Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
043-260-003
BUTTE 0WITY PLANNING C01113911,S1Did ;t0'TI CE OF PUBLIC H EARI:ICS of t1ce }s hereby given by the uutte County PsnCili�itc� Commission �; Pu I i c -hearing will, be ;tell o:t Tirurs �a rat in at file Uoard of Supero sons ` P«port, Caur�tnouse Orrin le, *Cali 6:00 P.M. on the following: e Stege O. Ouciley - Proposed rezon ng_fron =_,�,,21_ (t;'ectium-De nsity 4u urltan Residential) District. t' Residential) (ttf n1r�uta-l;er€sr tYeSU;ur art +��� i pert t; al � District fora parcel located on the � ortlr s.1de 0'f as A -Pa AtEettne I50 ft= east of Cusick (Lay) TVen� e, identified as � # 42-34--46, Chico (SCCO IB HEARING) Charles R Priddy Jr. - Proposed rezoning frown ";t-•2}= Gia PA-��, (Planned Area'Cluster; District for property described�as Lots 5 and 55 of Cr�tte Creek Estates Unit Rto, One, �cateci a& the terminus of Green-viety Circle, identified as TIP 40-37-31 and 4, Chico (SECOEW HEARrufn 3. Vis tec Inc, Wayne 4leciell � Use residences opt _ _= permit for- multiple family property zoned PA -C== Man -Fed Area- Clus �e.r � located south of tacramento Avenue jte, L of Oak ' i and t2ortt t�F Bid}yell Avenue, approx. 1��� Bch `aWn 11venue and 43-26-33 and AP 43-29-72, Chico. ,ea, identifi=d as P 4 Charles A. t=ishbu.�ne - Use permit to BIlow a 207 space mobil hoble park on property zoned -2Generals - e � end of ltackamore Late, east of Il;ay{ 9gE at3��trestaofdGsrdrti�te sputa€ identified as AR 44-43-9 and l0, Chico.. an Averpet the above mentioned aPplications, petiti Ons and maps are on: file and available for public Vietring at the office of t#te Oust Department, 7 County Center Drive, C'rov4ce CalBahia County Planning GUTTE COUaTY Pi.ltiRIMIG Cf tIISS O,` L 4a MICE J. LA ISOjt Director of Planning To be Ax[brrsheo its tCh co £nterpris.e Record on Saturday,u At! � � St 1 �pp.l Itian t: Ila neWedel l Vi stec Inc.) , 2300 Bri d ewa Blvd, Sausalito, Cal Type of Ap. i cation : Use permit for muZ ti l e residential units. � ocation—. Pro- er laca_ied south of Sacramento Ave. west of Oak Latin Ave. and north of Bidwell Ave.,, approx. 15.5 acres identified as AP 43-26-03 and AP 43.-29-72 'hico% Cal. Present 'Zoning "PA -C" 4Planned- Area -Cl us ter)-- Gatn of Application Received: July 30; 1971 0a.te xlot ces flailed; August 13,. 1971 dumber Mailed: 57 First Hearing: August 19, 1971 Second Hearings Additional Hearing: Znnj'ng Petition 51 gna ure percentages ossin �:ctns jh Board Action. Ordinance Ado�ted: ,�� 43-252-03 43-252-04 Robert E. Pulling 43-252-05 Susan F. Diddlecor"', Everett L. Jeter 705 Bidwell Drive 7 c/o Audle Siddlecomb 711 Bidwell Drive ChfC , Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif. 95926 641 Bidwell Drive Chico, Calif. 95926 43-25.2-06 43-2.52-07 Mattie M. Jolly ETAL 43-252-08 John W. Enfield Clara Campbell ETOL Rt- 1, Box 125 621 Bidwell Drive 633 Bidwell Drive Corr-Calif. Chico, Calif. 95925 Chico, Cali►. 95926 43-,e t 1 43-262-12 43-252-10 tion J. CaudiTl Loren'u- Loren Qll9Ave Mary Nj uel S24 Oak Lawn Avenue 1542 Bidwell Avenue i Chic. Bidwell Avenue Chico, co Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif. 9592E Chico,. Calif. 95926 43-252-13 43-%5c-14 43-262-19 Bruno H. Sangkuhl Henry E. Spencer David B. dice 704 Oak Lawn Avenue 736 Oak Lawn Avenue 630 flag Lawn Avenue Chico, Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif.. 55926 Chico, Calif. 95926 43-252-21 43-252-22 H. Adcock 43-252-23 Dept. of Veterans Affairs W. t}. ttightower Jack. 3431 'Elmhurst Avenue /o Edward B. Eckerman 722 Gak Lawn Avenue Chica, Calif. 95926Chico, Santa' Clara, Calif. 710 Oak Lawn Avenue 5926 Calif.: 9592-6- 43-25.2-24 43-25Z-Z5 43-252-25 W. B. DBi,dwell 43-25"�-26 Jimmy' E. Evans Donald R. Jones 615 Bidwell Drive Dri Chic 72,8 Oak Lawn Avenue Cftico,, Calif. 95926 Chico,, Calif. 95926 ,Drive Chico, Calif.Ga1i95926. ro 43-252-27 43 26-03 t�turz el. W. Turner 43-9-6-01 � Fred Johnson Jimmy E. Evans {See 43-262-26} 498 E. Sacramen-to �i:�nue; Ct. 2, ax Calif. Chico, , Chico, Calif. 95926 43-26-02 43-Z6-046-05 C. t;elson RoyalBrown ETOK Douglas R Hussey Rt. 4, Box 653 A Mary CIO Stagnaro Trust Fund Rt. 2, Box 391 Chico, 'Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif. 95926 Rt. 2, Box 390 Chico, Calif. 95926 f 43-26-06 - 4326-07 43--26-08 ti. Valley Rt1y & ;filler 1G'i Gaylord M. Shuler 8 D. S Lawn 823 Lawn Avenue c/o T.. L. Miguel, Jr. 820 orient Street Chico, Calif. 95926 -flak Chico, Calif., 95926 817Oat; L� :n Avenue Chico, Cal- 43-26-09 Carl M. Gilliland 43- 26-10 43-2C_23 Dept.. of Veterans Affairs. James D.. Ki'nnee 1530 Bi Dt x 32 Sunl and Drive- G%o Arthur 1 iters 805 Oak Lawn Avenue 92 Chico, Calif. 95926 Cali Chico, Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif_ 95926 43-26-24 43-26-25 43--26-26 Pa tri ci a A. Ilan Bron khorst Omar F. Jarvis Tim D. tiarbl e 221 Cherry Street 1527 Bidwell Avenue 1521 Bidwell Da i vz Chico, Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif'. 95926 Chicc, Calif. 95926 _ 43-28- 43,--2&- 04 43-28-09 Robert . J. Jessee ETUY , Leroy C. Rudolph Rudolph 'Rt.2, Box 386 Rt. 2, Box, 3878 Chico, Calif. 95.926 Chico, Calif, 43-28-08 43-29-1.3 43-F29'-14 Rorval R. Jessee Jack Quirin;g i,Hlbur Gapow Rt. 2, Box 389 Rif. 2, Box 357A c a C1Dorado Mote` Chico, Calif. 96926 Chico, Calif.. 95926 Rt. 2 Box 358 Chico, Calif. 359a26 43-29-59 43-29-62 43-29-78 William E. Verzi. George L. Davis,: Jr.. George L. Davis, Jr., Rt., 2, Box 357 38.01 Alameda Ave. Chico, Cal -f. 9,5,925 Tacoma„ Washington 43-29-71. 43-29-73 43-29--74 Ray Nol to Robert L. Bri ttor ' Arthur R.. Verz: 1148 W. Sacramento Avenue 1.616 Bidwell Avenue Charles E. Reynolds Chico, California 95926 Chico, 'Cali'f. 959.26 Rt. 2, Box 353 Chico,, Calif. -95926 9. 43.-29-72 `distec Inc., Muriel- Turner Wayne Wedel-I "- 498 E. Sacramento Avenue 2300 Bridgeway Blvd. Chico , Calif. 959.26 Sausalito, Calif. y. 42-20-32 42-20-34 42-24-35 Dept- Veterz;,n;Sr Affairs Lynn R. Thomas Bruce 11art: n 'c/c' William Kearse Rt. 3,Box 440' Rt. 3:, Box 439 Rt. 3, Box 449 Chico, Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif.. 95926 Chico, Calif.: 95926 2-•21-01 43-251-02 43-251-03 Christina M. Dickey Aran L. Dennison Lev�'s5i. Turner %. 3, Box' 448' 711 Oak Lawn - 703 Oak Lawn Avenue w.hica, Cal if. 95926 Chico, Calif. 96926 Chico, Cali-Jr. 95926 13-251-04 43=251-05 43-.251-07 IJ chard D. Robuck Irene Blanc; Ord George 14. Lewis 31 Oak Lawn 586A Rio Lindo 721 Oak Lawn Avenue hico, Calif. 959L6 Chico, Calif. 95926 Chico, Calif. 95926 F3-25148 4,3-251009 43-251-10 epi. of Veterans Affairs Gary L. Cole Irene Blanchard /o George E. Lang'en 605 Oak Lawn Avenue 77 Oak Lawn Avenue Chico, Calif. 95926 _ - h.co, Calif. 96925 3=252-0'1 43-252-02 onald R. Incraham Dept.. of Veterans Affairs 742 Mulberry _ c/o Jay B. Scott hicc, Calif. 95{26 717' Bidwell Drive` Chico,: Calif. 95926 STM -F FIRDT1110S PAGE PGJR . UGUS 10_y rl R. USE PERMIT APPL1CA9jQitsi f Z. Vistec Inc(Wayne Nfa • g" s t f:, �ti�cee � permitatri ly resi dentes on property zoned I' A -C' (P i armed Area -Cl usterl, ?nd ¢ cramento A':enne, vest of Ga. orated south of 1 Sak Lai n Alrenue and ,,:or th of Bidwell Avenuel; approx. 15.5 acres, identified as AP _43-26-011; and 4�_29-72, ChIco This ase permit is a i W --UP action for he proposed "PA -C11 Zone change Which eras approved by the Beard of Soper visors On duly 27, 19731-g (Ordinance No. !187)a Since the development plan and recommended conditions of -,lily 27, have been thoroughly reviewed by moth the Plarzn _r:g ComMissioh and Board of Super'risors, ilt is suggested that the folIorring coxa tions be Made a part of the use permit for 3n?plementation of the p��n 1 Deed 30 ft. ;b f right OT' tray from the centerl ir:e u a Sa�ranez;�b and Bidwell Avenues to Butte County, along the properky, frontage.. 2. Install curbs F t r ,, gzti��eand Sidewalk and street rmprGvements per Butte County standards on Property frontage of Sacramento and Bidwell Avenues Install lre h+�d ants Per City Of Chico or State Division of Forestrjr standards on property frontage of Sacr�ment�t and S dwel i Avenues. 4y The Rose Avenue ex tens iao and cul-de-sac street s'hovrn on the development pJart aM tO be Constructed ttr Gaonty urban or C;ty, Of Chizo standar=ds. e Rase Avenue ^enterline to align with existing bridge crossing Big Chico Co eek. S. 471 private streets to be constructed to Butte County standards with the excep.ion of street widths (uhiuch may be a minimum of 26 ft.). e , Provide drainage plans -11ror the approval Of tike Department of Public Works and install accessary dra ,n ge facili ies Ellin atO 44".he tree planter in the center^ of tine t -de -sac and curb FFz Js rip, prop,. -,ed- 5Arre'`:fi'.`tss- - (� gam- PrOVIde SG f -t-. oU..-ildin9 setbrack on, public. sit.-reets.. - 10. The project. steal are# c erected to .a. sefwrage -treatment acili ty In 3 leu of septic 4 - - -4- AWL film Rom 16 Ault 19't1 Butte ColMnty Planning Corm ssion 7 Court_ Center Drive oroviale, Ca ;ear Sins. 1 tom. . be alit of tOTMI nn Aust 19 and therefore unable to attend the heari of the Pjennin �o.