Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-84 3K, . R SUMMARY In IIght of the fo ego'ing statements We petitioners submit these summarizing ' P.01 nts 1� 'Pre sous official actions, and sotnetimes lack of it, make cagricul tural zoning, at this tlme, unsou6d, impracticalw and an undue burden upon the property v, owners, speci,flcally as Creat ons of a Drainage District " not needed dor f(�'rming here,:: b, Lack of timely 'zoning - ,thus al_ awing growth development which, io this Case, has kt�ti-�3-E�scc�8nr8F�rJ," t orchardlng , . 2­ The land para:"it are smaller than required for self-supporting farm ,. operate olyts 3s The �roppse`d rezoning. a, was'N.-,epared with the aid and cont.,urance of the professional sftafif of Butte County Planning, pepartmerit b, was &r.,,1gned to provide an orderly land use program in on area close by the city, yet now unsuited to I fi0titions to agricu;fJrer [ ;fs also designed to pl-avent further hap- hazards�ejelopment inherent under the present zone; c conforms,, to pertinent county regulations and the General Plan' (w;th the exception noted earlier, of R4 being.sub- ,, `st,itut.ed for commerc ial do dins not add to the butden of county services anymore than establish-d, wol,tld,the same growth development established elsewhere, e, has the support of the utast major�it ' "pp y of py,ol,rt.y oa�ners art' the pY°'JNQs'',d zoning area, and so far as known, no oppos i t ori from the (1,6jatent peoporty owners, C) �I i.' To: The Butte County Planninj,,Commissionexs and the planning Staff <� Re: EIR for Bar'ram Eta'l Retone and "StnaMary of Comments" From: Velma Smith Date: February 2,, 197E it appears to me that the EIR requires more data to resolve basic disagreements between oppone*t-s-~and. proponents. The EIR should encompass all of .the areE6that lies north and northwest ,„of the Green Lime as proposed in the Chico Pre- liminary Gene.cal Plan and west of Highway 99. especially all rein,4jLn trg' 1_2 , zones and contigiuoUs areas. This would' be approiiTi.i1' ouroriginal study area. enlarged to consider growth, titinds from the City of Chico.- 2. hico._2. 'iProponenft:s state that parcF'l size is presently too small to maintain as viable agxicuLtul._w.l units.” My inquiry to a professional consultant directed me to this information from the ]..972 issues. of Almond_Fact,s, Vial 381 CAI -Almond . Growers 85010' of growers that sell to 6 -al -Almond Growers Exchange have less than 50 acres, 9590 have less than 100 acres. M�c We need to know how this compares to 1973-75 and to other data. 30the Land -Use Element allocates a 1-4 duelling unit/acne density for ti is area.li--and. this ,justifies the proposed 8-1 zoning. This Land-Use..Eleiment looks at least 20 years to the future.. (See Butte County General Flan; p. 1.2.) The General, Plan _Giiideli.nes, by The California Council on ',:Yntergovernr,enta; Relatiohs, Sept. 1973, P. 11-12, states on this point: The zoning ordinance.... should gradually follow the gen- era! plan ;Leto the future as appropriate in relation to t1jaing and sequence a£ uses.,, Thus ••a,w would be inconsiai. ton t with the plan to zone a large area of ex. x.sting loth intens ty use to a more intensive wise as shown in, the %! general plan, when the transition to;,the more . Wte'nsive dse would occur so gradually that scattered uses might „ testxl.t and contravene a general, plan ,police cal.`l,=ing for compact urban development: , Lven though the zoning, ord!- nance I104Y �11;iicate uses different from those shown; in the gtino,ral �ploo, the zon`itg in this case will carr'y out generAi—Plan POUties as to orderly development, and thus is consistent; 4ith the geiter,al plan. We are tommit~ted to Generel >?la pol�ci:e ;s, and yby, LAFC:O guxcle» lines; to o endorse 11cotrjpact , end Orderly 9"' owth" in Stith areas . Aa this 1- L; 1 a 1 1 76 1T:-8 ty kw) League of Women Voter's of Butte County rrrsw. ww�m� rar.�....�+�m re r.■ P.O. Box 291 Chico, California 95926 Ferruary-, 1976 Mro Bugene Syl.va, Chairman Butte County Planning Commission c Orovilley Calif. Dear SKr. Sylva _. The League o Women Voters of Butte County has studied land use in r r' Butte Obunty for the 'past ten years. As a result of this study we are committed to preserving our agricultural lands from further urbanization. We have studied the Environment�'I Impact Report on the Bartram, etal rezoning request and have obsented a wide discrepancy in the views presented by opponents and propninents. finding such a wide difference in on pion'in a project of this magnitude aria importance, we believe an outside consultant is needed in order to maintain objectivity, The Bartram, otal; rezoning request iril:l constitute a loss of another 11.0 acres of orchards and 60 acres of 'row"crops. At that point do we draw a line and hold it against further encroachment of urbaniza tion into our Vina Loam soils? Are we going to let past poor planning, 'ioe., a 'drainage distric-t, dictate further poor planning or is it time to say` STOP and Bold ;,he line against further development in our agricultural. areas? Pully realizing that the Butte County General Plan proposes `lowi-, dezisity residential for this area, we still urge you, to keep in mind that the Open Space 'Element calls for the preservation of agricultural lands neax' urban centers. Therefore, we urge you to deriy this request an4 to initiate a MMing that iiould preserve this lana,,for agricultural use. Sincerely yours, Veva Jdson President, r �'�► ��.JR� # Ul/'U rll �/U C � �``aOQ CAUFORMA g't1itl +� �yI PPICE OF THE: CITY PLANNVgR-P. O, abX 3420, 95926 • , Tii1:CPHONE (916) 343.44401 - AFYER S:013 M M, 343.7331 , S�rot?'lA; Son �,�' �° Butte 1: otttity F ianiiing Commission ixrol t ; } 7 Counity' ,Center, drive , brovi I��1e Cal Jf+ornia 95965 February 3, 11 6 Re : Ile`„ �.1 B} c>"t���, eta] Rezoning #75-84, } Geni Rofe�rpce is made to the above noted rezoning applicatio►i scheduled _ for publ VC., hear ,, -,,g before your Commission cn Febtivary, 5, 1976. :. Please be advised that the Chico Planning Commission, at their regular meeti13 of F4ruary 2, 1976, reviewed this application and un�,:imously elected, to racy5 and dot al of same. The Commission's opposition is based on the following 1J� All, or party of the proposal is inconsistent with Butte 'County General Plan, the Butte County O en Space � � � proposed Elemant, the current Chico General Plan and the pr Chico General Plan. S 'd `ec t involves lanue' use densities w'7ich exceed normal rura7��etf,, ai � density urbanricultural development there by furthering pressure for high - L--1 opment ' i ti an area which lacks urban services. 3W Because the City Council is presently conducting final hearings J on the proposed Chico General Plan, our Commission is concerned ! that a major rezoning action in this sensitive area may act to undermine the plan's policies and proposals prior to adoption ' of same: The Commission finds that the environmental impacts, noted in r ;1 section 15143-a of the CZR warrants the denial of the project. Thank you for your consideration in this matter: sincerely, Cfl PCAM M COMMISSION JJ Rsrpb CM Info/GP 2061 ,��BCPCMI , � 4rreo,ders, Chairman u It ,sa �:pl.1:lrvt. M11, (A ,(" v IIT. