource? (See Nates.)
X
30.
Could the prnikact result in damn a to soil capability or loss
of agriclilturai band?
X
31.
Additional remarks:
C-3
•
>:INDINGS
John D. Crispin
Rudolf Schott
David LeRoy
Applicant's Name
P. 0. Box 386
Address .
APPBNDIX C
I'.!zone (75-76)
Type of Project
An 58-19-144 & 140 (Portion)
AP 58--21-04
Location or Parcwl No.
Paradise, CA 95969 4/25/75
Date Received
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of YES NO
the environment or curtail the range of the environment (narrow
the range of beneficial uses of the environment?) — X
2. Will the project cause impacts which achieve short-term) to than
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period or' time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future. X
3. Could the project cause impacts which are individually )�&,Aited,
but cumulatively considerable? A project way impact on two or
more separate repot•rces where the impact on each resource is
relatively small. If tha effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant, an EIR must be prepared.
This finding does not apply to two or more separate projects
where the impact of each is insignificant. X
4. Could the environmental effects of the project cause substan-
tial adverse effects on hu an beings, either directly or
indirectly? X
NOTE:: If any of the above four findings questions are answered
"YES", the project will be found to have a significant effect
on the environment.
^ETERMIN MUN
This project will not nave a significant effect can the environment.
A Negative Declaration should be prepared.
This project could have a significant effect on the environment.
An UR is required.
X
E;hIMONMENTAL REVIEW CUMMMEE
Date_.» Y X75 5y l'4awrence . I,aa?son
Director of Planning
4/25/75 CRISPIN, SCHOTT, & LeROY 75-76
C-1
APPLICATION FOR nNV.i:Ub SNTAL REVIEW
When application ,has been made to the County of Butte for approval,
of a project which is not ministe.Lit:l and is not categorically exempt
from environmental review requirenen'a,j , the applicant is required to
submit this additional application, together with a fate of $la paQ� tQ
the Environmental Review Commi.t4�ae, c/o the Planning epartment,
County Center Drive, Oroville, California, pursuant to Sections 5B
and 5C of the County of Butte Procedoires, for implemonta?;ion of the 0-0
California Environmental Quality Action of 1974. 6) �" , '% le
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE
;:Jame &c Addre'rss °-, '
CT,j1dt.y t �
��r. w�r
AP No.
1. Project Description �_ t
.....-. . ,.: 1L , .. .' ..:., . ...,,ayyu�..r �_r�=i�..wia. . ' ` ... _. .r.�l�..y- s+.•,�, " •.. y..ry
k.
2. Applicant's status (local public agency, state agency, private farm
or indiva dual)
3 Funding source (PHA, UU0, tc . )
4. Location, general. description (Location map to be provided)
5. Generalized physical desc-'r.i-nti.on of tiiv J)roject 3ize, type of
terrain, outs tandii, q physical fea'-,ures , atc .
6. Total projected cost '
7. Anticipated scheduling
;3. Associated p"ojects (include the ultimate project even if the
project in to be completed in stades or phases).
w..� sal. 1.h V RkhhlH GOM- — -- - —
APR A 1 '95
oFZOvr' t,t� Sigma
U-19-144 5821-78
Ton M Corporation
Lucky John Rpalty
7020 Skyway
Paradise, CA 95969
58-19-147
Gordon & L. Robertson
16439 Germain St.
Granada Hills, CA 91344
58-19-148
Andr;-w Uhlankott
14470 E. 13th Ave. G 11
43 Aurora, CO 80010
58-19-161
Laurance+ fA Ruth Shuman
Rt.'l Box 240X
Orovilla, CA 95965
5819-1.62
County of Butte
58-21-03
William `►avis
Rt. 1 16ox 240 D
Orovillp, CA 95965
58-21-04
Rudolf Schott Qtal
Hpritaga Land Co
1.62 Pdarsson Rd.
Paradise, CA 95969
� Jo-�l-'1•J
William & Thelma Denial
t. 1 Box 2722
troville, CA95965
58-21-63
Tan SPvanty Corp.
7020 Skywa
Paradises, A 93969
u 58-21.-82
Michael & Kar -n Thouna
616 33rd St.
Manhattan Beach, CA 902
r�
58-21-83
David & Linda Haric
31i A W Carriag- Dr.
Santa Ana, CA 92700
58-21-84
"Petar & Judith Heric
.`8612 Nada St.
Downay, CA 90220
X58-21-85
Bertrand & Vara Harte
Michaal Thouna & Asarc.
2004 S. Wood St.
Santa Ana, CA 92700
' 58-264030 04, 05
John Rutz -back xr,,c .
