HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-84 8C TY 0 F C H I M? ' CA
OK'k':CE: OF i' r- UI'1'Y PLANNtR-P 0. E1C3X 34VA, 959$-45 _
'TELEPHOWE (916) 343.44o1 - AFTER 5:013 P M,� 34�-73:31
�Secrereee
Freetkcn
day M'Ueeman, Environmental,, Coord'i nator
Butte County: planning Department
;:7 County Center Drive
broville, California 9)955 ,; December 3;
1975
Re;.','Vorn M: Bartrams dtal Rezone-Environmental. Impact Report
/
Dearr Oay:
, � y 4raues,tiny commealts�'
Reference made to our letter of November 25 197q 1
is
re1 ati ve
to the above Mi I
pft'er`�reviewing the above EIR, we.,would IIIko `to make ttfe fol lowing commentsy
� The onviv aspreset, i n "Seotio•n 151 �i3-A of
1' p ted
1
t`I e �artramfbEZRaadequatelym1 the Gi ty's concerns relative
l
to the enviHnmental impacts of the 'proposed rezoning,
L Though the following comments haVe been presented in past
comnlu, lcations, I believe they, sI'til l apply in the revir w of "
the.,r't.ram CIR,
Section 1-a10 -c, Mitigation moasures prop6�ed to
,(a)
minimiz�(the Impact.-
As per C. � A. Describe av
Qf � � oldabl e sidl'.�r, �� impacts,
I > including inefficient and unnecessary censl�lnptian of
energy and the measures pt�Ltlsod to minimize those
'
impacts..
� '�• measures which are
The sion shoule dea,,J with `
discut
incorpor ted within the project with the intent of
reduci ,avoidable adverse impacts of the project.
,the
°i T116 Bar., • , ;, EI, fails to bi fete proposed measures,
Rathers the discussion deals with alternatives which
should mcrp appropriately be dI"scussed in Section
1h143�d alternatives to Oe .proposed action,
b) ,Section 16143-0 Alternatives, ` o the
( �' � propas� I action,.
You are reminded thy;uguidelines state; "� � ,the
specl,ric al ternatfVeS of ' No ro,� - t r must always he ! :
evaluated along with the. impac. i
r
i
` v1 I
j
_ ..
�Raie ONCtiiif�srnia
: ., _
i
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
iie oiandu
Memorandum,
To. : Mr. L. l rKxrtlr COod on
v,
Projects Coordinator
Dole, DECD 91975
The Re0our00" Agency
Resources:I?u.t.:lcl:i.�ig, :l.3i�h Floor
!n Re PAY Rider
Too��'?��+a,tl
From s STAVE WATER RES�,')UkCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISIO.M 'OF PLANNING' AND RESEAft"
�ecPs RE�%'xI�W OI3' NO"'1(�r C71�' :�N'1'rNT SCI•I '
Sub'751e",011'T
Vern NI �-�'�{,��� e't.� . Rezone
The (jr xat t "alR 01101"0d 000cribo the,�uo),IraeJ
Of W(t er q;ua.lit anss
Arid aoc�.al,ed rp °t; L ;at,lr�n
of taotcnt Ial degradat on
naeasu
[j,
The 4?40•Grovnta R�,;ti.hna�. WateP Qalallty
It,taS expresaed�, interest the
r �.
Control Roatxj, Central Va:2,'r,$
:in
arena. �,�.� ti-je city off' G1r,l:brr�e Sewage system.
pooaibjll.tr;� o,t ^cinnectin� t,�te
If an alternallve is
EIR 11ho 1d d.j;orue;3 the
on water, quality,
Of tho alt;erna,t ivei,
THOMAS2. BAIlYY) Act.1n), C111_0f",
�
Division or Planning and Reo,,joarctl
li S
I
u.
Ct LXrx ,- jkNTA WATEU SERVXOE COMPANY''!
December 26, 1975
iz00 NOnTIT TritsT STRur-T
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA
AUEA 40$
298-1414
n i
Butte County Planning Commission
Courthouse
0 Qroville, California 95965
Gentlemen
We have reviewed a copy of the draft environtrtental impact
report concerning approximately 200 acres located on the
west side of Esplanade between Eaton 'toad and Shasta Avenue,
r, known as Project No, 75-84, Chico. _
tti ,
We have no comments at this time:
Ver o'ry,
Y tui` Y yours,
CALI 0011, WAM SERVICE. e0MPANY
�arZA H�l; imei i
Assistant Secre ary and
Assistant TrLiasurer
1111E vip
Mr, A'R, 'Soule
r}.