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND REVIEW BY PLANNING DT:VAPTMENT: 1) SHASTA DRAINAGE"' DISTRICT Opponents state that exist2hce„of District d000 not present Justification for .rezone. Y �l a Proponents state that Drain �: Oistrict Was f6rined to accomodate future residential. growth-',-,”'Pj:c�p 17r,�nets also a.r'rply a relationship between tares paid into jr�;he I`( �� and deve7 opmeht rights. Planning Department revo.rw .�` r .,ation, a' of Shasta UniC Drainage District has rd'u.., �.:ia' , t".ne of lithe primary reoohs for District implementatic.; a's to ez..�ance development of this are,-a. A map of the Distri ^• i --rind the)/foll.owina doccuments are attached at the end of the t.I.R.: l� a. Chico Enterprise Record Editorial dated n/lc/63 + 'I b. Ad to solicit participation, Chico Enterprise Record, dated 8/23/63-.� C. Cooperative Agreement"between the State and Butte County, oUtl.ininy' the ,»rimary reasons for formation of the Drainage 1 District. The Planning Department believes that these documents show a commitment, r,tleast in 1963, tp develop the area in the Shasta Union Drianago�-'District. ;.Any decision on the Bartram project shouldweigh the historical commitment of this area to residential g development aq:nst the environment& impacts presented in this Report 2) GENERAL PLAN Opponents ;state that- rezoning is inconsistent with Butte County and Chico Preliminary General Plan, Proponents state that only the proposed 11R-4" zone conflicts with the Butte County General Plan; and that the Chico Preliminary General. Phan designations are not appropriate considerations since i this rezone is entirely in Butte County. �- Plann�,ng Department is of, --he opinion that the butte County Gens- ;> eral Plan conflicts itself on this area. The wand-Use Element allocates a 1-4 dwelling,unin t%ate density for this area. HoweVer, the more recently adopted ^rlonservat.idn and Open Space Ele%,ant states agricultural prime g..us,�1anal. soil should be allocated for st ` y g The Planning Department considers the t"h:co,Preliminary General Plan as an applicable Plan in the areai however, the unadapted Status of t'he Plan considerably diminishes it8iapplicability, 3) PtSCAL IMPACT OV DEf1EI PMENT Plmt'4=6 riRoM_ EZONE APPROVAL `* COppon ' t8 believe adverse fiscal impa;ct will resultfroln appr6va.l of this zoning., ThePlo.^ments are based upon the assuumptiondthat S government pprovided er�iyces iin he area will. Have accomodate a0l,ditional population, and' that to provigd'_ such expan- sion higher taxes will have to be levied. Without :r-..aised taxes such services might, run at a deficit, and tbOrefore be ad,rcrsely impacted. r` f thbsonents locationithan a:riaanother locatx��nadverse fiscal mpact is no w��rse in _ y proponents also believe a generally well rounded provision of ,"service~ is available in ;} the area, therefore reducing impact of more costly original provision of service. The Planning De nartment requests an objective 'study, by ;a repu- table consultant, be done to determine lisca-1 impact of the pro- posed project if such information is determine\4 necessary to complete the Impact Report. 4) AGRICULTURAL LAND Opponents coiitend that the proposed project WI J l adversely effect agricultural activity in the area, p parcel size, ,s presently too Proponents state that � o small to maintain as v-`ablb agricultura':l units. 'Ct is also stated that the area has "5receivad residentia" _gX0W�ii,''pressure:. Planning,,Department recommends a firm policy deaigned to protect prime ag'rxcultural soils. Such a policy should include sc:ii type and viability, existing use, pLircel -size and definition ,)f agri- cultural unit. A comprehensive analysis of f,rinzqe areas co-uld- be completed and proper designations could .bp,_ established. By this 'action decision-making bodies would elnate costly delays accrued, by applicants in areas where urban Lid agricultural uses intermix. jl IV" ADDITIONS TO SECT, IO s NS OE THS k; . I : R 1:) ENERGY MITIUATIONS a i ;Public transit to this area would imply an overall con,se,�,vation clfos&�Il fuel, forms by reducing, passenger-miles/gallon of b. ,tIo hogsos would conform to Butte County Building Code regulate ! n's noncerning energy cons rv'ation and insulation techniques. The rezone proposal could .be droppe ,,nd the applicants col u L l peti- tion to.ann?11 t to the City of Chico: `The subject property would then be aVai,,lablo to the Chico Sewer System c,hd Would be under City Of Chidoland us�f ju isdiction. If the subjo:ct property were hoofed into the .41ewer system, higher densities,; couy.d by reached in y ani re,§idtintial development. Potential long.,teirm impacts on water gu.tlity' bould be ,,ritigated by ,severer ct� vection,. .f .,.__. ..,.. `z.... ter' _.. ..,..,_.. ._...:. _.. ., ...'. ...:......:... I ....... . 10�a. Chico Enterprise-Recorjl Friday,: August 16 3963 Chi o Enterer' ROOM M, IL4D&`E.NDFNr W''WSPAPE It - Publfshed every, ever ng except StLvr y at 700 Broadway;. Chico;. Calif.. by The E6_—prise Publishing Co:, CHICO PHONE' 342-14Z—ALL DEPARThtEiM I� r -t E. OFFPARADJS—PHOMIZ Tli 744-- 9AT i CY N A: i EDT 4 R' l '; L '`Mainline hL3rl el" 99" Newspaper - Member A diC n,�eau. of $� Circulations Since Au; 19I6 NT SGX ROBERTS 3c AsSuGTATEs riiational Advertising Repro, sentatives. — San Francisco, Los Angeles.. Seattle, Port a, Nev, ForX_ Chicago,, Detroit;.. Denver Entered as Second 0 -ass Marler ac Postotfic- at Chico, California,. under the Act of Congress- Adjudicated a newspzper of general circulatfos by court decree number 3&,� & w-,_PRABIWELL, Editor an&Pub6sher.- j 3ilt'I.ee; Managing Editor:._ PdiIan blarney; City Editor r t pour Lynch, Advertising Di ector. Robert. C'affle; Advertising blgr: .- GareyFgeihef, Promalio¢bTanager '.LesEarle, Circulation Mgr. $'" a. - .per c �A dotter of.Gpolrtcance: 3o I' onh C ico ihmgs nsidered„ it 'must -be` admitted that th&Dhfea commun ty has found: the State Division of. Highways exceedingly" cooperative in planning and constiuction of the freeway route fog; Highway PM i' or e_Yamp i 4& state solicited, and is following,, ae advice, of- "Chico. -city and -park, officials_- on: the mattei.of landscaping.` of the new route. In specific;. : th'ilhigl way off LiaT_.-;-a.nkTy admitted that they need- e_Verience`-based,op nic us.of local people on the aeiection. of trees' `shrubs a -r: %,tier greenery to meet. tl e+,fuuctional and:: aesthetic pai'poses of landscaping: -� . As a resr�itr the Iandscapii3g' program will}fit in hell` with. the geneial`cliarac:ter of Chices, appearance and: wilI,.. in fact;=enhance the community's "eye •ap- , peal'° alone the nevr -router e `' r Simffarly, the'3dghway officials worked hand`in: hand: wilt both, -city and county officials on: the en- gineering and construction matters pertaining to in " tdichanges andrfra€f e routing- As a result, traffic routing and movement in the community itself;. as well. as freeway access and exit arrangements; will •fit in- with- plans and dimands set by our own local officials- .FossiMy of greatest significance, however,, has - heerr, the cooperation: of highway and Iocal, officials on the. -important. matter of drainage- Standing- waiver •(rainfaIl and .other types: of _run-, of water "with nowhere to go")'is- probably the most unpleasant corse -:of poor planning and development 1ir"boi;h. urban: and agricultural ren ons- All of us have at one- time o: zCiother motored through -residential orfringe area'farnr regions zd,been appalled at pools of`"standing water_. '.