HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC FILE NO A99-04 PROPOSED CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-02 REZONE 99-02 PREZONE 99-01'
+B COUNTY Y ARPORT LAND USE��
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
TO: City of Chico Planning Department
Other Public Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: ALUC-File No.
A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment
99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-01)
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 19, 1999
This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on
the following matter at the time and place'listed below:
HEARING DATE: April 21, 1999
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room
Butte County. Administration Center
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
ALUC File No. A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-
02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-1): In response to the amendments to the CMAEP made by
the ALUC on October 21, 1998, the City of Chico is processing four General Plan
Amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report, initial study and a
letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676 (b), the City requests that
the ALUC make,a determination of consistency regarding the proposed amendments.
Staff recommends that the Commission find the project conditionally consistent with the 1998
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster,
of the ALUC staff; at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and
written testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The
project file maybe reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, California.
x
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission e
1
•
.�
r � � �'
_ .v '`
.y ,
+ y j{
i 1
;..:sr
5 a' u� Y � '
i y
. y � +�
N�
• _ k
e e ',
R�}s�� // �+
r
Copies of this Agenda . City Planning Office Agenda Revised: 4/07/99
Available from 411 Main Street Agenda Posted: 4/09/99 .
Telephone: (530) 8954851 Prior to: 5:00 P.M.
CITY OF CHICO Planning MY1816n
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA. APR 16 1999
'ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL. 19,1999 .
Municipal Center - 421 Main Street - Council Chambers Omi eXaBffomia
7:30 P.M.
CONDUCT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS - The public is encouraged to participate in the hearing process. An agenda item
is first introduced by the Planning Commission Chairperson and then described by a staff member. In order that the general
public and the Commission members are provided with sufficient background and information on the agenda item, staff
and/or other City consultants may provide lengthy presentations. In order for the Commission to receive public input at
a reasonable hour in the evening, public testimony may be continued to another meeting date. The Chair will, to the best
of his/her ability, inform the public as to the length of the staff presentation and the possibility of continuing the public
hearing to another meeting. The Chairperson then opens the public hearing and provides an opportunity for.the proponent
to address the item Following the proponent's statement, if any, the Chairperson will'invite any other interested party in
support of the item to address the matter. Following the testimony of the proponent and supporters, opponents are given
an opportunity to present testimony, regarding the item. After the opponents have completed testifying, the proponent is
given time to offer rebuttal. At the conclusion of testimony, the Commission Chairperson will close the hearing and limit
discussion to Commission members.
In the interest of everyone concerned, we request that you do not repeat what has already been discussed by someone prior
to your turn. After a speaker has presented his/her views, if you are in agreement and wish to go on record, step to the
rostrum, , state your name and address and acknowledge your agreement with the speaker. This will enter your name into
the record. It
It is requested that presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties will have an opportunity
to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and address on the speaker's sheet, with
the secretary, in order to obtain correct spelling and maintain accurate records.
It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take additional agenda items.after 10:30 P.M. At 9:00 P.M., the
Commission will determine which items on the agenda it will not be able to consider within that time frame and continue
consideration of those matters to a subsequent meeting.
NOTE: Items Not Appearing on Posted Agenda - This agenda was posted on the Council Chamber bulletin board at least
72 hours in advance of this meeting. For each item not appearing on the posted agenda, upon which the Commission
wishes to take action, it must make one of the following determinations:
1. Determine by a two-thirds vote, or by a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Commission is present, that
the need to take action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.
2. Determine that the item appears on a posted agenda for a meeting occurring not more than five calendar days prior
to this meeting and the item was continued to this meeting.
Items may be added to the agenda for the Commission to acknowledge receipt of correspondence or other information, or
for discussion only; of items brought up by a member of the general public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the Commission.
I. ROLL CALL
H., DISCUSSION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION (IF APPLICABLE)
�:
Agenda -Planning Commission
Meeting of April 19, 1999
Pa e 2
M. ADMNISTRATIVE AGENDA - All items listed under the Administrative Agenda are considered to be
routine and administrative in nature and do not require a public hearing. The Commission may or may not wish
to discuss the items. Should the Commission wish to discuss the item, anyone wishing to speak to the Commission
about any of the items listed may do so. All items on the Administrative Agenda will be approved by a single
motion.
1. Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 5, 1999.
Recommended Action: Approve with any corrections/revisions required.
IV. REGULAR AGENDA - The following items will be considered in the order listed unless the Commission
requests a change. Any person may speak on items listed on the Regular Agenda. In order that all items may be
considered, any item may be continued to another meeting if it appears there will be insufficient time for full
consideration of the item.
2. General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rezone 99-2 and Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico) - This proposal
involves amendments to the General Plan land use designation and zoning for those properties
identified' as Sites A through D, described below. These amendments are in response to actions
taken by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in October 1998. A mitigated
negative declaration. is proposed for this project, for which a 20 -day notification period was
conducted. In order that the city General Plan and zoning remain consistent with the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan amendments adopted by ALUC, the following amendments are
proposed:
ite A - Approximate six -acre vacant site (portion of A.P. No. 007-190-022). Designated Low
Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned Mixed .Use, this site is a =.
portion of a site planned for Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. The proposal would amend
General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply
with development restrictions for Area B of the Overflight Area.
Site B - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size. It is located within
Area B of the Overflight Area. It is designated Low Density Residential in. the City General Plan
and is prezoned PMU Planned Mixed Use. Site B is a portion of A. P. No: 047-250-141. The site
is also a part of the "Villages" portion of the North Chico. Specific Plan. The County -adopted the
Specific Plan designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The City proposal would amend
the City General Plan designation of this site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density.
