HomeMy WebLinkAboutUP 96-13PROJECT SUMMARY SHE
FILE #: UP 96-13 PROJECT TYPE: USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: BRAD FLESHMAN
ADDRESS: - P.O.BOX 4075, CHICO, CA 95927
OWNER: SAME
ADDRESS: SAME
REPRESENTATIVE: NONE
ADDRESS:
:� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LANDSCAPE MAINTENCE COMPANY
PROPERTY ZONED: A / R LOCATED: AT THE END OF GUILL STREET (NORTH END)
AP#:>,065-370-009 TOWN/AREA: CHICO
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY
q
1. Application complete: JANUARY 18, 1996 Amount: S 1258.00 Receipt #: 15183
2. Comments sent to: EH/SHERIFF/LAFCo/DSD/PLANNING MANAGER/PW// CITY OF CHICO/ AG COMM/CDF/
3. Comments received from:
4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked:
5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet:
6. . Assigned To
7. Environmental Determination:
State Clearinghouse No: atcgorical Exemption-CEQA# PeC nn!"M Dkpartment
Negative Declaration
Mitigation Negative Declaration MAY 0 1 1996
Subject to Fish & Game: Environmental Impact Report
Gen. Rule Ex. -CEQA # 15061.(bx3) Orovjlle) ;soh Urrila
Other
8.
Staff Report:
Project Video:
9.
Clearinghouse circulation required:
Yes No Date Sent to SCH:
10.
Publication Notice Written:
Display Ad Prepared:
11.
Notices Mailed:
Number of Notices:
00
12.
Newspaper Publication Date:
g(UP
G B R
13.Planning
Commission Hearing(s):
�o'
Action taken:Lir,.?It
Special Conditions:
Commission Resolution No.
14. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s):
0
Action taken:
Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Adopted:
15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature:
16. N.O.E.1/ N.O.D. / APPENDIX G: Fish & Game Fees Paid Yes No
17. Send validated Use Permit:
18. Assessor's Memo:
19. Copy of Use Permit / Variance to Planning Technician:
7
A. Brad Fleshman - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts
and Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned
A -R (Agricultural Residential) located 'approximately 200+ feet north of Guill
Street/Ohio Street intersection, identified as AP 005-370-009 and 032, in the Chico
area. (SH) (File UP96-13) (Continued open from November 14, 1996)
Commissioner Lynch -shared with the other Commissioners a quote from the
which was relevant to this item.
Sacramento Bee
Stephen Hackney recommended the deletion of Condition 2, requiring an easement for a bike and
pedestrian path, which in his opinion and that of County Counsel could be considered a "taking"
unless the applicant wishes to voluntarily provide such an easement. The subject may be moot
if the project is approved with a sunset clause with the intent of having the commercial 'use
removed from the area. The 24 months time limit suggested in Condition 4 could be modified.
Co`rrimissiorier'Nelsori asked? if nothing moves forward'on the Chapman/MulberryPlan within 24
months, would the applicant have to reapply fora Use'Permit?`
Commissioner Lynch suggested that wording be included on Condition 4 to allow the applicant
to apply for an extension without additional fees..
Mr. Hackney said Condition 4 includes wording to allow for an extension.
Chairman Seegert suggested a 5 year time limit unless the Chapman/Mulberry Plan is
implemented sooner, since that is what the. applicant requested. He asked if there is authority
within the Plan to actually help the applicant move locations, or is it just a nice concept.
Mr. Hackney said he was informed by one Supervisor that there is $2 million available in
Redevelopment Agency funds for such items as purchases, dependent upon approval by the City
of Chico.
Commissioner Lambert asked if street improvements currently being made are coming from.the
redevelopment funds. She wanted to know if the Chapman/Mulberry Plan is actually being
implemented.
Mr. Hackney did not know if redevelopment funds were being spent for street improvements. He
noted that at this point the Plan is actually a report which is yet to be included in the updated
General Plan.
Commissioner Nelson said the Fedevelopment funds are to be used by the City and County, but
the City is the lead agency.
- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES'- December..12 1996_... _
Professional Landscape & ;malntanz o
P.O. Box 4075
Chic, Ca'ifoi,iia 95927
7 d" ��
LUSH,
r
Brad Fleshman said he did not want to stand in the way of a bike path and new General Plan and
would relocate his business if necessary, but is not willing to grant an easement -for a bike path
at this time, since it would impact his business and possibly devalue the property. If the City and
County are willing to help him relocate his business and possibly purchase his property, that would
be fine with him. A 5 year sunset clause is acceptable.
Commissioner Lynch said that Condition 2 would be deleted and the sunset clause could be
changed to 5 years.
Mr. Fleshman said that would be fine. Twenty-four months would be insufficient. He is already
looking for another location for his business.
Commissioner Cage asked if the access is impacted by flooding, and does the applicant plan to
continue in his occupation? ,
Mr. Fleshman said there is no problem with flooding on his access, and he does plan to continue
in the landscaping business.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
It was moved by Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and carried
unanimously, for approval of the Use Permit for Brad Fleshman, on AP 005-370-009 and 032,
pursuant to the Agenda Report dated November 6, 1996, with the following changes to the
findings and conditions: Section 2, in Paragraph B,' change "will not" to "may", in Paragraph C,
change "will not be, nor has been" to "may be", and in Paragraph D, change "will not be, nor has
been" to "may be" and in Paragraph E, change "will not be, nor has been" to "may be," deleting
Condition 2, and changing Condition 4 from "24 months" to "5 years."
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage
to fish, wildlife, or their habitat and a de minimus exemption to the collection of Department
of Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C.' The Planning, Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the
proposed Negative Declarationprior to making its decision on the project, and the
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
~ - ----PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - -December 12 1996
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in
the Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE;
and
B. The proposed use of the property may impair the integrity and character of the zoning
district in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this
site for approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with
no identifiable adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property may be injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property may be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property may be detrimental to the general health, welfare and
safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the Use Permit
approved for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a- landscape
maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site
Plan) attached hereto and made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in
Sections 1 and 2 of this Permit and the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions
1. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for
approval by the Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a
minimum of 5% .of gross lot area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development
Services, clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant
selected native species where needed to create natural state conditions and good
aesthetics. Maintain a stream bank setback of 50 ` clear of any new additional structures.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 5 years at the end of which time it
shall expire (unless the approving authority has held 'a hearing thereon and granted an
extension). In connection with such an extension the approving authority may add,
change, or delete condition.
—PL;ANNING�COMMISSION=MINUTES December -:12 1996 �-
r
4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of- the Zoning
�. Ordinance and all other applicable State and County laws and regialations in effect at the
time of building permit application.
5. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will
be required).
6.` In lieu,of hydrant installation; payment may be made into the Cal -Water, hydrant fund at:a,
cost of $1,.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20'.
7. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound
fire apparatus -at least. 10 feet wide with a 15 foot.vertical clearance.
Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Director of Development Services upon
receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant. Prior to such approval, verification
shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the
application, fees paid and' environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes
deemed to be major or significant in nature shall require a formal application for amendment.
M
.pLING._COMISSION,,MINUTES._-_December 12. 1996.-
. _ - ,
A. Brad Fleshman - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Use Permit to
operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned A -R (Agricultural Residential) located _ --
approximately 200+ feet north of Guill Street/Ohio Street intersection, identified as AP 005-370-009 and
032, in the Chico area. (SH) (File UP96-13) (Continued open from October 10, 1996)
Mr. Hackney said that fmdings have been provided for either approval or denial of the Use Permit. He noted that
Condition 4 allows for a sunset clause of a certain number of months.
Commissioner Lynch suggested if a time limit is placed on the Use Permit, the wording of the Zoning Ordinance
Findings should be changed from "will not" to "may" in order to justify the time restriction.
Commissioner Nelson said if the Findings say "may" the Use Permit should not really be approved.
Commissioner Seegert asked how normally bike path easements are obtained.
Commissioner Nelson said that easements are obtained at times like this -- with a change of ownership or a map filed
or a Use Permit granted.
Mr. Sanders said easements can also be purchased.
Mr. Hackney said that the applicant is not present, and has not seen the Agenda Report.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Barbara Roberts, attorney for the applicant, said neither she nor the applicant has seen the revised Agenda Report.
Apparently the impact which the Chapman/Mulberry Report will have on this property is the proposed bike path
across the middle of one of the parcels. Ms. Roberts was in favor of granting a conditional Use Permit, with the
goal of eventually finding a new location for the business and the goal of having a bike path through the property.
She said that requiring the granting of the bike path easement might be a "taking." The County should purchase the
easement or the property. She suggested allowing the applicant to continue his landscaping business, eventually to
be relocated and have the bike path built, but not to require him to grant the bike path easement now while he is
conducting business. She asked if the easement would have to be granted immediately, or if and when the
improvement district is implemented.
Commissioner Lambert said the easement would be required prior to issuance of the Use Permit.
Ms. Roberts said it is not reasonable to have a bike path going through a business when.the rest of the improvement
plan has not been implemented.
Commissioner Nelson said the granting of the easement would not mean the bike path would be immediately built.
Ms. Roberts suggested granting the Use Permit with a sunset clause of 5 to 7 years, or alternatively, when'the
improvement plan is put into effect, be it two years or ten years. The goals should be to work together to find a new ;
'� _M BUTTE ,COUNTY -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 14,, 1996 ____�
location for the business and to eventually develop the bike path. Implementation of the improvement plan should
mean when his property is effected, at such time as the bike path is connected at both ends.
Commissioner Lambert said that funding was available to purchase another property in the Chapman/Mulberry area.
She suggested continuing the item for six months to see what can be worked out with buying the property and
helping the applicant to relocate, and allowing the applicant to continue in business in the meantime.
Ms. Roberts said if the improvement plan will be implemented soon, meaning completion of the bike path, then six
months would be reasonable, but if the plan will not be implemented for 5 or 10 years, it is not reasonable to force
the applicant out of business or force him to find a new location in six months.
Commissioner Lambert was interested in finding out if redevelopment funds would be available for this property.
Mr. Farrel said this parcel is not designated for public acquisition by the Chapman/Mulberry Report. Another parcel
was purchased by the City of Chico for an addition to the park. Any prospects of public acquisition of the property
should not be a reason for -granting Use Permit with a limited time. That would be clearly depressing the price in
anticipation of a public buy out. The reason for limiting the time of the Use Permit should be based on adverse
impacts such as traffic.
Commissioner Lambert was in favor of neither approval or denial, but rather allowing the operation to continue and
see if a resolution can be reached.
Mr. Farrel said that if the Use Permit is seen to have adverse impacts, a time limit would serve notice to the applicant
not to invest further in his business on the property, and he could make decisions on his own as to relocation.
Commissioner Lambert wanted to know if implementation of the Chapman/Mulberry Plan had any basis on other
properties in the area which have been relocated.
Ms. Roberts said the applicant is willing to work with the various agencies over a period of 5 years or sooner, if the
Plan is implemented, to relocate his business. Ms. Roberts could not speak for Mr. Fleshman if he would agree to
the 15' wide easement, or if he would consider that a "taking" with no compensation. The location of the easement
would be significant whether it is in the middle of his property or along the property line..
Mr. Farrel said the best location should be worked out between the applicant and the County, and could be on either.
Parcel 32 or 9.
Ms. Roberts said it would be much more workable if the easement could be on the parcel without the house. She
requested the Use Permit have a sunset clause of 5 years or implementation of the Plan (the bike path), whichever
comes first.
Chairman Seegert suggested that the easement not be implemented until the bike path is ready for completion.
Commissioner Nelson said the point of the easement is to leave the area free of building.
Mr. Sanders said once the easement is granted, the applicant no longer has control of it. If the easement is required,
the applicant should be assured the bike path will not be built as long as he is operating his business on the property.
Commissioner Lambert said if the Use Permit is granted with conditions, there would be no room for further
negotiations of relocation.
_ _ ... _ BUTTE _COUNTY. PLANNING_COMMISSION .MINUTES_ -y Nbvember 14, 1996_ c
Mr. Farrel said that bike path easements are regularly acquired by public agencies based on a Plan, however there
can be an issue of proportionality -- is the requirement reasonable to the scale of what is requested. Requiring an
easement for a Use Permit with a two year limitation might be considered excessive. Until there is a bridge
constructed across Little Chico Creek, the connection of the bike path to Guill Street cannot be completed. The
bridge is not yet funded, and construction of the bridge would be determined by the County. He would encourage
the Commission to "feel easy" about acquiring the easement, but the length of use of the Use Permit should be
addressed in relation to the easement.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Cage was in favor of the Use Permit for 24 months, with the location of the 15' easement to be
worked out between the applicant and the County.
Commissioner Lambert said there are other concerns such as traffic, narrow streets, children playing in the streets,
neighborhood character, and the improvement plan. She said she could not make the findings for approval stating
"will not be, nor has been detrimental" and that there is no impact on the integrity and character of the zoning
district, when there is an improvement plan in place which indicates the desire for a residential community with the
possibility of redevelopment funding and working with the applicant, who is absent. She was in favor of continuing
the item for six months to see what can be worked out to everybody's satisfaction.
Commissioner Nelson said he did not see the Chapman/Mulberry Plan being implemented within five years. He did
not think a small lawn maintenance business has a big impact on this neighborhood. Until there is implementation of
the Plan he does not have a problem with the Use Permit.
Commissioner Lambert said that Supervisor Dolan had indicated that the Board of Supervisors had accepted the Plan
and some redevelopment funding has been approved by the Board of Supervisors, including funding for street
improvements.
Mr. Hackney said the Board of Supervisors accepted the Chapman/Mulberry Report in 1992 and a modification in
1994, and directed the Department of Development Services to incorporate the Report in the new General Plan,
which is being done as part of the Land Use Element. Mr. Hackney said there are two issues to consider: are there
significant impacts on the environment due to the use and is there a conflict with the General Plan and Zone?
Commissioner Cage noted neither the applicant nor the attorney have seen the new Agenda Report and said she was.
in favor of a six month continuance.
Commissioner Nelson was in favor of approval with a five year time limit, until such time as the Plan is implemented
with some provisions for relocation of the applicant. The easement needs to be acquired.
r Mr. Hackney said the applicant's attorney did bring up the issue of takings. He suggested working withthe applicant
and finding out what he would be amenable to, and the condition might become a non -issue. i
suggested the applicant be allowed to continue in operation, and within six months f
Commissioner Lambert sub pp p ,
something might be resolved between the agencies and the applicant, and things worked out to everyone's best t�
-interest, which would be better than approval or denial at this time.
Chairman Seegert was not to prepared to vote since the applicant was absent.
Mr. Farrel said a continuance of six months is not an option since the Permit Streamlining Act requires action to be
taken within six months on a negative declaration.
_BUTTE -COUNTY -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November.14,�_1996
Commissioner Lynch said that the request would be approved automatically if continued for six months.
Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Roberts what the applicant wants.
Ms. Roberts said the applicant wants a five year permit with a sunset clause that if the Plan is implemented prior to
that time, and the bike path is going to developed, there would be a shorter time period. The condition requiring the
easement for a bike path would be a less reasonable condition on a six month or two year permit than for a five or ten
year permit. What the applicant is being asked to give up has to be in relation to what he is being given. A 15'
easement for a two year permit would severely impact the value of his property.
Commissioner Nelson said a 15' easement is only to keep buildings from being built in that space.
Ms. Roberts said the impact is much greater than not being allowed to build or plant on that strip, since the public
would be allowed to cross the property. The 15' is not the issue, but the fact that people would be allowed to use that
strip. Ms. Roberts said she could not be sure the applicant would agree to the easement for a.six month or two years
use, but he would probably be more likely to agree to the easement for 5 years, 10 years or a sunset period.
Mr. Sanders suggested continuing the item until the applicant can be present.
Commissioner Lynch agreed that acquiring a 15' easement is not directly related to the Use Permit and use of the
property. There have been numerous court cases where that was considered a taking. An easement should be
purchased or negotiated for.
Mr. Farrel said the California Coastal Commission has required thousands of easements on the basis of Use Permits.
Commissioner Lynch said the California Coastal Commission operates under a different set of laws.
Mr. Farrel said that easements for bike ways are regularly required by Cities and Counties where there is an adopted
Plan for a bikeway. It is no different than easements for roadways. This location is a de facto cul-de-sac. Down the
street the parcels front on Guill Street and'have setbacks. People ride their bikes and walk down the shoulders of the
road. The situation is no different. Guill Street.would be connected for pedesterian passage to the other side of the
creek. The easement would allow a public access route across a piece of the property. If it can be designed so
people can pass so as to not adversely affect the business or residential use by locating the easement on either side of
the property, that would resolve the impact. These kinds of dedications are routinely requested as part of Use
Permits routinely allover the country.
Commissioner Lambert asked how having an adopted Plan relates to acquiring easements, and is the
Chapman/Mulberry Report considered an adopted Plan? She said she considers it an adopted plan.
Mr. Farrel said if the Chapman/Mulberry Report is not considered an adopted Plan, then other restrictions should not
be applied about getting commercial uses out of the neighborhood, since that concept is only found in the Plan. If it
is not considered an adopted Plan, only the conditions of the Zoning Ordinance should be applied. Mr. Farrel said
he considers it an adopted Plan and one of the requirements of the Plan is a bike path.
Chairman Seegert said he understands that the Plan is adopted, but without legal basis until it is part of the General
Plan.
Mr. Farrel said the Plan was accepted, but not adopted in public hearing, did not come before the Planning
Commission and does not have the force of law.
._BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING -COMMISSION MINUTES- -November. 14, .19.9.6 _ _
Commissioner Lynch said the critical issue is that the Plan does not have the force of law at the present time. He
suggested, that since the item cannot be continued for six months, the wording of the findings should be changed on d
"B" from "will not" to "may" and on Items C, D, and E from "will not be, nor has been' to "may be," in order to
justify a limited time on the Use Permit. He suggested a time period between two and five years. If an easement is
required, it should go along an exterior property line.
Chairman Seegert said the location of the easement should be worked out with the applicant.
Mr. Farrel suggested adding to Condition 2, "and at a location acceptable to the property owner."
Ms. Roberts said the applicant would be back in town on Monday.
Commissioner Nelson said if the findings are changed to say there may be an impact, the impacts need to be
mitigated.
Mr. Sanders said the findings can be different because of the existing nonconforming use that has existed on the
property, or the impacts can be mitigated.
Commissioner Lynch said the restrictions of a time frame should be justified. Other nonconforming uses have been
allowed without a time frame.
Mr. Sanders said the findings could say that the project "does not now have, but could in the future (have impacts
and be detrimental) due to the Chapman/Mulberry Plan and implementation of the bike path and other items, and as
such should be limited."
Commissioner'Lynch asked how much of the bike path, aside from the established streets, actually exists.
Mr. Hackney said none of the bike path exists in Chapmantown, but does across Little Chico Creek.
Mr. Sanders saidthe property to the south has been acquired by thetity and the bike path could be put in at any
time.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously, to continue
OPEN this item to December 12, 1996, at 9:00 a.m.
BUTTE COUNTY -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November _14., 1996_ _ _
0 0
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
BY: Stephen Hackney, Associate Planner
DATE: November 6, 1996
REQUEST: Use Permit on APN 005-370-009 032 for Brad Fleshman - Applicant, File #UP 96-13:
This is a request for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company located
at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+ feet north of Guill St./Ohio
St. intersection, in the Chico area. This project is located in the Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement boundary. The two parcels of land total 0.77 acre and are zoned AR
(Agricultural Residential), in the Chico area. The site is located in Supervisorial District 2.
FOR: Supplemental Report for Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 1996
SUMMARY: The application for a Use Permit is a request for a commercial operation in an area zoned
for residential use. The Planning Commission considered the request in public hearing on October 10,
1996 then continued the hearing in order to obtain additional information. This supplemental staff report
responds to the Commission's request and also presents alternative actions.