- Luckily,_ the -;Chico area: -11's making substantial; 4 progress in meeting the= problem of standing water., This is because uitelligent programs of storm drainage planning- and construction have been carried out in both=county;%id -city regions of the community- In .some: instances, the programs have included correction. i' of draiitagz problems` which existed in hastily -Built subdiytsions whkji had neglected adequate drainage planxting: r ' t ah i A, good deal of this sort: of progres§ per.':enced lir connection with: construction of, the free- -,v --y. The= highway-'department'ha3• cooperated - ad- mr�at'ity—with birth- de.-ign- acrd. financial participation � a city and countyd coinage- programs_ - As a> xesuif,. not only has: the freeway in the sr uthenn sections- noir under construction NOT in it-, self created drainage problems, it actually has helped"' solve and avoid such problemsfor the entira com munity- Atthe moment, :interested citizens and coin- munity I-eaders in the North Chico area are engaged in an effort to solve existing drainage problems and forestall even greater future troubles • with watee, j -v which otherwise might have "nowheret-_ go.' Wor�ing presently in cooperation with the Chico Chamber of Commerce and interested public officials, the;groug proposes the Shasta Union Drainage District to provide a main drainage outfall line for their area - 1 ,-r=e i fat -.a a. syMM-0T=Mrn" (frets, 7 underground drains: and. curbs and gutters in the - mediate. reg' present 999 -.North' business, clic''• ;.t to .assure full --width paving. and proper drain ale- These latter facilities would not,,constitute an. obligation or_ the proposed district al" ,'iLme; however;:-'% but wouI'd Tae financedseparately by'those properties , involved. # , The, proposed ;district` truly`iv important to the devilopment future of the area involved. Icor- example,'u less -:his district ora similar one J.-. *fumed, the region will deprive itself of the financial bene -fits -of participation, by the state in forthcoming construction f theznext freeway unit_.If the area forms a, drai hge district, the highway division wili coordinate its construction program. to work WITH the drainage plan and will bear a part of the cast. But if there is NO drainage district, then the free- way builders -will have .no alternative but to merely place culverts along the: route and, do the best they can with water. It is clear, then, that the area has a rare opportunity to'- obtain help with a share of the financial burden by completing• district organisation in. time for participation by the freeway project. The state: has mentioned: -Sept' I as a. planning cutoff mate for this phase. Under the circumstances,. then, the time factor is important_ A side benefit: -butan important -one-is the pos- sibility- for improvement -af the present 993' -before' the 'state �i=rrrs f. over, to_county care and respons- ibiIiW.:J ' carts and_,'ja ers are installed' by tl,e front ing--property owne-s!, tha.state Trobably would: "four lane'Zithe street: s& a_ ;last Improvement before . re linqui§hment. Otherwise, -that, task will *e to be-' performed by the.coiraty, if atalI� _ .. .In °gaueraI, roR aver,. the greatest` benefits 4frotn;,TM organization of the drainage district Would be -derived . bye the. owners rl `property not now. commercialized this. includes e- en the: -householder, or.' the owner.' of small acreage.- z For. ef.mple,`vhn�standing, water is at tc „ the sala of even one home; it is an. even greater draw back.: io plans for commerci ,or. residential develop- - ment of Iarger plots:= SubdM :sd''approvaIs often -hinge on, the certainty °of adequate drainage—author ities �wiilLzot approve plans which. merely pass drain- age water•, -along to neighboring property.. As. such, the: existence of Ithe drainage district ivould do much to enhance development of existing undeveloped land in the region and to increase the value: of properties already developed. -It is to be hoped that the proponents will meet with suc:ess in fulfilling the requirements for forma- tion. of the drainage district, a� soon. as possible. The timea will" never be more opportune. , Chico Enterprise Record Editorial r August 16, 1963 Chico Enterprise Record, August 23, 196 afi x t 2 ax L'- HEi€B1iAW -Ash +� Al Y k 9p S 2 R :'JAF%$4K+.J�m����.Skry*GS.."SY.. S0..-aF✓.�Yo$_ :''�.7�-Yj �. s...^M ..-.ic=t.aw. ....�Caz• `...ter -� xr3.... .�-sN.a �ram'�.'Le..kx_ rff v D r A j THE KEY TO PROGRESS I WIN CHICfl A& sbowr is the: above illustration, interested citizens IL The bacI:ground of the mater is as-folIowss V the north Chico area; with the help and :sponsorship of (1, With small local exceptions,. the entire area. shown the:. Chico Chamber of Commerce, are hoping to form. a " falls to the northwest at around three feet per thou- --district which wtiL provide a main drainage outfall tine for sand` T 'alf zones- and a system of curb= inlets; underground storm (2) IVa main drainage ways exist in the area Many drains; curbs and gutters, full width pavement and four Innes small local swafes east, run hsr a ways and: are of #raffle i2 zones sand & .5 then blocked: none have anywhere near the capacity The plan is supported by your, Butte County Board of needed as normal growth occurs Supervisors. the, Denartment of Public Works,. the Chamoer of Commerce. and y nformed; property owners and business- t3 Development of the area increases runoff. the only mea- who recognize that lack of action can Iead to a --.tib- two possibilities that exist are to provide a place standard area and stagnation of development and: inevitably for this water to go or to allow the problem to get a decrease in: property values is the- area. The start of this more and nr3re. severe throughout the entire area chant reaction is already apparent and ultimately stagnate development_ If this occurs x LVithc-,,t pro_iner. _drainage, homeowners wdl, have trouble the cost at that tore of solving the`problem will be. realhff a lull value when. they wish to slit their properties, ipo vastly higher than now. _ street improvew--.ts can be made, particularly k ^urbs, and ut The reason the matter is important right now is aS gutters are inchrzii 1,t as this collects the water and -,there is,- follows �; ... . nwplace to -get rid. of it We know of one case as recent. as (1) The State feast tIeride how it. plans to" provide for julyaY cohere an owner failed to sell his property when: tiie - drainage past tib Freeway_ The two most logical prospective purchaser investigated and: learned: that an un- alternatives are: to work in cooperation with an it s zd drainage problem existed. Tfffsis a trend! The Board: , provement districtlas• envisaged above or.