's P. 0. Box 30
Hayward, CA 94500
Harold & Jnssi^ mon
fir• 1 Box 272 P
ovilla, CA 95965
58-26-13
J. W. & Nalli a Fitzgarald;
1.120 Pearson Rd..
Paradisa, CA 95969
58-26-32233234035
ill L. & Ida Mae Moody
66 ' 675 Long Bar Road
Orovi.11a, CA '5965
a
e
e
58W26.nK Al 0$ ,
58-21-06 ►
William & Lapanna Ford John & Virginia Crispin
22678 Zaball.os Court Harit' gp Land Co.
Hayward, CA 94500 R f P. 0, liox 3$6
Paradise, CA 95969
58-21-08 4; 58-26"09
Roman Catholic Bishop 14 Rudolf Schott
P. 0. Box 1706 1 5952 Almond
1Sacramanto, CA 9581.3 ParadisA, CA 95969
58-21-09
Eugene Mi l,lar
Rt. 1 Box 272 X
Orovilln, CA 95965
158-26-10
Claton & Dornana L6ro1r
143 Carltei Dr..
`�0 Concord, CA 94520
t°
58-21.44 58-26-11
Robart & Colda Palkar ' Laonard & n'va Fugua
Lewis SmithP, 0. Box 386
3026 N, 7th St. r� Paradise, CSA 95969
V
rN
F
0
0 0
STIFF FINDINf'; "- WArch 4, 1976
V. PUBLxC 11EAPV!GS
A. REZONE
l.. L'ohn C. Cri elfin, atal ,-r Rezone from "A-2" (General.)
and *S-11" V-1r0ni c Hict.Away) fro C-2 Mo',anchral Com-
marci.al) foi propert3 l,oc;atec! at the southwest
corne- of ','.:ate Hwy. °p0 mid Orovi.11e Concow Road,
Arovi. llef e
This is a rezoning request. freer 1 A -.i' and SMAUC Mghway to C-2 (Com-
mer+ciall for 4 parcels of approx: matk l.y 43 acroq r at the
intersection. of Concow Road aid :urate• Highway, iii.
Access to the property is via "'OnC W Road.
The applicant states he is re uez'ti Yig tho co me .xr:ial. coni nq n order
"to davelop a commerci.a.l c+enta.r to me: the ft ' ivel.ing pig.)lic on Stater
Hi.ghwav 70 as well an the lolul applicant: Zurther
state3s, ":I,t in out of ct �_��.tJand ,-,hai lai.s dc"I elopront
is 'pr't pc ne51d,, Chi- ;�►I1'4t ;.: � � �T [ -rr. L.-ic,atim !!or 7 oc-al j.,rmp31lation and
totwist tt:af'fir other e.evelopment
of thin trvmT ?;1»t'. L.i"�'ir`Vfnrc', an 'N,",ifact ring use
So1.'th of (;nor T;in ,mbjact.
ire Bixtt3 c..c,OYxnh- ltCo .ilra a Fi"."F.71 � i,intbct'' mvuritai.ri�
ofui a regi aiiaa +r ►>'" not rec Ia `.:'* 1 :: t�' � :i location.
lt� GSI .
A. G4hiYCYtc"'J:x{...iiY r, r"' r'v r". a.», i..D.. businesses
have been r st-,J-Aished-
�+ �a yy area
�yV�, i . . .a� .f. R p� .y Man
.l.he area i'n�1J J��;1'}Y`ili on •a�n / 4.L �'K,rirk..t., .'!L l.'ts ''`��) 0 tI.,- C:s �—ral 3�"�.an as
an nren wh ',ch :! rsche, , o" rail- )rr yc' to, aiyC tllu-- b k+
Concow i4r".''a t'',a High-,),, ala -"tion o a Class
21 5:11e E
AS a. i :j, it'al itipf.U' d: iqz"�` 1i'.0 laa1i.ad
!]:b:E'x _ _:t e3Yt 'Y.�d._ °' �" t, . '��!" :!J qut:(a- `'� °' P :'� rre* ��'3 bt�iC�1
dAw y. s 8 t
e art;i fi c a X47 F h e 'e' i;yf G ^ el ::tt *y 0d"~ S1 �I-VI
D e�_ e� ..�. . 1 ..'l'st-,. � ,��,E 9b . r . e.2 1�.� �
._. M' i18 UJ td 1.
::+5?21 :k'i.^ ._,t',aX1, 'lJlt i K3u4f r_.'i.c �' »;1 :.t;, ,">?�), T,IV.] ",*)}7►i7F'�i".�i��
ira*it� Um!I :`acit:im stat: ',#"; A3 ,a.'''}�"►_ri1 ':'.:a �',?£s�ti,+..;'r.rt ti'?ZLQbt 'L i to
a t-kcr:' rs el j, (-_%va a rj,-i" . .'C.«' on Pw y .. T ,, C G `t
[:(?iltreY.'i�:iif.:4.f.'!i i3'�t�"ur` m,: 2' X .:`.Yt"'�; `a :iC.f' ,s, r'.�!.'.�1 t:: t?'`I 1"3'• i."�`1i1tq Cil.
