Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GPA 97-02_PLANNING
SEPARATOR SHEET or7 - 250 - Ill PPoAo,ERNUMeEa A q '7 — oz - "" ' •; ''`-�> �._ PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET . FILE#: GPA 97-02 PROJECT TYPE: General Plan Amendment APPLICANT: George T. Kammerer ADDRESS: 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive,Suite 300-S,Sacramento,CA 95833 i OWNER: ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element changing the land use designation on 300+/-acres from Agricultural Residentioal to Industrial and Low DensityResidentialand Medium Density Residential,and from Industrial to Meduim Density Residential,an from Industrial to Meduim Density Residential,and from Meduim Density Residential to Low Density Residential PROPERTY ZONED: Sr-1,M-1,R2 LOCATED: on the west side of Hicks Lane approximately 1/2 to 1 mile south of Keefer Rd.,in the north Chico area AP#: 047-250-141 TOWN/AREA: Chico GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 1. Application complete:January 22,1997 Amount:$2,043.00 Receipt#: 15738 2. Comments sent to:E.H. LAFCO DEV. SERV.,P W ALUC CHICO AG COMM CDF CARD PG&E CALTRAN FISH&GAME,CSA 87,ROCK CREEK RECLAMATION,CUSD 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: , 5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 6. Assigned To:Craig Sanders 7. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No: Categorical Exemption-CEQA# Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Subject to Fish&Game: Environmental Impact Report Gen.Rule Ex.-CEQA# 15061.(bx3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: 9. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 10. Publication Notice Written: Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: 12. Newspaper Publication Date: O C P G B 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): Action taken: ST/ 9 7— 0/1 Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14, Board of Supervisors'Hearing(s): Action taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Adopted: 15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature: - 16. N.O.E./N.O.D./APPENDIX G: Fish&Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: 19. Copy of Use Permit/Variance to Planning Technician: t DEPARTME T OF DEVELOPMENI SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to be pwvided is on otha aide: APPLICANT'S NAME(If applicant is diffasat from owner an afEdaVit is required) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: George T. Kammerer, Esq. , Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP 047-250-141 ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE: FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE) 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300—S. Sacramento CA 21L Offx'17- 0 NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT(If any) TELEPHONE LOCATION OF PROJECT(Major cross xtrwu and Addreas, if any) 4001/4185 Hicks Lane, Chico, California 95926 GENERAL INFORMATION REQUMED OWNER'S NAME TELEPHONE Robert & Ann Stephens c/o Douglas N. Gunn, Trustee ( 619 ) 747-4866 ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE I 250 West Crest Street, Suite E, Escondido, California 92025-1715 ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE(in Squam Feet or Acres> various various North Chico Specific Plan 300± acres EXiS MG STRUCTURES(in Squam Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES(in Square Feet) 2,044 None (Cheek One) (Cheek One) E3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER APPLICATION REQUESTED W GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEI. MAP ❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LME MODIFICATION ❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION C3 MINOR VARIANCE ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN C3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ 01I PROJECT DESCRVnON FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT(Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division.describe the number and size of parcels.) See previous Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone application. OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT 1 AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUIHORIZFD AGENT OF THE OWNER UF'M ABOVE UESCKWED PRUI'EXTY FURTHER.I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FII.WG OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABUVE tNFUKMA'I'IUN IS TRUE,WU ACCURATE. (If an agent is to be autbarit 4 uaicwA an affidavit of euthwitatiao axed Lulude the affidavit with We application.I - ._ �-• I DATE: 12/30/96 SIGNATURE: Sic greviouuijucific Plan Amendment and ez ne a n ,on DEC 30 ' 96 11 : 28 PAGE. 001 AGENT AUTHORIZATION To Butte County, Department.ofDevelopment Services; George T. Kammerer, Esq. (916) 925-6620 Pring Nana of Arent and PMW Numba Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. , Suite 300-S. Sacramento, CA 95833 Ma"Addrw= is hereby authorized to process this appaCatioa for a General Plan Amendment on my property, identified as Butte County Assessors Parcel Number 047-250-141 This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documemus necessary for said processing, but not including document(s)relating to record title interest. Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name) Please see previous Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone application Authorization Print Name PTW Name . S+gnsarta Sigraaue Architect and/or Engineer mac Mame or,rCWUCV ani M rad Pbace Number Mailing Adders FOR OFFICE USE.ONLY Vers,. Date received: Total amount received: AP Number(s) `Legal Description . Owners Authorization Zoning requirements Project Description Copies of plot plan Taken by Receipt No. E.H. LD______ Plan______ FD Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit(Any unused portion of a deposit) will be returned upon final action.. Current fee for this application is S as of Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". DEC 30 ' §6 11 : 29 PAGE. 002 . - 1t'. �.Ia� :..:qr:::'+�c;'•.`�y�7)iC"V�tyryl{�.:;..;. ..�"�i�':''c`:''"" �`�. q,_+-'♦i .�. ;'�• :�.,r,.Nr,yWr'!:.%•>,��:,M:1.•<:Jtr..AY.N.�!4,, rL,w-�ryiJ � :�.�"`,�;��r••:v:.: :''iv!,�::.,.:e_�^'crv�:.,�.�.t.A• r''_.:,'vdT!*�l F�`=Yr-Md�..�'�g. n•��rri":''�.,U.�`� •(+ -;�: �:'�:+:;K.,-'i\, •.r�•�zip�.r�,�:;,:i ��:��,�.•'. i„3'.(�:,.'• ),[�•+w:.�-: 'Vwvr'.r,'. 'i••. ri•: �.�,:::..'�..-1 .vi:i,�C'-!;'t'.°:�•• Y, •..:E•.• . ..» .s..:R.dry';?r.'f,^..:y:-••atv w•:.: -•AEGOACiriO.gEOtlil:fL0.t1V?h'--'.��•.'�• �+. 4. ( -^'^1'•.z:v:.�,,,:b^,:.y:. r�, .T � — - ��,�' `a.:.•'•(C;:n',..,n.�¢y p; :.R•ic_;:• :°:�YN'1?6GM! �rS'...ta'- ..!..Z7„Lc�•,. �^•p�_�.A. _h i;:. -;�•`xi: iriveowrrw..... aio.•��r ro t�`.; :,erg- ^Zt`L!tirrY m��t�'•�r :'.:: t' a ;! :a,J�9 S" _ ' •.rte:' �i a.' ::ai�'� :����•�.^�?:�1:�•S:. 'LT1�.`:•,,✓',V,•:.,,,:(' .'1 •;nd`••tfrl:•-(loboi{,j-,,:.tirennnn t r�.,�':1�t}J ^�t„�..,r��:`.>� ,,;i^::'-,..-,.i.'..�•F•Y,',•'::. 1r1a:�illiEii7.'l ;79 .ri,":%. v: v� o:."•:. _:Ita1,•u' C,a i t irn"> » w ��L11• :iEf ::1.. ..,.�ii�i 1•' .ii:.'•m• - 1F ,.:R:o-`.'„ �. ,-�` ._.'•V`�:-wni� .;'� Y.J"pDj.-.•,. -r ' �3 t wr..�. .Tlll OTd r 0� NV- 9?'CG'Aw0'f:Yriittt.tN6 00:2 ri4.C'�P.SS'SA' USC -" •� - ';Y�i.l'7rht.rirtwYf.o" , - — ... .,. .. <:•.. _.. ....ern.- _ �.. ,. . .�..-•: - .,�.•' CIC.T,'G(:9rttt'I't1',irr!Pr:Ly��.;. ..+p-... ..... ^t„�!/•'�•«. y�n.�r ••. - �.Caa:pus�:on tall eall:a o:^,.to:a::p::�Ave7ad,ac! "•~:s."�.' ��:.....�� �lddro.*.n'`,it•r+v0'• � .. �.�1:w'ta�`:�. •occur.'_ _ r�;.` _ - C �an:u•.e6 ra fny valva I:ca tiraa a..d.ez.umSrar:cca:: 'y+r _ :tamainla 'thucva: �•; '^'ri". _ as.Z. t .__. _ _ - _ - - _ ^�aur:tuw W.JrMPa.rv.a•.•2.u;¢i�"ice_, !7!-.�4r••` Wa. W W_R�FOItVALUE>;EC�iVFA ;.IOig'_lE1nS r'.rei:rlpd:'aoAr: �allri :kithvii,�eDe:r'i�i'g: to �rt :� IAIIYS. _, _�•--���„L!"thy(`,deall.g:;ri�!t�li�;_•eni.iaae'riro n►tb Tint ntf t 'i►�w - " - .•., ". _ GRANT ,;"P �1DC'1 O:ORD• '- :: 'i1. ,:w- fhy.1...1 :i;jw.::• ':>; "W., 7. •,� ". _�'.. . ,,. .�..y.,... ....:•.....,. .•..;..7. - Y; Lii+t68nd cYrr .f ,:n•: .. .....::•.:. ..,. '�. .�, .IID ��. ,.fit..•..;.:.. ai JOIE?