=s`unply of Supervi.Scrs will permit no subdivision: development in the pun pipe culverts under the Freeway at each low, area unless drainage is provided; no improvements of the spot.. Their investment for this v U be in the neigh increasing congestion; poor traffic flow and increasing rear hood of W5,M) proponents of the district feel that end -collision pattern ou Highway 9911 can be made until this will be a direct saving to the people in the curbs.. andg"tiem'eawbe;installedand the thoroughfare paved-- d :area if used for the main drain as shown above;. to fns' width:. Thr-- does not make sense until there is some,. - almost a total. loss is.*.:tent fog many relatively, l for the water' that wid be collected fa the gutters to small culverts If the distr.`ct is not formed; it 10ok5 ;F at present as though the State wi11 be forced to use the method, as no adequate outfall. channel 2 R :'JAF%$4K+.J�m����.Skry*GS.."SY.. S0..-aF✓.�Yo$_ :''�.7�-Yj �. s...^M ..-.ic=t.aw. ....�Caz• `...ter -� xr3.... .�-sN.a �ram'�.'Le..kx_ rff v D r A j THE KEY TO PROGRESS I WIN CHICfl A& sbowr is the: above illustration, interested citizens IL The bacI:ground of the mater is as-folIowss V the north Chico area; with the help and :sponsorship of (1, With small local exceptions,. the entire area. shown the:. Chico Chamber of Commerce, are hoping to form. a " falls to the northwest at around three feet per thou- --district which wtiL provide a main drainage outfall tine for sand` T 'alf zones- and a system of curb= inlets; underground storm (2) IVa main drainage ways exist in the area Many drains; curbs and gutters, full width pavement and four Innes small local swafes east, run hsr a ways and: are of #raffle i2 zones sand & .5 then blocked: none have anywhere near the capacity The plan is supported by your, Butte County Board of needed as normal growth occurs Supervisors. the, Denartment of Public Works,. the Chamoer of Commerce. and y nformed; property owners and business- t3 Development of the area increases runoff. the only mea- who recognize that lack of action can Iead to a --.tib- two possibilities that exist are to provide a place standard area and stagnation of development and: inevitably for this water to go or to allow the problem to get a decrease in: property values is the- area. The start of this more and nr3re. severe throughout the entire area chant reaction is already apparent and ultimately stagnate development_ If this occurs x LVithc-,,t pro_iner. _drainage, homeowners wdl, have trouble the cost at that tore of solving the`problem will be. realhff a lull value when. they wish to slit their properties, ipo vastly higher than now. _ street improvew--.ts can be made, particularly k ^urbs, and ut The reason the matter is important right now is aS gutters are inchrzii 1,t as this collects the water and -,there is,- follows �; ... . nwplace to -get rid. of it We know of one case as recent. as (1) The State feast tIeride how it. plans to" provide for julyaY cohere an owner failed to sell his property when: tiie - drainage past tib Freeway_ The two most logical prospective purchaser investigated and: learned: that an un- alternatives are: to work in cooperation with an it s zd drainage problem existed. Tfffsis a trend! The Board: , provement districtlas• envisaged above or.=s`unply of Supervi.Scrs will permit no subdivision: development in the pun pipe culverts under the Freeway at each low, area unless drainage is provided; no improvements of the spot.. Their investment for this v U be in the neigh increasing congestion; poor traffic flow and increasing rear hood of W5,M) proponents of the district feel that end -collision pattern ou Highway 9911 can be made until this will be a direct saving to the people in the curbs.. andg"tiem'eawbe;installedand the thoroughfare paved-- d :area if used for the main drain as shown above;. to fns' width:. Thr-- does not make sense until there is some,. - almost a total. loss is.*.:tent fog many relatively, l for the water' that wid be collected fa the gutters to small culverts If the distr.`ct is not formed; it 10ok5 . I? ace o a - - bedrained off ;: - z �' ' - « at present as though the State wi11 be forced to use the method, as no adequate outfall. channel The following data tins been developed in cooperation with rite County Counsel, the Department of Public Works and culvert exists west of�ghway 9�E for the water is collected a concentrated as shown above in the channels Rfngel & Associates,. Inc.,. the Engineers for the District, and as, best, of our knowledge at the present time: and running along the freeway. The State: must male. _ °L presented Tse purposes of this district are as foilows,j = ti eir decisiart an the method they will use by Qetrr >" (11 To provide- tha7 maim outfall dramag Tine (This is her 1st M) The State wilt cease to be responsible for Highway the "backbone' necessary for drainage of storm 99E uponcompletioar of the Freeway. If it is not water from the entirearea) four -land before this happens, the cost of this work MI To provida curbs and gutters, curb inlets, man- also, sr-.athing around another F00,000 for paving holes and drainage pipe system. and to get the State as. far north as shown, wilt be lit to the area. If to nave, a fol): curb -to -curb four -lane width of High- done Later, the cost must he born by localL taxes- axesway way99E before turning it back over to the County (3t of property v.:than the area cannot be �Y for mlintenance upon completion of the Freeway. permitted at pre-cnt by the County unless cra.nnage 2 permitted (Ti An allied problem which may may not he solved is permitted for Drainage onto a neighbor is not �. �. at this time; but which. should have a detailed cwt an acceptable solution.- drainage w a proper drain inalysis because of its importance to the enti;e channel obviously does not ext t for anything except a, ea. is the feasibility of makine the draLa strait certain limited areas; it is, t e feeling of the Cou ;t_+ ,{ insread O CrciO`,-ed as ih0«n. a..d iP.,r.`: fie a. � that the nest a^SRers will be a6feved tftr6l ;h. a:'Co- r _ ,.try serv-ce road provide also a tbro -n 4=e' from. Highway 3.'T on: the west to Highway 99E and, ' operative eq7ntabe e frill OF everyone cuccerrto_ the Freeway- y MWhat wilt it cost' -_ (Continued on `next page-) j j! (Continued from previus. page) The propaaed zones, improvements and methods of assessment for each zone are rnrtemplated as follows - Zone~ Proposed Improrem6at- for Which Assessed' Method of Assessment 1 Outfall channel only. Area of band' parcel. Curia and.gutfsr, work,. required' Sipe. and outfa(I` channel.. + F Combination of area and frortf _ footage or landparcel.. : s r - 3. Curb and, gutter work only. (No- drainage assessment is cats- Front=f4otags of Iend parcel. ` femplafed, since: finis area is- in an existing drainage district) r �..".. WiW size of Tho- District- shown above, pre[ iminary�zost. esfimates areas follows:" ' Zones the bids- of the- contractors who will compete for 1.0_45c t z_ mils)per square foot of land parcel this work on. opec. bid. If bids as fmaIly received: are ouf of line with- the estimates, they can be re- 4�3c per square foot of land parcel up to a depth of MW plus frontage: improvement: costs.