«ild centn"." .n '' "ii.y tr aw_ e° '_ 'i .y ,�%"�,� " "c,vw'' „vl w . � + �•
The
s}lat3ti� �l r
W +��♦4
f 3f+�' l r'B'M F' � -• `w ,• -er "1 �. .." a •A"���;Y ., i:! .■", p t. r i .rM1 �'�47..1.1+�
L *r e*VF.Sx Ll i.!" A. YJ
(iw,xirrar.t: for ft0%V!.rr, J;:xf f'an-,: The
,,T5`Cir�t�k5r 31,.R. , s;.. t° 1 "C� K°�^ �'S Lira: 1 j 'tela.
er i�'�:ante"'It p Ntenti."I A11' e+K: lC�'d'f. ,�:�, +� r '�). ' a� 3 1#. t'c2#t;Iet to D -jerve
thei tr -t-ay_�ng public, "uta the for mSr, t'e!'aing
includen ar: area that *1n,0 I not be practical to d -artAo,L1 ' Or re acini. J.
coitmierci,ar+l U,268 .ante;"....q to the tre'velintj ;�u.�Y.i.c.
-j"
BUTTL 'AUNTY PLANN':e Ct7V1't'LSSION
MINUTES March 2$, 1976
A. DRAFT M VIRMNENTAL TW CT =- PORT A14D REZONE CONTINUED FRS' K
MRCH 4? 1976:
1. John D. Crispin, etal - Rezone from "A-2" (General) and
'IS -H" (Scenic 11.ighway) to 11C-2" (General. Commercial)
for property located on the southwest corner of state
Hwy 70 and Oroville-Concow Road, identified as AP 58-
19-144#
8-1>-144, Ake 58-21-41 W? 58-21-78 and a pprtion of AP 58-
26-10, 1.7 miles north of Oroville, conLAning 43 acres*
more or less
76-34-1.-1.12
Mr. Lawson reported that the applicant has requested a 30 -day continuance
in view of the fact that a st. Aring conmittee has been formed to :Muddy
zoning for eche area. ooth the Environmental Impact Report portion and
the Rezoning was continued until. May 6, as open hearizigs.
William Stuart, Route 1, Box 238, Oroville, an attorney representing
residents of the areae he also being a resident, introduced Frank
Cuny the Chairman of the steering committee.
Frank Cuny, Route 1, 'Box 270, Oroville, who lives behind the Rock
House on Highway 70 said (360) that volunteers had placed mail=outs in
over' 500 ; local boxes irk thea area and as a result had 175 participants
at a meeting last wcax, At this meeting the following were selected
to serve or, the steering committee: James L. Burpee, Concow; a0an
Meyer, Concow; Bob Bruner • tankee Hill; Frr.nk. Cuny, Big Bend and
a Mrs. Stanfield, Jordan Hill$
7-.50 P. M. Commissioner Thebach arrived and was seated.
Commissioners Hanford, Smith and [haA,",man 5ylva pointed out some of
the problems faced by this committee-- Vajrticularl.y with respect to
absentee owners. Mr. Stuart asked that the County finance the rezoning
proposals for :the area since most of the residents were either elderly,
retire& or poor.
Commissioner Camenzind who was absent on March 4, took exception to
Section 5, Page 6 -- Mineral. Deposits, stating that this site is a
potential mineral site. Commissioner Smith agreed, stating (745) that
there were many maps showing old mines in the area.
Chairman Sylva called attention to a letter presentbd earlier by Mr.
Stuart, acting as attorney for Jan and gill Davis and contending that
the Draft F.S.R. for the project is inadequate.
3/25/76
BUTTE: COUNTY PLAZININC COrWJSSIOZU
?uTNUTEs - March 4, 1976
A. DRAFT EWv'IR10NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND REZONE
1. John D. Crispin, etal - Rezone from "A-2" (General)
and (Scenic Highway) to 11C-2 (General Coranercial)
for property located on the southwest corner of State
Hwy 7v and Oroville Concow Road, more particularly
described as
Beginning at the SE corner of the NE 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 of Sec. 33 T2211 R4E MDB&M thence N 810
371 59" V7 1295.88 ft; thence N 240 24" 36" E
16..25 ft; thence N 560 29" 56" E 290.25 ft;
thence S 760 26' 47" E 284.86 ft; thence N
420 46' 13" E 168.62 ft; thence N 720 20" 03" E
356.17 ft; thence N 160 50' 30" W 651.90 ft;
thence N 880 377 23" W 155.12 ft; thence N 360
38' 18" w 89.54 ft, thence ' Olo 0' 54" W to
east -west centerline of said Sec. 33: thence S
740 45' 36" E along said east -west centerline
230 ft; ':fiance :Y X30 30" E -to the centerline of
Oroville Concowr Road: thence southeasterly along
said centerline to its intersection with the
west right-of-way line of State Hwy 70; thence
southerly along said west tight -of -wag line to
the south line of Lot 4 of Sec. 34, T2211 ME:
thence west along the south line of said Lot 4
to the point of beginning.
identified as AP 58-19-144, P -P 58--21-4, AP 58-21-78
and a portion of AP 58-26-10, 17 miles north. of
Oroville, containing 43 acres, more or less
76-30-1-577
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
Mr. McKeeman briefly r viewed the Dcraft Lnvirsnmental impact Report and
read a letter dated March 3, 1976, from Robert W. Lassen, Regional
Manager, California Department of Fish and Game.