�rr�ssxon, I crash to register my vises in ti ". I am- strO ELY op -Posed to the grant m; of a use permit to ui stec !no. for the develo .eht of z iltiple family residences on about 15 acres it the vicLndty of Sacramento Ave. , Cak Later and Eld—well Ave. in Chico;. ,� c wa3 -mentioned ssaveral times eetL,r " n Cisco the other ever-ir-, the area conce :e' is 'z .S o.n of far ly ranch hn�l.mes, This ha bean pointed out at rnmerouo Fres iouS hearings vit regard to h; sane general a- Test a tom$ C �� li-mats of °.'iInco and east of the tue ag Cratcar l are-=. It seems to those of us -e.qG ha -Te hoes -_Ir_ 'ane area tient t'r s is a ParticularlY good use of the Lwid. i eally, I Toted like to wee t"he r orra t-* on of a nia�w type - of zone similar to that used ky tb�� city of Atherton. l believe they moose a ir;wcs acre r1aAl~m3 `mos could, be an excellent buffer between =Maple fax^ ly devel- ori ent on the city side and a c ,,11b..re fiter tie-. True,, �ranw of' the existin; parcels are already below that siz; , but should such zo?-nn,,be instituted, I feel sure the Vvilue of two acre plots in the area would far exceed the value, both to Vhte landowner and to .the county, of the bs Yip density on sr' -ll aorea-e uhiclh is being craimmed down our treats, now. adensity develcert currently max. -al areas .rust r-a-sult ir Asa rg .cast to -L ae to payer s. this accoutre°^e is of ur ban existence become necessary road - rork.,. sa a ers, -water lines, drainage and nany others, all of indch T-dilt cost the count; taxpayers plenty. in ma, I favor the retention of sem-c r, sln7le fan:ll ' and Yuma usage for the areas"��`'�as "l eatgla - est of 617d c i :you for your eorissidera tion:, co CI*Aco Cit a arm n7 Ca ss? v : qg {: A Lgg u�6 X14 �' RLa fMN' 4il4 i�7 17 197 y Page Z. - not to deal with the City any further until receiving allof the necessary, approvala at the County level, hoping to put pressure on the City because: of their County approvals.. '.tet all through the County hearings Vistec stated that they had :applied to the City of Chico for annexation. given in the County staff recommendations it states that °it is our understanding that Vistec has applied to.. the City of Chico for annexation."- I plan to mention this letter at the Thursday" meeting; Purge you to 'check what I have just Stated. The- number of John Hoole, the city p.? -„ner, is 3A3-440 ex. 266. Finally at a Supervisors meeting Vistee used. intimidation to gain: their ends. A ween after the Supervisors. Vistee public hearing Has held I went to Croville to listen,to what their decision would be. Just as the Supervisors were getting very'close to putting off-adecisln. until this.problem of a: general policy linecould.be decided upon between the City of Chico and. the County, the president of Vistec stood. up in the audience, even though the public hearing was closed... He proceeded to intimidate the Supervisors by stating that "they would probably have to abandon the project if they were delayed any longer.”, The fear of losing a construction project was enough to get the three non -Chico supervisors to vote for the, project which Mr. Gilman. and Mfr. Madigan were against. Mou would think that itis a:real.problem to get people to build apartments in Chico, yet I believe that: if a need exists the units: will, be built, if. not by Vistec then by eomeono else, and in'a location which. is acceptable to the Chico,Community. I. might also ask if Vistec is in such a hurry spy haven't they submitted their annexation papers to the City of Chico? - Lased upon these facts I urgeT you toL rezone this :area to S-1. Sincerely yours,. Robert L. Britton 71 -1740 PI3BLTG HEARING: VISTEC'-USE PERMIT FOR M ,L'TIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCES Tib CHICO The public hearing on the use permit for multiple family'residences p g in Chico, as requested by Vistec, was held as advertised. Jim Lawson Planning Director, summarized the action of thePlanning Commission in this matter. The Planning commission recommended approval of ,this use permit, subject to ten t conditions. Hearing opened to the public Appearing, in opposition; �. Mai. Brittan,,;Chico. lie read a prepared statement on the matters He. explainedhis'opposzti:on to the use permit. 2. Mr. Willi -am Ganowa He owns the property adjacent to this property.. He said that he was sure that if this building is alloried, he- will be forced to sell: 3. John Stutz, Morgan Avenue, Chico. appearing in favor. 1.. Mr, Dan Pell cotti, Oroville. He said that Chico State College has taken:a great deal of property off the tax rolls. These people are going to spend a considerable amount of money building this complex and it will bring in many tax dollars. He exp°la-ned his reason for approving this matter. Hearing closed to the puhlic and confined to the Board.. Time spent discussing the matter of annexation of the property to the City of Chico and of hooking up to the,, sewage facility= It was moved by Supervisor exon and seconded by Supervisor hadigan that the Board concur with the Planning Commission and approve%the Use Permit for multiple family residences in Chico for Vistec, subdect to 'he'tondi:tions of the Planning;Commission AYES. Supervisors Madigan and Maxon NOES: Supervisors Gilman, McKillop, and Chairman Reynolds On motion of Supervisor McKillop, seconded by Supervisor Reynolds and carried, the Board concurred with the Planning Commission and approved the use permit for, multiple family residences- in Chico (Vi_stec), subject to the ten conditions of the Planning„ Gommi:ssion, with the stipulation that the 'property be annexed to the City of Chico. .AYES: Supervisors Madigan, Yaxon, McKillop, and Chairman Reynolds i NOES: Supervisor Gilman 1 Motion carri'ed«, - _ August 27, 1971 'Wayne* IfedelI V Stec Inc. -nousi.ng, Pesourc 23OG B-,jcjgeWay Sausalito, California 9,4965 Dear For. We€Iell z -5S to advise you that members of the, Butte County Sub- divi.sican COrmitteO have Informed our office that they wished an additional wee:K to study your tentati map of "A"he Grove", Ch c:a-. and would- not be prepared to co=ent on the development on September 2, 2973.1 i.ioc evr x, clue to the fact � that the following regular mating date is a legal holiday for the County of Butte, it must be rescheduled for the neat- ing of September 16 1931, at 1-30 p.m.., in the De-art-ant of Public Works Conference room., croville, californ,ia- Your teatatxve map application is further come i.cated by the fdct that your pend ncT "Pa-Ca use permit application for this property has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors and a public hearing date set for September 114, 1971 , at 11:00 , Board of Supervisfora Chambers, Courthouse, crovil?e. There- for*-, this map could not be fully approved witi l the Board" s hearing has been.. held and a decision rendered. If you have any 'questions concerning this ratter, please con-- tact our office. 5++OUrs vary truly,; - Lai �: s±�i S-r.._v L erayk F+' GERALD F. SCOT'` Associate p1wMer �q i 71-1812 Ate' C y ROBj!`; BIADK ggp INIINC- �ZSIEas a epresentative Robert Btade, at ,rat law, stated tie was .appearing of VYstec 'r -nit. He said he would 11ke the hard t.0 reconsider their aG� snec,. concetnl4ig the issuance of a use permit for taken at an earlier meeting., Tim Taw�on d to speak about this matter whe, Planning Director, Re was, requesz_En was present later in the meeting. 71-1822 APPROVEI&TIVB MJBDIVISION )W, M GROVE, 109 IA)YS SO1;TH OF x SACRAMTTO A;JEN"DWY f APPLIC&N-1 - VISTEC IIT . ): The Grove Subdivision Map was presented for Board approval. Robert- B1ade, attorney at law, representing Vistec, present and urgently requested the Board to discuss the legality, of condition No. 11 with County Counsel. County Counsel explained` the effect of Condition No. 11. Mr.. Blackstock ,p said the problem was two fold. He said the City of Chico would accept -the I subdivision maps. Annexation to theCity discussed.. Mr. Blade said. it was his intention to suggest that condrt:Lon Na. 10 bet changed tcs read "a community sewage facility".: He said the developer mould comply with the County health laws Supervisor N. Kil op said it was intent to approve the tentative .map at this time and then go back and discuss the use permit. On motion: of S-upervisor Mic€Killop, seconded by Supervisor Maxon and. carred the tentativ su%di.vision map entitled "The Croce" was approved,, e.