The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUP 97-06APPLICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT & ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BUTTE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICANT: Read and follow the instructions as set fourth on attached sheets. SECTION I GRADING PERMIT INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name L �`��.1 Joa VA a�1 2. Phone Number. 3. Appl�icant1s Mailing Address � P� OK �5�. ►��riZRY - 4;i59 ((1 4. Applicant's interest in -property: Owner- Buyer Lessee Other 5. Owner's Name LIN 6. Owner's Mailing Address 7. Assessor's Parcel Number(s) &,2 -2c3- [ o-7 -- 8. Size of parcel (s) 9.. Describe location of parcel(s) and attach an accurate location map showing the relation of the project to the nearest community 1.5 Y\kLk_e'1 SouTFt c= �Z�-y U,�L� iy,+t fq /Z"c/c /10 %`�20F✓1 I'T{ l �.J TE2S c2'-7c�N W ilT'l 046 C�rilwG�-s lZc.4x9. 10 . Street Address -71 rq_,Q gszcK Q(3 A-0 11. Description of proposed develop ent and use /`�iV/�'►1/�L f/USi3iINT�►�-y �ScioOcr �T �'►�(d 12. Description of existing land use Z:2 > Tr-�7 lvtTLU 1Z/r GC S .4.556 i2 U- 13 Proposed scheduling 2c" -A-0 60jk 5 -Mt r7k1)L1 KrwG Grc-<fin/rv� - 2 1 Planning Division AUG 2 8 1596 ®rovilie, cwifomia ON a { ' 14. Anticipated future development 15. Describe the work to be done including the equipment and I 16 . Submit with the ..appl•ication : twenty, four ( 24 ) 'copies of an_ accurate plot plan drawn--to-a scale approved by the Public Works Director showing the-. exterior . boundaries.. of . the area affected,locations of buildings,_ stockpiles and spoils storage - urea, drainage, culverts, natural watercourses, -and relocation plan for existing waterways or drainage facilities. 17. Estimate total cubic yards of excavation 18. Estimate total cubic yards of fill �I(D(::) 19. Estimate the total cubic yards of spoils 20. Maximum height of cuts �j- 21. Maximum and Minimum slope of work site (I Max Min 22. Mean average rainfall as determined by the National Weather Service (09 23. Attach details of all proposed drainage structures. 24. Describe rosiQn control methodolo y to be utilized N p� tck_ merle . 5'�.VL S� � ��7 m— c I s r � 25. Submit. with the application a detailed engineering plan and specifications, soils engineering report, and erosion and sediment control plan prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer where total excavation and fills exceed 10,000 cubic yards, and one or more of the following conditions apply: 1. Cuts -and fills exceeding -.1.5 feet in height 2. Existing average slope exceeding 20% 3. Mean annual rainfall exceeds 50" The above plans shall be prepared pursuant to the Butte County Code Section 13-8, 13-9, and 13-10. O SECTION II ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW INFORMATION 1. Describe Hazardous Materials to be used ( inflammable, explosives or strong chemicals) 2. Daily hours of earthwork 3. Number of employees on site _4. List any other.related�; permits -and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, :regional, State and'Federal agencies 5. Provide the angle of repose for the given earth material proposed for grading 6. Identify potentially_ significant environmental impacts associated with the grading permit ji n Tk- 7. Describe project design features or special conditions of approval (mitigation measures)=/Oj are proposed to alleviate potential environmental impacts _ /fit aY✓A'b , 8. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects // G�-.s1i r.. rn his.. _..ei ... iiG n�S .c.c �_� 17. _-. . - - - 3 I 9. Describe the surrounding properties, incluRng information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use, intensity of land use, and scale of development 19n,,U 771VL I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that --I have read and understand the instructions and that the foregoing _stAtements.are --true, complete -and correct to the best of my knowledge and -- belief. .Applicant's Signature Date Owner Agent Other Property Owner's Signature Date J112- 7 ------------------- THIS SECTION TO BE FILLED OUT BY COUNTY STAFF Grading Permit Number Date Received Receipt_ Number Application Taken By. 4 Total Received $ "Grading Permit" and shall be binding on the applicant. The procedures for County action on Grading Permit applications are stated in Chapter 13 of the Butte County Code. * The Planning Commission, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the public hearings, may grant Grading Permits when it finds that the proposed grading activity will not be unreasonably incompatible with or injurious to surrounding properties nor detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood nor to the general. .health, safety and welfare of the County.