Commissioner Smith said she felt that there should be reference to the
General Plan, specifically Pages 5.26, 5.28 and 5.29 on Page 11 of the
report. She also felt that there should be some marketing analyses.
The size of the proposal --43 acres minus 12 acres considered too steep
to develop --was questioned.
R. A. Schott, said that the only thing that was to be build in the im-
mediate future was a small store, and that development would be slow. (928)
Jan Davis, Route 1, Box 240-D, Concow: Road, was concerned about the
possible loss of wild life in the area and the inability to use the
area by campers.
Bili Davis, of the same address, expressed a similar concern and ask_su
how this proposal would affect his property*. (2-240)
A motion to approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report with an
addendum setting forth remarks made tonight was withdrawn and staff
was rec;uested to attach the addendum mentioned above and.a
marketing analyses.
This item was continued until March 25, 1976 at which time the rezoning
will also be heard. (Ido one was in the audience at this time who desired
to speak to th.- rezoning portion of this item.)
-3-
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CO '!IS510I
MIN"UTEs - May 6, 1976
41
D ` T EWIROOMENTAL V-111ACT REPORT A.3D RU ZONE (COftt s"d
` from March 23, 1976)
76-44-1-780
l.. .7o jri D. Crispin, etal - kile 75w -7G) - Rezone from
nil• -211 (General) and "S -11a (`aicenic IlighkAay) to "C"2„ �
(General Commercial) for pr•iperty located on the
southwest corner of State Ilwy. 70 and Oroville
Concow Road, identified as AP 58.19-144, %P 38-21-
4, AP 58-21-78 and a portion of AP 58--15--10, 1.7
miles north of Orovillu, containing 43 acre=s r
more or less.
Mr. Lawson stated t iat staff is presently working on an economic
study for the impact report, and that ,it should be finishes in ap-
proximately 3 weeks. y e t Lon road a lwtt r from '.Ir. CrispAn request-
ing a continuance.
3o one apj uarod to s peal: o.1 t±.i s iterr.
This items was Conti rued to c,t;:c;tirig scneduled for June 31 197G
OPEN.
r
1�
LTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - June 31 1976
REZONING
76-52-2-609
w
Mt. Lawson reported that there was a letter in file* asking that aet on
be postponed for 90 days. This letter dated April 28 also said that
they were working with area residents on rezoning and were contestipl4i,ng
red ,bang the acreage in their proposal. s
Proponents: No one.
Opponents: Mrs. 'falter Boles, 149 Acacia Avenueer Oroville, owner of
some 3, OOQ acres in the Concow area, stated that she had attended m
weting recently of area residents, and in attendance was also a
representative of the applicauitse for the Crispin rezone and that he
had asesured those in attendance that there would be no action,
on Jft* 3 by the Com sesion since a postponement had been resqueated
and they were working on a proposal for a smaller area to be
considered.
tF +•.►,,, _,. x + .. s..�T:.a. .1_.va continued this
heal a 1"4 Oi' .14 ` 1114 I,
W * * *
6- , „' 76
c
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - June 3, 1976
Low income people spend more money, in proportion to their earnings,,
for goods and services (necessities) than do others.
Page 3. This t�a.r's development in the area (Rock House and Jarbo
Gap) gives employment to 9 local People --far reaching economic effects.
Small family --type operations have a different economic bass than
those that must meet a payroll each week„
Lack of setvices in the area would be an economic haxdahip,particularly
for those who do not have thair own, transportation.
Population bash; is climbing--b"sed on the .fact that schor)L ,.enrollment
and PG&E turn -67,s are steadily climbing. (352)
Page ll,, 11ardwaze---litat:emant i,;accurate--many do-.it-yoursexers in the
area., al -3o smal�. chicken ra&zers, etc.
.?also feat a nee,-' existed L,,r auto repair, and wrecker service, and
stated th it the jervice at Li,e station operating in the area is not
the :� dollar c:ustottiez 1:1-lt: e i l l inns, clue to distance to closest station
--and that h-. cause of de -And o arato r has not been able to keep
gas to sell at all tisms .
Page 13. tactc); r•= a`�'rdil�La >;t the only housing de-
velopmentals,.; much K �yim tiousing--would take • more in-der.','h analyses
in this ,aa:ea.
At this point, Columissioner 6mity cummentc:d that at the last Northern
California Plann.i,ig Conmissioners meeting is wi,llows they had a report
from a professor of +economics at the university at Davis regarding
K lousing and its implications.
