Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-84 2r i\ tl ` II II I' �I a f l�' -M ,'. � / s � '�• • �) i �': i,.r�w.W , , � .iii ' "` � � 5 L 3 �` a f X, '.A, 4. � ✓1 r✓ y � � � \ � MNP yl.. ICJ 11 j 12 .� f 4 w E .« ..- , •�� ';I',If - + i •� _rl r�''1 Vit, �� � � � f'� f dye X1 I4)✓Y 1 , oo +.✓J✓ /� r+eA-2 IS 1 , mom r ,. .. ✓ �It` "RTRAN kPfd1.F P,R<3PCI AL ' f . ' � I' it" � 111 \ ✓ •. � ' ' `r" s« c ` r , •-��- « 1101 i5 , ' r PrOPOUb I 1 A-10 r 00 i 1 y r �\ ti p 1' ✓ 1 ✓ 1 k I � I � I i ✓y �y, J+' , :� \ �� \� �� , .v., !ool 4 00 I .. _..._- ,.:.., d iuu.,�...wer►.a•>R+rwWlw,Ci+"�...Jt+�l�ahYte.c.�.-.:ors��C:lv''+.-Yc.:eir..� RIM 10 ` % \ IS`\ i tee; - „ xjo V996 902 e2 oo0l\ f00. �, SIS r 1394 AUG. 211. tAl3 fJ96,r� ° 996 ! \ 902 s Q ,� �� � . Pi Or 0 41 ✓ �, �r _ O� ye AP ' ^sties �y09Y r ,u 1056 ,gyp 1519 C`CIV Is y o ,. s k, . • 1 r. 1 Y . r �..,`.'✓ All100 1 j\ ��11yy \ r� T g i.00 A Ilk r el PO A yyym } t+ u i JL - MHP r� P� r= it } 1179 ,. ` INDEX MAP WO --`- }394--� kut z,'+.r) { PROPOSED C-2, MERL'0 REZ E aa► •� 2 ass C� nlor�� s YE aC7' Vis; A -SR -Vow rnj , C Oum re-� 1394 � . GA � i.N cr 'z ato7> �'r/ � +•� � AUG 'tY,-hriS02 o" ♦ ,'` Ct;au�ti`rs✓rt- -Ntica �N3� �.^VY1AEe 902 � lC- 000, I�toR.'rHER,_nt 0-cjunrrii--S 1340' sl ��P►r`c cNc, lr .►V sin» 11}.AfK CAm(�!s OL 044146 POOAO�WNY. y Sk OUTTC COUNTY CAL1E'6HN1A SON. \ rtHIGO �1r; ; �.F • %' xa NINC 7�PPE1VDIx Ill� f }t 7 d tj oA A • • < r .. try' ..«.. ', ' � `, •4 , i�;,����, I P`� r.(i+p I, I � ✓ �3•l h � ic1 i' _�c T, t ✓ (1, ♦ I V s i i ; � ✓ �'� �'' Q•5q r S , ��, ;� I r ✓I`�. `✓ sit y✓'y v`� �. rI,. oil .01 ^ 7 ' tp..,. ✓ :27 , � + , yrs ' � �'' _ ��✓ r- oe �r J � M. Y ✓ all 4 o 10 /R,4 y 000 41,, > , 01 lo lo -l%% yv. Jam, �Iix w^ 'y% •yt j `l % lyre it ' r i f �" ���) I� i ♦y.� � `mow:,\�.. +ra �\ ,� Y✓ i � ilk do Amolo iwy IV i� A� i( rel — tA•f�� v, . i>' r i'' ,�� 11 n o F?QpV ��Bb`"'� GREEN! 4��, ���'� �c� LINE '---I ��• a �, i '� ;► lilt r R�, v� `r fff:sr .t r: tr it�► �¢ .�� hJ� � � J;` p �+�� �,� ,�G �' �,r t fr ftp yi i r _• ��i it i r tttf�is tt f.: `*i•� �' `�" '��� ttrf :iti sr� I Eijt: i �'• � ' ��` .i•f\,_/ �. J r:?� � �. ttritttr(rfit �r � fiir3 •.. � yc`�' �/'/%' ,• , "may i iy`► ti t rttt [,r _ ;' �; � - ��,••/%'� r�,>��jr. .�•---•.��HAN.IE i.• ,"".--r..... ��1 ,,, � °ti `7 r Its �'� I/ \ � tc 'GaE4`n � `Y 4Y #rrrii��'tw•r�•'� 4�'.a . � _ ���✓��` + . u GREEN ,,INE--- ,. RELOCATION AVS �' t----- sAcaMs�ni7Q w.�—�—--------- : pw , \�. v 0 d ll „ z rural MAP 1 taw dons1ty ` <° it C; APP8NbIX V1 r •.SVD • � � � s ,% ~- :». ar.. x4. n. l Ayr rr�A��A 2 4r 6S✓J x` } 4 t r ' ��`i z• r ~i v rprSt. -•r•- :.. ti= "G�. n Zw! •}Ar'• ..,�ir71, VS(...s. �•, f !h 5 , r�, �d' TAX �'syx'�k;.'' �• r aab c'eZ s'�`9i`� r'Y ",.s S.e= �� I'r,.x_pti,�ay n7+�,' SS .= i �� •'� ti � � �• 111 '• •.i "�,:�y� �tT «+. t _.,,j, •y� � w.t � ,ii ria.- rs'Y.�� � ei�" •s'Y � w.. ♦. � ,. +.�`, ., '•`•: J1 ;� +"✓'y,`V [1 �'�K' tT' W.R s�i�/� `Y J`.l,S• �, 'M �. el �17 f. \ - y � - \ �, ^w C s .��vr.}''s.;++! ,; � ao �4` ;;e�-i�'9'�'1e+e' 'f kt+`+` .r � � s/�, y • b t+ 0 � . � h r .r '!�t��"kN rr�>' � �i�� '��.,�'.`.aAi{�,�•�,'..y1yy�A��yy .. , u��S e, sf'... "�f �' s� tr"% +`� y'!' '+.."�". ,.� � yy_ .+� �, �.�i^ r � '�R "ir��rairol0� y+' " µ .c r`��w'✓"\v�� ' �i Aw i "!r: T t'''^,j'''r' L��, �' ��f9 ;n �•. �w a ,�r`r/1 `�/��\\� ,�,-'•'- � .....•.•-� : J � �1"'S � e 'h moi' ej ,! .M•' ^ ?r+Vr � r \' \,,��i '+ ��• • i 1 ^ iN. iy i:, Y� vL ♦� a �,' � � e. +try i Y a, q., a r z, 5� ~ / •,•{�3j6y14r.,5,,,,�,yr I+,.,i \� rsr ''- , `i •i ..._„tomer s.�.: e...., t'r�y �`'. `4\�r ,J-'�`� 1t`•� r c� o�'�"s. isS��,\� �/`.. 4a\ i v •+:w•• +eY «uw•-. `i 4 hai .. a Mee? " `. •tea,,, �`�` j� �'�`/"<< � \ � t i•,i r �: r' ♦ sra�is) i.� i V-, "• r/ „ . r+! L rel .... ..«.a+a .u.-.a.«-,w._-.,.a.u+....a• ..+.y.. a. h, psa.... •.wa.,..fu �. �� 1 r •. +1�� `i1. J. _. �•"i v+e � � r`��s r l.� rh2p, AJi • l is w• e ��� � ,, s � r INTRODUCTTONs This s l T section of t',Ze Environmental Impact ReLSort incl,u��es minutes- taken at Public Hearings on the Environmentalj;mpact Report, ictters re- ceived by the Planning Department on i;,io, E.T.R., and a Summary of coin- ments ole; the E.I.R. with Planning Department review cnd/or a'lditions to said comments. Listed belowa-e the contents of this section,,,: I. Minutes rc �Flann ng Commiw;ion xearingse 1./8/76, 1./29/76, and 2/5/76, fl. Letters speaking to the E.I.R.c i. Calif. Regional Water Qual itY Control. Board, 1.1/25/75 2. ,;john L Luvaas, jt.t 12%2/75 r` 3. City of Chico, 12/8/75 4. Calif. Water Service Co., 12/26/75 5. State Office of Planning & Research'�,` 12/31/75 6. 'Vein Bartram, 1/16/76 7, Dr. Glen Kendall, 1r-"6/76 8. Velma Smith (Planning Commissa.oher) 2/2/76 9 League'Ibf Women Voters, 2/3/76 10 City of Chico, 2/3/75 TIT ► Sutrmary of comments And Review by Planning Department IV. Additions to sections of the V,,.r.R,. V. Documents on Shasta Union Drainage District I,tt t . �r i INTRODUCTTONs This s l T section of t',Ze Environmental Impact ReLSort incl,u��es minutes- taken at Public Hearings on the Environmentalj;mpact Report, ictters re- ceived by the Planning Department on i;,io, E.T.R., and a Summary of coin- ments ole; the E.I.R. with Planning Department review cnd/or a'lditions to said comments. Listed belowa-e the contents of this section,,,: I. Minutes rc �Flann ng Commiw;ion xearingse 1./8/76, 1./29/76, and 2/5/76, fl. Letters speaking to the E.I.R.c i. Calif. Regional Water Qual itY Control. Board, 1.1/25/75 2. ,;john L Luvaas, jt.t 12%2/75 r` 3. City of Chico, 12/8/75 4. Calif. Water Service Co., 12/26/75 5. State Office of Planning & Research'�,` 12/31/75 6. 'Vein Bartram, 1/16/76 7, Dr. Glen Kendall, 1r-"6/76 8. Velma Smith (Planning Commissa.oher) 2/2/76 9 League'Ibf Women Voters, 2/3/76 10 City of Chico, 2/3/75 TIT ► Sutrmary of comments And Review by Planning Department IV. Additions to sections of the V,,.r.R,. V. Documents on Shasta Union Drainage District I,tt t . �r BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I MINUTES - January 8, 1976 l� 76-21-2-999-370 2. Vern M. Bartram, etal Wile 75-84) Rezone from "Interim S-2" (Suburban.`) -to "C-1" (Light Commercial) , "R-4" (Maximum Density --Residential) and "S-1" (Sub- urban) property located on.,the west side of Esplanade between Eaton Road and Shasta Ave. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Commissioner Camenzind stated that Appendix 2 and Appendik 3 of the EIR do not correspond, and that the soils map on Merlo's rezone is dated`1925 and on 8artram's rezone 1930. Mr. McKeeman stated that, they :had received comments from the Water Quality Control Board, asking that an alternative to sewer connection be considered. A letter from John Luvaas c:onumehts to the Environmental -Impact Report was discussed. The 'letter is lengthy and will be inclued in the Final Retort. Letter from City of Chico will also be included. Dr. W,en Kendall Suggests that major changes be made in, the impact Report. Pq. 3 in reference to the C-1 zonin This zone as to ac- commodate the present commercial uses, and there are no plans to expand those uses. He feels that R-4 zoning is appropriate along the Esplanade ,and that the S-1 zoning is in lieu of the present A-2 zone. Pg 5- 15143. Environmental Impact o, a.5 Disagrees and that strip zoning is undesirable in this area. 16-22-1:-000 a.4 Whenever thea Q. population is �.ncreaeed, noise, degradation of air and water quality, are affected, as it would) in any othei area of� the County, _i a.3 Traffic would be ,increased clue to increase in populatl., n, but pp L feels that this area i a roptiate, inasmuch as the Es�lan�,3e of Eaton' is Road wouldlane accotModateroad#ntrafficthatthe to thesairportproximitand shopping center,,, a.2 Does not feel that leap-frogr,ing is consistent with this proposal, al Although there is lass of prime agricultural 1s.nd, no parcel in this proposal is a self-sustaining agricultural unit. til Commi,ss� ones WAtters stated that there wexe parcels of 40, 59 49, & 19 ark"xes cite that these could be viable agricultural Units. Bendall stated that through a xicultural s era.al:a.s,:s it has been detertriined that thecae would hot be viable 4qtiCUltUrbL1 unito with the production of almonds, 1_1 1 C BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (� MINUTES January 8, 1576 r Vern,Bartram, Rt. 4, Box 544, Chico, stated that 200 acres is the min- imum. economic unit for almonds. With the smaller acreages, „ .there are complaints of the blowers and oil burners for freeze pro- I4Lection. There s also a dust,pzoblem. Frank Brazell,, Cussi.ck -Rd., Chico, stated that Mr. Stiles owns 127 acres, and is unable to farm profitably. He speaks to the expehse of farmi.ng and that Butte Couni•y is no longer a profitable farming county. S Gerald,,Shuyler -- The average acreage in the area is 35 acres. Feels that the change will be inevitable and would like to see the area be developed for mix1imum density residential. (;,o uii ssioner Hanford" stated that ,mr. Luvaas' ` letter was complicated,, '! and feels that some of the questions brought out in the letter should Ij be answered and clarified for the Commission. Chairman Sylva continued this Tearing OPEN until aanuary' 29, 1976. Qz�1 1 4, i f , r :X1,1 tti BUTTE COUNTY; PL11,'VNXNC CnMMISSIOL+ -:- ,- ',',MINUTES •- January 49 1976 CONTINUED PROM 7crANyARY 8, 1976 t 1. Vern' M. Bartram, etal, (file 75-84) - Rezone from "Interim 6'--2" Suhurb�i n) to "C-1" (Light Commercial) , "R-4" (Maximum Density-Residential) and "S-1" (sub- urban)-, property loc6ted "on the gest side of Esplanade between Eaton Road and Shasta Ave. Chico ENVIRONMENTAL 114PACT,-REPORT: 76-25-2Z Jay McICeeman submitted a 1,sumMARY or COMMENTS TO THP, BARTRAM ETAL REZONE DRAPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT'', comfiehting particularly`-_s on letters from ; John Luvaas dated 12/2/75 q, City of Chico, dated 12/8/75 rJ State Clearinghouse dated 12/31/15 Vern; Bart' am elated 1/16/76 and Or. Glenn Kendall dated 1/26,/76 lie stated that, in his opinion, the Commission had two alternatives To accept the information as submitted (including= -the addendum mentioned above) or: To recommend that a consultantbe hired to provide additional information required. In answer to a question, he said that this area could he included in a general study of a larger area and money could be requested from the Board to defray„ the" cost, or that the otl-.er alterna,'ive was that the apply,cant would be' asked to pay the fee's, to provide information on' about his project. (J 85) Opponents Dr Kendall. explained (190) that it was the app,l ica :tis understanding o 41 r BUTTE: COUNTY PU,,NNINO COMMISSION MYVUTES - January 29, 1976 that the Environmental' ---impact Report would not cast in excess of $100.00,Wand.:he would riot consider signing a bland' check to the County.,3 : Joe Ellingsen, Dave Murray, Mike Pagan and Jim Jeave all felt the Draft Environmental m�ja' ct Report was „insufficient. Jae Ellingsen,1 420 Lad�;sen Ave., Chico, said the Schools in the area were almost at capacity enrollment and expressed concern about addi- ti.onal costs of transporting children, by,bus, to other areas. (293) Dr. Kendall said that he had been assured;;that additional children would be welcomed in the Chico School District because enrollmont was down.„'Mr Ellingsen agreed that this "May be true but was still con- cerned abi)ut transportation of ,the children to another area. Dave Murray,5 36 til � 2nd Street, Chico, a member of the Chico City Council, said (300) that the preliminary Chico General Plan now indi-- dated no commercial zoning for this property --all agracultu.ral.,and stated ,.that the economic impact to furnish services for an area so far removed from the city would be substantial. Mike Pagan, 1272 iIobart 5t. (345) commented that it is t5me to ex- amine priorities ---"Can we afford to allow development of prime agricultural, lanai?" lie requested that wishes bf the City be_ obnsidered. Jim Jesse, 1272. Hobart St., Chico,'said (379) that the Draft En- virorimental Impact Report itself`tpeaks against this rezoning and, that public `s'entiment of. people i.nChico, in the`�State, and in the 'Wo id is against this type of developmontt and that it is snot necessary to develop just because the drainage rlistr:ct is there:. Commissioner Watters (480) requested that a sociological s t udy be made (4.80). Commissioner sylva asked the C.bmmiss`io_ors to review the addendum received tonight and asked that this item be continued for one . week. , BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING rot7MISSiON MINUTE S -• February N _ , CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 29,,1976; D REZONE & CONSIDERATIO14 OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OPEN HEARING , 1. Vern Bartram, etal. (Films 75-Q4) - Rezone from "Interim 'S, 2" suburban) to "C-1" (Light Commercial) , "R-410 (Maxi mu;n Aensity-Residential) and "S -l°1 (Suburban) property located on the west side of Esplanade between Eaton Road and Shasta Ave., 76-26-1-192 DkhPT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Letters were road from"the following parsons: ~. 