` subject to the 11 conditions placed on the map in the Planning. Commission's report. AITS: Supe;vfisovs Madigan, Maxon and McKillop NORSs Supervisor Gilman -and Chairmar. Reynold-- Discussed eynold-Discussed the conditions set out in the use permit which was approved by this: Board at the September loth meeting. Mr. Blade said he was requesting that the annexation regoiremant be: nuKified. Mr. Brititaih stated that if anv consideration was to be made by this Board concerning the use permit conditions: then another public hearing shaud be hello Mr. Brittain explained his Opposition to the requested action. Mr. Blade stated that condition 10 of the 71st PezzZt stated' 71seage,facility" he suggested that the words "sewage treatment ,facility" be deleted and that the words "community sewage facility" be inserted. Time spent discussing the request- of - Mr. Blade Cupervisor McKillop said that if the Board were to be consistent, if the action taken on the uge permit fox Vi.stec ere to be amended. what would the Board do about the SchvltZ p cperty. Action to be taken. discussed'. It was moved by Super• -visor Maxon, seconded by Supervisor Madigan and carried that the Board correct their' action of September 14th on the approval of the use permit. for W!4'ec, and to state that it was the intent- of ntentof this Board to teu_ite community sewage facilities for this: development but 110 ---the additional fire and police Prot_^_jlon. and that the board does s hereby approve the.use permit for Vistec wittt the deletion of Cond'ltxon-Yo. 11: a which, telateaL to annexation to the pity ^f %,co, as set out zn the Planning, a Commission's report, ." ITT 0F' Hi4O, CALIFORNIA AREA COBE 916 21.01CODE .s3026 iit t#{GiPAI BUILDIN ♦ *49-4401 October 22, 1971 Honorable Board of supervisors Butte County Courthouse Oroville, Ca. 95965 Gentlemen: At the meeting of the: City Council held October 19 1971, representatives of vi.stec, Inc_,. and. Dr. Wm- I. Shultz, appeared before the City Council to discuss their desire to connect to the City of Chico sewage disposal: system. As part of the discussion., the Council had an opportunity, to review the use permits andcondi tions thereto approved by the Board of Supervisors. The condition that was of particular importance to the Council concerned the requirement that the developments, proposed. by Vistec and Shultz be connected to a "community sewer system" It became apparent throughout the discussion that there was a difference of opinion concerning the Board's definition of a community sewer system:. In order, to assist the city Council in: working with the developers, it woulc_ be appreciated if the+ Board would provide the City with their understanding of what was meant by a "community sewer system". Your assistance in this matter, will greatly clarify future discussions with the above mentioned developers- i Your assistance in this regard is appreciated. Very truly yours, i l CHOTs iayor cc Clif Mickelson Clark Nelson a H rd Toussain wrence Lawson City Manager City Planner DPW City Atty. - yesietday rffirsned BU�rU, Yt! 1� n �Rn�4 uv, --1 --- _ , - - € c p of z e q n i z g two aispa ai , s�esa ircvai ist an t e3use poll right n ba that West Chico un rgr sl at€nent a collay ssnifar How` He r aed isat both for, em_v to ana a� � t- �sz std s si Sys ahs _ h of arch f�a_ sn4 if w askew hoot: into « 7-1 plant: as for WRA P �va� cm=ent on tip agp�ica ie neradan eves takes die a sac tarsi: aiosal. syr- More :nalana.a dEcision. 1 Utz Brei e a t ' 'vestigate the' fos - DiNe d # boa rs 'Fhe restated € at ;�rvice a w- or of a s�o t iy s el ution a sewer ? . the i X11 - sy�iienxs A `a ser that i£ would Frolect a;x TiSLm *4r prde prn,s few off, a viyrp. of ;� up to sty sewers' t. that meet the easy Federal Building, P. Q. Box 1978 801 1 Street - Room 147' Sacramento} California .5803 .ianuary lo, 1972 K0, L. Montgomery Chief UnderwtI'M+ Telephone X49-3424 Vis tec-, inc.t housing Resource 300 Bridgeway Boulevard Sausalito, -California 34565, Be:_ The Grove. - PUD SSP -45L Chico, California Su tte ,County 1_ Gentlemen t# December 25, 2971, we wrote you setting forth our requirements fog approval of a package -type sewage treatment plant for the captioned subdivision. We have na-d been infold that the Regional water (1jality Control Board has refused approval of the. proposed disposal, system:. our, sanitary engineer. Is also unable to issue his: favorable report due to the fact that connection to the existing, public sewer system is feasible. is addition, our engineer reports the possibil:itp of contamination of the shallow ground water table by the 'on-site subsurface disposal system-. In view of the foregoing it has been determined that your. Vroposed method of sewage disposal is unacceptable. You should': assume that connection to the City of Chico public sever system vill be a requirement for proceeding with, PHA financing in connection with this deeiogaut.: 'Very truly yonra, Ba P. Greeat Direc for cox Butte County Planning Commission, Chico C--ity Planning ComnissioF1 Aid 1?dera Bulli - ., Boy: 197P k F_ol i street 147, acraeto, Lag diet UnderwritOr 449_3424 lStec 7tnc . N'Ousiatg Resource ac�sa t,al io=3 a9 Re. The Grove UD Chico California Butte county Geatle =; oa—Decem-ber 29, 19,71, We Wrote you setting fortis our rego%r ent5 for -approval of a package- fie se a trey went 1 t fo t e, captioned. subdivision. € n. e have amr been inf�srL ecl that the .,.egiona Fater mali,ty Lantz -A and has ref�?aec� agpr vol of the proposed disposal system- {iur s�mit4� e�sgineer mss, also a xle t issue its favorable report due to the. fact that i Conn to the e sting public seer syster is. feasible. in addition, our euglueer reports the possibility of ca�..a�tcatar�r of the shallow .gromd ,tater table by the On -s' to subsurface ij:,asposal systems. In Viem rsf a fe egp nF it bas been dete. net that i your proposed Mind of sewa&,e disposal is unacceptable. Yom 4houlcl sss that .c3eation ta the City of Who, public sewer system Vill o req.�,ireme: t for proceeding �� � Mk f�auc �g in ro ect �,_tt this aevel.opment. Very truly yours, .. !Greets. Lireetot cc: Butte County planning; Comm ssioa Chico City -Planning Commission KLti/skh a s 0 �� a -Depart-Memoranou TJs Supervisor J-6, IieIF-iliap - FROM. Lawrence JW. La,'r::cira , rji rector of 'Planning, - suB-;Ecr! Comparison of Vistec and Seco_ "PA-t:" 3evelopnents DATE, lia.rch 1.D:, 1tJ �. I have outlined thesignificant p;auning arta 1attu use cortsi;.eratians for tile two ;,proposals as. requested in 31r. Pei fLr's letter_ Tire Vistec "rel-C; was approved on a 15.5 acre site containing 106 toi;m Ouse condominium units. Tne density vt&_ approxlrately 6_,a units per acre_ •- -- The Seca site was 1Is acres fir 18 apartment units. Tile density on the Seca d-velonrLnt teras. ;aper dxiratily � waits t �� acr. , or amore than double teat -.ro csr:d !jY the Vistec Corpo,ratior.. Traero is alf,o a fasiG difference in `ne character of trr-� df v=_lop ents� yistoG con,;CMnJ cpm ,-a crimes - deco, afar t�tlersts. Tr.e t *ne of living arrr=1aiIT vecutT'es fid' considrati,rt in rvie=^r^rct.� vFvir�.ents. Tne Vistcc Procrasal was, preseaateci as a si:;cfje far..il4 o> iter occupir:d living. 'concent. Tree Seco; proposal ^�rais proposed as arc zt.,aru4ionZ. cdri plex at the co: sip ra .l r .,ri gher dWvsi t,y= The Vistec site is adjacent tt3 Singh, fara'ily S4bGiYlsit-ns w(: t'aC- 'w✓35t Erni c 3�ave density of annrox.inatel � 4 to 5 units is � it dcr . T%ere Sacra- is an a-parts#eat cGTT� 1L-X oIpposi to :alt siti 'tin t.r rlcrt_y Sit;' %i IC menta nV*'rtt3 ' tltt cll , as a iieti C ty in excc:..s o f •c-rrLtc€ l s = = l ; ,�rsily dev:log zEent. The area to the South co.ntairls sig , far.ts. ldhi l�: ;1G ? a iEtlltrs per dGr� i s sot' el,,oat .^i Settt°T �tPai: Lai : lei rrz rrcl ' ,j E affo-rds evell'utnt intile to dLSi_;n of ti. single faril,d a,rnc�l e Open sa,ace arid. i �ad;i cater t as t ade ,,uatc- 1 a�ldsca 4i at ar.d r=�cl~Ga_ tional sauce jrould ue provided to comPlii;Rent a single far:.i j concept, Over all, the dense t,v of the Vistec proposal is r.=ore cor=rpatiule lith sut�rouridinq de�rnlaprient trlan the consideraaly s1igaer ddnsiLy of teas Seca ,T`Gp4Sal Wig i0 is located in an "A-R' District :*:ic�. is sparcely level oped vri tt si ngl.e famil,r> residences, it is difficult to compare the proposals dir=ectly since taxa situation. of each site, the type of complex proposed and the surrounding develOP- ment differ significantly. , I don `t u+ei i eve in this case the dansity of the Seco property is detrimental to tete "A-Ras. gista-ict renis it is an the frrge of tete area., Any increase. i.n traff c, Will be channeled ;pack to k �*anaot.te Road and. the Gl ive Highway and should not effect the res Wences across STATE OF CAUFORK-IA—RESOURCE8:AGEOCY CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WA t ER QtTAUTY C I ROL BOARD--- CEt4TRAL VALLEY REGION r� , 3252 5 STREET T • .-s. SACR:.htF11To, CAt1FORNiI- 45526 pK0N& :(916) 4.1-0274 � sn ». Board of S1�'.Der-VxsOrs C()Ur e,bouse Q.,,ville, California �o G@�t e '::=n ` It is. Z s . ct7g jjy i - 2?Se pian for - t -y o ccb- ca j olat3y ccvelo a ci Ly so that �7—lt�ire dei el4opzzeuts ti, area r"ur' ro dr:� -se pity_ t7aa city I s ,, i ! be able tt� se l LCo L�v S�'�V2 CG�c_ 5? __ -,Z tC3r :,ej�,s cis has been. designated s the re , s CSI a.� z s sc.or - _, - �� grant 3aowT �$' to ex- t�s =—ea. S c1 ?iC1CJ 5�C i ��� ,r..ai l7an - "E'Ctz 3a 133,60 o ��:� ca-- rT BtY �Si`x.' pQ� S3O?3S C3_ �- r{� !- GC'•s f'r" GyCI SSE1-lar—ge r coaqe a 3'�r� GTi h -0—a Q u-�_€3.r = r +a L Cv :: ss e '47?tT < ?' � I S = tL3v� "s x CO cr�y7" 3 L T`T� ire a . 1 S _ P J V w _ t. ,� 1 0 u 3 a- ' Crit a�I.'^id. State � C J, � - �Y y� ,��x-�tS72C:: master=acil i - C: ' L' irT"i£ yy - t -l -}s-_. 4 o aua Stad _ L � i z, :"..,tie irtws-4�" iz�c c'�.y. �£ s -11 t, t a yS to r4 -'s'O' v' ' r,c- trO1 Bow .conz oo:� Ways , e � t c..ov� _ > it �- t,=2,� Fa_'.��=�C��:rs� ,�0''� saw'' cC w7''3TTs _fie ? i u o rte. � F c� } ms=s x 4� o e(I y i z '" d s -a til a zl^ Ln- Tsl =fie = .�m rsa o= t re L7i�a �� lityz control board. ve v -L:--,2!y your- S, a es. A. :- 3, cc: CHDD, -- SIJ CJ`iA�r Ell: all Be 3rud r (BAR g 1972 ORQWUE� CAI -IF, 'TATE. 6F• CACIFORNIA—RESOURC�S Af.ENCYRONALD REAGAN, Go.+rnor WNW i= CF LEGRARGd'�LYYAER�Uh6-►C�i:��RD CENTRAL VALLEY REClaN s 3251: 5 STREET - - SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95818 PHONEz (916) 4458270 SF' 4 January 1972; P _. -T 't� f fi 1( ` CITY moi.' CF tI:^.E7 Vistec Iac./Housing Resource• jAIN1' +l _ 23.'00 Bri.dgewatf Sausalito, California 94-963 crFY t.' jZti 11-1y or csico Gentlemen: F .Enclosed is an officiall copy of Order No. 72-136 as adopted by the: California. Water Quality Control • Board, Central Valley Region at its .last regular nee -ting Please acknawledo receipt by signing: and :return=ing. the en- closed card, . Additional: co-oies :of this o; -der may be obtained _span r request to the Regional Board's •ffice, - Very trtlly Yours, (` a.