Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-84 9To: The Butte County Planning Commissioners and the Planning Staff 2e E`IR for Bartram Etat Redone and "StnMaxy/o Comments" From: 'fie lima Smith Date: February 2, 1976 It appears tome` that the „ _EIR requires more data to resolve basic' disagreements between:, opponp► -M-s • and,, proponents. 1. The EIR should encompass all of the aiTee6 that jies north and`'nort Qwest of the Green Une as proposed in the Chico Prey liminar� General plan and west: of Highway 99, especially all reinai.ning A-2 :zones ,,,and contiguous areas, ' This would be appioximatol3uurori nclystudYareaenlargeded to✓ consider growth trends froaythe Cit of Chico. 2. maintaineassstate that viab.10 agricultura�larcel size is uni•ts unit-9.11 small inquiry p�rofes6i61nal consultant directed me to this information from the..IM issues of Almond Facts. Vol. �8 Cal-Almond Growers Exchange; r J'.,.— s 85% of growers 'that sell to `Gal-Almond Grower's Exchange hwie less than 50acres. "95% have less than 100 acres, s p sto 1973-75 and 't, other data. We need to know, gi,ow this com are et a 1-4 duelling unit/acre , 3. .� ,density,'foie thiTseaream � andlth2'.8 justifies the proposed S-1 zoning,. 'this Land-Use Element looks at,,,, least 20 oars to the fixture. (See Butte County General Plan, „p, 1.2,,;, The General .'lbn _Guiddlines, by The California Council on Intergovernmental Rel.ationst Sept, 1973, p, XI-12, states on this point: The zoning ordinance:::.... should gradually follow the.•, gena eral plan into the future as appropriate in relation to <, timing `'end segUonce of uses, Thus it would be inconsis- tent with the ",,_7. in to Zone a large area of ex:.isting low intensity„ use t: ,t � 1 more :Intensive use as,, shown in the general plan , when' the trap s its on to the more in icen s ive ute would occur so gradually that scattered uses might result and 60ntravene a general` plan policy calling -for,. compact urban development. Even though the zoning,ordi- nance may ,inal.cate uses d'iff'erent from i6se lbown. in the general plait the zoning in this case will Barry out genera.L plan policies as tin ovderly development, and thus ; is cons'is.t:ebi Oith the general plan. ; i' We ate committo,:d toGeneral Plan policies and b LAIC ga t� e» sPp t o n such a ea ]ine 3 to endorse com act° Bind orderly rowthti i this. �. , Dear Planning Department , I reside within the Shasta-Las�-lIensha.w area and am ,.q,PPosed to high density development . x urge E . De artm,en �o zone us SZ and preserve the PJ.6� ..l,ng p our area as nearly as possible. I ,6 t (W) League of Women Voters- of Bette County... P. C4.,li,'ex 297 C.1,14 ; California 95924 " ._briva,7 31 19-16 Mr. Eugene Sylva, Chairman '411tto County Planting Coruni.ssion C'eoville, Calif. f. y. The Lonpue of WomentiVotor< of Butte County has studied land use in •Butti, G;ouarty for tho,,past ten ye-srs. As a result•, of tha.0-study we are committed ua presesri.ng ourrcu�tural Innds' from Further „ urbanization. ' s ITo have ntudied the Environmental Impact Re ort on the etal rezoning regaost and b ive obsorved a wide di creponcy in the.,viows presented by ops,,onen'ta and proponents, rindin€ such a w.<<ie difference in opinion in.p project of th•, s mapni.tude and i iiportanco� va. believe an, outside consizs�tant 18 needed in order to m intain; objectivity. The Bar'1;rwm, ei,al rezoning request iri'l l-oonstitute a locs of another 110 aeras of orchords acid 60 acres of row crops. At wh4;t point do we drama tine and hold it a a �.nst further. encro{aai tnant of urbanization into 6� r 'Vine Loam soils? Are i4o Coing to let past poor planning, i.e. a 'tura :awe dastxiot, da.ota �e' further poet panning or iv it time to say S' oric� =told the dine against further development in our aMricul.tura nreasT rrFtlly reclining thst the Butte County Oenersl l:in proposes low den arty residential fox, this area, we --,bill ,,urge you to keep in mind that the Open Space Elerient onlls :for the preseml.,t:i.on of a �riculturAl lands near urban centers• lheref'oro, we urge you to deny this renuest and to initiate a zhnin9 that would preserve this land -"or' agricultural uae34 `` Fr° v�nCerely Joars) yy r Veva Eris 5n Fres ident fT + vy )1-j _ �'J .f CM fa; 1T -He ] ®CHICO I7F11��" 0f',T- He aRTPLANNER—P. 0BOjC 3420. 95926 TEt ►r?