Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
79 - 107 A
r " � �, �y ( 1 rr e t .� st ,,,a � .. t b: t'r #a et.e � `t ,� \ n y � 6 ✓ 1: r Il r �iF����r ' �C.:�� x.� � ! �.e d Y, j y.� ��,.�'� °'w.+,.?� '�� � J .. ti�h fir' .ir M1. ✓ f i t hti r1( a!Lyr 1' 4'. t.14 a a Yap File 79-I07A FROM, Bob Gr".Gi.ser #t summer` Filing Roferonce DATE, April 26, 197 Back roun;1 information and discussion on this project before April :16, :1979 will be found in two files: 77=37-1i CHICO AIRPORT BMVIRONS PLAN (R. Dixon Speas Study) 77-73-F CHICO AIRPORT FLANCHANGE PT RtZON (Preliminc.ry Discussions lull mill, 7 cokd� ell 0� orl ^�. a .X x �N•a,;a Y.� �1�1 `+.; 11 y!►"/(� GOL 'l -f L 1) k-- K afi� a� �: 5'y w ,��_ .,w!„�aM. Y � �6i��1��,i� #`V".•,tt�'�:,y� 'a � (�C"%# � . _ � ., � � : ♦5�+w"R :M�a.� ,� � E.:kj � 2,Aad�r� a �l/V� �. �' +xnA�; � lI!T# � °g'; N �{;'1 � �`. ��O ��IJ b �X d iViy i!� +"lf� j'3"�."i�� / I /� 1 �� �� •I � ,.. _ ... <, t�� # �' � �„Jj.��Mi.n �yAJ u t J, 1' � '� •Ojy .y � �xi���y, ri "fiV.� r9r 1>�'� s<'at��;4Y Pl,ylt P i c ^¢s � It '�•IA #.i”" y3Y flO'l 1i"r.#"`P 9 s a% w i y t 6 A' ,' �' • ., ti d �� 5 A{ r� 9 I �( C✓ l y'a � t y 7' � r )PO IM li#i " b a }fin a J •Y I 1.11M %#f tln}u#fid • li#1�+.ik C,, (#`,at Ve�,¢.,6"a�. /M���y ",",i . _.. Yi>l. „^p 4,� 1 �a �, �I �,..�i .a, a:'lV f'FQ }, 1A L•IT. .. .. .v n. _ F t f J 9.��Q1#�' „ y u a� �l ` �a>° 4�„� ynaw 1, Al a, :��, 4� �i.i a, .in�F PxF.• � � «, &Y,... �k i•�fr �"u � �i7A dl h ��`� ie��F ' f � h X N ^ Y y Y 1 , � f y .� •x..,. a .. -. an n a r •1 Butto Co. plot -'r Ing comm. APR 2 4 1979 .F4Y7`.lTTE OGONTY PLA°iVN1'NG 00MMISS a_1s'ON Orov CioA t"al t'ornitt APPLICATION FOR GI E AL 11AN' A2,NDMENT and./or ZONING ZONING Presently A-2 Cpartial ly iii A-40 M-1 into- r7at1s) and/or GENERAL PLAN�AL�TD USE TMEM , T DESIGNATION: GOL, RIS,. LDR, MDR,_ C. I tar >'_J I PROPOSED ZONING: A-200 Aw40, A-160, ASR, C-2, L-1, P -Q, SR -1.1 SR -3 ff 6nd/ox r PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USS; D1; IGNATTON ; RR to C, P, x Pi LDR r LDR F MDR, to C, LDR to RR APx'L'xCA14T'S NE11<lE1yr f"ntin.t;,.1�-�?ry CaluPHONE: nL7�ri r ADDRESS: 2_ rnl1„iv 1r, xi �S1:rovij1e 95965 STATUS OF APPLICA IT' S INTEREST IN PNO11ERTX : �'i nr 1 -n 1 "an.l?�- •1 ,n .v -- ! rHONL OWNER I S :NAM ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: f n-_���� a v n}iii cl .11 j C! 0.iV111 r i n a I A i IWC t � bounded generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west, {s .,�SCP1qt1111r"L' _r-rer-1c. 1L.. IiI sn11•f h a1, r]. LSR1d<�w1�L1-58r,rni r nn Ar•i _. Agreements on the east. LXpLAiN i"ULLY REASON FOR APPLICATION, ,� , r n,rnp j � 17 r 01n,11 a 1,1 C r} t?',re1 ji] S. zt ti �' ff Grt }, . 5 � c- n 11'1' 1 a 11 1l]S�. � Fn n r� 1 pin -n. a� Z4 � 1� ,ri nr� firer r71'I•,irr� rn I - area----- The above statements ��ro co.r�f iia ed "her t1�e ur�dor:rignod tab carred. ' t S� clFillT" o.e App. a 'antiv I � Y a rha�•rmlrt Note: Fleane payable biherowit.k,he Uoun ecty ofor inono order -ho amount skxov�n in 1 ob f cnr r Kte Rscea P NOTICE TO APPLICANT REZONING Asae or'S Pace]. No.: Books 44, 47 F, 48 - various pages .�., 2. Location; ARea around Cii co Municipal Airport north 3. Dcisting Zoning: A-2(partially irl A-40 $ M-1 interims) Vii•. Requested Zoning $ n n An A ni r � � � SR-1 , SR-3 5. General Plan Posignati.on; CDL, RR, i,DR, MDR F, X SR-10 As the applicant for the requested n�-,2o.ning referred to on Line 4, the relationship between the Butte County General Plan and my rozoning request has been explained •to me by the undersigned 1)la.nning staff member. In making this rezoning appll,cation, I am aware that the zone I am requesting does not conform �o the Butto Country Genera. Plan 4/20%69 . s`ted A�?r7LL Staff sig—nature d, ican�; s i gna Lure GnCti4 4* T D (9rIU;IMT.'–D 6T"7mr-y— # APPENDIX E Dat -we Filed _V_21./M Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL INFORM&TIONt 1. Name and address of developer or.• %roject sponsor: 4) t:X 1) 1 n s s J Dn,--7–, C a i i n t C. n n + r,% v 1) Or – , - . I I - I I ._arL95d_ 2. Address of project: Area around Chico municipal Airport Assiasor I s Block and Tot Number. Books 44 47 & 4.8 - various pages Mame, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning thio project: Bettye Blair or Bob Gasser at 534-4601 4 Type of project; (i.e. rezoning, subdivision) . 'Rezoning and General Plan chance 9. LAqt and describe any other related permits and other public .A.pprovcala required for this project, includiag, those required by city, regional, 8tato and federal rngetciesi ,one 6, Existing Zoning district. k-2 (partially in A-4.0 & 11-1 interims) 7. Proposed use of site, agriculture, residential public, commercial and industrial PROJVCT DESCRIPTION S. Site size. Bstimated 6j180 acres (see attachr.ent) 1 9. Square footage of building(s). N A 1G. Numb6r of floors of construction. N A. 11, Amount of off-street parking 'Provided, N A. 12 Attach sitedevelopment lan ad location map. Aerial photo8 arid AsSsot8 rCel Map pagos may be required in some cases, 13, Proposed schedulinA. *Map of proposal has been submitted. As soo s ossdb� (e socli ae e(I p ec 14. AS proj 0, S'. P,UBJ,J,C. ""R�V.BMEINTS n� .aybdivi,sion review. 15. Ant-, c1pate Increme deveiopment,, Appendix E page I of, 3 Ilk 16. If re3i.denti..alc, ineliWe the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household size expected. Estimatod maximum of 20.00 tlnit$ 1 1 sin 710-: i.1y, dwol,l�.ng few mobile homes . a � f corlmerc�.a1., indtcca,t�� t°i,e type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally orionted, square footago of gales area, and loadin I:aciliti,es . 25 ,acTas of ili I�tivzy�C;o�nr�te cint, 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loddixzg fari.l,idies $3 a.crCs of storage, commercial sorviecs and. light t irif�t�tlxxi.n�;, InstItutional, indicate 0 -Le major function, estimated ,employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loadiag facilities, and. com muni.ty benefits to ire derived from the-pr.dleet. 30 acres fVr State -.glow Interchange change . ` ip, If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the appl5.cation is required. 'existing A-2� Zoning is inconsistent with adopted General Man. Are the following; items applicable t -o the project or its effects? Discuss below all items chocked yes (att-ach additional sheets as necessary), YES NO 21. Change 1 existing features o.f any beaches, lakes, or hills, or substantial altexa:'tion of ground contours, tX 22, Significant change scenic views or vistas from existing residentialareas or lands or toads, X 23. Significantly change pattern, scala: or character of ., gen,eral area of- project. X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or li;tte'r. X. 2S , change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. x 26; Significant change in lake stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alVer,ation of existing drainage patterns, X _ 2.7. _ Substantial change in existing noise or vibration , levels in the: vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or more. X 29, Use or disposal of potentially ha,%ardous materials,, such as toxic substances, fl.4ammablo5 or explosives: Appendix E w t ago 2 6 j3 YZ 8 NO X 30. X 31. X 32. Substantial chancle. in demand for municipal services (Police, fire, waterf sewage, etc.). Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33 Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects . Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structart-.s. 34. Describe the surrounding proper -Lies, including information on plants and animals. and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.),, intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), an4 scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). See attached memos, map of existing land use and "AiTport BnviTons Plan". CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that th-, statements furnished, ,ib6Ve--Yn'din the attached exhibits present the dataand information required for this initial evaluation to the best of I my ability, and that the facts, statementsf and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date 4/25/79f. Mature) For, Appendix t page 3 of 3 BOARD OF SUPRAV'I SOBS - MINUTES Akin:l 8, 1980 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2092 & 2093: AUTHORIZEPAYMENT TO JON ANDERSON PUBLIC HEARIN DATE SRT FOR CONSIDERATION OF MERIDIAN` MUNJAR, ROCK C"Elt FLOOD DIVERSION, MUD CRE,EX AREA, PROJECT, AND TNERMAI,ITO DRAINAGE STUDY EIR ANT? NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS Clay Castleberry, publ,ia works director, set out the background of rhe drAlnaga study that was done by Jon Anderson, There were three studies in one report. He asked that the Board adopt an ordinance to preserve they natural.. drainage swayles as ural done for the Thermalito area. On motion of Supervisor WKeoler, secoad.ed by Supe visor Dolan Iand un,azalmously carried, a public hearing data of May 27, 1980 at 10:30 a.m. was set for consideration of the following and the Environmental. Review Director was instructed to circulate EIRs immediately: 1 Proposed negative declaration and decision on project for` Meridian, Mun j ar drain, project. project. 2. Draft E :R. and decision on project for Rock Creek flood diversions 3 Draft M, and decision on project for Mud Creak area project. 4. Vroposed negative declaration, and decision. on project for Thermalito dLainago study, On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unatintously carried, the following urgency ordinances ware, adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign: Ordinance; 2092 -» to preserve the natural, drains. and swayles for Meridian Munjar drainage area. to preserve Ord3naxace 2093 p s rve the natural drains and swayles for . - Rock Creek flood diversion area. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan and unanimousl.y carried payment to Jon. Anderson for the Meridian Mtxnjar study was authorized. B. CHI:CO AIRPORT AREA Ms Blair -turned the meeting over to Bob Caiser of the Planning 'Depart- ment. He discixssed the memo and maps that had been ;previously sent to the Commissioners concerning the Chico Municipal :Airport Environs Plan. Commissioner Everhard arrived at tht meeting. Mr.. Gaiser recommended that the Commission consider a new industrial zone classification that is somewhat more restrictive than the "M.