REVIEW OF NONCONFORMING STATUS AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES: The proposed commercial
use of this site is not consistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning and the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential. Were it to be proposed today, without a prior history of
commercial use on the site, it could not be properly approved because of these inconsistencies. However,
the site has a history of commercial use as a storage and office site for an asphalt business, dating back
to approximately 1960. This activity was apparently maintained continuously until about 1990 when the
current use was established. In response to a zoning violation complaint, the Development Services
Department conducted a lengthy inquiry into the history of the prior use, and sought information from the
applicant to support his contention that the earlier use constituted a legal non -conforming use. The staff
investigation concluded that the information submitted was reasonably sufficient to demonstrate that there
was a prior commercial use, which was established and maintained over time and had constituted a legal
non -conforming use. The applicant however, initiated the current landscaping business, which is a change
from the previous legal non conforming use without first obtaining the required conditional Use Permit.
In this regard, the applicant proceeded contrary to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In order to
correct this situation, he was informed by staff to either cease the use, or apply for a conditional Use
Permit, to retroactively achieve compliance with the code. The Commission should note that while the
County has in the past issued retroactive use permits, there is no legal necessity for doing so.
If the Commission accepts that there was a previous legal nonconforming use, and that a use permit can
be retroactively approved to authorize a change in the nonconforming use, then the Commission can
approve the use upon finding that it "will not conflict with, impair or be detrimental to the uses both
permitted and conditional of the zone in which it is located and/or adjoins", and by making the additional
findings pursuant to Section 24-45.15 of the zoning ordinance.
There exists the potential for both real and perceived impairment of permitted uses.. While staff has not
identified significant conflicts, residents may perceive these to exist, and this should be considered by the
Commission. There has been concern by at least one neighbor about traffic from the operation and the
zoning violation complaint referenced above resulted. In addition, testimony at the October 10th hearing
further explained that the narrow streets and difficult access further exacerbate traffic impacts, particularly
where larger commercial trucks are entering the area. While no noise measurements are available to
assist the Commission, it is logical to assume the truck traffic generated by the project does contribute to
some extent to increased noise in the immediate vicinity.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
1
Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. On April 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors accepted
the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report prepared by consultant Michael Corbett following a
series of intensive meetings in the community. The Board directed "the Development Services Department
to incorporate the report's proposals into the current update of the County General Plan ...." On
September 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved Minute Order 95-267, approving modifications
of a portion of the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. The Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement Report (Report) has not yet been incorporated into the updated General Plan because the
plan is still in preparation. Until the report's recommendations are formally adopted as part of the General
Plan , they do not have the force of law. The Report does have great value however, as the best available
expression of community aspirations and needs, and it clearly should be considered by the Planning
Commission with respect to neighborhood compatibility issues as they relate to this use permit request.
A copy is attached for your use.
The Report sets forth a series of neighborhood improvement goals and illustrates a number of
improvements to public facilities and amenities. Please note that on page 3, that goal #7 addresses
relocation of incompatible industrial and commercial uses out of the area, and lists several such uses. The
landscaping business which is the subject of this use permit does not appear to be among the incompatible
uses specifically listed. Other proposals of the report do call for neighborhood industrial uses to be
expanded on Humboldt Road, and a village commercial center between 16th and 20th streets. In both
cases these uses are proximate to residential areas. However, in each case the traffic circulation system
is more conducive to a harmonious relationship with nearby residential uses than are the narrow streets
serving the landscaping business under consideration. It appears the intent of the Report is to preserve
residential tranquility and safety by ensuring that commercial uses within the community (which are to
some extent sought) are located where traffic conditions are most suitable. Testimony by Supervisor
Dolan at the October 10th meeting is especially important as she participated with the community
throughout the development of the Report and has special insight into the intent of the Report's
recommendations. No one from the Development Services Department was directly involved in that
community planning effort. Written correspondence by Mrs. Young provided the Commission at the
October 10th meeting further discusses traffic issues.
The Report lists "Proposed Improvements" on page four. Item #4 is applicable to this use permit request
and is stated as follows:
4. Build a bike and pedestrian path from the intersection of East Ninth Street and Highway
99 south across Little Chico Creek to Guill Street. Continue the path from the end of Ohio
Street to the park, connecting it with one branch to Whitman Avenue and another branch
parallel to Guill Street to Chapman School.
Item #13 on page five of the Report indicates the need to clean debris, provide for replanting where
needed and develop access to Little Chico Creek. Figure 4 of the Report further explains the desired
improvements.
Both of the above items are reflected in the suggested conditions of approval should the Commission
determine to approve this request.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider the information in this supplemental
report and determine whether to approve or deny the application. Exhibit A presents findings, actions, and
conditions for project approval. Please note that the suggested conditions of approval contains a condition
that the use permit shall be for a limited duration of 24 moths unless extended by the Commission. The
Commission may want to retain or delete this condition, and should modify or supplement any of the
findings or conditions as deemed appropriate. The list of approval conditions also respond to the
improvements proposed in the Chapman -Mulberry Improvement Plan.
Exhibit B presents draft findings and action for denial. The Commission is encouraged to modify these
as deemed appropriate if denial action is taken.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
2
Attachments: A: Exhibit A - Findings and Conditions of Approval
B: Exhibit B - Findings for Denial
C. Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report
Reviewed and Approved by:
K:\PROJECTS\UPC\FLESHMAN.UP\FLESHMN2.RPT
0 Butte County Department of Dev3elopment Services 0 Planning Division 0
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at'1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish,
wildlife, or their habitat and a de minimus exemption to the collection of Department of Fish and
Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the Countyof Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE; and
B. The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district
in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this site for
approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with no identifiable
adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the general health,
welfare and safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the Use Permit approved
for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance company
located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site Plan, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this Permit and
the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions
Development Services Department:
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑
1. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval by the
Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a minimum of 5% of gross lot
area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit, deed to the County of Butte a 15' wide easement for a bicycle
and pedestrian pathway from Guill Street to the north property line at Little Chico Creek. The
location to be approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Development Services.
3. Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development Services,
clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant selected native
species where needed to create natural state conditions and good aesthetics. Maintain a stream
bank setback of 50 'clear of any new additional structures.
4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 24 months at the end of which time it shall
expire (unless the approving authority has held a hearing thereon and granted an extension). In
connection with such an extension the approving authority may add, change, or delete condition.
5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and
all other applicable State and County laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit
application.
Public Works Department:
No conditions.
Environmental Health Division:
4. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will be
required).
Butte County Fire Department:
5. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment maybe made into the Cal -Water hydrant fund at a cost of
$1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20.
6. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound fire
apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
0 Butte County Department of Dev`Jelopment Services 0 Planning Division ❑
0
L��11 i-] \ t -]
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
r:
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed Use Permit request is inconsistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning; and
B. The proposed use of the property will impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in
which the land lies because a commercial use of the property is inconsistent with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed use of the property will be incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding property.
D. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of
the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. The Planning Commission deny the application subject to the findings of fact in Sections 1 and
2 of this report.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
6
s
A. Brad Fleshman -.proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Use
Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned A -R (Agricultural
Residential) located approximately 200+ feet north of Guill Street/Ohio Street intersection,
identified as AP 005-370-009 and 032, in the Chico area. (SH) (File UP96-13)
Mr. Hackney said that the property has a history of commercial use back to approximately 1966 or 1968 as an asphalt
business. Approximately 5 years ago, the commercial use was changed to a landscape business. Mr. Fleshman
purchased the property and the business approximately one year ago. The person who changed from an asphalt
business to a landscaping business should have applied for a Use Permit because there was a change in a non-
conforming use. One could argue that the original commercial use was "grand fathered in."
Commissioner Nelson asked if the City of Chico made any comments on this application especially regarding any
easements relating to Little Chico Creek.
Mr. Hackney said the City of Chico made no comment about the creek but is opposed to the request for three reasons:
1) inconsistency with (their) General Plan, 2) traffic impacts to a residential neighborhood, and 3) the City purchased
a nearby parcel in order to remove a similar inappropriate use. Mr. Hackney said the purchased parcel was probably
the Help-U-Scape property which was a retail and wholesale operation, whereas Fleshman's operation is not.
Fleshman's employees arrive in the morning for their assignments, then leave and return in the evening.
Commissioner Lambert asked which of the parcels were used for the previous operation.
Mr. Hackney said that parcels 9 and 32 were utilized.
Chairman Seegert asked about the duration of the asphalt operation.
Mr. Hackney said the asphalt business began around 1966-68 to about 1990.
Chairman Seegert said an asphalt business would probably impact a neighborhood more than a landscaping business.
Mr. Hackney said the asphalt business would probably have had a greater traffic impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Cage asked if the uses have been detrimental to the soil.
Mr. Hackney thought a landscaping business would have less impact on the soil than other types of operations along
the creek such as lawnmower and bicycle repair and roofing operations.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Barbara Roberts, attorney for the applicant, said the landscape business has a low impact on the property, since it is
only used an hour in the morning and evening and for office work.
Brad Fleshman said he purchased the property from the previous owner with the understanding that there had been
an asphalt business on the property for many years and a landscape business would be fine to operate and in fact
have less impact on the property. He has cleaned up the property and done some fencing and put on some gravel.
He has 4 to 5 employees who park next to the fence or come to work on bicycles, load up their materials and drive
away, then return and unload their trucks and leave after work. Mr. Fleshman also uses the office at times to run his
nearby rental properties. There are the usual problems with speeding traffic on the street, although his property is at
the end of a dead-end street. He makes a point of driving slowly and having his employees drive slowly. Most of his
employees ride bicycles to work. Maintenance of equipment is done by another company off site and any waste is
collected and hauled away. Washing off the three trucks produces a minimum of chemicals. The only other vehicles
are used in case something breaks down. He uses his office to run his rental properties and for personal use.
�. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — October 10, 1996 -
•
j Commissioner Cage asked the usual hours of operation.
•
Mr. Fleshman said work begins at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to about 4:00 p.m. -- daylight hours only and only 8 hour days.
Commissioner Cage asked if Mr. Fleshman plans to put more landscaping around the property -- flowers and bushes.
Mr. Fleshman said that he does landscaping and maintenance on his own properties.
Chairman Seegert asked if the applicant was aware that the landscaping business was a non -conforming use when
he purchased the property.
Mr. Fleshman said he was not aware of that because the seller had pointed out the previous asphalt business which
had gone on for 25 years, and had said there was no problem with having a landscaping business.
Ms. Roberts said the original use was grandfathered in so the paving company did not need a Use Permit. The seller
was assured by areal estate company that the use was grand fathered in and the change from a paving business to
landscaping did not require any permits. The exchange between the buyer and seller was not done with realtors, but
the seller assured Mr. Fleshman that the real estate company had assured him that no permits were required. The
landscaping business has a much smaller impact on the property than the previous use. The parcel where the trucks
are parked is an unbuildable lot. The property is zoned Ag -Residential. The Code says that a Use Permit shall be
granted to allow a use when there will not be a detrimental impact. The use only takes place for a couple of hours a
day and there is no retail use or public coming and going. Mr. Fleshman makes sure the employees are aware of the
speed limits. The property abuts the freeway and the noise from the landscaping trucks would scarcely be noticed
above the freeway noise. The City of Chico comments are unfounded. The Use Permit process is designed for
projects which do not comply with the General Plan. Traffic is not a real issue. A couple of employees come in the
morning and leave in the afternoon and most of the employees ride bicycles or live in the neighborhood. This
operation is a totally different situation from the Help-U-Scape retail/wholesale business.
.Commissioner Nelson said that .Use Permits are not used to circumvent the General Plan. They are for possibly
controversial uses in an area.
Supervisor Jane Dolan said there is not enough information for the Planning Commission to make a decision on the
request. It is true that the landscaping use has less impact than the previous use, however it is not accurate to state
that there is not an impact on the residential area that is inconsistent with the plans for the area. The access is really
from East 9th Street, to across Bartlett, across a substandard bridge across Dead Horse Slough, to the awkward
intersection of Bartlett and Humboldt, then another awkward turn across the Bruce Street bridge, then another turn
onto Ohio and then another turn onto Guill to the business. It is unclear how many employees there are who have to
transverse the awkward residential access to and from the business. , The Planning Commission should have the
Chapman/Mulberry Improvement Plan available. The Board of Supervisors funded the plan and directed that it be the
guiding document for capital improvements and neighborhood character improvements in the area, although it has
not yet been included in the General Plan. There is a map and guiding document and a series of street improvement
plans. The Chapman/Mulberry Improvement Plan is.the document of the Chico Area Redevelopment Project to be
used to implement a $2 million capital improvement plan for the area. One thing which was done was the purchase
of the Help-U-Scape property and another 6 acre parcel to create an open play field for children.' There is also a
bicycle and pedestrian path planned in this vicinity. All this information should be considered in relation to a landscape
business which may conflict with pedestrian safety because of what is in the Plan that is being implemented by a
redevelopment agency. Guill and Bruce are streets which are complained about for excessive speed and traffic.
Although Mr. Fleshman is responsive, employees don't always pay attention to the boss. Supervisor Dolan thinks the
traffic impact is understated and she does not know why one of the lots is considered unbuildable unless it is because
of the Nitrate Action Plan. The area is intended to be residential and the widest street planned for the area will only
be 24 feet wide and very few streets are planned to have sidewalks. The area is really a residential zone which allows
chickens. The Plan is being implemented and funded and should be included in review of this project. Supervisor
Dolan suggested that if a Use Permit is granted, there should be a time limit (under five years) to allow the applicant
to find a more appropriate location so the area can be strictly residential.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — October 10, 1996
traffic impact is understated and she does not know why one of the lots is considered unbuildable unless it is because
of the Nitrate Action Plan. The area is intended to be residential and the widest street planned for the area will only
be 24 feet wide and very few streets are planned to have sidewalks. The area is really a residential zone which allows
chickens. The Plan is being implemented and funded and should be included in review of this project. Supervisor
Dolan suggested that if a Use Permit is granted, there should be a time limit (under five years) to allow the applicant
to find a more appropriate location so the area can be strictly residential.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Lambert thought that if the Use Permit is approved, there should be a time limit. She said the two
parcels together are less than an acre, and the third parcel contains the well. It seems that there should be some
merging of parcels. She does not feel the use is appropriate in a residential zone. The residential neighborhood is
like a subdivision with narrow streets.
Commissioner Nelson said he has no problem with the current landscape operation, but if there is a Plan in the works,
he could see having a Use Permit for a limited period of time. The business does not seem to be impacting the area
very much currently. It would be good to have more information about plans for the area.
Commissioner Cage shared with the Commission a letter submitted by the Youngs.
Chairman Seegert said that General Plans area an ideal and there isnot an exact spot for everything. In this case,
the commercial use has been there for quite some time and the applicant purchased the property based upon that
knowledge. Chairman Seegert felt it was wrong to expect all properties to abide by a plan that was not in effect when
the use first started. It would be wrong to set a time limit.
Commissioner Nelson said that the concept behind a non -conforming use is that eventually there is a turnover to make
it conforming. He felt the Chapman/Mulberry Plan should be considered.
Chairman Seegert said it is fine to steer the property to a residential use, but the applicant should not be the one who
is impacted. The applicant would be impacted if he has to move his business and the value of the property would
probably go down also if the use is not allowed. -
�` Commissioner Lambert said that the Commission cannot take the responsibility for a previous owner and realtor's
statements.
- Chairman Seegert said the use precedes the Zoning and General Plan.
Commissioner Lambert thought that new owners should meet new regulations.
Chairman Seegert said that the impact should be upon the City or County rather than the applicant.
Commissioner Lambert felt that a time limit would allow the applicant time to work things out.
Commissioner Nelson said he does not have a problem with the current use, but would like to know more about the
Plan for the area. With redevelopment money available there could be quite a lot done for the area such as sidewalks
and parks. He would suggest asking for an easement along Little Chico Creek for a bike path.
Commissioner Cage said that if the Use Permit is approved, there should be recommended conditions.
-. Mr. Sanders said that staff could prepare an analysis of the Chapman/Mulberry Plan and how it might affect this
property and how the use might affect implementation of the Plan and also prepare conditions, and an assessment
4 of a time limit or triggering mechanism to require removal of the use.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — October 109 1996
Mr. Sanders said that one of the neighborhood improvement goals in the Plan is to relocate incompatible commercial
and.industrial uses out of the area, specifically asphalt and scrap metal yards. The Plan also calls for a bike and
pedestrian path from the intersection of 9th Street and Highway 99 to the community park and to Chapman School
The path could potentially come through the applicant's property.
Chairman Seegert said that except for one letter there have been no comments from the neighbors. If the County
intends to relocate a business, the business should not take the total impact and there should be at least some
financial assistance in relocating.
A was moved by Commissioner -Lambe -rt -,seconded by Commissioner Cage, and carried unanimously, for continuance
of the hearing to November 14, 1996 at 9:00 a.m.
BUTTE -COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES = Octobeir-10, 1996 _ _
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
BY: Stephen Hackney, Associate Planner
DATE: July 29, 1996
E
REQUEST: Use Permit on APN 005-370-009, 032 for Brad Fleshman - Aaalicant. File #UP 96-13:
This is a request for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company located
at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+ feet north of Guill St./Ohio
St. intersection, in the Chico area. This project is located in the Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement boundary. The two parcels of land total 0.77 acre and are zoned AR
(Agricultural Residential), in the Chico area. The site is located in Supervisorial District 2.
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 1996
SUMMARY: The application for a Use Permit is a request for a commercial operation in an area zoned
for residential use. The County zoning ordinance provides for the existence of nonconforming uses such
as a commercial use in a residential zone. Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING
USE establishes the criteria when considering a use permit for a nonconforming use. Staff makes no
recommendation, but rather leaves it to the judgement of the Commission as to whether this request meets
the criteria of Section 24-35.20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: This is a use permit request to allow a commercial operation, a
landscape maintenance business, to continue to operate in an AR (Agricultural Residential) zone on two
contiguous parcels. The applicant wishes to continue to store, maintain, and service his equipment at this
site. His business is located on two parcels. Parcel 032 is developed with a detached office, residence,
detached garage and shop structure. Parcel 009 is undeveloped and is used for employee parking, and
equipment parking. In the front portion (south) of parcel 032, facing the end of Guill Street, is a single
family residence occupied by renters. The project site, located on two parcels, is level, with a few trees
on-site. Access to the site is provided by Guill Street which dead -ends at the applicant's property line. The
site is bordered by single family residences, an undeveloped parcel, and Little Chico Creek, all in an AR
zone. The site is served by well water from an adjacent parcel owned by the applicant and septic services
are provided by an on-site system on parcel 032.
ANALYSIS: This request will allow an existing nonconforming commercial operation, with structures which
include an office, garage and storage facilities, to continue to be used for a landscape maintenance
business. This business employs from 2 to 5 employees. Those employees who drive to the site park
their vehicles on the property, off of Guill Street. They arrive at approximately 8:00 am, load up the
landscape equipment into two trucks, then proceed to do their work at scheduled maintenance accounts
off-site. Approximately eight (8) hours later, they return, unload the trucks and leave. The business is
open Monday through Friday. A small number of plants and flowers are kept in the shop area to be used
as replacements and repair of areas that are maintained.
The commercial nature of this business is one of providing off-site landscaping services. There is no retail
business conducted at this site. There is no retail/customer traffic generated by this business. The work
is seasonal, with a minimal staff kept in the winter. No new structures are proposed. The facilities that
exist are sufficient for the current operation.
Equipment used in this business consists of one 1 ton truck with a dump kit, single axle; and two 3/4 ton
pickup trucks, single axle. They leave in the morning and are brought back in the evening. The employees
who arrive by personal vehicle, arrive in the morning and leave in the evening. The maximum potential
total trip ends per day amount to twelve (12). A typical urban residence is attributed ten (10) daily trip ends
per day (Institute of Traffic Engineers). Fuel for the equipment is purchased as needed, in small quantities
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
1
• 1 •
such as quart -size containers. There are no large gallon tanks on-site, nor any barrels of oil. Maintenance
of the equipment is taken off-site, e.g., the trucks are serviced by another firm. The only maintenance
performed onsite consists of occasional hosing down of the equipment.
The general nature of the land use of the area is residential. There are no additional commercial uses in
the immediate vicinity. The characteristics of the neighborhood are of homes on generally small lots.
Several blocks south of the project site, on Guill Street, is the 20th Street Park. The park, because of
organized sports' league play and nonorganized sports' uses, generates a lot of foot traffic onto Guill Street
and the neighboring streets. This foot traffic takes place on weekdays as well as on the weekends. I have
observed such foot traffic at different hours during the week and weekend. The Chapman Elementary
School is located at the southern end of Guill Street, approximately seven blocks away from the project
site. A significant number of school children, and parents, walk to and from the school from the
surrounding streets. Children on Ohio, Madison, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, California, Cleveland, and
Guill Streets will use Guill Street as a collector to go to and from Chapman Elementary School.