¢►oEJ .;19161 1143.44131 — AFTCIR 5106 p. M. 343.7331 � nMn San Sacm Franciu� Butte County Pl ann7pt 1 Comm''' i ort 7 County,, Center Ot. Vv` O�.bvi l l e, Cal i for6i'a,It459G h February 3, 1,975 Rl+. Vern M.. ;Cartrai s ptal�lZezoriircd ��75�-84 Cents"fin: Reference 3'L made to the above noted rezoning application scheduled for public hearing br� �6t�e yocommission on February 5, 1976, _ Pleasew advisc,d that the Chico Planning Commission, at their ren, -lar meeting of Febrga7,Wr'2 1,6'75, reviewed this application and unanimously elee`�ed to recommend Oen1a'i� �`f same; The Commission's opposition is based on the following, T, 1 or �4rt., of the proposal is inconsistent with the P,?tte County CeneW Plan, the Butte County Open Space" ement, !the current Chico General Plan and tti1. proposed Ci i co Oef'eral ,Plan. 2. �Ild prnjject itivolves land use densities which exceed normal rural or ,.lGricultural devolopmen-t theW"by furthering pressure for high ,onsity urban development in an area which lacks urban serjices, 31 Cecause-the City Council is :presently conducting final hearings to the.proppsed Chico General Plan, our Commission is concerned (,-."hat ai-Major rezoning action in this sensitive area may act to Anderirtlo the Plan's policies and proposals prior to adaption oaf satre , 4,, s., I he Codt'Jii ssion finds that the environmental impacts, noted in "rectiori,;,15143-a o the FIR warrants the denial of the project`, Thank'you for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely,, j dl CW i PLAN COMMISSION l� ' bort tinders, Chairman Ciel Info�CPGi4° f r, P Dear Planning Department: Z residew thin the Shasta Lassen-HenshAW area and am opposed to high density development. x urge the Planning Department, to zone us Sz and preserve, our area as nearly as Viass*Lbll,e. ,t e, �r Dear Planning Department: r y \� Y under,.itand that you wish to hear .from tesi.r dents of the Shasta, Lassen and Henshaw area regard 1` and ining ning of our no way'--wishatoasee this �area pit high denport of S2 sng ity � development. i t Y r ' r r •, II I F'ocruary 4, 197 Butte Jounty f� 'P enni.ng Commission Oroville ;ali'ornia 05965 Dear .i,rsf This letter"Is to inform you we Pre opposed to the proposed ' zoning change by Eertr,,t * Enloe, and et. a1. regarding the 2,00 acres along,,the wes� side of the EsollP ad's between ahtats / on Roed, 1 IlebIii lieve s, change -mo . uld ,adversely of ect price agri,cWture l j°y Ifl whIc;t i~fi o -O mur!h more Vs.to be used- in the rap4pc ty, ox r Sincerely$ i•eona i, gory •'� 11 ' kicherd Ary l' eF (' j L' t `V j ' a b h r 1 `,� Dear ' Plannin Department : !� I understand that, you wish to hear from rnsi-- dents of the Shasta; tasseand Henshaw area regard- ing zoning, -,of our area. Zn, am in support- of 82 zoning and in --io,� tay wish to see develd int this area � r, high density J l t y1D p y n r j. i 1„L4�p ( a A 824 Karon OVIve Chico, CA 95926 February 4 w 1976 Butte County Planning Commission Orovil,l,e, CA s, Dear commissiorlLx s I am writing in regard to the rezor.,ing of 200 acres of agricultural land lying between Shasta and 4ton, Ind west of the }esplanade from n2 to residential I attended a Chico City Council workshop meriting last week whish dealt with this and surrounding properties. % am in total agreement with them that land in agricultural uses in that area should remain as such. Between the Osplanade and the Freeway they thought/ JRBdld be rezoned to hon agricultural uses beat orchards, wea t of the Es`pl.anade should not be convoy: ted. The,,property in question repr ssome of t hn last f"fina Loam: soil acr4oge on the north side of Chico. An the on('! .osed map shows -y- t"Ae VI-na runs out north of �a.ton Road r,nd the. heavi.er,. less agricultuurall.y desirable soils begin. Wesit;n,of the property in question is more V'ina b1 t convert -Ing this acroage will put the pressure on the western portions to be rezoned alio Most of our almonds in Bul;:te County are raisod on the "Island" o Vina Loam which 4�lhave outlined on the map, This 28 million dollar crop (1974) i6vi*tally important to Butte :aunty. rurthey inroads on the land n riculture should cease immediately. Residences and apartments this far. ;From urban centers are expen- sive) in terms or county services, and should be discouraged. 116 we convert this lana Lrom almonds, which brin{l $1500 peraere per year 'hackin�(7 rw county as h V wealth, to housing, which results in expea1idit;ures o ti�tax money to support, then I 'wonder at our sanityd At a meeting on the CSUC campus last year' 200 loaders of public and private groups from all. over, Northern California met to consider the major problems facing this region. Over 50 major problems wore isolated and then ranked as to importance. The number ono p;�oblem was that of agricultural land and its cone- version to non�prc�drxct: Lve purposes = incidentally, several of our county supdrvisors and members or your commission were present at this meeting and may rcmembdr it. Tho Planning Commission cannot allow our county agricultural baso tri be nrodod, acre by acre, by le�pM�roggir?.g ''subdi'visionF This parcel is clearly a prime fait of agricultural acrrwago w i y shou:l,d dej: initoly not be coavotted.. The lino`e county should be held" Tho .o is lens o land in th development cvi�hout ripping out any more o� out' trchar for r \� non agricul� ural if ;yes ey Ili empsey ` soib , and Agri:cul.tukl-(, .�� Con'sultant. Bi�ol.og f" x AA�ti $ ti47yN Re. t 1,.0'3: O x CHICO J '` � �'•`, L, CMtCo Gn, ..