•7 ct,Ai+7:4 that tea rorclIv snusi: rarro;:a t: .(1rea':'`'� P Countyot. '? r+a: eeiCal:Pirnin d'::e[itwdzsfellovi�,�>•' :r+i�North ?calf oC..,t!ie .&o Y�9t' _ tter af.S- t ^s.� "''':.;cc:.-.: 2 £ast M .B: t _C i.. a;`.Sttipuhi "2., t;o: h;.. . ...•...Y'•`'`Tilt Swath hal!-d,.t t:•J,p flo 'hwaa't°quarter, f'-qnd tre%Soil_ �c'"rt:SEar'`otec"!en - 33 v o.--y a: _ + teniz 81r d„ n utta..C:unty:;;":. _cez•e:.,:.,t•-:7�..1t�2:is••nce. :n•"r '(pec:^ at:'^,ag�•h5q' � ."�,ZF..^`- .•..row r 'itd'i'._ c•. t._.�..__c.' >ri.s!•' :u•,af-•. .�;::::�''T3•:L•:.^.: ;•�Y?4��!I'•T-7o4• F. r _ ...._.:.�i>=:,.!..;r.-__:::—:..�:..._. "�}-hti _ •-•v-c�^! � _..'�''!T' �A'nfl�-':-.,5••,t'.�.-a�� ��---^eas.-•: atC ^hnv`naLor:"11: - -'0 _ c:;f`,.-� _: ;- ^ns.:? :..ai_:1�:�:. i-` S""�c'•�.t�.''` '.1.9'_1x.`'=-.•-,¢:: , . _ - .... `_;t��+'+ci•: _ ��. ..• rJ r11rI11. Yr,l a w :�-.: _ r.+�,::..1r-X::=ice. STATE OF CALIFORMA Count',['Sacremanto Onr t11e utld .';ovcmbe23'I btrariem, ~. .' t,.:_i ` ' �x .•, _ _ tnitn �ed;.':• r-•,\ s,•�.--'.' ec'�A: ,..�:•. -`'°F011 TAI�_>/t�•t�AR ytAMt' _..'�NM•q Po!1[O fn end for 0a 5'^tC jiq&any _ Louie LoWs, Clndpn L;'�crls and t4�n o ar or � .. o ..•e'►n ..,�: .::r;. '.�.a';�, y,.: y_a'•;• `:.q•:.''•''ity,,:�:7::� :J. u'•��m�'4bYtre t�tr veetona:setisi rwm� `':: ;.. :r�i- yr tobccnbed to%M Withle iaurumeM.read t Awmtdted tome&d"-, OFFlCLJ�4 SEAL �r MA4GJERITF.I NI CH ,`r•�rt.Rr oUDUCCna1r,;L'IU1. ..:' 1 ,.f y�•i._.. _ •• 20.CJAf LY'.. ' C' •S�i r i r' CorenultwrEfYre�K � 'y'`•.:-� - '_�».-.-•-._.-..•....-7)rrs.i I:,,�.�.rn:cl�Ajy ;1 ui•f�ix�J�^ Qdi: ? �°70lllq�ogg$+!WhT'�tog .4 ,9.r. ..f✓:-_ .aR :is�~••},:�:i`.r.,:.' ,t?'•'Cr.�•ic `''�.:.::,.""='... ;':..:�....:r,:i.,:... ' ' ^^tet . f::{....:. .•.;':.i ti:��'..�14,�1W r •'�f1......�f..................� :: �• '., 259 .'"leR�aej141�� �' rn:- ;'ii0i tc tiW..e�"tu. L �•. !sr of at09N91! r _,r YIMliCInVIAL'I' 7 ovjlrwrw� , 1, _i anJ A^ r�p .. �.,..• �.iLar;.,":•:iimiir, 1,wr�y .•o:^• - 1., t�1� .r_eN-' :+1 piap; ,..:' _. 'k;'•. 1.;Mf 1! fQ�e7 _'`xi[i iio " 1 � t� °':`.' 'i• I 'pojiw,o!'IWou{_-_� r1� $311.�S�•)r•u.`^,n : J � - .,yr- ..."s•••.; ..-f'.�l/O Lggld{7�!t�plY rut,PTA r� C-........ _ AB6. +srfi/alu jr TFZY, - - . [ (.• R l 4. . •�.:•�• .•... M'y.��f_.,�!r•- ..fy..�,;�:�hr...:r .�r•.r"'.,:<",:•w.1R'^ .'r^ ';t' .µ -6� y _ . .:.. _...�--v. '."moi..:".• _-T: ' v .n, r •x. ' • R3 CD 3 P I�C� G'C Loc "on ►� �- f. Cit o Chi C t co w:, Y : R. f ::: :: ::: Q 3i �. . cD. i S R-1 l.: I �. „. ' 1' MS;'fi �S}•� 3t x:. _ n '{ "+Tien - a yL 5•... .. ... .vy�'n �� ?, L^i' .x. g. t .:P. Y dL'�;� v.. Ls �,r`..:i rrr •,,ti. s .. .;f:,� kyr, is d;.' Sika.�.. k. ic•.y 'rte -av4... SR-1/OS - .it'•i4`'f,,'[i% .CYT..., ..'ts?:rjt`.�.5 - .•S1'.\�.�.; �r.r "�`.f��..ry`L. r �-5-(df s.,Y•f':t;.-:.;.,..�•-,1.4. 1 - - s ' J,,1 .y Mir tH3.�^dC`'ts1�'< �S- „ • .5�:'iiwYr~ Ykdvfi 'sc. 'Sy1?•,G3-' saa {rr?' ,3 yY }s 7stissf Ni}S! z A ids; •t: 1• 431 � '. C 3s 3�rwt n3 C� �V� kr • - S,R-1 t A '� .i ` r 'y`'+t ! 3 !*3� "N1 Ori. V ro e",'r`'i��a rPa �Fq;y}q.s•���� a .. � .k• s�ft�swru+'r���r��� 'l'a�ss'k^4S..5xJ�7r+ 1 —1 B-1 V BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: George Kammerer Owner: ` Hearing Date:February 12, 1998 @ 9:00 a.m. Existing Zone: Various A Request: .Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan to change Land Use designation of approximately No Scale 300 acres of land. Assessor Parcel No: 047-250-141 File: 97-01 ♦war ..4. .� . .�r,;.. (SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In the Matter of p.ir c.e...of_..Public Hearing. No ...... . ................................................................. {} BUTTE COUNTY MANNING' I COMMISSION NQTICE-OF� " U 7/ .................................. .y�;,.,_,' PUBLIC HEARING:;i„ci;� :. Notice is hereby given,by'the':1 Butte:County.;.Planning,;yti=: mission that,a,-publici;hesiirigs" .................................................................................... will be held on TThursday.:Febb-- 1 ruary 12, 1998, in.the Butte. ' County,Board;of�iSupe'rvisat-, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Room, County::AdmPnlstranoA Center, 25 Counttyy 'Center ; Drive,:Oroville;•'Calif omi�;,.�'re= garding the following,item;atNt)e State of California followin time:"�. .. , ss. ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE I County of Butte DECLARATION WITH MITIQA4 TION MEASURES"REGARD-.-! ING ENVIRONMENTAL:/lm=j The undersi ned resident of the coup of PACTS HAS,BEEN,RECOM- g county MENDED : ::: - Butte,State of California,says: 9:00 a.m.-Robert•&'Ann Ste.i y hens-An amendment!to the North Chico Specific,13 ari'to, change the land:use'6esi g`iia;, That I am,and at all time herein mentioned tion on 230'.acres.from,SR;t (Suburban'Resideniial.=';ta$re was a citizen of the United States and not a party minimum),"SR-1/OS.(Su;6urban Residential ,; ? "acre to nor interested in the above entitled matter; paecels/Open:'Space);',;a d`os. that I am the principal clerk of the printer and (oppen_:Space):to?:eith r", p p p 1/PD(Suburban,Res identla):'I'; publisher of acre minimum/Plan ned,vel- opment)' and OS/PD.:^,(Open Space/Planned, Development) or M-1 (Ljl;iW Industrial);o'n' The Chico Enterprise-Record j� property located on the;-west side of Hicks.:Lanei"4, rozl mately 4/2 to'1'mile`soidti'ot. That said newspaper is one of general circula- Keefer Lane,identified as"N', 047-25-141, 'north of :Chioo tion as defined by Section 6000 Government (CS)(GPA97-02) Code of the State of California,Case No.26796 talon, Initial Sabove tudy,; and 'ma r dy,.°and map: are on file 'and �avallable for by the Superior Court of the State of California, public viewing at the,;office or in and for the Countyof Butte;that said news the Butte County Planning:Do. Pa- partment,'7,..County..,Center: per at all times herein mentioned was printed Dave,Orovilie,'Califomia. It'you challenge the,above applica-I and published daily in the City of Chico and tions in court,you may,be,,limft,` ed to raising only thoseji sues County of Butte; that the notice of which the you or-someone efse ralsed:et' the public hearing desoribedlin annexed is a true printed copy,was published in this notice'or.in written"corre= a er on the following spondence delivered to'�the said news ' P P g da s:Y Planning Commission,at or�p or to,the public hearing:'1, .. BUTTE COUNTY..': Jan. 30 1998 . ;PLANNINGCOMMISSION j THOMAS A.PARILO Director Development Services= C194924.: Publish: 1/30/1998 I certify(or declare),under penalty of 5. perjury,that the foregoing is true and correct,at - --'" - Chico,California. Dated......Jan.�...30.:....1998............................... at Chico,California. (Signa e) j \ LEAD - IN SHEET FILE NO: .GPIA Oa AP# APPLICANT: 120)2f,4 � A7wy Name address OWNER: ►4rn,( a Name Address RESPRESENTATIVE: .yv 6 atWet" rATewftj oars w- Name ,address Sacv4jw.v 4t GA a 5833 -3SoS REQUEST: ^ bot acv14 rt.,6 Gid ed,uw� ins► (LGS, 4Qaw�1 ram Zu4vs}�a� 'tb IA",vr►, SIZE: b 6ws.+y n eS,oeW T,Atm , &,Vk 4"ll,, m",v— D ENs,-r-i R*-s,D6,VT,,gt, to Low 04vs,-ry Rc s,o vy,*, LOCATION: �bc((w ons I�1vjs sjle1n- o f I c,ks a aovo,� D a wl e fi�V 2c� w` i ►nom r1 ov'f Yl /Yl l LO GN G&- SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT# EXISTING ZONING: 5(H M- 1 , n-ZZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: k:\forms\lead-in 0 COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: George Kammerer GPA 97-02 DATE: January 22. 1997 County Offices and Cities: 4- Chief Administrative Officer �X_ Develop.Services Director P<X_ Public Works Director x Environmental Health Building Manager Sheriff _ BCAG _ ALUC 7{_ LAFCo _ APCD _ Butte Co.Farm Bureau Biggs _ Gridley ►rX_ Chico Oroville _ Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission Agricultural Commission Irrigation District: Butte Water _ BiggslW.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito Irrigation District _ Other Sewer Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ L.O.A.PUD Fire Protection ✓X_ California Department of Forestry_ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts ✓_X_ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec.&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks Utilities ►*"_X_ PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies t�}C_ CalTrans — Dept of Water Resources j�X_ Dept of Fish and Game _ Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol Central Reg.Water Quality Control Department of Conservation _ Off.of Mining Reclamation _ Off.of Governmental&Env.Relations Federal Agencies US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc. Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association _ Mosq.Abatement Oroville/Butte Co Drainage _ Butte Env.l Council Paradise Pines Com Reclamation Cal Native Plant Society Vf CUSD Butte Co.Mining Committee CSA 87 _ �C_ Rock Creek Reclamation BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Thomas A.Parilo, Director Of Development Services RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: George Kammerer,GPA 97-02,SP 97-01 DATE: January 22,1997 PLANNER: We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for completeness and I if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for an amendment to the Butte County General Plan&the North Chico Specific Plan changing the land use designation on 300+acres from Agdcultural Residential to Industrial.Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential,and from Industrial to Meduim Density Residential,and from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on property zoned SR-1.M-1,&R2(Suburban Residential,Light Industrial.Residential)located on the west side of Hicks land approx 12 to 1 mile south of Keefer Rd.,north Chico area,identified as APN 047-25-141. It is within Supervisorial District No.-3 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) X PLANNING COMMISSION _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON May 22 1997. YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN February 10,1997. IFNO COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YO UHAVE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: - 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 STEPHENS CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST LAND USE PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION r • Robert and Ann Stephens, by, and through the Robert and Ann Stephens Charitable Remainder Unitrust, Douglas N. Gunn, Trustee, own 300± acres located within the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area. Existing NCSP land use designations for this 300± acre parcel are indicated on the attached Exhibit "C". This application proposes two alternative amended land use designations for this parcel, described on the attached Exhibit"A" (Alternative One) and Exhibit "B" (Alternative Two). These two alternatives reflect varying changes in intensity of land uses compared with existing land use designations. Two alternatives are purposely submitted in order to obtain the Butte County Planning Department's analysis and recommendations for both proposals so that the project proponents may be better able to compare,.and ultimately select between, the two alternative proposals. This application assumes that the underlying zoning will be modified in accordance with changes in land-use designations so that the two will remain compatible. The primary purpose of this application is to seek to adjust NCSP land use designations to more accurately reflect the true status of the very limited environmental constraints present upon this property and to adjust land uses to more accurately reflect current market demand. gtk\et\stephens\proposal.dsc w Planning Division FE B 0 9 1998 Oroville,California February 6, 1998 IHEFNER . ':MAROIS LLP LAW OFFICES _ Butte County Planning Commission County Center J 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 - Archie Hefner (1922-1988) RE: Applicant's Response to Consistency Findings by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission for Butte County Specific Plan Amendment#97-01 Kenneth R.scone (Stephens) on APN 047-250-141 Timothy D.Tama Todd A.Murray Timothy Mo,n Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Joel S. Levy, Ronald H.Sargis On behalf of our clients, Robert and Ann Stephens, we submit the following Martin S Steiner responses to the December 9, 1997 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Howard S. Nevins Kirk E Giberson consistency findings for the above application in preparation for your hearing on this Michael J.Cook matter on February 12. Please note the importance of the applicant's response to the George T.Kammerer specific Environmental Findings and Project Consistency Findings made by ALUC. As this Thomas P.orit[n,'Jr. Michael R. Williams letter points out, contrary to ALUC's contentions in its findings, this project application is consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) and the Of counsel Compatible Land Use Zone V (CLUZ V). Robert N.Stark James M. Woodside Robert W. sal In addition, ALUC's Environmental Findings mischaracterize the requirements of Paul W.Taylor the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and incorrectly conclude that the Randy C.Irvine analysis in the project's Initial Study is not adequate. ' Please find the following substantial evidence which the applicant hereby places into 2110 Gateway Oaks Dr.' the administrative record which demonstrates that the above application is supported by Suite 3W south adequate environmental analysis in the Initial Study and the project is consistent with the' Sacramento,California CMAEP and CLUZ V: 95833-3505 (916)925-6620 Pax 925.1127. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS 1. ALUC finds that the Initial Study for the project does not adequately address potential impacts from the project related to aircraft operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. We believe it is important to state for the record that state law as stated in the Public Resources Code (CEQA Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 2 statutes) requires that any findings of the existence of potential impacts upon the environment be supported by substantial evidence in the record. As explained here and below, none of ALUC's findings regarding_notential impacts are supported by substantial evidence in the record. "Argument,speculation,unsubstantiated opinion or narrative,evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence of social or economic impacts_ which do not contribute to...physical impacts.on the environment, is not substantial evidence." (Public Resources Code Sections 21080, 21082.2.) Speculation and conjecture regarding a project's potential impacts do not amount to substantial evidence. (Citizens Committee to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (2nd District '1995) 37 CaLApp.4th, 1157 [44 Cal.Rptr.2d 288].) Furthermore,speculation is not evidence and speculative possibilities are not substantial evidence of environmental impact. (Association for Protection of Environmental Values in Ukiah v. City of Ukiah (1st District 1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 720 [3 Ca1.Rptr.2d 488].) As explained below,all of ALUC's allegations of potential impacts re ag rding safety and noise are merely speculation and unsubstantiated opinion, and do not amount to substantial evidence in the record. To the contrary, the evidence provided in this letter in rebuttal to ALUC's findings, does constitute substantial evidence in the record in direct contradiction to the unsubstantiated conclusions in ALUC's Environmental Findings and Project Consistency Findings. As a first point of specific contention, ALUC alleges that the Initial Study's analysis is inadequate because there is no discussion of the safety impacts relating to the overflight of aircraft as depicted on CIC-2 of the CMAEP. First of all, CIC-2 is contained in the CLUZ,-not CMAEP as ALUC states. Secondly, to the contrary, the Initial Study did assess the potential exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. Specifically, the analysis addressed the "potential impacts to safety for homes which might be located under an approach zone for the Chico Municipal Airport." The Initial Study concluded that while homes located in this zone may have an