While the environmental documentation may not indicate a substantial or cumulatively significant impact
in these areas, the public's perception may be one that such impacts do exist. While traffic to and from
the project site may actually be fewer trip ends a day than for residential use, there is a qualitative
difference between typical residential vehicle traffic as opposed to commercial traffic resulting from this
project.
The principal purpose of an AR zone is to permit one single family dwelling per parcel. One of the two
parcels in this application, APN 005-370-032, currently has a single family dwelling -- which is rented out
to one of the applicant's employees. The second parcel, APN 005-370-009, is vacant. However, because
the parcel is only 0.47 acre in size, and is located in the Chico Nitrate Action Plan Area, the parcel is not
large enough to meet Environmental Health's one (1) acre minimum septic requirements (Environmental
Health memo, June 26, 1996; pers. comm. Mike Huerta, Supervisor, July 29, 1996).
All applications for entitlements for land use projects must "stand on two (2) legs," that is, they must stand
the scrutiny of both CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and the General Plan/Zoning Ordinance.
The CEQA evaluation of the project did not identity any significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts. Several land use compatibility issues are discussed in the environmental documentation. The
commercial use of this site is inconsistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning and the General
Plan designation of Low Density Residential. This site has had a nonconforming use on-site since the mid-
1960s, preceding the approval and adoption of the current zoning and General Plan. The history of this
site has been one of a pre-existing nonconforming commercial use. The previous nonconforming use, an
asphalt operation, was probably grandfathered in, but with the change of uses approximately five (5) years
ago, the current commercial operation represents a change in nonconformance and, therefore, requires
a Use Permit.
A primary consideration is the question 'could commercial use -- any commercial use at this site, in this
neighborhood -- impair or be detrimental to those uses permitted in the AR zone.' It may be that the
applicant's specific commercial use, a landscape maintenance company, may have few actual impacts
on the community. The previous commercial use, an asphalt company which was 'grand fathered' in, may
have had more impacts on the community. If the commercial use should change in the future, what
potential impacts will that new use have on the residents of this area? The central question remains:
should a commercial use be permitted in the AR zone, and specifically, in this residential neighborhood?
Is it a proper use?
While the current use is nonconforming with the current zoning and General Plan designation, the central
question is whether the continued nonconforming use of these two parcels conflicts, impairs or is
detrimental to the uses both permitted and conditional of the zone in which it is located. From a qualitative
perspective, there always exists the potential for perceived impairment of permitted uses. There is no data
related to this application, traffic or noise analysis studies, increased dust, water quality impacts, or any
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
2
other measurable impacts as a result of the applicant's commercial use of the property, upon which to
measure quantitatively any conflicts.
There are policy implications related to approving or denying this application. The Zoning Ordinance,
Section 24-35.20 makes provision for allowing nonconforming uses providing the Planning Commission
finds that the nonconforming use "will not conflict with, impair or be detrimental to the uses both permitted
and conditional of the zone in which it is located and/or adjoins." Whether or not the continued
commercial operation of this applicant meets these criteria is subject to interpretation. Staff has attached
alternatives findings.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such, is subject to the requirements of CEQA. An
initial study has been prepared by county staff. Based upon the review of the initial study, staff has
determined that no potentially significant environmental impacts exist with this project.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and
held. Advertisement of the public hearing has been published in the Chico Enterprise Record and public
notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff makes no recommendation to the Planning Commission on the Use Permit
for Brad Fleshman, File No. 96-13 on APNs 005-370-009,032.
Attachments: A: Exhibit A
B: Project and Surrounding Area
C: Site Plan
Reviewed and Approved by:
rr
William 6hl
Director of Development Services
k:\projects\upc\fleshman.up\fleshmanrpt
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
3
•
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
•
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
Findings For Approval:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish
or wildlife or their habitat and a de minimus exemption to the collection of Department of Fish and
Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request is, a Use Permit for a nonconforming use, is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE; and
B. The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district
in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this site for
approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with no identifiable
adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the general health,
welfare and safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this Permit and the conditions below, a
Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the Use Permit approved
for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance company
located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico area.
Findings For Denial:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
4
B. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed Use Permit request is inconsistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning; and
B. The proposed use of the property will impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in
which the land lies because a commercial use of the property is inconsistent with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed use of the property will be incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding property.
D. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of
the County.
Section $: Action.
A. The Planning Commission deny the application subject to the findings of fact in Sections 1 and 2
of this report.
0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
5
Vicinity Map
st
UP 96-13
APN 005-370-009, 032
FLES.HMAN
-1
hico
E�D
3-
stake
i
City of Chico
a10 St
nna��o^
m
A -R
.niircowsi- St
V%
Location
City of Chico
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant: Brad Fleshman Owner: Same A I
Hearing Date:October 10, 1996 @ 9:00 a.m. Existing Zone: A -R (Agricultural Residential) A
Request: Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company. No Scale
s
Assessor Parcel No: 005-370009, 032 File: 96-13
f
planfiln9 6
9
DEPARTM&NT OF DEVELOPMI�gT SERVICES
BUTTLOCOUNTY UNIFORM APPWATION
APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on other side:
APPLICANT'S NAME If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
.370 -P9 — 0610
ADDRESS: CITY. STATE & ZIP CODE: 0ii-11W.UMB
/ff /Jay ek4e�e' r'T-
NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any) TELEPHONE
( Y16 ) 373--F& &P
LOCATION OF PROJECT Major cross streets and Address. if any
.1139 co C'. -y 9�p-? As
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
•GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t
OWNBUSNAME TELEPHONE
'6
CITY. STATE & ZIP CODE.
ADDRESS:
............
ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND U SITE SIZE in Square Feet or Acres)
\101A� '17
EXISTING SMUCrURES in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet)
(Check One)
(Check One)
[3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED [3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER
1-3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC [3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER
ATION REQUESTED
APPLIC
C3 GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT [3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
[3 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
[3 REZONE
"Nr
0-/U' SE PERMIT planning Department C3 WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP
E3 MINOR USE PERMIT E3 MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN
--- JAN 18 1996
E3 VARIANCE C3 BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION
[3 MINORVARIANCE orovi!ie, C-�al�;C-Ynia E3 LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION
[3 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT 13 CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
[3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT E3 OTHER
"'Y
X DESCRIMON
PROJECT
FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets)
OWNER
CERTIFICATION
FILING OF
I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER- I ACKNOWLEDGE THE
THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE -
us
(if an agent is to be authorized, execute the affidavit of authorization on the reverse side
SIGNATURE:
ti
DATE:
aux
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
To Butte County, Department of Development Services;
Print Name of Agent and Phone Number
Mailing Address
is hereby`authorized to process this application for
on my property, identified as Butte -County Assesors Parcel Number
. This authorization allows representation for all applications, .
hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but
not including document(s) relating to record title interest.
Owner(s) of Record: '(Sign and Print Name)
- &,,.r �7
Print Name
SignatureG
Architect and/or Engineer:
Print Name of kehitect/Engineer and Phone Number
Mailino Address
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Print Name
Signature
Verify: Date received Total amount received
AP Number(s) Legal Description
Owners Authorization Zoning requirements
:. Project Description Copies of plot plan
- Taken by Receipt No. EH LD Plan
Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion
of a deposit will be returned upon final action).
Current fee for this application is $ as of
1po� Professional Landscape Maintenance
P.O. Box 4075 • Chico, -CA 95927
NOVEMBER 24, 1995
CRAIG SANDERS
.DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE, CA 95965.
RE: USE.PERMIT .TO OPERATE P.L.M. LAMDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AT
1139 QUILL ST. CHICO, CA 95926
DEAR MR. SANDERS,
AS PER OUR CONVERSATION ON 11-13-95, I AM WRITTING YODUAS
REQUESTED. ENCLOSED ARE THE REQUESTED MATERIALS AND OTHER
I ETTERS'ON THE SPECIFICE USE OF P.L.M.• LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
OPERATION AT 1139 GUILL ST. CyHICO, CA.: AGAIN,.WE ARE A MIMIMUM
MAINTEANCE COMPANY, WE.HAVE NOW NO.CURRENT PLANT PROPIGATION
:HERE AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE. ALL WE DO IS PARK VEHICLES
HERE OVERNITE AND ON THE WEEKENDS.00N OCCASION, WE DO"GENERAL
MOWER MAINTENANCE, BUT WE DO HAVE A COMPANY THAT DOES MOST
OF ALL OTHER MAINTENANCE AT THEIR PLACE OF.BUSINESS.
THERE WILL BE NO PARKING OF EMPLOYEE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD
AS SHOWN IN THE ON SITE DRAWING. ONLY A FEW, PROBABLY -NOT
MORE THAN 3 VEHICLES WILL BE PARKED HERE/AT ANY TIME. THE
MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR ME DO LIVE IN THE ADJACENT.:
'HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO ENCLOSED IS ANOTHER PARTIAL PAYMENT FOR THE USE PERMIT
FEES. AS I ALSO STATED, I AM UNABLE TO'PAY THE WHOLE AMOUNT
TN FULL:AND IF I AM ABLE TO PAY IN A FEW'SSHORT PAYMENTS I
WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
'PL• EASE ° CALL. 'ME. IF YOU HAVE ANY''OTHER, QUESTIONS .OR IF. YOU NEED
ME TO DO'ANY THING ELSE REGARDINGGTHIS MATTER. THANKYOU FOR YOUR
HELP AND UNDERSTANDING..
THANKYOU
SINCERELY
BRAD J. FLESHMAN Punning DNS ftnt
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
N 0 y 2 8 1995
®rovilie, californiR
Professional Landscape Maintenance
P.O. Box 4075 • Chico, CA 95927
JANUARY 11, 1995
WANDA MUNSINGER
PLANNING DIVISION
7 COUNTY CENTER.DRIVE
OROVILLE, CA 95965-3397
RE.: BUTTE COUNTY CODE VIOLATION
1139 GUILL ST. CHICO, CA
AP#005-370-009
DEAR WANDA MUNSINGER:
AS PER/MEETING WITH CRAIG SANDERS ON 1-9-95. I SPOKE WITH HIM
AND DROPPED OFF SOME MORE INFORMATION REGARDING EXISTING BUSINESSES
HERE AT 1139 GUILL ST. FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS OR SO.
I JUST WANTED TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE PRE—EXISTING USE OF THIS
PROPERTY FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THE INFORMATION I DROPPED. OFF ALSO
SHOWS THIS PARCEL ON THE TAX ROLL AS ANOTHER OPERATING BUSINESS.
MY BUSINESS IS A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE BUSINESS. EMPLOYEES
THAT WORK FOR ME LIVE INE HOUSES SURROUNDING 1139 GUILL ST.
THEY PARK THEIR CARS AND TRUCKS ON THE STREET, COME INTO WORK
AND DRIVE AWAY TO OUR DAILY SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS.
APPROXIMATELY 8 HOURS LATER, THEY ALL RETURN, PARK THE TRUCKS AND
WALK OR DRIVE HOME.THERE IS NO IN AND OUT BUSINESS HERE.THERE IS
NO RETAIL BUSINESS EITHER.
PLEASE TALK TO CRAIG SANDERS AND REVIEW THE INFORMATION I HAVE
GIVEN HIM TO HELP YOU IN UNDERSTANDING MY SITUATION HERE AND
THAT I NEED TO HAVE THIS LOCATION FOR PARKING MY BUSINESS TRUCKS
ONLY.
THANKYOU
SINCERELY
BRAD J. FLESHMAN
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
planning
JAN 1 8 900A
®rovoi.-,
Professional Landscape Maintenance
P.O. Box 4075 - Chico, CA 95927
k
MARCH 14, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE, CA -95965
CRAIG SANDERS
P.L.M. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN LOCATED AT 1139 GUILL ST.
FOR OVER 5 YEARS. WE EMPLOY ANY WHERE FROM 2 T0. 5 EMPLOYEES
DURING THE YEAR WHICH ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME. ALL
EMPLOYEES ARRIVE HERE AT THE SHOP AND PARK OUTSIDE OF SHOP AREA
OFF THE STREET NEXT TO THE FENCE. THEY ALL ARIVE AROUND 8;00 A.M.
THEY LOAD UP MOWERS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TOOLS INTO TWO
TRUCKS AND THEN TAKE OFF TO GO DO SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS.
ALL CREWS RETURN AFTER APPROXIMATELY 8 HOURS, UNLOAD TRUCKS AND
CLOCK OUT AND GO HOME. WE -"ARE OPEN MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
IN THE SHOP AREA.,` WE ALSO KEEP AND GROW A SMALL AMOUNT OF PLANTS
AND FLOWERS TO USE AS REPLACEMENTS AND REPAIR OF AREAS THAT WE
MAINTAIN. THESE ARE KEPT AND WATERED.IN A WELL GRAVELED AND WELL
DRAINED AREA.
PROFESSIO A�DSCAPE MAINTENANCE
BRAD J. FLESHMAN
" Planning :0 "aefimant
t
JAN 18 9,996
Orovmi;�y ;," ,;wnia
6 . 0
i
L: 005 370 009
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 374 027 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
FLESHMAN BRAD J
DODGE OTIS L & SHIRLON E
P 0 BOX 4075
15986 FOREST RANCH RD
CHICO
CA
95927
FOREST RANCH CA 95942
L: 005 370 008
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 374 029 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
SCOTT LIZZIE N
WEINBERG TOM R & BONNIE G
1162 GUILL ST
5691 CALLE PACIFICA
CHICO
CA
95928
CARPINTERIA CA 93013-
3013L:
L:005 370 029
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 374 032 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
YOUNG GLEN E &
JUANITA M
ROLISON MONEY HICKMAN
990 OHIO ST
2253 FAIRFIELD ST
CHICO
CA
95928
SACRAMENTO CA 95815
L: 005'370 027
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 374 033 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
SILVA JOYCE E
CITY OF CHICO
DAVIS FRED CITY MANAGER
996 OHIO ST
MUNICIPAL BLDG
CHICO
CA
95928
CHICO CA 95926
L: 005 370 012
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 371 018 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
HUMPERT ROBERT
E JR
ETAL.
FLORIO FRANK
713 NORTHGRAVES AVE
2714 NORTH AVE
CHICO
CA
95926
CHICO CA 95926
L: 005 370 013
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 371 022 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
HERRERA PABLO
& SUSAN ANN
GILLESPIE BRADLEY ALAN
C/O GILLESPIE CAROL
966 OHIO ST
1350 OAKLAND RD #214
CHICO
CA
95928
SAN JOSE CA 95112
L: 005 370 014
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 371 023 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
VOYLES VIVIAN
E
ARMENTROUT STEVEN
1121 BRUCE ST
RT 2 BOX 172-G
CHICO
CA
95928
WILLOWS CA 95988
L: 005 530 001
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 371 029 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
CHICO REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
COX ERNEST E & LISA G
C/O LANDO THOMAS J CITY MANAGER
P 0 BOX 3420
1376 HUMBOLDT RD
{ CHICO
CA
95927
`
CHICO CA 95928
L: 004 374 001
000
STATUS:
ACTIVE
L: 004 371 031 000 STATUS:
ACTIVE
DELBOSQUE JOSE
CAMOZZI JAN ELIZABETH
1365 E HUMBOLDT
RD
1374 B HUMBOLDT AVE
t
CHICO
CA
95928
HICO CA 95928
C
L: 004 374'002
000
STATUS:
4CTIVE
L: 004 371 033 000 STATUS:
-ACTIVE
BISHOP PENNY
-
PALMER MICHAEL W & KATHLEEN D-
1369 HUMBOLDT
AVE
1374 A HUMBOLDT AVE
CHICO
CA
95928
CHICO CA 95928
CHAPMAIdTOV1lLV-MULARRY
IMPROVEMENT AREA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barry Hogan
Paula Leasure
Craig Sanders
Steve Betts
Steve Lucas
Steve. Hackney
FROM: Bill Farrel
SUBJECT: APPROVED CHAPMANTOWN-MULBERRY IMPROVEMENT REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1995
Attached is -the Chap mantown- M u lberry- Improvement Report which was approved by
the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday; September 12, 1995. The report as modified
Should be incorporated into the current update of the County General Plan.
ill/Farrel
�h�, vj� vv� Lkp V4
j:\docs\memos\FY.1-jb
o Butte County ■ Department of Development Services ■ Director's Office ■
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services
FROM:
Stephen Hackney
SUBJECT:
Meeting with Jane Dolan to discuss Brad Fleshman Use Permit/Chapmantown Report
DATE:
October 29, 1996
I met with Jane Dolan this a.m. for approximately one hour (11:45-12:45). She came to the counter, asked for me, and we
went to the Conference Room. Connor Murphy joined us. The essence of her conversation include the following:
Mr. Fleshman's commercial use at that site is illegal, is in conflict with the General Plan, the zoning, the
Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Plan (sic), and the County should be doing everything it can to remove such
uses.
Such a commercial use is in conflict with the desires of the area residents as made clear to her in past polling and
conversations with community members.
The Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Plan (sic) should have been incorporated into the General Plan, or
approved as a planning document such as the North Chico Specific Plan, long before now.
Ms. Dolan characterized herself as the "stepmother" of Chapmantown. She noted that this is a 150 year old historic
community. She noted that it was one of the few places where affordable entry level housing still existed. She said that if
Mr. Fleshman were to go into an upscale area and attempt to do the same thing, the residents would be up in arms and he
would not get serious consideration for approval by staff. She noted the reason why area residents didn't show up to object
is because 1) some are too old and infirm. to get over to Oroville; 2) some can't afford to, they have to work; 3) some don't
understand the process of public hearings; and 4) the immediate owners/residents are friends of Mr. Fleshman or his
employees.
We discussed several approaches to trying to reach an amicable resolution to this project. I suggested one of the options
I was working on included a "sunset clause" condition, giving Mr. Fleshman a period of time in which to look elsewhere for
his operation. Ms. Dolan suggested perhaps there was redevelopment money that could be used to buy Mr. Fleshman out.
She said it would take up to 8 weeks to approach the City of Chico and get this on their agenda and approved (?) for this
expenditure. I said I would discuss this with Mr. Fleshman to see if he would be open to this option.
Follow-up Note (Wednesday, October 30,1996):
I phoned Mr. Fleshman this Wednesday a.m.. He expressed interest in being bought out as per described to him by me per
Ms. Dolan's comments. I referenced Help-U-Scape's situation and results. He agreed that it did work out for them and that
a similar negotiation like that could work for him also. Bottom line: Mr. Fleshman is amenable to being given a time-limited
Use Permit allowing him time to look for an alternative site ... while being compensated fairly for his property.
# Butte County # Department of Development Services # Planning Division #
April 12, 1994
94-110 Presentation to the Board on the 1994 Butte County Code
Enforcement Workshop. (560) (PRESENTATION BY MIKE
DOCKREY, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP OF BUTTE COUNTY)
94-111 Chapmantown-Mulberry. Improvement Report - action
requested:
1. ACCEPT REPORT AND DIRECT THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE THE PROPOSED STREET STANDARDS
IN FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY;
2. DIRECT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE REPORT'S PROPOSALS INTO THE CURRENT
UPDATE OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN; AND
3. INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS ON
HUMBOLDT AVENUE TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL BUSINESSES NOW
DESIRING TO EXPAND. (743)
MOTION: I MOVE TO 1. ACCEPT REPORT AND DIRECT THE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE THE
PROPOSED STREET STANDARDS IN FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY;
2. DIRECT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO INCORPORATE THE REPORT'S PROPOSALS
(PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATH INCORRECTLY
PLACED ON THE MAP IN THE BOARD'S PACKET
[BETWEEN ELM AND FRANKLIN,. BEHIND SIERRA
NEVADA BREWERY COMPANY] AND CORRECTLY PLACED
ON THE WALL MAP) INTO THE CURRENT UPDATE OF
THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN; 3. INITIATE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS ALONG HUMBOLDT
AVENUE TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL BUSINESSES NOW
THERE TO EXPAND (THIS IS GENERALLY ALONG THE
BORDERS THAT GO FROM THE CHICO SAN PROPERTY,
WILLOW EAST TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY
THE SQUARE DEAL MATTRESS FACTORY); AND 4. TO
REQUEST THE CITY OF CHICO TO ADOPT THIS REPORT
AND STANDARDS AND INCORPORATE THE LAND USE
PROPOSALS WITHIN THEIR GENERAL PLAN AS WELL.