-----" ` w i1C ce. 4 i 1 r LAM �i r d: I • i \ice .n I The cite -��i Chun is sited nearly in the middle of a S,000 .0 acre island of Mina l,lant, Half of this area ling been directekl b ntin°fdrnitnrg uses. Nnn•productke sults lie to the east and north and heavy rice soils to the nest and south, The 7,0011 'a'6 is of rabvolt i.nant lie between the Vina and the rice and\h �e xtucl:, �lce the Viiia in agrit ultural ;productivity, 1 1J r y� it a C� jy G3.it GR,1PlIpRS FOR GOOD PLANNING r' f U / Chaco t, r „r Rt. 2, 1616 Oak Park Ave. Feb . 5, 19,76 Butte County] Planning Commission `)rovil l c lie strgpgly disapprove of fragmer�tltion of landholdings west of Tho Esplanade(Shasta Road) for,these reasons: Q. (1,) niis area - west of the Green Lino(intonded fringe of urban c�evela'ptnent) i�+, the new `'Chico G" neral flan. (2)Wv. do not consider this Rood land use 4 3)Ther,c is ample area: to the northeast, oast and southeirst of Chico for res,i.dentl al use for many years to come. (4)This state and this county is continuing to lose Rood farm land. This practice has to be stopped! 4, srC ? Nowt 3 t �� �'�r .-�.�''` �, pa'�.rW,♦ 1rr � �' r `� VVV��v ��vv f/' .y ,� �wnyJ,/J _ Li -.T. y J_ J 3 i/ Dear Planning Department I don't want apartments and Mouses slacked together in ot-r area. X would like 'our. area to remain unchanged, but to protect it, I'm in favor of S? zoning. 1 1 (tr 1� 1 + w ,� 011 , n fir. ` ,.. �• ;. . " .v1 .ir" _ " � p . ; a, �. < ' � i•k/"� �Y.+. it • iia ». t { pt'c�� �...wrP.• .�:�°"t�«:�i'iC..,, a • , h > N �[ p �� - �Y � �e'l:�L-'L�4�� G�-ri>�.n�'.G , ,.✓ �t',+'�.a••L�yr,� f^'�� �'#•�'�^'"'�'�rt •�,,,y.,r 3,�,Pj,�-,,� i�, � ; 1 r� J t n _ 4 , !,✓,,�.,�if;�+`' w�«�4" _. rC^'+1C +�I�,;Cr".�"">.w`�Y+*�G 4'�rw%at*""1.. a'�•rr' F,:a• I'"+p4''�'-^� `�uw".�` `` , . �a�C'p�'' '�'`h`��r:.r�wn.��'"L-%' ��.t ,��.�,Lra..0 � '�wf y, r��,w°. ;y..� °""<,-,.•�� „�. a�',rc., c:�.r>ee:ta�a.ia+?'`:„x,r•t.dr�+ s^ y i et-, 4e �.��'�-aU�f.�>�.��'W th �.�/y� � -4"�4V y'�Ti�T' J t�a[,exlp.,Ci✓� I'(�1�j�'yr�+. rr' Yf w.i�,r4..✓'�. n ' �.,.y'�p •. �,y V j � kyr ,,i ) i -�rr �,y� �.y�( � ] 'yy ,f �} s'✓ 4+1'1�i1'�.. �✓�.'�` fir' ,t�'' �.r.'i�'W'Mn^-4�+�.' �'�.s�_ w�"�a (�s�yn.J .G` �' Ce�:�`/ {.,� ' Fnn3..-''Ifi'�TwY'. � (1 "+ _ ti {a (,,ri,.ti,,'7r'C+•ie:,�,�„',��•�'4,�%.:y�,-�w�'�.'i!l�r�.✓".",k `1G �.�.r"�vt:«" �k;E�?�` v'G� - «•�'. � �v.�✓�.+•+' i �' . v e4A4-^X/,l �7 � o+sem' 4�f.:C � G. �'„ •t+1•�...f--��;;' , SPC,. c' ea4-^ % G i r • l y y . �4O , Lr tv • _ A� ,+ i. �'`' '�Y .;�wt (!�'- ,,.i�"�C ii.�'p.,ct�. w;/�d G'L+�''{r,,..�+r.. ,(✓""• �' irC.i"+M�•ai�`� a"#^'" pw+lr+ 4�' Jr=''"�.�r�'' rr+w�'71�'-+'W., yt+.' �° C , )o ".�� �, 'i .er".*'t:' 7`n JZ""�' %•'• „K . +v�'i , t y'1fi„y:i'y15.-.t4f'".b'f.✓'idk ,>a;. -y P: ,,�+'r '')h•„.2::.ta'�.+ s -t' �{tip'7'}}.'-..1�"r�X`..9Y.1�1',•G`�C,,,µjG' ayi>=-lw•+.' `r '7�✓j4+" '4r`- Sl+,• _.�', ,-4t- ,er`Gl�.-'t�.,rtt"%n"::tkp",d4" _fiy�r >e,*Y 't id�r” ,: -c° .,[.•l�» r, � ... it` »+yam={ r' x/. '� �^' �,,.�'' �.• ,u•I:,n' :�'.f.,.� r,,a<�G• •^�,C',.•�,":,�� •.�"r,% �'ti,.�+v' lu'�C«}C.�;r- ,.��..� l .:r�i�.-"r..+��,+,r•4.,.�. ` `,.lCt�•.'��.1�..9 � ,. . �i xx e ' . Y✓�"`'�i'r,r°�ri±t� �lt' s'a"' �4` �1!', a� - (,•�..�.;�;M 1�r c.` ..�!L>�.•'t�'�4��'A "' rr�"a+"r'r....�(''.p,4 '�. �C ° - � /f uM A>� ams" n. IQ ., � , r ,y' M1•µ � �, ,1' y�' t � )YYY. � { i'. µ.+ ..�1rY� 1'. A,,� ' , `"+ r �� , + � 5 { ''4""�,``•{ f � �4v r �� t � �,, � a � ��� L �� ^JW�� , ;� �if.w � •r �i.+,K':�� «) v ���W,�}� ,.+w' "` r -- r,r \, February 5v 1976 Paan ng Comic oioners r G'i��r��,xt f� s 'aunty joao if Ladies a ,1,,.4orit;l.e0e' We wish to-, speak in opposition to Z6-aIng the POO acre n parcel north of Shasta Sl: ;4e ob ect, for the followln reasons 1 It would not be orders jr ctovel opment because it• leap �;'ros the ar�i�a bet'Ween tt�o proposed area fol^ development and ; the Gitj l.itnits of Oft1oo: It LtMbunts to Spot• zoning. It s contrary to the wishes of the ma�jori ty, of the people who own land' in the area. T 46es not , coinply wi.t'h the t it, s General. Plan.. w i a`ffeo the Shasta ,eo io '; su'bt i.vigloii n t4 tk is area Is allowed, ire creasin ' the �4 a'k. bar'60n of all the j rvo. people,in the school d.i dtPlep because the --oohool� vt�u� d have � o he, enl az%ea 4 a til As far as future 0it�r 'er, v1, ��p 8�,O � he ;cost, would be � substantial because of the distanwe to the prbpose,ct subdivision 't from the o,;�t sting city ecry ce 'I'hanl� ou \t -1Klye +� E- Feb. 116 Dear planning Commission: � Some of us are not ,very artieulmte nor do we have / transportation to your rnez tings but would like to present. our views on the propo,Jed; Sl development north of Shasta 13artr6alls. It is learn ,frog developing as anyone driving that Way iron doWntowaz Chico can see. it would be very snort r' sighted for the long, range plan of an orderly d.evelonmert' of Chico. It is a shame to"develop the good orchard ground becauseit is ciI8aper fox, the developers, 4and they can Make more "money,. i} Thoneed of the future c't,,17;ens of Chico will be to have some rural areas for kids to`trow and raise 4 H animals as W611 as some c c�eer(to town) Citi 1)l% ng, 'y X11 ri !1 ti C0TY OF CHKO, CAUFOG?IHHA ®CNIC0 OFFICE OF THE W; OR P, 0. BOX 3420, 95926 `TELEPHONE (916) 343.4%101 - ,AF -TER 5:00 P.M. 343-7331 Sactamcnlo'p February 5, 1976 < Son � Frnncisto Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Butte Oroville, Ca. 95965 Gentlemen: v At its meeting held February 4,'1976, the City Council discussed a rezoning proposal now bet"o "e the County Planning Commission involving proporty located 'west of the Esplanade, beL.0een Shast.