Mr. Cuny offered to net Ty ; at, in.toLc,fat iona l session for Commissioners
r€ tjdrding K Housing, if so desired.
ChairmaA Syl,va closed the acaring SiLat ing that Mr. Cuny's comments
had been well taken.
Commissioner dant ozIl .,iade ,a nit3t,a ou to find this Environmental impact
Report suffi,,jellt w. t.l. thy.- addu,., ium a'ltcad nada,, and adding the
"Analysis" tOrtirjiit and the comments m&Ae by Mr. Cuny. Her motion was
seconded by CommiS�.;,iono -- rn.tAll
AAYE6: Gommast;i,ujre,.:, camenxxnd, GilLert~, Fiant.ord, Moore, Smith,
Thebach, Watters, Watson and Chairman Sylva.
ABSENT: No one
NOES: No orae.
Motion carried.
DOM COUNTY PLAMING COMMI€ ISION
MXUT!dS «- June 3, 1976
A. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IK"ACT REPORT AND REZONE (Contin%wd
from May -- Open)
John D. Crispin, E,tal - (File 7576 - Rezone front
A-2 (General) and S H (Scenic Highway) to C-2 (Gaaemi
Commercial) for property lrjated on the southwest
corner of State Hwy. 70 and Oroville-Conrow'Road,
identified as AP 58-19-144, AP 55-21--41 AP 58-21-78
and a portion of AP 58-26-10#,17 miles north of
Oroville, containing 43 acres, more or less
,..
76-52-1-903
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mr. Lawson introduced Mr. James R. Baird, an intern who prepared
"An Analysis of the Demand -Support for Commercial Land in the Bich Shad-
tncow-Pulla-Yankee still Atea", as requested by the Commission se�irpral
ww4si,.* ago and presented to them this week.
,Mr. Bain4briefly reviewed this report and offered to answer any
questions.
Commissioner Sndt i corwer L( d (999+30) that this analyses would be very
helpful not only in the °"ommission's making\decisions regarding this
project but in others of a siwilda: nature as well..
Proponents: No one
Opponents; Frank 1, Box 270, Oroville,
speaking aj Chairman ut : iie %uomaii,.tee Steering Group to study zoning,
stated that the proposal .;W.,uid be acceptable by maybe 50% of the res-
idents
es-idents on,y it tFid armcCUaL. Of commercial zoning was i:oduced.
Spc •eking as Chairman of t .0 «pW._ ;ip ;corking with staff in the zoning
study he thanked staff rer,',,.rs for thein' assistance and expressed the
hope that as a result *M11 d be eff'e Live participants in re --
zoning porpcsals for the 3 -ea.
He commended Mr. Baird for aa.i s efforts but stated that he disagreed
with some poititWs. bBLsed ._,n I.i°:a background in economic development and
his observations since in the area.
Wage 2 ----Felt that; the 1 a:.a.o_, rats. is a_;avalid. Occupancy rate
flucYtua4 es greatly in hwasuo +rued by 1IG&t , railroads and the, >;rederal
Government, rte stated t aa% p-1 esontly all the PG&E houses are oac gpied.
ri.
6/3/76
BCUTTi CoUtI,rY PLANNIIIG CCMMiSSrOtd
,MXNuTzS - iiily 29, 1976
"The d*v*lnp=mt of tho untivatod ooMarcial land needed " �► the naxt
a 3c years in the study axes. would require not mora than 01-i 60re of,
land,. This amount could **oily allow for a vvr.y lavge general atom
A !\
andpVpwi\�ius of ' vacant c
ad leftovertoalfor-any Exexpectedowth." mmeroi�l
it was announced that a hearing had been ",t for September 23. for
General Pian changes.
r A motio.. to approve the rezoning of the 7.4 t.cre portion, subject
"' to General Ulan changes being made acrojmwdating the rezone and subject
to the approval of the parcel map, falAed.
8:30-P. M. Commissioner Watson arrived and was seated.
Cotnissioner Le Clerc questioned the validity of the whole applica-
tion and made a motion for continuance--rloscd hearing --until.
August 26 --in the ropes that the proposed tentative mug for this
area will have been actL.d upon..c
AYES: Commissioners Le Clerc, Moore, Smith and Gilbert.
NOES: Commissioners Camenzind and Thebach.
ABSTAINED: Commissiorer Watson.
ABSENT: Commisisione -ts Watters and Chairman Hanford.
No action*
r"l..fter some discussion as to the advisability o4 sendino this item
to the Board without a recommendation, Actinic, Chairman filbert.
continued action until August 26.