►a_ '7-- f CALIFORI NIA !C-GlONAL W -AT- gUAI,_T-CONMR- 01, 0 -LTO CZli`FRALL IIAI.=- G:IO a .n .y. BY rte,.�__.r' R a�1e� f►: aocertso ��.,. Executive Officer W.BT /jw J CC,:: city of, Cni co - - fi{s�- - CALIFORNIA. REGIONAL WATERQUA ITv CONTROL BOARD. CENTRAL VALLEY RE'GION' ORDER 210. 72-135 WASTE DISCHARGE PROHIBITION i FOR THE GROVE CHICO, BUTTE ' COUNTY TheCalifornia,Regional Fater Quality Control Hoard, Central Vallev Region finds- 1. Vistec: inc./Housing Resource submitted. a report of waste dist hhl arge: dated 16 November .1971. 2. Vistec Inc. proposes to construct 105- unitsof two and three bed- room townhouses in a cluster r fanning- .sche.me, to be known as The Grove, between Sacramento_ Avenue: and.Big Chico Creek just west of the City o -f Chico; . 3.. The Grove proposes to treat 30,000 gallons per_day sewage bymeans of a. "package treatment plant:" and. discharge the effluent, to sub- surface leaching fi elds. 4. The County of Butte requires and the discharger has agreed to form a public entity -adequate to maintain and operate the colectior�. system and disposal plant. 5. Surface drainage .s to Big Chico Creek which is used for recrea- tion, esthetic enjoyment-, and preservation _and enhancem-c e of fish, wildlife, and other aquatzc resources. 6. Local ground water is used for domestic industrial, and agrrcul ural supply. 7.; The Board has notified: the discharger and interested agencies and persons of .its intent to 'prescribe requirements: ;for this waste d s charge. 8. The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge. g • The proliferation or. small sewage t:--�atrient Plants anis or the ^ kine oro -- posed by ,the discharger poses an ;iltimate threat to water quzllty in the region. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that The., Grove shall comply with the following: A. Discharge: Pwohibition L. There shah be no discharge: to ground or surface water. f -- We the ux:d=:rssgnedoapose the rezoning of the below Imentaans property, from S. class zfiaation, of #� -to a clas$i='=aa} iosa. of 'SPA -Gu } Manned Area-Cluster)This Property- is locatedouta. oferentQ Avenue,, West ? k ]Lawn Aver- and Wirth of Bidwell Avenue,-'appr4imatUV 1505 nares, identified as AP 4 -2,5 0.3 an& A? 43-29=!'2, Chico. a r. . Natne MAY U53a y rf 5. 3x �x1,22a 'e I AG c e T `rte � B'.+. ,�;`'� � -•` r � f s�<�< tT '� - a �E 3 �a4m k J- �� $� ��e _��P � .."^---•--- � • ..7 ti ��, L 4. t - i' $ vel ,v� ,t � -� `? .tl' t"� � � L 1,7 s w�C , t 36 s r� k t 4 Z i x 20.t ��''yy� GAJ, L,2: a (/{/{� SAN FRANCISCO. CA UF'ORNIA 94114 Eugene A. Wedell MAY a 5 1972 Executive Vice 'President _ Vi;stec Inc. 2300 Bri.dgeway Sausalito CA 94965 Dear Mr. Wedell Thank you ,for your letter of January 7,. 1972 to Mr. William D.'Ruc7kelshaus. TIMis letter was forwarded, to us .March 30 from Sena-t,-)r Tan Cranston. We appreciate the detail to which you have gone- in assembling the data, presented relative to the development o:Y land in the City of Chico area... Our review indica Les the data and the chronology 'of' events to be essentially correct. As you may know we have been requested to respond to the ?ssue raised both by you_self and by the City of Chico The authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in this. matter is limited. The present condi cj over the zoning density of land and the terms of annexation to the City are beyond'. the scope of our jurisdiction. We can,, however, cc-.=Lt on the terms of a PL 84-660 grant. to-the City since you sped fically requested this, and it._ appears to have relevance in the: matter. Our grant'Ito the City wasmade on. September 3:0, 1971 for the amount of $'3,355,200°. This was grant. offer CGO) C 06 0604, and was to assist n thei upgrading f_ola primary to secondary treatment and included construction of an outfall line. The point: of relevance to your praj ect which: is also the one rased explicitly in your letter concerns a special condition which. was attached to Our grant offer. It reads as follows. 1'3. The City shall operate the. City of Chico Sewage Collection, Tr.catment and Disposal :System as a coordinatod, regional system sized, to -qeet reasonably foreseeable regional heeds and.provide service to existing and fj,ture participating agencies on a fair and equitable basis:." Relative to the condition. above, your specific request, was that: `the regional concept behind the State and. Federal grants be clarified to establish i.he right o potential sewage users to nook into the regional facility on a fair and equitable basis. is We are advised.by our legal counsel that iflISTEC (or similar entity) were a "Participating Agency" JPA would havehin ther t of the special, condition of the grant offer, choice but to use the means= available to require the City of q Chico -Is compliance therewith. However, VIST,C i� an individual developer engaged in a private,, profit mak developer enterprise as opposed to a public entity, Tuch as a sewerage service district, state or local agency, municipality, or other governmental agency. Therefore, the Environmental Protection Ager_cy does not consider the City of Chico to be in violation of the grant offer condition. We do understand that Butte County has proceeded to /,.:nvestigate the possibi.i.ity of establishing a service area mor VISTEC's participation in the County sewer system, and that a. hearing before the County Board of Supervisors has been held on this matter. in addition, permits have been issued by the County which would enable the construction and operation o. treatment and disposal facilities apart from the regional ser' vics of the city' of Chico<. We woild strongly disapprove (regardless of VI'STEC's status as a parti=cipating agency) of the i.mplement.:.tic n of the basis that it would violate such a plan of construction en the intent.of` the varius FeteraFo3lutien`Control tAct of11931' back as fay as PL 80-845, Water to maximize the effectiveness of the expenditure of public unds- by the comprehensive planning (and regi.onali zau,on) of such facilities.- disapproval.by EPA would fare the form of denial. Such. disapp ofgrant funds under PL 34-660 if .such were. requeonal Water cons=;ruction: that was not in accord. with the regi Quality ;Control Pian approved by the State and accepted by EPA'for'the purpose o Feaeral Regulation 18 CFS 601.32-- 3,, July 11, 1972 The Honorable B_oaudof Supervisors Butte CC); County Courthouse c`; _ Oroville, Gali:�Ornia 95965LU x a V Gentlemen- _ rx M .- At its adjourned regular meeting held Tuesday.. y Council. June received are 27, 1972, Commission (dated Jane Port from the Cit 19'72, y Planning ing recommsnded hereto) regard - land use for the area by the L01 Proposed Vistec development west of P-oposed �o ne occupied C -Omitted at the v h;ad been s^ pont was, request of the Councl�sinceTthe rA� scaled dorm in development by density since it was first reviewed the Planxiing Commission. t C) :v The Council unanimously the Planning voted to accept. the recommendation g Commission for A -g 1 of District zoning for this, El, Residential Suburban attended - area... The City Manager and I Your special hearing `_his M action. on June 28 informing you of 0 a o At this same meeting.., the Council also re reiterate their position quested that I a � 2 thatthe land use y will continue to support west ,- the city which trill nature protect the agricultural of the 4rea presently in existence., n this statement of p The Council feels policy o will assist the County in future zoning mstters in this area. p Should you have further questions regarding the Council,a actions, please feel, free to call me at Your ,- convenience„ tVery truly pours„ :EB :be ERIC J. Encl. Mayor cc: City Council, City Manager th city Planner Pctblic Warks County Administrator aunty P7.anner _ . , .oenaira�wn nsv Wayne Wedell, Vistec _ r�n+ms�nie�usars �n�e .moi ae+ti uoNO r- R to CITY OF CHICo CITY COUNCIL. 'MEMORANDUM G -1y, c;� 1co Ta CITY` COMMIL DATE: Juue 21, 1977,E c. BROW CHICO PLANNING CO3MISSION FILE: Chi 1nfo/D-10/Agenda/Dep. CCH CP 1116/Press (3)/A-C.=Z SWGJECT: Acceptable land use for proposed Vistec: Development located between, Bidwell and Sacramento: Avenues, west of Oak Lawn Avenue Pursuant to the city Council's request of June i;. 1972, the Chico Planning Co.w ission again revie%;ed the proposed Vistec .development relative to .acceptable land use sta-ndards for f1fat area on the City's westerly fringe.. As you recall, the original development., submitted by Vistec in April. 1971, was designed for a density of 'lO units per acre while, the present proposal has a density of 6..8 units per acre. Because previous Commission policy was based on a review, of the 10 unit/acre proposal, the Council` requested' further Commisslon. study of the current 6.8 unit/acre plan. Said review was completed: at a special, meeting held on June 19, 1972. i_ HISTORY OF CITY ZONING ACTION (a) Apr;:=�!�, _ 1971 - The Commission's Zoning, and Permits Committee reviewed the ;original Vistec proposal and advised: of their informal opposition to multiple family residential uses in that area because: of the following reasons. 