=c Avenue and the propo8od extension of Eaton o AV�1ut1 The Council voted unanimously to opposrr, the proposed rezoning to 8-1, R-4 and C-1 roqueted by tho ovmers of the property, The City Plan`nin , Commission Ms provious-l.y expressod its opposition to thzes re~zor :ung, {-r, your rl.anninq Cortmissioll Tho Couiioil asked thst. 1 advise 0 V t;►at: this tozoninr would not comply with the C-ity,'s ',Jresc n,t Cet ���-al Plain (except for, the one sirtall parcel of C"l) , it'or � oul.d any poition. comply t;ith our proposed new Cene al Pig an, This �d'ould urtlier-)encourcig ea residential uses in,,,agricul Lural areas J� The Council further-,? indicated t11at it Would be willing to meet Jointly with your Bard regarding this matter at any time: We roSpr-c tftlly rerlttest that ;our hoard and the Planning Commission deny this re`cnitar, SincE."'i ely, 77, y RGa 1�1Lll ;t S'1'EWART MAYORS be ct. county Planning Conon ' ,.Coi�l�:t+ lclln3.:n. ufca:. City planner } City .AAhage Council o —_ h5. ;'�" w �'r' , � -T— \ k' X11 r"— _—n• ji , +�� u l`^ 1 \\ r �a+ n .. � rtram , eta CA00, a Re t Ile zoh,-, (75-84) �l Dear Ar'. J34r, ''313. ,% �-0 ''hfOrrin, you. that til Bat66 +� �1l1Yitty' P1;,i� wliata coo isu`iloht ,i wa .,, t' y y ,x i::+.«Y:# " y . f . p �;�. �+.:�' Yr l?' � 'ro` ♦ .;f,A1'1d Or ��� �t�ia� x3+T f:r ��t M1� ,W;;�� (��r �,��� j tt� fit -I "" (: iv.,t 1, d IIP-4t'e" IP 4 axiruD rXi3i.'�' P�,�; ld,.`tt1 al) for diC � v�..;. e �i'".rj-�Ia]i�tC1:e' r :)e:tWc� -3� �,����k cozatr3awIYn '.�^M�'2' f"vdt' .pr!� 2 100to riti.,it to � � 1 '{:���.t. �f 4i �r � y.,y i. °fir«.. to �rof :,,r�,,�� r����r"� nx�r�,�.�..K��•x ,�v� �;�� �r��u �� ��a,� r��.�.x�t�� ��. �.,►. 3. �,k.,�ta�it�� ' yy�yf dy' *r �1 • „�'" � v�. �.,w .4 ��. .�+�{�y �.p�'f, ,Y a�syy a♦, .ti. Ai„ wa.l:.xY.a ria. .?.'iw .., tY. iw.na u �.w17 i3 y v V�. �F VW W.�114� •41.1 MY45 k. Y.�i��M f j y�}y 3y + /�y, yr p� py -x ♦ p�#,I��`.'y Yy {n �y - x d� W + will Trl,� �Yoavd t, - _ � Up,��,.1�J. V��w�1J ��sd TT a4 if. �.L� i, C.uW ��.i�»�l F,� Si��� Y. �'f�i/M MK+�k�t 'k+WR�ix�l�R31-i uL �♦A�z ro�cg)cz{�;�y on 7"}u�m�y���ay to,a-pp� tal ruearyyy ��ai t 19`76/.1 if"j out{. ��.(.♦ {YtWory LMS ¢`e'Wh /1oti /tS�1Ust41�,ys.Ubmiiv yVjI.%eU.t rogoGxi7M�y to L.r��Ff4 CI of -.. �if �y :. �Lj�Ylyc..��-t+1♦�L.lVy4�dIad 210, Vui-,e A.,Y,Yao z ao later toal'i .ria VV �Y +Y11.R Y 3:`t4��.1a' o �.�•b.J.?a.41.` ey L.I i 1976. 6p L el 4 4� sSrou.41ax you ilaVG: any queh.4+{.V14s .ia a ga.t«:,l iaW Ci ifY xilri. t a*+.�wt /c6ht if j,,, this i r '., V',�i+. dpi�yl.bl x:l�hy��� yJyi6tLlhlIF.�LMurJ %b v ra, s; r 4I � Pauruary 25r 197 1 Vern- !it. Bartram, etal, Rt, 4 AOX $44 A^4 Re 'Rezone (75--94) Dear Arel Bartram. Ab tiie reCJuldr 11ett-ltintj of thO.13utlZa County Board 0j' supe visors, - held Peoruary 24, 1976, a pt>a.�is neririnq rcite was tet for March 3,1976, at w : 00 -� . , to oohsider yo ' ur appeal of tile PJ.arin�nr� . \ Comx ipjion,4 s denial of rezoAi from "A-2" (0eneral;) to 00,,,lir (tight Ct�/m�"rcal.) and "P.-4w� t�iax-routs Denszty �eai�lp�t�al.) for111 = property. Can. tine. West aide of_LspllttXadff-i, balt,e4: n Lc"i,toa Zt,oad ah.1 ^1J Shasta Avait� Chico, 'SUB meeting f1*T111 �)a agyl'f:l{d {1�1L�CfB`t�dxC� of f {all 8tiyy.,�.��1'�rVis�rotsl ooml.�µNy%°Cry1.unty A' dminl.u�''Lratioij �13:�.LZI�inq, 1, 859 bird 8treet•, Orovilj,# �j cRal iforn.4a. Y si-Iould you x1 P anyquer i�an3 roga.rdin'l, thi8 mattprf pl #e s� . cd,� i a,ot this office MAR G t CATT clerk of the board of 8116ervisors A o' f, M THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO CHICO, CALIFORNIA Lady and Gentlemeh: March 15, 1976;' This letter refers to a proposal of the City of Chico preliminary General N1an_, as it relates to maintaining for agricultural uses an area`in the Shasta Drainage District. The specific area is within the following general boundaries: From the Esplanade west to -,the drainage ditch located 660 feet east of Bay Avenue and ;between Shasta AvenGe on the south and the proposed Eaton Road exten- sion,along side the northern drainage ditch. The area comprises approximately 220 acres, The Shasta Drainage District was established in 1965-66 by action of the Butte `~^�ount'q�°oard of Supervisors. The reasons for this action included the following; a, to provide suitable drainage for properties already'developed in areas north of Lindo channel b. to provide drainage for future development