Residential. Prezoning is proposed to remain unchanged at this time since both Sites A and B
require that future development occur as planned developments, at which time zoning would be
specified.
i e C Two parcels, approximately three acres in area (A. P. Nos. 048-670-048 and 054, 2670
and 2674 Ceres Avenue), located on the east side of Ceres Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north
of East Avenue. Existing General Plan designation is Low Density Residential, and parcels are
zoned and prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels are located within the Outer Safety
Zone and are developed with an existing single family residence. Proposal would amend the
General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and
prezone the 2670 Ceres Avenue from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban
Residential -Two Acre Minimum Lot Size and rezone 2672 and 2674 Ceres Avenue from R-1
Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential -Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
Agenda - Planning Commission • • '
Meeting of April 19, 1999
Page 3
Sit D - Two parcels (A. P. Nos. 048-600-055 and 056, 2705 and 2747 Floral Avenue) ranging
in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single family residence located on the west
side of Floral Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of Glenshire Lane. Designated Low Density
Residential and zoned R-1. Proposal would amend the General Plan designation from Low
Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and would change zoning from R-1 Single
Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential -Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. .
3. Draft Comprehensive Update to Title 19. Land Use and Development Regulations, of the
Chico Municipal Code(CMC),. The proposed Land Use and Development Regulations area
component of the implementation program for the Chico General Plan. The comprehensive update
includes a change in the format of Title 19 with the addition of zoning matrices and graphic
illustrations, various new or modified regulations to bring the document into consistency with the
Chico General Plan and the following changes to the City's. Zoning Map: 1. Renaming of the
zoning district names; .2. Rezoning the areas adjacent to the downtown along Wall and Flume
Streets and Salem: and Normal Streets from various zoning districts to RD Residential Downtown
(allowing residential, office and retail uses); 3. Rezoning RD -1 Low Density Residential properties
to R-1 Low Density Residential and adoption of new overlay districts, including the Planned
Development (Foothill), Landmark, and Special Design zoning overlay districts. A mitigated
negative. declaration is proposed for this project, for which a 30 -day notification period was
conducted. .
V. BUSINESS FROM THE -FLOOR - The Chairperson will invite anyone in the audience mishing to speak
to the Commission to identify themselves and the matter they wish to discuss, which would involve matters not,
already on the posted agenda If the Commission agrees to discuss the matter at this time, no action may be taken
until a subsequent meeting. 1. ... -
VI. PLANNING UPDATE - Staff will verbally review recent Council actions and/or other pertinent planning.
issues. No action will be required.
VII. ADJOURNMENT -To the Regular Meeting of May 3, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. and, if necessary, to
the Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 22, 1999 at 6:30 p.m.
Environmental Review. Negative DeclaratlonPlaolielon li
APR 1.3 1999
Orova, Ca ilomia
A
6
Staff Report
General Plan Amendment 99-21
ire
Rezone 9972 and Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico)
11.01
Prepared By: Senior Planner Hayes
CITYCFCHIC0
INC 1872
General Information
Applicant:
City of Chico
Property Owners:
Site A
Sergio and Maria Orestano, . P.O. Box 6997, Chico, CA 95927
Site B
Stephens Charitable, c/o Douglas Gunn 250 West Crest St.,
Escondido, CA 92025
Site C
Kirkman Family Trust, 2674 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 95926 and
Gary and'Jerry Houser, 2670 Ceres Avenue, Chico; CA 95926
Site D
Lois C. Lee, P.O. Box 1604, Chico, CA 95927 and Layne Chapman,
P.O. Box 71, Chico, CA 95927
Action Requested.
General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Prezone
Purpose:
Amend the General Plan land use designation and zoning to conform
to recent -Airport Land Use Commission amendments to Chico
Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan ,(CLUP)
,.... : 1 Location:
Various Locations, within .CLOP Overflight. Zone. and Outer Safety Zone
Assessor's Parcel Nos.:
Site A
Portion of 007-190-022
Site B
Portion of 047-250-141
Site C
048-670-048 and 054
Site D
048-600-055 and 056
Size:
Site A
6t -
Site B
20t
Site C
3t
Site D
4.5t
Existing.Zoning:
Site A
.(P)PMU Prezoned Planned Multiple Use °
Site B
(P)PMU Prezoned Planned Multiple Use a
Site C
(P)R-1 Prezoned and zoned Single -Family Residential (SFR)
Site D
R-1 Single -Family Residential
General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
Environmental Review. Negative DeclaratlonPlaolielon li
APR 1.3 1999
Orova, Ca ilomia
A
6
CIT'TOF CHICO MEMORANDUM
#YOFCHICO
TO: Planning Commission (Mtg 4/19/99) DATE: April -5,1999
FROM: Senior Planner Hayes (x4853) FILE: GPA 99-2/RZ 99-2/PRZ 99-1
RE: GPA 99-2/RZ 99-2 and PRZ 99-1 (City of Chico) To bring certain properties
into conformance with the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan
SUMMARY
In order to conform the City General Plan and zoning to the Chico Municipal Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), as amended by the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC), staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a
recommendation to City Council to adopt a negative declaration and approve General
Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2 and Prezone 99-1.
IL BACKGROUND
This project proposes to'amend the General Plan Diagram land use designation and
zoningof- several properties affected by recent changes to the Chico Municipal Airport
CLUP. State law requires that a CLUP be adopted for each airport facility, with the
purpose of protecting airport facilities and operations by.surrounding land uses that are
compatible with them. Local airport land use commissions are charged with adopting
such CLUPs. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any
applicable -specific plans must be consistent with a local CLUP adopted by an ALUC in
accordance with State law.
The Chico Municipal Airport CLUP was originally adopted in 1978 as the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. ALUC is currently in the process of preparing a new
CLUP.
The CLUP'serves asa guideline for adoption or the revision of all airport -compatible
land use plans and contains land use compatibility guidelines for height, noise, safety,
overflight, and flight surface 'restrictions and considerations. The CLUP guidelines are
incorporated into the city and county general plans and land use regulations to
minimize the public's exposure to safety hazards and excessive levels of noise, and to
e.nsure that no structures affect navigable airspace.
The CLUP provides guidelines as to the type of land use that should be permitted within
an airport "area of influence" (generally defined as the surrounding area within two miles
of an airport). The ' proposed . General Plan and zoning changes contained in this
recommendation are consistent with the CLUP and the goals and policies of the Chico
General Plan.