M S
VOTE: 1 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried)
Planning Division
Page 105 OCT 2 3 1996
April 12, 1994()MV1110' California_
September 12. 1995
Public Hearings and Timed Items
95-266 Public hearing - renaming of a private road in the Oroville area from Pavlik Place
(Eden Canyon Road to end) to Pavlik Pines Road - action requested - ADOPT
RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN. (FROM 8-15-95) (1153)
MOTION: I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 95-125 RENAMING OF A
PRIVATE ROAD IN THE OROVILLE AREA FROM PAVLIK
PLACE (EDEN CANYON ROAD TO END) TO PAVLIK PINES
ROAD AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN.
M S
VOTE: I Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried)
BMW ar Agenda
95-267 Chapman -Mulberry Improvement Report - proposed is a modification of a portion of
the "Improvement Report" for the Chapman/Mulberry neighborhood in order to
substitute a new text and diagrams for the McKinney Acquisition Redevelopment
Plan - action requested:
A. ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION TO THE CHAPMAN/MULBERRY
IMPROVEMENT REPORT FIGURE 2, IDEN'1-F ED AS SC>:�IvvlE 1 AND
SCHEME 2, MCKINNEY ACQUISITION REDEVELOPMENT PLAN;
B. DIRECT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE REPORT'S PROPOSALS, AS SO MODIFIED,
INTO THE CURRENT UPDATE OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN;
AND
C. DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO NOTIFY THE CITY OF
CHICO OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS. (DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
(1220)
MOTION: I MOVE TO A ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION TO THE
CHAPMAN/MULBERRY M PROVEMENT REPORT FIGURE 2,
IDENTIFIED AS SCHEME 1 AND SCFEME 2, McKINNEY
ACQUISITION REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; B. DIRECT. THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT . TO
INCORPORATE THE REPORT'S PROPOSALS, AS SO -
MODIFIED, INTO THE CURRENT UPDATE OF THE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN; AND C. DIRECT THE CLERK OF THE
BOARD TO NOTIFY THE CITY OF CHICO OF THE ABOVE
ACTIONS.
M S_ � _
VOTE: l Y 2Y 3Y 4Y 5Y (Unanimously Carried).
Page 276 September 12, 1995
V,
NNO
o^
1
' y5
yd
n
c
�
�
O
R
b
�
61
n
J.
1
' y5
yd
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
BY: Stephen Hackney, Associate Planner
DATE: November 6, 1996
REQUEST: Use Permit on APN 005-370-009, 032 for Brad Fleshman - Applicant, File #UP 96-13:
This is a request for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company located
at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+ feet north of Guill St./Ohio
St. intersection, in the Chico area. This project is located in the Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement boundary. The two parcels of land total 0.77 acre and are zoned AR
(Agricultural Residential), in the Chico area. The site is located in Supervisorial District 2.
FOR: Supplemental Report for Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 1996
SUMMARY: The application for a Use Permit is a request for a commercial operation in an area zoned
for residential use. The Planning Commission considered the request in public hearing on October 10,
1996 then continued the hearing in order to obtain additional information. This supplemental staff report
responds to the Commission's request and also presents alternative actions.
REVIEW OF NONCONFORMING STATUS AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES: The proposed commercial
use of this site is not consistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning and the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential. Were it to be proposed today, without a prior history of
commercial use on the site, it could not be properly approved because of these inconsistencies. However,
the site has a history of commercial use as a storage and office site for an asphalt business, dating back
to approximately 1960. This activity was apparently maintained continuously until about 1990 when the
current use was established. In response to a zoning violation complaint, the Development Services
Department conducted a lengthy inquiry into the history of the prior use, and sought information from the
applicant to support his contention that the earlier use constituted a legal non -conforming use. The staff
investigation concluded that the information submitted was reasonably sufficient to demonstrate that there
was a prior commercial use, which was established and maintained over time and had constituted a legal
non -conforming use. The applicant however, initiated the current landscaping business, which is a change
from the previous legal non conforming use without first obtaining the required conditional Use Permit.
In this regard, the applicant proceeded contrary to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In order to
correct this situation, he was informed by staff to either cease the use, or apply for a conditional Use
Permit, to retroactively achieve compliance with the code. The Commission should note that while the
County has in the past issued retroactive use permits, there is no legal necessity for doing so.
If the Commission accepts that there was a previous legal nonconforming use, and that a use permit can
be retroactively approved to authorize a change in the nonconforming use, then the Commission can
approve the use upon finding that it "will not conflict with, impair or be detrimental to the uses both
permitted and conditional of the zone in which it is located and/or adjoins", and by making the additional
findings pursuant to Section 24-45.15 of the zoning ordinance.
There exists the potential for both real and perceived impairment of permitted uses.. While staff has not
identified significant conflicts, residents may perceive these to exist, and this should be considered by the
Commission. There has been concern by at least one neighbor about traffic from the operation and the
zoning violation complaint referenced above resulted. In addition, testimony at the October 10th hearing
further explained that the narrow streets and difficult access further exacerbate traffic impacts, particularly
where larger commercial trucks are entering the area. While no noise measurements are available to
assist the Commission, it is logical to assume the truck traffic generated by the project does contribute to
some extent to increased noise in the immediate vicinity.
❑ Butte County Department of Deve
1
Post -It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671
# of pages ►
To
From
Co.
Co.
Dept.
Phone 3 G 7 0
f7o
Fax � �— A O
Fax #S 3O ` 7 G�A��
Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. On April 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors accepted
the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report prepared by consultant Michael Corbett following a
series of intensive meetings in the community. The Board directed "the Development Services Department
to incorporate the report's proposals into the current update of the County General Plan ...." On
September 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved Minute Order 95-267, approving modifications
of a portion of the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. The Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement Report (Report) has not yet been incorporated into the updated General Plan because the
plan is still in preparation. Until the report's recommendations are formally adopted as part of the General
Plan , they do not have the force of law. The Report does have great value however, as the best available
expression of community aspirations and needs, and it clearly should be considered by the Planning
Commission with respect to neighborhood compatibility issues as they relate to this use permit request.
A copy is attached for your use.
The Report sets forth a series of neighborhood improvement goals and illustrates a number of
improvements to public facilities and amenities. Please note that on page 3, that goal #7 addresses
relocation of incompatible industrial and commercial uses out of the area, and lists several such uses. The
landscaping business which is the subject of this use permit does not appear to be among the incompatible
uses specifically listed. Other proposals of the report do call for neighborhood industrial uses to be
expanded on Humboldt Road, and a village commercial center between 16th and 20th streets. In both
cases these uses are proximate to residential areas. However, in each case the traffic circulation system
is more conducive to a harmonious relationship with nearby residential uses than are the narrow streets
serving the landscaping business under consideration. It appears the intent of the Report is to preserve .:.: _
residential tranquility and safety by ensuring that commercial uses within the community (which are to
some extent sought) are located where traffic conditions are most suitable. Testimony by Supervisor
Dolan at the October 10th meeting is especially important as she participated with the community
throughout the development of the Report and has special insight into the intent of the Report's
recommendations. No one from the Development Services Department was directly involved in that
community planning effort. Written correspondence by Mrs. Young provided the Commission at the
October 10th meeting further discusses traffic issues.
The Report lists "Proposed Improvements" on page four. Item #4 is applicable to this use permit request
and is stated as follows:
4. Build a bike and pedestrian path from the intersection of East Ninth Street and Highway
99 south across Little Chico Creek to Guill Street. Continue the path from the end of Ohio
Street to the park, connecting it with one branch to Whitman Avenue and another branch
parallel to Guill Street to Chapman School.
Item #13 on page five of the Report indicates the need to clean debris, provide for replanting where
needed and develop access to Little Chico Creek. Figure 4 of the Report further explains the desired
improvements.
Both of the above items are reflected in the suggested conditions of approval should the Commission
determine to approve this request.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider the information in this supplemental
report and determine whether to approve or deny the application. Exhibit A presents findings, actions, and
conditions for project approval. Please note that the suggested conditions of approval contains a condition
that the use permit shall be for a limited duration of 24 moths unless extended by the Commission. The
Commission may want to retain or delete this condition, and should modify or supplement any of the
findings or conditions as deemed appropriate. The list of approval conditions also respond to the
improvements proposed in the Chapman -Mulberry Improvement Plan.
Exhibit B presents draft findings and action for denial. The Commission is encouraged to modify these
as deemed appropriate if denial action is taken.
u Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0
Attachments: A: Exhibit A - Findings and Conditions of Approval
B: Exhibit B - Findings for Denial
C. Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report
Reviewed and Approved by:
K:\PROJECTS\UPC\FLESHMAN.UP\FLESHMN2.RPT
0 Butte County Department of Dev3elopment Services 0 Planning Division 0
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance companylocated at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish,
wildlife, or their habitat and a de minimus exemption to the collection of Department of Fish and
Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE; and
B. The proposed use of the property wilt not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district
in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this site for
approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with no identifiable
adverse impairment to the zone; and
v►nPV3
C. The proposed use of the propertywrUnot- be, nor has been, injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property a��itl rYot be, nor has been, detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property wifl not be, nor has been, detrimental to the general health,
welfare and safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the Use Permit approved
for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance company
located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site Plan, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this Permit and
the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions
Development Services Department:
0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑
1. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval by the
Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a minimum of 5% of gross lot
area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit, deed to the County of Butte a 15' wide easement for a bicycle
and pedestrian pathway from GuilI Street to the north property line at Little Chico Creek. The
location to be approved-by-the-Direetor-of PubNeWiorks-and-Director_of_Development Services.
3. Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development Services,
clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant selected native
species where needed to create natural state conditions and good aesthetics. Maintain a stream
bank setback of 50 'clear of any new additional structures.
5`" bis
4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of onth at the end of which time it shall
expire (unless the approving authority has held a hearnn§-fffereon and granted an extension). In
connection with such an extension the approving authority may add, change, or delete condition.
5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and
all other applicable State and County laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit
application.
Public Works Department:
No conditions.
Environmental Health Division:
4. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will be
required).
Butte County Fire Department:
5. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment maybe made into the Cal -Water hydrant fund at a cost of
$1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20.
6. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound fire
apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
11 Butte County Department of DevcJelopment Services 0 Planning Division ❑
EXHIBIT B
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed Use Permit request is inconsistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning; and
B. The proposed use of the property will impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in
which the land lies because a commercial use of the property is inconsistent with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed use of the property will be incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding property.
D. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of
the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. The Planning Commission deny the application subject to the findings of fact in Sections 1 and
2 of this report.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
6
i
L"
•
NNO
N�
4 ^
A
�ro ) n
•
n
R
.
4�1
(i,
Nzlt�
.
0
L
�ro ) n
0
L
0
June 8, 1999
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
RE: Use Permit, File No. UP 96-13
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
Enclosed is Receipt No. 17612 in the amount of $268.85 for the above -referenced file. As of this
date, the account has a zero balance and is closed. Your quick response is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(is ^.�" A -
Thomas A. Parilo
Director of Development Services
TAP:jb
Enclosure
j Adocs\refunds\thanks.wpd
NOE/NOD
RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC PUBLIC ENV. FIRE OTHER
DATE Np, RECEIVED WORKS LAFCO PLANNING SALES HEALTH F/G FEE
OFFICIAL RECEIPT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
tiirr�t.
APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM
RECEIPT 17 612
ISSUED BY
Q Lal,
-
ri
May 4, 1999
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
RE: Use Permit, File No. UP 96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
,butte C
L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
www.buttecounty.net
The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was approved by the Planning
Commission on December 12, 1996, is $1,268.85. As of May 23, 1996, deposits were made in the totaling
$1,000.00. The costs exceeded the deposits by $268.85. Below is a breakdown:
Deposit on 1-18-96, Receipt No. 15183. $ 970.00
Deposit on 5-23-96, Receipt No. 15430 30.00
Total $1,000.00
Professional Planner $ 826.00
Mapping $ 59.00
Clerical $ 383.85
Total $1,268.85
Total Amount Due & Payable $ 268.85
Please make a check payable to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $268.85 and remit it to the
Department of Development Services, Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
within 30 calendar days. Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday
thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601.
Sincerely,
,CJ ,� 4 - L,,, - o, r
Thomas A. Parilo
Director of Development Services
TAP.jb
EDate 06/08/99 Detlopment Services Department
Time 10:55 am Applicant Billing Worksheet
UP 96-13 * Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
In reference to Use Permit, AP#005-370-009
Rounding None
Full Precision No
Last bill
/
/
Last aging
Last charge
01/09/97
.Last payment /
/
Amount $0.00
Date/Slip#
Description
HOURS/RATE
AMOUNT
02/12/96
Steve H. /
P
0.50
29.50
#7897
Processing
59.00
04/22/96
Larry P.'/
P
1.00
59.00
#8498
Processing
59.00
04/22/96
Steve H. /
P
1.00
59.00
#8519
Processing
59.00
04/22/96
Linda T. /
C
1.50
51.00
#8556
Clerical
34.00
05/06/96
Steve H. /
P
1.50
88.50
#8693
Processing
59.00
05/20/96
Steve H. /
P
4.00
236.00
#8755
Processing
59.00
06/03/96
Linda T. /
C
0.25
8.50
#8957
Clerical
34.00
06/03/96
Steve H. /
P
1.00
59.00
#8983
Processing
59,.00
07/15/96
Craig S. /
P
1.00
59.00
#9430
Processing
59.00
07/29/96
Craig S. /
P
1.25
73.75
#9497
Processing
59.00
07/29/96
Steve H. /
P
2.50
147.50
#9534
Processing
59.00
08/12/96
Craig S. /
P
0.25
14.75
#9596
Processing
59.00
Page 1
TOTAL
Date 06/08/99
Time 10:55 am
UP 96-13 *
Dev opment Services Department
Applicant Billing Worksheet
:Brad Fleshman (continued)
Date/Slip# Description
08/12/96 Steve H. / P
#9647 Processing
08/26/96 Diana S. / C
#9752 Clerical
09/09/96 Lynn R. / C
#9864 Clerical
10/21/96 Diana S. / C
#10132 Clerical
11/04/96 Diana S. / C
#10162 Clerical
11/04/96 Lynn R. / C
#10191 Clerical
11/18/96 Diana S. / C
#10297 Clerical
12/03/96 Diana S. / C
#10455 Clerical
12/16/96 Diana S. / C
#10505 Clerical
12/30/96 Diana S. / C
410568 Clerical
TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES
HOURS/RATE
1.00
59.00
0.50
34.00
1.50
45.00
1.00
34.00
1.00
34.00
1.25
45.00
2.00
34.00
0.50
34.00
0.50
34.00
0.40
34.00
25.40
Date/Slip# Description QTY/PRICE
09/09/96 Diana S. / $C 1
#9789 Publish Legal Notice in Chico 43.20
Enterprise Record
AMOUNT
59.00
17.00
67.50
34.00
34.00
56.25
68.00
17.00
17.00
13.60
Page 2
TOTAL
$1,268.85
43.20 DO NOT BILL
Date 06/08/99 Devitopment Services Department
Time 10:55 am Applicant Billing Worksheet
UP 96-13 * :Brad Fleshman (continued)
TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS
TOTAL DO NOT BILL COSTS
TOTAL NEW CHARGES
PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS
01/18/96 Deposit - Receipt #15183
05/23/96 Deposit - Receipt #15430
06/07/99 Deposit - Receipt #17612
TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS
NEW BALANCE
TOTAL NEW BALANCE
$43.20
(970.00)
(30.00)
(268.85)
Page 3
$0.00
$1,268.85
($1,268.85)
$0.00
0
USE PERMIT
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APR 2 8 1999
DATE: (Certified Mail Rec.)
UP 96-13
PERMIT NO.
AP 005-370-009 and 032
ASSESSOR'S PAPCEL I"!^.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Butte and the special
conditions set forth below: Brad Fleshman is hereby granted a Use Permit in accordance
with application filed: 1/18/96 to allow a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance
company on property zoned A -R located approximately 200+ feet north of Guill Street/Ohio
Street intersection, Chico area.
1. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval
of application and issuance of Permit, constitutes cause for revocation of
said permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Butte County
Zoning Ordinance, including Butte County Code Sec. 24-62.
2. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this use permit, all
conditions must be completed by the Permittee within 24 months of the delivery
of the countersigned permit to the Permittee.
3. If any use for which a use permit has been granted is not established within two
years of the date of receipt of the countersigned permit by the Permittee, the
permit shall become nul' and void and reapplication and a new permit shall be
required to establish the use.
4. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding
upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns
of the Permittee.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to
fish, wildlife, or their habitat and a deminimus exemption to the collection of Department of
Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the
proposed Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE;
and
B. The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning
district in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this
site for approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with
no identifiable adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property will not be injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property may not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and
safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the use Permit
approved for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance
company located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site Plan, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of
this Permit and the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions.,
Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval
by the Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a minimum of 5%
of gross lot area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development
Services, clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant
selected native species where needed to create natural state conditions and good
aesthetics. Maintain a stream bank setback of 50' clear of any new additional structures.
•
3. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 5 years at the end of which time it
shall expire (unless the approving authority has held a hearing thereon and granted an
extension). In connection with such an extension the approving authority may add, change,
or delete conditions.
4. Approval of the request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning ordinance
and all other applicable State and County laws and regulations in effect at the time of
building permit application.
5. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will be
required).
6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment maybe made into the Cal -Water hydrant fund at a,
cost of $1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20.
7. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound
fire apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Director of Development Services upon
receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant. Prior to such approval, verification
shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the
application, fees paid and environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes
deemed to be major or significant in nature shall required a formal application for amendment:
hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing conditions, that they
are in fact the conditions which were imposed upon the granting of this use permit, and that
agree to abide fully by said conditions.
Dated:
Applic t
NOTE: Issuance of this Use Permit does not waive requirement of obtaining Building and Health
Department permits before starting construction, nor does it waive any other requirements.
Butte County Planning Commission Chairman
CC: Land Development Division
Building Division
Health Department
Department of Forestry
f/s LL 4/4 �''• � � �CGt a� s�6iJ
J
I Ga £x/STiN(T
sh
APPROVED
• Development Plan n
DATE APR 2 8 T�vc� c T.�9CF,e
USE PERMIT VARIANCE
MINOR U.P. ADM.PER
____ ✓ PLANNING CO ISDIRECTOR
�'-
�. _
DEVELOP T �'t EELS iN' IZ Q v/cc G 1�
. 30 c
Fe, a 1 ,
11,3Y 6-2e9C -1 sl; -
31
l 31
C V %I/
■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
I also wish to receive the
■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
following services (for an
■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we
car•return this
extra fee):
card to you.
■Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
1. ❑ Addressee's Address
permit.
■ Write'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number.
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to:
4a. Article Number
Brad Fleshman
Z 006 768 715
P.O. Box 4075
4b. Service Type
Chico, CA 9 5 9 2 7
❑ Registered [X Certified
❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured
❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD
U P 96-13
7. Dat�oV Delive A
yd�B �• (,Print Name) ) @� Add �essee'sAddre s7(O ly if requested
�T�i f� and flee is paid(
Ire: (Addressee orAaent)
Form 3841, December 1994
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICe.
F.---
• Print your n
C ------- �` =First -CI"' aMail
+.^. Post ge=& FeerPani:
usps
Permd 70.,G10"'
ass and ZIP Code in this box -- --
COUNTY OF BUTTE
DEPARTMENT OF OMOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING OVIMN
7 Coo* Caft &M
Omvik CA OWN=
utt County
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
April 29, 1999
0
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
CERTIFIED MAIL.
