Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout041-080-027 (12)•UTTE COUNTY PLANNING CoDsIISSION [INUTF.S - March- 3, 1982. CONTINUED FROM 2/10/82: B•. ITEM ON hHICH Trz rEQillREk1EI T OF AN , ENFUR M-1EN T AL M ACT ?ORT HAS EN- APPEALED Ronald R . Logan - Nining permit and reclamation plan 'for a Placer Geld•Sine o,.ri prcpert}• zoned "A-2',' (General) located on the west side of Dry Creek.Road, apYrcximately 3 niles " north of ?-;cssilla ':alley P.oad, identified as AP 41-08-27, r south of Paradise. ; 8.2-SS=1-221 •S•teve"Streeter reported that he had..been in contact with Galen Taylor of zhe Depattment of Fish and Game and he had promised to be in. attendance at this-. meeting,- but .a later development made it.mandatory :that. he. attend another meeting, but -would -try to make it later: He also said that he had been in contact with Tony Lantis, by phone, that Mr. Lantis had not .had a chance to view the project, that he would want to look at.'the ' w.:n.nt::.Jl.i:y )SMY ' _ '4R`k• �' _ pp ,j. t T. .08 1..-,� F COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ES —March March 3, ..1982 Geologist' s. report but that his main concern was waste discharge. ile had also recommended that. a* performance bond be required to ensure that the required reclamation work be accomplished --at no expense to the County. Mr. Streeter also explained how the 1875. Mining_F;aws related to this project,.noting that the relationship there was to 1 acre sites:, or less, and that this one is more than 18'acres. Fie then emphasized that the applicant had made no request for permission to blast, has no plans to dorso., and asked that all references concerning explosives be deleted from the project --to close the matter for Potential blasting. In response to a question from Chairman:Lambcrt.as to whether this action might not alleviate the concerns of -neighbors aboutttheit springs, Mr. Streeter said that it should, excert maybe for the possible problem of siltation. Commissioner.Max brought up.'.the fact that the permit issued to the.appli- cant for the one .year period is .for current•opera.tions (using one: settling pond) which is far Gess than the requested 80'cu: yds. Commissioner Schrader questioned why. the original determination .for a Negative Dec. was changed and' said he would not uphold the preparation of a full-blown EIR,.at this time.. 4 L ssioner�Wheeler agreed, adding that current written comments from F s and Game and Water Quality Control and a hydrology report are still n.e:eded: Correspondence.was:acknowkedged•from'--Walter:Kirt:and Mrs. Sonia Purcell requesting guarantees that there would-be no detrimental.affects,to. property downstream.. The hearing was opened to the public. Ron Logan said that each' patented gold claim comes with its own lease and presented a copy of a.lease,.916594, filed 1/9/:74, Book 1883, Page 667, Butte County Recor"der; said that Galen -Taylor had approved the use of alum in the settling pond; that he would like to grow from his present produc- tion of 15 to 20 yards per day to 80; that Mr. Taylor will not issue him a permit for greater volume until he constructs the additional facilities to prove that they will work to his satisfaction; that he cannot afford to construct the facilities until he gets a permit from the County; and that he would like to use some of the tailings to improve the access road. Chairman Lambert questioned whether this easement --referred to the the above mentioned lease --would include the use of the trucks to move the 80 cu..yds, per day. �Jwel Siemsen said that it appears that the document referred to only s someone to go. across a piece of property to get to the spring for water; but, presumably, if the road had been used in the past for min:.ng and had been granted and known to be used for that purpose it probably could be continued to be used that way today even though there +09e an increase in the amount of traffic --but really to be sure that you would have to look at the exact grant that was on the road itself to begin with. ail BU : COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March :, 1982 Mr. Logan commented that.the- road was built by the miners, For the miners, and