4 Karen. Drive, Chico. :.. 1, Wesley H. Dem se Soils and ,g ricul,tUral, Consultant; ' n ologi:st ��2. Ronald 7E Stewart, Mayor of Chino. '39 Veva Edson, Pres:i,dent, League of Women Voters of Butte County, and 4. Robert Sanders, Chairman, Chico Planning Commission all urging that the agricultural pursuits ;be preserved in this area. f 25 residents registering opposition. to th' s Proposal. al. " by a total !, oe r,81Ii-n sen- 420 West Lassen resented lig'-letters s (288) i Jay McKeeman reviewed hi:s last � t � ' week's preseri,tation concerning the ` J. alternatives facing tine Commissi.on,it-rel.ative to this environmental impact report. Counsel Rik. reitt�.nde'cl the Commission that they should always Kayo a "suffi.cienti° .Environmental impact Report prior to making a decision on a'.piroject. q(595) ,Gleh e.hdallocommvingdwithin that no persons owning property adjoining project he area under consideration are against the project Ci were needed regarding econAmi.cs of .far' Chico" commented that. more farts lack Kahlbush, , Route l,, 13oX 406 B`' g ming. LawsonSmith was concerned about lack of treatment or the effects of this proposal: on the schools. Vern Bartram, Route 4j. Box 525, Chico, spoke in favor of the projj,h-.t. Dr, Eftloe 650 ES . l.ansdew Chico questioned the::itvS.sdaxn oa, ht tendency of every family living on' 5 or l0 acres a.n the Chaco area, and added that imttich agricultural land was lost bar this' method, ��p��S''1 ��TY pLCai�►Y�Z�G., 4.OM.i`�ixr�'1..5xO/4 1 TN �r Februari 5., 1976 �'� r c� Jane Wood, Route 1, Box 113-C, Chico, presented a petition signe&,,by 9 ].;and'owners against this proposal,. ssione 1-0111ml , r Camenzind said that, Water Resources"9 suggestion that. he property be annexed., to sewer in the city should ,be considered the report. (9,9.9}101.) The hearing was closed ind motion made�by Commissioner Watters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to find the Environmental Impact Report.insufficient since i.t does not provide adequate information tS.YES: Commissioners Sanford, Smith and Watters, iVOESd „ Commissioners 'Camenzind, Gilbert, Moore, Thebach and Chi iman ►7ylva w 11 Amow w\' ABSENT: Commissioner Watson. Motion failed. Motion was then made,by Commissioner Moore, seconded by Commist!ioner Thebach, to find the environmental `impact report suffic e.zt *r tx the addendum radded last weep and viith the addition of the letter'a a, mentione' above.. AYE Commissioners Camenzi.nd,' +Gilbe`i't y �� , Moore, Thebach, and Ci3ai tnuin naylva . _ �, � _. NOES: CoiltI M sioners Hanford,_ Smith and Watters' " ABSENT: • Com=* ssione r. W4tson 'Motion carried.. l _ „ I COMUND:G. BROWN JR., GOvxpoion STATE OF CALIFORNIA-9E56URCE5 AGENCY CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 3201 5 STREET ------ SACRAMENTO, --_ SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816 pHoNE. (916) 445-0270 `1 +152.3977 r 25 November 1975 ; But4e County Planning Department ; 7 CouK,:y Center Drive Otovi'lle, CA 95965 Ittent"It",n5 Jay McKeeman, Environment Al Coordinator ,. Sub sty.. Vern M Bartram, et al Fozone Gentlemen ?rl I The subject Draf E. .states that degradation c�water 4",Aty could occur with they ,,:ea deveoped to the potentials -allowed undev -rhe re- '... zone proposals, but does not discuss ouch degradation or prr.r.�,uaed mit- ration measutes. �f Since con - (I proposed rezone would expand development into a►i atea corm tiguous to the vrbanizeid area o$ Chyca, we believe that th\ a�, a should stem thatanbe eralterna+/e system or systems dill notcatdvorsely effec�ss it can be otd water k�lrwa 1 ` se con ttxs Crawford of phis office 'if ,�1u have any s question sir%celrely, r „ %izl.Lr rs Do attwlJl4IiN 1 Senior Erlgineex `�" �✓' h'acrsi�iiinto Watershed,, ' C31: ' Butte County health Dept S� �+�rOV w 6'' 1 �y C#.t.y of Chico CA N, w PETERS, FULL,ER,RUSH, SCLIOOLING LUv`(1r�S JE oM�D,PEr Rs,lasl•Iss3 ATXoRNC'Y$ AT LAW �� � % 414 SALEM STREET -• b, Q. Box 3.509 �1 �� AREA. CelbE 918. JEROME O.PETERS,JR.G�'•L 3�2•.3b9,�� IIICC�,CA41FOktNiA X526 11 DAVID fi.FULLCh t'1 DAVID H,RUsN JOHN W. SCHOOLING, INC. December 1 l9 r J JOHN L.LUVAAS,JN, DEC 2 1975 � �nnUt�.fw�, rti� Mr. lay McKeleman En'vironmental. Coordinator Butte County Pl.anniiig bepartMol'n.t Courthouse " broville, CA 95965 Re! Vern M. Bartram, et al Rezone Gentlemen- we wish to respond, as requested, to your November 20th letter. pursuant to,the above rezone.- T have had an opportunity to review tllb` draft F:nvixonmental report and wash to submit several'commen:ts on it. Although the report contains much of the regnllred information, I believe it has shot -comings which should be•`.corrected in the final docu- -,� r 1. section 15141 . (b) 3. The'EIP. mentions pro-., ,­,posal�s that the land be left in agricultural use and zoned accordingly. The report indioates that"this does not appear r realistic'' baoalxse of: the drainage district. I strongly dxsa tee �? with the inclur•,ion of that in the EIR. This would permit pdtti�alannz�a in th'past to dictate future g bad. planning4 Permitting d mage,, xUstrict is not a co►tt-- ��/ initment, to development, is nota rezone, is not a use per�il�i: approval, and at that time did blot' require environmental review; If that argument is included in the rezoning consid- orations, it would make a mockery and a f-Aility of the :preseht environmental review p `ocess. The drainage district wiould be useful for ten or twenty acre agri��ultural parcels, or ; for a4tractive minimum den,�J.ty residentlal 'ase along the Esplanade4 if the lacca +f ar cost of the drainage district .is a consideration, the County should consider reimbtarsemnt of property owners for these expenses, such roimburSement would be considerably lass costly to the tax payers tiaan the costs of increased governmental, services for loap-frtiy devel-'' opment into,,that area. • it u .. i Mr. Jay McI(eman beceimber 1, 1975 �'. R�; Vern M. Bartram, et al Rezone Page:, Two .1 , 2. Section 1.5142. The introductory ese:nte;npcLi that -,, the area is "within the semi -urbanized area to 'the north of Chico" is inaccurate. This Land is well to the north of the semi -urbanized area, and is beyond the fringe of any urba7n.2aUon. The EIR statement contradicts the statement Lnder Section 15,143 (a) 2. that this development would expand the urban complex further north from the presently developed' area. \ 3. As acknowledged on pages 4 and 5, the proposed rezoning is contrary to the Butte County General; Plan and the present and proposed Chico General Plan calling for - ! agricultural uses in,the area. This requires rejection of the rezoning proposal. 