incrementally higher chance of being impacted by a plane crash, by instituting the recommendations of the CMAEP that there be no concentration of homes located under the approach zone, this mitigates this impact to less than significant levels. The specific mitigation unposed requires that residential density under the approach zone to the Chico Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 3 Municipal Airport shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres. This satisfies the CMAEP requirement that there by no concentration of homes under the approach zone. Because of the greater concentration of aircraft traffic at low altitudes in the approach zone, the incrementally-increased likelihood of a plane-crash involving a r=idence in this location is substantially higher than it would be-- - - in an overfli j hg t zone in which air traffic is more dispersed, less frequent and flying at higher altitudes. Because the analysis in the Initial Study concludes that the proposed mitigation measure to limit residential density in the approach zone suffices to reduce potential safety impacts to less than significant levels, applying the CEQA edict known as the "rule of reason" supports the.Initial Study's conclusion that potential impacts to safety are even more remote in the overflight zone and do not require mitigation. ALUC provides no evidence of anything but a generalized concern for extremely speculative, remote potential impacts to safety in the overflight zone. Without any such evidence, the only conclusion which can legally be drawn is that the Initial Study did adequately assess the potential for such a safety impact and did accurately conclude that this potential was merely speculative. and unsubstantiated by substantial evidence, thereby not requiring further analysis in the Initial Study. 2. ALUC contends that the Initial Study did not contain any discussion of single event noise impacts and/or noise impacts related to night-time maintenance functions. This is incorrect. To the contrary, the Initial Study states that "[t]he entire site is subject to noise related to the overflight of aircraft and from operations of the Chico Municipal Airport. The northeast WV corner of the site is currently within the CNEL 55 dB noise contour and yo.-J'A most of the OS area will be in a 55 'dB in the-year 2010." Tiering off of egu�t the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) EIR, the Initial Study "concluded that both residential andindustrial uses would be compatible with a 55 dB noise level and found the impact to be less than significant." (Initial Study, page 12.) Furthermore, as explained in greater detail below under subparagraph 6 of Section 1, the Noise Compatibility Program actually recommends that residential uses are compatible within a CNEL of below . 60 dB. As also explained below in greater detail in subparagraph 6 to Section 2, the Initial Study did take into account the CMAEP analysis for single event noise impacts and the likelihood of "annoyance" from night- time airport-generated noises in residential areas and found that impacts Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 4 from the CNEL of below 66 dB to be largely inconsequential. For these reasons, this "finding" by ALUC to the contrary is merely speculative and unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and should be considered invalid. 3. ALUC contends that the Initial Study is inadequate because it does not - . .. contain a_discussion of potential impacts of-.residential noise complaints upon potential alteration, reduction or loss of unrestricted aircraft operations. Again, based upon the analysis below, and based upon the fact that ALUC provides no substantial evidence to support its contentions, the Initial Study's reliance upon CMAEP conclusions that residential uses will be entirely within areas with a CNEL of below 60 dB, even in the year 2010 with markedly-increased aircraft usage of the airport, is completely adequate. For the same reasons, ALUC's finding amounts to nothing more than mere speculation and unsubstantiated opinion and thus is an invalid finding. 4: ALUC contends that the Initial,Study is not adequate because it did not contain a discussion of the safety impacts related to the overflight of CDFFP air tankers as identified in the North Chico Specific Plan Final EHL Following a review of the Final EIR for the NCSP and a review of the CMAEP which is the source of the "Flight Tracks" Exhibit in the NCSP cited by ALUC to show the tanker practice drop pattern alignment, we can find no discussion which concludes, or would even imply, that any safety impact should be anticipated at the Stephens' property related to the overflight of these air tankers using this flight pattern. And, as ALUC again provides no substantial evidence to support its conclusion that such a potential safety impact is anything more than mere speculation and conjecture, this, too, constitutes an invalid finding upon- which .to base a determination of inconsistency. 5. ALUC contends that the Initial Study is not adequate because it does not contain a detailed discussion of the "unique hazards" related to the use of air space above the project site by student pilots. Again, ALUC provides no substantial evidence to support such a finding or to show that this finding is anything more than, again, mere speculation and conjecture and unsubstantiated concerns and suspicions, which simply do not rise to the level of substantial evidence. As such, this finding is inadequate to support an inconsistency determination and therefore is invalid. In fact, in light of Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 5 the substantial evidence to the contrary included in this letter, as descri in detail below, ALUC's determination of "inconsistency" based on alleged "inadequacies"of the environmental analysis for this project, simply cannot ' pass legal muster. 6. ALUC is correct, however, in' noting that the Initial •Study does not _ conclude tbat..the project application is incopsistent with-the City of Chico ` Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 (FAR Part 150)-Noise Compatibility Program. This is because the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program itself does not recommend that residential uses not be allowed on the project site.•; Rather, Table EEM "Recommended Land Use Compatibility y Designations, Chico Municipal Airport," states that residential land uses are consistent at'community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) "below 60 decibels (dB)." As depicted in Exhibit III-1 "FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan: Airport Noise Compatibility Plan," the project site is located in its entirety outside of the CNEL 60 dB line. The result is that residential uses are,fy&consistent with the City of Chico FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. despite ALUC's misinterpretation of the data to the contrary. CIC-3 and CIC-11 from the CLUZ also place the project completely outside of the 60 dB contour line. Furthermore, the FAR Part 150 plan also states that communities not uncommonly determine that residential uses may be allowed within contours ' up to CNEL 70 dB so long as measures are incorporated to achieve "...indoor Noise Reduction Levels (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB..." (Key to Table III-1). General manufacturing (industrial) land uses are unconditionally consistent up to CNEL 65 dB and conditionally consistent up to CNEL 80 dB. Because the Stephens' residential development application is consistent with the CMAEP,ALUC's finding of"inconsistency" is simply flat out untrue and without any basis. Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 1. ALUC asserts that the project is inconsistent with the CMAEP for the reason that the project is located in the study area depicted in Figure CIC-6 and in CLUZ V as depicted in CIC-13. Quite to the contrary, nothing indicated in CIC-6 or in CIC-13 demonstrates that the project is inconsistent with either the CMAEP or the CLUZ V. In fact, CIC-6 further verifies that the project is located completely outside of the CNEL 60 dB contour Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 6 and that more than half of the site is located outside of the CNEL 55 dB contour. CIC-13 demonstrates that the Stephens' property in its entirety is located within Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) Category V"CNEL 55-60, Out of Corridor." As'explained in subparagraph 4 below, the CLUZ V category "requires the least restriction on development." Fwrthermore, Category V is clearly shown in both the CMAEP and CLUZ as being completely out of the flight corridor. The "CNEL 50-60 Out of the Corridor" designation is the least restrictive designation of all requiring no restrictions whatsoever upon residential development using the standard detached single-family home design. The only limitation recommended applies to mobile home parks and it simply requires the addition of sound insulation to achieve indoor CNEL 45 dB levels in mobile homes. (CLUZ, p. 8-8, CIC-13.) Thus, ALUC's determination of"inconsistency" is completely contradictory to the actual conclusions in the CMAEP and the CLUZ, as explained above, and thus this finding should also be considered invalid. 2. ALUC contends the project is inconsistent with the CMAEP.because the project is located under the light aircraft traffic pattern as shown on CIC- 2 and the VFR and IFR patterns for the airports' runways. This conclusion, again, inaccurately states the facts and is ,completely contrary to the conclusions in the CMAEP and the CLUZ. CIC-2 actually demonstrates that the light aircraft traffic pattern tracks well to the west and north of the Stephens' property. This pattern slices only a small comer of the property at the extreme southwest boundary of the Stephens' property. Thus, it is inaccurate and incorrect for ALUC to state that the propertylies under the _.. light aircraft traffic pattern. Most importantly, neither ALUC, nor the CMAEP or CLUZ, state that any significant safety risk is associated with residential land uses located "under" or in the vicinity of the light aircraft traffic pattern. The only concern identified in these studies involves the extent of noise generation by aircraft traffic using these patterns. And, as explained in detail both above and below, the Stephens' project is located in an area in which residential uses are considered completely consistent with the CLUZ V and the CMAEP's FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 t Page 7 ' In referencingCIC-2 as ALUC does to determine VFR and IFRpatterns, we must point out that CIC-2 clearly demonstrates that these patterns do not cross over the Stephens' property. Therefore, ALUC is incorrect in concluding that the project site is located "under" VFR or IFR patterns for the airport runways. Thus,ALUC's conclusions of inconsistency based upon light aircraft traffic patterns- and VFR and IFR patterns is completely - contrary to the-data in the CMAEP and CLUZ and constitutes an invalid finding. 3. Next, ALUC contends that the project is inconsistent because it is located in the "horizontal surface as shown on CIC-5, and a portion of the northwest section of the project site is located in the 7:1 transitional surface as shown on CIC-5." As explained in the CLUZ, the purpose of the transitional surface and horizontal surface designations are to establish - "imaginary surfaces" on and about the airport to limit the construction of. tall structures in the vicinity of the airport. ' The definition of "tall structures" is contained in Appendix B "Proposed Height Restriction Ordinances," Section 19.58.050 "Height Limits," which states that "the provisions of this Chapter shallnot be.applicable to any tree or structure not exceeding 35 feet in height above the natural ground elevation." (CLUZ, page B-2.) Because the average single-story, single-family home is between 12 to 20 feet in height, and most two-story homes are under 35 feet in height, there is absolutely nothing which is inconsistent about residential development within either the horizontal surface or 7:1 transitional surface shown on CIC-5. Furthermore,a quick review of CIC-5, CIC-8 and several other CIC exhibits, clearly demonstrates that thousands of acres are contained within these designations for approximately four miles around the Chico Municipal Airport. Hundreds of acres of this area are already heavily or completely developed primarily with residential subdivisions both to the north and to the south of the Stephens' property. Thus, again, ALUC presents a mischaracterization of the data in the CMAEP and CLUZ and incorrectly finds that the Stephens' residential project proposal_is inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport. 4. The CMAEP and CLUZ V zone are alleged to indicate that parcels that are affected by the overflight of aircraft should not be developed Regarding the CLUZ V zone analysis, ALUC completely misrepresents the CLUZ V conclusions which state, "[t]he CLUZ V category includes those peripheral parcels which are within the airport influence area, i.e., Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 8 within the CNEL 55 boundary. This area requires the least restriction on development and...parcels could carry the zoning classification of S-R as the least restrictive category." (Chico Municipal Airport CLUZ, Section 8.3.6, p. 8-20.) The only apparent limitation required in this least restrictive area for development (the CLUZ V zone) includes a "recommendation" that "parcels with segments intruding into the flight corridor should not be developed in these segments." (Ibid., p. 8-20.)_ As demonstrated in CIC- 13, the Stephens' property is "outside of the flight corridor." ALUC's finding that the CMAEP provides a basis for precluding development in the project location based upon "safety concerns" is completely inaccurate. The CMAEP analysis only addresses airport noise compatibility. Thus, this complete mischaracterization of both the CMAEP and CLUZ V requirements can only be concluded to constitute an invalid finding. 5. ALUC contends that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of the existing zoning. Quite to the contrary, the Specific Plan Amendment includes a rezone proposal under Butte County's -flexible planned development (PD) policies which will retain the same amount of area in open space as is proposed for open space under the NCSP today. The population and building density of the project area are not proposed to exceed that of the existing zoning. Rather, by use of the County's flexible PD ordinance, the proposal simply shifts the location of residential units which would be consistent immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport, to a location further away from the Chico Municipal Airport. While ALUC may believe that residential development should be prohibited on this parcel in any configuration, its conclusion is in conflict with the fact that the NCSP has already approved residential development over much of this parcel. This Specific Plan Amendment and PD rezone application actually.proposes to better protect the Chico MuniciRal Airport than current CMAEP policies, by guaranteeini that residential development will be shifted to those portions of the subject parcel which are furthest away from the Chico Municipal Airport. Because ALUC's finding is in complete contradiction to existing residential development designations which have already been approved for the site under the NCSP and because ALUC ignores the airport-sensitive nature of this Specific Plan Amendment and rezone which is perfectly consistent with the airport, this finding goes far beyond the Stephens' application and seeks to subvert existing residential Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 9 development policies previously approved under the NCSP and thus, too,. is invalid. 