maintained since, and that_ his is a -Patented gold cl.aim,and you don't get .a patented gold. cl�iim if you are not: going to mine it. In response to a question from one of . t}►e Commissioners regardiiig tl►c hydrology report , stated: "T think it is very.tinreasonable. I can't afford. it, Mr': Logan and if you are going to require me to do.it I would like to sk for some a time." Louis Camenzind, Jr. , 2194 .Oro -Chico -Durham . Road, said. that the subject. property was a mining claim, all .mining c.ai.ms. had right to.. ingress and. egress and that continiucs,on.forever--no matter. for. what kind of mining, and all the applicant is asking for is a reclamation plan; A-2 zoning does not require a .permit" to.mine in..Butte..County; .and Jt is .not his fault that .the people from'the.State of California will not"come 'up and look at the prop erty, besides under the Reclamation Plan the'State Geologst.has obligations and -he should be called in. to look at it and eget the g©oloty report; and asked what requirements there were for an EIR for mining. Commissioner Wheeler cited County Code Scctiom 24.-4.6, Chapter 24, ref- ercnEl' ng the necessity for.an.environment,al review... oa�nenind:suggested that. -the County get in toucfi with San Bernardino cy "where mining interests have' been working 't�i.th :the County officials on some. sort;of a .of to -90 with their General Plan. 'Ai --the request of Chairman 'Lambert, Ms . `Bldir roVdeti O the history of this prejcct emphasizing that' Board.dirccied Mr. I.bgan to reapply; without zees, and that he `answer-qucstiori-s that had .previously arisen; that 1`1r.. Logan had done this and that the questions and answers are a part of the material in front of the Commissioners. She .aid that there is a provision in SEQA Guidelines that whenthere is a public concern about a project that staff has no alternative but to bring the recommendation for an EIR-- adding that it was staff's opinion that there was enough public interest evidenced that that section of the "Code should be enforced. Staff suggested that Mr. Logan make another attempt --redundant though it may 1ti--to get State agencies to inspect this project --noting that staff's requests for such information have not been complied with and there is no mechanism whereby the County can do more.than make requests --as they do to other agencies. ` Commi,ssionerSchrader. inquired whether Fish and Game -did not have the final decision in this,:ma.tter. rather than the Planning Commission or the' Board of Supervisors. Counsel rep1icd..that th.e.State`Mining Act requires that a. mining Permit be issued by the County--althoug}i..there is no requirement .m a use permit pursuant to the zoning code. He stated: "In one sense, fOTFish and Game does have a final say and, in another sense, the County . ,•a final say; because within a Milling Permit it doesn't matter what Fish and Game says he can't -mine up there. On the other hand, if you issue a mining permit for whatever the level you feel will fit, he is still going tions Fish and Game puts O ng to be subject to whatever.restricn. M.1 -4- k 31JO'COUNTY PLANNING.. COMm1S, SIGN UNUT}:S - March 3, 1982 Opponents. Iva?ter Kirt, 37 Campbell Lane, Menlo Park, Ca., reviewed the` 4 -gage petition,entitled, "raining Operations Proposed by R/Logan Dry Creek Road", setting out their concerns and signed by 14 persons. Ile added that .the signatire of 20 others would be.forthcoming. .At*tliis point Betiye.Logan commented that when they first started.their opciations 5 years ago that it was used.as.sort of a tourist attraction by the neighbors; but now that they have asked for`permits to growa little the whole attitude.has changed. Mr. Kirt agreed that a commercia3 oper ation is what the neighbors fear. Commissioner Max suggested that the project be continued until the requested information is received, and without the.information_from Fish and Game and Water.Quality Control and without..a,waste.permit or a waiver for it there is no. way we can say that we don't need.an..EIR. It was pointed out by Counsel that the Commission has a choice of over- riding staff, or requiring an EIR:.and suggested that the request be a focused FIR --directed only to thosd*questioris about which there is -con- focused (the 4 areas marked '"_maybe" on Schedule F for this. project.,anci.any r '� � s . tha.t ' might be - base -d on concerns of : the people of the area). 