Re: Use Permit, AP 005-370-009 and 032
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
Special Delivery Fee
C
Enclosed is your validated Use Permit No. 96-13 to
operate a lanscape maintenance company.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter; =please contact this office between 8:00 a.m:
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
-- - _
2
. 2
C
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, and Addressee's Address
Z 006 768 715
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
Sincerely, •-
Postmark or Date
_ _
E
4-29-99
fl
Receipt for
fn
Thomas A. Parilo
d
Certified Mail
Director of Development Services
No Insurance Coverage Provided
�usE� Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
n \
Sent to
Brad Fleshman
1'�1•l0� \
Streetrd V' Box 4075
Teri Bridenhagen
'P.O., State and ZIP Code
Office Assistant III
Chico, CA 95927
jP.ostage f
e
Enc.
"Certified Fee
cc: Land Development Division
Building Division
Environmental Health
Department of Forestry
j:\temp\up7
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
2
. 2
C
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, and Addressee's Address
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
Postmark or Date
40
E
4-29-99
fl
fn
d
•
MEMORANDUM -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Butte County Assessor's Office
FROM: Butte County Planning Department
SUBJECT: Brad Fleshman, UP 96-13
DATE: April 29, 1999
Pursuant to Section 65863.5 of the Government Code, the following parcel identified as
005-370-009 and 032, was:
Rezone from to zoning district.
Granted a variance to
A Issued a conditional Use P 4 to operate a la ape maintenance
company on property zoned locate aproximately 20 + feet north of Guill
Street/Ohio Street Intersection, Chico area
0
t
USE PERMIT
BUTTE -COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
0
DATE: (Certified Mail Rec.)
UP 96-13
PERMIT NO.
AP 005-370-009 and 032
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Butte and the special
conditions set forth below: Brad Fleshman is hereby granted a Use Permit in accordance
with application filed: 1/18/96 to allow a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance
company on property zoned A -R located approximately 200+ feet north of Guill Street/Ohio
Street intersection, Chico area.
Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval
of application and issuance of Permit, constitutes cause for revocation of
said permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Butte County
Zoning Ordinance, including Butte County Code Sec. 24-62.
2. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this use permit, all
conditions must be completed by the Permittee within 24 months of the delivery
of the countersigned permit to the Permittee.
3. If any use for which a use permit has been granted is not established within two
years of the date of receipt of the countersigned permit by the Per the
permit shall become null and void and reapplication and a new permit shall be
required to establish the use.
4. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding
upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns
of the Permittee.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to
fish, wildlife, or their habitat and a deminimus exemption to the collection of Department of
Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the
proposed Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE;
and
B. The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning
district in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this
site for approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with
no identifiable adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property will not be injurious to surrounding property;. and
D. The proposed use of the property will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The,proposed use of the property may not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and
safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby ,adopted and the use Permit
approved for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance
company located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site Plan, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of
this Permit and the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions.
1. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval
by the Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a minimum of 5%
of gross lot area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development
Services, clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant
selected native species where needed to create natural state conditions and good
aesthetics. Maintain a stream bank setback of 50' clear of any new additional structures.
3. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 5 years at the end of which time it
shall expire (unless the approving authority has held a hearing thereon and granted an
extension). In connection with such an extension the approving authority may add, change,
or delete conditions.
4. Approval of the request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning ordinance
and all other applicable State and County laws and regulations in effect at the time of
building permit application.
5. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will be
required).
6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment maybe made into the Cal -Water hydrant fund at a
cost of $1.72 per lineal.foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20.
7. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound
fire apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Director of Development Services upon
receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant. Prior to such approval, verification
shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the
application, fees paid and environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes
deemed to be major or significant in nature shall required a formal application for amendment.
hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing conditions, that they
are in fact the conditions which were imposed upon the granting of this use permit, and that
agree to abide fully by said conditions.
Dated:
Applicant
NOTE: Issuance of this Use Permit does not waive requirement of obtaining Building and Health
Department permits before starting construction, nor does it waive any other requirements.
Butte County Planning Commission Chairman
CC: Land Development Division
Building Division
Health Department
Department of Forestry
t
,butte Co
L,>i\!D O N! A I IJ RAI bVIcA.IT- A.i1\I.D BEAUTY
1�PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
December 16, 1996 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
" TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
Brad Fleshman
FAX: (916) 538-7785
'
P. O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
Re: Use Permit, AP 005-370-009, 032, UP 96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held on December 12,
.1996, your request for.,a Use Permit, was approved subject to the conditions listed on the
enclosures. Please sign both copies and return both copies to this Division within 40
calendar days.
Should you desire to appeal any of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission,
you must do so in writing, to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive,
Oroville, California, prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday, December 23. The appeal deposit of
$250.00 must be paid at that time. If you do not appeal and if there are no other appeal
within the 10 calendar -day appeal period, the action of the Planning Commission is final.
For purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Notice of Exemption must be
filed. The fee for the filing of a.Notice of Exemption is the $25.00 documentary handling
fee. A check made payable to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $25.00 should
be submitted to the Planning Division by December 26, 1996.
Please be aware that failure to return the signed copies within 40 calendar days will
invalidate the Planning Commission's approval. Re-application to this Division would then
be necessary.
The Use Permit is deemed granted when the enclosures have been signed by the
applicant, with the counter signature of the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and
said permit is received by the applicant -by registered mail.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
Ve truly yours,
Craig Sc nders
Senior Planner
CBS:ds
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
BY: Stephen Hackney, Associate Planner
DATE: November 6, 1996
REQUEST: Use Permit _on_APN 005-370-009, 032 for Brad Fleshman - Aaalicant. File #UP 96-13:
This is a request for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company located
at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+ feet north of Guill St./Ohio
St. intersection, in the Chico area. This project is located in the Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement boundary. The two parcels of land total 0.77 acre and are zoned AR
(Agricultural Residential), in the Chico area. The site is located in Supervisorial District 2.
FOR: Supplemental Report for Planning Commission Meeting of November 14, 1996
SUMMARY: The application for a Use Permit is a request for a commercial operation in an area zoned
for residential use. The Planning Commission considered the request in public hearing on October 10,
1996 then continued the hearing in order to obtain additional information. This supplemental staff report
responds to the Commission's request and also presents alternative actions.
REVIEW OF NONCONFORMING STATUS AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES: The proposed commercial
use of this site is not consistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning and the General Plan
designation of Low Density Residential. Were it to be proposed today, without a prior history of
commercial use on the site, it could not be properly approved because of these inconsistencies. However,
the site has a history of commercial use as a storage and office site for an asphalt business, dating back
to approximately 1960. This activity was apparently maintained continuously until about 1990 when the
current use was established. In response to a zoning violation complaint, the Development Services
Department conducted a lengthy inquiry into the history of the prior use, and sought information from the
applicant to support his contention that the earlier use constituted a legal non -conforming use. The staff
investigation concluded that the information submitted was reasonably sufficient to demonstrate that there
was a prior commercial use, which was established and maintained over time and had constituted a legal
non -conforming use. The applicant however, initiated the current landscaping business, which is a change
from the previous legal non conforming use without first obtaining the required conditional Use Permit.
In this regard, the applicant proceeded contrary to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In order to
correct this situation, he was informed by staff to either cease the use, or apply for a conditional Use
Permit, to retroactively achieve compliance with the code. The Commission should note that while the
County has in the past issued retroactive use permits, there is no legal necessity for doing so.
If the Commission accepts that there was a previous legal nonconforming use, and that a use permit can
be retroactively approved to authorize a change in the nonconforming use, then the Commission can
approve the use upon finding that it "will not conflict with, impair or be detrimental to the uses both
permitted and conditional of the zone in which it is located and/or adjoins", and by making the additional
findings pursuant to Section 24-45.15 of the zoning ordinance.
There exists the potential for both real and perceived impairment of permitted uses.. While staff has not
identified significant conflicts, residents may perceive these to exist, and this should be considered by the
Commission. There has been concern by at least one neighbor about traffic from the operation and the
zoning violation complaint referenced above resulted. In addition, testimony at the October 10th hearing
further explained that the narrow streets and difficult access further exacerbate traffic impacts, particularly
where larger commercial trucks are entering the area. While no noise measurements are available to
assist the Commission, it is logical to assume the truck traffic generated by the project does contribute to
some extent to increased noise in the immediate vicinity.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
1
•
E
Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. On April 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors accepted
the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report prepared by consultant Michael Corbett following a
series of intensive meetings in the community. The Board directed "the Development Services Department
to incorporate the report's proposals into the current update of the County General Plan ...." On
September 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved Minute Order 95-267, approving modifications
of a portion of the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report. The Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement Report (Report) has not yet been incorporated into the updated General Plan because the
plan is still in preparation. Until the report's recommendations are formally adopted as part of the General
Plan, they do not have the force of law. The Report does have great value however, as the best available
expression of community aspirations and needs, and it clearly should be considered by the Planning
Commission:with ^respect to neighborhood compatibility issues as they relate to this use permit request.
A copy is attached foryouruse.
The Report sets forth a series of neighborhood improvement goals and illustrates a number of
improvements to public facilities and amenities. Please note that on page 3, that goal #7 addresses
relocation of incompatible industrial and commercial uses out of the area, and lists several such uses. The
landscaping business which is the subject of this use permit does not appear to be among the incompatible
uses specifically listed. Other proposals of the report do call for neighborhood industrial uses to be
expanded on Humboldt Road, and a village commercial center between 16th and 20th streets. In both
cases these uses are proximate to residential areas. However, in each case the traffic circulation system
is more conducive to a harmonious relationship with nearby residential uses than are the narrow streets
serving the landscaping business under consideration. It appears the intent of the Report is to preserve
residential tranquility and safety by ensuring that commercial uses within the community (which are to
some extent sought) are located where traffic conditions are most suitable. Testimony by Supervisor
Dolan at the October 10th meeting is especially important as she participated with the community
throughout the development of the Report and has special insight into the intent of the Report's
recommendations. No one from the Development Services Department was directly involved in that
community planning effort. Written correspondence by Mrs. Young provided the Commission at the
October 10th meeting further discusses traffic issues.
The Report lists "Proposed Improvements" on page four. Item #4 is applicable to this use permit request
and is stated as follows:
4. Build a bike and pedestrian path from the intersection of East Ninth Street and Highway
99 south across Little Chico Creek to Guill Street. Continue the path from the end of Ohio
Street to the park, connecting it with one branch to Whitman Avenue and another branch
parallel to Guill Street to Chapman School.
Item #13 on page five of the Report indicates the need to clean debris, provide for replanting where
needed and develop access to Little Chico Creek. Figure 4 of the Report further explains the desired
improvements.
Both of the above items are reflected in the suggested conditions of approval should the Commission
determine to approve this request.
RECOMMENDATION: ,The Planning Commission should-consider,the information in this supplemental
report and determine whether to approve or deny the application. Exhibit A presents findings, actions, and
conditions for project approval. Please note that the suggested conditions of approval contains a condition
that the use permit shall be for a limited duration of 24 mc%ths unless extended by the Commission. The
Commission may want to retain or delete this condition, "and should modify or supplement any of the
findings or conditions as deemed appropriate. The list of approval conditions also respond to the
improvements proposed in the Chapman -Mulberry Improvement Plan.
Exhibit B presents draft findings and action for denial. The Commission is encouraged to modify these
as deemed appropriate if denial action is taken.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑
2
n • •
Attachments: A: Exhibit A - Findings and Conditions of Approval
B: Exhibit B - Findings for Denial
C. Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report
Reviewed and Approved by:
K:\PROJECTS\UPCTLESHMAN.UP\FLESHMN2.RPT
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
3
I *X II -71111-1
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The approval of the Use Permit and improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish,
wildlife, or their habitat and a de minimus exemption to the collection of Department of Fish and
Game Environmental Filing Fees is recommended; and
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed use permit request for a change in a nonconforming use is provided for in the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-35.20 CHANGE OR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE; and
B. The proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zoning district
in which the land lies because a commercial use of the property has existed at this site for,
approximately 28 years, and this change of use for approximately five (5) years with no identifiable
adverse impairment to the zone; and
C. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, injurious to surrounding property; and
D. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of persons. residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will not be, nor has been, detrimental to the general health,
welfare and safety of the County.
Section 3: Action.
A: A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures is hereby adopted and the Use Permit approved
for Brad Fleshman on APN 005-370-009, 032 to operate a landscape maintenance company
located at 1139 Guill Street, Chico as shown on the Exhibit B (Site Plan, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, and subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this Permit and
the following conditions.
Section 4: Conditions
Development Services Department:
0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0
4
Prior to issuance of the Use Permit the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for approval by the
Development Services Director or his designee that provides for a minimum of 5% of gross lot
area of the two parcels devoted to landscaping.
2. Prior to issuance of the Use Permit, deed to the County of Butte a 15' wide easement -for a bicycle
and pedestrian pathway from Guill Street to the north property line at Little Chico Creek. The
location to be approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Development Services.
Subject to review of the Department of Fish and Game and Department of Development Services,
clear the bank of Little Chico Creek adjoining the property of debris and replant selected native
species where needed to create natural state conditions and good aesthetics. Maintain a stream
bank setback of 50 'clear of any new additional structures.
4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 24 months at the end of which time it shall
expire (unless the approving authority has held a hearing thereon and granted an extension). In
connection with such an extension the approving authority may add, change, or delete condition.
5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and ,
all other applicable State and County laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit
application.
Public Works Department:
No conditions.
Environmental Health Division:
4. Prior to issuance of Use Permit provide verification of potable water (bacteria sample will be
required).
Butte County Fire Department:
In lieu of hydrant installation, payment maybe made into the Cal -Water hydrant fund at a cost of
$1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $103.20.
6. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound fire
apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
5
EXHIBIT B
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
File # UP 96-13 - Brad Fleshman, APN 005-370-009, 032: A request for a Use Permit to operate a
landscape maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+
feet north of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
Section 1: Environmental Findings.
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed
Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and
Section 2: Zoning Ordinance Findings.
A. The proposed Use Permit request is inconsistent with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning; and
B. The proposed use of the property will impair the integrity and character of the zoning district in
which the land lies because a commercial use of the property is inconsistent with the residential
character of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed use of the property will be incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding property.
D. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
E. The proposed use of the property will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of
the County.
Section 3 Action.
A. The Planning Commission deny the application subject to the findings of fact in Sections 1 and
2 of this report.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
6
U
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
To: File
From: Stephen Hackney, Associate Planner
Subject: Conditions - Letter from Brad Fleshman, December 4, 1997
Date: January 15, 1998
Telephoned Mr. Fleshman this afternoon. After conferring with Craig Sanders re:
Conditions #2 & 6, I advised Mr. Fleshman to do the following:
1. To submit his check for the Cal Water hydrant installation fund to the Planning
Division secretary; and
2. To contact Jim Snowden at Fish & Game regarding Condition #6. If DFG will write
the County a letter stating they are comfortable with the stream bank the way it is,
then Mr.. Fleshman will be relieved from performing any additional work on the bank.
P
Completing these actions, I told Mr. Fleshman the County would sign off on the conditions.
j: \memos\fish-con. mem
Professional: landscape Maintenance
P.O. Box 4075 • Chico, CA 95927
December` 4, 1.997
Craig Sanders
,Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Division
7 County Center Dr.
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Mr: Sander's:.
INCLOSED YOU WILL FIND°A COPY OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MY.2
PARCELS:.#9., #32,.THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING
DIVISION PRIOR..TO ISSUANCE OF MY USE PERMIT."
AS YOU CAN SEEPARCEL #32, WHERE THE ENTRANCE TO SHOP AREA
IS LOCATED AND. ''WHERE ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED, HAS BEEN =
SUFFICIENTLY' ILANDSCAPED AND I HAVE ADDED EVEN MORE DETAIL TO ;.
'THE LANDSCAPE IN THt BACK AREA. PARCEL, #9 IS WHERE ALL THE
TRUCKS AND TRAILERS WIT'.LLL PE PARKED AND WITJL UST, TIMIS• AR -PA
-FOR TURNING AROUND. THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER ON THE NORTH/WEST;
-HAS ALREADY BEEN PLANTED FOR COVERAGE`ON THE FENCE. THE SOUTH
SIDE IS DRAWN TO SHOW SHRUBS AND DRIP.SYSTEM•TO BE INSTALLED
°TO COVER FENCE AREA AS WELL...
REGARDING SECTION 4:CONDITION-#2
THIS AREA OF BANK IS VERY STEEP AND HAS BEEN SECURED WITH PIECES
.OF CONCRETE AND DEBRIS,BEFORE'I ARRIVED ON SITE. IT HAS ALSO
BEEN OVER GROWN WITH NATIVE VINES AND VOLUNTEERS. IN THE WINTER
THE CREEK RISES VERY HIGH AND IF ANY PLANTING IS DONE HERE I
BELIEVE*IT WILL WASH AWAY OR MAY LOOSEN AN ALREADY SECURE BANK.
CONDITION #6
PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS CONDITION TO ME AND WHAT.I NEED•TO COMPLY.
343-3608 PAGER 571-3676
THANKYOU':"
-SINCERELY,
BRAD
J:-FLESHMAN
Planning Division
DEC. 0, a1997
oroville, California
cE
tA
O
'�� a .•� v L � J
� fit►
�o
u�
�1
s
Ali
v.
2�✓�y►.5l
Ali
e : Professional Landscape Maintenance
P.O. Box. 4075 • Chico, CA 95927
JUNE 4, 1997
CRAIG SANDERS.
SENIOR PLANNER
BUTTE -COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
7 COUNTY CENTER DR.
OROVILLE, CA 95965
DEAR MR. SANDERS:
INCLOSED YOU WILL FIND A COPY OF THE WATER:(.BACTERIA) SAMPLE
DONE BY MONARCH LABORATORIES'THAT THE COMMISSION HAS f
REQUESTED OF.ME SET FORTH IN SECTION 4: CONDITIONS.
THERE'ARE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I.HAVE REGARDING A FEW
OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS REQUESTED OF ME. COULD YOU PLEASE
CONTACT ME WHEN YOU HAVE TIME TO SET UP AN APPOI°_NTMENT SO.
THAT WE MAY GO OVER THESE CONDITIONS. MY OFFICE NUMBER IS.
343-3608. PLEASE CALL ANY TIME AND.LEAVE A MESSAGE.
THANKYOU
9J.
r
RALESHMAN
Planning Division
J U N 0 5 1997
provllie, California
JAWIF
�563 EAST LINDO AVENUE
Or O' i �. CH CALIFORNIA 95926
PHONE (916) 343-5818
x
Page 1 of 1
TEST REPORT: 142116
N13RTH STATE ELECTRIC & PUMP
;`6 FREIGHT LANE
CIiICO, CA 95926-0000
Sample Identification:1139 GUILL
Collected By:JG
Date & Time Taken:04/29/97 1415
Other Data: HOSEBIB - SPECIAL
Sample Matrix: Liquid
Report Date: 05/08/97 Received: 04/2:9/97 Client: NOR374
PARAMETER
RESULTS
UNITS ANALYZED
EGL METHOD
BY
Nitrate.
9.4
Ig/1 1100 05/08/97
2 mg/1 EPA Method 353:3
DLS
Total CcJ iforn
ABSENCE
#/100 IIs 1100 05/01/97
Colilert
HS
Quality
Assurance
for the SET with Sample 142116
.................................................................
..... .....i....
Sample i
Description
Result Units
Dup/Std Value Spk Cone. Percent
Tile Date
By
Nitrate
Standard
4.3
mg/1
4.4
98
1100 05/08/97
DLS
Standard
11
mg/1
11
100
1100 05/08/97
DLS
Standard
22
mg/1
22
100
1100 05/08/97
DLS
Standard
43
mg/1
44
98
1100 05/08/97
DLS
142116
Duplicate
9.5
Ig/1
9.2
3
1100 05/08/97
DLS
142116
Spike
mg/1
16 100
1100 05/08/97
DLS
THE STATE CONSIDERS NITRATE LEVELS OVER 45 A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD. MG/L = MILLIGRAMS PER LITER AND IS EQUIVALENT TO PART PER
MILLION.
COLIFORM BACTERIA ARE ABSENT, WATER IS SUITABLE FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION.
_t:
0
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: _ Office of Plan.& Research Dept.