„1 ► (Light Industrial), it could be called "L--1" (Limited Industrial) which would allow storage or assembly which does not produce -significant noise, odors, Smoke, vibration, bright lights or fire hazards. Commis- ioner Bennett moved `that the proposed zoning plan arotuad tho Chico airpc,,'t as presented by Staff be approved and instruct Staff; to set public t hearings. Chairman Wheeler stated subject to bringing in "L --I" and "SR -10". Seconded by Commissioner Lambert:, AYES; Commissioners Gilbert, Lverhard., Lambert,'Bannett and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: None ABSENT None Motion carried. JJ 4ro h ! "`� ,D'W rj t \ `� �� � � ! �I �, ' Cf,�h9 yy► �5 �' �J�1 J BOARD OF SUIJERVISORS MINUTE SEPTEMBER 187 197 1542 REPORT TO BOARD RMARDING FUNDING FOR PREPARATION OF EIR MR PIMNING Cq MrSgxON_ INITIATED MURAL PLAN AMI NDMENT REZONE FOR CHICO AIRPORT .pSgA Tli-- discussion of the report -to the Board regarding funding for the prepara ion of EER for the Planning Commission initiated Genoral. Plan Amendment rozone for the 0hico Airport area held ,at this time. 1 �q earl Nelson, onvizIonmental ;review director, stated that the problem relates to using profeasional services fund money for the EIR. His ddpartment provides cervices to various other county departments. Tho Planning Department is asking; for an EER on 6,000 acroo around the airpLrt s The indications are that the low bidding fir ill is excollent. He had money in the budget to do the project. He wondered what they would do for the :rant of the year. There are other projects coshing along from Planning and, Public Works. Ito wondered how this should be handled. He wondered whether -the department malting the request should pay i'or the services and reimburse his department. The total budget C for outvide work is $12,000, They contract out for SSR preparation. Tho- ktave ,spent over $3,000 already. ,Some of the projects have been done in-house. The county is not going to get rid of the ".A-V, z,6ning unless these projects are initiated. i At the present time, the developer is required to pay for � his project area.. He fell: that; for a ,planning program they try to proceed to get the available sources. if the budget proposal goes thttough, and the fees are increased he will have another one-half person to review the Planning Department items. Chairman Lemke stated that maybe the Environmental Review Department wile. not be able to go very far. They may have only $41000 in tho future to work with. The department will have to work with the funding available. 1 BOARD OF ti" aUPERVIGOVS MINUTES awmnlm lit 19?() W] A 1484 i:, PORT TO 13OA10 IW!,*' I'U14i ING, emit 7'111: PIMS>n1;LMON OF ENVIROM%NTAL IWACT REPORT FOR Tl PLANNINC CC1r>Ti SSI ON INITIATED GgtJC}tAT, PLAN t11�1CN1)NI�tI'.0 1 i ONE VOR C111C".0 AIRPORT _nitl t hutky(* Blair, planning director, scat Out the bacl%roaatld of for G,.,naral Plan amendmcant rc+rcatac> for th(F Chide, Airport area, They Plantai.atg Commission was directed to look at the ontire area off Cohassot. The Planning Commission nomt� lip w,ri tla ,i Toning for thea aro.a and were notified that aa, 1;T1 was going Lo be required. Th(-'[.nvironmcintal, Ri'view Department 1, laas r0c:c4ivvcl hicltj fOr tho EIR, ,Vaca relt it was ianporUint that t1lo Beard ttllcr the lnitiativca in khi a as°caa, ".Clad orva is unr,lassiif.ed atad there is specific adoptpd zono. TaeasLt la,rat, lg�ejl nlmrsL ca four mouth delay .from the COmmLssIolls roconimondatiolig. ;lie felt that, 01is matror could be delayed 11111,11 to Ftor tlaca bacclF,cyt has been adopLed. 'ri►oro are about five other projocts ill the mill. slid l`olt tfivy Would run iakto tho saint, problem wit's tbo5c 1aro.jects. Sup4•rvisor Winston wonderod It tho individuals in the area cacaaalcl la !ve tIlL.. El'll pj:opnrLsd as li: i s going, to b� formulated for the raafiL c -f 01(i property and tliv prope rtv miff a:s. 1`asy Blair stLjted that shca li<ad soare roservntious on that if they werc, properLy tavniors. An individual, getting a3 'buil d i'ng permit tca build ttoulr7 t1e31 'rn 1�E+ I pa ng to share the cost' of the M just the c:urront dc3vclopvrs would be lit, paying for the EIR, The area is largo and ha:; beell unClassi rind ill caning,. They have, Cocyeral. Plan ;tamendmonts on portions of ttais area. She ful t that the county lids ilowed the area to do as it wanted to do, and now the to.ard about two yearsago tborca should be an c. 7ttvironmovt:.al assossmoatt oar. the entire � artA S!ILI C�lt it was tbo county's responsibility, � j Emironment.al Review Department was directed to nail down the cost and find out whore they waero to go as far° as contracting on the: tIR, �' I3VITT1.; COUNTY KANNIN NINISS'TC)N ,STAPF k'INDINGS Junc l�JK0 Cii rCD ATRPOR71' LAND USIA PLAN Tfrl s General Plan Amendmont was ir"it Utt'ed by the Planning Comm-i,stii on oil April, 10, 1:9 79 after revlowi.ng, tb- comprollens:i,ve study of aircrtlft 11013e an,cl st�rcty f,-:ictors contained in .ile "Chico Dftnii.cipal. Airport Bnvirons Plan" of 1,07n, preliminary Io,"'trings in the area, and revievi of -tile propo.%11 by till Commission committee. The I)TOJect, as Proposed) would prOVent ;i lcompatibl.e dovolopment around tho ,Airport, eliminate inconsisten 'es between zoning, all(I the general 1>7.ttn and provide for future ,ro,vtll o`j the Ch* urban area. The project area contains approximately 6,1139 acres and is generally described as bounded by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the est, Sycamore Creek on the south, and existing Land Conservation Agreements on. the east. The project area includes not only those properties directly affected by aircraft operations at Chico Municipal: Airport, but also the growing residential area between the airport and Highway 99 to the west. The Land Use Plan Map adopted with the new Land Use Elemention October 30, 1979 changed the general: plan designation: for most of the project area from Crazing and open Land to Agricultural Residential, resulting in a more accurate representation of the mixture of existing uses. Commerci.al, and industrial uses are generally limited to the Airport Industrial Park and adjacent properties, Highway 99 ;frontage between the Esplanade and Wilson Landing Road, and the easterly ends of Eaton Road and Lassen Avenue, The land Use designations shown ±or the airport match closely the proposed City zoning boundaries to be considered by the; City of Cnico's Council at their June 3, :1980 meeting. The City of Chico's General Plan Map has not 1~ ,on revised to reflect the proposed rezoning of airport property. The only land use designation proposed to oe changed on city -owned property is the Agriculturall—Reoidential designation on the large clear zones. recently purchased by the City north of Mull Creek and south of Sheep Hollow. The proposed (Designation of Grazing & open Land corresponds to the City's intentiovis to lease this, land out for livestock grazing. The largest area proposed for change, from Low Density Residential to Agr;i.cultural-Res idential) lies between Sycamore Creek and the Sycamore Creek Diversion Chanrxel and the section line to the north. This less intensive designation is -none reflective of the Density and Orderly Development Policies of the General Plan, The City of Chico has been requested by the owner/developdr of several hundred acres lying within one mile east of the airport clear zone to amend an, area wide general plan to include the acreage north of Sycamore Creek, and have his property designated for urban residential use so that it could be included in the proposed North Chico o Serv er Assessment District;, increasing the econon,j.� fcasibil�t of such a district. : Before allowing the effectiveness of the Sycamoro Creek Diversion Channel -- as a significant,physical barrier between urban development and livestock grazing --to 'be overlooked, the Commission sliou:Ld require evidence that BUTTIS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SIAM -4 VINDINGS - .Ttine 4o 1980 tiro arca north of Sycomorc Creck wil-111. actually be needo(I for tirban .ro,qldontial development witbi-ii 20 years, which The broo,d dosignation.s of the 1.971 General Pla.)i placed, the area sotith of Sycnmorc Crock cost of Highway 99 In. the Orchard and FJIcld Crops category wo,s changed to AgrICUItUral Residential with the adoption. of the Land Use 17,amant in October of 1.979. Approximately 50 acres in this area are devoted to irrigated fa-rming, with two mobile home parks and other rosi- den-tial developments, This area is -proposed for Low Density Residentia-1, ,attonipting to identify existing 1,and. use and again usingo Crook Sycamor as a physical barrier limiting extension, of ro ads and utilities and maintaining an'. offective boundary for urban development within the long- range planning period. The 24 -acro parcel northwest of the prosent intersection of Garner Lane and Flivy. 99) Proposed for public designation, is owned by the State of California and will be developed as an interchange bot -ween the two roads when Hivy. 99 Freeway is extended to the -northwest. Currently, CALTRAN'S has no present, or future; plans to develop the interchange or to sell the property, The public designation is most appropriate as long as it remains in public ownership. Approximately 30 acres on the east side of Highway 99 between Wilson Landing Road and tl-.to proposed Interchange is designated for Commercial to reflect the existing developinent. This area represents the northerly end of the Esplanade commercial. corridor and lies just beyond the boundaries of the recently adopted North Esplanade -rezoning project. The parcel between the Commercial area and the Public designation has been occupied by a private school, a use which is compatible with residential designations. A 43 -acre parcel, currently under the Agricultural Land Conservation Act, Located between Keefer Slough and Keefer Road west of Garner Lane is proposed for Grazing and Open Land. The existing Agricultural is also consistent with the restrictions of the Land Conservation Act agreement. The Board of Supervisors received a request to canQelthis agreement, but hearings have not yet been scheduled. Should the Board cancel the LCA agreement the present Agricultural Residential designation should remain. Most of the project area is proposed to continue under the Agricultural Residential. designation, The significant impacts identified and discussed in the environmental impact report are largely related to the proposed zoi - iing categovies and residential densities. Commissioners I should review the draft EER with particular attention to those impacts which: are either not able to be mitigated by a change of zone within the 'General Plan category or 14tich are otherwise severe enough to indicate the inappropriatenesg of a proposed dosignation. Additional comments are necessary on two of the identified impacts. Njitigatliiig drainage and flooding problems of development that would be allowed by the,proposed zoning classifications was the main objective of the Master Storm, Drainage .2- BUT'T17 COUNTY PLANNING GoAMTSSION STAPF FINI)TNICS - June 4, 198 Plan and lock Credr� illood Uvea. s;i,on Foa-g:i:l7iJ,ity Study prepared for 't he Cowity, and drafts of these studies aero considevoil by the Board of Supervisors 's at a lat.alalic l�aaxi.i.ng on May° 2i :1JSQ arlr% coat 7at3edl the taen7Majig to June 24, po'r ding Commission, action at this he -ring. These documont,is are incorporated, by reRere,r co, :i. ll to the tll;iZ for this project. comments from rovielvincy agencies emj-�has].ze the i.dlent1fied impact oflos:in 1500acres of producln agriculto.•�1111id The Comml8sion should c011s;i4ler whether Orchard and field Crop designation might be appropriate for greater portions of. the area. The I:: IR 'comments by the C,itiy of Chico Staff also include not only references to this significant impact but also to the projected needs for public facilities by an amount and density of development for whicli the need has not been substantiated: Because of these concerns and others discussed. in the City's 1,076 General Plan, none of the Chico Airport project area north of Sycamore Creek is shown for any type of residential, development on the City's adopted Land Use Plan Map Al.: of the unincorporated land in this area is indicatea as either grazing or agriculture. 