1. The adopted General Plan of the City: of Chico: recommends this area for Nedium. Residential Development (three to six units per acre) and the Butte County General Plan recommends Suburban Residential development of three to eight persons per acre. 2,, The City Planning Commission has repeatedly gone on record in the: past opposing intrusion of high.dens:ity :residential development on the prime agricultural lands located west of the City limits. 3. Higher density development in. this area wilt create extensive and expensive utility installations and create possible traffic problems in the area.,, 4. Both the City of Chico and. the County of Butte have an, o_rer- abundance of existing: multiple --family residentially zoned property which is not utilized for apartment uses;. NOTE; Prior tr -laming and Permit Committee review, the applicant (Mr. Wayne t edell) had several discussi—s with City public works and planning staff members. He was clearly advised of past Commission actions against high density development near the site of his proposal. (b) June 1, 1471 - Fetter sent to Butte County Planning: Commission expressing opposition to the proposed Vistec rezoning. The County was also advised of the Cit is proposal to initiate a specific boundary line on the west side to- control intrusion of hiF,h density uses. TO: CITYCOUNCIL. RE: Vistec Development land uses (c) June 9, 1971 Letter and map sent to Butte County Planning Commission relative to the policy line adopted by the City Commission.. (d).. June, 1971 - June 1472 numerous hearings and discussions before City and County agencies, State Water Quality. Control Board and local Agency Formation Cornission. Several joint hearings,were bead between City and: County governmental bodies A reque_$t for ant± Kation was considered by the City Council who expressed: a willirgness to proceed with annexation if V stee would conform to City land use requirements. (e) June 19, 1972 Chico Planning Commission., as directed by City Council, re-evaluated the Vistec proposal relative to determining acceptable Zoning for the area. COW4ISSIO:I iTI�Z4�NIVIOUSLY ELECTED TO 'SUPPORT R -S (1); RESIDENTIAL -SUE, MAN DISTRICT 20,.000 SQ. FT LOT SIZE II, RE`4SONTS. FOR R -S (1) RECO uiENDATIONT (a) The Commission s- policy against high density development on the City's western:.fringe has been formulated- over a period of 5 to 10 years. A proposal for high density urbanization at this location gill seriously compromise thee basic validity of past and present comprehensive planning for the west side. it is noted a major reason for proposing the Chico Area Planning Commission ' is continual pressure from developers playing a game of bluff between the City and County. This pressure for permissive land use regulations, and the confusion which stemmed from the lace: of precise plans, necessitated the establishment of the "red line" and subsequent County zoning proposals. (b) So calledscatteration or "leapfrog" development creates problems due to lack: of orderly relationships between different areas of land use and growth. Said leapfrog development, which leaves large areas of -vacant land betraeen the development and established urban areas, has been a factor in the upward spiral of the cost of urban services. Such development practices have been encouraged by the long established, citizen's "right" to 'basic urban services regardless of their distance from distribution, collection or service points. Rhile landlocated on Ch%co `s urban fringes is being developed, large quantities of land lying crithin established service areas, already supplied with a full compliment of public facilities, remain unused_ 1,ithin the City of Chico, 34'l of the lard zoned for residential use remains vacant and; represents a 30 year reserve given current population forecast. (c) Authorizing the. Vistee develo -nent could' compromise r;ie County's position relative to pending rezoning proposals for tt.� area aejacent to the "red kedent discussions between City and' CoLnty, planning staffs reveal a plan to pro=Pse a 1/2 acre minimum lot size district €or the Vistee area. The R -S (1) District, with a 20,006 sq-. ft. lot size, 'would nicely conform to said Count, proposals ,t } J4'= LAND t NATURAL WEA! r t i A: rs s E A t; pEPARTMrcNOF PC BUG WORKS CLAY CASTLEBERRY, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 Tel 53"8I H 'W. )AcDONA:LD' - - - - - May 20, 1975 - Degutr Director •_ 6 i Wayne Turnerr4 w _ RE: " Ghiorso Property Du Four Realty Co. ,a East Avenue and 676 E. -First Avenue z etti'i'? Clark. Road Chico,,, C& 95326- Dear Mr. Turner: This will acknowledge, your call on May 19, 1975,, at which time you indicated you: were, associated with the subject property and asked if I would give you information regarding the County's plans for this right of way acquisition. I indicated that Butte County hadoffered to: purchase the right of way that affects the Ghiorso property for the relocation and extension of Warner Street,. I indicated 4 further that we were not critically pushed for time since zze were acquiring, riC,,'bt 4 of way at other locations and that we did not have a specific time scheduled for construction,. - Both John Ghiorso and his sons indicated that they desired a different zoning for their property, and asked if we could consider the purchase of the right of sway upon the condi tion of land use. zoning; that they desired. I advised that we could not da this nor could, we as a representatisi- of the Public Works Department make appli- cation for -them, or sponsor their zoning change. I indicated. that thF public-Wor1'st only position would be to advise the Planning Commission if it 'so asked regarding the effects of the. street pattern on traffic volumes in the area. I hope-this answers your questions and this will serve as a-written, response to: your verbal questions Very truly yours, Vitgi.-.aF sigr:ed by Clay £a:Eieberrjr Clay Castleberry Director of Public Works CC:dsl cc: John .. `orso (extra copy attached, Please send to Mr_ C-.hicwrs;,-) p l nn' Dight of Way Agent a ���:. ''J - Chico Hearing August 19, 1971 SUBJECT Use permit APPLIGART: Wayne Wede7l (Vistec Inc.) 2300 Bridgeway Blvd. Sausalitow, OWNER: Mrs. Mur tl Wirth Turner 498 East Sacramento -Avenue Chico, Calif. ASSESSOW S PARCEL UO AP 43-26-83 and AR 43-29-72 LOCATION: Property located south of Sacramento Ave., v3est of teak Lawn Ave.. and north of Bi dwe Ave., approx. 15...5 acres, Chico, Cal. PRESENT MING: "PA V (Planned Area --Cluster REQUEST:- Use permit for mel t i ple residential units v iEMlltiSF Fifty -sever, (57) notices weremailedon Ausaust 13. 1.971. County of BU -to planning Comffiissio�*-� 3 3* � 7 C'Outy GeirteT r PK Grow -11 lifornU ED _ r A dr-ess E: a -'sat. ZL 43-X6- 92 as R`H:ussey dor 659'. � c` a --` Lhi C0; -a Cal if 95926 1 - �, � _ 4 } �" � , � Y _. _ � � ..l :: •�V TIL G"aE':_.s`1$ TO: Jim, Glander., Public Works:Dept. I Qt0- S Review and Comment DESCRIPTION, F MODEST: Use Permit for multiples residential units: LOCATION; Prouty located south. of Sacramento Ave.,, 'west of Oak Lavin— Afire and north of Bidwell Aver approx. 15.5 acres, IdentIfied as AP 4.326-0.3 and AP 43-29-72, Chico. Vis.tec Inc.-Blvd..(Wayne Wedell) , 2:300 Bridgex%ra a- .alito .�.__ MMER Mrs. Muriel Wirth -Turner,. 478 ESacramento Ave.., Chico LORI SSIC ACTIOIA SCITUED ED: June 3 19'71 RET'U�i;'� DA -WQXXS ZD : _ lav 31, 1971 DISTRMUTEM May 21.1 1971 - -- ATTACH -112N` `S �ggpy of Aup ?cation Please refer to distributed clans tore "PA -C" Subdivision Committee Review. RE{ Tl12E?VNTS I IIT : U) Ila e� '3D"n/: o.vr .5;9 •r .�'. :.-.0 ,c3 7 K A x' rtd Vistec Inc. (Wayne wedell) , 2300 Lridgeway Blvd., Sausalito Use permit o.r multiple resdenta units Lo a4ior. Property located south of Sacramento Ave., west of Oak Lawn Ave... and Wert o i we ve,. ,approx =.15, acres, ere e s 43t=z6- and AF 43-29-72 Chico. Dar: _ t 4. Application '�,.eccejve , I April. 30, 1971 Yu fiber Mailed.- F.- ailed:F.- r; Hearing-. June 3, 19.71 ff ,.litio al Hearirigz ', nis-aq Petition Sigm,'-ture crxm- ass ozr. A tion Board Ac rc:nti Orlin-ance do e PIanni�. ng s.e .:s '4.�%�. Y ,'Ef3 ff 'a. .r5�+w ir- " G. fir, fir 7%ntice iq hereby given by the Witte County Planni m Ccm- -xgsion hat- -1,x.)Ii r'121v Will bltld on T - a a , Fane 3, 197 j at a es � L. E.� �.. s,a;€. w�'zi Re s-SA�'$Ssq from 'C—r- �E t'',..r4E Dia$a c s:.oJ Ae a a-5 Ated On, E s si r �..w it4 -a `v d" g xu:XsR k �,' is 1p anr, '�^,-s±t¢ �i }npG. +� �` � y �-�.# .�.T a.;M �iw i Sh '+44-4A.-214, �nf Ap 4-4 -214 1�4'e1`�t�$.$..,ka'a�'.�rai.. S a.Fs X''1.�'S'` mnc?eri`ma ? w Avenue. w.e i3t ? fSi-k+a t dl r ?,; a -37r-4 i n mately Sancre. �; p identj, ft d aq 'P •$ -� j. h Y .6 ic�L3:P .c 'Ci.£�,� &.`: 11.77-J a - i _ rLkiift'a wni n Yny"$'4_v- locato2" 3ouF-�'1i G Law;venue and north nj�lzrjj a A%q;-nr2s $ `t�r. Y - u € A -A$ 43-26--93 and A7 x w a S a_ x iy T:4' � 'y{p �[�{ •�y'�; �e $-may --U-3114.% . YY-- tze "' 1r..ca FS 1.s e�'.efLS r,- L 12_i'fi"M d � F 1e -L_ • .. , _ �+�+'4y, .m �.y �'Sy2 Y* a � � ham!' rtBX -�-Irnan Awritve, south of vl79iku7--vb. and f�`.�he ea---y��.`a.�ryty L3;�RG�C��s4� ����q *�I �+�e�",�$ �off` and 24, 'W',? e yazi t fo,— mati-O u e- > P�;gzs' Use. bi,tin 1'saser ; AFmnp ^ ,%Tf I-Ir 1 - 9,%T t vf north e of -u Oc y cie ad* akq,�, ate.: $•� ���h<4 �";�"k2'�'d,.rE'� ��"fi�TpFS "�,�-��,,��. �"� �3J��` �v��'.. a�•�.6„ X43 6,.,„�T��"xiYL�a��..�yw��,' �.k. .E.. ^a .s�..K.���,., a x errM -PIr e?" `4 _ w -a .'-r'ti P 2-4 # Nr com!` .�j& ea z mit! :F tder�%I fgj p �le v*I-*t f.o°w Gale tica, q aeg ma�^3k - . _ a '�' Egg titer@•?1,3 ?en 2 rfq)�:��u'��' �.