*' )acted by the Board of Supervisors. X Frontage improvement costs * (3) Engineering coats will be charged on. an. hourly *Curbs and gutter contract prices average $1.85 to basis for the engineering work that is actually per- - V.Z-5 per running foot- driveways, where desired; curb' formed, not on a percentage of the cost of the pro- returns- and incidental costs will be included for each Iect- parcel. VL. Let us emphasize that the formation of the District Provhsioa is made: in the applicable Laws for the is- is a voluntary matter affecting the property owners suance of bonds to pay for the work. Payment may in the area- if it is to be successful it will require be spread', out over a:period of "5 years -at an interest a positive and af5rmative effort on the part of rate of 6% and may be collected along with. County those who wish to maintain the value of their prop- taxes- Owners• have the option of paying in. cash, If erty. if you take a "let someone else do iE' attitude, _ property is soW.tue bonded indebtedness will' be it may well fall by the• wayside. This would be 'a transferred. with- the property ED, the purchaser. severe economic loss to !-.eryone in the area ,'``Certain: limited adjacent areas can be served, by the The alternatives are; obviously, that if lite District is r.,. f District« may be included' if desired: ani could tower not formed, no main drains will come into being, no. curbs s:`; the overall unit costs n. that and gutters and four lane paving will be. installed, the State ' IE s5ould agora be pointed out these estrnates are .K. will very probably be forced to, install many small culvert size - 4,r tnse size of the District as shav!n Decreasing the size ` - pipes under the Freeway„ legal subdivision of ground in. the ,;44; of the District will, Df' course result in an increase- area vn71. remain at a. standstill; fhose who wish, to develop is ove.-aILunitcosts their property 3viIL be Forced info "bootleg' subdivisions or Wbat-protectionda the people of the District have outrageously expensive individual solutions of their develop - .,,against runzw costs? . _ , ,- f_- Mental problems and the: area may well remain much as it r�M-The officers-. of the District wM be your elected :. is or begin to decline -- Bbard of Supervisors. All work and, costs will he _ Those.who would like to sign,petitions orwish further directly under theirr authority. All designs must be ' information may contact- the Engineers for the- District; efn`cient and practiraI and w;II he reviewed by the Ringel it Associates, Inc - FIresiae= 3'3i4v;-the Butte County of Public Lliorks: ; r T; r f ;4. Department of Public Storks; ;ons of your local Supervisors `=, y.Depariment. 42keNo one can't. obviously'erontrol ar predict exactly or any of the faIlowing y ,> Chamber, ofCommeres • - ;342-4256 i, Royal' Mrllef FI 2-6463 D:: Vern M: Barfram L- Fl 2-1964 ' •" >' "` Joe Gauvea _ 343-3201 Milton Lee _ FI 2.3515: _ . _. • mamas► V -2-b COOPERATIVE AGREEMNT This Agreement,;:made and entered Into this day of 19 by and between the State of California, --`acting by and through the Department of Pub .le Storrs, T3 uialown of M&In ays, f herelnaftercalled tate: State, r- A the County' of Butte, a political sub v830T3 hereinaf top called the �'iralant.y. W'IT'NBS SETH: the stateG:2tLr.,TIItes ��sement o a port on of stake highway %Clown as. -D�gialative Route 3 by the eonstrzaction of a freeway alcng new al gnment- r orth of the City of vh, Ico; and 'fig, an unsatisfactory tory drainage condition exi.s is in the area fieri x811 between Undo, Channel- and. Thud Cr+e�c through �h�yi2 theaforesaid, pmposed State highway passess which condition subjects the area to frequei ponding and flooding during: periods of moderate to heavy rainfall, and 5, the County conte tplatsa-the construction of a storm drainage s�temiri the aforeiiaenti.oned ars$ between Lind Channel and Rud Creek to Improve the ex st ng unsatisfactory drainage condition, and to provide aderua drainage facilities for futur- - development within the ° areas and WFIMMS., the County contemplates tie: construction of curbs, gutter and a3�°s' nage on the existing oufit3 3 hett�reen Linda Channel. a c S=�iasta Avenue j- and X.� 3 after the Count constructs atzrb and gutter it will. be necessary to widen: the existing pavement for the- €3ra nage- to function,- properly,; unctionproperly ; and: WIMHAS, the State artc3 the County will mutually benefit from the Y aforementioned storaxdrainage systam and desire: to specify herein the reapons;°bility of each of the respeet3: A° parties;° !TC ', HE�FORZ in consideration o^. the premisea acid the sau�.uai �enax' is to aw derived from tiie perf'onrance of the nor} hereunder' deacrroe(r.; - the parties_ agree as follows ARTIP in cos alAerati` on: of the covenants of the County hereim— f ter contained and the faithful p2r10 n e thereof, the State agree:': { 1 To cause tD be const-ruated under State contract those drainage V-3 = • 75-7-2-999+770 I PETAL, TIT EMM, (75-RO ;, f xvni A-2 (Ganer a I) to C71 1> (Light coumercial') an.d S-1 (Subi-irbm) , .an 200 a0_2,:1( --.0r or located mo the V%V side of. YLaplanadG ba-hwc--,eYT, Rd A Jffia sty l AW'. Mr. MaAohrat noted th&t thk(--' 05tiji-zix-iy Chaco Genex,aO. Plan 010.9.61-gnated this area as me(aimi-density -,,H--h strip comme-rcial aloxic, the Bsplanade. He also noted that I - he rhv�zte Co. (1,anoral PlaA, Land Uoc B.Ifvaq-yL-p desiqnated J " � 41 "uses this area as loo -deny f'rosieteantial. Mi,, mclichren. rev t'e land on the proposed rezone area. v He stated that it was a mixture of orchards, row crops, wheato single-'FcMily res idmaces,,mobilo homes, mid a warehouse. Mr. Mmkchren said that he tho-ught that ...he soil cla!3siftcntion etas of a type xX cla8sification and that timm being sui-ZL:able for aqricultuve- The Cormittee reviewed the cl-jec-L-11st. ,;md x-,tarhmd a on i7o. Ir in relationship to the conoervM_-ion Siantont a apen Space Blement relatitq to the,ptleserva" tion of agricultural lands. m_ . M,,.A.chren disc7lssed -the Mild Cremk Rezone proposal %nd t'.nj e- O:E ,40n_�a , u haa boon suggest -ed for that particular area. A ITS Was also checked on No. 3.1 j,n ligW; of the :ract that the s-3. zoning beln�r proposed in the area WOUM alIOW 0,125 sq, 9t- ldi*.so and theveforer wotl-tl !.)e -one of the series oz acti.olle that ,nigh. zIqn,4.fiav-mtI.y dffect the rims. 1"S & is urel-re alc so marked YES mos��,'(y beaune if! tl-).e develop - ment wont it -that Pull, of the vtax.Lynim, potential within the pro- posed signi- Posed zones 'might be e.xpac-'tr,,a. S*tn�slaanttial ozounto of.: rutI -)ff a o 1 ficantly effect the hyakolotio OE tIld area. A TEAS �%a 6�so marked Oil Hos. 19, 22, 23, & 30. No. 31 was &100 Checkod QTS Vi th nbtall.ion conce.'MAIV,4 ,hj,je project's ability to aroalue trafr'lo crossiovor allong the IsIsplanade. mr, McAdhreft made a AlOIL-4011 ic-o req Iliz.e., an on this pno.)O.C.L. 6I -L Zindings 190a. I �, 2'. Thig Motion wag doconea b dy Mr. St traton. ACES:, pat tick McAchzeAt Evvard Tbuspjai-­to Ca, Y PIMIlevitr t),1170 qt'Ca-tZ--On# aAdD04 non M t kins. MOUS 2 gone tilotion barriad. ERC MINUTES 6/23/18 BAIIt.VMI# ItO#RX Map e,�alp - Review of infoM4tlon mbmitted tm�bmtcl propatatioh of draft VA.R. on Rezone (7340 Prom A-2 to'b-Ir Rw4j, ana S -I for 200 aoreb`k more or leas,lacatotd on W side of Bsplanade batuteen naton Rd & Shanta Ave. p Chico. The Committee qenerally fbIt' that tht) inf'otMM--ion submitted was Oita Auf- fidbent for the EnVitonriental Coordinat6r. to )#dpa)m the btart tr,169-, the data gas,,, -acceptea. BRC RLO# A. 701IN M Rev�ezf ,a:V 1'7r��'c from A-2 to C-2 2or 10h ai.res, more or jesg located on V side of E:sp�:anade r approx. 