3- wlb BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 4, 1980 Change the Land Use Plan Map in the China Airport area as shown on the attached exhibit map. (Project area outlined on map contains 6,180 ,acres, more or less) Bob Gaiser read the staff findings and a setter from Thomas Moorerepresenting several propeirty owners, requesting M-1 zoning for Highway 99, A lette the commercial area on r from Chico 2000, requesting that the drainage and zoning be considered together and that the impact of each on the other be considered and that the County should prepare 'Frans for public facilities, ie, drainage, roads, schools, fare protectionetc. before or at the time of the zoning: A letter from the Chico .Airport Commission requesting that the: County require avigation easements (method of notifying buyers and developers of the noise and safety ftr.r .ors on the property because of the airport), and congtior alternatives to preserve prime agricultu,1*a1 land, agricultural uses in the area around the Chico Airport. A ,letter from the Cit of Chico Council to the Board of Supervisors endorsing a set of guidelines for preparing consistent hand use plan map for the Chico area, recommending that the area within the, primary sphere of influence reflect the City's General. Plan, requesting that the General Plan proposal x'e£lect the changes that are adopted in any of these specific zonings. Requesting also that Urban area outside the City's sphere that the County adopt specific plans for public services. the proposal. uthich defines the "Green Line!?. this proposal and Bob Gaisei commented on the differences between t John Schroder,'oroville, requested industrial for parcels referenced in the letter from Tom Moore stating that 3 of the 4 parcels would not conform with any Commercial zoning, being the lumber yard, commercial fertilizer distributer, and tractor sales. Stating that this is all M-1 (Light Industrial) useso Also stated that he, stated that the L shape parcel has a 7000 sq. £ti building with no access from 09 That the L shape parcel is unsuitable as agricultural residential and should be M-1. Tom Moore stated the 4 main businesses on the property are High Energy Foods, Lassen Tractor, tOxcy Chem. Co., and a Lumber Co. that there is a 60 foot easement on the back of his property, that the Property will primarily 'he used for offices and warehousing, that the propose is to expand his 'operation Ralprj Ileadstrom (Chico .agrees wl;tlt 6Ir. Advisory arca is r that Advisory Comnt:ittee under not c0ndSchro � the A�-R is not ) stated' that i'te x `10'icttltural, resident agricultural devel�camPatii�le, t}tat the aX.�proxirnatelY, IIo felt zonirt,g arid alsatnent Which iti�ouxd foo t0 have it com that it would � it 3,.s g, de�'e1a; ed and Pati;ble t,ith e b.� Itietter acres to ca xistar�g parcels tllatto zone this rq. ora going to the agrICUItthe M`l to this have been resider tial part ru] ar area since you �Ta�n Lu�celinc�reSentirt further out; a and P Chi co 2000 stated tvc Would thi,rk �:he A»Rgisfrt}te work you people hav uld good flike to e have -reviewed the or the areae e put into tili5 Xpress rather lame zoning plan that ,a,st of the Air or �aY�R We Of thin Parcels consistent withstbeIng pro p t because we proposal }tas aux{ t.t he drainaposed with soar,, end the Airport is ppaxt. East o� C,arnere problem,, 2/3's area, the ratential'rrpc,sed far A- and is , between , and the gUestion, of the a -,yea be- pin bbly fine Garner bcin c g zoned for that an tile burden on t}tc taxpayers, with one acre lots, we loss of grime pa yrs: Nest afp'arne ang public Services i agricultural land, Garner the are conte Commissioner Bennett concerned for 2S Years and commented that he � and Higher, more and has lived out in the area nous it well as the cost of ener out of rri more of this mar Rl' goes higher Keefer gatian. We have ideal drainage land is beg Road because g dropped all the land slopes ge along the south side John Luvas, asked the Pas to Keefer Slew. to sorvice develo Commission to consider pments away from the the is the Da.n Fla �- urban area. cost Ys stated publ�,; 10A 000 he disagreed with hfr. by 1n9S in Chico . Luva:ys o designations provides from n growth, estimate Gconomicall m 1 dwelling arca al ane, The a Y feasible to go l ac g Per 1-40 acres gr_ cultural Public utilities a re parcels also it is not and the parte in the area Ron I 1s Wzll• Probably With underground mhaff 3' be larger . the freewa' Rt. 1, Box 450.1, Chico the f Y, west of Flicks Lane , requested is Y Residential, the south of SycamorepropertY east of Home Parka If the asgoe t Creek, be Medium pr- if arca fuss Y adjacent to the Y zoned to PA going to be rezoned 'oath as ;a Mobile if fax same reason per the ry We would like our T chane u.�e Permit the have Bob Gaiser- stated t t»Y mind, ;down zone I would, like You, g the property. Residential Generalhat rtr, Imhof: has a hearing plan pplied for , g on June 18, 1980, change on his own and the Medium tensity it is .Set for Ward Bail'. x public the airport; south ofang floe , , dent, l SYcarnorCarrl�rs who own land Y re rase e s 4 units Creek and east of ouch and west, of per acre and submitted a OQ'r regtzezt rest Plan show. pla g '2;heir proposal BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION' MINUTES June 4, 1980 Y Ralph Ileadstrom Chico Citizen Advisory Committee) stated that he agrees ith Mr. Schroder that the A -R is not compatible, that the area i$ not conducivc for agriculttirol development which urould, he under agricultural residential zoning and also it is 8,6 acres approximately. He felt that it would be better to zorre this M -i to have it compatible with existing parcels that have been developed and to contain the M-1 to this particular area since you are going to the agricultural residential further out, John Luva.ss representing; Chico 2.900 stated we _would like to express a good feeling of the work you people have put into this job. We think the A -R is good for the area east of the Airport because we have reviewed the zoning plan that is being proposed with some rather large parcels consistent with the drainage problems, 2/3's of the proposal, has our support. East of Garner, 'between Garner and the Airport is proposed for A -R and is probably fine for that area, the potential of the area being zoned in one acre lot's, toe seriously gmestion, being concerned with providing public services and the burden on the taxpayers. West of Garner we are concerned on the loss of prime agricultural land. Commissioner Bennett commented that he has lived out in the area for 25 years and knows it well, as the cost of energy goes higher, and higher, more and more of this marginal land is being dropped out of irrigation. We 'have ideal drainage along the south side, of Keefer Road because all the land slopes to Keefer Slew. John Luvass asked the Commission to consider the cost to the public to service developments away from the urban area. Dan Hays stated he disagreedwith Mr Luva:ss on growth, estimate 100,000 by 1.995 in Chico incorporated area alone. The agricultural d.esi.gnations,. provides from 1 dwelling-pc.r 1-49 acres, also it is riot economically feasible to go 1 acre parcels in the area with underground public utilities and 'the parcels wixl probably be larger. Ron Imhoff, Rt, 1, Box 4r" Chico, requested is prcnea,ty east of I . the freeway, west cuff Hxc_ south of Sycamore Creek, be Medium Density Residential, th •y adjacent to the south is a, Mobile Rome Park. If the area to be rezoned we would like our property zoned to PA -C i permit we have. I would like you, if for some reason I chant;,; And, down zone the property. Bob Caiser stated that Air. Imhoff has applied for the Medium Density Residential' General Plan change on his own and it is set for public hearing on June 18, 1980. Ward Baily representing the Garners who own land south and west of the airp�o',rt, ,south of Sycamore Creek, and east of 99 tequest resi- dential 1-4 units per acne and submitted a plan showing their proposal. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSToN MINUTES June 4, 19'80 Staff discussion 'tojaraing Continuity to � tonight on a ma.p Y Plot P oposaT s received 'Commissioner Bennett made a motion to cntinue June 18, 1980, seconded by CommissioneraLambertthis hearing until AYES Commissioner Lambert, Bennett, Wheeler and Chairman Gilbert NOBS: No one ABSENT: Commissioner Max Motion carried Commissioner Wheeler stated he would like to know where the lsoo acres of prime agricultural land is located and if those areas could be marked out on a map , Earl Nelson stated that the information will be available on the June 18, 1980, meeting, BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 18, 1980 -'Minutes N. Change the nand Use Plan Man in the Chico Airport Area as shown on exhibit.,map--6,180 acres, more or less. (File 79=x109 -A) a6 -68-1-3a Bob Gaiser briefly reviewed this project, Exhibit "A" File 79-109-A. Chairman Gilbert reminded those irn the audience that it is not necessary to repeat testimony given at the ,last hearing James Tuttle, 884.'Vallombros Ave., owner of a: walnut orchard at Hwy. 99 and Garner bane. He said heis joined, by 120' homes to the south and that some of the problems of farming in this area are Neighbors throwing rocks in the orchard because they do not want t-he4i in their yards; providing a park -like a.reafor children and dogs to play; providing a place for riding horses and. motorcycles -right over the Irrigation pipes; helping themselves to the nuts even before harvest time. He asked that he be given the same zoning as his neighbors to enable him to recoxp some of his losses loss of crops and repairs to irrigation equip -hent last year to the tune of approximately $?,500 and his insurance agent Nays that maybe he is not going to be insured any longer. He added that he was speaking also for his neighbor to the north with about 7n acre!, of almonds and walnuts who is experiencing the same problems. (Nei.ghbor Robert Mitchell) Commissioner Lambert questioned that there had been ample time to digest the 4 inches of paper work, but later 'agreed that she would be comfotable with closing the hearing, Commissioner Max said he would like to see the hearing continued to give him more time, inasmuch as he did not have the benefit of the past years' discussion of the Airport Area. Commissioner Wheeler said he still had concerns, but that we now have t the input and have to go to work. f�'C) 13 • BUTTJ3 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 18, 1980 K Minutes commissioner Bennett commented that lie was very :familiar tritb the tlrc ) hava:»g lived there for 25 years, and that the area, would, not develop anyway until the drainage problem is solved, The hearing was closed- Commissioner losed- Commissioner wheeler agreed with Commissioner Bennett's comments, and noting that Pi t Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed, moved that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the amendment of the hand [1se Element of the General Flan :dor the Chico Airport ,Area., as shown on Exhibit Map A (File 79-109-A), with a black border, prepared by staff—recommending the change from Open and Grazing remain Agricultural. Residential, recommending the area at the intersection of Esplanade and Hwy. 99 which had been proposed for Commercial be Industrial. - His notion was seconded by Commissioner Lambert: AYES Commissioners Lambert, Wheeler, MaX, Bennett and Chajr�nan Gilbert. NOES: No one C Pallnwting public hearing dates werw set for ,rtjly 15, 198.0 at 10;4, a,m, Butte, County Planning.,Comm 1iss3an c onside:,ation of draft environmental impact report; and General Paan Land. Use Amendment, ,Chita Airport area, from agritu].tura].