'Counsel 4. said that the new. CEQA. Guidelines.. prohibit. a ('onditional Negative Dc as .previously employed, but.inst:cad proposed .mitigation measures would have to be proposed by. the applicant;. ghat -the Commission has no auth-o.ri°ty to�impose conditions. Louis Camenzind commented that this operation is on a cul-de-sac; that adjoining properties also have -minerals; that the,soil is almost im- pervious --pick and shovel or backhoe'has'to'be used to move it --arid that hydrology should'be'no problem with the springs that originate in the Tuscan formation on both sides of thc.can.-on and come out whereever the soil is pervious. Walter Kirtreminded the Commission that the'petitio'ri presented contains the signatures of every family but two in the canyon and to be concerned with the $3,000 cost of preparation of an EIR when the concerns of hundreds of thousands of dollars of real estate is involved is very short-sighted. When Commissioner Wheeler asked how long he.had owned his property he said, "about a year and a.half" Commissioner Schrader commented that this is mining country and that the concerns of -the people seem to be two things: their property rights and Mr. Logan's credibility;..and questioned that these concerns could be mit- igated, or even addressed, in an EIR--adding."to.require a miner --an industry that has been here longer than. -this County has beem formed --to spend the i^�ney because of these particular concerns, I don't think is fair to the 'cant, and I would like to -go for Negative Dec finding that staff did rmmend that in June, and the -reasons -for change by. -staff are not justified. Cemm �; oner Bennett reminded Lim that we are still back to squar� lO e, back as::. for the same information we have asked for before, that - S' - the responses cannot be second-hand telephone conversation. Mr*. Streeter get. Mr. our there. as . soon roeplired. that we will. make every effort to Lantis i s n.the A's­'possible (adding 'that there .have been proposed land divisions i area that did not. go through. because -of.. access road conditions, and. that - impTovemcht.s- to the ro.a.dl mighttrigger more.applications). Thehearing wa s'closed.. In responsb to. aqupst.ion from. Commissi . oner 11h e cicr* Counsel replied that the' mining* permit and reclamation plan could- be conditioned. After Counsel-'s adv.i'. cc- that -"you would have to go through the -documents you have there and s tha . t brought this-whole thing on are such that cate w.hy those area . .. . ..... t'l . I . Commissioner Wheeler with- drew , igni ican o t, indicate a potent -his.motion made immediately prior to.Counsel's comments and seconded -. :by Schrader,: that. no impact report. be' f iled.- -adding that he would be pre- .,pared to make a motion the next meeting. And in response to Commissioner Schrader's query as to whether what staff n . project gadid in June was illegal, Counsel explained that there I is a ew ewed ain front of the Commission, the environmental documents must be r ' evi u and decision based upon the input received sibsequent.t.o the receipt of original I documents—that the new position taken by staff is tha.t an-EIR should be-prepared. Questions from Ms. Blair. t. the following comment from Counsel: :brought o.u.g. h . "I have no objection if you were to continue this and if (whenever you' brought it bac-k) the.applicant were to come to you and to say, "I am going to do this with my project and this will take care- of whatever po- tentiAl p 'im'acts' staff has come up with", and if staff agrees with that, I would have no objection to your going ahead and issuing a negative then that.be..comes his project with whatever 4 .declaration, at..that point; but. says it this Th.6 hearing. a. was continue.d.CLOSED unti1-Match 10, 1982. • 112 RECOM]MENDED.MITIGAT I.ON MEASURES* 1. Preserve as much vegetation as possible.to promote ground stability and reduce erosion.. 