6. ALUC contends that a current noise study was not conducted to determine the single-event noise levels that would be found at the project site and thus would require the approving authority to speculate as to the.actual noise impact related to this project. To the contrary, a current noise study is unnecessary in light of the still-valid noise analysis found in the CMAEP. Exhibit III-1 "Airport Noise Compatibility Plan" anticipates future noise levels at the project site through the year 2010 based upon assumptions that the Chico Municipal Airport will sustain greater aviation uses in 2010 than it does today. As described in our response above to Section 1: Environmental Findings, subparagraph 6;.even in'the year 2010 the project site in its entirety,will.be located within contours below CNEL 60 dB. Because of the existence of this still veryvalid future-oriented noise study dY in the CMAEP which shows residential projects in this location to be completely consistent with CNEL dB levels in the year 2010, the approving authority is not in any way left to speculate as to the actual noise impact upon a residential project in this precise location. In this location,residential uses have been shown to be completely consistent with maintaining airport operations. Furthermore, current noise exposure maps for 1990 Baseline Conditions (Exhibit I-1) and Forecast Conditions in 1997 (Exhibit I-2)show the project site to be located even further outside of the otherwise fully compatible CNEL 60 dB contour which is in effect today. According to detailed analysis in the CMAEP regarding"Single-Event Noise and Annoyance," indoor Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) below 66 dB are hardly considered to have any potential for sleep disturbance in residential neighborhoods. Indoor SEL dB of 66 was found to result in sleep disturbance to only 20% (just 1/5) of the subjects involved in these detailed noise studies. (CMAEP,Appendix A, "Single-Event Noise and Annoyance," Table A-1, "Sound Exposure Level and Sleep Disturbance.") For both of these reasons,ALUC's inconsistency finding here,too,is completely contrary to the CMAEP and is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. CONCLUSION As explained in the detailed analysis above which cites the precise provisions of the CMAEP and the CLUZ which are relied upon by ALUC in concluding that the Stephens' Butte County Planning Commission February 6, 1998 Page 10 residential project is "inconsistent"-with these two documents, the data above clearly demonstrate that each and every finding by ALUC either mischaracterizes, completely misstates, or is completely unsubstantiated by the actual analysis in the CMAEP and the CLUZ. Furthermore, ALUC provides no substantial evidence in the record to otherwise support any of its findings which are completely contrary to the detailed analysis in the CMAEP and the CLUZ. The CMAEP and the CLUZ analyses in all respects demonstrate that the Stephens' residential project is completely consistent with the policies governing land uses in proximity to the Chico Municipal Airport. Therefore, the Planning Commission, in its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, should consider each and every inconsistency finding by ALUC for this project to be invalid and thus not binding in any manner upon either the Commission or the Board. Because ALUC's findings supporting its determinations of "inconsistency" are invalid (by being contrary to accepted studies and data and unsupported by substantial evidence on the record), the finding of inconsistency should be disregarded Furthermore, no two-thirds majority vote should be considered to be necessary to approve this project. Both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors are legally entitled to approve the Stephens' application by a simple majority vote if they so desire. On behalf of the Stephens, we would greatly appreciate the Planning Commission's recommendation of support for.this project to the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for your serious consideration of this very important substantial evidence which we hereby present into the administrative record to assist the Commission and the Board in their decisionmaking on this project application. Very truly yours, BEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP By eorge mmerer gtk/stephens/bcpc.l-l:etAWJlm Enclosures cc: Douglas Gunn Robert and Ann Stephens Tom Pardo Craig Sanders Neil McCabe, Esq. . r. N.V.P A. Ad.C"606 February 7, 1998 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965 Honorable Commissioners. I am writing you on behalf of the North Valley Pilots Association.Our membership represent a cross section of local business professionals,teachers,doctors,attorneys etc.,a majority of which reside in Butte County. As pilots,we utilize the Chico Municipal Airport and recognize its' importance to the local community. It has recently come to my attention that an amendment to the Butte County Specific Plan has been proposed for a large parcel of land adjacent to the airport.This parcel is APN 047-250-141 with the amendment being proposed by Mr.Kammerer. The proposal is known as the"Stephens Project." According to the staff report for ALUC(9-23-97)this plan amendment will increase the density on portions of the project site due to the change in zoning.The amount of open space would decrease.The staff report notes,"the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning will increase the population and building density of the project area above that of existing zoning." We have a real concern about.increasing the population density in this area adjacent to the airport.The proximity of the parcel would subject residents to aircraft climbing at fiill power,with the associated noise and hazards.There have been three instances of aircraft contacting the ground in the same Northwest quadrant in the last 10 years(see attached Appendix 49,Airport Safety Areas CMA).No less than six traffic patterns overfly this parcel.All of the patterns involve some sort of maneuvering.(ie.turning, changing altitude,power adjustments etc.)These patterns are totally dictated by the position of the runway and cannot be altered.Because of both safety and noise concerns the population density on this parcel should be minimized. This concern about noise and safety was addressed in the Final Impact Report for the North Chico Specific Plan.One of the project elements that was listed was the"Establishment of open space, industrial,and low density residential uses adjacent to the airport and clear zones."This parcel falls into the adjacent category,and because of the significant overflight potential it seems mandatory and that open space be protected,and residential densities be limited. We respectfully request that you deny the Specific Plan Amendment for the Stephens project and maintain the zoning as previously determined in the North Chico Specific Plan.This course of action would best serve the community and help preserve an important and economically vital asset to the residents of Butte County. Respectfully, Brian C. Baldridge President North Valley Pilots Association r MNDIX M9 �e �� X j� !i?•% OLlTd�j�� po, .•f o GO[•IiOw r , ' O 1.4 FO T•l I\O.[\TT o Q \ SCALE I'. eoo' Q I ��"•/� +°�. �� +e`o siZZ/Gr �/C/ �. �1 COWISSET `\ / e4 Yl� 'vl J°• , \) f •100D IIGM.\ ♦ / (, t.{'6 � �]/�� /- `• V � ,<!«+ fT. ,f� `. `••. ..f`�• �" Yc.T<D [A// (//_�///l �� G Oi��'�SG R �'--.,.D /f/f� /r�✓ss•y /Tor �� CDr[ o �.� ` � -•ice ` �-� '�'�f"�/ ,c.¢��"S y ��/.� y y'v 'XIWAY SAFETY ARE /� A Dr GIG•.<°'`Y�"'" P' �.� /' / �" �° RUNWAY AFETY AREA _ 10 FAA APPf u, :. EXTENDED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA APR 1 0 1969. , i X—x.aos 93 c�.9t! i� Fo9 N INITIALS . ,�yTi9✓ �<.. NOTE, ; 14440����� �OS�' !)rvL//' r� RVNWAY LIGHTS ARE HIGH INTENSITY. TAXIWAY LIGHTS ARE MEOIUM INTENSITY. CIC-ACM 11/88 •�� - < +<.so+ o.T[ _- _APPENDIX#9 L,fy✓1 e.��� AIRPORT SAFETY AREAS o +uc d•+r Tr J;Dy\u1 TY:fC O• CHICO MUNICIPAL. AIRPORT I Ov AMENDEJd&M-USE DESIGNATIONS -- ALTERNwE ONE cB'T_� �o ,soo a000 SCALE .f�i.- 1 ) •. I•��•!�.\\f' I. Ij✓Y•��.J1�18 -I'i �f �-�. __ i '. � i..... . �. .X1 r ` :�\'.\ dl �, •` -j_�.j-jl l.:p� J� j�_ ...J� ♦I`_ \`� I 11, .'• nal ""a' 99 ♦ „cars -T _ L R Kv- T -'.'I-�' ,l\ •i r •; `\ ..*.,ti j j'i" �1'Iri�oT�'?;' _ a� � .•:•,w v `v rh:^'' i \` �', y uyn„.y. Aa \ {}II :I. :I. - ^'f:�; ,1@;Q}\ CS :{%>x7• •; .