1507 � 09 � a�neroial St., cIzl oo. '0. BARTRAMj VVAIT M.,, MAL Raviecj o: Dr&et r.ioTz, on rezoi%e (75-94) from A-2 to C4, RW4,, and 8-1 fo.r 2017 acges, ATIOx:e Cid' 1008, located an TI side of EsPlanade � hetwe:!an Vaton Rd. & ha to i�rr�:» , C co, 0 i The. C cimm ttee gehcxall:y felt that both E.i.�t.a t�rere adequate, Mr. Strta�,tonl made a �not�.on to accept both F m Y. R. aand file a T3Otice or Completion. - mr'. II Flan.e?ry seconded this motion, 11 AYES; JaY MdXeeman, HOW& d h'otastaint o Gary Elaazery o Ann Dave Stratton. VOR8! None MOtIOn 04rried, ERC MINUTES 11/17/75 r., ;t l BUTTE COUNTY Pl[,AiiViNc, Co XSSXON VINDINGS :I afi �,ary, 8, 1976 f A. RBZONN 2. Vern; M, Eiar-m etal (9'Ile 75-84) `~ Rexono from".Cntek"im S-21, (Subixrb,an') tq� 111C-111 (Light Commercial),, "R -w4„ ui�„vr muyi, tens ty Residential) and "S--111 (Suburban)` p-roperty located ob the wast side of tsplanade between ratan Road and Shasta hve . d Chico. This i r. a vezoninq request to 11c-1111 IOR 411 and "S„1u from "interim S-2". The underlying permartent zoning is "A -"A-21' ( General.) . The Butte County General Plan recommends this area for low --density resi.clenti al, .1--4 du/ac. The Chico Ganii`Xal Plan recom ts.-Ms the area for thoroughfare commercial for the Esplanade frontage ea -L i agricul..- � to a1 use beyond' the caa Cage to the utee�•tz 'I';tt pro Cit ad Cen�!ral Plan recommendsthe areA for agricultural, Thete carsc> 3.sti'aa^�, r;ul �tercial uses on the Esplanade �`rontage. There; are a1,r, exis`s a,. -1q orchr ra and sin amily homes in tb.e area. ThIAre c'ix�2 numerous S�Algio-fan,,i ij,r homes on Bay Ave. to t2ie w,�at of the subject area and on the north side of Shasta Ave to the south. The extension of Baton Pond ?Aa�sy lryieenyyproposed the nlwr �t:h ;t�ndy they�tight�p-of--Ways{ {to i y zo .cured. The, Xatc 6i"^f rimi.4tural aJ.ioas 1�iY�„°tw',%eO Day A%rA. and the Lfs Yi j.�n' - nade and Mhast4",AVe. arra OS`,OUsod by toh-agri.ru4tut al tisn�A o i r z , X111 y hid a BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION \' MINUTES January 29, 1976 ` CONTINTJED FROM JANUARY 8, 1976; 1 Vern M. 8ar'4ram, etal, (rile 75� 84) - Rezone from "Interim 8-'211 Suburban) to "C-1" (Light Commearcia-1) "R-4,11 (Mavim`am Density=Re sider►tial) and "S -V' (Sub- urban.) pro rty located on the west side of Esplanade between Eaton Road. and Shasta Ave. Chico MIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; li % Jay bt t" Zetran sul�mitte l a sC�M', �1RY oP COMMENTS TO TIII I3ARTRAM BTAI, Y REZONIJ DRAFT ENVIRONMEN!r AL MPA RrP' RTS` , comrttentinq particularly on lettLrs from Jahn i.�uvaas dated 12/2/75 City of Chico, dated 12/5/75, u' State C learinghotase elated Vern Bartram dated 1/16/75 and t or. Olenr►:ICendall dat(,d 1/26/70 Iletat j�&, that, in his opinion, the Commission had two alternatives: To ,accept the ihfarmation as su.lamit ted (including -the addendum mentioned above) or: To recommend that. -a consultant be hired to provide additional information requirc•'a-.' TCS, answer to a question, he said that this area could he included in a i,echeral study of a lurgCkr apta and money couTld be requested fro -,d- the 13oa d to defray the cost or{l that the ot1Y 3` alternative WAh, that the apblicant would be asked tojpay the fees to provide information only about his project, (185) Opponents: Dr. Bendall expla Led (190) that it was tho applicant's understanding i t BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUIV�:S - January79, 1976 that the Environmental Impact Report would of cont in excess of $100.00, and he would not consider signing a blan)? check to the County. I Joe Ellingsent Dave Murray, Mike Pagaa and Jim Jori .;e all felt the Draft Environmental ISnpact'Report was , nsufficiont. Joe Ellingsen. 420 Lassen Ave,, Chico, said the schools in the area were almost at capacity enrollment and ex,l-ressed concern abovit addi- tional costs of transporting childrent by"bus, to other areae. (293) Dr, Kendall said that'he had boon assured that additional children would )--)e welcomed in -the Chico school District because enrcollment was down. Mr. Elliftq8en agreed that this ma}! be true but Was still con- cerned ,;bout transportation of the children to another area. Dave Murray, 53,6 VI 2nd Street, Chico, a member of the Ch ;'co City Council, said', (300) that the preliminary Chico General Plan now indi- dated no commercial zoning for this property--allaqkicultural#and stated that she economic impact to furnish services for• an area so,-.,,, tar removed from the city would be substantial, Mike Pagan, 1272 11ob# t St. (345) commented that It is time to ex - amino prioritibs-"--"(_"an we afford to allow development of prime agricultural land?" lie requested! that wishes I bf Lho City be,cbnsidered, Jim Jesse$ 127.2 11obart - st., C111cot said (375)"that the Draft En Vironmental Impact Repbrt itself speaks against this rezoning and that public sentiment of peo.,)Ie in Chico, in the State, and in the World is against this t,�pe of dowlopmento and that it is not necessary to develop just because the drainage Olotrict is there. Commissioner Watters (480) roquost-ed that a so,6iological study be mane (4 8 0) Commissioner 8ylVa itkcathe CbMiSsionetS � o review the addendum received totljht and askecl that thi.-N item bo conti.1jued for on(�.� week., RE 2014 E Chaitman o`�)oned the hoarihcj, and asKt- ,d if tilivono was in the audience who might hot be able to attend hoxt wook's meobiftq and who desired to speak at this timeTherc_u­-..no ronnonse, Chairman Sylvia then C01"tj naecj,,Lhit manor until Pebruttry 5 1976-4 BUTE 4i�OUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January S, 1976 2. Vern M. Bartram, eta! (file 75-64) -- Rezone from "Interim 8-211, (suburban) to "C-1" (Light Commercial) , "R-4" (Maximum Density -Residential) and 'IS -l" (', Ja;t urban) property ]Located on the west side of Esply �ade between Eaton Road and Shasta Ave. ' REZONE., Earl Duhn, 660 Maizanitao Chico, owns 1: 1/4 acres in the northerly portion of the R-4 zoning proposal,,. lie asked to be deleted from the rezone. There is a new steel building on the property and would tisk that his property be zoned commercial, This hearing will be continued OPW until January 25j 1916. h. 1 : I! if v BUTTE COUNTY PLANNINIG'COMMISSION MINUTES January �,', 1976 a Vern Bartram, Rt. 4 Boy! 544, Chicot stated that 200 acres is the min- a,mum economic unit for a1monds With the smaller acreages, tixelre are complaints bf ',,the blowers and oil burners for freeze pro- tection There is also a dust problem. Frank`'srazell, Cussick Rd., Chico, stated that Mr. Stiles owns 127 acres, and is unable to farm profitably. He speaks to the expense of faxming and that Butte County is no longer a profitable farming county. 