- * In approving a grading --.perm-it, the :Planning Commission.may include such conditions as are deemed reasonable and necessary .under the circumstances to preserve the- integrity and character of the environment;. .to secure the -general purposes of the Butte. County General Plan, and -Chapter -13 and --Chapter 24, of the Butte County Code. Such conditions may include,but are not limited to: hours of operation, fencing, 8-edication of right-of-way, setbacks and drainage improvements. Conditions imposed upon issuance of a Grading Permit must be reasonably related to the use for which the permit is requested. * Application fees -as of (date) are -. $ Fees may be paid. in cash or by check made payable to "Treasurer of Butte County." * Before submitting a Grading Permit application, applicant is requested to discuss with staff all questions about application requirements, County procedures, zoning provisions and possible conditions of approval. 7 • TcHE RESORT COMMUNITY Of Old Orchard Beach, Maine, with its mix of weathered clapboard houses and motels, seemed a hoice place in 1964 for Gaston and Monique Roberge to invest in for their retirement. There they found a small property -2.8 acres—within walk- ing distance of the Atlantic Ocean. Someday growing numbers of visitors would come, the Roberges believed, and with them a demand for more motels and tourist attractions that would make their land attractive to a developer. In 1976 town officials approached the couple. A contractor was laying a sewer line for the H� town and wanted to put the exca- vated dirt on their plot. That by was fine with the Roberges, who had a marshy area of about two acres on the lot. Old Orchard officials gave the Roberges a permit to take the dirt, and the contractor deposited it on half an acre. Over the next ten years, Gaston's health began to fail. By 1986 he had suffered two heart attacks, and glau- coma had left him legally blind in one eye. Luckily, land values in the area had spiked up sharply. The time seemed ripe for Gaston and Monique to cash in their nest egg. In April 1986 a developer agreed to buy the property for $440,000 to build 58 condominiums. Town offi- cials approved the zoning for the pro - I Jett. The developer then wanted to make sure his plan would be cleared by the Army Corps of Engineers, which, along with the Environmen- tal Protection Agency, had become increasingly active in applying fed- eral land -use regulations to wetlands. Meanwhile, an anti -growth activist complained to the Corps about the Roberges' proposed sale. Then Sen - Why did bureaucrats target this couple? BY KENNETH SMITH ate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D., Maine) wrote to the Corps, ask- ing it to investigate the sale. By the time the developer approached the Corps to approve the November 1, 1986, closing, agency offi- cials were waiting with bad news: The land that the sewer contractor had filled in ten years before was deemed by the Corps to be the continuation of a marsh behind the Roberges' prop- erty, even though there was a four - foot -high railroad bed separating the two. Such wetlands are protected under federal regulations limiting the dis- charge of "fill material" that can be put on them. In short, the Corps said 177 Planning Division AUG 2 8 1856 arovaie, Califomia f READER'S DIGEST -JULY 1996 the Roberges had needed a federal permit to put dirt on their land. The developer knew he'd have dif- ficulty obtaining financing unless the dirt was removed. And without the dirt, there would be a limited amount of flat ground on which to build. The developer withdrew his offer. Neither the sewer contractor who put the earth on the Roberges' land back in 1976 nor the town officials who issued the permit had any idea that Corps approval was needed. The Corps didn't even have an office in Maine until 1984—eight years later. This turn of events put the Roberges in a bind. Digging up and transporting as many as 400 truck- loads of dirt would cost tens of thou- sands of dollars. It also would substantially reduce the value of the land to buyers. The Roberges would have to obtain an "after the fact" permit to leave the dirt where it was. In July 1987 the Roberges applied for the permit, which meant they had to provide the Corps with reams of technical information. Gathering such data meant paying experts to take aerial photographs, dig excavation pits and prepare assorted reports and plans. Each reply from the Roberges brought a new demand for infor- mation, always to be provided within a matter of weeks. The Corps would take months to answer the Roberges. Overnight, the Roberges' retire- ment dreams turned into a night- mare. But in 1987 Gaston met Robert Wellman, a local developer. Roberge told Wellman what the Corps was doing to him. "They can't do that," 178 Wellman said. "That's just not right." Wellman wrote Jay Clement, proj- ect manager for the Corps in its Augusta, Maine, office, asking that the Roberges be issued an "after the fact" permit. Clement said the appli- cation would have to be evaluated. Next, Wellman turned to Sena- tor Mitchell. Mitchell listened with interest but was noncommittal. In August 1989 Monique Roberge wrote the Senator, pleading for him to intercede. Mitchell forwarded her letter to the Corps, which promised a decision on their permit by Novem- ber 1. Monique waited a year with no word before writing Mitchell again in November 1990. He replied that he would press the Corps for a decision. In fact, Mitchell was an unlikely