-A v,, LEGEND ® EIEMEMTARV SCHOOL �•\ •�+s t}. :•• 1 i} ' ® FIRE STATION M COMAUNITY PARK ! \ :9 .\�f \1•, �� L.;,,, "14}Z. Q \` 7 Zai ) NOfJ180RHO0D PARK ♦ � 4 ''\- C SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BOUNDARY - \ ♦f'ii�•' s,�� 'S{i:':��^ \ \ --- SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IOTY OF CHICOI -5? �. .>.S` 3 ” Y.}• \ i ^^^ STREET NTM FlEY1BLE ALIGNMENT STREET WITH FIYXD ALIGNMENT �y ((�`='^ •q � j , 1. �v�;+.t'y3 I— ♦ t1 '•.I S I 1 LAND USE SR-7 SUBURBAN RESL9 AC.PAN. __ ♦ T - �•.•— - •••' SUBURBAN RESI AC. f .l `,yr_ .\': '_'. ''.'�}.''•..`''.AF11 L R-1 �J LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / .. v..\� ^•,'••O.';'':\,. \f',":: X. I. R-2 MED.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL . ® RJ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL EA,•,Y,^} Ail LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ® C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL I ' P C•1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL BP U PROFESSIONAL PO PUBLIC I QUASI. PUBLIC ! North Chico Specific Plan OS GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE'GREENBELT LAND USE MAP OPEN SPACE'LAND USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING ' AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. - ' ' .""•' 16,i.,1'xa_ ANEMIC) USE DESIGNATIONS - ALTEVE TWO LC�'1' O IS- SCALE SHwSCALE -_. jw`�}•. 1I . '��`1�.� r);•., .� err w✓1,.�1`• JI I I `_._�I I .( — Jar ti_.. .,�� r ti I... .,1.:ITT '.are:,_.�./Jy r ♦:t'" �; !i \�"'y\ `\ �-`ilTe � TT _:I•I: I — 111 •� . JJ \\�Y \ \ ♦> - { �::' ,I {rl'fTTTI-1 --L -- - ....- Agw,I ` " - � t: i - �'\\.,•: -j{Ifs~ -i• .,. `• i :i-----�-' �r Q�#,1 _,`�. . \\ _n� v !{� 'off �;:vlc:'•;::.. .MN.y.-`\ ,'\\ I I If—: "'41:j TTS"• 'ew`.< `'^:+..%t •{jj,:Y,:•,„,),:,<:w:{<1 --:' a `�\\\•:l ;1 I'I•,,,ri .n ':�Y', `:"�„': ':;:iuG•rk: :yr.) ;sr'1 :Z• ;.: \ LEGEND ♦ - e `:<G:::\o. 1 J� 1:. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - 'yvv •I ® -RE STATION \� \ I:'�^•¢t♦`:r.< `. `:. 'o;' '.`\SA ::�: ®' OgAMJNITY PARK ( �'♦\ < �� is \�_ :. l','A.•W:'.;''. `r. I 6 1 �; NEIGHBORH000 PARK ♦\ '��• �����: "`''�' -__ 'i;�:��.:. •v:, :y-----r!�\ SPECIFIC RAN AREA BOUNDARY .` 1 'd• -_... .. ? :;s�. v �(� '`.` 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE \♦ 'to 'Y:r!' ,J .. .::•c,:11 '-,A t. \M '^\ ' ♦ \ '{ )'•vo\�y,-.,,� �''Y'• J• f •)\!' \`'L. �;p,` \ \\ IpTT OF p11C01 n e.n STREET PATH FLENBLE AUGNMENf );• \ i ..•..• ...:!.V`•''i's`L:••.''A .I, n -_ o STREET WITH FIXED ALIGNMENT � lZ• ^, I - +^'i'\i.�• .\`'� •�'%(:.. �•,•'>•^�"„1• ti„c;,l ::: ).♦:.\.:\\'•`\,tial� •:?!.i'•.'Cw �`:\ <;;, '' ``„,<' , . �,y.” ` ti's .a;,`:::. ..•"•!X!>.• --- LAND USE '—] S&7 SUBURBAN RESI.3 AC.MIN. •;;' � �i- =--—_.. -'—TaR a,a^�--'..' .7^'Y._,.—:.. 1.- --. SA•i SUBURBAN RESI.1 AC.MN: iLl LOW DENSITY RESDENInAL ® A-2 MEO.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RJ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4L2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL a:,,•.•'.• !til LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL L�„\^\•'C� C-I LIMITED COMMERCIAL ® BP BUSINESS&PROFESSIONAL PO PUBUC/OUASI-PUBLIC I North Oth tVYCO Specific Plan ; OS GREENBELT I OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE GREENBELT/ LAND OPEN SPACE'LANO USE DESIGNATI(ON SMALL BE OETERMINEO AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. i CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY - CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE 'HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT. ' ........ ............. '.... ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING ..__.._.. _ LAND USE CATEGORY, 14nu-.1?nnerc / OISTING NCSP LAND USE DESIGNAT# t;0 O I SOO 3000 SCALE ir` �.. '•� I P-111 3 �: ��... � +r Are, ' sp LEGEND ® 1 O0 :\ —1-1—Ll t\ +A \ 1 \ ; 1 u 15 \ ® FIRE STATION _ 1 a 1 _ CCIAAUNITY PARK \�� ----- NEIGHBORHOOD PARK �'" tt � mfr '•�_ / •\ ,� ..«;per;`• ,, SPECIFIC RAN AREA BOWIDART �-- SPHERE OF INFLUENCE -•-\'. (CITY OF CNICOI ♦ •• \ Y nPn STREET YATHFLE)dBLE ALIGNMENT9 -- i � STREET YATN FIXED ALIGNMENT / �\\ ,• '��'�y r' �\., rv.-� 1' _:•• y LAND USE Q SR-3 SUBURBAN RESI.3 AC.MIN. i �� ��, "� •�. 'RR ••• ' '.i -f:\: ,� .. '7. ..\;..•sem.: O. SF41 SUBURBAN RESi.I AC.MIN. � i. .�\ - ';! \\�\, �"•,• 9 i - �7 R•1 LOW DENSITY �'.\\• \\'!:. RESIDENTIAL R-2 MEO.DENSITY RESIDENTIAL _ R:1 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IA-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL _ C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL . C•1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL BP �- BUPROFESSIONAL PQ PUBUC/QUASI-PUBLIC North Chico Specific Plan ® OS- GREENBELT/OPEN SPACE THE PRECISE BOUNDARY OF THE'GREENBELT/ LAND OPEN SPACE'LANG USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. USE MAP CROSSHATCH INDICATES LANDS THAT MAY CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OR SENSITIVE HABITAT AND REQUIRE SITE•SPECIFIC PLANNING AND REVIEW PRIOR TO. DEVELOPMENT. ALTERNATING COLOR INDICATES UNDERLYING LAND USE CATEGORY. - Heriu;.Panan -Project Site _ x J I 99 1 #r4y 4� xsia;lAai°:: S more Creek ,a K 99............. ... x�-r - ' / 1.ate � '�'��, ''..��, '� �_ �r s v""s f q 4..:N��.vv✓`r z c�. / i�' • x32 ,;x.,»5 � ��rx x��� i""' �4 4a y � rel � � 1�33 �,��'�s 41,1�. �': '. • '� -x r.'1"'i. ' 4 tl. ,.1,3h .' � __ ,»KGy It b'"4 Irix K.� N 4 ..... .. .. »x 3 ( sx•. .,',.,_ '*L u�3....x Vp.iv ®1995 Geos stems Global Corp. k and Pro CD,Inc. STEPHENS PROPERTY - PROJECT LOCATION MAP FOOTHILL ASSOCIATES N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS NO SCALE RGURE # r • Stephens-.Biotic Assessment Page 11 December 30, 1996 HEF_NER !° MAROISj.� . «� Mr. Craig Sanders Butte County Planning Department LAW OFFICES`n Archie Hefner 7 County Center Drive _ (1922-1988) Oroville, California 95965 Kenneth R.Stone Timothy D.Tama Re: Butte County Application for General Plan, Specific Plan Todd a Murray Amendment and Rezone; Robert and Ann Stephens Timothy M.Cronan Joel S.Levy Ronald H.Sargis Dear Craig: Martin B.Steiner Janice L Thurston Howard S. Nevins Per your request, enclosed is a complete General Plan Amendment Application and Kirk ie tib the required o $2, 43 or this Application regarding the above project. firm Michael J. Cookook d ff 0for A q PP i g gbect. Please con P l Stephen S.Tait that the General Plan land use designations correspond with our previously submitted Beverly M.Tobey Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone Application. Daniel W.Smith John M.O'Donnell Christopher R.costa I look forward to getting together with you soon after the first of the year to make George T. Kammerer Thomas P.Griffin,Jr. any necessary final refinements in these designations after I get direction from my clients. Jesse S.Ortiz III In the meantime, if you could forward down copies of any studies and reports which have Of counsel- become available since our request for these following our September meeting with you, Robert N.Stark I would greatly appreciate it. As you may recall, these included the draft City of Chico Theodore M. Marois,Jr. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City of Chico Sphere Amendment, the overall drainage James M. Woodside Robert W. Bell plan for the NCSP area, County the final version of the NCSP and the Butte CoDraft Paul W.Taylor General Plan Update. Thank you for your high level of responsiveness to our requests in the past, and we look forward to working with you further on this Application as it goes through the 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. County's processes. Suite 300 South Sacramento,California 95833-3505 Very truly yours, (916)925-6620 Paz 925-1127 HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP By ZZ George T. ammerer GTK/j m Enc. - Check and Application planning Division cc: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stephens Mr. Douglas Gunn 0 E C 3 1 1996 Q-19W10, Qlifomia 6lm)misclh ad.gtk October 16, 1996 HEF_NER S-r_ i. MAROIS Mr. Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Planning Department LAW O � County of Butte FFOFFICESS 7 County Center Drive Archie Hefner Oroville, CA 95965 (1922-1988) RE; Butte County Application for Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone James M.Woodside Robert and Ann Stephens Kenneth R.Stone Timothy D.Taron Dear Craig: Todd A.Murray Timothy M.Cronan Joel S. Levy This letter is in follow-up to my letter to you of September 11, 1996 (attached) Ronald H.Sargis requesting various documents and information which you agreed to provide to us in our Martin sumer Janice L. Thurston September 9., 1996 predevelopment conference. As of the date of this letter, we still await i Howard S.Nevins receipt of the requested information from you. Kirk E.Giberson Michael J.Cook When we.last spoke, you specifically asked that we wait to submit the additional Stephen S.Tait information, including the General Plan Amendment application you requested from us, . Beverly M.Tobuntil we receive the information we need from In articular, I am referringto the Daniel W.Smith m;th You. p John M.'O'D well information we requested in items number 1 and especially number 5 in our September 11 Christopher R.Cosca letter. Oeorge T.Kammerer Thomas P.Griffin,Jr. At the same time, it would be very helpful if you would please send copies of Jesse S.Ortiz III relevant portions of the Butte County General Plan which will explain to me how our Of Counsel application is inconsistent with the General Plan so that I can prepare the General. Plan Theodore M.Marais,Jr. Amendment application you requested. Robert N.Stark Robert Thank you for your attention to these requests. j believe it is necessary for us to Paul W..Taylor obtain this information from you in order for us to be able to address your requests for additional submittals to Butte County. For these reasons, your prompt.response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 7710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Very truly yours, Suite 300 South Sacramento, California • HEFNER,�S' ARK & MAROIS, LLP 95833-3505 (916)925-6620 Fax: 9254127 By f George,, Kammerer GTK:et\stephens\sanders.lt3 ' Enclosure cc: Douglas N. Gunn Planning Division ' Robert and Ann Stephens OCT 171996 Oroville, Califomia September 11, 1996 HEF_NER : ST_ MAROIs! ur ' LAW OFFICES Mr. Craig Sanders, Senior Planner . Planning Department County of Butte Archie x` 7 County Center Drive (1922-19s8) Oroville CA 95965 James M.Woodside Kenneth R.Stone RE: Butte County Application for Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone Timothy D.Taron Robert and Ann Stephens Todd A.Murray Timothy M.Cronin Joel S.levy Dear Craig: Ronald H.Sargis Martin B.Steiner Thank you for setting up the pre-development conference this past Monday, Janice L.Thurston Howard S.Nevins September 9 in your offices. It was a pleasure to meet with you and other staff from the Kutr E.Giberson Planning Department, Public Works Department, Airport Land Use Commission and Michael J.coax California State Department of Forestry in order to review our development proposal. Stephen S.Taft Beverly M.Tobey In order to allow us to respond more quickly to the concerns raised in this meeting, Daniel W.Smith P q Y' g� John M.O'Donnell I would like to ask for your assistance in providing the following information to us: Christopher R.Cosca George T.Kammerer 1. Please send a copy of the list of attendees, their affiliations and telephone Thomas P.Griflm,Jr. and facsimile numbers from our September 9 meeting. Jesse S.Ortiz III Of Counsel 2. Please send a copy of the CalTrans Aeronautics Division comments on our Theodore M.Marais,Jr. application when you receive them. Robert N.Stark . Ra3. Please place us on the mailing list to receive a copy of the'Draft City of W. lo Paul W.Taylor Chico Comprehensive Land Use Plan currently being prepared by McClintock/Becker,which Steve Lucas anticipated to be available within one to two weeks. Enclosed please find a self-addressed, stamped large manila envelope to send us this document. 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Suite 300 South 4. Please.place us on the mailing list to receive a copy of the City of Chico., Sacramento, California Sphere of Influence Amendment which is currently being prepared. 95833-3505 (916)925-6620 Fax: M-1127 5. Please prepare and provide us with an exhibit showing the vicinity of the Stephens' property, extending at least as far as Garner Road to the welt which includes the APNs and names of property owners and shows existing roadways on all sides around our project site. 6. Please provide us with a copy of the study your Public Works Department is currently preparing concerning alleviation of Keefer Slough downstream flooding affects which is investigating the Johnson gravel pit as a potential mitigation site. Mr. Craig Sanders September 11, 1996 Page 2 7. Please place us on the mailing list to receive a copy of the Butte County Draft General Plan Update which Connor Murphy anticipated to be available in December 1996 or January 1997. Enclosed also please find a self- addressed, stamped large manila envelope to use to send us this document. 8. Please provide us with a copy of all follow-up documents prepared by Heritage Partners concerning the North Chico Specific Plan, such as the impact fee figures and sewer system alternatives and financing plan you referenced. Thank you for all of your assistance in processing our application on behalf of the Stephens. We greatly appreciate all of your efforts in making arrangements so that we can obtain the above documents which we discussed in our September 9 meeting. Should you need additional self-addressed, stamped envelopes in order to send any of these.documents, please let me know and I will be happy to make the necessary arrangements. Also, please find enclosed the original 25 x 39 inch NCSP Land Use Map you let us borrow to copy. As a thank you for this gesture, I have enclosed two extra 11 x 17 color reproductions and the original 11 x 17 color photographic master we had prepared from which you can have additional color copies made. Very truly yours, HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP By George"T. Kammerer GTK:et\stephens\sanders.lt2 • Enclosure cc: Douglas N. Gunn .1_x 1027 STEPHENS CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST ~'16-24 250 W. CREST ST., STE. E ` 1220(7) ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 PAY TO THE ORDER OF W�/N Y D 3 V $1 (22 • 0 _�JSC-.Nd V -_ DOLLARS WELLS FARGO BANK Market Rate AccountTM MEMO (e"j. Pl41) All; II80010271I' i: 1220002474G? S7 6693 lya1I' S2 (1,3,ee 00 �I C�rsnn 1� DATE RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC LAFCO USE VARIANCES PUBLIC ZONING ENV OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM NO. RECEIVED WORKS PERMITSDOCUMENTS HEALTH • RECEIPT 15738 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING i i 155 ED BY i-XI __ ..... __..._ ^_ _ . ___r_ __,..__._.._..-- --- .. .. ......... r�, .. . . . _ Z50.40 _ _ _ _- T_. 23 N. Al. _ •. _ 111• •. . _ WGd . G TNHA - • - _ P ENRJOGE~ Z '� _ 4 .•-ice •�` •ass• .�-.-- rr' " -. - - tr• _ •.a+'ss s — �� '.a���. --a - - �:rte` �;,;' ', -_.-. .�t�.:1- .�.r -_:..._-.,. __-.T-...�.�_-:- :.•}—_�..:.•:--=-.=�-.�,-.....-_..- -�-,�.. :,--->. - . _ - -- _ .••= COUNT Y(SU9.77 ) `•= .359 A c. t K JF4 - i•. 485.35 8026 • •, r a -_ -- _ 2 2 RS 51-71 S.WAC • ` ,; =�. 33 ` N i8� s 49 t AG '' r 8.56 AC.1 �*A� ! �1Aat 1 Ali t 3 4 •ff r l • M 7 -7 AC. /OAc 2�. 24.AG 4.18AC. 5 ACS L- \ V P _ as _ _ :•:- - - _ti-moi:-�_sL ..--- - _ 7 7— _- s HAGENR/DGE r __• _ 2616 - - _ PARK SUB. 6 84.14AC - ' - - . 93.9 - 47 53. 28 ' - Cf�N`Fa C'1 l I Cep ' b 1 fL ,s 3 :.12 2/6'40T/3 a -;l PD IZ 1 I. 13 //44. 4 - - .. • . _ Pti es-sr !041.07 -' _ 76- PW59 36' -a s.sot 1975Ac. 6.072AC - - C.- 11 (PC ...'.� :.. �........: 47 44 v Creep• \�• 2 141 7.3 20 30025Ac !'�\ PHEASENT RUN CT. __ &4J ,9.68AC !"'&400' 32 � © 1.2Ac (W7, 1.19�1e Q i IB 60 AC Mud, .� Y 22 P M '121-47 48 SAC. 18 V 1-23-91 171 - sb h ' AC- 337 • rz6 70.0IAC - j /8 66.32 SAC. 2 Ac. ! _ _ Assessor's Mop No. 47-25 BK 4 County of Butte, Calif. - Q/ REVISED: 1-91 i - - -- -- ---- - - - - - - - -- --sem,- _ ..- - - - - - -- - --- _ -- . .. - . :--•:�n'•3�"� .�r