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ*2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/9.9
Page 2
On October 22, 1998 ALUC adopted certain amendments to the CLUP, incorporating
portions of the 1993 City of Chico Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan. The FAR Part 150 Plan assessed noise
impacts of existing and future airport operations and recommended compatible land
uses to reduce noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The specific amendments
adopted by ALUC restrict further development of single-family residential housing in
Overflight Protection Zones A and B and residential development on lots under two
acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The attached Exhibit A depicts these various
zones and the affected properties. In order to conform the City of Chico General Plan
and zoning to the amended CLUP, the General Plan and zoning amendments noted
below are proposed:
Site A An approximately 6 acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022) which is
designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU
Planned Multiple Use. This property is a portion of a site planned for a Mixed
Use Neighborhood Core development. The proposal would amend the
General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential to comply with development restrictions for Area B of the
Overflight Protection Zone. The PMU prezoning for Sites A and B are not
proposed to be changed, since any future development of these sites would
be approved through the planned development procedures.
Surrounding land use: Single-family residential is located to the south and
- west of the site. Vacant land is located to the east and north.
Site B Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and is located
within Area B of the Overflight Protection Area. It is designated as Low
Density Residential in the City General Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site B is a
portion of A.P. 047-250-141. The site is also a part of the "Villages" portion of
the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The County -adopted specific plan
designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The proposed GPA would
amend the general plan designation for this site to Medium Density
Residential consistent with the NCSP and Overflight Protection Zone
restrictions prohibiting single-family residential housing.
Surrounding land use: Young orchards are located to the south and west of
the site. Vacant land is located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses
the northern border of the site and is leveed at this location.
Site C Site C contains two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area (A.P.N.s 048-670-
048 and 054, 2670 through 2674 Ceres Avenue), located on the east side of
Ceres Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue. The site is
currently designated Low Density Residential and is prezoned and zoned R-1
Single -Family Residential. These parcels are located at the farthest extension
of the Outer Safety Zone (OSZ). The OSZ is a corridor 1000' by 5000'
extending from both ends of the Overflight Protection Zone A. The OSZ
defines the primary approach and departure corridor and therefore the area
most impacted by airport operations. The proposed GPA and rezone and
prezone would effectively restrict subdivision of the properties to develop at
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ99-0:.
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99
Page 3 °
greater density. The subject parcels are proposed to be redesignated .from
Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoned and
prezoned from R-1 Single -Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential,
Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
Surrounding land use: Site C is surrounded by single-family residential
development.
Site D Site D contains two parcels (A.P.N.s 048-600-055 and 056, 2705 -and 2747 Floral
Avenue) ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single-
family residence located on the west side of Floral Avenuesome- 100 feet
south of Glenshire Lane. The parcels are designated Low Density Residential
and zoned R-1 Single -Family Residential. The proposed General . Plan
amendment and rezone would effectively restrict subdivision of the properties
to develop at greater density. Site D parcels are proposed to be redesignated
from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoned
from R-1 Single -Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential, Two Acre
Minimum Lot Size.
Surrounding land use: Single-family residential development also surrounds
Site D.
Page- 5 'of the letter from ALUC (Attachment -D) explains that when a CLOP is amended, -
as was.Aoneby ALUC last October,. State law requires that Chico's General Plan be.
brought into conformance with those amendments. within 180 days. If the City does not
concur with the amendments, it has the option of adopting overriding findings instead.
Where,ALUC finds that the City has neither revised its general plan nor adopted such
findings, it may require that the City submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and
permits to ALUC for its review until -one of these options is completed. On March 17,
1999, ALUC adopted a motion to require.such submittals.
III. , ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A negative declaration is proposed for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No potentially significant impacts were identified
in the initial study as a result of the GPA/Rezone/Prezone. The initial study is attached
for reference.
IV. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed amendments are consistent with the following General Plan policies:
LU -G-31 Protect the City's investment in the Municipal Airport and promote airport -
related development in the Airport Industrial Park and Airport Environs.
LU -G-32 Safeguard the Chico Municipal Airport and its environs from intrusion by
uses that could limit expansion of air services to meet future aviation needs.
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/1349 2.
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99
Page 4
LU -G-33 Prevent development in the Airport environs that will pose hazards to
aviation or interfere with or endanger the landing, taking off, or maneuvering
of aircraft.
LU -1-47 Ensure that the Airport Environs Plan and the General Plan are consistent
and adopt and implement an Airport Noise Compatibility Program pursuant
to Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
LU -1-48 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and land use regulations designed to
promote compatible development of the Airport and its environs. Such
regulations prevent development that would pose an airport hazard by
establishing height limits and use restrictions and zoning districts that are
specifically intended to promote compatible airport -related development.
V. ANALYSIS
Both the General Plan and State law affirm the directive to strive for consistency
between the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the City General Plan. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the ALUC amendments to the CLUP. Sites
A and B would be redesignated .from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Medium Density Residential development would be consistent with the
location of the sites in proximity to neighborhood mixed use cores. Because both sites
would only •be•developed in conjunction with approval of planned developments,.
conditions -will be stipulated requiring multiple -family residential development,
execution of avigation easements, and requirements for disclosure of aircraft overflight.
Although it is anticipated that both sites will develop in the City in order to extend
sanitary sewers, both are now in the unincorported area. As noted earlier, the North
Chico Specific Plan adopted by Butte County shows Site B designated for Medium
Density Residential. Therefore, the proposed amendment for Site B would be
consistent with the specific plan as well as the CLUP.
The ALUC preference for multiple family residential housing over single family
ownership housing is based on the more temporary nature of rental housing. Renters
who are uncomfortable with the noise or frequency of overflight can more readily
choose to reside elsewhere than can homeowners. In addition, noise attenuation and
impacts can be more readily reduced in multiple family residential construction.
Sites C and D are developed with single-family residences and are within an area
exclusively developed with such housing. These sites would be redesignated from Low.