J2 S I
i
I f(/r
369 PINL' STRtE'r SUITE 320
ASCO, '61ki -A 94104
SAN rKANC CAL11 N1
December 30, 1975
1-te (%pircy Planning commission
J`- 'Co th by� Center Drive
3.
e, CA 95965 Re: AP 44-03-140
tea mon : Mr. L. J. Lawson
Director of Plahnihg
j ;Gent Omen:
,n today',gmail we received two notices of hearings regar.,1 g
the I.,".bzoning of certain properties near the intersection "A tatoill�
Rbad`�nd The Esplanade which are of vital concern to us:
-We arethe owners of Asses sor'O Parcel #44-03-14'0 on the we
side,',of The Esplanade, some .3001 so'u-�h of the proposed extension
ofd
f 424'at6n Road. This parcel contains a relatively new 12,000 scut .."_1
'foot' fabricated steel building, the prime purpose for which W'O -1 A, I "J� Pr
require that the prope.,rty be zoned C-2. The property was zoned',
A-2 at the time the, building was erected and is now in the tempo,
nary or interim S-2 zoning: ,the front 5000 of the next norther
5501,�fkontage on The Esplanade is also owned by the undetsigne
and �118 Zoned C-2. One of the reasons for acquiring Parcel #44
140- was: to increase our C-2 frontage on The Esplanade.
The Planning Commission Meeting on January 80 1976 is to kt'py'
other &,ihqsi a request to rezone Parcel. 444-03-140 from Chkl"
intorim 8-2 zoning to R-4 zoning, which would, make out wairehousq,-t ;k
Sincerely ro
leq�h non -conforming Use. -We 'would,. therefore,
tha'L# (a) the subject parcel be withdrawn from .
th('; interim 83- 2, zq,4, *,'4ng,"
(a request for extension of which is to be heard by the
Supervisors on aanuary 6th), (b) that out parcel be deleted frpv�
th•e request of A-4 'zoning under Item 2 of the notice of the P j.
hg8 on Jan "a
comissionis heati uary 8th and (o) that,the subjedf
cel (#44"03-140) be, rezoned C-2 for the reasons stated above,,
Would you please forward to Us the forms to mike t�ib
Alapplication for regboihq.,
sincerely,
M & Ir INCORPORATED
MDJ/mpM h
r, Batl L
cc M
M, b,, jayted
Vice Prdsideht
u
GOVERNOR'S 6FFICE
'OFFICE OR PLANNING AND RF-sEARCH
1 400 TENI,-el ,�pTREET
SACRAD ENTO'�95A14
' r-DMUND G, BROWN JFt, � �1
GOVERNOR 4 7
m�er:, 31, 7975
l✓ �:, (�
11 ,. a ,� .. �5 ��
Mr. Jay Dickeemaiy
7 County Center Drive
OrovilA 95965
'le C t\
r ,
1�
Dear Mr., McKeeman.
SUBJEC'P t SCH #75120117 - DRAFT EIR FOR vrRN M. BARTRAM,� ETAL Y
REZONE #75-$4
1�\ � .letter to you dated 12-3-75) the State Clecaringhouse
verified your compliance with the revi'b,.-'procedures contained
:iii the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Qnalityy Act, The a.t;tached comment was transmitted
1 8 tier e. Please respond .to its
to the t✓lering}lv.t�e at 1a
required.
-- - Sincerely-
William G, kirk lam
Management Systems Officer
State Clearinghouse
(916) 445.0613
IVGK/mcci
Attachment
cc; Mavy Schell., State Libra: ry
;
Thomaa E. • Bailey, S!VRCT3
y v..
t
u
�1
0
I
v
J'
January 13, 1976
Rt. 4 Box 54
Chico,,-�CA 9,592E
r , ,
D4ax M r e Bartram:
`\
�
?1t 14-i r�cjuiar meet:inq
of the Butt cc.y�tzty .'? f'ny nC, clommi ssson
11n1r� Jatxuar 8r 1976, tYp hearin `an your aijPlication kor rr--
zoningY
from AW? to C-1.
M . r �ronP�•ty 1t ca,t od Wnl�' t+' tapst
side .of the IisplanadA,
?betaq. e. Laton Jtoad & S,�as, a ,"stip
brae Continued to the m��t
nrj ,sr h� �tded �9.r January 2h 1916,` 1
The mp�.t»inc,r will cor�mpnc,
at 7 n �9 n .m. , Eigarc� off•xv3oro
gafir Cib, = � Administ;ratsor.