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 minimum density residential. Commissioner Hanford stated that Mr. Luvaas' letter was complicated, and feels that some of the questions brought out in the letter should be answered and clarified for the Commission. Chairman Sylva, continued this hearing OPEN until January 29,1976L. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMI11S'SIQN MINUTES January 8, 1976 76--21--2=999+370 2., Vern M. Bartram, etal (File 75--84) - Rezone from "Interim S-2" (Suburban) to "C-1" (Light Commercial) , "1R-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 Appendix 3 of the EIR do not correspond, and that the soils map on Merlo"s rezone is dated 1925 and on, Bartram's rezone 1930, i 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 comments to the Environmental impact Report. was discussed. The letter is lengthy and will be included in the Final Report. Let _47er from City of Chico will also be included. Dr. Glr1in Kendall Suggests that major changes be made in the impact Reports. Pg. 3 in reference to the C-1 zoning. This zone is 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 8-1 zoning is In lieu of the present A-2 zone; Pg. 5 - 15143. Environmental Impact a.5 Disagrees and that stria zoning is undesirable in this area. 76-22-1-06b a,.4 ;:Whenever the population is increasedt noise, degradation ,;1 of air, and water quality are affected, as it would in any other area of the County. l a.!,.., Traffic would be increased clue to inr;rease in population, but feels that this area is appropriate, inasmuch as the Esplanade is a four -lane road; and that the close proximity of Eaton Road would accommodate traffic to the airport and shopping certe rs . a.2 Does not feel that leap -frogging is consistent wiAh this proposal:: a.l Although there is loss of prime agricultural land, no parcel in this proposal is a self-sustaining agricultural unit: Commissioner Watters stated that thane were parcels of 40, 59, 49 &: le ides. Feels that these,.,dould be viable agricultural units. +� 1� 'j through agricultural specialists it: has been Kendall stated thatnuld not be viable a ricultural units with the determined that the e � 5 'production of almonds. i MINUTE�SBUTTE O-FEBRUARYTY 1NG 5, 1971MISSION opponents: Dave Lantis, Route 2, 1616 Oak Park Ave.,`-''Chico, spoke against the project stating, ''If we destroy agriculture in this state we have, had it." Dave Murray, member of Chico city Council stated that there i5, tre- mendoi s public sentiment .against .the development, as against o'61hers , that destroy agricultural land, (585) Edward Myles, 1142 Windy Way, Chico, presented a petition with 15 signat%=,r s of geography professors and students &-, Chico university. 1 Joe Ellingson, 420 is Lassen, commented that we-are now looking at not just 200 acres but the whoae of northwest Chico. Barbara Copeland, Chairman of the Citizens' committee workinq on the Chico General. Plan, asked that this request, be denied commenting to the preservation of agricultural land . (855) n Jim Jesse, 1272 Hobart St., said he felt there should be more imput on this matter and that hearings should be held in Chico. The hearing was closed and motion made by tt;;�missioner Watters, seconded by Commissioner Smith; to: recommend denial of this rezoning proposal finding it violates thei intent of the General Plan of Butte County, the proposed General Plan for the City. of Chico and does not respect the integrity of the City of Chico. AYES: Commissioners Gilberto Hanford, Smith, Watters and chairman Sylva NOES: Commissioners Camenzind Moore and Thebach, ABSENT; Commis boner Watson, Motion carried. The applicants were appraised of the appeal period, l j 4 _ (_Iry ij BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'' MINUSES February 5, 1976 Jane Wood, Route 1, Box�,AI3-C, Chico, presented a petition signed by 9 land owners against this proposai Commissioner Camenzind -said- that Water Resources' suggestion that ' the property be annexe. to sewer in the city should be considered by the report. (999+10,;111) > is The hearing was "closad and motion made by Comms ssioner� Watters, 1. seconded by Commissioner Smith,, to find the Envi �onmental Impact p suffic"ient )since it does not pr o�ride adequate information; Report xn AYES: Commissioners Hanford; Smith and Wafter:.?, I40ES: C6mrftIss"ior _rs Camenzind , Gilbert, Moore, Thebdch and Chairman SyIva. ABSENTc�i Commissioner Watson. Motion f-aijedi. 14otiolv-�Was then made by,,,,(,,,-)mmiss34.oner Moore, seconded by "Commissioner Thebach,, to find the e'Avaronmental impact report sufficl,•4t�K With the ters above, as mentioned addendum added last., week t nd with the addition'-of the `let AYES: Commissioners Camenaind,' Gilbert, Moore, Thebach anal" chairman NOES Commilssioners Hanford, Smith and 'Watters „ ABSENT Commissioner, Watson. ' Notion carried. REDONE �, 76-26-999+201 proponents. Glen Kejda l 1W comment d that it is =no longer leasible to' rarm this property-hot economically feasiblo, and reminded .-the Commission of the existence of the drainage d-,Ustrict a.n �hhe area. He commented further that you cannot,tstart.u�low• and yioi'ie; agriculture ih this Chico area, (999+353'� n: BartrcrM, haute , 4 } Box 514 e also staved that farmincr is ,� unfeat l.ble. econoinicalllly. o 3UTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION t r, �0�..J MINUTES February 5, 1976 CONTINUED FROI, JANUARY 29, 1976 O D. Ri:`�L�:N IMPACT REPORT MM & CAC �.., & CONSIDURATIOII Or-! ENVIRONMENTAL, 1t].Vern Bartram( etal (File 75••-'84) Rezone from , 'Interim 'S�-2 (Suburban) to C 1 (Lx ht Co.mme'cc� a� ) 10R-4 (Ma::imum Density-Residenti-,U) aid "S-1 (Suburban,) property located on the vie st side of p d and h sta Ave. 1' Esplanade between Paton Road ;.7Gvl6-1-192 �> DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Letters were read from the following persons 7r 1. 'Wesley H Dempsey, Soils and i'gricultural . Consultant, Biologist, 824 Karen Drives Chico, 2. Ronald E Stewart, Mayor of Chico 3e Veva Edson, ,President, Leagl�e of Women Voters ofIA3utte County, and 4. Robert sanders, Chairman, Chico Planning Commissibn all Jon. Ellin senat420eweat�;Lassenatresenteds18�letters signedtby aatea. urging , agricultural -► p oral registering op pos i tion to this proposal. (288) of 25 residents re' Jay McKee aaan reviewed his last week: `s presentation con�ieirninq the alternata.l es facing the!�omm`,ssion relative to this erivix�oninental impact re�Nort; Counsel Rix reminded the Commission that tliey should "� � p -n p c$ ng alwa e hive a suffice ent Envy ranmental Impact Report prior to ma] a decision on a rolect. (595) Glen Kendall commehtod (68E) that :no persons owning property adjoining the project or living within the area under consideration are against the projectIi klack were nehPdedtho re ardirir�economisuto- 11 .ofufar'manhicoLawso end that more, facts ' tlz was coxic� shed g g about lack of treatment of the effects oF' �t,�`ys proposal on the sclicol s Vern tartram, Route, 4, Box 526, Chi:cop spoke in favor,, of the pro ectk � "r , . " 1 livin , o1' 5 or ' .Ogacres in;� th. Chico area, an tendency o + y d he..