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
X Butte County Clerk
FROM: Butte County Planning
7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Project Title: Use Permit UP 96-13
AP Number: .005-370-009, 032
Applicant: Brad Fleshman
State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to clearinghouse):
Contact Person: Steve Hackney Telephone Number: .538-7601
Project Location: At the north end of Guill Street, Chico
Project Description: Use Permit to operate a landscape maintence company
This is to advise that the Butte County Planning Commission has approved the above-described project on December 12,
1996 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project:
1. The project will, _X_ will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
_X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were, _X were not, made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of overriding considerations was, _X_ was not, adopted for this project.
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the general
public at:
Date received for filing and posting at OPR
Butte County
Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
j:\linda\noe.nod\nod.frm
raig S ders
Senior Planner `
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FILING FEE EXEMPTION
De N inimis Impact Finding
(Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations)
Project Title / Butte County Location: UP -96-13 Brad Fleshman, At the north end of Guill St.,
Chico
Project Description: Use Permit to operate a landscape maintence company
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
1. The county of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a Negative
Declaration so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact:
2. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County
that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends.
3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, if applicable.
4. The project is hereby found to be de minimis in its effect on wildlife and exempt
from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that
based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
By: —
Craig Sande
Senior Planner
Lead Agency: County of Butte
Date: January 6, 1997
j : linda\noe. nod\f&g. let
•. DECLARATION OF FEES DUE•
(California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
FILING NO.
CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:
1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
() A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt
$25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
(X) B. De Minimus Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption
$25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED
() A. Negative Declaration
$1,250 State Filing Fee
$25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
()
'B." Environmental Impact Report
$850 State Filing Fee
$25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
3. () OTHER (Specify)
$25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee
PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES:
1. (X) PAYMENT: The. above fees have been paid.
See attached receipt(s). 915709
2. ( ) NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid.
Chief Planning Official
By: Craig Sanders
Title: Senior Planner
Lead Agency: Butte County Department of
Development Services
Date: January 6 1997
TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL.
DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING.
ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF AN Y hN VIKONMENTAL
DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THI Col.)NTY
OF BUTTE.
j :uinda\noe.nod\f&gfee
RECEIPT 15709
0
� J
5-7
TOTAL PUBLIC
LAPCO
VSE
VARIANCES
PV ELIC
DOC VM ENTS
ZONING
ENV
HEALTH
orHeA
APPLICANT
RECEIVED FROM
AECEIVT
DATE
NO.
RECEIVED WORKS
VCRMITS
RECEIPT 15709
0
� J
T
APPENDIX G
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the project described below has been reviewed pursuant to
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources
Code 21100, et. seq.) and a determination has been made that it will not have a
significant effect upon the environment.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Assessor's Parcel No. 005-370-009, 032
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Use Permit to operate a landscape maintence company
LOCATION OF PROJECT: At the north end of Guill St., Chico
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT APPLICANT: P.O. Box 4075, Chico, CA 95927
MITIGATION MEASURES: None
A copy of the initial study regarding the environmental effect of this project is on
file at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville.
This study was:
X Adopted as presented.
Adopted with changes. Specific modifications and supporting reasons are
attached..
A public hearing on this Negative Declaration was held by the decision making body.
Hearing Body: Planning Commission
Date of Determination: December 12, 1996
Determination:
On the basis of the initial study of environmental impact, the information
presented at hearings, comments received on the proposal and our own knowledge
and independent research:
X' We find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
We find that the project COULD have a significant effect on the
environment, but will not in this case because of attached mitigation
measures described in item 5 above, which are by this reference made
conditions of project approval. A conditional NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
Chriee h rma
Butt County Planning Commission
Date:-
RECEIPT 15709
OFFICIAL RECEIPT.
COUNTY OF BUTTE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
155' ED BY
,;WR
s4
•-:.t �.''�it '•?
:.r+� ...aa
,� :y .,x
t, i:. {
.i4 •+ ���.K.4
•.sy....�„i r°
y.�'µ �4...
;. J+ �r ...+.. Lr.
Y
'•
DATE
RECEIPT
TOTAL
PUBLIC
LAFCO
USE
VARIANCESk
PU BIIC
ZONIN6
ENV
OTHER
APPLICANT
RECEIVED FROM
NO.
RECEIVED
WORHS
PERMITS
OCUMENTS
HEALT H
RECEIPT 15709
OFFICIAL RECEIPT.
COUNTY OF BUTTE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
155' ED BY
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
FAX: (916) 538-7785
November 18, 1996
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
Re: Use Permit, AP 005-370-009, 032, UP96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held November 14, 1996,
the public hearing was continued open to December 12, 1996, to consider your application
for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned A -R
located approximately 200 feet north of Guill Street/Ohio Street intersection, Chico. ,
This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive,
Oroville, California.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Craig Sanders
Senior Planner
CS:lr
k:%fortnstcontinue.frm ,
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
FAX: (916) 538-7785
November 7, 1996
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
Re: Use Permit, AP 005-370-009, 032, UP96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
Enclosed is a copy of the Supplemental Agenda Report concerning your application for a
Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned A -R, Chico.
Should you have any concerns with the report or conditions of approval, please contact us
in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns.
The public hearing was continued to November 14, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will
be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Stephen Hackney of
this office at 538-7601, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
Very truly yours,
Stephen Hackney
Associate Planner
SH:lr
Enc.
k: forms\schedule.frm
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
FAX: (916) 538-7785
October 14, 1996
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
Re: Use Permit, APN 005-370-009, 032, UP96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held October 10, 1996,
the public hearing was continued open to November 14, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. to consider
your application for a Use Permit to operate a landscape maintenance company on
property zoned A -R, Chico.
This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive,
Oroville, California.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
6L,- J
Craig Sanders
Senior Planner
CS:lr
kAfortns\continue. fnn
1
PiannlT,Z;
1SEP 2
Orov";o c imcifnIa
iy�G���'
D��o•v
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
FAX: (916) 538-7785
September 11, 1996
Brad Fleshman
P.O. Box 4075
Chico, CA 95927
. Re: Use Permit, AP 005-370-009, 032, UP96-13
Dear Mr. Fleshman:
Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a Use Permit to
operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned A -R located at the end of
Guill Street, Chico. Should 'you have any concerns with the report or conditions of
approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to
resolve your concerns.
A public hearing has been set for October 10, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held
in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
The Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be
present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Stephen Hackney of
this office at 538-7601, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday.
Very truly yours,
Stephen Hackney
Associate Planner
Enc.
k:\formslschedule. frm
r
W
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will
be held on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room,
County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, regarding the following
item:
ITEM FOR WHICH NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS
BEEN RECOMMENDED
9:00 a.m. - File # UP 96-13 -Brad Fleshman (applicant) : a request for a Use Permit to
operate a landscape maintenance company on property zoned AR
(Agricultural Residential), located approximately 200+ feet north of Guill
Street/Ohio Street intersection, identified as AP 005-370-009 and 032, in the
Chico area. (SH)
The above-mentioned application and map are on file and available for public viewing at
the Office of the Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division, 7
County Center Drive, Oroville, California. For information call: (916) 538-7601 (Monday
through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Comments may be submitted in writing any time
prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as may be continued to a later
date. If you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or
in written correspondence delivered to the Development Services Department, Planning
Division, at or prior to, the public hearing.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Williaml Farrel, Director of Development Services
To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Monday, September 9, 1996
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
COUNTY OF BUTTE
INITIAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. BACKGROUND:
1. Name of Proponent Brad Fleshman
2. Address P.O. Box 4075, Chico, CA 95927 Phone ( 916) 343-3608
3. Name of Proposal, if applicable n/a
4. Type of Project Use Permit
5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): This is a request for a Use Permit to operate a landscape
maintenance company located at 1139 Guill Street, on two adjacent parcels approximately 200+ feet north
of Guill St./Ohio St. intersection, in the Chico area. This project is located in the Chapmantown-Mulberry
Improvement boundary. The project site presently has an existing residence, detached office structure with
toilet facilities, a detached garage and storage shed all on one parcel (-032) and an undeveloped parcel on
which equipment is parked (-009). The topography is level and without any dominant physical
characteristics. The site is bordered by residences to the east and west on moderately sized parcels for the
area. Parcels bordering the project site to the north and south are vacant. Water is provided by a well
located on an adjacent parcel to the east, not part of this application, also owned by the applicant. Sewer
service is provided by a septic system on parcel # -032. Access to the parcels is from Guill Street.
6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 005-370-009, 032
Date Checklist Submitted
II. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_X_ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigation(s) will be prepared.
I find that -the proposed, project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
"j, A AA
Com fete y: Stephen Hackn sociate Planner
Reviewed rai.g Sanders, Senior Planner
5.y', a,.I��Z
Date
gL23
Dates.
0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
•
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning
❑
Transportation/Circulation
❑ Public Services
0 Population and Housing
❑
Biological Resources
❑ Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Geophysical
❑
Energy and Mineral Resources
❑ Aesthetics
0 Water
❑
Hazards
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality
❑
Noise
0 Recreation
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not
apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an, effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to
a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in a earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0
2
s
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
•
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation
No
Impact Incorporated Impact
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan
designation or zoning? X
b) Conflict with applicable
environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? ' X
c) Be incompatible with existing land
use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or
operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income
or minority community)? X
S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact
X
Response: The General Plan designation of Low Density Residential does not include a commercial type
operation, as is presented with this project, in its list of primary and secondary uses. A commercial type of
use, as this project represents, conflicts with the AR (Agricultural Residential) zone. In analyzing the
potential environmental impacts as a may result with this nonconforming use, no such impacts are identified.
Examining the appropriate documents — the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance,
and the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report -- it appears the nonconforming use presented by the
applicant is in conflict with all three documents. Upon further examination, it appears these very documents
are in conflict with one another:
The AR zoning is not a listed Consistent Zone in the General Plan designation of Low
Density Residential, though the parcel size, density and uses are consistent with this
designation;
The Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report lists one of its goals to be to "Maintain
the rural residential character of the area." (Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report,
page 3); whereas, the General Plan describes the primary use for the Low Density
Residential designation to be to have residences at urban densities (Land Use Element
page 51);
The Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Report is not an adopted land use instrument. It consists of a
series of reports put into one document that, in essence, is advisory. The Report has never been approved
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
3
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation S i g n i f i c a n t
No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
and adopted by the Board of -Supervisors, either by resolution or by ordinance.
The proposed use is an existing nonconforming use that has been operating for approximately the past five
(5) years. The site was previously occupied by another nonconforming use, an asphalt business, dating
back to the late 1960s (communications, interviews, letters in files). The previous nonconforming use was
grand fathered in, but with the change of nonconforming uses comes the requirement for the Use Permit.
While the nonconforming use is in conflict with the General Plan and Zoning, there is no evidence of any
potentially adverse physical environmental impacts to the area as a result of this use. It is likely any such
adverse impact would have surfaced after six (6) years of operation.
Very often the presence of a commercial use in a residential area may be incompatible with surrounding land
uses. In this instance, nonconforming uses on the project site have been a part of the neighborhood for
approximately 30 years. The nature of the nonconforming commercial use needs to be examined. If the
use entailed retail sales, with the coming and going of constant and high traffic volumes, a clear and
potentially adverse impact would be present. With this project, only the 2 to 5 employees create any traffic,
when they arrive in the morning and when they leave in the evening.
The parcels adjacent to the project site are either vacant or are owned by the applicant. The nonconforming
nature of the project site, after approximately 30 years of such uses, and five years for this use, part of the
character of this portion of the neighborhood. If the project site were located in a more central location, for
example, nearer to Chapman Elementary School, then such a nonconforming use would probably divide or
disrupt the physical arrangement of the community. Located at the end of a dead-end street, bordered by
Little Chico Creek and Highway 99 to the north and northeast, the project does not appear to divide nor
disrupt the community.
Mitigation: None required.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official
regional or local population
projections? X
b) Induce substantial growth in
an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)? X
c) Displace existing housing,
especially affordable housing? X
Response: While a) and b) are not applicable to the applicant's request, the very existence of a
nonconforming commercial use in an area zoned for residential use displaces housing. In this instance,
however, the applicant has utilized the existing residence to provide housing for one of his employees along
with the operating of his business from this same site.
Mitigation: None required.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑
4
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
No
Impact Incorporated
3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Seismicity: fault rupture?
b) Seismicity: ground shaking/
liquefaction?
c) Seismicity: seiche?
d) Landslides or mudslides?
e) Erosion, changes in topography
or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill?
f) Subsidence of the land?
g) Expansive soils?
h) Unique geologic or physical
Less
Than
S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
features? X
Response: The project will not create any significant geophysical or topographical impacts that will result
in any deterioration of the environment or place people at any significant risk. The project site is level, with
soil that perks well. Erosion is low. The Vina loam type soil is not an expansive type of soil.
Mitigation: None required.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in.
a) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? X
b) Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such as
flooding? X
c) Discharge into surface waters
or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? X
d) Changes in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
5
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
Potentially
Significant
No
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavation?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow
of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
•
Potentially
Significant Less
Unless Than
Mitigation S i g n i f i c a n t
Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
Response: The project is not going to pose any significant impacts in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or rate and amount of surface runoff. Although any time impervious surfaces, such as roofs, sidewalks, etc.,
are constructed there is an incremental increase in rate of runoff, or absorption rates and drainage patterns
are incrementally altered, there is sufficient acreage on this site to mitigate such issues on site. No new
structures are proposed by the applicant for this project.
Mitigation: None required.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation? X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or cause any change in
climate? x
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Response: The project is not going to violate or contribute to any air quality violation. The project, a request
to continue a nonconforming commercial use, is not going to be growth inducing. Additional cars, aside from
the 2 to 5 employees, are not going to result with this project. Those people using the facilities are those
who presently use the existing facilities.
Mitigation: None required.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0
C -J
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation S i g n i f i c a n t
No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design
features (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X
c) Inadequate emergency access or
access to nearby uses X
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/
offsite? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies
supporting alternative transportation
(e:g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? X
h) Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems, including
public transportation services? X
Response: The project will not result in numerous vehicle trips, congestion, or additional safety hazards.
This project will include the use of one (1) 1 ton truck, with dump kit, that is a single axel vehicle; and two
(2) 3/4 ton pickup trucks with a single axel. The number of daily trip ends with these commercial vehicles
will be six trip ends per day. The average trip ends per day for one urban residence is ten (10) trip ends per
day (Institute of Traffic Engineers).
As noted in Response, Item 5, the project will not be contributing to additional air quality impacts. No other
impacts relating to transportation have been identified. There is a good line of sight down Guill Street for
traffic coming and going to the project site. The width of parcel #-009 provides easy access in and out of
the site.
Mitigation: None required.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds)? X
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑
7
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP 1196-13
No
b) Locally designated species (e.g
heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural
communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh,
riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
9.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less
Than
Sig n i f i c a n t
Impact Impact
X
X
X
corridors? X
Response: There are no endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats present on the site (Butte
County Resources constraints map, and site visit, June 3, 1996).
Mitigation: None required.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner? x
c) Conflict with the extraction of
identified, significant mineral
resources? X
Response:The project does not conflict with any energy conservation plans. The use of natural resources
will be limited to those products needed to operate a landscaping business.
Mitigation: None required.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve
a) A risk of accidental explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)
b) Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard?
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
8
X
X
X
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
No
d) Exposure of people to existing
sources of potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
•
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
Response: The proposed project will not expose people to existing sources of health hazards nor does it
create potential health hazards. Although gas and oil is present at levels to maintain the operation of
lawnmowers, the existence and movement of humans, equipment and materials is such that it does not pose
any safety risks. Fuel for the equipment is purchased as needed, in small quantities such as quart -size
containers. There are no large gallon tanks on site, nor any barrels of oil. Maintenance of the equipment
is taken offsite, e.g., the trucks are serviced by another firm. The only maintenance performed onsite
consists of occasional hosing down of the equipment.
Mitigation: None required.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
X
Y
Response: The existence of the facility will not result in significant noise impacts to the surrounding
residences. The size of the parcel, the distances from any neighbors protects or alleviates any increase
noise levels resulting from the activities from this facility. These activities simply include the morning arrival
of employees, who pick up their equipment and depart to perform their work in other parts of the community,
and their return in the evening. General maintenance, such as minor tune-ups on the mowing equipment,
is done onsite in the garage/storage area. Any major repair work on the equipment is performed elsewhere
at another firm contracted for the work.
Mitigation: None required.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
0
n
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
No
•
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less
Than
S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact Impact
Response: The project will not require specific fire protection requirements. The Sheriff's office has
indicated no impacts will result from this project. Schools will not be affected by this type of project. No
other impacts to public facilities or governmental facilities will occur.
Mitigation: None required.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment
or distribution facilities? X
A Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Special Districts? X
Response: The project will not require an expansion of new facilities, but rather will utilize those facilities
already in place for the site. Drainage has not been identified as an issue by Public Works. The
undeveloped nature of parcel # 009 is probably sufficient to handle stormwater onsite.
Mitigation: None required.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or designated
scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative
aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
Response: No scenic vista or other aesthetic effect will result. The commercial operations close each
weekday evening, and operates mostly on a seasonal basis, that is in the late Spring to early Fall.
Mitigation: None required.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0
10
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
No
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated Impact
S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Response: The project area has been used and disturbed for years. There are no surface resources
existent. No further subsurface disturbance is going to take place, so if there exists any historical or
archaeological resources below the surface they will not be disturbed.
Mitigation: None required.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreation facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational
opportunities? X
Response: The continued operation of a nonconforming commercial use is not going to increase any
demand upon recreational facilities.
Mitigation: None required.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
11
9
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP 496-13
No
major periods of California history
or. prehistory?
b) Does the project have the
potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the
disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects).
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human being, either
directly or indirectly?
•
Potentially
Significant Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation S i g n i f i c a n t
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
Response: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, nor reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species. No potential exists for the achievement of short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No individually limited impacts exist that cumulatively
would be considerable. The potential exists for some impact to residents of the general neighborhood as
a result of traffic in and out of the site in the morning and evening with the coming and going of the 2 to 5
employees and their equipment. Such an activity in quantifiable numbers does not support the
characterizing of this type of impact as being substantial.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
12
9
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
•
V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
None required.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
13
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
►0
A
DATA SHEET
Project Description
•
1. Type of Project: Use Permit
2. Proposed Density of Development: n/a
3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: approximately 25%
4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Guill Street - frontage
5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic system.
6. Source of Water Supply: Individual well from adjacent parcel.
7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property.
8. Potential for further land divisions and development: No further potential land division -- located in
the Chico Nitrate Action Plan.
Environmental Setting
1. Terrain
a General Topographic Character: no unique features
b. Slopes: level (0-1 % grade)
C. Elevation: 215 feet above sea level.
d. Limiting Factors: none
2. Soils
a. Types and Characteristics: Vina loam
b. Limiting Factors: none
3. Natural Hazards of the Land
a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII.
b. Erosion Potential: low
C. Landslide Potential: low
d. Fire Hazard: located in an unclassified, urbanized area
e. Expansive Soil Potential: low
4. Hydrology
a. Surface Water: none
b. Ground Water: Unknown.
C. Drainage Characteristics: good due to type of soil
d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 22 to 24 inches per year.
e. Limiting Factors: none
5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Fair.
6. Acoustic Quality: Good.
7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley.
8. Vegetation: surrounding shrubs, a couple of oak trees onsite.
9. Wildlife Habitat: none
10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High sensitivity area.
11. Butte County General Plan designation: Low Density Residential
12. Existing Zoning: AR (Agricultural Residential)
13. Existing Land Use on-site: single family residence, detached office, detached garage/shop
14. Surrounding Area:
a. Land Uses: residential
b. Zoning: AR
C. Gen. Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
d. Parcel Sizes: 1/4 to 1/2 acre parcels
15. Character of Site and Area: undeveloped open area on parcel # 009, residential/office and
accessory structures on parcel # 032. Area is characterized by residential development.
16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico
0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
14
•
Use Permit: Brad Fleshman, UP #96-13
17
18
19
20.
•
Relevant Spheres of Influence: Chico
Improvement Standards Urban Area: Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Standards
Fire Protection Service:
a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station
b. Water Availability: Tanker trucks.
Schools: Chico Unified School District.
Station number 4 approximately 1 mile away.
ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1 Seismic Safety Element
Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977.
2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1 Safety Element
Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977.