Density Residential (2.1 to '6 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Density Residential
(.2 to 2 dwelling units per acre): Zoning of these parcels, however, would further
restrict development consistent with the ALUC amendments, restricting new single-
family residential development to one dwelling unit per two acres. Sites C and D are
the only remaining residential parcels within the Outer Safety. Zone not already
developed or in the process of development. Although only one parcel remains in the
County, all were originally developed in the County. The large parcel sizes
characteristic of the early development in this area accommodated septic systems and
a semi -rural lifestyle. The most significant effect of the proposed amendments will be
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ99-20
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99 ,
Page 5
the inability of the property owners of parcels Sites C and D to further subdivide and
develop their property. ALUC believes that the amendments will result in reduced
external• impacts from that anticipated by further development of the parcels.
VI. . RECOMMENDATION
Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 99-2,
Rezone 99-2 and Prezone 99-1, finding that the proposed change is consistent with the
policies, standards, and land uses specified in the General Plan. '
Findings: .
1. The recommended general plan .amendments and zone changes are consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport as
amended October 22, 1998.
The proposed general plan designations and zone changes will encourage
development of certain properties with uses that are,consistent with the uses
recommended for specific safety areas in the CLUP.
2. ' The -recommended general plan amendments and zone changes are consistent r.
with City of Chico General Plan policies, standards, and land uses specified in the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan. x
The recommended general plan amendments and zone changes will assist in
protecting the future operation of airport, promote compatible uses with the airport
operations, prevent development which is hazardous to aviation, and assist to
implement the Airport Noise Compatibility Program:
3. The Planning Commission, after considering the proposed. Negative. Declaration,
the recommendation of the Planning Director thereon, the initial study, comments
received and other information contained in the administrative record compiled to
the date of Planning Commission meeting, recommends that the City Council
adopt a negative declaration for the proposed general plan amendments and zone
changes.
Proposed Motion
I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for City Council
adoption of a negative declaration and approval of General Plan Amendment 99-2,
Prezone 99-1 and Rezone 99-2 subject to the findings as listed in Section VI of the staff
report•dated March 30, 1999.
Respectively submitted,
Tom ayes °
Senior Planner
4
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ-2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
A. Overall Location Map '
B. Site Location Maps
.C. Initial Study
D. Letter from ALUC staff, dated October 22, 1998
cc: Butte County ALUC
Sergio and Maria Orestano, P.O. Box 6997, Chico, CA 95927
Stephens Charitable, c/o Douglas Gunn, 250 West Crest St., Escondido, CA 92025
Kirkman Family Trust, 2674"Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 95926
Gary and Jerry Houser, 2670 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 95926
Lois C. Lee, P.O. Box 1604, Chico, CA. 95927
Layne Chapman, P.O. Box 71, Chico, CA. 95927
Rocky Campbell, 794 Marcia Ct, Chico, CA 95973
CM/RM
;_�� �.
� .n
:•��
General Plan Amendment 99-2
I 11
560 0 500 1000 .1500 Feet
Ci'
General Plan Amendment 99-2
I 11
560 0 500 1000 .1500 Feet
4.
.. -
�.
r
v .. } r , ..
;,
ti.
4
4.
.. -
v .. } r , ..
Site D
A.P. Nos. 048-600-055 and 056
2705 and 2747 Floral Avenue.
GP: From Low Density Residential to
Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: From R-1- Single Family Residential to
. RS -2 Suburban Residential - 2 Acre Minimum
General Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99=2 .A.
500 0 500
and Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico) Feel
LNITIAL STUDY
City of Chico
Environmental Coo°rdination and, Review
'ROUTE TO:
(X] City of Chico - City Council
(X] City of Chico - Planning Commission
X ] Butte .County Airport Land' Use Commission
( X ] .' City,.of Chico Airport Commission
f. Project Description .
A. Project Name: Land Use Changes for 'Consistency with
Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan (CMAEP)
B. Project Location:
Site A Approximately 6 acres located easterly of. the, intersection of Morseman- Avenue and
Eaton Road (portion of A.P. 007-190-022).
Site B Approximately. 20 acres located southerly of Mud Creek and westerly `of Hicks Lane
(portion of A.P. 047,250-1141).
Site C Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area located: on the .east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue (A.PN:s 048-670-048 and
054; 2670, 2772, and 2674 Ceres Avenue).
Site D Two parcels ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single.
family: residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue approximately 100.
feet south -of Glenshire Lane (A.P.N.s 048-600-055 and 056; 2705 and 2747
Floral Avenue)
C. Type of Application(s):
Site A General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2A), changing the General Plan designation
from Low, Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply with
development restrictions for Area B of the Overflight Area.
Site B General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-213), changing the General Plan designation
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, consistent with the
County adopted_ North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP).
Site"C General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2C), changing the general plan designation
from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Prezone change
(PZ 99-1) for 2670 Ceres amending the prezoning from R-1 Single Family'
Residential to RS -2, Suburban Residential Two Acre Minimum Lot ''Size,
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airpo virons Plan Amendments • -
Page 2
Rezone Change (RZ 99-2A) for 2672 and 2674 Ceres, rezoning the propertyfrom R-1
Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential -Two Acre. Minimum Lot
Size.
Site D General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2D), changing the general plan designation
from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Rezone (RZ 99-
B) amending the zoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban
Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
D. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): See project location, above.
E. Current Zoning:
Site A City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU)
County: Suburban Residential (SR)
Site B .City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU)
County: Medium Density Residential (R-2)
Site C City: 2672 and 2674 Ceres are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential
2670 Ceres is prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential
County: 2670 is zoned Suburban Residential (SR)
'Site D City:' R-1 Single Family Residential
General Plan Designation':
Site A Low Density Residential
Site B Low Density Residential
Site C Low Density Residential
Site D Low Density Residential
'F. Environmental Setting:
Site A Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak .trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature landscaping/orchards
trees. The site is identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory
performed by Michael Brandman Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment.