of lands where the General plan of Butte County provided for commercial use along the Esplanade and for low density residential uses on other lands in accordance with the General plan. We ask your careful consideration of the following statements as you cons16'r what is a fair and just position for the City of Chico to support with respect to the zoning of this area, 1: Legid ation governing districts such as this one mandate the assessment cost to be "in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of the said lots or parcels of land." 2. The land parcels `in the area Under consideration would not benefit by �\ being in the brainage V strict if the use were restricted to agricultural produc- tion. B. The Drainage District assessments, and taxes for maintenance have been of considerable cost to the property owners, and contribute to the unprofitable ag',"f,� cultural returns of the land, 4. The owners of the properties are currently requesting zone changes fromtl P%-;2 �,to the fol 1 owl hg6' -4 along the Esplanade except the two corners already established for commercial 8-1 for the remaining acres+L�.\ It may aid you in your considerations t6 have some background for these pro- posals. - 1, The A-2 zone was considered an unsatisfactory zone by the Butte County plaMhino Department and by a number of the property owners. CA D7 2. Both the General Plans of the city and the county propose commercial uses along the Esplanade. The county plan provides for low-density, residential uses for the other acreages the city plan, agricultural. Plan- ning Directorirecom endedraacommercialper ne to zone(laterethe changed2tothe R-4)utte alongothey plan Esplanade, and S-1 }for the other acreage. The latter was thought to be an economi � cal use of band, as,well as providing a natural transition to the S-2 to the west and on totkf,the A-3 st'ill farther westward. 4.3. A goiding principle for any proposed zoning at that time was that proper planning takes into account the conditions as they are at the time of proposals - not what hindsight says it should have been. For examples, the commercial develop- ments along`Ae.,Esplanade the financial obligations growing from the establishment cif the brainagei'iDistrict - the size of the land plots - now, unfit for completely self-susta w hg'units of agriculture, and hemmed in, also by the drainage ditches on three sides and the Esplanade on the 4th with its commercial' uses . the well- established principle highways, adjacent to these properties, for excellent transporta�'.eh - water lines to the edge of and within the area, etc., etc, it, view of the above, we respectfully request the council of the City of Chico to recognize the inequity being placed upon the property owners if the land be restricted to agricultural uses, 'and that your General Plan recognize additional uses to agriculture for this area: It is our understanding that the council is currently holding working sessions for review of various portions of the preliminary plan. Since this zoning request is scheduled for action by thrx Board of Supervisors on Marcie 23, we would appreciate an responsee, and/or suggestions prior to tiia'' ,date. This may be directed to; it r r. ern artram, KOufe 4 Bor:.)44, Chico, CA 95926. City Council of Chico Presentation - March 1976 Glenn Kendall r It is, I understand, a well-established principle in our system of government that when a public agency of g"Vernment,�), acting in the name of the people, and for a purpose deemed to be .iii the public interr;st, but which causes undue losses tb an individual citizen, clops reimburse the citizen for such losses as may be determined reasonable. T}Elis accepted principle causes us to request the City Council of' Chico to reconsider its position on the zoning of the area under consideration; i.e., some parcels of Land in the Shasta �I ; Drainage District, lying along the Esplanade north of Shasta Avenue. The City Council h,,p asked the,,Butte County officials to deny the zoning petition'Our basis for asking your reconsider- ation`'of this request is essentially the following: 1) This Shasta Drainage District was established in 1965-66 byaction of the Butte County Board of Supervisors. The reasons for this action included the following a. to provide suitable drainage for properties already developed in areas north of Lindo Channel b. to provieid drainage for future development of lands where the General Plan of Butte County provided for commcrcial ,used ,along the En splaade a.nd for low density residentizl.'Ls'es on other lands in accordance with the General 2) Leg., islation. governing districts such as this on t mandate the assessment cost to be "in roportion to the estimated benefits tobe received by eac ot t e slai,d Jots, or parcels Of 1znt . 