4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill,
1977.
5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill,
1977.
6. Butte County Planning Department. _Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4. Safety Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983.
10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA.
11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in
Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983.
12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178
Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987.
13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
1989.
14. USGS Quad Maps.
15. Soil Map, Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture.
16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture.
17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map Butte
County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989.
❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑
15
c
9
LEAD IN SHEET
FILE NO: UP 96-13
APPLICANT: FLESHMAN, Brad P.O.Box 4075, Chico, CA 95927
NA�f& ADDRESS
OWNER:
NAME ADDRESS
REPRESENTATIVE:
NAME ADDRESS
AP# 005-370-009
SIZE: .q!� ry-t-
LOCATION:
SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT #.
EXISTING ZONING:
ZONING HISTORY: 1 `d, , l 3 -
T�1) S i S G`
V\,0 4-
(Nc'S VSG.� 4$ yd
Co v►�V'hv5
SURROUNDING ZONING: 7<
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
SITE HISTORY:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: . uw
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
k:leadinsheet Planning Denartrnen4
aj) AN 18 1996
oPOViCiz:, wrr;::doiiia
CONEMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPLICATION: Use Pen --it UP 96-13
DATE: January 18, 1996
County Offices and Cities:
_ Chief Administrative Officer _X_ Develop. Services Director X_ Public Works Director
X_ Environmental Health Director _X_ Planning Manager — Building Manager
_X_ Sheriff — BCAG — ALUC
X_ LAFCo APCD Butte Co. Fane Bureau
Biggs — Gridley Chico
Oroville — Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission
Agricultural Commission
Irrigation District:
Butte Water _
Biggs/W. Gridley Water
— Durham Irrigation
—
OWID
Paradise Irrigation
— Richvale Irrigation
— —
— Table Mountain Irrigation —
Thermalito Irrigation
— Other
Domestic Water
-�
Butte Water District —
California Water Service Co.
_ Del Oro Water Co.
—
— OWID —
Thermalito Irrigation District
— Other
Sewer
Butte Water District —
Themalito Irrigation
— Sterling City Sewer Main
—
— Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21) —
L.O.A PUD
Fire Protection
_X_ California Department of Forestry _
EI Medio Fire Protection District
Recreation Districts
Chico Area Recreation
Durham Area Recreation,
_ Feather River Rec. & Park
_ _
Paradise Recreation & Park
Richvale Recreation & Parks
Utilities
PG&E North - Chico _
Chambers Cable TV_
Pacific Bell
_
PG&E South - Oroville
Viacom Cable TV
State Agencies
CalTrans _
Dept of Water Resources
— Dept of Fish and Game
— Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) _
Dept of Parks and Rec.
— Highway Patrol
Central Reg. Water Quality Control
_ Department of Conservation —
Off. of Mining Reclamation
— Off. of Govemmental & Env. Relations
Federal Agencies
— US Forest Service —
US Bureau of Land Management
Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc.
Lime Saddle Dist —
Community Association
— Mosq. Abatement Oroville/Butte Co
—_ Drainage —
Butte Env.l Council
— Paradise Pines Com
Reclamation —
Cal Native Plant Society.
—
_
Butte Co. Mining Committee —
—
Professional Landscape Maintenance
P.O. Boz 4075 • Chico, CA 95927
MAY 29, 1996
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DR.
OROVILLE, CA 95965-3397
RE: OPERATION OF PLM AT 1139 GUILL ST.
ADDITION REQUEST OF USE PERMIT
STEVE :HACKNEY,
-I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AT THIS TIME_TO INCLUDE PARCEL #32
AS PART OF PART OF MY USE PERMINT ALONG WITH PARCEL #9. I
WOULD BE USING.ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THIS:LOT WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE EXIS`IINGINfOFFICE AND BATHROOM USE.
THANKYOU
SINCERELY,
44e
BRAD FLESHMAN-
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Planning Division
MAY 3 U 1996
Urovifle, udimpa
-� _sem - �i; � 1...• :\.� : � < , � _ :\� � .-. .. - - - - �
�- PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 0
FAX: (916) 538-7785
0
June 6,1996
Environmental Health
Chico Office
RE: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
Dear Gail Lawrence,
Stephen Hackney has requested that I send you a new comment. Along with the new comment, I
am sending the letter we received from Brad Fleshman, and a copy of your original comment. If
there is anything else you need please call, 538-7601.
Thank you,
Linda Thornsber
ry
Office Assistant II
�J
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
BUTTE COUNTY
TO: Development Services, Planning Division // (�,o
FROM: Michael Huerta Supervisor, Environmental Health j�V C./Vj
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Conditions
DATE: June 26, 1996
APPLICANT: Brad Fleshman DATE: June 26, 1996
AGENT: APN: 005-370-009
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit
Items below are conditions of approval.
PLEASE CONTACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Provide verification of potable water (Bacteria sample will
be required)
It should be noted that well is not on property included in
Use Permit, but applicant owns adjacent property that has
well on it.
Note that no additional development will be approved on property
due to current constraints of the Nitrate Action Plan.
MH/dd/land/fleshman.con
Planning Division
JUN i 7 1996
®roviiie, California
r.mvmvmnsLav e . i m mrm
• •
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Environmental Health Director: Gail Lawrence
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
APR 3 01996
Chico, Callomia
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and , if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
Agdcultural/Residential) located at the end of Guill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-376-009..,.. .
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
By: _ Date:
k:\forns\comment.f-m 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-77@ening Division
MAY 2 8 1996
Urovillo, Callfomias
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Public Works Director
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and , if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR
Aeaicultural/Residential) located at the end of Guill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATION' ARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
/
40, is C' /- tl��s reG�est- sly,// /r Sr.•.� s�o�,,,��r�er Al"
2 Ade -y a e ur 7"VP- ✓ /J u,✓iic.� Li e // ea feol
3 I -A f+l/J G G f/4 X71 L i r;o A,,"- 026was e�/ �i 4^ a �
C�ar►1in u../ G/� U,fJMQ� aIV
Z oe Lw u .-Gfldu�7u✓ Qi✓P.K .
By: Date: 6
k:\forms\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
RECEIVED
APR 2 9 1996
COUNTY OF BUTTE
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV.
r
•
0
BUTTE COUNTY
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR
USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Brad Fleshman DATE: April 29, 1996
AGENT: None APN: 005-370-009
FILE #: UP 96-13 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance
company
Those items checked are conditions of approval.
PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CHECKED CONDITIONS
A. STREETS
1. Prior to -the issuance of building permits obtain encroachment permit for all new or existing
driveway approaches and construct them to County standards, as specified in County
Improvement Standards.
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits deed to Butte County, in fee simple, _ feet of
right-of-way from the centerline of . The
right of way shall be sufficient for the installation of standard No. S-5 at all street
intersections.
_ 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits submit road and drainage improvement plans for
the installation and construction of the street frontage improvements on
to standard, including but not limited to P.C.C. curb,
gutter and sidewalk and the required street section for parcels with gross acreage of one
acre or less. Construct or install the required improvements.
_ 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits dedicate a one foot "no access strip" or relinquish
abutters rights to Butte County, along the frontage of parcels
except at approved access points.
B. DRAINAGE
_ 1. Prior to the recordation of the issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution
for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The
drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or
conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and
shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or
facility.
_ 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits establish 100 year floodplain elevations and the
lowest floor elevations for any structures. Show on the site plan map for building permits
the elevations (by contours) and the location of an accepted NVGD benchmark and a
■ Use Permit Standard Conditions - Butte County ■
temporary benchmark on-site.
C. LEGAL LOT STATUS
Prior to the issuance of the Use Permit, prove, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works, that the parcel of the subject application is a legal parcel.
■ Use Permit Standard Conditions - Butte County ■
2
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Development Services Director
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and, if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
Agricultural/Residential ) located at the end of Quill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009.
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
Manning D,'Da ftern
19Q�
orokllt
Date: b
k:\forms\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
•
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Butte County Planning Manager
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and , if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping_ Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
Agricultural/Residential) located at the end of Guill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009.
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATION ARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COQ� NTSpp (Attach additional pages if necessary): 0 �j
.h��f'il.¢�
0
IWC Ar '
A (-1 ( ,-lam `0►t/A'1'� k—�6 1 -
.by: .amu,.,.
k:\f6rrns\comment.f77m 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
BUTTE COUNTY 6
U h
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES �"' � � if
PLANNING DIVISION APR 3 0 1995
m, p
C' y GF it
TO: City of Chico PLANNING DIVI3 0,11 J
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager —..may 1
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and , if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
Agicultural/Residential) located at the end of Guill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009.
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUMCATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
I M
Z-. Iraq-j.IC c, ,-- a CT5 -M Gtd, A f-tA .T !`41 dam..-Nw C
1 ,tet;q h hr, -k 14
k:\foims\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
Planning Department
MAY 0 7 1996
Orville; C,aiVbrnla
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
L/ L
TO: California Department of Forestry
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and, if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR
Amicultural/Residential) located at the end of Guill Sheet (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13, 1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
MAY 0 Q 9996
By: Date:
0forniftomment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
9
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
APPLICANT: Brad Fleshman DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance Company
FILE M UP 96-13
PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS
1. Construction, installation or development of structures or facilities on the parcels/lots shall
comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations, (Public Resources Code 4290),
and all other applicable State and County codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at
the time of application for improvement permits.
2. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public
Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and
maintained continuously thereafter.
3. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed acceptable to the
County Fire Warden.
4. In lieu of a pressurized water system or water storage tank, payment of $200.00 per
created parcel into the Battalion _ water tend fund, is required prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
5. A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific
locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department
specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant
spacing _ feet, hydrant size _ inches, and residual fire flow _ gpm. Submit plans to
the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities.
6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment may be made into the
hydrant at a cost
of $1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $
_ 7. Prior to recordation of the Map or application for a building permit, the applicant shall pay
the then current fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund.
8. Provide an all weather access to all structures, which is designed to carry a 40,000 pound
fire apparatus at least 10 feet wide with a 15 foot vertical clearance.
Revised BKH 10-9-95 K:\standcon\up
d
■ Use Permit Standard Conditions - Butte County ■
R
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: LAFCo
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and , if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
AFaicultural/Residential) located at the end of Quill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009.
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATION ARE RECEIVED BY THAT -DA TE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
Date: - 9�
k:\forms\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
NAY VE
1 1996,
(,O
L
TO: Butte County Sheriff
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager /C
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File
DATE: April 29,1996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and, if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to berate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR (
Awicultural/Residential) located at the end of Quill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009.
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2 .
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A DARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
MAY 0 9
FOyilli, %-viou'rnta
k:\forrns\comment.fim 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Ag Commission ,
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Brad Fleshman, File # UP 96-13
DATE: April 29, 1.996 PLANNER: Stephen Hackney
We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for
completeness and, if complete, for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days
of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your
department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested.
Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given, or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a
call at -538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for a Use Permit to operate a Landscaping Maintenance company on property zoned AR
Agricultural/Residential ) located at the end of Guill Street (north end) in the Chico area, identified as APN 005-370-009
It is within Supervisorial District No. 2.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
X PLANNING COMMISSION _ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
ON June 13, 1996.
YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 13,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR
COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE.
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
Q)d �
MAY 0 9 19
By:
C1� f o� Date: �` — ``.to
k:\forms\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785
May 31, 1995
MEMO TO FILE:
As per a phone conversation with Denny McKinney it appears that the property known
as 1139 Guill Street was used by Ralph Tarrant as his base of operation for his asphalt
paving business. Denny has lived in the area all of his life, operates a paving business
located across from Chapman School, knew Ralph Tarrant personally, and learned
much of what he knows about the paving business from Ralph. Denny stated that Ralph
stored equipment there and used the house as an office. He also stated that Ralph
operated the business at this location from sometime in the late 1960's and was
continuously in operation until the property was sold in 1990, to John Goddard.
A OFFICIAL RECEIPT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
ti STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
RECEIPT 15430
ISSUED BY
W
.5; 14 -1d1
•
DATE
RECEIPT
TOTAL
PUBLIC
LAFCO
USE
VARIANCES
PUBLIC
ZONING
ENV
OTRER
APPLICANT
RECEIVED FROM
NO.
RECEIVED
WORKS
PERMITS
DOCUMENTS
MEALTR
A OFFICIAL RECEIPT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
ti STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
RECEIPT 15430
ISSUED BY
•
9661
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
P.O. BOX 4075 916-343-3608
CHICO, CA 95927
11-24
DATE 1210(8)
-� "
P'l
Tu THE
ORD OF i 2, � � $•�O +
DOLLARS B
4
WELLS FARGO BANK
FOR
11000966 LII' A: 1, 2 1,000 21.40:0 186, 00 2 5 2311'
. - --M MOM
.
0 G9 cc
C
• N s
r
Z3 9�
lS430.
30—
36. --ad
/rIA/7 .oslo�d�Ih.
Dare
RECEIPT
NO.
TOTAL
RECEIVED
PUBLIC
WORKS
LAFCD
use
VARIANCES
PUBLIC
ZONIN.
ENV
OTHER
APPLICANT
RECEIVED FROM'
1
PERMITS
DOCUMENTS
HEALTH
RECEIPT 15430
OFFICIAL RECEIPT -
COUNTY OF BUTTE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
ISSUED BY
DATE RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC LAFCO 'USE VARIANCES PUBLIC 20NIN6 ENV V•. 11W
NO. RECEIVED WORKS PERMITS DOCVMENTS KEALTR
OFFICIAL.RECEIPT
APPLICANT
RECEIPT 1S183
RECEIVED FROM
COUNTY OF BUTTE
` STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
APPLICANT
RECEIPT 1S183
RECEIVED FROM
Ri
f
1,4
77TV
'm
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
E
--- . --r-
6)
CO
3
DATE
RECEIPT
TOTAL
PUBLIC
LAFCO
USE
r—
PUBLIC
RECEIVED
WORKS
PERMITS
VARIANCES
TS
ZONING
ENV.0.
HEALTH
OTHER
APPLICANT
RECEIVED FROMo
OFFICIALRECEIPT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
E
C"
6)
CO
3
r—
RECEIPT 15183
ISSUED BY
9010
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
P.O. BOX 4075 916-343-3608
CHICO, CA 95927
11-24
1210(8)
DATE
TO
PAY
ORDHEOF
DOLLARS Bow
CHICO SKYWAY OFFICE
WELLS FARGO BANK
2485 NOTRE DAME BLVD., CHICO, CA 95928
FOR �/J £ ,w,c� Ir/ U� �. /'-�� G �Lc% ///IMP�
1100090 10ol ; 1s 121000 248 :0 186 00 2 5 2 311'
8960
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
P.O. BOX 4075 916-343-3608
CHICO, CA, 95927
' 11-24
1210(8)
DATE /Z'-ZS�
PAYy� .....
TO THEORDY OF
CHICO SKYWAY OFFICE
WELLS FARGO BANK
2485 NOTRE DAME BLVD., CHICO, CA 95928
FOR I pct J f —ys= of14".cAt
DOLLARS 8 m
NP
"'00896011'•=-1: 1 2 1,000 24840 186 00 2 5 2 311'
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
P.O. BOX 4075 916-343-3608 11_24
CHICO, CA 95927
1210(8)
DATE
PAY
ORDE
TO THE .it C�cfi�" i/"ji;'•r/ •T� J o . .
OF 'o - -
c L .
J<G•i> DOLLARS 80`x•
CHICO SKYWAY OFFICE _
WELLS FARGO BANK
2485 NOTRE DAME BLVD., CHICO, CA 95928
FO� �'"( `i° Y� DOS" -770 r, e -v
11'00879811' 1s 12 1000 2 4131:0 1136
>�NIP-
00252311'
8742
PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
P.O. BOX 4075 916-343-3608
CHICO, CA 95927 11-24
121aa)
DATE
PAYTO
ORDHEOF
5f-�:.v....
c�%��I�O/ fh/voss.:'i� - '7b71i C1��,-. c-.—� ,/✓V DOLLARS
CHICO SKYWAY OFFICE
WELLS FARGO BANK
2485 NOTRE DAME BLVD., CHICO. CA 95928
FOR.
30
112008 74 211" 1: L 2 1000 241340 1136
� r IYF'
00252311'
JAN 18 1996 �S
�-�7
OrOVIlie, �.ae.e„•I'"1718 G,,, Op
COUNTY OF BUTTE
OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
0
U.S.POSIAGE
vY SEP -9'96
0 .2 9 2
Pa.METER
6808230
PUBLIC
/STATUS . Ac -T IVE
HE lkRING U_t_ok4 1 3 4 001 000
DELS365 959R8R027 IN 09/11/96
RETURN TO SENDER
®��CE NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
UNABLE TO FORWARD
RETURN TO SENDER
UP 96-13
005-370-009
Brad Fleshman
C
-1
P='
City of Chico
i
0
1:7
ro)e
0
VO 32
cation
194
F
City of Chico
M�
r �
1�
L,
G
=A..
o�
1 V ® 1
i h�1/Cv ,•�
�
Vt
7, 10
c
•
('^--� C
J C in nnin't.y"$df9nt
IN
kr` orovilia, Ca-uania
is
",loft
T. 22 N. R. I E:,, M. D. B. 8 M.
05 -
Planning Department
JAN 18 1996 >�
®rovifie, c: U9 s,C
3
. 30 Ac
P 65 .31AC
21
6+ i
i� .69 AC.
_
CHIC O _ / I 4 � _
i
I--
I 5 co.S2Ae
BOUCHER'S THI ADD; r
c
—2 — — —
14
6 4 .47 AC. I O
F► 5 27 c o
w
f I !9 3 25 2
rc .30 AC. J •
I
SUNSET T I N PM 113 - 39/ ADD•
0 56.00 87.00 53.00 64.12 f x50.6
126.00 1220 78.00
STREET
OHIO
Lu
cc _
co 38
•
P00
T. ""'? 1V , R. I E., M.D. B. B M.
v�
w
W
co
a
98UCMr-R..? FBURFRR.ADDlrl0N M.O.n. ax -9, Pato
BOUCHER'S rHRW.AWITRON. M.O.R. BK. 6, PG. 15
SUNSET.AOMT101t6• MGA BK -6.- PC34
OHIO
s�,
STREET
Assessor's Map -No. 05-37
County of lTutte ' rol.►'f.
I�EiStSE :lL 9
op
COUNTY OF BUTTE
OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
PUBLIC
HEARING
NOTICE
ovi - z�.--,�� . .
Z�ivs
"M 0 �< `'"✓ U.S.POSTAGE
4m SEP -9'96
r' CI►P 13.METEq
6808230
` I,sep�a
i L: 005 370 014 000
VOYLES VIVIAN E
i 1121 BRUCE ST
STATUS:`ACTIVE
f
CO
�.CHICA 95928.
�fifitaftlalttatttltfltt�at�fartt�a�tat{�laat�atltFit.a���atlt�
'tateAIM
M,
k, FMW
By Mark Glover 1995, to Sept. 30 this year. secured by Fannie Mae, the Federal a reliable indicator of real estate industry
A s•i
California was one of only five states National Mortgage Association, or trends. uv
Zee Staff Writer . , y resident of the
4 * showing a decline over the period. Besides Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Brian Hohowa , p
Y :uprem
`i C011rt l.eiSt rices of houses in California -Hawaii, the others were Vermont (down Mortgage Corp. Sacramento Association of Realtors, r:
dropped 2.1 percent for the year. 0.1 percent), Connecticut (0.3 percent) OFHEO's house price index does not characterized California's index rankitlg`0
Or . rOperty rights ended Sept. 30, placing the Golden and Rhode Island (1.7 percent). include many home sales —especially as a "double-edged sword! „!
` California ranked well below the new and expensive homes'- because it "If you're buying a home, it's really 1
State 50th on a federal government
- ver the last 15 years, western agency's list of state rankings based on ` national average, which posted a 3.2 covers only sales of homes that have been good news because prices are down anal,
' - : states have been the incubator price'increases. percent gain for the year. sold before and does not count those interest rates have dropped again"
for almost every major property Only Hawaii — with a 6.2 percent Neighboring Oregon ranked at the top exceeding a conforming loan limit of Holloway said. "It's a wonderful time for
n ht for it the docket of the U S. decline — ranked lower thin California ' of the OFHEO list, with a 9.7 percent Administration
The index excludes Veterans first-time home buyers, but it's not a gbo
f' :' •g Administration mortgages; homes time for home sellers."