Trees are located generally on the western and southern periphery of the site and would be well
located to accommodate preservation with future development: Aerial. photographs from 1991
(1"= 300' scale) show what.appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on the central
portion of the. site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands
were not observed due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle which
obscured ground visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 aerial, and/or the possibility` that the
wetlands had been filled.
(_ity or unico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport En vs Plan Amendments
Page 3 ' • `
Site B Site •B contains non-native grassland. " It contains no visible trees and appears to be'previously
graded or cleared. Mud Creek is,located adjacent to the site to .the north and is., leveed at this
' location.
Site C is currently developed with three single family residential homes.
Site D is currently developed with'two single family residential homes.
G. Project Description: On October 22;1998, the Butte County Airportland Use
{ Commission (ALUC) adopted amendments,to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs
-Plan (CMAEP). These amendments adopted portions of the City of Chico 1993 FAR
Part 150 Study. Overflight Safety Zones'A and Band the Outer Safety Zone (refer to
attached map, Exhibit A). along with text regulating appropriate land uses in these
zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans.or any applicable
specific. plans must be consistent with' a' local environs plan, adopted or amended
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The specific amend ments'adopted by
ALUC restrict further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and
residential development on lots under two acres in. `size within the, Outer Safety Zone.
In order to conform the City of Chico General Plan and zoning to the amended CMAEP,
the General Plan and zoning amendments noted below are proposed:
Site A is an approximately six, (6) acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022) which
` is designated Low Density Residential in `the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned
Mixed -Use. - This ,site is a portion of, a site planned for a Mixed Use Neighborhood _ :..
Center. The proposal would amend the General Plan_ designation frorn-Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply with development restrictions for
Area B of the Overflight Area.
The initial study presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance -with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project.. to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
Site B - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and is located
within Area B of the Overflight Area., It is designated Low Density Residential in the City
General Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site 2 is a portion of.A.P. 047-250-141. The site
is also a part of the "Villages" portion of the NorthChico-Specific Plan, (NCSP).. The
County adopted Specific Plan designates.the site for'Medium Density Residential. The
proposed GPA would amend this site to Medium Density Residential consistent with the
NCSP. Prezoning is proposed to remain unchanged at this time, since both the site
requires that future development occur'as planned developments, at which time zoning
would be specified.
City of Chico Initial Study -
Project - Chico Municipal Airport virons Plan Amendments •
Page 4
The initial study presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
Site C, - Site D contains two parcels, approximately , 3 acres in area (A.P.N.s
048-670-048 and 054, 2670 and 2674 Ceres Avenue), located on the east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue. The.site is currently designated
for Low Density. Residential and is prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels are
located within the Outer Safety Zone and are developed with three single existing single
family residences.. The proposed GPA and PZ would effectively restrict subdivision of
the property to develop at greater density.
Site D= Site D contains 2 parcels (A.P.N.s 048-600-055 and'056, 2705 and 2747 Floral
Avenue) ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single family
residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue approximately 100 feet south of
Glenshire Lane. The parcels are designated'Low Density Residential and.zoned R-1.
The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone would effectively restrict .
subdivision of the property to develop at greater density.
H. Surrounding Land Uses:
Site A Single family residential is located to the south, and west of the site. Vacant land
is located to the north -and east.
Site B Young orchards are located to the south and west of the site. Vacant land is
located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses the northern border of the
site and is leveed-atthis location.
Site C Site 3 is surrounded by single family residential development.
Site D Site 4 is surrounded by single family residential development.
I. Public Agency Approvals: The City of Chico Planning_ Commission will make a
recommendation prior to City Council action on the GPA,
-prezone, ;and rezone applications..
J. Applicant:
City ofChico
Address:
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95.926
K. Initiated By:
Tom Hayes, Senior Planner
Contact:
Tom Hayes, Senior Planner
Prepared By:.
Stacey Jolliffe, Senior Planner
airy or unico initial 5tudy P
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Env* Plan Amendments
.Page S, • " _ .. •^ 1 ,,
.ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: j
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected 'by this project, involving at least
one impact.th11 at is a"Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated. by.the.cheddist on the following pages.
[ J Geophysical. Factors ( ] Cultural Resources ( ) 'Energy.and Natural Resources'
( ] Biological Resources (` ] 'Open Space/Recreation `(�- ]' . Economic Factors
('J Hydrological Factors ( } Hazards (." ] •.Transportation/Circulation
( ] Air Quality~ ' . ( ] Noise/Light and Glare , ( } Public Services,
( J
-Land Use and Planning '
PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this .initial evaluation: `
(XJ I find"that the proposed project COULD NOThave a significant effect'on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although,the proposed project could have a,signifcant effect:on the environment, these
will not be a•significant effect in this case because the mitigation meas uresdescribed herein have
." been. added to. the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared-.:
( ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY`havea significant effect on the•environment, but at least ore
effect ,has been adequately analyzed in'an earlier. document pursuant to applicable legal
standards. Any such effect(s) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described herein.,An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze on_ lythe effects that.remain to be addressed.
b ♦ T
[ ].. !.find that although the proposed projectcould have a -significant effect on the environment, thele
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentialfy. significant effects have been
analyzed, adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards,and have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon,the proposed project.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airportv�rons Plan Amendments
Page 6 . 0 •
2. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the proposed, project will
have or potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact'
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on
established threshold inertia).
• All answers must take into account all phases of project planning, implementation and operation,
including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operation impacts.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made an EIR is required.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from' "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant`
Impact." The initial study will describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 4, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross-referenced).
• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section
155063(c)(3)(0)j. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 4 at the end of the checklist.
• Initial studies.may incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. the general
plan or zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
A source list attached and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Env' s Plan Amendments
Page 7 t ' •
DISCUSSION: All subject sites are relatively flat and contain'no unique geologic features. Mud Cheek is located
on the northerly boundary of site B; therefore, future development would be required to provide a 100' setback from
the top of bank.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
B.- Biological Resources:. Willthe•project or,,its Significant Mitigation . .'Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant X.-
or
•;or animal officially listed as threatened or
endangered?