� �r zn '���;
I�i�ildjhq, l.$59 Lit }\��� t ('fix«vi lle
• ,
�
8ho�t�.d c hav$ any- u'stidhs
� .`�` `,jr � �'
_ t- y'
..j 7:..��...C��.$'f,� this �1c���;MZ'r ��,�asn _.
tact
oQti this C?��3.C� `
� !
'1
LAWPENCE TIMis 00
Ditpoto r `of Pl.annin
T I�
Barbara µWw,, bp_,1114 1SOf
7 {
wry
vV
» ff F
j Ahico, cAliforqlao,
January
-
mr awrhece J: Lawson
Dir uO for of 11 xtte tourity plann'.ng pepartme4t
Or-oville, Ca. 95955..
Dear Mr. Lawso6'..
`r
Ati your stKaff riir?mbers YeView t o E, x TZ, on ^the 'rezoning pr,a ject number
�� 1 7,5-844 our grouW'wishes the contents of this letter to be "considered " Part_ �
one conc;orns the points in. th-e letter of Dec. 1, X1 ,75, of at;tornoy Johra
Luvaas
1 • sectlon
We concur-that the phrase 1�doey not appear realistic" should be removed.
You may wish, 'to consider the cl r�inaiAon of that entice r,,,aragraph-(the 2nd.
paragraph of b 3) . Although accurate, it likeyy is inappropriate a$,,-,,a tmrrt
oi"- the rr statement of the ob, ectives, etc, but"rather show � ,�a� cr�ns�.dered
3 g � _ r r emai n�
dereoftthat� arasranhotifzMr nLut�a s O would as fol lovr on the
p g p
A. r'Fermittln -�.a drainage
eSadncerihis etc. an Wordy ii�b�rri ttin " � rob�ab,'
g �J : :r g p "
should be r'tstalAishmeat of of the hoard o
�
}. "The krainge ,3: trict would be useful for ten or twenty acre ar ,rcolt
urr.,1. parcelt" etc. � i believe it impossible to find an authority on lanr4�Use r
who ! bel i'
a draih,46o district would be needed or useful -'Or, fAirming � 0 land un'�ei consideration.
r nCd�r'h c�untb':{ shout trrcan; id?j: rP�iinburseme4t of 6to,ilt�ty 6i�aers ,, r these
`` C • '} raI!
xpesl ouch ,rcirnbursomminwouldbe cons.iderabl.y '>l��r� eLc
Gnt1c ax *hit if ih n� on�ng r✓texe to„restr� restrict th ,t3ae ? u k c�,,E� riculture,
1 r��' at1G°, t° dot m,n 1 tie pwu�'6>:'`ty ``nivr►� s should be reimbursed. Without ,:o"imburn+�r�,.nt,
wot.41d be con.fiscat`l, y to' she property owner, batt, can what cps. is has she
c ,tir»lus> `i that c.11 reimbu> nernerit 'rwoul.d be ct:n iderably costly to the
t4a �1ye �' etc r^ IJ` ,,tjja+s statement to be interpreted as mooning t;h'at population
increases in 'this ar" would be more costly than 'Wn other .areas? �tle believe
that the cosi' f ervics such as eUwod not be
i
mat6riall y dif:Fero- hr-ire than in other parts of the county, and, rp n Trans
)ortAti0h, c&hside.ra'bly Less. We believe the streets an.) hlghwaya now.. Dere
and (Eaton (toad e��ension With iLs right of way airoady given to
the (Oun;try, a most to Say Aveo) are unusually adoquate as main arteries for
any Tutu; e dvelcspmenif°"'rhich the ,pro;ta,��donir�ri wand allow.h
9. )~b leap»frca�v
;rtdeelopm6nt into that area SIA.- appear to be a
statement based on Ina'bUtLtd The facto are:
It is ad jacgnt to the S 1, zone grid development along Shasta Avenr,e+
It is adjact;,, to the 8 2zrhe and r iavelopmenL "the comr.leto dict once
on the tk`est It
ommercial zotids and
dohwerc, �l and�re 'de cent r3,a�u ldmestlalongesf cth� t1planade, plus rove?e
division just beye�,nd` 8a'ton Roads
2r. Section 1514', !:
( With*,"tahe semi-urL ni od are4'to.` -Lbe north of Chace � $ inacCtt� aterr„
(' hr.;�6, ;,d..,ia' well beyond the fringe of any uzbgniz ationrr�
is def4hed in tido dictionax-y qv, "to c4u8e to have (;haracter-
isticsPof the city, rf If this d0f101tien 19 to e Accepted, the staetmetitt in
the B.1,R. a' paars to bo ro;�morr ably, accurato � city has bub tftess housea t
i 1 = nxq f
`
ykY"r h .c • , f,
�
L.l 2
apartments, single` f tn9,ly ,homes:open„C,pace$ etc°, :etr. $0 h r t;h ~ arY,ttt
around the pzocsecl �oriing are a=even:xtpiding ,)eyoild thin, that 1 s, . t:ha'
Grey Bain ap::*tmetilt dompl.ex, the >Yiubile, home.' ceat:er” next GCS Kud CreokC the
commrcl<:deveTloptents alone the >;splan�att, t�iubdvis�,r�1�,irjacen to the,
i+
splanaue north of, Eaton 1Zoad,.:..and very-'extensive °apartmomt units acr000 the
Esplanade on�lsta,,
`more
Aut it may `,bo 'thaat the W-rd "IsOurbanee may be occurato,a This, is
;er;
defined as 1ldbaracterized 'by `bl.ending'of Lhe uxla3n .and rul xa .YY The s�t>wurban
{
zoning "' f}s�_ les fined.', xhi 1eav00y t:he R p�opobal�,. wh. cht of courses' has;,
zi�.st>�.nrti.x higher, jdensa;xy o:pulation potentials, u tt is ��rr�posal.� eras based
'the
on h p YY accepted
belie[ trhat_ .�t tvnul a tode the stri commeraial whlch •is ,
a keg
�nry��
y 4
AJ ,.
in the Grtn<� ral� L�:L.a ins � of Y�bth, the cI.
r ty a' d coUnt vdk,
f
3. 5`�otzan .. �
`.
px.'apose�,l42
11Tt-ie= e rezoning is contraxy", etc,
✓
Tho' City General Plan pr�i'vides for Ggriculture�
frc�rri ;�andy Gulch,
Lindo Channel, north witbhighway commercial along e Esplanade. bbvkously,,
....
theCity Oeneral plan of 11 agricuItur.e - rom Sanely �,)Achee has long•„beon out
dated*
Slnce the City and the County Plan arerat variance, ando, since this
ag-ea 3 sJ . he county, �,,ofilnq legally sho,i, follow the County �l atld. . This
}rai
would ?lei` a the question abcsut desx of R 4 or comme reial along the
`r,`abill ty
Esbla� e, as mentio,ded above.
46 Section 1.5143 (b) . c'
Un suggestion of addition no. 6, see comment----undor 11CYY, iTjit, ation
measures f�
I
Por the sugrtestion no. 7, it has already been noted that dila area. is
better defined• as "urbanized,” or ''suburban'' rather thlun ''rural, re8idbnYtial'Y,, '
5. Section 14143 (b)
Where are three dommenta ta, bepMade ons •)is, paragra h.
Ao In our ,judgment, a "rural te:aid :ntt YY means a fow home's in a
distinctly rural, -area-Nord' might be an example,!'Urbanized}e or, as we prefer
thl term "subutbaffif is en area distibatly e10 tat to the city with a number of
o
Cs4 y_ business areas�srome smdll ,with three sides,
w, .,
urba;orouburban areae
conti�guraust{o�an nl.Lr��t
The proposed ,zoning area Yerloet Ptoei stteround existing ayrictiltural
land tr�the -South. Th_Vrtia1:e some agricultural, lands; a"ong with Man,., house
ai. apartments to the South But the proposad arra does not surround
anything other t;ha,ri parts of i-tsel,'f., Rather; as noted earlier:, it adjoins,
On � sidas, properties either x.oned suburban,, ar ext:-nsi ely In comtnerci use.,
C. The 8r>i.n,i is oucurate its saying ii ,a good portIa�', of�Y. etc.` Qnd
sentence .under e1b1► page 6 of report). 7t ig -not referring to the 81 ptopbsal,
btto rather the entire zanin
,g proposal. ,
1�• 6-7;;,,6-g-I.0_114 Section 15145. ettc: ;,
The only point care' comment on -It this ,:time is, itom 16 Questles4s were
developments including ''further desirable, sti:ip.