� $2�R-`� � 7'C Vit'#- r .. � .� •'R .s 53 sf„'%t., _o f`.tv- ftc-i S5 it, 45 -r• 'Y � L#.��. 3t. �.. c.4"a. � �r�".. r y��.--�.."_�. f-f"'t m� n +�*�, $,Rn t.bte £fort® ;€ ..,:".-.L'�*f `' i� ��4'^t_.nae "an sr �`#��`s � .t qtr a. �?��� a.,t•,..w .r �a- c 'a ' {. Y � ,#7- A 9 a tkit fJ ["=. 4 1 {c3c`� 6 folb`6 +'4.T 34 '•'s t•� - r. AIWIOUNCE J. Chico Hearings No ? and 3 june 3, 19-71 suB BCT: a,. Rezoning ba Use Permit ` Vistec Inc., (Wayne Ifed,11 Appy ICPJIT r 2,300 BridgezaayBlvd. Sausal to,, California i7ir h = Urne 498 East Sacramento Avenze Chico, California ASSESSOR°S -T�RCa F NO: np 43-25-03 and 43-29_72 OI: Property located South sof Sacramento Ave,, and north of 3 j& -Yell ITflC,I' gest of Gat avrn Av :e mP-te1Y 15.5 acres ' iuenicif .ed Ave., approxa AP 43-26-03 and 43-29--71s. Chico- as S?.1 s �N oictac- - A_2 SY- .tT [iSenp_raZ .tom (Planned 'aha Rezoning LrOJ,, ,"A, -2u . to 13P.& -C"- Prep -. RT QL .S sr83 c: us ter) Dis tr? ct n bs Use Permit for multiple residential units- The applicant wishes to build qualit R? L�A'�i S : medaummc3eraS ter l�o":zses . Applicant is building tos-*nhous proposing <a Multiple cluster. (57) notices Frere mailed on. Fifty -seven May 1:3, 1973. and on Jzar 19710 `i 11 I CITY OF CHtCO, CALIFORNIA a CITY PLANNING OFFICE AREA: CODE 918: AMUNICIpAL BUILolNG a 343F4401 ZIP coon qsilzo Butte County Planning Conur.ission June 1, 7 County Center Drive t3roviTle, t;alifornia 959. Attn: Mr� James Lawson, Planning Director, key Proposed°rezoning (yist2c Inc.) from A-2 to PA -C, and requested use permit (Dr. William Shultz) authorizing development of 24 units on Oak Park 7:ve e Gentlemen: (` Reference is made to the aforementioned applications: currently before the County Planning Office for review and: to the Public 'Hearing being held relative to sa*ne°on June 3, 1971. The onitsg and Permits Committee of the Chico Planning Commission reviewed these , proposals idetail at a meeting of May 27., 1971 and reco=ends that youx Commission he requested to (1) deny the use permit application for the same reasons expressed by our letter of March 2. 1971 and (2) deny the rezoning because of the ro.osaA _ F P � non -compatibility ty with tt` ^ surrounding area. At a recent pre -zoning ig:for a parcel located on the south :aide of S. -rata Mara A.e€ue, the Chico Planning Commission went on record as supporting -multiple family residential uses only to a line located along the. westerly limits of Rosedale School and Craig; Tull, The prezoni.ng under consideration at that time was approved because of its location east of this line. The Commission instructed staff to extend this boundary in a northerly direett n across Bi; Chico ,;reek y include the existing multi - residential uses on the gest aide of mord Avenue, .and serve as a definite cut-off for encouragement of high deusi'-y uses on the City -'a fringe. Please be advised that both the Vistec and Shultz applications are located west of this existing and proposed boundary line as recently revie-ved and established by the Commission. Fe_ any further information required on this subject, 14, -ase feel free to contact tial;.- iffice at your convenience" :fiery truly yours,. Sohn PHoo e City Planner JFH pb CK Info/GP 6251A -PC-$ cc:: John Kennedy STAFF' PSCOW3 NDATIO NS JU ITE 31 3971 CHICO HEARINGS - 1. James. L. Phelan Proposed rezoning from "C -C' (community Commercial) to "IMP" (14ob le Rome Park) District for a 25 acre parcel of property located on the ;gest side of Hicks Lane (easterly of Highway 99E) approximately 500 -ft. north of Baton Road, identified as AP 44-48-05 and a portion of 4-44-29, Chico. The area of rezoning is bounded on. the north by orchard, on tine south Jay commercially zoned vacant land and o z he east by agricultural uses. The northeast corner of Hicks Lane and Baton "Road contains a boat sales and service operation. 'This, property has adequate access and is properly located for the propose use. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of this zone change to 01.510 � Wobble Home Part) District. 2. Vistec Inca (Wayne Wede;ll) - Proposed rezooning from 'A-2" to °pA-C' (Planned Frees Cluster) District for Property located south of Sacramento Avenue, west of Oak Lavin Avenue and north of Bidwell Avenue, approx. 15.5 a€:res,identified as .AP 4.3-26-03 and AP -29-72 Chico The applicant proposes to construct 106 two --,story units on 15.48 acres presently zoned OA -2" (General) a The density, wou-Id be 6.8 un r is per acre. The area to he north is A-2 w to existing single: and multiple family units. The area contiguous to the site to the east is developed in single family use. The area south of the site is zoned (Agric*' tural. Residential) with existing single family dwellings and orchards. The area to the west is A-2 (General) consisting of orchards and ssngle family resi deaces Q The Chico General Plan indicates the area is on tie dividing lane between medium €lensIty residential 1'3.1 to '6 families per gross acrel and: agri- cultural use. The Butte County General Plan shoves a sl)burban residential classification (3 -to 8: persons per acr-7_1 for the area. The applicant pr-poacs to extend Rose Avenue from Bi&7ell Avenue to Sacramento Ave aye with private drives and parking areas serving the development from the extension of Rose Avenue, Although tha :der. Ity s -lightly exceeds the density of the City of Chico � neral. Plan and the density of the Butte Cc un Lane Use Map the design 1 of the project -indicates a_r�pp1.e opera, recreational areas would be available � -and conditions o.' crcFdding would not occur. The common wall construction Of the units allads the developer to use the area other«ise devoted to the ;side, yards in the development of the larger common open areas.. 1 �. d �at� the F w } l not be ren ,. a �c�acsed carits The ap,,licant has s �.a..e, 3.e oaly The omits as nce bei there clustering clus tering S.- T r �� units but 'will,be for su l e difa��e�c� b � e �° li�i��� the F��x�ci�_ � � �,�a�io�~b of each o single fardil , r ach as cp osad "0 � of the omits n a ea on ai a _ * ; sjons . living 't nol"�3a�. to o©n �sdz t s £iSla� sia,�cl�. _ � jould not be detri�entai: mint a-' F�gcsed Tb a F za t has ind sated The staff believes tie de relopthe rens and t+ne Planning .Q. t de t -ng d e jop ment in that anne �ati0n t€� the Cit of Chico - cc in F eS.. �a to should be eos�rect��` b�Zi des may a ps�ot�o, to ince vtia taY'-QCs,; is Staff � �' dual -favi at in - e x t r i n, economicsemis anec sewage treattmes� �.�hat a e lir* ;tea staffs unders�.an�-r of the project. ids p�~cva f too �e c�xzn swo eog to the following The staff dyca�. me-. F coed ittony ;S4cxamento t� liw'i$.^Gr.i.�.Le �ei�t frontage. .. t deed *ft n enuehttcsntt county along the Prog and B. e l gutter2. Install aurbs', and ssdeaa a`=1 sPe' imaerentse Butte LQun4-'y Standards. b d a ;s Dem. 'C City cf S tete Division on cz" � . Install f� Standards Foxe5t d cud'-� -sac sheet shcc�n on the The, x.Csse vex :e �tex�siob an urban or dente i ognt. Plan to be ccns �ct�:sl to C4�� city, of Chico star daxdsa e crossing Ross. Avenue ce'r. ter ine to al -2 :� i e .stis�g bridge Big .;i Cheek -private Rca.&"ays to be aorr0t=uc ;ed to urb stn z cols and wid: s �a 1137- feed ��55 the ¢�y� _ _ �y ry f the Department Of � 1.V stir hei.iG w�.��i�R/4�L� �.44 Ssiaev ice; pxovidedrainage pla's �alnagfaciliz tes� p c Forks. am i as a r�ec .s l a ter of the CU1 de -sac end + il3.i plante- in amu:: enter - 8 e flail oaoaed streets " MdLG.r g s' cf- onPI l'a 9ypro provide 50 ft- -bv- � e treatren-t cac;'lity in . The pas j eco ,aha? 1 be ,oz,.nected tO ase''i,...c �.� � tangs eTi. septic, e �'eSidE���3.c�.',.t. t.use .' E'..l+s. c -kvenue- We v1s tp ane a '^"`*+?_`'�: 4s rc, located Ythosaue, PF y M Aven e proper- north f 3� e1_ -c<- Cki t . 43---03 aid .dent:L 3.eCL mit say: sect to the ccnditians f recoxn e . aFFr' 'al of t*�� use also subjer �e��ea� �e �- rnFicai o acrca1� and =1 Staf 7,onin s : �` paragraphsoma` ordinance S specifies e Pro --r 2..6ions cf Se tticn .�.�� is cn under. CHARGE . � RT � �.s yIS'�'g�, Revs '1{s ING , GLAS LF:iGA 3GI�T - jo is _U4 rE3 The e Iut-0 oi' a c0 21ranity or nvigh:*rhool. UEU211 gr011th as.a result of indi* 3 dcgals mal, -i a what tj, t 0 be b1Z 3x �-atmentaa Thea c v * 3 hOr-e0uners have fait; Lat alp ,ho4. n ighbo haoclthey h"e pinked "Ill retain the Vusiit��p���d wh char th ; tc 0= -tt8d t e a�a E� f zt' ts;salwa,7of >sarct ah i' iug ham'* Ir_ reality it tw- na 0`4t i gu "Ims of --:*n,*y it is 1,0€dile a faa aarn a 'ems Short Per'cd vice � the t . " zw a h 'c o,-, P- neighb*r ood, "tae only 1"0-7Da that tdi7 dLLgj Imm ham ia t" t aes n�ih a aico=is aon T. zF mWce 4", n rue to to Pre.�erve t%e., indivzd Y meet r, ' Nit `Litt' - r,& behave tha w.f Mighbarhood atsjucture fin T �001 ad t be aX tiered as a ro i� Bal ndividusi cor orstio it is au_r Duronon,ah h02'20Wsers ia this mea, t�,a a > . c�a-fication of n,& -Rn ' g .Agric-,�ture-Residanti. ' 3= rbct :quid b r au-PrOPriat�a for eche azea in, question. s ss�4x a.� " 40 E' t,rl P ya�3r a, kata_.to as.,s-�•Y.i'. k'�."'�"'v°n s?`} �'�. -`•1• =F i'�.ls ti"x'L '}'�,y- f { u"_ V rt eto, S '�.,�a,.'%;ut.J •.e ,.3x .�` & wa+a..'w - �sct s ,ew L ..r.. w�x^F'7`'Y *,,,, to 3r` 41iti #� w of a = "' to i mttp Sac F�CTL. `ter _,fir r'f, Gia vl- Cal t-0 arc t or 'h a ' to ' Leh �x..�i€^v .7.. �'` ,E,;,�a �'� ♦.3 -.� ±o-r - - :. - t, ,C ' 23.. 