-risidenrial; grazing and open lane(, Public, industrial, lata density 'residential and medjum density residential to agricultural"residential,, ?razing and open land commercial and low densit)r residential publ.ia, industrial, generally, by,Rock Oreek on the north, H ghraayp99�onathetel�west�03ac�es bounded on r(1e south and L.C.A, agxeemOts on the east, v _maze Creek .i BOARD OF SUPFR7.ISORS - MINUTES p Jt11Y I5, 1930 p PUBLIC HEARING: , � BtJT1E COil�a PLA�'NING GO:XISSIQJ:` � .1`j1EN-T)TT-- 1- The public hearing on the following was held as advertised: 1.. Closed hearing, Lee Colby, 4 noka Hames General Plan 'Land Use Hap amendment to change from Iota density residential designation to an industrial designation; property located on the east side: of Lincoln Boulevard fro-, a point. located 1,320 .feet south of Monte Vista Avenue to �. !a point located 3,300 feet south of Monte Vista Avenue, to a depth of 1,320 feet,, den` :fied as 9P 36-20-7, 27 and 28, 'Oroville. 2. Butte County Planning Commission consideration: of draft EIR !and General Flan band Use Amendment," Chico Airport:area,, frons agricultural — 'residential, grazing and open land, publiic, industrial, low density ,residential and medium density residential to agricultural -residential:, tgrazi.ng and open land, pubL.c, industrials, commercial and lova density s residettial for approximately 6, 180 acres bounded generally by Ronk, Creek on, the north„ High7ay 99 on the west; Sycamore Creek on the south and L.; G.A. agreements on the east. - 3. Richard Horton. draft.EIR and ,General Plan amendment from agricultural res?dential to lots density residential located along and east of Oakridge Drive and Oakridge Circle and north of Skyway, identified as AP 40-41-07, 40 -43 -All and 40 -44 -All, southeast of Chico. 4.. Ron Imhoff General Plan amendment (item on which EIR was previously certified) from low density residentialto medium density residential located on the southwest corner of Hic�-.s Lane and.Sycam- Lane,, identified as AP 44-49-11 and 01 (porton),`Chico. re Dan, Blackstock, county counsel, stated the Beard would review the he_king and come back for action. the code says there can be three changes What the cour_ty is trying to allot~ as one change e'yery tour months. He, could. not assure the Board the pay the code ,section is written a court is not going to :look at the record and say the Board has three changes being. considered today. die recommended that this charges be brought up together as one change. They should not be listed separately on the agenda and should not he brought forward. for seeing of hearing at differant tines. It was felt that all four requests should be heard as one hearing and a motion of ifitent be made regarding the requests. The resolution. -.could be coming forward on July 22, 1050. Bette Blair, plana ng director, set out the background of the. General Plan amendments She posted maps for the Board.. . -2- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINITTES Ju11 15, 198 Earl Nelson, environmental review director,, set out the background u of the enuiro=mental concerr!s regarding enc project., Two EIP.s have been certified and two; are in draft form. On the Richard Forton project there are three rare plants and sites. 'lost of the concerns on all the projects can be mitigated at, the tentative map stave. Ms:. Blamer stated that many of the environmental problem canbe handled with, the specific policy statements in the criteria for the different General Plan designations., Hearing open to the public Appearing t ` I. lee Col x Y. :Sr, Colby wondered if action could be taken today ;on the project. He has been working on his project since February. He fait Counsel ;should have brought the reason for one change to the Board before 'this. 2, Sid Gordon, representing: Jay Garner. Fir. Gordon was concerned with property around the airport. Nr. Garner wrote a letter to the Plarm4ng ;Commission April 9, 1978. He read the letter at this time. fir..- Gordon stated he has been working with 'Mr. Garner for two months on project. He asked: thatthe decision on this be postponed for a'couple .of weeks. It is his plan to go back to the old zorung for that area that would includecommercial and industrial. The property owned by 'ir. Garner on the west side of Hick Zane, Mr. Gordon would like to see in the low density classif catiom of four units per acre:._ Supervisor Wheeler stated that lir. Bailey had attended the Planning Commission hearing and requested - Mr. Garner°s property that is °contiguous withthe airport be considered for "L-111. zoning, 3. 'Ward Bailey. Mr. Bailey stated; that he had been working with 'lir. Garner on some of his properties. Mr. Gordon was orking on development of some residential properties for Mr. Garner. Mr. Bailey stated that the asked that the property around. the airport be considered for "L-2" �zoring. He felt that due. to the nature of the property :and availability of facilities that "L -V zoning would be the only one to carry the property, iie felt it was premature at this tine but felt that this would: be the arez for ind2strial uses in the future If the industrial designation is not granted at this: time,,, it would be harder to obtain in the future, He asked that tb:.s be placed in light industrial zoning;. a mfr. Blackstock stated that since this was considered by the Plann-in; Commission, the Board could take action on thereQues't., Supervisor 'Wheeler stated: that on, the residential property, this area was designated agricultural, -residential and is now be_ng proposed for SR to three acre,minimem.. Trs. Blair stated that t.z re-c?e wou?d comae after the Genera' jPlan. amendment.. The Board has ticj ' io1L at the criteria, In the pwev.1ous Gener al Plan map before this amendr nt r71e area 1y -:ung north of Sy`a�ore was designated low density resider_ al. They are taking that des rat tal to Lhe south to Sycamore Creek. 51, set out the flags or_ the mop at this time. These indicate the areas that- -,.---re requested: to be different from what was proposed. The Bennett prop,.. -_y was originally to optic and grazing which was modified to agricultural rc::identiai� The other agricultural r residential asked .for a modification to industrial The com: ssion reco=endatior_ was industrial. The Drakes property was proposed to be included as low density and the Commission is holding to that. agricultural k residential. The one area would pick up that was previously agricultural residential. - IM _3_ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - MIL7tiTES July 15, 195 Er. Gordon stated he was in -Agreement with sir. Bailey re=aiding fie property, on the airport for Mr. Garner. He k,ould like to the �. industrial. Mr.: Gordon showed the Board a small parcel trap at i. property as :this time. There was agreement that the property around the airport should. go to industrial and the other property owned by ?sir. Garner should be low density residential, 4, Ron Imhoff. 1,fr. lioff stated the reason for his General plan amendment i s so that tie will be able t-: -apply for a zcPa-C" zoning There is an existing use permit for density regarding'his mobile home " ipark. The use permit was granted in September and the Department cf Public Works still is -worming on the additional paving requirement on !Sycamore. The "PA -0 zoning would allow them to work on the project. in stages. They have to begin the. project officially within on year with regard to the use permit,. He was advised by the county that if he payed $7,000 toward a signal light, it would be considered.that the project :had officially started. He asked that the Board aciarowledge that the ,payment toward the signal light was a, beginning as faY as. the use permit I ts concerned. 5 d "Dufour, representing, Richard Horton. lis. Dufour was !at the Wert; F -g representing. Mr. Horton. She was not sure if the Board wanted her to mar.any presentation. Chairman Lemke read a letter from John Drake regarding the �General 'pian --mendment in the airport area. Bearing closed to the public and con=fined to the Board. i RECESS:11:40 a.m. RLtt Qn motion of Super*,Tisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Dolan carried, a motion of :ute-at was made to approve the following General Flan amendment rating eq t or, the Lee Colby, k'ynoka Homes amendment a .previously adopted megative declaration was accepted; noting that the Butte Cou^ty Dlenning Commissioa amendment will have.rro significant effects on the environment; on the Richard Horton G�rerlam=tet. there could be significant effects on the environment but they are mitigable at the subdivision may level; noting an.EIR had been previously certified for the Ron Imhoff amend_rrett and there would, 'be no significant effects on the environment with -ch :nges° to the Butte County Planning Commission a�:endment in t'rtat the property owned by Jay Garner for 16G acres be industr=al " 1" in the area of the airport;. the John Drake property be low density resid tial and the 11SR-V property -r-duld remain agricultural residential with the other properties to stay the same as recommended by staff; 1. lee Colby, Svg=xro?ca Homos Gen Plater. Lard Use Nip am3^r-�enL as industrial destgnetifln, to change from.low density residential designation to property located on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard from a point located 1,320 feet south of Youte Vista Avenue to a point located 3,300 feet south of Monte Vista Avenue, to a depth of 1,320 fent, ideTttified as A 35-20-7 27 and 2$,. €?roville. 2. butte County Elann ng Co=i:ssian General Plan Lana d Use kmendment Chico Airport area,, from agricultural-ye----idential, grazing and open, land, public, industrial, low density residential and medium density residential o agricultural residential, grazing and open land, public, industrial t commercial and low density residential for „vgro�%riarely +e,1$0 acres T30ARD OT SUPj!pvxSoRS IMINUT],S July 15, 1080 bounded generally by hock Creek on the north, 114hway 99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and L.C.A. aSreements on the enst, 3. Richard Horton General .Pl.an Amendment from agricultural - residential. to low density residential located along and. east of -lakri,dge Drive and Oakridge Circle and north of Skywayp ,identified as AP 40-41-07, 40 -0 --All. and 40 -44 -All, southeast: of Chico, 4 i Ron, Imhoff Genera: Plan Amendment Brom low density residential to medium density "esidential located on the southwest corner oi: Hicks `.ane and Sycamore bane, identified as AP 44-49-11 andO- (part4on),,Chico. The hearing was continued to .duly 22, 1980. 