�wxsc %n, og the Dr. of everoefs �1.. Es lan�dey Chico, uesi.a.one+ r added that .Hauch: agr`idtAtUleal land was lost is method. BU,I"I'1'x CQl1N�i� .INNING CbMMTSIC�N � MINUTES - peg.._.-:ary 10) '1 77 r� �%,.. MISCELLANEOUS r1. RFFERRED TACK TO PLANNTNG CONOVITSSION BY BOARD OF S �UVISORS WITH lt.EIQUEST THAT A NEGATIVE D1 CLARNT'ION BE FILED 1. Bartram Rezone w mile 75-84 �- Rezone from A-2 to C,`.i,, t`,_4 a'nd "S-1 for 300 acres, more or less; ioca.ted on the guest side of Esplanade,' between Raton Road' and Shasta Avenue, Chic'a 77 -til 1-464 Counsel Siemsen sfated that t4,c problem of the Bartram Rezoning tivas under study by the I nvi roji.montal �'oordi nato°r incl that do - i .r ;ard ng i���ironr`��._ioatal. act, will tic mane by the 130ard of Sup�,,,Tvisors In x�aspox se; to a cjue fi�,c�` -`rom. Gommis; iontNr Watters as `to whether any request had b,eon nia�'.e of the F'oordinator to file a Negative ?)ec� ,arat on Reg, 11-A ironmental Impact, it was stated that lip direct request was made bot the BohTd minuterInst uct d action .s indicated on. th6 .gonda. -a Commss�ner Danford then made the a_,umptionChat the Bartram r matter would again be in, Cront of the ,A*;ommissxrn. on sonto, ``ndetrr�ttiilate date. No action was taken. .l ; 10 ; s F City of ChIm, They wrife^ tri, f lit', OM -,f ; ���r �9 aaw����4"s ,: �i 4", i0' Oiai nsn tlio proposed � C ar7irat� iia` property lc a »:t e7ct " u ,� a ` ��'�'s "a't4*iC e.n 'licz.t i Avanue and prop ext-onsion of 1.1-ofon Averim, ,u'ul;i y, i; rind lt'vQ►ter. �f Bch,. of. SuLaQrvitsors Minutes — 2/10/76 I 11 �I t1 Y fl f i J - i , Aw h , r Friers of Butte County. A petition +with 18 signatures is'filed appealing the Planning Cc)m nission's approval of an EIR on the 'Bartram et at rezone. Set for hearing on March 23, 1976 at 2000 pm. R. N, Connelly, D.V.M. and HarolciW� Petersa�, gChicoR The gentlemen appeal i 11r, the Planning Commission's decision in den in the e'tition rr Varn M. 'Bartram t et at in Chico,' Set for hearing-ori h4arch 23, 1976 at 2:06 p.m. r , , . - f S;tlervisors l nut:? 2/24/76 , 4 hAarch 23, 1976 at 2000 p, m a I, Vern t Bartram, el- al - Planning Commission report of denied rezone from Interim S-R4"(suburban-residential) to 'r --I `,-(light commercial) 11,v " (maximum density residential), and 'S -R,`; (suburban residential) property located on the west side of Esplanade, be' tureen Eaton Roadand Shasta Avenu age 136. February 24, 1976 ji tt Ld cif 8uptrw=sons lAixtu es, - 2/12 8d j II S r - Gerald E. Schtaller. Sends letter opposing the rezoning of Bartram et of property in north Chico. To be held until afternoon hearing on this moffer. 76-457 PUBLIC HEARING: VERN til. BARTRAM, ET AL: DENIAL OF REZUNING FROM A 2'TO and R-4 PROPERTY LOCATED ON WEST SIDE OF ESPLANADE BETWEEN EATEN AND SHASTA � f AYENUF. CONTAINING 200 ACRES, MORE OR i.ESS, C:HICO J ' The public fearing on tie Vern M. Bartram,, et al appeal of denial ;of rezoning From A�Z. to C-1 and R-4 property local-ed on west side of Esplanade between Eaton and Shasta, Avenue, containing 200 acres, more or less, Chico, was held r_ts advertised. .dam LaWsr n , Planning Director, ser out the background of the appeal. Planning Commission recommended dental of'the rezone. V Page 209» I i March 28,, 1976 Id, o� Supervisors m-1t tes -- March 23, 1976 �i ,, March 23L 1976 Chairman Cameron opened the hearing to the public, App.ea-ing, ?ern, M. Bartram, Mfr'. Bartram stated that there has been a lot of growth in t :e area... -`He pointed out three similar areas-, listing them as 1. Baton Road Subdivision,, 2a: Z. Green Barn- and, Shasta Inn, 3., $5 unit mobile home park.. Went on to further -describe _ the development in the area.: He wants an S-1. zoning for 12.6 acres. Mr -Maddox,, representing one of the property owners in the area, Arley Ffowsd2n. ,' He read a statement prepared by Mr.. How sden stating that he owns nine acres adjacent -to the area proposed for rezoning. He stated that the County Master Plan calks for low density in that area. He stated that cooperative planrina :should b.2 the rule. He stated, that 5G percent of the propertyowners in the area were against the proposed rezoning. He also stated that the Drainage District`Vx s- formed. against the wishes: of the property owners in the area.: But that they were having to pay for it. But that it is not poss _ bM to farm -this land,: because o€' the; ,declining return, from the almond crops. _Spoke in favor of the rezoning_ " Dennis Hampton; He supports the ­�-_azond-as it will permit the owners to develop the `"land'. - Lois Hienze; Mrs. Henze represents the League of Women Voters,. Mac stated that. they have studied ,land use and that they arecommitted to preserve the agricultural land n this area. They are against the rezoning. ' Supervisor Richter asked' Mrs. Hienz how she responded' to: the fact that the}Y were forced. 1-r-zto a situation where they paid' for the Drainage District,, but were, noc.7 not able tor use it by developing the land:.. Mrs.. Hienz responded that they should be compensated but that the League wanted to keen the land in agricultural zor�i:ng. Edward' McCain Brom: the Assessment Drainage District,` Mr,. McCain is also a land , ` owner.. He gave his point of view in an historical and moral fashion. He stated that he was the project engineer for the drainage district He gat=e details" of the �orFnation of the drainage district, sang that the value of the district is only reflected if the land is developed. He requested an C-1 zoning, stating that this is a Iagical.-step down from the other zoning.: He said that if the property owners were not allowed to develop they may be in a position to recover some of the money_ Supervisor Richter asked County Counsel about whether.- or not the money could _ legally be recovered. Mr. Blackstock respondedrsayir_g that w-fth the A -Z zoning it is unrestricted;, the proposed zoning would be more restrictivc.It is a -question of whether the public would be benifi-tted by the zoning.. Response is negative. Gar1 Ceverenz, A iorneyat law, jfor Mr., an& Mrs. William Ward. He stated that the Ward s, were opposed to this zoning,say:ng.rhat it would do damage to the asthetic o4ma5phere of the area. If this development is all, %Pd to take place, a der�anc. Il be mag_ naffed` as we have seen it 'in the `Lassen Avenue and Bsglanade/area--. 'This zE ning could not handle the sewage_. ;Urges denial of the proposed rezoning�d Melvin Harri:ngt Mr. Harrin9 said he was a property owner in favor of the rezoning.. He added that the drainage district has not done any good in this area, also statins. that in heavy rain there is no water in the ditch. Tax`s have gone up and now that you to keep -it in agricultural land:, this is not feasible. Board then presented with a petition,, given to the clerk.: Bob Donnelly, is a -roperty owner is *he area,:: he also commented on the drainage district, He stated that nobody has a --:y mare demand for proper drainage then he, the only trouble he ever ha -1 wao with his leach lines.. E lained: the problem of inr`lated tax's. Is in favor of the rezoning.