4. tlon 15143. (a) . x suggest the addition of a number 6 "Expansion of the Chico Urban`uompldx further north „ will create' devel.;ppmental pressure still further to the north." Z also suggest the addition of number I., "Development k of apartment and Subdivision density is `inconsis� ent With rural reaii±�ntial development in the 'area of Shasta and Lassen Avenues, which are closer to the urban area. This is indon- sistent with the rural, residential lifestyle; of those living closer to Chico and `}gill create additional ptetssure or more } intense_ residential development in the area of Shasta a' rd Lassen „Avenues'' !'5. Section 15,143 (b). 1 disagree with the statement ?' that this dove lopAient is contiguous to the urbanized area f Chico, It is contiguous only to a rural resiclehz-ial area and not an, urbanized area: This would create an urbanized area ,,�taell to the north of present 341tense urbanization and will surround existing agricultural' lands to the south of the posal, The entire portion of the area proposed for "S'-1"� zoning is agricultural and not merely "a good portion" of it. 6. Section 15193 (c). This section falls to discuss any mitigation measures for "S-11' and ''R-4" zoninq� hilt dit- cusses only mitigation measures fox the present `A -w" 1.one. The-EIRmust disruss mitigation measures for th�lproposed rozoning;and now. for the present zone: The ;problems0with the present "A-2" zone are obvious, but this is an unlawful zone, and the County is obligated to rezone the area. At mosey this section discusses alternatives previously consid- ered. Alternatives are to be discussed in subsection (d) I suggest a complete re-triting of this subset tion to discuss measuees which will mitigate (minimize) the impact of `n-4" a 7 w 1� Decomber 1, 1975 Mr. Jay McKeman Page Three ,iter Vern M. Bartram, et al .Rezone and "S --l" zones 7 section 15143 (d)e>> Here you may wish to add some of the alternatives incorrectly placed under subsection (c) (< I suggest the addition of another'alterriative, which would 'be agricultural zones with a minimum,Y.�arcel size greater t�iaA 10 acres. As I earlier indicated with i,�espect to your introduc- tory comments on page 1, emphasis of the drainage district is inappropriate. This ignores the fact ..'hatlYe drainage ds- trice was inadvisably established, vith&1,t environmental re- newt and that growth expectations of the Chico area are far loss Utah anticipated i 'Creation ofthedistrict does thot obligate rthe county established. l. toallow,, w development in the area and creates no development rights for the owners. r understand that one resident of the drainage dis- trict,•Jack Kohlbush believes there were misrepresentations ,,and improper pressures brought on some of the property owners to go a ong with the proposer;; dist ,-.ct. He intends to submit its comments on this point. section 15143 (e) The relationsh'-n. 'between short and long term uses is not adequately discussed, �eferenre to Section 15143 (c) is inappropriate, since that subsection is quite inadequate and does not discuss this print, rot ade- quate disddssi'ur.t:of this subjei t,, details of` Jong -term agricul- tural production estimates are necessary. ,?�he economic produc- tion expectations from the land should be discussed so that the Null impact of the agricultural loss maj'be.)determined. That impact should be contrasted With the adverse taxation impac-', from increased governmental setvices,to this outlyincg area. I suggent substantial detailed study{,1on these points and inclu- sign of `them in the EIA under this section. his presently writtehe this section does' not comply with -,legal requirements, domrnds should be s ecified and some moneta�''y figures estimated.of the increased section 15143 (f) 4. p 1. The nature, Xn64l:edge of the full 'tax "impact of this proposal may of it- self be persuasive that the public in�borest would be,adversely served by this proposal. subsection 6 also should be coh8i.derably more detailed The increased traffic on the Esplaxiaae Inay require to, im- provements and may lead to major traffic jams extending to downtown Chico. Traffic needs may require new marl construe--'' tion, at coh8iderable costs-. .'.Che growth-inauting impact oh,/' presently rural areas oioser�/to town may reate a multiplier effect and further compound 1, -he traffic p 'bbl em. �' 10. S.:egti.on 1.51,43 (g) The growth -inducing 'impact of 4l Decomber 1, 1975 Mr. Jay McKeman Page Three ,iter Vern M. Bartram, et al .Rezone and "S --l" zones 7 section 15143 (d)e>> Here you may wish to add some of the alternatives incorrectly placed under subsection (c) (< I suggest the addition of another'alterriative, which would 'be agricultural zones with a minimum,Y.�arcel size greater t�iaA 10 acres. As I earlier indicated with i,�espect to your introduc- tory comments on page 1, emphasis of the drainage district is inappropriate. This ignores the fact ..'hatlYe drainage ds- trice was inadvisably established, vith&1,t environmental re- newt and that growth expectations of the Chico area are far loss Utah anticipated i 'Creation ofthedistrict does thot obligate rthe county established. l. toallow,, w development in the area and creates no development rights for the owners. r understand that one resident of the drainage dis- trict,•Jack Kohlbush believes there were misrepresentations ,,and improper pressures brought on some of the property owners to go a ong with the proposer;; dist ,-.ct. He intends to submit its comments on this point. section 15143 (e) The relationsh'-n. 