7- A 0
r�
DUTT : COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSXON
MINUTES - July 29, 1976
�I
Continued from June 3,1976:
A. P0 ZONE
1. John b. Crispin, etal - File 75.76 - Rezone from
"A-1" (Generale and "S -H" (Scenic Highway) to "C-2"
t (General Commercial) for property located on the
,. southwest corner of State Hwy. 70 and OrovillO
Concow Road, identified as AP 58-19-1.44, AP 58-21-4p
Ap 58-21-78 and a portion of AP 58-26-10, 17 miles
gym'` north of Orov ll.er containing 43 acres, mo .'or less
'7-6-1-762
Mr. Lawson ariefly revi: -wed the history of tw:is proposal and added
that a parcel map had been filed dividing this 43 acres into 4
parcels and that the applicant was requesting that the rezoning
request be reduced to cover only Parcel l of this division ---con-
taining 7.4 acres.
John Crispin, paradise, confirmed (822) Mr. Lawson's statement
regarding the 7.4 acre request.
Rita. Moore, Yankee HiV was concerned about the effects this zoning
would have on mobile home zoning in the area. it was explained that
there is no M --H zoning in the area --that it is "A-2" (General) .
Frank Cunyv Route 1, Box 270, Oroville, representing the citizens'
committee working on zoning fca: the area, reported that the citizens
of the community were divided about half for and half against the
proposed scaled-down version and t xat their concerns were that the
development should meet-ommunity needs for a small, rural community.
Mark Rose, Box 275, Oroville, (Yankee Hill) asked (971) what the
intended use of the 3 remaining parcels would he. Chairman Gilbelrt
stated that these parcels wo,,ld remain in A-2 zoning. Mr. Crispin
added that they would ire' for sale..
Staff findings were rLviewed at the request of Commissioner Le Clerc.
Ray Hendricks, `Box 252, Oroville, was also concerned about future
rez�, ping and development of the balance of the. 43 acre.*.
There being no further comments the hearing was closed 6-2-414) w.
Comm.asiorier Smith quoted from the C.ancow Market rtudy prepared
in June 1076:
2 -;JP' 2C
0 s
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - hugust 26, 1976
D. PZZONE CONTXNU-8D FROM JUY ,,29, 1.976:
1. John D. Crispin, etal - File 75-76 Rezone from
"A-2" (General) and "S -H' (Scenic Highway) to
"C-2" (General Commerci,l) for property located on
the southwest corner of St to Hwy. 70 and Oroville-
k-, Coizcow Road, identified as AV 58-19-1440AP 58-21-4,
AP 58-21••78 and a portion of AP 58-26-10, 17 miles
north of Oro Wille, containing 43 acre,, more or less.
77--1.5-2-755
At the request of.the applicant, this matter was continued for
one week (early on the agenda) so that the parcel map be be
considered.
0,
BUTTE CotpjTy PLANNING COMISSION
MINUTES - Sept r 2, 1976
1. John D. Crispin. etal - File 75-76 - Rezone froa"A-2"
(General l and "S -H"' (Scenic Highway) to "C-2" (Genneral
Commercial) for property located on the southwest
corner of State Hwy. 70 and -oroville-Concow Road, i-
dentified as AP 58-19-144, .rx 58-•21-4, AP 58-21-78
and a portion of AP 58-26-10, 17 miles north of Oroville,
containing 43 acres, more or less. Continued from
August 26, 1976.
7f-'17-2-128
Proponents: Ray Hendrix, $ig Bend P.oad, one of the committee appointed
to study rezoning, reiterated his statement of duly 29 in favor or
proposal for smaller acreage, 5-7 acres, but apposed to the 43acre
:
concept. He further stated that the Lsidents had made many trips
to Orovil_le concerning this matter and asked if action could not he
consummated on this proposal. He expressed concern about a vrorkshog
that was to be held in September concerning rezoning the entie area.
L . Lawsuit retorted that a letter had been received from the applicant
requesting a continuation due to some problems with the Health Depart-
ment concerning the proposed land split for this parcel. He also
stated that there appeared to be some problem in that the applicant
may also he an owner of record of adjacent properties --which may
create a condition of subdi;.-ision.(416
Morton Rose, Yankee :fill, 3/4 mile froI1 the property under con-
siderati on and E . R. Sutton, of Yankee Hill, agreed with Mr- Riendr:Ix.
Mr. Sutton: further co -w- entad that there is a distinct possibility of
water and sewer problerz in the arethesecoaning er to the County Health
Department--ard it was his feeling g' .
be
.considered.
on the Com^ scion did not take
=3{o
on
It was explained that the reassal
was that it was difficult to delire-Ate the smaller rezoning prop
on a map, and that a land split was in process to accomplish this.
In response to a question from Chairman Hanford, Counsel siemsen
said that it would be proper for the Commission to a:t cm, the zoning
proposal at this time --that action would not be denying the apfj`icant
judicial due process.
The hearing was closed(843) and motion made by Con -ME
T:er Gilberts
seconded by Co:amissioner ThQbach; to recommend denial of this
be in conformity with the General
rezoning proposal finding it not to
Plan: and finding further that this 43 acres Is far too vast to be ,
zoned C-2�
.t ALES
Commissioners Gilbert, Smith, Thebach, Watters and chairman
Hanford.