1 3) the land<, parcets in the area under consideration ivou,cd not benefit by being in the Drainage District if t:'e= use were restricted to agricultural production; 4) The Drainage District assessments, and taxes for maintenance havo-been of considerable cost to the property owners, and contributo to the unprofitable agricultural returns of the land. (The assessment costs on S parcels of lane dl,mi,gside the Esplanade were in excess or.f$15,000 each others pro- portionately) along the same amount.) 5) 'Both the General Plans of the city and the county propose commercial uses along the Esplanade, The county plan provides for. low density residential. uses for the other acreages the city plan, agri.cultltral. ma City Counc4l of Chico -2- March 16, 1976 6) The owners of the properties are current!), requesting 0 zone changes from A-2 to the following: R-4 along the Esplanade except the two oo'rners'already established for commercial S-1 for the remaining acres y And, as indicated earlier the City C,bunc .l hasp requested 1, the county,, official 7 to deny this request , In, view .„of the `:legislation gov erd ng the establishment of this Drainage District; and in view of your own Preliminary Report in which your consultants - p.17 -, sugg,est4,' city Consider” "aur purchase of oseime a ricultural.,'land," etc. p, P g t,p l p ►' *` Ve respectfu`Xlyr request and feel we have 'the "right to a knowledge of - the point of -view which leads the council to ask the count:} officials to deity this petition. nSPOcifically, we seek answer's to the following : 4 .r,,�,es the City Council believe the restrictionof these lands to agri.cultdral us,,e is compatiblor with either a word or the spirit of th`c governing logisl'ation for ihlb ass`essnent cobs of the `Drainage District? , 2) if the answer to question 1 A.s negatli e then the question is Is the city ;:+i 1�,ing `to enter into negotiations for the pur,thAso of the parcels involved! or 3) Would the city suggest zoning W'hic}'t would be in keeping, with the lea g:slati�• .e enabling acts .. ) ,. } ~ •,) it `�� .. 11 -, t U Z �;.41 �o March 23;v' 1.976 lsoa]M,,of Supervisors But -to County oroville, _Calif. Gentlemen - tb�?a so I have:; �alcen the, libertyo:� sending, thin t a , am �brr at I am un Ae to attond thy, is sta ement. There'are two reasons 1- feel a responsibility for submitting a t,tatement concerhinE the �doning issue before y6ii. One "is that I was a member of the "�omrd bctw4enA965 and 1970 when commitment -s Vere made to the land oWW)rs in the S'iastaUnion .Drai.najre Dii;,rict. I: am also the owner of riir_e aures immediately adjacent to but not included in the area proposed"for rezoning today. In late 1964 or early 1,965 when the "ahasta Drainege District was proposed I appeared Wore the L card' and urged that the area be zoned Agr3cultLtr.s and the,",oundarles for the proposed district be reduced consii1drab1y. The Board did not accept my ,recommendation; Since only one member of the present Board was serving' at that three I, would like to review some history rel.e vent to this,, issuo, ?., I'he board operated generally with an I'unwritLon't policy than they would not take the responsibility for initiating zoning;. Us`tially action on zoninC, would be talcen c-oly' when more than `0% of the wand owners 14i,tilin a rliva i area requested a 'particular zone classification* Obviously moot owners were not anxious to support a zoniil "class'f'i.Latiori which lowered the sale value of their propertyb Our county was thus slow to establish and maintain toning which represented good long term planning. Another palcy the hoard f vlo�sred was to form. ra specia5 assessmont da8tri'tt for any kind of in.proventonts only when s. eaJority of the property owners who woyllci ray tho cost requested formation of the district, 'phis policy was not followed when tho Shasta Vni,gn Rrai.nar�o 17i,str.t.^t was, ebtabllohodf. The County had to provide dt� inaf e* in order to ecuro necessary highway �.mpro`�omont on 99E� Thus the i,si ;icit tics t'ormc d against the wishes of a larGe t;tajori,ty of the �_ opoelty. owners Many stated in public �?nurin�7 4t thht tiirio ,that Lhoy didn't need the distri.ot di.dntt want to do.volbp thoi..' property; anal were not an? -,Jour by assist; others who mit-,ht with to do so __. u.. . _, . ,._ ... , a.x',_ ... fir. _. __ ., i _ .:._. ... _. r•;. _ _,., . __ 2 The answer the Governing Board of this County gave to these people was that some day they miUh.t want to develop; the drainage district would matte this possible; the area, was, > toned to allow development; and the County Master Plop called for low density housing; in this area The City has :` t.IZ developed ,a proposed I,1ant,or P1{� n wbic3h calls for all: -."is area to be zoned AgriculL•tirc. 11 this were to be done the people of the affected arca would have paid for a very expensi,vo' ditch which they could never. Use; they would have their pwoperty devalued; they would, have' paid taxes fot years on property which was. assessod for its highost and best use as required by law rather, than ca the j basis of,-,~, restricted Agriculture zoning. if there were rk, away to reimburse the people advcrsel.y \' affected by now zon:a.