raised about cootc
ccmme�:caboutm tmercial
YY �,
` The ropc�sea rozohing �aiffiinkited that possibility in this
part
area.. ✓ ,
2.- This P,4bt:i6n of` our lotter is•mexel+y`i "su5'g',e ;
1. ViArthee aria•1 4is of 1.t�'ti `1r5aM pry �►�ntr demands Capon `t+he pilin
k
service area, etc, of ted reeatirl�. 'a1r .comtnetxtsaed
g ,in $ect„koft 15DII
2 Is ,there,.reaI problem in water~ quekl,ityo .and'j If, so-f' woiA6 ndt 4
su grata ml be made under to? of 15141 that„ any •major dawol.opftent would
re4uikea use of pu�!16 'mater scrvi e :, the lines of N±Y' 16h �tro already oxtendod
M
to the 5.w4 cortdr and into some 'of the 4koa Uddhr d4ns'idarat io to
1
�. . A cate,Eui `anat�sis� should be, made'" of thetr.an'ar•rtatio'nten �
nVp v iig. �,h r commentA earlidw' -yn trigs lee r» , f ,r tent `'sec :}
;an am +;;�:p6ge '8 the' ; . x, Vit. r :a 1 y,: k�.e. Cons deed . �1 � xe ve�s3 bel ', itirrin - .
t)m6n G i�tlAt' 5�,�C Hn e$u�ly, bcth p . ti Were made With �+jYY onrger't bac t
beitlg consld dp bu "su+~h ire i�rts, Vin. the-mselve$, are not ltk:nv XaritiltC'nia ,t0 =they ;i
;E . -a e . t.. cud a , t you -��,
��°. ,.th the C., r
n ddi tlpn to these comm n ,° we . 1 s hl y ploasp ,�conz�der 'tie ,st,. to
men s made rte? Dr. �CeYidal7 at tie ,.h},acing on Ju.ne8, 19'76
I It
-A
r,�
,
'
j
„
w
,'�yi ��'e'k .•�t cy *e. ' .. ..
t
420 Test Lassen Avenue
Chaco, tea. 9592
January 19, 1976
Butte County. Planning Department
County Center Drive
OrovilCa. 95965
To Whom. ?fit May Concern:
I e liv
r at 120 W. Lassen Avenue an i,orthwest Chico and wish
to object to the Bartrom Development north of Shasta Avenue.
This area is now in agricultural use and in large enough
units that they can be economically feasible. Furthermore,
to permit high density development that far out would be
leap -frogging and not at all good planning, To permit this
devolopment will eventually require move county services and
probably force the area into a sewage C-Ii,strict, I)
�fI
Our taxes are high enough now, To go hi gher forces,' st,�'lll
more land to be baiter from food production; .sold,;to develop-
ers and so the dominos fall.
The size of this development will surely have'iwipaet on our
roads, noise levels and over crowd the local schools of day
Partridge -.,,,id Shasta. In the past some of our c'ildren have
been forced out of their" school_ to make their way to more
distant- 8chool:p.
High density development is not wafted by the area residents;
is not compatibles will demand more services thus more tastes,
will encroach still. further :into Ag land;
Sincerely,
y
Ellingson
Comments on the `proposed rezoning request, of Vern Bartraln, et al. �
Location - adjacent to the Esplanade north of Shasta Avenue.
1, The ,,and and i is use`>}
The,"land is good 'oil, suitable for agricultural pug^pposesri Twenty years ago,
Yes, even as late as ple,�.eti years ago, this entire area shriild have been zoned agri-
culture, The developments, however, of the last,ten year's bring new factors which
need to bo 'considered in any zoning now.
(f"
1. to 1965-66, the Board of Supervisors had a studynade.Ih relation to the
drainage q�e'eded for developments along the Esplanade and 1�jacent ar,a,` As a result
of this study, the Board established a Drainage District, encompassing the proposed
rezonin it is',under5tood that this district was formed for the following reasons:
t' (-a3 The .State would rebuild parts of the Esplanade to State Highway standards,
proyiding the coChty would provide suitable drainage facilities.