candidate to help. In 1985 he had per- suaded the Corps to expand its juris- diction over wetlands. In March 1991, just a few months after he wrote the Roberges, he told a Senate panel, "I think every Senator here has gone home and heard so-called horror sto- ries on investigation. In my case, most of them turned out to be either wildly exaggerated, partially or wholly untrue." Friends of the Roberges also sought help from Maine's other Senator, Republican Bill Cohen, to no avail. In July 1991, four years after the Roberges submitted their applica- tion, the Corps denied the permit. Moreover, the agency gave them just 6o days to remove the dirt. In the den of their modest, single - story house in nearby Scarborough, Gaston took out a small card with a prayer to St. Jude, patron saint of • lost causes. Silently he read the plain- tive words: "St. Jude, worker of miracles, pray for us. St. Jude, help of the hopeless, pray for us." Help, when it came, arrived in a small envelope. A friend sent the Roberges a magazine article on wet- lands regulatory abuses. Mentioned in the article was Margaret Ann Rei- gle of Cambridge, Md. Having helped a neighbor navigate the wet- lands permit process, she had started a nationwide property -rights group, the Fairness to Land Owners Com- mittee, now 18,000 strong, to assist others facing the same problems. Gaston phoned Reigle. "I don't have the money to remove all that dirt," he said despairingly. "Please tell me what to do." Reigle tried to be as encouraging as she could, but of all the cases of bureaucratic abuse she had handled, Gaston's was the worst. She called Bernie Goode, who, before retiring, had been in charge of the Corps's wetlands -permit program from 1981 to 1989. Goode contacted lawyer Stanley Legro, former assistant administrator for enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency. Taking the case pro bono, the two men soon made startling discoveries. From looking at maps of the area and then walking the land himself in early February 1992, Goode believed that the Corps should have issued the Roberges a permit long ago. While Goode was with the Corps, he wrote the internal policy that dictated that it not pursue alleged violations more than five years old unless they were • HOUNDED BY THE FEDS intentional and knowing. Goode argued that both the date of the fill and the location of the property enti- tled the couple to retain the fill. On February 3 Goode confronted Clement with his findings. Clement agreed not to act on the removal order until the issue was resolved. On June 8, following several let- ters and phone calls to the Corps, the Roberges received a letter from the Corps. Nervously they opened it, wondering if it was yet another disappointment. But as they read the eight -sentence missive, their despair turned to joy. It authorized them to leave the dirt where it was. In effect, the agency was giving them back their land. A second letter allowing them to make use of the land didn't arrive until October 14. The years of emotional torment, the drain on their finances, the inabil- ity to use their land, the loss of the sale—it had all been totally unneces- sary. The Roberges were relieved, but their celebration was muted because there was still .another battle to fight. On October 30, 1992, Legro filed a "takings" claim in federal court against the Corps for temporarily depriving the Roberges of their prop- erty without just compensation as provided by the Fifth Amendment. He knew the odds were long—no one had ever successfully sued the Corps for a temporary regulatory taking. Legro agreed to pursue the claim on a contingency basis. As part of the suit, Legro obtained Corps files related to the Roberges. The records showed that a 1984 Corps 179 HOUNDEer THE FEDS S investigation into alleged wetlands vio- officials and their legal counsel. lations in the area had actually exon- Goode watched as the seemingly erated the Roberges of the very congenial Clement he had met less allegations the agency made against than two years before disappeared them two years later. The files made under the strain of Legro's grilling. clear, too, that regulators had all the Finally Legro put the question to information they needed in 1986 to Clement: What had he meant when issue the permit in time for the Novem- he wrote that Roberge would be a ber 1 closing of the Roberges' sale. good one to "squash" ? But perhaps most damaging was Clement answered, "I really don't a memo from Clement to Richard recall what I meant specifically." Roach, chief of enforcement for the On December 9, 1994, the Roberges Corps's New England Division Office, received a conference call from Goode dated July 27, 1987. It read in part: and Legro. "The government wants "Roberge would be a good one to to settle," Legro told them. Unable squash and set an example. Old to defend the Corps's unrelenting and Orchard is heating up these days." abusive treatment of the Roberges, It was signed: "Jay Clement, for- the Justice Department was offering merly the Maytag repairman." $338,000 to cover the costs of tem - The clear implication was that porarily "taking" their