HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.10.b - John Stonebraker - Public Comment Received - FW_ comment on 3.10.b drainage easementFrom:Clerk of the Board
To:BOS; Pack, Joshua; Nuzum, Danielle
Subject:Public Comment Received - FW: comment on 3.10.b drainage easement
Date:Tuesday, January 14, 2025 11:57:49 AM
Please see public comment received for item 3.10.b below.
-----Original Message-----
From: John S. <john@upperridge.info>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 6:01 AM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>
Subject: comment on 3.10.b drainage easement
.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
First, I support redeveloping the Barber brownfield. The City of Chico is right to direct construction into walkable
locations like this rather than sprawling further across ag land. Thus the city can meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation within its own boundary. That engineers now propose instead to chisel a hole in the Greenline is
lamentable.
There are four parcels here, not three, which lie outside the City's jurisdictional limit, its sphere of influence, and the
Greenline.
039-410-039 is a producing orchard. 039-410-025 is an Estes Road residence with Prime farmland in the back, 4.5
acres of which are proposed to be converted to a non-agricultural use. This is something the County should seek to
avoid, barring a specific Planning Commission recommendation.
039-410-012, elided in the writeup, contains a section of Crouch Ditch which provides valuable seasonal habitat.
Like the above, it is county jurisdiction and zoned AG. Then 039-410-038, across Comanche Creek on the railroad
siding, is zoned HI so it can become the terminus for the fantasized commuter train or something.
There may be reasons why it is unfeasible to construct the detention basin within city limits and also unfeasible to
use the Crouch Ditch alignment to convey detained stormwater into Comanche Creek without infringing on Prime
farmland. The proponents however present no such reasoning, merely asserting that the County's concession is
necessary.
Allowing the City to convert Prime farmland outside the Greenline to a non-agricultural use in support of a
residential subdivision is effectively allowing such land to be converted to urban development.
Approving this proposal would thus constitute a breach in the dike, which simply should not take place as a consent
item. I urge the Board to remand this item to the Planning Commission for review.
John Stonebraker
Magalia, CA