2. Limit hours .of operation to 6. a.m...to,6..p.m., Monday through Saturday.. Q 3. Imppro e,,I� y Creek Road from.Messilla.Valley Road, at such a,time aSRXJ� warrants,. to reduce vehicle dust impacts and for traffic the roadway may be required until'such safety purposes. Watering o£ a ti.me as road improvements are completed. 4. Erosicn.corntrol measures are required. a. Stabilization of all.graded.areas. b,... Stabilization of .:the .streambanc in area of mining operation. c... ..Proper •d_evelopment. of .drainage, for. open:pit mine. area. • d,: Install.culvert.for any,st.ream crossings of Dry Creek. 5. .Design.-backslope.of.excavated material. to withstand an .earthquake L of magnitude 6:5.Richter. b. Undertake reclamation immediately•once each open pit mine has been processed. - I 7. Provide on-site fire protection measures. 8. Mee the OSHA guidelines for the storage and use of inflammables. 9. Retain areas not to be mined in their natural state. 10. Utilize sediment ponds to contain the. discharge of sediments to Dry Creek. • 11. Obtain k.streambed alteration permit, for any work within or near Dry Creek, from the California Department of Fish and.Game. Up- date permit-as required to ensure periodic review of the operation. 12. Submit. a?report of wastewater discharge to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and comply with their requirements pertaining to wastewater discharge. Provide traffic control along. Dry Creek Road and notify property wners within a 2 mile radius during any.fLture blasting operations. *Agreeable to applicant as per _letter dated endi8l>~ - Pg a e 8d o �3 PP t. I A,ND OF �; AT.11tA1 \': EALT:4 AI•JD E:�tITY _ ''PLANNING CO'MIAI SS I ON 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE• CALIFORNIA 95965 PHONE:: 574.4601 March 4, 1982....: 1`4r. Ronald R. Logan 4095 Dry Creek Road Oroville, Ca. 9S96S Re: AP 41-08-27 Dear Mr. Logan: As'you are aware, the Planning Commission at their meeting_ on March 3, continued until Tdarch In the hearing on your appeal of the requirement for an environmental impact report for your requested mining permit and r.ec- lamation plan for a place gold mine on. the above. -referenced, parcel. This TnAeting will.also'be held 'in the -Board of Supervisors' Room., 25 County Center Drive, Oroville; and is scheduled to begin at 7:30 P.' M. Please feel free to contact our office, should you have any questions. Sincerely, /hd Bettye Blair Director of Planning. 114 VAF N D. PLANNING. COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRI . VE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965 PHONE: 534-.4601 March •.8, .1.9.82.. Dav i California 'Division of Mines Geology Street,. Room:- 1341' 1.416 Ninth Sacramento Ca. 9.58 1.4 Re: Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan 'Ronald R. Logan, AP 41-08=27 Dear Mr. Davis: .... The Butte County Planning Commission is .in the public hearing -trip from a field s ori this project t and would benefit ' to the mining site by a geologist from your office. Concerns Inand reclamation have been expressed about. geolOgY, hydroic,-, v which -require professional review spoke with Ken Cole Of your office about this matter on Harch 4. If he or another geologist- could make arrangements to inspect.the mining site, as soon as possible, in the,next - few weeks, the field trip and comments would help clear up .a sorle of the questions'associated withthispropos copy al. ofClthy e ._. 'Public Works Director, sent y -'o.0 a co CastlehertY,, �pT.oposed::.:t..eclaT.nation,.&...p.lan on June IS, .1 98 1. 'ase call;Our Office as soon as possible, een 8 a. m. Andpm. to di t&is matter and arrangemcnts fora field trip. 8incerelY, -)tep'hen A. Streeter Senior Planner SAS/hd 115 MM % / ' o /0 % J . r E S E. r v E 8 s a-� u c iz v� F �a 7, v ti .,&-S. j�oS Al ras /�oA) 1jv.0 rS,Cf OpE.,.Yu ti�oN ro i.A/I. b ►-v v P;/' Cr c ,�. Poo S/ frog-� P y Ey c Al Tr a f�-/ c W 9 r "V AAi F cl t. c F v E •f�T + d :k ,� f Al P d rs a N c/ (w r 7Y B Ef �' c S d y y �r0 `OA) CO / rO / r`? E a.s cc.Y E s c�rF tsq �• Sfa b r'�ati'oN 0`F a �( 9ra�fE�l arE�s. S td b r' z art-�'o ti 0f S f rFa M 6c arF.a of &J,r N ti OpC-✓a7`,o'N. G. �roEr .cFVEI�'P�r')EN / a� cir�7��,�,agE �vr CY- K. SJ PFS),9.✓ 1�dcks/opF ofexGava't� F I o 6 S 1 .