(o) Commercial and other developments north of Lindo Channel -, on both sides of
the Esplanade needed drainage -facilities,
(c) Extentipn of urban development northward, including commercial uses alo'►ig
the Esplanade's- would require drainage facilities. (The County General Plan, then
as now, provided for this area to be low density residential, w th commercial along
the Esplanade.) 11
Considerable -farm lands not needing drainage for farm purposes were included in
the District for two reasons.,
1 Financial -namely the district had to be sufficiently`-arge to have an ade-
quate tax lease to pay for, and,support it,
t 2 As indicated above, to provide for additiori:'jl future residential areas,
It is fait, to conclude that this ,action by the Governing Board of jhe.county
_ did, In mor,11 commlttment� establish this area for future uses other, than a9ricu'1-
turn n
4�.
, group 1I. The h�istor+cal development,of zoning In this areae
In 591•0, a g ou of citAzans within the area, concerned with problems which
were emergenc,from the A2 zone then in effect, hada meeting with the Planning
Director of Bute CY:;ky, and the Assistant DirectorAt that meeting, the Direc-
tonsug est�,J the fol�lowingt
(a� A commercial zone of ZtO feet width along the Esplanade from Shasta Avenue
`,,.o the drainage &'tch to the north
(b) An R3 zone -single family residence, -maximum 5 lots per acre, from the Com-
mercial ,zone to the west ditch of the District,
(c) An S2 -"zone from the west ditch to Bay Avenue. �
(d) An 51 zohe on the north side of Shasta. from the commercial zone on the East
to the S2. zone on the west.
These proposals'res.vlted ii,)A petition for zoning as suggested, The Planning
Commission unania;nusly approved the proposal, The Board of Supervisors, however),
;requested the Comm'Ission to delete certain acres -leaving th se in A2. The4e dele-
ions included all the proposed commercial strip and the land north of the South
ditch and east of the West ditch, leaving only the proposed 81 and S2 zones The
planning Commission did this, and the ►low present $1 and S2 zones were establi; J: 6d
,by the Board of Supervisors,
Under the A2 zone, residential and commercial use continued to develop, and
under the 1 and 2 zones residential development continued along, -,",`);pasta and Bay.
1,ittle zoh .. iviity developed action
to date, 4
figures wilil be given p p e,
in act until late 1974 oti1y
the six acre parcel ii the northeast corner zoned CP, was done.
„
In December 1914 the Planoi,ig staff held a, -,meeting at Shasta School to discuss
rezoning proposals of a area, including that under consideration at this +
meeting, Among the varjnus proposals were A10 -S2 and S1 zone,, Little common agroe-
meets were found and staff staff indicated further study on thair part, with another
meetii. to be called" soon
This meeting did not materialize, so in the Spring of `.7.5 another meeting of
some interested cittzens within the area was held with the P10n,ning Director for
further consideration of desirable zoning, That meeting resultbd in a "acv°,change
from the 1970 proposal namely, the strip commercial, along the Esplanade, -lias
changed to R4, except portions at the extreme ends,, (The north end had recently
beenzoned C2=and the south end was a";ready in commercial use.)
A petition for rezoning -the one now before you -was mado..,in dune 1974. This
Petition is signed by approximately 90% of the 'property ownors - 1 only, declined
to sign, and 2 others were not located..
From this rec ta'i or"
the historical development these conclusions appear
evident.o
1 That rezoning in this area, for whatever the reasons, has been only "piece-
meal" "too little too late" -,,and, certainly, inadequate
2• Suburban growth on thre sides of the property has continued This has
resulted in further suburban development with even substantial commercial uses in
the area;, however, always within the limits of the 0eneral Plan of the county..
III The thud major factor we w,sh to menton is the extent of developments, in
and neap^, this proposed rezoning.
Along the Esplanade within the area under ccYisideration there are prese,,,tly;
8 commerc!al uses, including a large warehouse
7 residential uses'
1 fo-mer residence now being used for professional offices,
The aerie C2 zoned parcel is also west of the Esplanade and south
b
of the north ditch,
The ent-ee length on the north side is presently bounded by the Drainage Diss-
trIct ditch., but there is also a right-of-way foi- the county -planned extension of
Eaton Road 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 entire length of approximately eight tenths of a mile �-
is zoned S2 in this 52 zone, there are presently 27 residences and an additional
subdivision of 4 lots which as approved a few months ago
On the south side,, nort of Shasta Avenue, between the proposed Cl along the
Esplanade, and the S2 zone along Bay 'a distance of about four tenths of a mile;
there are seven-esi°dences and a recently approved subdiv,s,on of 10 lots is now
being developed.