'between short and long term uses is not adequately discussed, �eferenre to Section 15143 (c) is inappropriate, since that subsection is quite inadequate and does not discuss this print, rot ade- quate disddssi'ur.t:of this subjei t,, details of` Jong -term agricul- tural production estimates are necessary. ,?�he economic produc- tion expectations from the land should be discussed so that the Null impact of the agricultural loss maj'be.)determined. That impact should be contrasted With the adverse taxation impac-', from increased governmental setvices,to this outlyincg area. I suggent substantial detailed study{,1on these points and inclu- sign of `them in the EIA under this section. his presently writtehe this section does' not comply with -,legal requirements, domrnds should be s ecified and some moneta�''y figures estimated.of the increased section 15143 (f) 4. p 1. The nature, Xn64l:edge of the full 'tax "impact of this proposal may of it- self be persuasive that the public in�borest would be,adversely served by this proposal. subsection 6 also should be coh8i.derably more detailed The increased traffic on the Esplaxiaae Inay require to, im- provements and may lead to major traffic jams extending to downtown Chico. Traffic needs may require new marl construe--'' tion, at coh8iderable costs-. .'.Che growth-inauting impact oh,/' presently rural areas oioser�/to town may reate a multiplier effect and further compound 1, -he traffic p 'bbl em. �' 10. S.:egti.on 1.51,43 (g) The growth -inducing 'impact of Mr. Jay McReman Re. Vern M. Bartram, et al Rezone December 1 1975P111) Page Four the proposed actj,.on on adjacent lands must he discussed and this section fails to'do so. There will be a growth --inducing impact closer to town, as well as further north. The "cumulative com- mercial reference should be more specifically discussed. `For .s g growth inaUcinltendencies to which this section make rnercial ro example, what will be the impact on existing businesses within the urban area if further commercial development is allowed on the outskirts? C4ill this cause further problems for downtown businesses? Will this intensify traffic problems? Wi11 this create further undesirable "strip commercialization, and in duce more commercial development even further north? ll if the pt6ponents of the rezone have formulated specific development``plans, the law requires consideration of those plans in the ETR, as a portion of a phased development. Such considerations would take the ETR out of the p•�rely thed- retinal. realm and would allow more concrete consicldrations.' The planning staff should review that possibility: ` 1;,do not intend to be unnecessarily "picky", but this is one of the largest and most potentially( -;imaging develop- ment proposals for the chico area. The EIR must be complete and; .legally adequate or it will no d)i"bt be subject to legal challenge. Furthermore, without the0required information,,. the County cannot have a rational and knowledgeable decision- making process, which is the purpose of the BIR. purge far more detailed study and major revisions of this document. Very truly Fours, pFTERS, FULLER, RUSE Ij SCHOOLING & LUVAAS- r �, �r'✓"� `�7OHN L. WIVAA80 Jit. JLL/kic 3, ` 1 d. , 000 CAUFORMA .. � • CJCM OF CHM rrIGE ❑V THE CITY PLANNE1t-P. C1, 13OX 3420, 95926 �CHICO • TELEPHoNE (91G) 643-44o1 -AFTER S-00 P- M, 343-7331 Frvodta Sa1G' Jay McKeeman, Environmental Coordinator Butte County Pl.ann`ing Department 7 County,Center Drive Orovi'lle, California 95955 December 8; 1975 ' Re: Vern M. 'Bartram, etal Rezone Environmental Impact Report Dear Jays Reference is trade to your letter of November 25, 1975.requesting comments relative to the above EIR, After reviewing the above EZR, We would like to make the folloying comments: 14 The environmental impacts as presented in Section 15143-A of th^ Bartram Elft adequately reflect the City's concerns rel°ative to the environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, 2. Though the following 001ents 110e,,beon presented in past communications, I believe tKey sti71 apply in the review of the Bartram EIR, (a)Section 15143-c, Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact. As per,C`E:Q,A,: cienscribe avoidable adverse impacts, �( inc a 'ng.;ineffi and unnecessary consumption of energy, and the measures- ro osed to minimize those impacts. The discussion should deal with measures which ars r incorporated within the project with the intent of reducing the avoidable adverse impacts of the project. the Bartram QTR fails to offer proposed measures. Rather, the discussion deals with alternatives which should More appropriately be discussed in -Section 15145-d, alternatives to the proposed action. >• (b) Section 15143-D Alternatives to the proposed action, You are reminded the C.E Q,A, guidelines state; 11„ :the specific alternatives of 'Flo project' must always be ovaluatod6 along with the impact,"' If r., ;> To: Jay MCKeeman Re: Bartram Elk \�N Please'actep our appreciation pp for the opportunity pp to revie. _ :this _ W and comment on m13tter. (.S Sincerely, (I , John P. Hool o PlanningUirector By'• �, Richard C. Wilson 0.i R1„° ing Technician RCW: pb ;-, , �r „ r „ a. Q CA-UIF6RNIA WA.TV'R SIERVICCE Corr' :r December 26, 1975 1720 NORTH )TMST STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA AREA 40a f; 299^1414 ilrit Butte County Planning Commiesion ;Courthouse grovil'le, California 95965 Gentlemen. We have reviewed a, copy of the draftenvironmental itapact reportconcerning approximately 200 acres located on the west side or 9s'planade between Eaton Road and Shasta Avenue, known as :Project No. 75-84, Chico, We have no comments at this time • Very t, y you CALT, ORNiA WATER SERVICE COMPANY f l _ a't a"I%�� meri i Assistant Secre,ary Arid Assistant Tttastire:' „ ; 1 r', r ,.