No S• Commissioner Camenzind.
ABS Commissioners Le Clerc, Moore and Watson.
Motion carried.
A report of this matter will be made to the Boar- c^. September 14. 'r
0 0
76-1566 REPORT ON DENIED REZO NI NG S BY PLANNING CO MMIS.iCi N
Deports wo, filed by Planning Commissior. on the following denied
rezon Ings; -
1. Robert J. Dubose -Planning 4,)mmission report of denied rezoning from
115A11 (suburban -residential) to "C-2" (general commercial) property located on the
southwest side of State Hwy. 32, approximately 1/4 mile southeast of 4indo Channel, Chico.
Jahn D. Crispin, et al -Planning Comrtli�sion retort of denied rezoning from "A-2
(eric".00cn� H, (toenicr high -Way) to "C-'2" (gone ral�`Zoc'ntrier ��al) for property located an the
southwest corner of State Highway 70 and Orrviils-Concow Road, identified as AP 58r-19444,
AP 58-21,04, AP 58-211-78, and a portion of,AP 56-26-10, 17 miles north of Oroville,
containing 43 acres, more'or les,.
3. James and Peggy Sorrell -Planning Commission report of denied rezoning
from "iii" (sirigW-family res1doritial) to 1-1 A&C" (single-fomily residential orfs and
crafts) prrspexty loca;teed m-4 the twthwest corner of East First Aveenue and Torraos Drive,
400 Net vet of Mion a WWtly, CM100.
Board of Supervisort Minutes Jeptember 14, 197E
IM
11
K
oift ally P1AhAve coy.
y•`11 A W4 • ♦• 11«�#?1 1 `t'tx.e •'1 Y ♦,?: I'�� �,� �ti�
AY 1 IM
TO: Mike McEnespy# Dept. of Public Works orsOVILI F PAI rw.
r... w...«....«w.°..... _,..... .. «..t.._...__ ».... «... ., . .. .- ... ,� . .. ... ... .. ,. - _ _
*rn: AP 58-0-144 & �140 (Roxtexc+nl xund A�'� S8,2:L-04. 4 78
:�r.,c"nTP".loll IN ` Rezone from A2,jCenteaxm:0 azo
t° C-2 , c nc raZ� Cans raid for 2 ?ae? a lx... A .4
Onrtthewant �side of _State _fit, 7
Coziaow Rd. . approximately .3 .mil®e, not ,of the W, UrAnch Bridgmi.._
Ar'; .7O�M D. CRISPIN, ., RT.=Lr " SCH0TTj--,..0n4 MVYP. T �_...,... .,. ,
P. Q. Box 386„► Pa►radis+et C 95969
same
I \A 1 l
Be.fore Commission scheduling
,��,...,: , ., F, �• 4A9, 75
`,s "� M�'e. �.2.+C+r4`� 1'y►?►w, ►.. f..t3•`-� "w is j1kj;,44r tivw+1 1"\• itt,.
�1tA
•..: 3-+ t r' C ;V,.4 , ;r 1 �d �:, , ..,x. f.,,. , ti._ t,.� .�1„ 4 ��;`�► t�. IAA%.. ,.«
1
r, rIMP +E?7'l�F +"��»i�'.C�'4 .1;.�7 t!x'�+ ..'��.:
TO: Ken Miakelaom, Sheriff's Dept,
itr."�T.12':.'? nf,yr + •,; a1•.� `'ctiF' 'a�t >
AP *10, AP 58-19-144 & 1.40 (portion) and AP 58-21.-04 x 78
nF.3,,(nnr,n( ,i t;' f !'�'a7T'( "': Reims from A.-2 (GoTi nra l) and S -H (Scania-
yywa) o C�=2 (General Commercial) for 42 acton, more or loss.
1'14 ! ATI"C%I s On the west aide of Staten Hwy 70 at it`s intersection with
Concowr Me �axpproxiaatel y 3 mile, noth of the Wo Brunch Bridge.