±iC; the area Agriculture I would nuppart it, but I sire no way to undo what has been donee to this dounty we have boen guilty of allowing leap-f7rog (, development without proper drainage and sewers. We tlhotil.d establish zoning claso4,ficabions which do not encoiarut e this, We must have inte€;rity in our zoningb decently sevoral, assessors have indicated they would no longer honor;onirjg because it" is :too easily broken by "political"' prosoure. Another at,tompt should be made to forth .,a join` )Planrling' ag©ncy with jurisd3ct3on over the �utiban area d1,tr roundiri our cities. IJ The c'�5nstant bickerl.n_ and lack of res Di ct betwoen th,o Chico City Council and riamb6r's off' the. dounty ,'I oard slt'- ild pease' and cooperative planning beoomot�,the r ,. e rather then tho ,exception, ,,. \' The number of iIl.e�al, land "'visions in tYi .t� county is astrbnamiotzl._, and l 'boittmehd the ,Iombors of ,Lliis l;oarrl who have bben trying to stop this. t was shocked to road °recently, ° of 3ba indicated thew illegal. divisions whereontakinr ache stillyg, place, , hopn you will bec�'}te a united . Board to 11teK1 th ..s . I�owo�tor, th`b issue "�yau itludt ri�Ow ido tint � deo !.s \ : �talletha�1 you will condone Illegal lend spits; conil.nrtc tri allot'r rte,"e op- merit without properdrainane and scwerS; oil ,upprud�� , xct''an : • classifications to allow lac speculators to "ri3lol''9 c:ther, the issue �.s this os.r(t frill 1lonorl io 1i� cr�t �whethcr n i [to ado b, a former board to the land r�w>i�. �s o , �,rN ��,, .�ts•ht�ict� y ,Most of t t 10 qt u � c o. n r p '�y the people �.n k x t �' ane t who lig.+t•.r .;�1 .. r�.� flgri CUlyytU116i 7ny1n11)1t, Mice li'v�iinf,'l,O.tI vory mi'l��1V�.:l 1)1'�11T." oto 1'`Jtllch t1i`;'� the ({%'., rCi lt. at OP re'✓elit �7pi liba. which th;y, mow 4"Ji.1. h 4o .i Loo-,, j t. m oil 0 l� tic5thered b the ,fairnosd b vno o o!' an att itudo .thdt "now l,' .t t ; , h xve M What l t� den t t tyorie ol:lo -In thl.;t tx-00A have tl� ' same ' tl�inr:, tt , �� 1 > y f' there tre.re ar. mance a'f sro�1 '♦n?� "u i r, legislation which t :)Ul,d take `.1 r-,cfi't oAt of (,r7,yx'a.1 €rood='-,eu'.tt;re !and _'Qr dpvg3 t p ;er v ret . r t ;err tle-ii3lop n ; in more desirable areas, t tba.0, Per%, anyone eslc,tn _or a recchi::y ela'sc:;':.ec�,r_ sh-6uld, if 1 have to par' to the Ga,rc n er--O at deternIrfarl mi the �� l z equivalent of what 'etc-Ulaha-'9tee -. Laze.t 4s.dt:�e;j `,:igen amsessed 'bas8d c '>the naw u .W�.�:~ i Hca' est ,r by �ar5+rir� .s five S�'ax she gone; c ll.ecte #1 t ':ber cry ��.r�e� to II' re�,�burse w4mers wet, -,ro. ert; :�Cs a r1o: A r str a ,�� zrjn nr ':fres ; o the Saru��:riit.�' anti � placed on it in,the st., -I k,Fe fut-are cenerat,i'ons. oWe7-ri tour, , *�� ,:0rv3' Yh'9 � �s s'_ 2^o 'hr.7a0 '.i0r,6 ,S to Ve `-'Ov'rsrl },..1C e "J.°' tue Z Ctl Li �.^.F� 335r•.i»7:x1:1 i r�ii'l�X�a.�iL � r + ILP'*,. 3�e vf-� w �^^i� .♦ 1 c. �♦yy.. V�,ryr Udl WN •...iw� Ik � .Fi JF♦.V71k iJ♦ '.i.Qc�.�y. thj�.i 3a°^ �.1: w .: c: a y°:�a�riFi kl.^:a.nAs et�a1 rLeFi%r is .. '^ " $...��a L.J! .,T'� 9 LL�xr:r,��s, sc.^.e Qat Ciau.Se t 1thow. ♦7 ' 'y =016 '1 '003. ^r� ♦ I � i1. I iW W ♦ ,� "s 4� 1 , t } a � , c, ;r A k 0/1 okf r ' , March 24, 1970 Y Jl , m. Bartrami etal R4.» 473ox "544 Cal.ic`Ki CA 95926 Dear t�� sartram,, At tr1(g' regulajc'*.6 ting of t#xe i3utte, County Board of SUperVisOra, , held zoh 23 r Si > , the hearing on your, 4pppal of the pJ.�xsxai.rxgF'; �,Ja eioa - sde�;ia1 of rezoning f'rccn ��A�-a" � (�eue�cal � �a C 1i e b. On Ao4d anx� �� C�vnetl�aawest na�,de�of Esp�lanade�sbstws _nasia�c�ntial) fob �H' +- C �r continued to' April. 7. 1976 at 2:00 P JR 'she meting will be h`lc� in tlxa3`ard of SuerviM©rn •2oom, County Administration �'%Ul fig ird steeet o) , o et chi 1'59 4`* vi 11 �' Calif prnia . u4 ) - , i t shoed yogi h, v� r�ny: 'qu oticn e.ga a�.n, Yi .s m�attaar please „ cootact th.i of fiob . xncre�e. ji `LLQ I S>;� r Clock of, the Board of supe rvig'Olrs fj (.I , _ t3 - �kpri ;2 a. 1076 if Rt A Box $44 flFChico# CA 9592t Rei : Re zone's . 1)9ar Mr BartraVit At rm Y11 1°o mac. I1 O i3Ut tls �I t1t1T1 I30 i C o f S ti a ev Y p I hold Aptil 2 7';\, 1976 0 Ovdinunc,� . No ' x71Z p ] 71� a� & 3 713 w�r�� �s�o �t;ed 1 1i is n �` � ,l A�Reoid -R" � �1 4S1ubu b —11t6a �.de�*� wtR-4„, (%Mmum b6nsl ntial) And "S prr�ptrt}� lace��ecl on #�taeA west side �►f Ela , lanad � hg�:�ra�en R'ad AAA shpita Ave, aontailhing 200 acres t tt�art oxl, It$a # l, Chico. aholuld. yott (`�'tAV'o any qu6dtibp,, X' t tdi �'i1� s mc1i dontac,i. ttt OffJC1° tlork of the [3o*zc3 of SuperTpi-6oxs Health D6pt • 61, y 5 ok1 JAI j L7 1()76 November 2f 19`7 6 c (� .8oard of supervisors County of Butt:.E' 16 9 Bird Street Oroville, Cali f or Ll.a95.965 Re Ixtensivn for,,Preparation of ylissir s tl.e ineftts of General Pian Gen tl enlen : �? � We hereby appeal your appa4oval of the 1�e tipulation wi h the �tto� ney General. of the state ,o��, Cali.fornialywhereby you agr�cd to an extension of time within wt i ci toprepare the ('four .dements p:resentl.y lacking in the General Plan. Our appeal is based upon tine ground that you did not submit' the said decision for en rironniental review. In other swords, we request ehvi.xonmcnt:�l review of your stipulation and, until an environmental rc va 4 is , dtic-G--,d; we kequ�;sl. that you fo�'-o any reliance: �Xpor . t!