2. Substantial • loss or degradation' of any "habitat ,X
identified as sensitive in the MEA?
3. Substantial interference with the movement of any w ••X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? p
4. Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for a �� X
fish, wildlife, or plant species?
5. Substantial , fragmentation of large areas of X
contiguous wildlife habitat? -
6. Increase in the danger of. fire hazard in areas with _ X
flammable grass, brush, or trees? -
DISCUSSION: Site A -contains non-native grasses and,forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature landscaping/orchardstrees. The site is.
identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory performed by Michael Brandman
Associates for the -1992 Master Environmental. Assessment. Trees are located generally on the western and
southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future development.
Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on
the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands were
f . .
. Potentially
Significant
Potentially." - Unless Less Than
A. ' Geophysical Factors: Will the project or its
Significant Mitigation Significant , No
related activities result in:
Impact Incorporated Impact .- Impact
1. Substantial change in topography 'or unstable soil
X
conditions due .to excavating, grading or filing?
-
2. The destruction, covering, or. modification, of any
X.
unusual or unique geologic or physical features?
3.' Any changes in wind or water erosion of soils or
r X
sands or any erosion which may modify the channel
of a waterway or other body of water? (Water
Quality is discussed in Section C.)
4. -.-Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
X
such. as earthquakes, expansive soils,' volcanic
hazards, liquefaction hazards, land subsidence,
'
slope instability, or similar hazards?
'
DISCUSSION: All subject sites are relatively flat and contain'no unique geologic features. Mud Cheek is located
on the northerly boundary of site B; therefore, future development would be required to provide a 100' setback from
the top of bank.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
B.- Biological Resources:. Willthe•project or,,its Significant Mitigation . .'Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant X.-
or
•;or animal officially listed as threatened or
endangered?
2. Substantial • loss or degradation' of any "habitat ,X
identified as sensitive in the MEA?
3. Substantial interference with the movement of any w ••X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? p
4. Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for a �� X
fish, wildlife, or plant species?
5. Substantial , fragmentation of large areas of X
contiguous wildlife habitat? -
6. Increase in the danger of. fire hazard in areas with _ X
flammable grass, brush, or trees? -
DISCUSSION: Site A -contains non-native grasses and,forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature landscaping/orchardstrees. The site is.
identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory performed by Michael Brandman
Associates for the -1992 Master Environmental. Assessment. Trees are located generally on the western and
southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future development.
Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on
the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands were
City of Chico Initial Study -
Project - Chico Municipal Airport virons Plan Amendments
Page 8 •
not observed due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle which obscured ground
visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 aerial, and/or the possibility that the wetlands had been filled. In any case.
prior to site development and in conjunction with future subdivision map application, a wetlands investigations
should be Performed by a qualified wetlands specialist to determine whether jurisdictional wetland occur on the
project site.
Site B also contains non-native grassland. -It contains no visible trees and appears to, be, previously graded or
cleared. Mud Creek is located adjacent to the site to the north and is leveed at this location. Future development
will be required to set back 100' from the top of bank for compliance with the City's General Plan, which could
influence the site to develop at the lower end of density range,for medium density residential development. '
Sites C and C are currently developed with single family residential homes; the proposed project changes will have
no effect on biological resources on these sites.
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and B are zoned planned mixed use and require a use permit for future
development.'The use permit will trigger environmental review which, for site A, will require wetland investigation
to determine to .what extent, if any; wetlands are present on the site. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
requires permits for the fill of .wetlands over one-third of an acre. If wetlands are identified, permits and mitigation
are required in compliance with existing Corps standards.
On site A, if wetlands are identified, then the project applicant is required to meet the City's no net to ss of wetlands
policy OS -1-28 through the construction of wetlands or the payment of in lieu fees at a ratio of 1:1 (wetland's
destroyed: wetlands constructed) prior to the issuance of grading permits or other construction activity on site A.
DISCUSSION: The project will not redirect a waterway or stream channel. Development of sites A and B as
medium density residential sites could, generate additional runoff as compared to the existing
single `family residential designation. However, adequate capacity exists in Mud Creek and
Sycamore Creek to receive this runoff. The rezone of sites A and B to medium density residential
would not substantially change the water quality or flood protection provisions required for single
family residential. ,
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
C.
Hydrological Factors: Will the project or its
Significant _Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in:
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1.
Changes in the ..course or direction of water
X
movements?
2.
Generation of runoff from new development that
X
exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains
or substantial .obstruction to groundwater recharge? •
_
3.
Exposure of people or property to flood hazard?
X
4.
Generation of pollutants or sedimentation which
X
would affect surface or subsurface water quality?
5.
Development of five acres or more as defined by
X
the. National Pollutant Discharge .Elimination
., y
Permitting Process (NPDES)?
DISCUSSION: The project will not redirect a waterway or stream channel. Development of sites A and B as
medium density residential sites could, generate additional runoff as compared to the existing
single `family residential designation. However, adequate capacity exists in Mud Creek and
Sycamore Creek to receive this runoff. The rezone of sites A and B to medium density residential
would not substantially change the water quality or flood protection provisions required for single
family residential. ,
City of Chico Initial Study '
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Enviers Plan Amendments
Page 9'
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and Bare lager than 5 acres in size and therefore are required to comply with
National Pollutant Discharge. Elimination Permitting Processes during"developrnent.* ,
All future development will be required to provide Best Management Practices.(BMPs)for the protection of water
quality. .
Potentially
Significant
- Potentially -Unless = Less Than
D. Air Quality Factors: Will the project or its Significant- Mitigation Significant'- 'No
• related activities result in:: '-'-Impact*-; Incorporated'`• Impact Impact
1. ' Generating _pollutants (hydrocarbon, thermal, odor, X
" smoke, radiation, etc.) which would deteriorate t
ambient air quality? I_. ,•
2. Exposure of. sensitive receptors .to substantial - X
• pollutant concentrations?
3. Alteration of air movement, • ',moisture,' or . - . • . .. = X :,
temperature, or any change in climate_ locally or
regionally? • ,
4.',.* Inconsistency with air quality related plans (e.g., = X.