- cTe-Y- / • 6 01 N c� . t� fa c .r' F c I -a m a 7� o 0 Ai C 6' F a chi OpE.v 1p r c c & s-4. /14 e7 ti;1,4d c - AI A4 G� �'a IC - 116 i116 r M�. E.. % OSHA � el �. ti E s � r E JO Y Q A)4 Ll. S 6c Of ��(ai�.Nlci blues . 9. ke7Tq. i' N 2a Y E .�i S ,ij o > . tO . b F z Al Q 7�u..►r rt s fi 7�� •. c7 -C) D �' y cY E K O b �a Via. _ ` os- N.. Fer �r� CVEE) + �yti, taa.. to E�VStArE. �FrIO /C rF, Fw /02.. c>. lM r t $ rc O r� u9 a S t� ���`E r /� -y- G�92�FY i,l i.1 CBti ro . BdCLrcl a N�'I CION f, ; �� �Iyi c- i' rF clt r Fti�� P�r-- IV 70 /3% ca a f // G�A.) y�d/ cd y /d 7-4 fi aA-11 h/ cl r 7 0 0 r c� a :r C_ �,c/ CYC- C_0 V S � 9 :. 117 TE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION INUTES - March 10, 1082 V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTTNUED FROM March 3, 1082:C1.051:D ITEM ON IVHICIi Tl.1Ti RIiQIIIREMI NT .01- AN ENVIRONMENTAL -M ACT'REPORT HAS BEEN A.I'I'liAhliD Ronald R.. Logan - Miriing per and reclamation plan for a .placergold mine'. on'. property. zoned. "A-:2.' (General) located. on the west side of my Creek Road, approximately 3Mi.les north of Messilla Valley Read, -.identified as AP 41-08=27, south -of Paradise 82-57-1-30 Ms. Blair..reportcd that staff; one commissioner and Mrs. Logan had had a meeting; that both Galen Taylor and Tony Lantis had promised to view. the proj,.ect. with in. .2 o.r,,3 weeks ; .pr.io•r to the time of the publi :. hear.ing on.. the pro j ect... It was noted that 13 mitigation measures had been -received from Mr.. Logan. was made by Commissioner IVheeler,.s.ccondcd by Commis.sioner letion nnett, "that .in the matter of an E. 1. R. for the- mining permit .and reclamation plan for Ronald R.. Logan for.g.old.mining, I would.move not to requiremore than an environmental review with a negative.declara- tion. I -find that although the project could have.a significant. effect; in this case because the thirteen mitigation measures proposed .to by the applicant to minimize the impacts have been added the project, a mitigated negative declaration -is recommended. These mitigations address the concerns and comments of -the staff, commission and.the public�,and are as follows: I 1. Preserve as much vegetation.as possible to promote ground stability and reduce erosion. 2. Limit hours 'f operation to 6 A. M: to 6 P. M. Monday through. 9 Saturday. as 3. Improve Dry Creek -Road from Messilla Valley Road, at such time. as.mining traffic,warrants, to reduce vehicular dust impacts ,r and for traffic safety purposes.. 4. Erosion control measures. .are requ.ired,: . a. Stabilization of all graded areas. b. Stabilization of the streambank in area of mining i • operation. ` c. Proper development of -drainage for open pit mine area. ` d. Install culvert. for any stream crossings of Dry Cre ,,"1,O11 pp BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING.COMMISSION 1tINliTES :. Ma ch 10 1982 S-. Design. backslop e of excavated material to.withstand-an earthquake of. a magnitude of 6. S on: theRichter scale.. 6. Undertake reclamation immediately once each open pit mine has been prcessed... 7.:. Provide on=site fire protection.:measures. 8. Mleet -OSHA guidelines for' .the ,storage. anal use, of f1ammables: 9. Retain areas not to be mined in their natu-.al staL�. 10. Util.ize:'sedimcrit ponds to contain the discharge of sediments to,dry:; creek. 1. Obtain a streambed alteratipn'.permit�for any. work .within or near Dry Creek from the California -Department of Fish and Game. Obtain current permits.to ensure periodic review.of the operation. 12. Submit a'current report of wastewater discharge to 'the California Regional Water Quality Control -Board and comply with their.-re- quirements heir re-quirements pertaining to wastewater discharge.. 13. The -applicant further proposes that any.hyd-rology or geology reports prepared and appended to the negative declaration will be considered and addressed. AYES: Commissioners -Bennett, 1Vheeler' and Schrader. NOES: Chairman. Lambert --=-who explained..that she had no problems: with the operation as it is, but -due to the requirements of CEQA and coinments made by Counsel last week she had to vote "no" on this proposal. ABSENT: ,Commissioner:Max. Motion carri•ed::.' A N D 0 F r A T :J. K',;, I r PLANNING -COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE' :- -OROVILLE.