�e stipulation. It is our position tiat `Iip stipulation is inva.11ia, without the environmental review. tt � Please advise pis of your decision: i Sinceresy, zj�� '7Zx I�iDS or ' 8tTTE GOUNrY 1 Y, Fi l e 75-84 ;- Vern M. Bartram et al - Rezono. Chronology of Events,, ll June 197'r Application re^ei�,ed - Butte County Planning Commission 23 June 1975 c„ � ring..; _ En"vi ronme"nta .- review" hea E.Z.R. req uestOd Ap,p1 i Cant noti�,� fed 5 Sept. 1975' App'l i cant s,Ubmi is information � 22 Sept. 1975( rmatin o fi. R. C. - accepted I'tifo ci,t 1,7 Nov. 1975: Draft E. I .R. to F. R. G. Nati c of completion f'i l ed 8 Jan. 1976;, Plahn,ing„Cd'mmission hearing of"E,IR. Con 'ti'nued open until 29 Jany' 1975 29 Jan. 19,76 P1annirng "Commissi0n hearing continued to 5 Feb. 1976 5 Feb'`f, 1976 l E.I.R. found sufficient 5 to 3, one absent Planning Commission recommends denial, 5 to 3, one absent . 10 Feb, 1976 Board of Sune,r�,',tis,,grs peceived 1(l,Vder from ,Ci'ty of Chico opposing rexi:hi'._. 24 Feb. 1976 'Board receives petition from Friends of Butte County appealing 8pnroyal of E,I,R. by P1anninq Commission, Board receives arfbeal of-,re ComMendatiort of denial of rezone from R Nr Donnelly .D. V. M.." and Harold li, Peterson, Wearing set fo.,r 23 March 1976. -. 23 March 1976 Board hoarinq continued to 1976 97 Apr i ;r 106 „ Board ;overrules Plannin-o Commission adopts C-1, R»4', S-R Zones 4"\', P1a,Y 976 ' Board &oletes AP 4`4-03.140 from R-4 Zone 24 June 1976 Petition for Writ of Mandate and lhjunctive ReTiof f l ed by City of Chico i1 (( 7 Sept, leO76 Points and authorities in support of above filed in Superior Court 14 Sent; 1976 Board stops building nermits in Bartram area, Oct. 1576 Sti pul 6t on and ''Wal ver 0f-140ti do f l ed uy''A: r. in jt Superior Court, App'licatioh for Oxtensiert of ti Me filed b,v County of Butte, r tl „ �t i (pcJ;2) 76�j8 , Dartram rezone 2 Nov. 1976 Friend$,, of Butte, County Appeal Bo'ard's approval Of "Iti pul at on;., 21 Dec.. 1976 R,oard repeals C-1 , R=-4, S-R Zones in Bartram area. 22 Dec. 1976 Revi sed Sti oul at106 & Waiver 001 floti ce a1 so extension of time filed--;"--CE ounty of Butte. 4 J,an. 1977 B(,.Ar.,d refers -Bar:tr-im rezone to Pfanninq Commission. ti f u ti „a ,a p C71 I� T� l . \.. 1. la��w�a�ar��rl�nta��9���nora�a�aas�a _ ra- Daniel. V, Blackstock, County Counsel FROM! Jay McKoeman & John ilelmer, Environmental Coordinator SUSJEcr:Bartram, et a?:, Pzozone EIR j 0 „ DATC° July 30, 1076 a, A short synopsis of the question "What is a sufficient ETR?" i,s necessary before analyzing the Bo?rtr.am EIR''in totality. Two -� elem,ents of CF;QA seem to contradict "each other when examine', in respect oto, sufficiency. The purpose of the informatior!�,-t8 decision -makers anal the pub 1i&, 1q,'';,. "Aft he�.p in evalua qrr ,� d rr - The obY� 71�rt , 5x�tent of an EIR is for 1ry,juminate readll-, j ,.. potential problems of , -,a particular pr( On the of er,.,';h � - �i rtdetailed- hensxve analytical' document requiring' xuw�.�: ihyest'Igat� oan of alx 1; the content.., of an BIR, as det � n r , elements an �,jhc EIR. The intent here � •,.t,a mw,�e sure and tleai�e no stone r of CEQI appuxently run��atrcrossnp�ixposes� onetintent rendiixingTwo basic eats concise and understandable document, the her intent calling for `a comprehensive and analytical xnvestigati�5n:, Before concluding what a. Psuffic.ienti"EIR 'contain' a, wei, him of these intents 'I s recommended.? w-, he following, is an examination and comments 'on` of (('> �- p , nts from. the �,. Scronri Cause �o f Action of the „petition fa,:, writ of Tmp1tnand`ate, No. 61686. We have Y��ined each point fii and refer to bot] the Guidel.nes for Code Title 7 r -meni ation of CEPA,°-�Califora Administration" 4�,Sect,iorts 15000, et sec{, and �,t:he Biztte County Environmental Revtie° G%.idelnes Resolution No. 75-57. '''State Guidelines " 1 15140. General, tnvironmental impact reports sha11,-�,��,Antain the -information outlined in this article, 5141. Description of project: The description of this project. g information i ' shall contain the" following nformaton but should not supply extensive detail b., gond that needed for evaluation' ,and re new of the envivonmental impact. (a) The precisel, : �*ion and boundaries bf the proposed p-roj Oct shali.. shown bn ' a detailed Inap, p efexably topographic. `i'he !location of the project; shall also a° ppear on a re�.ort'a g' l map. (1) '' s'tdtement of - the `ob ` ectives sought b th ,'� `' 1 g ;y e proposed project, , r l ,,