1197 r:x R'4rd Of g1tPervisor s Millutes Jtily 22t 1080 nlrvr.l. LCGJVLIJ LJ UlV OU -.L:)&+ VZ • U.Mv_r.;,KAL YLAty LAND, U5E E'LT:N1�Nx MAP AMEiV1�tEN`]' The closed hearing for: Lee Colby Wynotca Homes proposed negative declaration regarding environmental Impact and general plan land use element map amendment to change from low den y residential designation to an industrial designation, property jocajaed on the east side of Lincoln Bo4evatd from a point located 1,.320 feel: south, of Monte Vista Avenue to a point locate 3000 feet south of 'Monte Vista Avenue, to a depth of 1,320 feet, identified as AP 36-20-7, 27 and 28, Oroville; Butte County Planning Commission, environ. - mental impact report: (Chico Airport areae and general plan land uae rmeadment; from agricultural-residentia:i, grazing and open land, public, iMustrial, low density residential and mediujn density designat oru s to agriau�turel-residonci O grazing and open land, public, industrial, courmerrial and lcw density resideatialPesignat:l.ons for approximately 6,180 acres bounded generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west,. Sycamore Creek on the south and LCA agreements on the east; Richard Horton, anvironmental impact ro°por and getietn7. plan amendmexxt from agricultural -residential designation to low deasitay residential designation that property to cited along and east of Oakra.dge Drive and Oakridge Circle and north of Slcyway, identified as AP 40-41, 07, 40 -43 -All and 40-44,-Al.1, southeast of Chico and icon Imhoff, general plan amendment (item on which an environmental inrpact report was previously certified) from low density res;dential designation to medium density residF:tti.. desi.l;t;:ttion for property located on the southwest: corner or Hicks Lane and Syealnure Lane, identified as AP 44-49-.11. and 01. (Pot -tion), Chico was held a chis time Supervisor Wheeler stated the "AR" zone, on the General Plan change she wo�t,W dike changed back to the low dcnsity residential. The area east of ttho airport and west of the airport.. Supervisor Wheeler set out the location on the map. :She would lake it to go back to agricultural-res_dentua?. This area was proposed by staff originally. The other area is 'between H( kr, Lane and the airport. This would alloca a zoning choice. Dan Macksto k, county counsel, stated the arcus wouiu be designated on a map and be an exhibit to the resolution.. He stated Planning could go over Page 70.: July 22 1980' r Y � BOARD OF SIVIRVISORS MIrtutes July 22, JC)80 _ July 22' � 1,980 $0- this^ and ..hange the map. V On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Superviror Moselty and unanimously carried„ finding that comments and recommends -tions from the public have been attached to the draft environmental impact report, that written responses to significant environmental points raised by the comments have been prepared and attached to the draft environmental impact report and that a list of the persons, organisations and public agencies who ct=entaad has been attached to the draft environmental impact report, move to certify the final, environmental impact report &s having been completed in compliance with the California Environmental 'quality Act, the State Environmental Review Guidelines and the Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines for the Chico Airport Environs and Richard Morton amendments. On motion of SuperviJor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moneley and unanimously carried, finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environments, a negative declaration is recommended i on the Lee Colby Wyonka, Homes amendment. t• Chairman Lemke noted�Ehe Ron 'Imhoff general plan amendment was an item on which an environmental impact: report was previously certified. RECESS: 9,.,47 a.m. RECONVEN8 4 10:05 .a.m. Oft motion of Supetvi ,or Wheeler, ~seconded by Supervisor Wincstbe and unanimously carried, the general plan land use element map amendment to change from low density residential designation to an industrial designation, property located on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard from a point located 1 ,320k-eet south of 140nte Vista Avenue to a point located 3;300 feet south of ,Monte Vista Avenue, to a depth of 10320 feet, identified as AP 36 -20•- i , 27 and 23, Oroville; from agricultural -residential, grazing and open land, public, industrial, low 'dens%ty residential and *dium .density designations t� agri+tt1 Lural •xe sidential, grazing and open land, public, industrial commercial and low density residential designations for approx3. imately 6,:180 acres bounded generally by sock Creek on the north, Righway 99 on the wast; Sycamore Creek on the south c.nd LCA agreements on the east; from ,agriccltural.- vesident:ial designation to low density residential 11 designation that property located along, and east of Oakridge Drive and Oakridge Circle and north of Skyway, identified as .Ali 40.41•-07 40 -4.3 -All and 40-44-Al.l., southeast of Chico; and from low density residential designation to medium density j tasiceAtlllal de si.gna•tion for property located on the southwest corner of Ricks Lane and ,~Sycamore Lane, identified as AP 44-49.11 and 01 (portion), Chico; Lefar -to Plarur ag staff the area betwuen garner Lane and dicks Dane for a further study and future' General Plan Amendment; Resolution 80-1.54 was adopted and the 'Chaii-man authorized to sign. � CONSULTANT WORK.PRMPAM LAND USS PLAN FOR CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1.0 OkJeqtive 71—Develop -plan for land ose and deyelow0ent controls in areas affected by aircraf'L n6isep aircraft Obstructions and airport activities in order to achfove corinatibility-betwecn airport operations and surroundfna qses, 2.0 - Current 011e,rations airport and significant chwipas in operation. .2 Describe current facil"ities, and aperatfons. .3 Document all air -,craft flight activities, includinq aircraft tyuas, timing pa-nse,o�qers,) cargoes, flight paths, stieedi, an'd elevations. .4 Report re'lated qiAound traffic volumes and characteristics. 360 Future Operations .1 Forecast al-Icharacteristics of aircraft activities over a 26 -year period or longer, includinq consideration of populatton trends and State projections. .2 Forecast airport employment and around access needs. .3 Analyze requirements and capaci.ties of physical facilities. .4 Review plans for airport expansion and land acquisition, 4.0 N ol se .1 M—tor ambient noise levels and sound 1'evels of all air(traft types at four or more sites under fliaht paths and on sites along Lassen Avenue, Lupfi-,i Avenue and ratoh Road and on the Hays Rezone site. .2 Prepare single event contours for each aircraft type. .3 Compute current contours 4'ot, community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) 55 , 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80. .4 Project sinole event and i"NEL contours for possible, future aircraft activities and airport operations. .5 Research noise complaints of nearby residents. .6 Investiqate feasibility of ooeration6l noise abatement tdchniloues, noise barriers,,, and soundproofing insulation. lip 5., C Safety! Analyze aircraft accidents and develop crash hazard zones, 2 Specify aircraft obstructions, approach zones and clear zones. .3 Describe aircraft hazards from smoke, calare, lights, electronic interference, birds, etc, 6.0 Land Use .I Review noise and safety findings and determine airport area o1F' influence. .2 Recommend land use planning boundadry tv County Plannin'q Commission. .3 Inventory land use and public facilities within planning area approved by Commission. .4 Evaluate noise sensitivity and airport compatibility of various land uses, , .6 Analyze growth trends and land use plans of City and County. I .6 Indicate present and future arias of compatibility problems. .7 Recommend land use policies and standards. .8 Recommend comoati hl e l o,ng-range land use pattern.. 1 .9 Recommend criteria, for evaluating noise and safety compatibility of specific sites .10 Recommend future planning activities, including review procedures; updating and grant programs. 7.0 08velopment Restrictions .1 Recommend structural Teight restrictions .2 Recommend, requirements for noise barriers and insulation. .S Recommend' restrictions on uses and activities affecting aircraft safety., 8.0 Environmental ;Impact; .1 Anaaalyze adoption plans and restrictions recommended in 6.2, E.,7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7,1, 7.2, and 7.3 and reasonable alternatives icor their environmental impacts, especially impacts on se4jage, d'isposal the local economy, government services, acri'culture and development costs. .2 E)lre are environmental impact report in accordance with California Environmental' Quality Act, Resource Agency EIR quidelInes, and County Environmental Review Guidelines. - -2_ IF NO W. 4,..a a Ili, 13 r .3 nbtain approval of draft EIR by County Environmental Review Oi rector. .4 (Tint 200 copies of draft EIR. .5 Distribute drafts as directed by County Planning nen.artment and Environmental Review Director, ,6 Record comments on draft EIR and respond as necessary, .7 Prepare additions and changes to EIR as directed by Environmental Review Director and County Planning Commission, ,8 Print 50 copies of final EIR for Planning Commission use. 9.0 Presentation .1 Prese►it fin2ings, forecasts and piannino boundaries to County Planning Commission at public meetinq within 30 days of program start'. .2 Present findings and recommendations on Land Use and Development Restrictions to County Planning Commission at public meeting within 60 days of program start;. ,3 Print 200 conies of all findinas and recommendations .4 Distribute draft plans with draft EIRs as directed by County P1anninq Department. .5 Present draft plan and draft EIR to County Planning Commission at one or two public meeting(s) near the end of a review period determined by the County Environmental Review Director, 6 Present final EIR and plan roproved by County Planning Commission to County Board of Super vis ,s at one or two public meetings. 10.0 Consultations.' 1CnnsuCL w th follow rug agencies and individuals during program, Federal 'Federal Aviation Administration (legislation," ,regulations and guidelines) Al R;.edel -, FAA, Chico Ai r Traffic Control Tower U.S. Air Force - Beale Air Force Rase (emergency military use) State Division of Aeronautics (leoislation, regulations and auidelines) C o u n,.;_t Nnning Dept. w Director and Staff Environmental Review Dept, - Director and Staff Public Works - (roads, traffic and drainage) Health -Sanitation (wager and sewage) Agricultural Gcfilmissioner (soils and as uses;) Fred Davis, City Mananer and Airport Manager Planning Dept. (plans and growth) Public Works Dept. (roads sewers & noise ordinance) Other Air carriers Hughes Airwest, Eureka, Norcal, and Air California Aero Union Japanese pilot training program - Napa airport Major air cargo users Major air�prlvate ort industrial tenants Dan Hays development) Dr. Robert Fredenburg (noise problems and complaints) Dr. William Collins (envi-ronme,ntal data ) 11.0 Completion .1 Print 200 copies of final. EIR and adopted plan. .2 Transfer originals and masters for, all reports and maps to County Planning Director. .3 Complete all work items to sa,. Zi sfacti on of County Counsel and County Planning Director. �4 - q ,M AL7PIMpIx g, Dat,c Filed 3uttaCoaPlanning Comm, Environmental. xn.formcIt;ion Form APR � 4 1913 (To be Completed by applicant) Provide„ CAU00i4 GENERAL II`tI't?'C:.MA'� SUN I. Name and, a idre ;3i, of r1c�^e1p �e:r ox Project sponsor 9.5gr 5 , 2, Address of project: kee-arps,Ind Ac11co un cial Aitpar tAssesso 's Blackand Lot Nut*bdnr � �`�7 ar a otatf tx s 3.Waive, address, and t_olophmne n rnber or persoll tax be contacted, concerning this project', I e J + f Vt*lsor at: 5%4-4a. 4. Type of project,, (i.e. rezoning, subdivision) �Rozonin't C+ud f ow'n 5. List and describe any other, related permits Orld other public ,pproval.s required fc!r t'tlis project, inc,iL;..lint'thosrequired byC ,r, regional, s tato and federal nAencies required G. txisting zoning; di.sCx� ct , ax,z` Iy' i;t A,-40 11, M-11 i_ vias) oxo _ 7. Proposed use of site;xtTtux«e� x'o�clxiiel�'�c,or;txerc1. PROJECT 2ESg.RJPTJiN 8. Site size. �;��ia�ta,fctl 46,iRP 4-1cres,ado e�ft���t»Zoxr� 9. Square footage of building(s). Nk }► 10. Number of floors of const ruction,. u A 1L Amount of off-street; parking p Novi, led , A 12, Attach s .t o development plan and location map, P Aerial phot arid. Assessor's Parcel, Map pages may be required in some caoes, 13. PVoposed scheduling. se !'Tap cxt*' iax�nl t�scx I�cas aoe t ,s? 3I:i �.. 