The madort--conclu��on here is that the proposed zoning area is'bound by proper-
ties on three sides much already well advanced in suburban development - which
makes agricultu-al use,, of major equipment, pesticides, etc , together with the
farm dust, a major problem. They are less than compatible with the activitios of
surrounding properties,
1'V. The fourth major factor 'in our presentation is that of "Suitability" of this
area to the proposed zoning» Various factors are considered,
1. WaterSoil percolation meets the standard.s of the Butte County Health
4 Department, - , �owevor, at the time of any developnieht; the use of water from the
California Water Company could be required.
2 brainaoe. - the P&II c. Works Dept, reported, that the Drainage Districtpro-
,aides ample drainage for development with tho exU'eption of a small portion of the
land hear the esplanade which would require a drain pipe or ditch instal Ted, This
was not -a; major problem. „
3.
3., Educational facilities. Residential development, -here would likely result
in more`''clii Hen for whic e ucational facilities must be available, rust the same
as would be needed if .they lived elsewhere in the district.' however, a call to
schooj officials was made, and the response was that pupil enrollment is currently
low fbr the facilities now available.
4. Safet Services -Any major development would Y^esult in additional ,services
but no mare"than they would elsewhere 'in the county.
S. Transportation
Main transportation arteries -the Es anade--the Freeway -the Eaton"Road
'to the airport complex -the nearby fast Avenue tthe West and c. o the forth Val`iey
Shopping Center-al_l suggest this is one of the ve y best places in the Chico a� a
for convenience and safety in transportation 1'
11 ',
A S"im ry and conclusion on the question of t,uitability" may be stated as
follows-,'
.. A"Eaoh.?county department indicated that the proposed is generally within the
establishes policies of thou county A minor exception was noted a moment ago on
DDrbirtage,lanythe`The oche? except.im'I fine+ is the proposal for R4 rather than Cl or 2
"Splanade_
1V Th,s fourth majo- topic deals with the question of the minimumacreage neves"
sary fooµ an economic: self-sustaining farm unit' The comments here arke concerned
with minimum acres in,almondr, since the large:A,, phot in the area being discussed
Is in almonds (tile next largest plot is an "open field", and generally considered
"not the highest profitable use" for land in this area)
Clem Meith, or the Farm Advisor's Office, writes of a,,co`operative study.,done
in 19721 involving four eminent almond growers In the Durham area, an agricultural
econonOpt at the Unlvovsity at Davis) and Mr� Meith The cost; study is basedupon
T1 160;%acre orchard" and is basically concerlied with the economics of such a unit.
Those who made this study recognize it as outdated and point out the increases in
costs - such as fertilizer, equipment, supplies, takes, repair parts,f6y� outrun
the increases in Ncbme which the grower receives,
`Ole pafagr~aph of Mr,, Meath's letter, closely relating to this above question
is quoted, 11
Growers with whom I have discussed your question feel that what
constitutes a so-called "economic unit" is &matter'of opinion,
One said thilt For a family operation where all the work was done
by family mC$ers and where a $16,000 per year net income was
deemed sufficient, then an 80 -acre operation, netting $200 per
acre, would be sufficient. This points out the arbitrary nature
of such a figure Another, grower pointed out that for a retired
perso►i, 20 acres might be an economic. unit.
This point of view is confirmed by other growers who are accepted ad leaders
in almond production, They think of 75-00 acres - up to 1.50 � as being essential
for a self-sustaining -family unit,
All do recognize smal=ler units as being helpful for retired persons, or others
whose incomes are from other sources, but, use limited 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 land (2 in almonds) �.almonds) to be used only by retirees or
others who make their living in other occupa' ions, l
SUMMARY `+ry
1-n bight of the foregoing statements, the petitioneµ"s sl,6int these summarizing
points "i
L. Previous official actions, and sometimes; pack i,'i� It ,,make agricultural
zoning, at this time, unsound, inrpfactical. and, an undbe,; vrdLI'n upon the „property,
owners, specifically
a Crpa'tlon of a Drainage Dist --cot a not needed for farming here.
bw Lack of hmeiy zoning - thus allowing growth development which.,
in this has 4gi't }n aga pst orcharding,
2. The land parcels are sma0e, than Yequ',-ed fog" self-�supporVng fate,
operatlonsr
1.