� kIHE tvip ` cc t E. E, Graltt gar. A. P.. Soulz} i ' rid yo o 0�1Is r l7�/I 11-4 tq i AD i, q •' �,• G0VERN6R'S OFNICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH �) 1400 '1"EN"f H STREET , SACRAMENTO 96814 EbMUNQ G. 13ROWN JR. 1 Decemb,6r 31, 1975 `fr. Jay Mckeeman l` 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Mcheeman: 5U'B 7ECT , SCH ff 7 512 0117 - DRAFT E IR FOR VERN M. BARTRAM, ETAL „ REZONE #75$4 In a letter to you dateda-lkz-3-75, the State Clearinghouse: verified your, compliance-with the reviely procedures contained in the State Cu del��Ones for Implementation of the California Bi-ivironmental Qual qty Act. The `attached coMment Was tram mltted to the Clearinghouife at a'-.i;ater, datd; 'Please respond to it as 10 j �incerely, Management Systems Off icer State Clearinghouse (916) `4 5-0613 �VUKI1u�rd � �: j Attachment r cc Mary 8chell1 State Libi"ary Tho3has_ E. B;,iley, SWRCB - P ,t C'Wik 4P a +4 ofi California' THE RioSi�IURCES AGIENC'y Aei nranei.am �. To Mr. L. Prank Goodson poral DEC � 1975 Pro'Jeats Coordinator The R(Wources Agency in Rely Refer I' Resouroos BujL .ding, l'3th "Floor To: UO:GH �5 From t I:iTAYE WATR R RESGURCZS CONTROL RAA�I'D. DIVISION Of PLANNING' R61ARCl p r > Sub`ect: RFt•..>EW OF NOTICE OF INTFNT SCSI 751�iO117 , Vern M. Bartvam et al., Rezone Iihe draft ?SIR should describe the souL',ces of potential. degradation �, f wager quality and associated mitigation measures,, The California kegional. Water Quality Control. Board, Central Valley ??egionr has expressed 9.nterpst Ltz the possibility of' connecting the area ta, the city of Chico -1,s sewage] systetrn. If an alternative is suggested, the Eli. should discuss the effect ofthe alternative system On water quality. TROM 8 E. BA:CBLY, Acting,"Chibf Division of Planning'and Research �r L I+ f 11 �i �• „hlco, California. �i January 166 1976. Mr.. La.wrnece J. T.,awson � Director of ButtFq,County Planning Department 1 croville, Ca. 95965.. ` Dear 1,41r. Lawson: As your staff members review the S.T.R. oti�i ',�tho rezoning project number_ !l 75-84,, our; group: wishes thz contents of this letter to be gonsidered., Part one concerns the poahts in,`'.he letter of De4. 1, L975, ox attorney John Luvaas. . 1. SQc'L-ion We concur that the phrase "does not appear "realistic" should be removed.' 'you may wish to consider the,, elimination of that entire paragraph-(ute 26'z, paragraph of b 3) . I Al`though) accurate, it likehy. is inappropriato a8,a part of th. en#, of ,the objectives, etc, but rather shouldtil;be considered undel.- the eiscussion of zt,ning. We would comment ,as fol."lows on the remain - de» r i th�.t paragraph of 1'fr. Lttvaas' letter: .' "perma,tting a drainage district, etc. 1hhe word 'rpermittingrr probably should be I+Ez�;tiabl.ishmeni: of r' b since this was anilofficlai act of the Board of 'SU pe-rvis0rZ S. rr'rhe bt;ainagz Llistt ct wot •ld be useful for ten or ',twenty arse agricult- ural etc. '',le believe it impossible to find an aut:hor,i ' y tin land use ti� no believe�� a drainage district would be heeded or useful.. for �"#43.ng the lend under'consideration. C. the county should consider reimbursement of property owners f6i bhese ex+aenses. +uch reimbursement would be considerably lessi1 etc. ti We concur that if the zoning were to restrict the ]Land use to agriculture, the property.owners should be reirbursed. W thou I'eimbursement:, such action would be confiscatory o the property owner, 13ut to what b•,asis has the conclusion that such reimbursement irwould be tronsider.ably t s cosbly tra the taxpayers'' et:c7 is this statement to be interpreted as meaning that population i;hcrsases in"this area would. be more costly than in other areas? We believe ttta,t the cost o y services such as Safety, noalth and Zducat'ion would not be mat',�.rially diff4renL�'here than :i o;. -her parts of the county, and, in Trans- portation , bransportation, considera,,ly less. e' believe the streets and highways now here an'l prop ostd. (' 1�tcn1 Road extension with its right of war already gi=ven to the, co mby.y • al.mos3 ta{ bey 'Ave.) are •.inusually adequate ass main arc eries for any'1'utueo deveS.o.�mbt'k which the proposed zonlgn would allow. D. ''For I-eaV,-frog development into that area". This appears to be statement i,based on, -,,,,inaccurate ibformati6fti The facts are: ' It i$t adjacent,,to the S l 71one and development along Shasta Avenue. �i y plete distance on the Went. It i,, ad adjacent t,o tt;; s z ,..one.. an development the cpm ft- is adjacent to, and 3,nclyides, commercial zones and considerable commercial and residential homes along the Esplanades plus an apprpved sub; division just beyond 8ataoh Road. (vlilth n the s,emi--urbanized area to the north of Chico) is Mhis land.. i,, well. beyond the fni ;go of any urate„ zationrr'. U1 bani� anon is defined] in the: dictiohla y as 'rte cause to have charad;�er• is'tics of the city." If th�i d;erimlLion -is, to be accirpted, the ;;,tarement ain the S:l.R» appears to be rea,sonabl.y`accuratea A city has b'usine88.hou5est, JAN 19 1076 1, h``6'' a 2 apartments, single family homes, open spaces,,etc, etc. "oo'\had the area,, around the proposed zoning area -even "extend iag beyond thin, that�,is, the Green Barn apartment complex, the mobile home conte:: next to Mud Creek, the c,o,imeerial developments along the Esplanade,tesuubdivision;adJ. acent to the F I n de north of eatop road, and very extensive apartment units across the.. Esplanttd,4 on Shasta, 13t.�;._ it may be thaat -the Word "suburban;,? may be mere accurate. Thisis defined as "characterized by blending of t�'{te urban and rural.11 The suburban zoning is so designed» This leaves- the R 4 proposal, which, of course,, has distinc'tlV higher density population potentials, but this proposal was based • on the bolief that it would upgrade the "strip commercial" which is accepted in the Goh6ral Mans of both the city and:, county.. 3. Section M42. I'T1ie- proposed rezoning is contrary", etc, The City General Plan provides for agriculture from Sandy Gulch, or 'Uindo Channel, north withhi.ghway commercial along the Esplanade. Obv ,ously,. the City General Platt of ►t agriculture from Sandy Gulch" has long out " 11 been Since the City and the County Flan are at variance, and,, since this area is in the county, izoninq legally should follow the County Plan. This would, leave the question about desirability of` :` R 4 or commercial along Espl.anade, as mentioned above. 4. Section 15143 (a). On suggestion of "addition no. 6, see comment- ,,under "C" mitigation measures For the suggestion no. 7 it has already been n,3ted that this area is better defined as "ttrbanazed" or "suburban" rather Lain "rural residential;"'. 