Northern. Sacramento Valley Air Basin. 1994 Air -
Quality Attainment Plan, and Chico Urban Area. CO
Attainment Plan)? -
DISCUSSION: Additional traffic and air quality analysis will. be required for subdivisionor development of sites A •_.. .
and B to determine how best to mitigate air quality impacts associated with a specific development proposal. (The
proposed'GPA, prezone; and rezone. effectively, limits future'subdivision of sites C and D for additional densities.),'
Increases in vehicle trips`as described in section K, Transportation, would result in,marginal increases in,air:qualit y
emissions. ' Given the scale of, the density, changes, however, increases in vehicle emissions would not be
+ ',
considered potentially significant given the• incorporation of specific measures to control construction dust. Indirect_.
Source,'Review°Guidelines administered locally by the Butte County Air Quality Management District indicate that
multi -family housing projects become :significant" polluters,•after site specific provisions to control construction'
dust, only whenthe development contains over 700 units.
C L,
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico .Municipal Airport virons Plan Amendments
Page 10
5. Result in displacement of people or business X
activity? '
6. Conversion of viable prime agricultural land to non- X
agricultural use, or substantial conflicts with existing
agricultural operations? (Viable agricultural land is'
defined as land on Class I or Class II agricultural
soils of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on no more
than one side to existing urban development.)
DISCUSSION: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport LandUse Commission (ALUC)
adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The
CMAEP is intended, in the most,general terms, to protect the airport from land use intrusions
which would hinder or displace airport operations. The proposed amendments adopted portions
of the City of Chico 1993 FAR Part 150 Study. Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer
Safety Zone (refer to attached map, Exhibit A) along with textregulating appropriate land uses
in these zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable
specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended pursuant to
Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The specific amendments adopted by ALUC restrict
further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and residential development
on lots under two acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The General Plan and zoning
amendments discussed herein are proposed in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan
and zoning to the amended CMAEP..' .
As the project sites are vacant and without agricultural operations, no displacement of existing
uses will occur'. All land is currently designated for urban development. .
Potentially -
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
E. Land Use Planning: Will the project or its
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
related activities be inconsistent with:
Impact - Incorporated Impact
Impact
1.' General Plan or Specific Plan policies, or zoning
X
regulations?
2. General, Plan population growth rates for its
X
planning areas in conjunction with' other recently
,
approve development?.
'
3. Result in substantial conflict with the established
t
X .
character, aesthetics or functioning of the
surrounding community?
4. Be a part of a larger project involving a series of
X
cumulative actions?
5. Result in displacement of people or business X
activity? '
6. Conversion of viable prime agricultural land to non- X
agricultural use, or substantial conflicts with existing
agricultural operations? (Viable agricultural land is'
defined as land on Class I or Class II agricultural
soils of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on no more
than one side to existing urban development.)
DISCUSSION: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport LandUse Commission (ALUC)
adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The
CMAEP is intended, in the most,general terms, to protect the airport from land use intrusions
which would hinder or displace airport operations. The proposed amendments adopted portions
of the City of Chico 1993 FAR Part 150 Study. Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer
Safety Zone (refer to attached map, Exhibit A) along with textregulating appropriate land uses
in these zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable
specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended pursuant to
Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The specific amendments adopted by ALUC restrict
further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and residential development
on lots under two acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The General Plan and zoning
amendments discussed herein are proposed in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan
and zoning to the amended CMAEP..' .
As the project sites are vacant and without agricultural operations, no displacement of existing
uses will occur'. All land is currently designated for urban development. .
City of Chico Initial Study.
.
v .
' Project - Chico Municipal Airport Env* Plan Amendments t G •
Page 11
,
Potentially
'.
Significant
T w ,.w , ' = �• Potentially
F. Cultural Factors: Will the project or its related Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant 'r No
activities:. , • Impact
Incorporated Impact.,, Impact
-1. Disrupt or adversely affect historical buildings or; •, -
X_
_ sites?
2. Disrupt or adversely affect a, prehistoric or. historic
X
> archaeological site or a property, or historical or
x
culturalsignificanceto a community or ethnic or „ .
�, , •.
social group?
3. Disrupt or.adversely; affect a paleontological site -
�_ _ ' X.
except'as part of a scientific study?
DISCUSSION: The project sites contain no buildings or other readily -apparent evidence of previous historic
occupation. The sites would: require records searches with -the Northeast
lnformatioh Center prior to subdivision
or development. �-
'
Potentially • . • -
r
Significants
Potentially
Unless Less Than
' G. Open Space/Recreation: Will the project or its Significant
Mitigation Significant No
related activities: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact w
1. Affect an officially .designated scenic vista -point, ,
f -=_ „ X
scenic highway or corridor or other unique aesthetic
value?
2. Affect an important existing or potential community
•„ µ X_ .
recreation area?
3. Affect lands preserved under an agricultural, scenic,, `
_ = X
or open spacd"contract or easement?
DISCUSSION: None of the project sites are designated as open space,
a� scenic vista -point, a community
recreation area or agricultural.land. None of the sites contain unique
resources which would lead to.. such
designations.
y "
t
'
+
, l
City of Chico Initial Study - `-
Project - Chico Municipal Airport irons Plan'Amendments
Page 12
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
H: Hazards: Will the project or its `related • Significant Mitigation Significant No
activities: Impact Incorporated ImpactImpact
1. Present a hazard to people or property from risk of X
explosion or release of hazardous substances.
either on site or in transit, in the event of accident or
otherwise?
2. Result in the creation of health hazards, or potential X
health hazards, or in the increased exposure of
people to existing or potential health hazards?
3. Increase the danger 'of fire -hazard in -areas with _ X
flammable grass, brush or trees?
4: *Expose people or property to wind hazards? X
DISCUSSION: Nothing in the proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone would substantially change the risk of
developing the project sites. No hazards are known to exist on the project sites; additional environmental will occu r
in conjunction with the development of sites A and B.