19'71 parqTa S-10 Wayne ' 'V' ;rel"i S: i ,i n the isLa t�4'�+`•�^ �1 t:-Xa rn the - ?It�� .ra.z cizrfladirs on Oiso ",i ....�F ,:ieovis?.a T�r«.t..i� i FL lieu a Ig }= U - y j r+L C+' s 4" iyj =. tN'ti<. . .. OF x rim Y i,+u�-, K ..he �t�s,�.daw. ,R, ♦ �yr.�♦ ak L&S:--wn7i j pea iiL.r L.L$+.f y�p` t� c 1, 171 .t,. .1 f,.... ♦. _ N 119 Director 1 - 4 �= 3 S CHTC0 Pte: zr: ceras=_s�. 's SPECIAL M ETIVG OF JUNE 19- 1972 3 P,QIX CA—ri I :t to order at 12:15 Pj4. by Chaizean�Shap Soawiit the pr jt The meeting Was called nd giber_fo'll sent present: Cocw;issioners Felver, Pasritz, Sanders, 5m4=hr Pa61ic"'..ozecs Director Savitz., Frere City., Planner Hoole," Planning Assistant Bolster and 34z. Hoole advised those present that the Cuico qty. Council had requested the p='anni£g the original proposal, fe 1971, has t commission again revLvo this. item since Council rrom 10 units der acre to 6.:8 units per acre. The Council felt time C°ission.e been reduced change in density might receive a different response from the planning s o the Planning Commission prior City Council requests a report on the recommendationf to their meeting on June 27, 1972., , from the -nal Mr. Hoyle, briefly reviewed the h-sfon of the Vistec de�lopmto�the present - Mr, :wale negative opinion 'n Agri147t, x { Zoning; and Perm=its. Committee reviewed in detail for the newer Com=-ssioners -and interested. parties, the erwek =°'='nd for restricting high density of the establishment of the "red line" and the concept Ee oted at the through. " uses on the Guy's western fringe sauthernress area blenketureze ing�of the County, level with a recently approved large` far the ,^3 adjacent to the "line".. The County staff Will now propose a rezoning plan Mr. Toole advised of a Phone northern section which includes the Vistec property. who in€ormed him Of their pian to propose a revised- conversation with the County staff and no apartments permitted..: Be then. reviewed the E ,. `.- - acre lot size AR loneWith 11 several City residential..distri..cts-reI$tiL'e to.the 1.5..5 acre Vistec property. endation was then presented by Mr. Hoole which made reference to the well A staff recommdetrimental density uses an the Ctyercentage i established'poZicy against higher {34 cacaac of "leap frog;" deyelapment in fringe areas, largeS? o a land use plan for 'l affects residential land and recent City-County cooperation in-deveiogiss� facts in mind., thft_taff y rem mAe i the west sine, with these a_e -noted s j std la use for the Vistec location. with a sq.. proposed by the Cour--y- re ti sed zone as pending this pro osal would conform to the pending zoning proposal p County z g FrOP compromise future Authorizing 'a higher density on this _site could pro ! e staff also recommends the Commission request that, s Council hould ischeduleia faint agree with restricting land use to the R-S (?)"density, the to authorizing a less restrictive use of meeting with e Board of Supervisors prior the alleviate confusion between the agencies due to this property. This should Ir inual bluffs and threats. the applicant's cont- Mr, way dell, architect for Vistec,, showed a se;les of pictures of the fistpraing d to appaely 7driiewac".the ees development.. 'Be advised that they hope sa�� e He noted for each, unit at the rear privateHe f and provide a two-car cavort there are ?' different floor plans and all the :causes look out orate a a2rr Mr- SVedell y ball cou there are csaldren play aareas�wct� PeaorPvelonnequipmenandnt is t�helaossibiiitc to lease a large s said one of i re3sans _ type would be's area. Ve advised the park area c.11be thantLh'sdt F ' amount of green elr e OF use association as reZulated= by the :State. mfr. kedell - +'�° in density, than single family and will provide park vTtich a regular- no different single fxjiiy subdivision cannot have. if there are plans for a swimming pool, Mr. wedell advised isSioner Watters asked there are none tsetse they feet it is too expensive for the bomea*artez's. association could he included In- Phase II. to :.aerate€ #. 4 a 7e2, if there were enough requests, a pool kat ers also asked iEd br f Pose Avenue will be 6 City street, a stedYb tine i�-fair - ent of =encs. y , Mr.: t;edell advised that %t wi117 alongit:osc Court, as i Public Worxs. Savitz advised he Tial mentioned in the past, that tiers development S.ou1d farce Lore i Mr. traffic across the. sub-'standard: Rose Avenue bridge. lir«°Dan Pelacottz;indicated be is present .as an observer and not necessarily a Re. oris-development would"give,the City and County a. #� ' representative from Vistec_ said -broader tax base.- He noted he is a representative for-management side of the -broader s, construct-ir.3ustry: t t 432 PS 2 - Chico City Bran _m. n_aS Commission -Special Meeting of June Mr, XcKensie5, 2972 item before ' Se/zedarY/Treasurer of V the Citv the Zire istec tall ahead and Count =and had,! onaa der of said they have e 1,' ism they :fu±t atecl , and re later dto enied this right_ ccasiong, been given the g ee�ly With. particiPat Sin tinny would like to see light to r g0 they are Ye City of Ch co, this annexed and think it close to an existin They wish; to $ sealer connect to the City sense to Director line_ t, ori r of Public forks Y sewer system as, original co, Savitz indicated this- `+- - 9 review, :Tr, + that be matter. Mr_ liedrzll w fed'eiZ . fore the red line record ob'e as adv Mr 11 and and 'before J ctln to axis:hf is�d that the Co be nad F con r man a the representatives ve high at use a�issi°n rad repeatedly re with: the fully aware v_ in.tcre sub' epeatedly gone on gardirg re Project. "t Planning Co i ntfarea. Therefore c �nsissio viste Dr. David feelings before "Proceeding Lands, Iolb Oak right Place. but this Park, said°he housing and is not the feels this is bridge is Ye°bJ 23Pa to this tvPe op dent Place,; ge feels thcellent scheme in the students b:tt feel. and dangerous. Dr.. Laze that area. xe said is a �1 end ug as college, ---d ba reran x is >^eIt ho-Sia the Rose Avenue John Stutz V,e �tlege and not - & is needed in Chico for attrac ' Rt' 3"$ox 272 i rural area. comes to as ar develoDers'like w Steccated he is concerned because not be able area, it will increase the Mr_ Stutz said �- this kind of develop CO farm ,their land taxes. .Prett nen a,deveIopment 1 meet and wjiZ have rn Y soon, adjacent 11r land a this 865 Britton, 16I6 Bidwell sell it to developments °"hers will Pointed-out said his pments such,as this.. thew are three homes on Concern meat which would have is the co i� this is co IS two story uzuts ell Avenue adjacen�;tatability of the area Apatible and sound I°okin_ din Lo this P1OP°sed de He Sharon Ross I030 W. 1lth nuePlanning.into their back yarns. i%ondered reiterating Ave , aPProu a their support £ , submitted a Ie' riate zonin °r gong range tier from the Lea maintain the g- They urge the Planning and the gun o£ Women Voters Prop°sed w hounda.Ming COQ�Ission to strict enforcement Of est side Chuck Harveyntinue'TEs efforts to and , Route 2 pax I has four children, 36 sa#d he live 1 and dangerous He said the roads s °n for cornu of' o 1 fraxc a develope said his, area with: numerous and bridge in this Rose and Oak Park Avenue the leve nt bu of this kind.. He noted us chiidren,'iiill get: area are very narrow IopmenC'but are unable there are get: Increased `Commissioner Sand to attend all the meetings people in this arearaffic R fes= 'hxs Sanders said he opposing rural to zoning x�th a 20, ea and made a-motionat a density which a21 recvest i£ theC sq. ft. [h=t tun Yls ows ZQfi units. that un tuinimum lot size. $ecnndeCOmission recommend far much too Lh;mint meeting with, the Counti2 °Oes not agree with by Flatters who ,a,t R-S �l� g else-is done. �' Board of b this recce dried the i'he motion was a Supervisors to znrendation, they request R Mt±ET(PICsS PProved discuss this item before 5 3• unanimous vote re nay-. Mr; Hoole noted there. Committee o_n Thvrsdav WzII be a'moo will be di , dune n meeting of the ' ° scussed and 22nd• He indicated Mr. urged an mens °u_SidenStorageeIg native i}_velogrxant Y commissio Hoole, also to attend who could_ C and C-I Districts i Mandy noted rhe nett re to Y before a Tuesday ho ida Buhr meeting,o the meet onPone that meeting to. Y.and several coaa3ssiolanning Ccimmission fall s oz a Tuesaa a�low:;a four da vers *have ind,' Y, ,tuly 1l, t972. 3' 1r ,end_. AlZ cated their de. There Cdemissioaer3 a sire being, no further busire greed to ss, the meeting was adiourned�,atr 3 Chaitar4 pb u Y t Secretary _ 1 IJ 11 NOW- i Aug -as` - 1 -1 ayne ils- s'G1-1ayne Vieddell Vistec Inc. I�ride�iaay Blvd. 2,1300Cal erni Sausal��� { ec e _ R1 anni nC, Coff'M'ss I o pear ,1r4 County r use permit the Butte IOU that ? 197? apprc��r�ud your Muth of ?his is to in nr ' operti" lOra"ed • 2icoVell eeti.n c� lael,d units on pr and north 0 -an �, at its _ Lsi dent1 al � nue t �- and li . for uitple o fa a�#n . x yes L ;�P condi 4� ons acres i.dentif e c�t', e fniio azn , Sacramento �denue3 suhect AVenue. aporOX., Califortiia5 Sa-raumerto G acne. •the centerli;�e � proper ery deed 3 of right ofra fro L,nz: at�rn tti.e L• t �.,a J�ventue to au Yn'!ad5 fr4n+a ?