5. Section 14143 (b) There are three comments ter be R.';e on ti,, 's paragraph. C' A. Th.aour judgment, a "rural x� � ', ential'l means a few homes in, a distinctly rural area-No�:d mig1it`' be4 r, �`Xammle-"YJrbanized" or, as We prefer the term "suburban" is an area distiict:Ly closer to the city with a number of characteristics of the citv-.some business areas -some small, with throe sides contiguous to an urbat;4zed or stiburban area.. ;?w mhe proposed finning area "goes not" surround existing agricultural land tithe, k5outh.. There`.zre some agrictaltural lands, along with many houses, and apartments to the south. But tho proposed area does not surround anythU,ig other than parts �,"f i -self. 'Ratherg as noted earlier, it adjoins of 3,;ides, properties either zoned sub'urbaft or extensively, in commercial ttse. 'C e The E. 1. R, is accu� ate in saying ,► a mood portion oft# etc. (2nd sent,-,nce under ,Obit, page 6 of r`port). It is not referring to the S3, proposal_t but, rather the entire zening proposal. 6-7-8-9-10-116 Section 1.5143 etc. The only paint we comment on at this tame is item 10.''t Questirns were raised about c:otni erCialt, developments t including "furtherr desitabl.e , strip commerciall!nO etc. The proposed .rezoning eliminated thaE potsibility in this area,, part « This pa�tion of. 'out letter is merely to suggest: la Further analysis of iteri',)' 1514,E p4 +'increased demands upon' the public. service'areay etc; afttr rereading our comments in Section 151.41 (c) rf 2. is there a real problem in water qua,l,ity, .-end, if so, would not a require, )h be publicewJ ter services}tthe l,inesaof Whichlateent would , gg already ex�En�ied to the S -We corner and, i1�t`b some- of the area under consideration: ,� 3 3. A careful amlysis should be made of the-transpoetttion item involving the brief comments earlier `this letter. ( I'Lom C sec 14141) ;i 4.Can item 7 page 8 the E.1 R re,'x .ly be considered OfIrreversibel Environ— M0 tal Changes." Hopefully, both were trade with Environment,actors being, consid6red,_,,but such reports, nd themselves, are rte ►►Environmental►►• -•-they deal with the topic. In addition to these comments,, we would ask thot yott please consider the state`— ments made by Dr. Kendall at the hearing on June8o 106, rp w _ 4 p Comments on the proposed rezoning request 'of Vern Bartram, et alp : Location - adjacent to the Esplanade north of Shasta Avenue, Q I. The land and i is fuse's Jhe land is good soil, suitable for agricultural purposos. Twenty years ago, ayes, even as late as eleven years 'ago, this entire area s ould have been zoned agri- culture. The developments, hoWeve'r,), of the last ten years bring new factors which �i need to be considered in ;any zoninililrnowa `` 1., -in 1965-66, the Board of Suparvisov"s had „a study made in relation to the draihage needed, for developments along the 5splanade and adjacent area. As a result of this study, the Board established a Drainage District, encompassing the proposed rezoninti it is understood that, this district:, was formed for t,,,a following reasons: (a� The State would rebuild'pa�rts,,of the Esplanade to State Highway standards, providing y p su 'gable, drainage facilities. rovtdin the count 4roul:d rovids aui the-Esplanade(roeneededand other facilities, ents north of Lindo Channel - on both sides 'of r es. (c) Extention of urban development nog^thward, including commercial uses along the rlplanade - would require drainage facilities. , (The County Geheral Plan, then as nota, provided for this)"�area to be low, density residential, with commercial along the Esplanade)a ; � ((; Considerable farm 'l,I-rids not needing drainage for farm purposes were included in the District for two ►'eusans 1, Financlal-namely the district had to be sufficientl/ large to have an ade- quate tax lease to pay'for, and support it, 2. As indicated above, to provide for additional future residential areas. It i did, i'n moealcommittmento establishsy this""areafeGoverning orfutureuseBoard sother oecounty thana9ulricagricul- ture. 11, The historical development of, zoning in this area: In 19.70t�a group o,f�,citizehs within the area, concerned with problems v' we're emerge'n6y from the.' none then in effect, had a meeting with the P1ahr,N Director of Butte County, aiid the Assists ht -Director. At that meeting, the Direc- tor, sug ested the followi6v, (ai}g A commercial mhlo of 350 feet Width along the Esplanade from Shasta Avenue too the north. to the drainage ditch h ( b) An R3 zoneesif,�glefamilyresidences-maximum 5 lots per acre, 4�om the coma mercial zone to the west ditch of the Districto N An $2 zone fr�oRl,the west ditch to Bay Avenue: An I zone on the north side of Shasta from the commercial zone on the Bast to the S2 zone on the west. These proposals resulted in a petition for zoning as suggested. The planhi'ng Commission unanimously approved the proposals The Board of Supervisors, hb-,Vever, requested the Commission to delete certain acres-leay.no these in A2 These dole, tions included all the proposed commercial strip and the'land north of the South ditch °and east of the West ditch, leaving only the proposed. S1 and,82 zones. The Planning Commission did this, and the now present 51 and Sz zones wise established by the Board of supervisors" Under the A2 zone; residential and commercial use colitinued to develops and under the °'underdevelopment topic p 4 ,p g e 1 and 1 zohe5 residential develo meht continued aloe Shasta. and "say. BigurLittlewill zoningvattivity developed afterotheh1910eactioneuntil to lateY1974 - o my • p` 'n the hortheas°C` cornet^ zoned C2 was done. the six'acre arcel i 3:z-7.Ae 2. In December 1914 the planning staff held a meeting at Shasta School to discuss rezoning proposals of a very large area, including that under consideration at this meeting, Among the various proposals were A10 -S2 and 51 zones, Little common agree- hdnts Were found and the staff in dicated.