14. ¢Ass c, 6 f teal possible, projects. TID l i~$pC�bi . x k` subi v i ax e vf, , 15 . 1lntici.peted incremental development, y0so Appendix L - Page 1 of 3 r lb, 1f residential, include the number, of units schedule of un;jt sizes, and type of housrhOld sire expet tod, 111st;3n tod. maximum of 2,100 units- s' 1 sin le a.m� ly, d�v�� �3ngs , few mobile l owes o I'. £ ccaere ally, i,n cite t°tie type, whOther neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales aroa, and load ,ns facilities. 25 acres of HighwayrComm,orcia], 18. IP industrial, indicate type, estimated empl,oymont per shift, and l:aading i:acili.di,es, 85 ac7ros of storage* commetti.al sexvic.e4 ratan: light rain- v r.3.n , . ': � �.nstri�t:uti,onal, indicate the major function, estimated emploment per shift, est:'imated occupancy, loadiwtg bac i,litie , and community ben f� i 4' tS t0 b,C3 derived ,� 11� n v . .rani the pr. r�3 �.ct . :30 acres filar State f;h ntorchanoe. t e project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the a y y l7 li.cat"i.ori is require wd. Rxi. ting A..2, zoning is inconsistent with. a.t opted General Plan Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) YES N0, X. 21. Change in existing ,features of any beaches, lakes, or hills, or substanti;nl alteration of grounrl contours X 22, Significant; change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads, ?C. 23 . Signifi cantly change pattern, scala or character of general area of project. X. 24.. Significant amounts of solid vaste or litter, 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. quall.tygorficant quantit��ngin or aitG�l�tontof.�exoiste, srem,r �"'.noundd waterpatterns, g rainage X 27. Substantial change in existing; noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or , on slope of .3 C1 pc�rccrtL or more. X'' 29. Use or disposal, of potentialiv hazardous materials such as toxic 'substances, �`lammables or explosives. Appendix F -- pane 2' of 3 YES NO 30. Substantial. change in demand for, municipal services ..._.._...... (po,lice, fire, water, sewage, etc.l. X 31 Substantially incz ease fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oi.l, natural gas, etc.) . X 32 Relationship two part of- a larger projects or series of p ro J e c is . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic xs'sects . Describe any existing structures on the site, and tho use of the structures. 34, Describe the surrounding properties, including ;information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or, scenic aspects Indicate the type of land use (,residential, commercial, etc.) intensity of land use (one-family, apartment housesp shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of devr-lgpment (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc..) _ See a,,tached montos, map of existing land use and "Airport Environs Plan". CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and�.n the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best, of my ability, and that the facts statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date 4/23/7 Signature For Appendix E page 3 of 3 "._ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO OISTRICT, CORPS Ofe ENGINEERS d130 CAPITOL MALI, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 R(IPLY TO ATTf.M'TION OF . SPt,CED-W 12 September 1979 ��rir<snmeafllat Roripev (1u�16 Mr. Stephen. A Streeter ]Environmental ReviaTd Specialist ti 1979 Butte County 18-V County Center Drive cofal~iy. CrovIlle, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Streeter: As you (requested in your letter of '28 August 1979, inclosed are copies of Design Memorandum No. 5 (1961) for Sacramento River and Major and, Manor Tributaries, Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch, General Design, and Design Memorandum No. 1 (1957) for Sacramento River and Major and. Manor Tributaries. We have reviewed Appendix E concerning preparation of a Draft Environ mental lmpact Report for Chico Municipal Airport rezone (;attached to Your lettat) and have furnished our comments to Mr'. Earl Nelson. Sincet ely X, 2 Incl GEE .GJW _ LDDELL As stated t}. ef, Engineering Div cion t - I Inter-Deparlme' ` 1 Memoroodum To: Board of Supervisors FROM; Earl Nelson, Environmental Review Director SUDIEcra Airport Etviruns Rezone , IR DA'rk.o September 7, :197 Pursuant to conversations with Planning Director Bettye Blair; this office solicited proposals from consu.' ting firms for p:0 p ration of the Environmental. Impact Report for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone. Ms. alai:: has emphasized (and I concur) that t�.e rezone of some 6,.L80 acres is of key an because of L -he growth potential of the D`o`;,,h Chico area and because of po- tential land use compatibility problems between the airport and its surrouxidings. X5:1 firms responded to ou.V request for a proposal.. The results arca as follows Cost Time for Comuletion Ott Engineers (Redding) 51040 6 weeks Western Planning and Rezearch (Auburn) ?l 330 6 weeks Terra. Scan Consultants (Redding) 91800 12 weeks Eco Analysts (Chico) 14,320 12 weeks Robert Gray Associates (Auburn) 17,500 6 month Geddis & Driscoll (Orovil,le) 20,500 8 weeks _rt d` •!� of �:J'gw fCY`ft:i' G"li t lrr° �% 5 G-° t� Based on a preliminary review I believe we can get a competent product fox under $10,000. S don't recommend the automatic selection of the lowest bid without some further study and comparison of past performance of the firms, the levelof detail that can be expected, etc. We are continuing to look into this This matter is being brought to the ,attention of the Board because of the large sum of money involved and its effect on Vie budget and daily operation of the Environmental Review Department. Since we are supposed to be financially "self sufficient" 'based on, user fees, when a county department such as Planning requests an, expenditure of this magnitude, the money should be replaced or else we will run out of funds in the professional and specialized services account long before the fiscal year is over. The total, amount in this fund for the entire year is only $12,000. East year, in addition to financing the EIR for the General Plan Revision, the bulk of this money was used to farm, out initial sl;ndies to keep private projects moving as rapidly as possible. Due to the volume of project activity and the limited staff situation, this fund is again needed for this purpose to get us through the current year. So far this year (since July l) B yard of Supervisors Pago September 7, 1979 RL: Airport Environs Rezone EIR we have; spent or committed $3, 3?8 fromthis accoun°t,, leava.ng a cui:rent balance of $6, 6;?2. This one E1R. project (the Airport Environs Rezone) could deplete the balance of the fund so that unless it is replenished, we will have exhausted our capacity to contract with outside consultants until Culy 11 1980. As l understand the situation, the Planning Department has a nunbex of additional 'rezone projects in preliminary stages which also may requi:oe environmental impact reports. These include the South Chico Area Rezone (En'tlex Avenue), Gridley --Biggs Area Rezone, Concow Area. Rezone, and others. Additionally, we are preparing or revisinr ETRo in-house for two other pro j ect.l currently in process: the North Chaco Rezone ( just south of the Airport Environs Rezone) and the Craig Mooxetown Ridge Rezone. The new projects previously LLSted which will soon be coming down the pike will have to be contracted out, so additional financial support of the Planniag program may "fie necessary ;for these p-ro j ects. One advantage of large area rezone EIR:s should be pointed out. '.Those reports, although costly to prepare, can serve as "master environ- mental assessments" precluding the need for individual project E1Rs in many cases. Therefore while there is an initial cost to the county for report prep arrtion, there will be a later savings to developers who might otherwise have to prepare an EIR. for an in lxvidual project. Tor the Airport Environs Rezone BIR, the cost of 910,000 translator to only 91.62 per acre,, since such a large area is covered. This memo is .in. support of Bettye Blair's memo of September C, 1979, asking that you provide the necessary funds to prepare the necessary large -area rezone impact reports. This will enable the county plan,... ring program to proceed so the A.-2 zoning can. be phased out. l will cooperate every way possible in this endeavor., I Sincerely, Earl U. Nelson „_,: 4 gni __n4-,.... r. 1 ea CnMUND G. DROWN JR. hoviffmon' 4 � tah �f (fidtf�ax tia 'GOVERNOR'S OFfrICG OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESC-ARCH 1400 TENTH sTREMI' SACRAMCNTO 05814 11 tovironmenfai Roel rw Dap}. 1~t' 71979 Amid Counfy, Septeir,ber 6, 1979 TO: Xwonsible as d Com enti Agencies L�Rgt(t�r1e K. 1,ridh ,SUBJECT: Butte. County's NOP for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone Project (SCH #79091103) Attached for your comment is a copy of Butte County's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (`EM) on the proposed Chico Airport Environs Rezone Project, (SCH #79091103). The County proposes to rezone 63.80 acres around the Chico Municipal Airport from A-2 (General) to specific zoning districts and the amendment of the land use designations for the subject area on the Chico Land Use Map of the Butte County General Plan. The project area, is generally defined by the following boundariest Rock. Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and property under Land Conservation Act Agreements on the east. A map indicating the project site is attached. Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to; their own statutory responsibility, within 45 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting; agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your contents to Earl D. Nelson Butte County Environmental Review '7epartment #1.8-F County Center Drive broville, 1A 9596 916/534-4777 with a copy to the Office'Of Planning and Research. Please refer to the State Clearinghouse ;number, noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. 