_,� v and streeT- ii:n S rat,•i nt 10 '-ter and sidevai fr€�ntaje } 'install cub un��kstandards on z�ro�erty ' I� u e per �venucs, Mate :�ivsinn and. P�i:d eiT �• of Cjico or Ci tS fr n, taoe of Sacrarken+:o InStal.l ti re hydrants per opertY 3.standards 4n Fir of Forestry and Bi dila" "'Venues _ - street. s€;ty ur ar=' and cul-�e_sac�c� to County Rase Avenue eXtension be Lonstructy The an are to the dev.el ognent F Chi co standards • bridge cross. or City of th existing center iris to C c i Ruse Avenue creek. sing Bic Ghico to Butte County ucteld5tr c.t' s to �'e cOns,�,rSi;re iS (w -hi Ch "Ray Al 1 }ori �lat:e exoepti o standards#i ih; 6 ft. _earten be a miniMur►� a� f ;fie dans for the approvaldrainage facilities. drainag aecEssary grt�vi de e rvc an.d, • zstal1. of PUhiic NOT Now== BUTT z=`s F, j q 72 A'e+`�a.`i}.�'L'{'.. �..t�?C� r South of � eb 13. F=a In0 Evans� —�^ - , �a. South tens;-, a �E exing 2 2.L3ta =sARvalter ✓s. 'mss _;'' Y}_e.'c}'s. �i �!.. LLJ. 1'ortu W. ,Sk Assoc- dd east Of .- 2-714 2 G z = llayqbr 0-1 Ora or johr- pentz Road, 2 fv-Ort'on of) ; ,Qts , �c�haa,Fdi nem Black 1, Eavby It- vtTeet survey - etlots r West Of ,Mxrry, rPQr��t le=3ee Qe nor b of Orand F .{ west On at, AP 3i--2417_01 2 ilio P Te.to and her , ro3usa in _shenq et ce�� ani e9e # Ua l s�st Ps�sey 20s C¢; earac and K, est ,s�_ SIC pincot th 3 e -12ts' c u r �,,o,_ e !a-- Se, - s.l� - 022 �ci _. c€rem toad betm a . �� ter°=���� Tutt, subdx l si.D .1 Om dap' u 'Un:t$ 140. m'TII � tta investment -d-ed ftt recol we C. met t v parcel east s� de f Pentz ^ s " Z61m A. RaynerL,�-- . � Paraaise Roadt -Orth 01 'garwoed DZ f a_� of dots eouthw s c V3` _f�)6 -0j 72-1120 DISCUSS1aN' REQUEST OF V STEL CHIC O Irir.. Dan P.elliccotti, representing. Vas tec, appeared to discuss the use permit for Vistec developmentin Chico. He stated that Vstec would do whatever the Planning Commission requested' they to do. He requested the Board: to consider the-ir request and to make a decision in the -matters Mayne Wedells also speaking for Vistec,as their architect, stated that this was the li�o$t efficient way to, build houses - Eric Bathen, -Mayor of Chico, said that the City of Chico 14ould go along with whatever the county wants. The City Council feels that the Chico area should be protected. ite feels that higher .density in this area will create problems ff Clay Castleberry ,,Director of Public works, set out the problem I' of their drainage and sewer systems. Chairman Gilman said that everyone he has talked to has been opposed to the project.. He felt the terms of the use permit should be altered, John Stutz asked if the City of Chico has a right to determine the use of the land. He feels that there will be problems with the sewers. i Mebael Perelman, Economic Professor, Chico State College .felt that the land, rhas-agricultural value; he has been working with the U. S Department of Agriculture on a study of small farms. 9 It was moved by Supervisor Maxon that the present use permit be changed to allow Vistec to build a community se --veer system to be maintained by an association of home owners on "the condition that they post a $5, 00 be-#nda Motion died for lack of a second., Robert Britton proposed an info.mal private service area. Ed Morrison felt that the houses will cause traffic problems because of the college students that would be living in them. The morning hours would be dangerous on some of the streets when they were traveling to colleges It was moved by Chairman Gilman, seconded by Supervisor Madigan. and unanirousLy carried,,, not to deviate from the couditi-77' for the use permit for i!istec pertaining to the community Sewer Syst4z;m end to set a public hearing to reconsider the use permit in order to decide_this once and for allon how the matter should be handled. Hearing, set for duly, 2-r, 1972 at 7:00 g.m., at the Chico Memorial Hall in Chico. y I77 ��avne �iedel� R Vistec Ink. - 23t�Q -V- 8ausa3'ta f californIA - Dear -Ir- you that tka.� F utte cour3t, lis is to ��xra Tune � . at .t h lar Meet,._ }geld � (General) tc ra ng y �yr�/�Y13 31 from Imo` � � �� 1 p� .� id t i. rezo .� �r! p .�.V Y4: sof your 'r district dor .>rOPc t; b e :" r a.-C!U._ {.. janArest of Oak Lavirl i'�SF��7�`� 3 43 tO k, v n , a rox ►atel� Cal form a, sub je . re.'=uireT.Jents; s r vzw ror- �tae Com- mad 30 f£; Of r-'49 Sacramento', and sGidwell Rve- ue-a to x ror�ertY f age. 2 . lnn �.a�.l curses utter a ►, gur��. s �.c. _ F ori Butte co per Butter�unty standar6s rients p idweil .venues- of cra.aento ano CO or 3, In fire hYd-r s'�anda�o�s o. :gra?ertY Division o f Fores tr s of acra�ccerto and Bidwell vvanues and cul sae .an are :;o be ccla trT cam: e `- Caw. 4 , The Rose Ave enue extension on tj-,e developm�nt P1- sta�uards, urban or _ wY o os Avenue oenterl? na o -iqn i;TIth Sig Chico creek-- crosing L ongi4i�tdta Streets �o b� street 6.. All Priva�ith � � > • on of standards a excex�t� may be -a Minimum of 26, ft.) tine a-Toval of t.: provide ,drainage Many fc�r T�ecess, -r 7. _ gor-s and install - �t�ZL'� t�f ?=u#313C faci lit es junc- 23, Is7l Llim ata tae tree "t,.}star-t.e 1I ta-o i _. can °nV3- ��.'c &.'L% ets. s and cLz:� fla rs Orl =3ropasec str ft. building setl-=a.ck anPr 'g t ZrZ:,Ev - f • - - y. let,. s. � mores t shall Esc connected t t -.. tzCT�, 1t«t ir.. i�eii of 50ptic tan — that nem s tl the, Planning Cop o�n also aLc that .�.r.. c+ Tviii.t- � t ilc�r i .'Li � °:3 Z -lia, for c. _ _.ti2�� 1£}Zi t? �.L Li �uy� rvs ��r= '--vs { t iIC 1 time. as ,she r3oara o?' would L si„t � ,,y,, 5..,. s t. ,:s' -.... l,o '��� ,,Iave ucstions concrn_nc-' ratter, -lease' you s� contact Lha s of ems. PI;- - LZLAIf De- - ccs Healt. Dept We the undersigned oppose ppc>ss the rezoning of the belay mentioned property from, a classification c4 °k-22 to a classification. {planned Area-Ciuete0 Thia. property is located south of Sacramento Avenue, wast of Oak lawn Avenue- and north of .Bidwell Avenue, approximately acres," identified as AP 43-.25--03 and. AP. 1} - ' 3 2?-72, Chico.. Cox Deme. l Address CA//_- jr 64 10. ic 2`i_ ell, ,6W- Or r wry .t g ♦. - ' wr � i ♦ t',- I e s-�' � ms's r 1 � .+` t (,. - '� �,'L r�� -G :.. � • � � � � s j ti T f �:F. p y EYa .... ,Jt t " sem. %-,. - ._• R r `f C. � f C _ a 2`t t 14. � F M3 f�"AfL�3Y f, tL l� - 4=411.6 j We -the- undersigned.,oppOsa the �.azoning of the below -�er_tioneci property from -& classification of UA -2u to a clasaif`ication of �`PA-C : (planned liras-G2usts0. This property is located soutYs of Sacr=m$nto Avenue west of Oak Lg�rn %xeuuss and 'Wirth of Bidwell I'venucs approximately acres. identified as. AP 43-26-0 =d AP 43-29072, Chico- "TIE cc f�fagma Cox MAY 2 0 1971 Name Address OPIOVIL CALIF . i . 7a" bi 41:6-61 led if C�45`7 14. t F ...�. r .120 � !N 22. k 1' _ x Wel the undersigned oppose > the rezoning of the belcw .mentioned prope-ty from a classification_ of OA -2' to a classification. of U?A-CU, (Planned _:Arm -Cluster)." This property is located south of Sacramento Avenue, west of Oak Lawry Avenue an4i north of Bidwell Avenue, approximately Ful acres, identif -ad as AP 43-26-03 and. AP 43-29-72, Ohio ME COMM gilt"s CO& MAY 20 1971 OROVILLF'SIV. 1VsmeAddress, Pr e l• +*s. SGP ,• A,� .,. �p 6 k 7, s L.- T 14.. V! <` 19 20. t, 21e 220- 23. -e We the undersigned:.oppo �s the rezoning of the below mentioned 3 lassification of °Ar -0 to a elannificiLtion: of *?A-GUO 4z mrty from a c Pra p - Area -Cluster). This property is located south of Sacramento (Planned of QsLk Lawn Avenue .an& north of Bidwell Avenu®, approximately Avenuo, vest NUE mm pulkils Cid.. 15,5 acres, identified as IT 43-2643 and Ar' 43-29-729 QhiOO- MAY 2-!0 1971 OROVILLF, CSF, Udrees; Name � r - � Vim-►' �e 2a fid® c}j�' 16.. 170 2, 22. .IBM rz IIA I _` / > • o �u� h,•� }� I _ _ !• ,f J_ Y _ _ 3 mgr 4 .:.. [ e - - �.tiu.. __ 3 a � _ � �� '^Y i � Y � . � ' 4 � 1 � � ' 3,: ` � ""S �`-: 6��+ � E. .� -� ` > `i �: � YJ ,... it J is s - x . �� :eg'. _ �v .�. —� _� - } ,-N - �: s. II'�_. r.}� _ Jay d'� } r .Y !'�� � �: r �... r "�� y`! } 3 Y �u� h,•� }� I _ _ !• ,f J_ Y _ _ 3 mgr 4 .:.. ;� _ .. -A:�. .(3 ��� r �•� �¢ < ` f� f / � } r. -''- � .. -_..w -_. _ We the undersigned :oppose the rezoning of the below mentioned. property from a classification of 2A-2.* to & claaa fixation Of IPA - ()M (Planned Area®Clustsr). Th -is property is located soutz of Sacramento Avenue, -west_ of Calc Lawn Avenue and north ofid�raall Avanu9, �pproxitely ll•3 acres, identified as Ap 43-26-03 and AP 43-29-72, Ghiao- dt1�%0!ll�Tl �`irN� Cit MAY Zp 1971' Daae Address OROV111Z,CALIF. Te v. _r -2'1�-�� 7r � 1.-1+��•� f '' {�� �1."l' /�f' � �1F �� -'"� � �L"`'t`�1f fit. a r t{ C 7 r. j'Z rtt Al ` e x l /44 . � L{ . Li - _. -120 ��� -L 117 5 17 tit ' l8 (r` "���GF��.�• f /*�L��J� '�. ��t`C. -,�,f �L �Lrr 4 ��� -f �t % i;.. i`t 'f :y +�t, - �2tix_©Zl9@ ,�-�� Gi- eF...: t-°�}`-�'° �� - .� t- ;.t r✓= �j r _ 3 _ f ,. ''20a' e 't r� i c`. �t l"� t`- `= 1 f r 240 - - i' We the_undsrsigned. oppose the rezoning of the, below mentioned property, from s classification_ of sA,-21 to a alaassificatiOU of APA14A9 r, (planaed Area -Cluster)'. This property is located south of Sacramento kvenuat west of Oak Lawn Avenue and north of Bidwell: Avenue, approximately 15i5 acnes,; identified as A$ 43-2620; and AP 43�-29-72e Chico. BUTTE GUU,Nir PLAO MIL I1 AY 2 0 1971 Name Address OP,OVILLE, CALIF. X13~z��t s u r3c? amu- f e ,C�s4--1ic ' it 7hut, y ® A 9 A 1" tet- X29 _ _ 13� r 1#.- Y 6. 17- 7i18. 180. ' 20i - -. 210 22* _ tom'"��� X �' �" � � "s•_ r�,w Y. +� � - � �„�, �� '..� - a _ U.4 w Yea ^ a } vasa ^ -.,�, '*- ti•,: v IR. , Al 156 tt tshc � i'' x' � �' • � t♦ K '+n � glr�,•i P '�'� .�.� Yh f i ,M1 ty 4R 4 i ni 4 r 3].. Lam.? S G 1}•� E � ;. J} y p _♦ � .^i. 3 i'ae T Q ,4.4 � �>¢ alr. 4�* i„'t �k :� I jo 11 ' ol'; �'