`further study on their part, with another,. meeting to be called soon. C, c ' This meeting��did not 'materialize, so in the Spring of '75 another meeting of some ihterested citizens within the area was held with the Planning Director for further consideration of desirable zoning. That meeting resulted in a majo`� change from the 1970 proposals namely, the strip commercial, along the Esplanade, was chanbeenged to zoned. C2-,:ndcthe southons endawashaleeadyminends. commercal useThe t) end had recently A petition for rezoning -the one how before you -was made in June"1914. This petition is signed by approximately 90% Of the property owners 1 only., declined to sign, and 2 others were hot located, from this recital of the historical development these conclusion`s"appear evidentt is That rezoning in this area, for whatever the reasons, has been only "piece" meal" "too little too late" - e,nd, certainly, inadequate: ; 2 Suburban growth"on three sides of the property has continued, This has resulted ih Nrirher suburban development with even substantial commercial uses in the area however°, always within the limns of the Ceneral Plan 'uhf the county. 111. The third maJor factor we wish to menton is the extent of d6velopments, in and hear, this proposed rezoning, Along the 5splanade`within the area under consideration there are presently: 8 commerc+al uses, IhOluding a large warehouse 7 residential uses, 1 -former residence now being,.,used for professional;'offices. The 6 acre C2 zoned parcel is also west of the W lanade and south of -the north ditch. The entire 'length on the north side is presently boundod by the Drainage Diss t;rict ditch, but there is also a sight -of' -way for the co!jrty-planned extension of ,'atom Plod: to Highway 32, This right=of-way has been donated to the county by the ;owners of the land. No buildings are adjacent, On the west side _ the entlee length of approximately eigli`�tenths of a mile e­ On zoned S2In this S2 zone, there are presently 21 residences and an additional subdivision ot,'-,4 lots which was approved a few months ago " On the Soh side, north of Shasta Avenue; between the proposed cl along the `Dsplanade, and the 52 zone along Cay a distance of about four tonths of a mile; there ar^ seven residences and a recently approved subdivision of 10 lots is how being developed, i.;. The major conclusion here is that the proposed zoning area is bound by proper- ties on three sides - much already well advanced in suburban developgent - which makes agricultural uses of majo,^ equipment, pesticides, etc,j together with the farm dust, a major problem, They are less than compatible with the activities of surrouhding properties., IV, The fourth major factor iii our Presentation is that of "suitability" of this, area to the pmposed zoning, Various Factors are eohsido-ed, 1, Water - Soil percolation meets the standards of the Butte County Health bo�artment xis,;,=�ioweirer, at the time of -any deVelopmenti the use of water fro'hi the " Cal i forhiZ! Water Company could be required. 21 Dr4'inagq - the Publ�id Works Dept, reported that the Drainage District pro. vides a.�iple drainage for development with the exception of a small portion of the t land neat^ the psplahade which would require a drain pipe or ditch'Itittalled, This `blas nut a major problems b io_L l 30 r S� Educational facilities,, Residential development hore would 1ikely,"'result in more children for which educational facilities must be available Aust the same as would be needed if they lived elsewhere in the di -strict, However, a call to school officials was made, and the response was that 'pupil enrollment is„currentl,yf low for the facili..ies now availabi`e, 4e Safetv, Sbrvices"Any major development would result in additional services but no m.,ore'than they would elsewhere in the countyo y $6 Transportation Main transportation anter`"i . -the Esplanade the Freeway,,;uhe Eaton Road " to the afrport complex -the nearby East Avenue to the,West and to the North Valley Shopping Center -all suggest this is one of the ,,;very best 'places iii the Chico area for convenience and safety in transportaticn:`` A summary and c9nclusion"oii the quEstio,riof l,suitability!' maybe stated as follows„ 'Each county department indicatethat the proposed is generally within th�F ; established pol,,cies of the county`s d exception was noted a moment ago 0,0 Y , Or e, e' Th a r p frs lean G1 ar~ _? ; 41 ft a other e�ccept an -~ nd 's thQ r�^ r r;i� o0,_.�,i`ie FsSp's a'ii'a"de. lV' This fourth major topic deals with t► e4 question of the minium acreage likes- sary for an economic self-sustaining farm unit, The comriients here are 1cohdOlned `With minimum acres in almonds since the largest plot 'in the area being discussed ` is in alhlonds (the next largest plot is an "open ?wield'", and generally considered "hot the highest profitable use for land in this area), Clem Meith, of the Farm Advisor's Office, rites o� a cooper�-`tive study done in 1972, involving four eminent almond growers th the Rrham area; an agricultural economist, at the University at bavis, and Mr Me'ith. The"cost'study is based upon a "160 acre orchard" and is basically concerned with the etonbmics of such a unit Those who made this s•tudy recognize it as outda.t�,d and-pointTqut the increases in costs - such as fertilizer, equipment, supplies,`taxes repa.i0parts, far outrun the increases in iho)me whish the grower receiveSa The ' " r tO above question is quoted�ara°g; aph of Mr, Meith s letter closely relating to (" Growers with whom ;I have discussed your question felel that what " constitutes a so-called "economic unit" is a m atte[+� of opinion, ri One said that ,for a family; operation where all' the/work was done' by family members and where a $16,000 per year net income was deemed sufficient, then an 00 -acre operation, netting $2100 per acre, would be sufficient, This points out the arbi tr.�ry nature Of such a figure Another grower pointed out that for a retired person, 20 acres might be an ecohomic unit,. This point of view is cohtf,,irM'ed by other growers who are accepted as leaders ' in almond production° They thi�`,k'6f 75=-80 acres - up to 160 as being essential for a solf-sdi taming family unitb All do recognize smaller units as' being helpful f6r retired persons, or others incomes are from other sources, use lim=ited acreage as a supplement, It may be observed that this_ point is hot the basis" upon; which government policy should "lock -in" three parcels of lands'2 in almonds) to be ',used only 'by retirees or others Who make their living in other occupations"