1f you have any questions about the review process, call me at 916,/322-4245. At-1-a�chment lis D . EarNelson Earl r e Distribution Ust Butte County Chico Airport Environs Rezone (SCH 179091.103) John 'Huddleson State Water Resources Control Board" 2125.419 th S -i:eet Sacramento, CA 95814 Arthur Dichtman Oa1Tians - Planniag 11.20 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 James Tryner Department of Parks and Recreation 1200 X Street Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 George Spencer Reclamation Board 1416 9,th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 R. D, Skidmore Department of Transportation District 3 70$ B Street Marysville, CA 95901 cc: Bart D. Nelson Butte County Environmental Review Department 118-F Counter Center Drive Oroville, CA 959.: b ,f%`` �r%,r DI=PARTMENT OF THE: ARMY , SACRAM4NTo bjsTRIcT, CORpra OF eNGINF-9RS dI30 CAPITOL MALA SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA OEJ814 ,ATTVU7'�ON CF Si'7L D -W 20 SePtombol, 1979 Mr. Rare. D. Nelson, Director Butte County Environmental R.evieW Department r° 'e Ay 18-r County Center Drive Orovill.e, CA, 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson:' This is in response to Mr. Stephen A. St-recter's letter of 29 August 1979 requesting comments on preparation of a Draft Environmental `Cmpact Report (DEIR) for the rezoning of 6,180 acres near Chico Municipal Airport, north of Chico. Based on our reviews of the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix F), we believe that any flood problem should be :Cully discussed in the DR?R. The discussion should include impacts of rezoning on the effectiveness and integrity of the existing Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch Flood Control Project. Interior drainage problems with respect to the project levees should also be discussed (Item 3b) When your DgIR is available, we would appreciate receiving a corny for review. As requested, fir: John Saia may be contacted (916"440"2464). $TATE Of CAWORN1A—.REDoURM AOCNCY EDMUND 0. DRAWN Al Anvornor DEPARTMENT of FISH AND GAME Region 2nvttattrr��nta( ftn+taw RnFi. 1701. Nimbus Rd.) Suite "At' Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916) 355-7030 I 197 �. n� I Buifd county September 28$ 1979 Mr. Earl n. Nelson Gutta County Environmental. Review Dept. #18-r County Cente Drive Oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson. The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Notice of 'reparation for the Chico ,airport Rezone (SCH 79091103) and has the following areas of concern: 1. Impacts on vernal pools and associated plant species, 2. Potential loss of, prairie falcon hab:i:tat, 3. affects of potential discharges and seepage on water quality, aquatic life,, and riparian habitat in Rock Creek, Mud Creek, Sycamore Creek,; and the Sacramento River to -which th,e creeks are tributary. 4. Impacts on riparian habitat. from potentia. developments 5. Cumulative effects of this project on grassland and blue oak -digger pine habitats. 6. Impacts caused by flood and erosic r control measures,., 7.. Mitigation measures to reduce habitat and wildlife losses in those areas zoned for intensive development. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. Sincerely, . , �cl Robert W Lassen Regional Manager Region 2 cc; Office of Planning and Research, x SrArS OF cAuronNiA EDMUNb a, p1147WN Ja„ Govornor AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1102 Q STREST ie©nm«nfal (berigvr Drrt NO, Pox 7415 SACPAMGNra, CA 95012 (916)322-6154 qai C 1979 gufto Caunfy September 26, 1979' Mr. Earl D; Nelson - Butte County Environmental Review Dep rtmene /f18 -F County Center Drive Orovilie, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Nelson: We have reviewed the September 6, 1979 Notice of Preparation for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone Project Draft Environmental impact Report. Enclosed is a recommended outline which will assist in the preparation of the air quali"ty analysis for the proposedproject. For additional information, please contact Jerry Schlebe of my staff at (916) 445-0960. Sincerely, 4i!�� r4A, Gary Agid, Chief Urban Programs B ranch Enclosure RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AIR QUALITY ANALYSTS, T. Environmental Setting A. Aire pollution potential (individually discuss meteorology, climate, and topography of the project area and their re- lationships which create conditions allowing the formation of air pollution). B. Environmental effects of air pollutants on receptors. C. Regulations effecting air quality (federal,, state, regional, county, and city). D. Existing air, quality, 1 Focal and regional conditions and trends. 2. Present and future sources of emissions. a. Stationary sources. b. Mobile SOUrce s. 3. Ambient air quality data (relate to standards). II. Im act of the Proposed P Sect A. Areawdeimpact (tons/day) I. Stationary source calculations (CO, NOX, HC, TSP, S0�) if applicable, 2. Mobile source calculations (CQ; NOx, HC, 'SSP). 3. Summarize data in tabular form and compare -it to existing emissions. B. Localized impacts (calculate potentially large CO concentrations in areas of concern and assess their impac4 on sensitive receptors); C. Summarize V-1pacts of alternatives to project. III. Mitigation 'Measures for Preferred Alternative . A. All feasible measures. I. Measures to reduce stationary source emissions. 2. Measures to reduce mobile source emission ._ .. .......... B. Measures selected for incorporation into the. project. 1. Measures to reduce stat;,. ,•y source emissions. c: Measures to reduce mobile source emissions. 3. Assessment of effectiveness to reduce project emissions, (tons/day). TV. Cumulative and Growth Inducing Impacts of Preferred Alternatives Present an air quality analysis as outlined in Section ZI of the outline. This analysis should include any project(s) in tate adjacent area that, combined with the preferred alternative, could have a significant impact on the environment. This analysis should also include any potential impacts induced or encouraged to develop from the iniplementation of the preferred alternative. SYAYe OP CALIFORNIA-1RANSPORY'AYION AGENCY EDMUND Go BROWN A, Govarnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MbTRICY y i rlviersnna7tal Ctoviow 1� pt. .,, P.O. BOX 911, MARYSVI1lE 95.901 1979 Telephone (916) 674-1277 �t,i}cx Cnunfy optembew 12 � 19' 9 r, M 03w13ua-99 Chico Airport Environs Rezone SCH 79001103 Mr, Barl. D. Nelson �y r.. Bnva.rcnmental Review Specialist County of Butte #18.-F county center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Deur Mr. Nelson.: ThaniL you for the opportunity to review the Notice of :Preparation and Initial Study for the proposed rezone of property in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. We agree with the recommendation ghat _a master circulation plan should 'be prepared for the area (page 8a environ— menta. checklist) . The circ'u3 ata on discussion should address impacts to Route 99 and other roads in the vicinity as a result of the traffic which would be generated at buildout of the rezone area,. Sincerely,, TX40 U4 TRQMBATC.'RB District Director of Transportation R. D. 'Skidmore Chief, Bnvironmen:tal. Branch of California 4 Me troir a od um 10 : Me Ann Barkley, Chief Division of Transportation Planning Department A-95 Coordinator Attention Art tichtman From i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Aeronautics 0 easiness f,nd Trarv,M priatic n ALS �e4; Dant' October 22, X979 File i Clearinghouse,, Chico 'Muni Airport Butte County su6lertt, project Review CH #79091103 Rezoning. Environs of 'Chico Municipal Airport ,Vhe Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a DEIR for the project, through which Butte County proposes to rezone 6,1$0 acres around the existing Chico Municipal Airport. We have examined the potential effects in areas germane to our statutory responsi- bilities --that is, noise impact on the area from airport operassons, safety of those individua:is who reside or would reside in the airport environs and the airport users themselves, and encroach- ment of incompatible land uses on the airport, with subsequent public pressure to curtail operations or close the facility. All of these concerns appear to be justified, by the proposed residential.. character of the proposed rezoning. The DEIR should address each of these areas comprehensively. Another factor of noteworthy interest --although ,got strictly in our area of expertise --is the ,potential disappearance of prime agricultural land into residential developments. Such inroads on prime agricultural land are not in consonance with the announced objectives of the State 'Urban Strategy", that is protecting agricultuval lands from acquisition for urban. purposes The track record shows that increased residential activity in the vicinity of airports inevitably results in conflicts, Irreconcilable and incompatible land use patterns, and efforts to shut down airports --a disappearing resource in their own right. We urBe strongly that the ultimate zoning produn;t provide for buffering residential areas .from, the airport and airport traffic patterns, through uses of industrial or other compatible land use zones. This should be clearly detailed in: the DEIR. Safety a a ,i tfi Y) � 4 " ty �:' 7 �'.! 15 ,a{7 i" ! 1. ; � M1 � Y � • r r �-�� � f f 1 A'. 1 .Y � 4 `• AP 17i � FI i'. l� r7(�J � ., I 1. I ! � .•F `.. t 7� � • h' � •. i y �,i�l 1. I vPo J. .� x 1 ta,r i t, 1.. "� ..r.�. ° i �Ir1i W:"StJj,11 aah a:�.�fli•t � >.�'? `� ` >I,�;f;" y '� '' � � a;�:i4 r �3{u..:�� 1i `6i ;:n �Sf err ,°-V'�r '� ,r.e., '� 1 p ° �Y� �. !1 ; 1, 1. `� R k�• 1:S �+ �! L...s��. ��/ ^qI��i��?v �'t{ ra 2ps �. r,1Y� $Y `�.Yr't.�� t u �'r �L+t �. i4 �`: ,F/Pilr�y��•��'rr r �i 4�Sji S •'Y ��'il �a1��T' 1{ � �W 3 r '� � 'r f� .1, �! 1 iFy is '� •r-'� r t • a, ( ! t�.'`r '� �. ,%%i, N rr. T: , i.��r Yx r ?, �s: b� E. �,I tri � :r1 Irl '•i' t7 1-.'y'1• Y Y;1 i - Y .t., ? Y1i : r Y �., , 4q'y,j , r 1� .al r{, .i �.. f.. .''R � q�i'� �Y� 'U, I �.. , iA c 1 n,. .I;c .� r ;•'?i • f k� {» y, k1 t � �., d�, Sr, ., 1•rt l�Y..�1 til � i 1en.J ,r•;"t}�,� +�t�. �:'�il { �f Mp'.. r; 7�+�.. w,•u�4 111 ;�L.'J! rr.t.',�' ,.lt ,'��n ��7 ',:y. dr:.. fir � �r. lk Vsf ,f " �a1 ,v' SCr. �,�•..4?t7 - 1. <y 1 i:."Y SM p. rii _,�.:����rt r t^;• fM "^ Y f l/l 'u +'�F ,�c, .i. t Q 1 � t aM ) A A7 �-0' .,.. _>i•5,:�.. �v �_��:Itl.1. !..a' t.•awxir -„1• ,.t...,.17k .. ,. _..,� �' I:°.. �.. !. �'.�wl'ii.. .4._ "t b,.,,.�.. �_....r'2x err : �S._... .��1..��°.rY�B.°� �ti....e�.+ .�11�_i�A�:.1.�a��1.yc�R. ����Jy. Lti:".kr.+J. b � ?3�NbEA, Cnmpfr�fe items 1.2 end 3 �'•••�"• Add YOUr addriiss Ir 'ha' "!l"URN To" ,%para op .� lovarso, " 1. The fOlIftinp safv(ce is requested (check one), Ii Shaw to whom end data delivered..,,.. Z � Show tp whom, date, and address of delivery, , "� C RESTRICTED DELIVERY` Show to whom and date delivered, .. 0 RESTRIcTeD DELIVERY y • • ` cJ0 Show to whom, date,,and address of"delivery.4,_ _ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FUR FEES) z ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO, m State Clealdnglwuse mREGISTERED N0, CERTIFIED NCS. INSURED NO. ,O ( have recolvea tho article described above, .�J� I v SIGNATURE 0 Addressers 0 AAwt rizedagent DAT[ OF DEI J ERY z m5. /1DDRESSt'Complate only it req e 1 ""A�t C� 5 0 5. 'UNABLETQ DELIVER BECAU S n IALS - t3 St•@f9t...FFS ': �.-.: £'(' gr'$3i - .. _ -' c:,. � -: .. fi•`TR'lili:F!r.f� �,rJ" v rtiL : .w £ c t. t .`'sr►; r` e�iS� CLE rA•� JrJC,.r J. en 1r - e? z.. k �; tr iarT '•'tr`r�... Ia_ 2�a.'~+".TI_=ita_ F 5 _ zn t 2-.--• EXS'Si"ia r y++ c , rUca,ics.rao a trmre:� e= • X;t, tear• - - - ! a flt i Yr mo i !3_AirPLICAaNT TYPE r �- r" �3_rT ii _3 r`e�i ��r r-�n�i hTr nY�Y =:'r; s rs,;�a•i - !L: STCs . S,:R rL'tiaSTZtaC^ :2F r _f tc7.= .�:+u?3r. • r -S: Pt A_State - k cav"s�' y, ;.Y. _ ..J l••a l'v .,.jt i {rt_ C?Rt*>`;.^ 1' k • C Z Yr m s C. Sub Sta-e D;F Spn"Mse,er Cr;as;lzaTspn gam? L. z j t j rJr� iS t PIR 'j T i F NR a`, 7?r _ D_ County .h � i -*.