ri. JOWI D. CHISPT , RUDOLF SGHOTT, and flAVXD LOROY
A"jtj'IrS :: P. G. Dox 386, Paradise, CA 95960
OWNER. . same
�i?��'.L '../F`I�3y Ax _�. ...L» .�:6 .u°t•a t..a ...,,. s1/ J.�j I:,l
b
?��` •s ar ryr w .� •,+ , ti, ti• , n6 �''o ei
17
May 12, 1975
aohh D. Crispin, Rudolf Schott,
and David LeRoy
P. 0. Box 386
�'r»t°.l erat�n
s
:ht the regular meetincr n,x the 'sntte Oount v : » vd,-onrrtet, cal Review
�'hrlRitt:ee wal c this •,* :.i.r.r, your appiicati,)n For a rezone froze
A--2 an,! S --H to (!-7 fr,- Al 'or�!S, more or ia,�aa, located an the w sile
r* State Xwy 7" at i" -'s intersection wit. �-'r c.ow PA., approx. 3
"il.ns north of th,�% !-1. r�-ti� e7h� TIrirleTe, war, A,'rr�r"inott * toryy�«a"Ve a�sleini-�
'j or -k t ef=fect. on 1 fr1 R.�rp •�:, •���':l�il ,ti�!, an ri"1tr.3. ~•��ill�'.:F L.r�� ..I.Aia�'�l.iV4 w(L�� �f iwL
ti Ct?riLliz'r+c . Yr3`z !7l'+s;' 3 "� a Cori fir rl e� p} ;tea [ -r t::ln ritt Ce I `i
•t�'�+"� .mtnati.r"n ti.^ t}`-, Nanning irorraission °'.i.}'' -N fi rtot.:n (I-)
#'f no written nrot:—i., timeiy fiieA, xtn t rrt *ai11 bj in order.
T%a enclo8e.� infor~ration sheets outline the contents PT,?s for
Your nssstar.ce in °?repay rtq the information *rh c'i !*-int t- a+z°Nt.fitted
along with the fee of $100.00 baefora thewria.t�,n. 'yon
copies of t' -is infor:nattr�n are require .,- A.t, ; .. �~z
ilitiAl '?'«a .� i� rr' icu -,704 'O)e i�1'4`C"�"'�. r�e "`2 C �" "1t�Jc'i C)'` 4.1je
r1raft 1'"Irt if rOlt% of �;�,�f�ax�nr thr rTP e��ee�.
llnul� 'Pot, hrVp .itr ;n,�owkir)+�e�, x���lx'ai"'t{Y fiY►i'S �?��i,'i+� -� ',��' "�n"�
frr%,
P'vTPTCV A.
PAL4/lztrl
cot Hoalth Dept
Public Forks Pgni-.
Air Quality Ancr Ater
Sheriff's D&pt.
me .
car......._.�
0
Joli 1 h. Crispin, Ru:lolf Schott,
and David LeRoy
I', 0. Box Inc
Rar4A..iset f,h a,",nr-
Re: i ezonn (75-76)
i
September In, 1°9"15)
At the reqular meetinct o4l the Butte
Corini.t:tee held September 8, 1971, it
nation you submitted was inadecxuate
1,n,pact Report.
county rnvirinmental Peview
was 4e tormineA that tYhe in for-
to ,.. rcparn an Fnvironment al
?g notee in state law, and our tw.ld+un.,rju tht-a eata to hn
"omitted twat ba in eralt Lnvirontnental 7rn pact Report form, not
rn outline. Draft F'nvi.ronmont:al ". n' -crt!s arc, -Avail.al,ln at
CI_tv, County, and college librariae for vni-ir rq.view, as well as
thin office. Secondly# the data subanitted was not comnlAte or
detailed in it's exnlanation of the reasons for said activity a4d
it's impact.
If you require help, there are a numbor of enc?ineorinet 41firms in
tbn County that have experience at: draft Environmental Impact: Re—
port writinq, as well as an anvi.ronmental z onsatit,ing firm. in
Chico. if we can he of any assistance, plelase contact this office.
sincerely,
PATRICX A. MCACNRI"t
1'hmirtol4ltl' ITAL x"00113TNATCR
13y_ _..._.....� _ � .-
y iiv 'ir,wlacr s : f,? , _
H•U:
Inter-DepartQ, �emorandum
.r
Toa Environmental Coordinator
FAOM: Environmental Review Committee
SUBJECT, Crispin, Schott, & LeRoy Rezone
DATIE: Oct. 27, 1575
At the regular meeting of the Put-te Co. Environmental ReO.ew Com-
t
mittee held this morning the inform&ion submitted toward prepara-
tion of a draft E.I.R. on rezone Ercm A-2 & S -H to C-2 for 42 acres,
more or less, located on W side of Hwy 70 at Concow Rd. Intersection,
approx. 3 miles ;north of W. Branch BrI dg'e, Project No. 75--76, was
accepted. The information is now turned over }'+ you fu -c t - *0.1
...
of the E.I.R. We anticipat,.: review.
00, Ip
Ab
inter -Depart, Memorandum
7e: File
FROM: M. Dodson, Clerk
SUBJECT: Draft EIR Distribution.
DATE: Feb. 6, 1976,
A copy of the draft $SR with a yorm letter attached requesting
review & comments was sOnt to the following:
1. State Clearinghouse
2. dalif. Dept. of Fish & Came
3. Calif. Div. of Forestry
4. Lassen National, Forest
3. Golders Feather Unified School Pi-st.
6. CallE, State U., Chico, Anthropology Dept. (2)
Draft. EIRs were also saint to the following
1. Chico City t1ibrary (2 )
2. Calif. State U., Chico Library (2)
3. Butte College Library (2)
4. Butte Co. Library, Main Branch for distribution (9)