property. Clement, like the bored Maytag repair- The Roberges gave up more than man in the TV commercial, had a third of that to attorney fees and nothing to do. So he made work for taxes. And they cannot sell their himself by "squashing" an elderly property for anywhere near its value couple to set an example for others. in the 198os. The Corps has yet to Legro was determined to question apologize to the Roberges. The the agency about its actions. Despite agency has disciplined no one in con - repeated delays and court motions nection with the case or changed from the government to keep that any internal policies. from happening, Legro finally got Today Gaston and Monique spend his chance on November 16, 1993, much of their time writing to peo- during tense, occasionally heated pre- ple suffering from the same kinds trial deposition proceedings. On one of regulatory abuse. "I have an obliga- side of the table in the small Corps tion to help small landowners," Gas - conference room were Goode and ton says. "I've got to pay back those Legro; on the other, a bank of Corps who helped me." Reprints of this article are/available. See page 210. aar n ONE REAsoN why teen-agers prefer sleeping on the top bunk: they can look down at the floor and get an aerial view of their wardrobe. —Robert Orben in The Wall Street lournal 180 LEAD -IN SHEET II FILE NO: APPLICANT: Name address Name RESPRESENTATIVE: Name REQUEST: Ua SIZE: LOCATION: SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: k:\forms\lead-in address Address EXISTING ZONING: APPLIC DATE: COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST County Offices and Cities: _ Chief Administrative Officer _X_ Develop. Services Director X Environmental Health X Sheriff _ BCAG X_ LAFCo _ APCD _ Biggs _ Gridley Oroville _ Paradise Irrigation District: X_ Public Works Director Building Manager ALUC Butte Co. Farm Bureau Chico _ Chico Airport Commission _X_ Agricultural Commission Butte Water BiggsV. 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 _ El 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 Muting Reclamation _ Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations Federal Agencies US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc. Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association _ Mosq. Abatement OrovilletButte Co _ Drainage _ Butte Env.l Council _ Paradise Pines Com Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Butte Co. Mining Committee • DEPARTNIOF DEV ELOPNIE* SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to he provided is on other side: APPLIC NT'S NAME ( If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required 1 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: i -tTp h 4:4/1( ADDRESS: CITY. STATE & ZIP CODE: FILE NUMBER (FOR OFFICEUSE) 711-7,e,41 �,f� o�ax3SS Fr Fee - 0 S NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any)_ TELEPHONE 1-1R1T �Ni�rP� rsEs (91,4 ) .J fo t5 LOCATIO OF PROJECT ( Major cross streets and Address, if any ) f�1Jl�7lr��L�J/lvJ��[�� 2041�_ 1 • ' • • 1' • OWNER'S NAME ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TELEPHONE SA/r7eF /-7s 11-/dU6 ''� �G 4tCPU{cAY ( ) ADDRESS: CITY. STATE & ZIP CODE ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE .QS�'d/, Gtr SITE SIZE1(�in Square F t or Acres ) 0 Pj65e5 - Rc oriocWR -il lc- LL 7�� 7od EXISTING STRUCrURF_S (in Square Feet) e9elx 2 y dh PROPOSED STRUCIVRES (in eei lq F G 2 �'-S/x d d mok i A-* de4 65 45twt4a006 .4t -A( i( �D Z V r ,5"a (Check One) (Check One) ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER APPLICATION TED . ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Hats -Cao t-� o — - S��S -Shr� 65— ❑ REZONE ''� �G 4tCPU{cAY A USE PERMIT Planning Division ❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE AUG 2 b 1996 ❑ MINOR VARIANCE orovine, Cajitomia ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT v ❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATION TED . PROJECT DESCRIPTION . FULL DESCRIP'T'ION OF PROPOS PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division. describe/the number and size of parcels.) ( t rJ / �vcl 4ely5 O K! �►? /1 �c� ed N� , ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP Hats -Cao t-� o — - S��S -Shr� 65— ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ''� �G 4tCPU{cAY ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP Planning Division ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION AUG 2 b 1996 ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER orovine, Cajitomia ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ OTHER PROJECT DESCRIPTION . FULL DESCRIP'T'ION OF PROPOS PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division. describe/the number and size of parcels.) ( t rJ / �vcl 4ely5 O K! �►? /1 �c� ed N� , iiCve—d Q tl�nflS- 1 hLeS Hats -Cao t-� o — - S��S -Shr� 65— �1 -�S se ruc -(oh-fh'Cdh a L Zz G ''� �G 4tCPU{cAY it /,l kf1,4CA 1Y1 -Ply i es dap X04 OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OFTHE OWER OF T1IE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER. I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FU-D;G OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABO INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE (If anavfil is to be au eze&vte an affidavit of authocizuion ude the arTtdavit with is icatio ) DATE: �o'z � � SIGNATU •7 RE: �� i COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed By Project Applicant) Date Filed 7 General Information: 1. Name and address ofowner, a d/or developer, and/sr project sponsor: a 2� f d � 71 y /a` ,�a �/c /Pd o e; x, VSs /� �' 2. Address of project: -7,1 Assessor's Parcel Number: (al Z - zo / D 7 3. Name, address, and telephone number pf person to be contacted concerning this project: ,4S 4 e .5� L36,6 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this prppject, luding t e regy+red by city, regional, state and federal agencies: `i-'� �, �cLd/k - 2 rade,1N Z�sl At tnr IL, 5. Existing general plan designation: 67) Iew 6. Existing zoning district: 7. How is land currently used? t, 1 Lre biA [_ArC�- L � , . 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): 4¢2o/ IY,4 r n/ 41u Hse f- c./ 5Z1&,5 Project Description: 9. Site size: �` - / (Acres/Sq. Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: N' A-- Compact: N A-� Total: 11. Plans attached YesNo 0 r 'n 12. Proposed development scheduler s AP 'Fd t+ Lt VCA S 13. Associated projects MA - 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development I Y Z Planning Division AUG 2 6 IS96 Orovilie, California O Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 1 Attach description of project containing the following information: 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether eighborhood, ity or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. �,( / / 5'0 K 70 e- ,�Ju Ld"V-�O�}Hf`!'Ny- MI1-sah y fiE►-A- 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and to ding facilities. 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 19 If the project involves a variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is regwr rmit d. If peve already been issued, please attac as Exhibit �XC,4l//�f /'or 0 ZG-//i, f ? �GG� �(f � � i'(n(tncl /5 S i t f`%.Vrol OA L6 Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or substantial alteration of ground contours. _ 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. _ 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. _ 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27.. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. _ 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. _ 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). _ 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). _ 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ RE X X- M Planning Division AUG 26 ®roville, California 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 2 Environmental Setting: (Attach brief description) 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and theuseof the structures. Attach photographs of the/site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted 2u Ul K ,7Ch0 �� 2o--�e 6p�1:,rle (e/Yev_ CL �1�Q?�O y�•yt� "PW .��d� - iJld Mr1��l �•i�1L� E�fF� ��1 d /�hnt�eI" 0.33:-- D6scribe the surrounding properties, including informa on on pla an am a s a cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. �ES ��ENfI�L, Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and corre o the best of my kno e and belief. L•vt� ��'�iliC/ Date K:\FORMS\ENV-INFO Signature f 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ 3 Planning DiviS1On AUG 2 6 ISS6 Orovill®, California -.7 Suiteoun LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7266 FAX (916) 538-2140 September 3, 1996 Arleen Jordan RE: Jordan Grading Permit P.O. Box 355 AP 062-200-107, Berry Creek, CA 95916 Dear Ms. Jordan: We have received your grading permit application and need 24 copies of a revised plan showing the following information, before we can forward it to the Department of Development Services for processing: A. The limits and depths of cuts and fills as they relate to the original ground contours. B. The location and proposed relocation of all drainage facilities, including culverts, swales, and natural water ways. C. The soil type for the imported material together with its properties. D. The location of all existing structures' on the property. E. Proposed methods .for erosion and sediment control for all disturbed areas, including interim measures to be taken while this application is being processed. Also, we need one original signed application and an application fee of $633.00. Please make check payable to Butte County Treasurer. Discussions with the Planning Division of Development Services, indicate that your proposed use will require issuance of a Use Permit. I would recommend that you start this application as soon as possible, so they may process both applications concurrently and speed up the review process. Please contact the Planning Division for any questions you may have regarding the Use Permit process. Arleen Jordan - 9/3/96 Grading Permit - AP 062-200-107 Page 2 If your proposed building is on new fill material or on expansive soil, special foundation or compaction requirements may apply. Please contact Mike Vieira, Building Manager, at 538-7541, to determine if there are any special building requirements. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact this office at (916) 538-7266, Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Stuart Edell Manager, Land Development Division SE/kp cc: Mike Crump, Director of Public Works Mike Vieira, Manager, Building Division CStev_e_ uL cas," Planning Division Mike Mooney CLAIMANT: ADDRESS: CITY & STATE: DATE OF CLAIM: COUNTY OF BUTTE Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM Arleen B. Jordan P.O. Box 355 Berry Creek, CA 95916 September 11, 1996 . IMPORTANT. SEE INSTRUCTIONS SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES ON REVERSE SIDE DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT 9-11-96 Use Permit, File UP 97-06 - Application accepted in Error. Project withdrawn. Refund Due. $95. 00 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REV CODE 4614901 TOTAL $95. 00 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and' correct as stated. Dated this % d/ day of ,19 , at it .0 l �, Calif. Signature of G ' I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation [Mq or Specific Board Approval [ j (Check one) for the same. Dated this �U day of , 19&_, at�Calif. p ent Head or Authorized Deputy Dept. Code 540-003 Exp. Code 4614901 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS UNE - AUDfTOFPS USE ONLY DEPT. & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMB. GROSS AW. COUNTY OF BUTTE Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM CLAIMANT: Arleen B. Jordan ADDRESS: P.O. Box 355 CITY & STATE: Berry Creek, CA 95916 DATE OF CLAIM: September 11, 1996 SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES IMPORTANT.• SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT 9-11-96 Use Permit, File No. UPcV-06 - Application accepted in Error. Project withdrawn. Refund Due. $43. 00 TOTAL $43. 00 1, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. Dated this day of 1 9VI, at (^ Calif. Signature of C ant 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation PN or Specific Board Approval [ ] (Check one) for the same. Dated this day of 19&, at r - . SGC G , Calif. /Department Head or Authorized Deputy Dept. Code 450001 Exp. Code 4617240 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR'S USE ONLY DEPT. & SUB. PROD. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMB. GROSS AMT. CLAIMANT: ADDRESS: CITY & STATE: DATE OF CLAIM: 0 Arleen B. Jordan P.O. Box 355 COUNTY OF BUTTE Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM Berry Creek, CA 95916 September 11, 1996 • SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES IMPORTANT. SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT 9-11-96 Use Permit, File UP 97-06, Application accepted in Error. Project withdrawn. Refund Due. $150. 00 TOTAL $150. 00 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correcLas stated. Dated this day of 1924/, at Calif. 'Signature of 291 ant 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation I)OC] or Specific Board Approval I ] (Check one) for the same. ►�i Dated this / 9 day of 19�, at �rw�r , Calif. L.T— �� Department Head or Authorized Deputy Dept. Code 4404004 Exp. Code 4611700 PAYABLE FROM FUND DO NOT WIRE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDRORS USE ONLY DEPT. & SUB. PROD. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMB. GROSS AMT. CLAIMANT: ADDRESS: CITY & STATE: DATE OF CLAIM: . COUNTY OF BUTTE • Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM Arleen B. Jordan P.O. Box 355 Berry Creek, CA 95916 September 11, 1996 SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES IMPORTANT: SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT 9-11-96 Use Permit, File UP 97-06, - Application accepted in Error. Project withdrawn- Refund Due. $700; 00 TOTAL $700. 100 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. Dated this day of 19_2 at r , Calif. ✓` v ?� Signature of Cl ant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation [)0() or Specific Board Approval [ ] (Check one) for the same. �? — 19�, at 0 &,-,) `1 L [AZ Calif. Dated this � day of � r , Department Head or.Authorized Deputy Dept. Code 480.001 Exp. Code 4210900 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITORS USE ONLY DEPT. & SUB. PRO J. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMB. GROSS AMT. Date 09/19/96 Development Services Departiot Time 2:45 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet UP 97-06 * Arleen B. Jordan P.O. Box 355 Berry Creek, CA 95916 In reference to : Use Permit, AP#062-200-107 Rounding : None Full Precision : No Last bill Last payment TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS TOTAL NEW CHARGES Last aging Amount $0.00 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 08/28/96 Deposit - Receipt #15837 09/19/96 Refund/Claim Form to Auditor TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS NEW BALANCE (700.00) 700.00 Page 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL NEW BALANCE $0.00 - - - - � - - - c�a-pit • f J M \ F l • f {1 _ �I .r `lam `- ¢. � l � _ s �.•,.._ �. } 4• � I�. II II �I 11 i II I • i