-.3c R.,Tt :4 OV,= ntnst _ S 3 ry Qwnisr •SFc cy 0Z --I-, At �r.ZZ2_ ..e -,Is ast•S.: Chico �-? T'�C�.L tr ~-��`:� rons., R-ez 0=C —;r `g _- _Ct..y_'iY J bvii>.T, 2a ` `^ •r•.S •�-Z�Q::tCLi � 3'I i' t'!'aIt• L:s2 3n om 3- of . •th T_ jD'. c rt ac t.:Lon are thrae : -t- a^ heT.s_T_'. _s t.L � �.: -'+ ,-:-•'!- ,�? yam^ 'jam.?Y?�'.Lr ; C Z Z: -x =,-. --, v_ 1 LC Lei, l+— .. V�_r'C G''! y E *A' - wo ald be =,coi atlb e PrP ,n the {)j t 'a ". c z s ?_ ` i �•a second is LQ C�' i- T ate i r.co .s s ter-3=Cs be's Jeer. the Ert ;s.e is �T >'�-sem. v - • Imo. t�Plan and ems fmE zoo. de a g;ati ons. Tne third L'.aomZ .}�� ) V ilt Nf __P4. A Dri zaOJEC7 IMPACT i,t.suicare Cs r Cou tty S�». etc 3 ai u NT- � But £ra - L.3 Q � !� �. yW'--m5 dyD E S. GZT1;*'•srrrtar°3"s:-_s.ssrrzz�: R�;�•red a3.Y-L=,•,...,i.C�•'.G.-�.SE-�y .G�•-:c.rtn�.E'a.- cam f ..c.;s. rc .,?r,cts.,.rspztzd Ev P-aY�c`_!t Ylt 4 t Sia:=✓ r+�..erat AgencV7 p- `ias - P a:_z- s . j 3Erl= tTrTPEi3a''P#..< -ctor ICJ-.- Cctmtv •;C en—t-er L?'i MF CY'�.r JiL a°i1L iiF{+� PJ =VIeW F! -=C . ED ES C2 P13. � e„" w ➢F 3" r;3 •'L'z:�yL.e °.' ti i �,'.-..aL" 1b r.•:v� t••;;io••<t'�tt'� e•}a'rG�Ys` Eir�.j't t^ �ntxraars• !Rei;crl ,=,ztachea 420 copies) g 0 F.nai ER YES ,Ja t ve :eda adon Attached (23 to tesDa--'s yo.r ani: kav: a �c�jatw a� icc z�. �^ nt?nched - *Dora,: Pent Wiii ae ;r-orsvardeal_' Or - � ti � so-oir 5 a f rc-a ,? � iAor. ?lav YearrEs mx._rf?ny r ar =rage- Cd Pd t F? Far_ Ars Envsrarmental Coc s:r:cn: $ A s P' I t,.. r --erupt Under Stat' �tegor. � E sn :idn. Case r If y r a f,C L. YES 4c. 0� - ITF%iS 3'x,-38 To c.£ CC :'at T=;1 By M tLTiPLE ti➢r e ° e ,r7 CLElaFi� fGioUSC G GLt$, a d i :,O -Ni SASEs_ ON 33. b ACTION TAKEN £ iIEV£. 71 Or _.1_ STATE APIL° AT -10% a ( j ➢�..ar, a 071ish Cetn-,ent c bYac,, ed z t * ` iiSc.*.Tsr.R A_�_.f.� z?cam- Un`aro:atiz"- Y Y _ITA.E WIDE Ccu'rt*sr' C. -,y Courst•-= C [v Goan. C L E r• ♦ `} i:_.. `7i:Q 'rte'£+: Czuezv: +=>ty ° .:�� - C, -s i t'.na Arr=a:. Ing Area Ptry Area , Ftn_ area Pasta ?,r• .. t �• , i >ajr CCIDE yp Y2 I y _ r a ._� at 7'e is h � R £i iGr^.E£k l -S 3r. REGE•i.a C.. E . AT CLEAR➢ ��I�;rr gsa AT UP E t"J: C�':a. 't:;:#A• Lj Yes No ' 3a. FWAL CH ACTION ©ATE Yr me ::a, E t� T E SSS 39--42 Ta $_ _ - ^_i.y'=�L>=t=_DB•r r1r.'FL?CAM1tT:Fctuis_- 5C'tiL�"��:�:3��'. FC ;.cC .39'CiT•z i CA Yfl v t •z ; ➢ rSrant t a t+rias that t tha best of rtes kna viedge and. teiiat the atcve c a gra rssc-- nd 5r ti .g _ thts form Y -as beers duty autna sized aY the gowrninq btz dt .tee otrt.•=�� °check ➢JGx a •.C_.a *a � t<Y' v n: a'f.- $ tY;�Y. - Ib TITLE ii `.i)• YY, t. ;_-`�iLE_su=VCt Y t�i �c/ c' Si.CNAwTt" URE D Nelson _'7CcL vrrnnomc!C-i? 'STATE ay 4:2- ';A%IE OF ri�-fFF::'.=.trc1.5v^L "{LCS..rCkiA�= raTrd?�SAGENCY 1921-12 ;Y 1921 1G 14 T0,XSYCrii i�E :� - �'; � ��-�1-• - - - .r.. 1EM1. A.j,r-,4 TO 8E COMPLETED BY FEDESAL OFFICE EVALUA NZ AN':: RI -G',?. Y-°vey' 4, ACT:?", 43, C. F3 rs2. Appiicauor ri c'd r 53� ycz 53a OR it ta L_Z; ��+,- -'Q Q - .. _ _ •.. .:may I ,j ig ` �Ili:Yi�3S Id93333 Hama ®' x �' z W+ �� h :3348,0- 4p�.�3n.3IM�aL•�"�#3��li1�fi1•�}I�-tdc b' q ¢ it�. : rt B'S .F ai4t c a' ;E3 :F-VJY3 ARi it 271Si5tr^..te=. r .ye:•i' ", r � c .� ,.K��. `� r ,,�{�• r ���i�� rr�"t. �.K '1' ��r... � .. .r �. ."��,�.��✓"�6, .i.,,. .�: `,. .��J. .C,.f, '.•� DEC! NOTSCt Of` CAhYPL9TIO i� iaunly Cl ick ..u" A,, (of Draft Vnv .ronmental Impact Report) � 19,...x. -stub y county of Butte Emirolurlontal, Review Chico Airnort I-Iivirons Rezone: 12 / �?2= 4 24 01 ADE)RLSS CITY- COUNTY: County Center Drive - Oxovz,],le Butte CONTACT P4RSON AREr, COOL,: P.IIONE Diroctor 91:6 531- 1N117t, PROJECT C'ESCRUTT.ON OF NtA'itRE, PUI'iPOSS, ANID BPNEFTC`G7\RTEs Th2 gog�_.s off' this r,jron:in& action are 'threefold. Thq first is to prevent develonrr ent in the vicinity of 'Ghe Chico S'lunicipal Airport which would bp; inromoati.ble with the.,0 orations of that facili t rho secrand is to off: tninate ir�ronsi ste7l�:ies k�e vreen Elie s'- - ie` Gou : Y General Plan and oxiotinu : zon_7 n designations. .� The d obi aa�� v _, w a xi:c acts on i. a to provide space f or future �;xour c7� demand i;hat mar occur i n the Chico a PROJECIR LOCATtOld CITY: PROJFCT LOCATION COUNTY: Chico - Buhr 41.5 day period endi�,6 January 28, 198 A r1,) �F.;SS kJURVI-;CIOPY OF DRAFT Z111 TS 7VVAT6AVrP1 - Envi.ro nmnntal Review Depa17,t:nsnn , I' ..wTOWI y� C'OC'tll17z i <r y, car }ire, CA 95065 21 March 1980 I:nvitot�manFal 6irt+_riav� i„ty�,y, Mr. Earl Nelson Environmental Review Department lS-F County Center Dr, Oroville, CA 9596 DuI�+S Gcvn Re- Chico Airport Environs Rezone Draft EIR Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter is in reply to your request for a coat estimate of conducting a botanical survey of the subject rezone area. The project is quite large and contains much undisturbed breireoedeuof the size, an extensive and costly botanical surveywouldbe qiid taqately Locate and map any extant rare and endangered plant populations. The county of Butte may not be able, or willing, to accept the burden of this high cost which, in theory, should be incurred by individuals who wish to develop a parcel. At -the name time, a zone change does have the potential to significantly impact rate and endangered plants and their habitat. Because of the potential impact, I think Butte County should address the plants at this early planning stage. There tre two alternative methods of addressing these plants. The first method involves a full scale botanical survey to identify any areas which contain rare plant populations worthy of protection. This type Of survey would cost approxi- mately $350. The other alternative would be to conduct a survey which would identify any specific areas/habitats which have the potential to support rare plant populations. These areas could, then be identified as potentially sensitive and in need of future surveys before futuVe development is approved by Environmental Review. I estimate the cost of 'this type of'.survey to be $75. i hope these alternatives will assist you in deciding hew to address the rare plant issure in this proposed rezone. If there are .any questions or comments, please call. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Sincerely, - BILI Tames D. Joke'rst Department of Biological Sciences California State University Chico, CA 55929 r Inter-Departmonfal Memorandum r Board of Supervicors PNOMr Environmental, review sucaar r: General Plan Amend cent - Chico ALrPort Environs 01ATFt July ll., a-980 The proposed General Plan amendments within the area covered by the Chico Airport Environs BIR. appear to be minor adjustments to what already exists in the L'orm of present General. Plan map designations Tor the area. A map showing the adjustments is attached Dor your reference. All. of the changed, e_toep.t= two, are in the direction of lower density than the present designa- tion. The two changes to a more intense clasoigicat;ion include an existing; developed commercial area adjacent -to Highway 99, and an existing agricultural property also adjacent to highway 99 and south of Sycamore Creel. This latter change, although it involves agric-ultural :Land, appears compatible with surround- ing designations and surrounding existing development. Bocau;se of the above, the approval of these changes could be made pursuant to a finding of no signit icant effect on the environment, the sequence of findings would be: l � Certify .the 'MR 2) Acknowledge that the EER was considered in arriving at a decision 3 find no significant effect on the environment 4Approve recommended changes There may be much more controversy regarding the zoning, and the environmental findingp will necessarily be different for that action ahen it comes upi The zoning action will encompass the entire area rather than just a few isolated locations. Copies of theElR for this project have been previously distributed to you. If you need additional copies, we can furnish them on request: I hope this is helpful to you. Sincerely, Earl D. Nelson Environmental Review Birector EDN.Ikt Inter -.Departmental Memorandum TQ: Board of Suporvisore FROM: �;rava�c��am�;za°trz�. ��ovx:ow ;uOi Im G,Oraorml Plan Map Amexid- Ont: Lee Colby, Chir:.() Airport Environs, DAM R.I,chard I-loa,tox, and Ron 11111),oXf Regarding onvixonmental determinations ,fox' the above --referenced prOJOc-t S, al.l that is necessary is to certify the EIRs for Chico Airport Environs and Richard :Horton, and 'to adopt the resod utior. prepared by County Counsal's office. A sample motion for ETR Certification is included below. Finding that cammer..ts and recommendations from the public have been attached to the draft environmental impact report, Lhat written re,-sponses to signil'ican�t exlvironmen-tal points raised: by the comments have been prepared and attached to the draft environmental impact report and that a List of the persons, organizations and public agencies who oommented has been ar�tached to the draft environmental impact report, l move to certil"y the final, environmental impact report- as having been compl.e'Led in compliance wi th the California Environmental Quality State Environmental Review Guidelines and the Butte County^the Environmental Review Guidelines. I hope this information is helpful to you Sincerely, Earl D Nelson Em, ,,:,Onmental Review Director EDN : l kt WatTa 8e BRITT pug4 W. WAtti'b n LAW CQrrnOttnmlON nyfrrhtttnttY€rr;(t'!:t# k)r,o*rT J WALL ACCO3 f1AtrRAAtCrtJT'C1. CAI.IfrORrJt11 00620 mICSNM (DIA) -lRf].9103. September 22, 1980 OMY I Butte County Environmental Review Board 18 r County Center Drive oroville, CA 95765 Re Public Rearing set for September 24, 1980 Gentlemen: X represent the cwners of approximately 750 acres involved in your discussions set for September 24, 1980. We accidentally discovered the meeting by having a friend see it in the news papem' . The owners of the land x represent are Cecil McIntyre, Mary McIntyre and Fletcher Brown, and the land is represented by parcel numbers AP -.48-n02-02, IAF -46--52'-10,. and AP -46-34--20. As you people suavely should know, we have been in the process of spending a goad deal of money trying, to help the city of Chico determine feasibility of a sewer assessment district in that area. My records show that county officials should be well aware of the sewer assessment district. I have been informed that there has been at least two meetings attended by supervisors, public woil,„ directors and public health <directors, and I am sure that you know that engineer, Ellis Rolls, has been fran- tically working to determine the. feasibility of a district. We have been relying on the fact that the normal procedure: and arrangements for annexation between: the county and the city would be followed, and we cannot understated you allowing a rezoning hearing of our property at this particular: time.., We strongly protest and ask that our property= we withdrawn, and we remind you that relying on our previous meetings and contacts, we have incurred considerable expense for aerial maps, legal fees, environmental impact reports of our omit, traffictraffic. studies, etc Inter -Departmental Memorandum �- Hoard of Supervisors aMc Environmental Review SUE3JEerr Chico Aixl,ort Environs Rezone Orval ,January* 9, 1981 Attached is a suggested motion of approval, for the above - referenced project, incorlarating necessary environmental findings. These findings are subject to your Concurrence. If you have any questions, pleas'e.do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Earl D. Nelson Environmental Review Director EDN:lkt Attachment