-CALIFORNW95965 PHONE: 534.4601 March 'Mr.'Ron ald R. Logan 4095 Dry Creek Road Oroville, Ca. 95.965 Re- AP 41-08727 De"ar Mr. Logan: As you are aware, the Planning -Commission at their meeting on Parch 10 determined that an Environmental Impact Report is not required -for your-requested.mining permit and reclamation plan for a placer gold mine on -the above -referenced parcel. This project will be scheduled for a piiblic hearing early in April. You will be notified: o . .-the date. Should.you have any questions, please feel free to. contactour office. Sincerely, Bettye Blair Director of Planning fi d. - 120- BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONIMISSION PZSVI M 6A Notice is --hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, April 8,., 1982, tit- 7:30;p;m;, •in'the°Butte'.Co.urity Board.of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 2S County Center Drive, Oroville, California; regarding th f61lowing: ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICA LY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONh1ENTAL REVIEIV 1, Stanton Marsh. - Rezone 'from "A -R" (Agricultural - Residential.). to "AR4111" (Agricultural Residential - Mobil.e Home) property. Located on the south side'of Orovill-.-Bangor Highway, approxi- ma.tely 1800. feet east .O t Lower.'Wyandotte Road, identified as . pP 036-113-054, `more particularly described as: All - that ' cer:tain real -property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: The -W 92.6- ft. ' of Lot..6,..in Block 30, as shown_ on .that .. certain map entitled, "MAP_OF VILLA.VERONA, BUTTE COU:NT;Y, CALIFORNIA'',' which map. was filed iii the .office of the -Recorder of the County of Butte, State of Californias, •..... '_.January '17;::1889;- EXCEPTING -THEREFROM -the -'W--5-0 feet. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion of said Lot 6 lying N of the .S lirie"of the 'Oroville=Bangor Road. Containing 0'.8 acres, more or less 2 miles SE of Oroville. TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION OF USE P 1. Anthony W. Marks - Use Permit to alloor a body shop on the north .:....side of Oro Dam Bl.vd;..., West (State Hwy. 162) , a•pproximately 400 feet east oeet, identified Oroville . as AP 30-195-14, ITEM ON WHICH NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDIN COMMENDED 1. Ronald R. Logan - Mining permit and reclamation plan for a Placer Gold Mine on property zoned "A-2" (General) located or, the west side of Dry Creek. Road, approximately.3 miles N of Messilla Valley Rd., identified as AP 41-08-27, S of Paradise. The above mentioned applications, petitions, maps, and negative reports are on file and available for public viewing at the .office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. BUTTE•COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BETTYE BLAIR, DIRECTOR Or PLANNING. 121 'T"f'Co- Box 245. Orovil' e; CA '':95965--. . 41=08-12, 24, 2.6 .41-08-42 &.4? . D.D. & 0.11, Whittlesey Paul & Ann Menefee c/o H.L. & B.,L; .Young Rt: 1 Box 19`7..A:.:- 774 Eder_ Ave. Oroville; CA'- 95965 .San Jose, CA '95117 41-08-20 M. & L.J. MacNaughton 1302 Canada Road Woodside, CA :.54062... 41-08-43 l 1, Ron C: Cooke 85 West Sutter Road ; I Paradise,CA 95969. 41-08-21, 23 41=08=89, 90, 92 G-1.1. & L.C..Dutton i Rou C. Cooke c/o Irene M. Salmon Rt 1 Bok'197C ! 18207 Santa Cecelia Cl t- Oroville; ::GA :95965 Fountain Valley,CA 92708; 41-08-25 Ronald R. Logan H.E. & V.G. Conway 4095 Dry Creek Road 1109 Lord'."elson Lane 1 Oroville, CA 95965 Foster City, CA MAIL!4 t' �•-i I 4T -O8-27. William G. Gainer .Ron &,Betty Lo -an ?25 Nord Ave. X328 1 B 20' -Fold Chico, CA 95926 Rt. . c Croville, CA 95965 ; • i 41-08-48 Robert W. Jensen 10742 Ladona Dr.. Garden Grove, CA 92640 i, G.W.' & L -C: Dutton ' c•/o C.J. Johnson 4740 Vincent Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90042 ` 41-08-84 R.M. & M.L. Skene .. c/o C.J. Johnson. '4?40 -Vincent Ave. ; Los Angeles :::CA• 900:42> � 41-08-109, 1.1,0 .: t. & G.A. .Thomas, Box 85 Paradise, CA 9.5909 41-08-1113, 11r+ M.B. & R.E. Roethler ,. rr7Aq Saormill Rd. . gyp. w l / I l