-' Supreme Court. Three important cases on the Office of Federal Housing Enter increase.
anated from California, one from prise Oversight house price index, which Price movements are published purchased with cash and homes financed Looking at the yearlong time perioA
m rebased on with no involvement by Fannie Mae or covered in the index, Holloway noted tea .
- e uarterl b OFHEO and a
regon and the latest is a development ranked all 50 states and the District of quarterly Y
anYl land -use controversy from the Lake Columbia based on their respective "sales or refinancings of single-family Freddie Mac. 1�'
�'nd l area a Nevada, to be argued increases in house prices from Oct. 1, homes with mortgages purchased'or Still, the quarterly listing is considered Please see PRICES, pa Tia
efore the high court early in 1997.
In the case of Suitum vs. Tahoe -
< _ �gional Planning Agency, the justices +
Will consider whether homeowner
,f
."Bernadine Suitum's property rights were is
- irimpled on by an arcane set of land -use Jtf i
'mile's aimed at protecting the Lake Tahoe "
: basin from rampant growth.
ar
The case we decided * =— ill bdided alA 7
plying complex legal precedents to the is `Tt j
Peculiar details of one homeowner's ,?
rsireto build a'modest home in the
k&o
alar ski town of Incline Village.. Del Webb's strep th is in listening 1A_� In the end, the courts ruling will „
g
turn on 12 words in the fifth amendment 2
oto the;U.5. Constitution.„"Nor :hall i
et active —homebuyers
x to is -aging -,y M
: 'vate property be taken in public use,
i ,,ppnn 'e
�'kiithout just compensation.”
v, iA
u Suituand her husband, now
Suitum.
deceased, bought a vacant lot in Incline
Village in 1972. In 1989, Bernadine
Suitum applied for a building permit .
`.ii€ith the Tahoe Planning Agency, which
:,retgulates growth in the environmentally
_ Tragile area.:
ek The regional agency denied her ,u i
"'rant on the grounds that the lot is in a .
Gitrt iln'erivironment zone" and that
�glding there would damage the 'environ-`
anent. However, she was granted transfer
�*velopment rights - an esoteric land-
4�e�rogram that'allows landowners to
s8l,their non-existent development rights .
td someone else who then builds where
" here are fewer constraints.
r TDRs have become a popular urban .,
f 4fining tool for shifting development to
f> main areas while compensating
Ia#�downers who cannot build in sense- w;
,• t3, a environmental zones.
e
•
in -the-early 19909, Suituled a
Suitum. filed ...
lawsuit charging that the Planning,,
Akency violated her civil rights by
: making" her property for public benefit
*}thout paying her compensation.
a ".Suitum is being given the royal r
reaucratic run-around by the Lake.,,
hoe Regional Planning Agency," said
tUor`ney Victor J. Wolski, who is repro -
venting Suitum and works for the
" Vnservative Pacific Legal Foundation.
'. So far, lower courts have seen the
vise differently.
0,���The U.S. District Court and the Ninth
01The
Court of Appeals ruled for the,
r liIanning Agency, noting that Suitum F ,.
Zlidn't try to sell her development rights
sand', therefore, couldn't blame the region -
for not compensating ensating her.
At 40 I lost my illusions,
;n .
W
coalitions and community -service
groups - hold leases on 1,289 of
ou s in turn, rent the homes to people who are ;
making as transition from homelessness: While the
At 501• lost my hair.
federally insured mortgages.`
HUD leases the homes for just
the homes around the country.
The groups sign agreements
'
'amount char ed individual tenants is not strictly regulat- .
g
ed by HUD, the agency recommends generally that it be
At 60 my hope and teeth were gone,'
$1 a year so the groups can, in
t:x rtt very low rents to
promising to house only homeless
or l %w -income people.
.UJ r"� Please'see LOCiL, page H2 `
And my feet were beyond repair.
,charge
people comingout of shelters or
Please see liI7D, page H2
r• ,,-
At 80 life has clipped my claws,rip
living on low income:. Y .
I'm bent and bowed and cracked; ' .
T;y
But I can't give up` the ghost because
My follies are intact.
E.Y. Harburg,1898-1981
- -
By Loretta Kalb
dTi�
a. t
Zee Real Estate Writer
'
e1 Webb Corp. has turned the
te21
science of growing older into an
Z.-
art.
The company must have
_
_
learned something in the
PSI
process, because in fiscal 1996,
res,'.
the parent'of Sun City Roseville,
i(rh
recorded $1.05. billion in revenues — up 30
?•U'
percent from a year earlier.
. In large part, it is because Harbures comic
cd,
;_.,1
description of growing decrepit is no longer a -
—
given for the Baby Boom generation, which
this year turned 50.
And in large part it is because Del Webb
-y
Corp. is -among only a handful of developers
nationally who have not been timid about
serving a niche market — the active adult
community where golf carts are more perva-
3�
sive than skate boards and where retirement
r N
is a way of life.
3 V
zi agency1. ;
r� Suitum and her lawyers hope to Two views of Sun City Roseville's , ' n In years and in five states, the comps- naw
- 8jpitalize on the 10 -year legacy of the Timber Creek Lodge, above and t "' ` nay's new home sales have gone from 970 to ;
;U.S. Supreme Court's conservative right, show the scope of the r1 more than 5,500 in 1996. This month, Profes-
iproach,to building regulations and : sional Builder ma azine named Del Webb and ��
i develo merit, with putting ✓vena,A g
property rights and its general suspi : , p p g g , r��� its CEO Phil Dion 1996 Builder of the Year.
driving ran e, bocci lanes and L In Roseville this year, only 30 months after
titins of local regulations that arbitrarily g g
- : tract public benefits from small tennis courts. ' ' e breaking ground on Sun City, half the 3,200 _
t' homes in a 10 -year projected build -out already
s } 0perty owners.
?; In the 1991 Lucas vs.' South Carolina Del Webb's Sun City r, Y „X have sold. The corporation is conducting
a(;dastal Council case, the justices said Roseville t feasibility studies on another, larger project in''
,r
- developer David Lucas deserved m s : nearby Lincoln. ,y
at deve p 1 mile
: ' overnment compensation for a state r �.--, .n Early next summer the builders will
r d his cs '� .',, "3 i ; ,; complete the second Billy Casper Golf Course
beach -front law that ✓endo e = p fi
-. N h{3~ - - > ;� r� at the Roseville site and add a half dozen new 3�
# `•property useless. " ' ' 1 r r
In the US. Court case of Pleasant i �'4� T floor plans to those currently available. The '-
Grove _..
olan•vs. Ci of Tigard, Ore., in 1995, g Blvd.Roseville '' floor plans coincide with the start in late
City �
"� t. ' spring of a third and final phase of Sun Cit a;
e high court found unconstitutional [ ��l ,�1`- x. �' , ,--.-�=•� I;• .�-;� .,.:�..,�.�� P g P Y
"e cit of Ti •rd's requirement that'" Fiddyment ashington ga°� Roseville, where the "Sierra Casual Collec-
n"^rrfiiil� - sr a gY .ra
h Y g Rd. Blvd. , =.��� - I
businesswoman Florence Dolan dedicate r
,. �,,, r , x� . Please see DEL WEBS, page H3
rind for a bike path before she could` Base Line R . Main St. -. ,. .
ebuild her plumbing supply store. ew graphic n
' ,d in the case of Ehrlich vs. Culver �}
iC�ttAin 1995, the Supreme Court sent i
'hVck to a lower court for re-examination t
��r'jrequirement that developer Richard 4
Irlich pay $313,220 to the city for
t l! r
`? to build a condominium f6r.homeles
s��rmissio a fees were for re lacing .Abu'st rampAtit m grogram
f; e
project. Th P
recreational facilities to be lost when the
z0eveloper tore down a fitness center. The
money also was earmarked for purchas- Associated Press A Denver fixer -upper house While some nonprofits have 3 0
do art to be put in public places. was sold to a builder making found legitimate tenant for the +
" $30 000 a ear who could afford to homes many have cheated and let PrOgram'abuSes f eW in area5� '
After 50 years of relative quiet, the ` WASHINGTON — It sounds y
{ "upreme Court has jumped into the like a good idea: Let homeless and pay cash for the property.` friends, relatives and business
temporarily in ■ Low-income buyers in St. associates live in
poor people live temthe houses; By Loretta Kalb
3saue, -said attorney and land -use expert s
.�drold S. Kayden, who teaches property vacant government-owned houses Louis lost thousands of dollars in documents show see Real Estate Writer
e+ i
'fights law at Harvard University. at very low rents until they can down payments when a HUD- HUD auditor D. Michael Beard The "Homes for Homeless" program in Northern '
Property rights advocates argue that get back on their feet. approved middleman disappeared nays the d should program is a California has not been problem -free, officials of the U.S.
Iliey are only regaining what local, state But the "Homes for Homeless" with their funds. failure and should be closed. p
; he federal regulations have taken away. program at the U.S. Department ' . ■ A low-incometenant in "We've looked at whether the Department of Housing and Urban Development say.
I But overs ere have more c s'stories
- • - _ , . of Housing and Urban Develop- Miami was charged a $900 , ' program has achieved its goals, c
11, th h c been re su es thane
RADLEY INMAN is a Bay area based wntar on mentis so riddled with abuse that security deposit to rent a house. and clearly it has not," said Beard. abuses, according to fton`Johnson, HUD's director of M1
__ single-family housing for the north state. "
using issues. Write to him fn care of The Bee, some houses went to well-off HUD relies on local nonprofit "It's just too easy to cheat" g Y g
: O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852. individuals and poor tenants were groups working with the homeless More than 300 organizations — In the region, some eight non-profit groups lease from i •
'-.-
a overcharged or bilked out of their to find tenants for the properties. mainly privately funded homeless HUD three dozen homes repossessed through foreclosure_ .
Each ays the federal agency $1 a year per house. .
f
nYoney, according to documents.
HUD investigative audits and
The agency acquired the homes ' -
when owners foreclosed on
coalitions and community -service
groups - hold leases on 1,289 of
ou s in turn, rent the homes to people who are ;
making as transition from homelessness: While the
.reports obtained by the Associated
Press show:
federally insured mortgages.`
HUD leases the homes for just
the homes around the country.
The groups sign agreements
'
'amount char ed individual tenants is not strictly regulat- .
g
ed by HUD, the agency recommends generally that it be
■ Houses in Baton Rouge, IA., .:
rented or.sold to people who
$1 a year so the groups can, in
t:x rtt very low rents to
promising to house only homeless
or l %w -income people.
.UJ r"� Please'see LOCiL, page H2 `
were
wore not homeless, including one
,charge
people comingout of shelters or
Please see liI7D, page H2
r• ,,-
making $58,000 a year. '
living on low income:. Y .
H2 Sunday, December $, 1996
r t►* uunni
Buyers want Hall
,; Astudy of potential
home buyers finds that
,(Hthose planning to spend less
than $150,000 have many of
the same expectations for a
,new house as those with the
,lability to pay up to
*3500,000.
11 . The survey
4fiby the Nation- i
al Association
.).,;:of Home
1:?Builders
=found the.
-retain difference in expects
'(tions is that buyers in the
J,'higher brackets expect to get
;i1a bigger house and a larger
lot - 2,981 square feet on a
g4A2,000-square-foot lot com-
+pared with houses in the
11,900-2,300 `square -foot- .
Arange for other buyers.
f But all potential buyers
r -wanted kitchens with island
.work areas, light wood cabi-
rtnets, a walk-in pantry, dou-
-bble sink and room for a table
=nand chairs.
` They also shared a desire
for such features as a kitch-
en that opens onto a family
*froom; a fireplace, skylights
nand cathedral ceilings and
4'Ian extra room to be used as
�a guest room or home office..
�+1�y,.: F,^",' � ,�'.�^ � �= -�-..�«�^�.nv.."�.�,F'�+*,��1,.�*I"•„f�sr•.aw..w*.�R�.,�-1u�.F",,�'a'c"•�°'.J+.�.�.+'"_�c-�.r.Jrl."�r`:�'.r_•�.^�.++-,..'�r,;� F^..11`�.q�,d,c.s=..^�.?'�r..*'�**w ,f+.ti; ti-,.^�.,f-ar'�,+s'�/'�.,a'�^*�^.'�t'•
- x53:3
- The Sacramerft613ee .
n iunTING
Help for first-time buyers
/ T he . University of Cali-
fornia Cooperative Ex-
tension will conduct 'a "Get-
ting it together" first-time
home buyers'
workshop se-
ries
e ries on succes-
sive Wednes-
day evenings
next month.
The free program will help
participants decide whether
they are ready for home `
ownership, how to obtain a
mortgage and the financial
'responsibilities of owner-
ship.
Sessions are Jana 15 and
Jan. 22, 4:45 p.m. to 6:45
p.m.' Call 366-2013 for the
,Sacramento workshop loca-
tion and to pre -register.
Victorian feel to home.
- with modern' touches
ings with Allied Housing Groh
This 3,000 square foot home
Inc. of St. Louis. The group
enough staff to make sure the •
lected thousands of dollarSsrl
with wood siding and rock _
CADRAFT
also has a Victorian feel. Its'
buyers, then tried to buy additidn'
easy, free-flowing floor plan
between the dining room and
makes for comfortable yet ele-• .
kitchen.
gant living.
The master suite includes
The grand foyer is open to
a fireplace. Open to the master
the second -story ceiling. For-
bedroom is a retreat with built -
mal living areas include dining
in shelves. A bay window with
and living rooms, both with bay
spa tub, shower, double sink
windows:. ,
vanity, linen storage and over-
The21-by-18-foot family
size walk-in closet complete
room features an exposed
the master bath amenities: A
wood -beam ceiling, full bar and
private deck is just off the bed ''
a fireplace flanked by French
room. '
doors. A fourth bedroom or ,-'
Both upstairs front bedrooms
guest room just off the family
have cathedral ceilings and
room has a private porch and :'
each have their own private. .,_.
its own bath.
baths.
The gourmet country kitchen
There is a covered drive -
is open to the nook. Kitchen
through just off the kitchen
amenities include a pop -out
and nook to detached garage
garden window, an island with
in the rear. Detached garage
small sink, breakfast bar and
plans are also available.
walk-in pantry. There is addi-
'FOR MORE INFORMATION on this
tional storage for kitchen, table
plan contact CADRAFT, 4067 Palm
linens or china in a large closet
Ave., Sacramento 95842; 348-1075.
HUD. Program under _fire:
Continued from page Hl
ings with Allied Housing Groh
The department doesn't have
Inc. of St. Louis. The group
enough staff to make sure the •
lected thousands of dollarSsrl
groups honor their promises, offi- `
down payments from low -l' .
cials say.,
buyers, then tried to buy additidn'
"We don't manage rionprof-
al houses :with the money,
its, we manage .the properties,"
documents show. The deals h 1`
'said Tony Hernanaez,`HUD's top
through:': '
official in Denver.
HUD kicked Der�74r-based Ecu-
The state sued "the group
trieve the money, but the gro = '
l ,
•menical Refugee Seqrvices Inc. out '
officials can't be located, according
,of the 'program after; : it learned
to state and HUD officials, , -u*
.;_More important, by making
about the inappropriate house'
Meanwhile,' HUD's Florida of
sale. The group's director said the
five is investigating South;>5prnt � .
lawsuit to force him to deliver
sale was the'work bf a.single em- ' •
Family and Children Center:Ini'J;
spread out any profit tax over
ployee, who has been fired.
a Miami group that charged bht:
The department 'inspects the"
a for'mainte-
tenant a $900 security depo'sit<
Nelson Bell; the tlrrectorrl
.houses once year ,
nonce and damage and periodical-'
group's
said, "We don't feel we've over,.:
t
ly checks the groups' tenant and
charged any tenants."
financial records..
` Even the inspections failed to
Jacquie Lawing, deputy xssfs+
tant secretary at HUD, sa'a* 1 h$�;
stop abuse in Baton Rouge.
er rules are making it harder
HUD inspectors saw expensive
cheaters. Groups now. get -tw4i '
cars parked in front of houses that ,
year leases, down from five,- titl-; .
contained nice furniture and big- `
are examined before they get any -
screen televisions, documents
new properties: The agency: also.; :.
show.
limited the number of housesta' h -
Tenants were later found to be .'
HUD office- could lease: -'Ttie
friends and business associates of
changes have led to fewer :prob--- ,
the group's director. One tenant
'lems, she said:
from Cohgre�;"'
earned $58,000 a year and paid no
Under pressure ;
rent, according to Beard and local '
HUD said last month that 1no•ri**� ;
newspaper reports.
leases would be issued as �of-Jan
HUD told the group to`stop the
practice, but continued leasing it
1. HUD will decide next: year-, ;.
whether to end the program, -.said,
more properties and failed to mon-
itor the group to see if the prob-
Lawing.'... t
Rep. Spencer T. Bachus, R1 ;
lems had been corrected.who
chaired hearings on the.prgv
It finally terminated Safety
gram in August, said the program,
Net's leases and kicked the group,
, should be scrapped.
out of the program'following local
"It attracts charlatans," -gfiol
press reports earlier this year.
Bachus. "It's 'laughable., if
HUD also. terminated its deal-
to be discontinued."
,0ea1. Co U ns' ngoffered
Continued from page Hl
to leave those premises."
'there`
no more than 30 percent of a rent-
`There's no question fs a
er's salary.very
strong need for this kind ro'f
We had some ,infractions of
"program within the state;."
`This
=
suspected excessive monthly rentHUD.official
suspected
al costs," Johnson said of prob-
said. office"�iip
ports the program: We know-icio
" have been beneficial in their ihSIL
lems found within one non -profit's ;
"It thi -tional process of people.commg unto
management. appears y
were charging $300 to $400" more -the mainstream ,of family fife arid''
than the program intended. l
..becoming productive."
.. , ,, , a
Johnson said the majority 9
He said the group's rental prat "-,
non-profit"gr ups'coiidiict ebilnsel .1:
tices are under review and its oper 4y
ing�or1thei "tenants on matfers-i : {
ators, who have performed success,
. such as credit management- arld
fully in other HUD housing pro-
, payment of bills
grams, are considering dropping
from the "Homes for Homeless"
rc :• +,�, ,.;'�: 'r�`�
He identified the participatiug"
programa In another case discov-
programs as the.San.„Francisco-.
Bred earlier in the year; a non=prof-
; based , Bay .Area�Coalitionl�!'fft ”
it group's operators had rented 4a - - Homeless, the Community .-Aeti6n
home to a family member.
Agency, for Butte County, the,Sii
ramento groups, Omnilife Inc.,i'_
"We'contacted the director of the..,,
ting Sober and Staying Saber; Jac
'non-profit and told him we, were
and Mexican American Alcoholism-"
aware of the infraction, and we Program, the Sacramento =Ai a:
were going to terminate the lease:
Emergency Housing Center; (ilio "
unless he corrected it immediately,
„Shasta Housing Development C,en-
which he did," said Johnson. `That
ter in Redding and the Stockton:
person (unauthorized renter) had
Shelter for the Homeless:. .l v,' "
I1
i
expect `President Bill" to deliver That's your best prot fiction, in ' - Q � Sales office: 2638 Chateau Nne
on his home sale tax relief prom-
ises anytime soon: But an "in- advise you.
1,
-.
sale, my SL1ggeSL1U1116 LU SC111U1
si 10 to 20 percent cash down
LLV WCVUL, il1LC1 L11C aaic, uc U1
his conservator might try to un-
_ •O i
r
4yment and carryback the
do the sale if he is later proven
'
mortgage for your buyer: In to-
to be mentally incompetent.,
i
day's market, you can earn at.
If the seller fails to honor his
l ,
least 8 percent interest.
sales contract with you, you can .
t
.;_More important, by making
bring a specific performance
,
in installment sale, you will
lawsuit to force him to deliver
spread out any profit tax over
the deed. Be sure to obtain an
the years of the mortgage. Don't
owner's title insurance policy.
i
expect `President Bill" to deliver That's your best prot fiction, in ' - Q � Sales office: 2638 Chateau Nne
on his home sale tax relief prom-
ises anytime soon: But an "in- advise you.
1,