3 The proposed (ezonlilg
a was p ei:iared with the aid and concurance of the profess4onal
staff v 13utre Countylanniq nawtment
b was de„igned to p,ovide an ordor�� t o ,in an
area Ouse by the C-_iy, yet now fjn'��ted:” to 1 iiirrt`�t'f6ns to
age "Cul fiuYe. ;t I jL also designed tt, prevent furthev' hap-
hazard devp'Dpment inherent under t►l�e prV�,Ant zone, r
c. con t`c� rms�, to per t Hent county regul at 'oris , and the General
Plan, ) lw' th the except 1on noted ear°'��e.iof ft4 being sub-
d does not add t o the bre
st 'tut4 ^� c+�mme +:.a
.� Aden of county `�eruice5 anymore than
w^,ld thq flame growth development established elsewhere,
e, hail the suppto>t o} the vast majority of property' owners in
the p;oposed zoning a'eea, and so rar as'.;nav�n,, no opposition
from the ad,lacent property owners.
{ "
'a
GLENN AND SUSAN KENDAL
ROUTE 1rBOX A09•K-•®AY AVENUE
CHlco, CALWORNiA 9SPIG
iqz-
+
+r
4t
� h F
e
y i
. f
-eQ ++I
l\ �� xJu'� �'� � .-� ►�-�'� -'" j rte' � ,l�)�.``;--�
Ab
1i
lam
1
lam
1.
January 30, 1976
Vern M. Bartram, etal
Rt. 9 Ross $44
Chico, CA 9502
.EI Rte; Rezone (75-89)` ..
Daar Mx'. Bartram-
At the tegular meeting of °the butte Cqunty Planning Co6mieetioh,
hold January 290 1576, ,,tshe ,hearing 'or youe a,ppli�ation `!'or re-
zoning from "A-2" 0640ral) tri "�--11' (Light ColmmercJai
) and "R-4 p
„ MAXiMum Density Residential)' on property looated on th+a weRbt
side I of PoplAnade, betWden Baton Rd. & Shasta Avw. , Chico, arae' IC
continued, to the "meeting schoiduled icor rehruatry 5, 19'6, The
I"JO -n1; will obmtnde at 7: 3D p.m. • Board of Supttvrisora o RoomO
County Adidnistraticn' isuilding, 1 59` Sird Street oro�ri2le,
r
Shouldou have an 1
y y gtYie�tic,�us' regarding this mattrr, please
;
contact thiz, office
Since��;x;7.y
,
�i LAWAOCE J o LAWSON
r birector • df Planning
1 ,
4
By J, ,
i�d�xlr$ � eaU S
l
rbc
,
..., Viz;" •� _ „
,
Dear Planning Department
I reside within the Shasta -Lassen -Henshaw area
and am opposed to high density development: I urge"
the Planning Department to zone us SZ and preserve
our 6rea. as dearly as possible.
\rr
t
r
11 J f
i n.5
11
near Planning Department:
I reside within, the Shasta-Lassen-%ienshaw area
and am opposed to high density development. I urge
the Planning Department to zone,us 32 and preserve
our area as nearly as possible.
0A�U
.al
t-
4K
l�
Dees Planning Department
Z reside within the Shasta-Lassen"Henshaw area
r and am opposed to high density development. I urge
the Planning Department to zone us S2" and preserve
our area as nearly as possible,
-51614
IJ
r
C7,
Dear Planning Department ('I
Oi reside within the S'iiasta-Lassen-Hensh6w area
and am opposed to high densitdevelopment . l urge
the Planning Department to gone us Sz and preP
serv,
our area as nearly as ,�ossible,
"j,
,
I:
,
\;
I ..
10
r+
7,4'
Dear PlanningDepartment:
I reside within the Shasta -Lassen -Henshaw area,
and am opposed to high density development, I uvge
the planning Department to zone 1xs 32 and preserve
our area as nearly as' possible.
`A
L\
t
f �
t
ID
Dean Planning Department.:,
I reside within the Shasta-Lasseri-Henshaw area
and am opposed to high density development. I urge
(- the Planning Department to zone us 92 and preserve
our area as nearly, as possible.
� 1
r:
}
1
l
16
iu 44. t
,-a
F 1
f
Dear Planniri
_g Department:
I res „
ide within'the Shast-�a�Lassen-Henshaw area
and am apposed to high density development, l urge
the.:,.Planning Department to zone us S2 and preserve
our area as nearly as possible.
JJ
1'f r
Dear P/lann ng De,partmenu.; �ll
aen�sx f the�sSh,astthaLassenWan
h�;hear From resi-�
d 1 w e rca regsrrd
ons n, o our; :area 1 �I am In support off' 2 n�.
zo
nj
r �r
/ developmen
,v
l r
`1
t {