Potentially
Significant'
-- --
Potentially, - Unless Less Than
I. Noise/Light and Glare: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Exposure of residents in new .hotels, motels, X
apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-
family dwellings) to interior noise levels (CNEL)
,higher than 45 dBA in any habitable room with
windows closed?
2. Exposure of sensitive receptors (residential, parks, X
hospitals, schools) to exterior noise levels of 60 ,
dBA L or higher?
3. Significant new light or glare impacts on the site or X
surrounding area?
DISCUSSION: Development of sites A and B at higher densities will generate no substantial differences in noise,
light, and glare, as compared to single-family residential densities. Potential differences.in traffic, as evaluated in
section K, Transportation, are not substantial enough. to change nosie levels. Lighting, and associated glare, is
required to meet City Municipal Code standards whereby light is not permitted to spill onto adjacent property.
41
City of Chico.lnitial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport EnviPlan Amendments
Page 13
�:. Potentially <:
- _ - Significant
'. Potentially Unless Less Than
J. Energy and Natural Resources: Will the project Significant Mitigation Significant -No
or its related activities:: -- Impact Incorporated' '.'Impact Impact
-1:'. .Affect the use, extraction or conservation of any - X
natural `resources?
Use .an +excessive amount of fuel or energy or - rY.., . X
require development of new sources of energy? y
DISCUSSION: The project is very -minor as compared to overall, development within the urban area.
- Potentially
. + Significant
Potentially'Unless.- - Less Than
K. Transportation/Circulation Factors: Will the Significant Mitigation Significant No
project or its related activities result in: _ Impact 'Incorporated Impact, Impact
1. Traffic volumes which exceed established Level of Y X
4 Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments or .
at intersections, or which do not meet applicable -
safety standards? Based on proposed General Plan
policies, significant impacts would generally result`
if traffic exceeded' LOS C .on -residential streets, r
LOS 'D on . arterial .. and collector .
streets/intersections, • and' • (under specific
circumstances)' LOS E in built -out areas served �y t
transit.
i-
2. The absence of bikeway facilities in the 'general ' ' X
locations identified in'the General Plan, consistent
with guidelines in the. Chico Urban Area Bicycle_ ;
Plan,. or, failure- to meet applicable design
requirements and safety standards? -
3. Travel characteriistics4 which are not consistent with X
standards established in the Butte County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP), or other --
General Plan policies related to Transportation'.
ransportation t -
Systems Management (TSM)?
4. Substantial ~impact on. existing or proposed public v X
transit systems including waterborne, rail and air
traffic? -
5. Effects on existing parking, facilities or demand for _X
new parking not provided for by the project? '
6. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, ,X
i pedestrian or.other-traffic?
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPAs and rezones will, relative, to city plans, effectively allow greater density of
.future development for sites A and B, from single -family to multi -family densities. They will restrict future
subdivision of sites C and D for additional residential density. For site A, the proposed GPA and rezone could
y
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airportirons Plan Amendments
Page 14
permit an additional 42 housing units from that allowed under current conditions. For site B, an additional 140 units
could be permitted. These additional densities, if actualized, would generate additional vehicle trips on area
roadways. Single-family development is assumed to generate, on average, ten vehicle trips per day, including on e
peak hour trip. Multi -family development is assumed to generate, on average, seven vehicle trips per day, including
one peak hour trip.
Subdivision and development on both sites A and B are subject to additional environmental review. Both sites are
within a planned mixed use (PMU) city zoning designation, therefore, a use permit and accompanying
environmental review will be required for all subdivision or development on these sites. The City's General Plan
requires a traffic analysis for projects generating over 75 peak hour trips, and both sites, will exceed this criterion,
when developed in conjunction with the overall parcel. Site A is a portion of an 18 acre parcel, and site B is a
portion of a 300 acre parcel; both are anticipated to contain neighborhood commercial cores.
It should be noted that site B is currently zoned as R-2, medium.density residential, under County jurisdiction,
consistent with the Northeast Chico Specific Plan. Therefore., the proposed GPA and prezone change for this
property represents no change from existing County plans. Also, a worse case scenario is presented for illustrative
purposes; it is very likely that the project sites would develop at below the maximum permitted density range given
current and foreseeable market conditions.
Potential density changes associated with the proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone would have no substantial
effect on bike way plans, congestion management plans, or public transit as they are minor in scale. Any additiona I
parking demand or transportation hazards that could be generated by site specific development would be
addressed through compliance with the City's Municipal Code. .
EXISTING REGULATION: City of Chico General Plan, Table 5.6-1, requires traffic analysis for projects generating
75 peak -hour vehicle trips or more. Chico Municipal Code, Title 19.28 specifies parking regulations.
DISCUSSION: The potential increase of 182 residential units as compared to the density currently permitted on
sites,A and B could generate marginal increases in the need for public services. Police and fire services are
evaluated annually in conjunction with the City's budget cycle. Additional funding is allocated as necessary to
achieve acceptable police and fire service, including reasonable response times. Fees for parks and schools are
collected on a per residential unit basis, which offset potential- impacts from increases in housing density. The
proposed GPAs and prezones are not anticipated to substantially change the need for maintenance of public
facilities.
Potentially
L...
Public Service Factors: Will the projector its
Significant
related activities have an effect upon or result in
Potentially Unless
Less Than
a need for altered governmental services in any
Significant Mitigation
Significant No
of the following areas:
Impact Incorporated
Impact Impact
1.
Fire protection?
X
2.
Police protection?
X
3..
Schools?
X
4.
Parks and recreation facilities? (See Section G.
X
Open Space/Recreation)
5.
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads,
X
canals, etc.?
6.
Other government services?
X
DISCUSSION: The potential increase of 182 residential units as compared to the density currently permitted on
sites,A and B could generate marginal increases in the need for public services. Police and fire services are
evaluated annually in conjunction with the City's budget cycle. Additional funding is allocated as necessary to
achieve acceptable police and fire service, including reasonable response times. Fees for parks and schools are
collected on a per residential unit basis, which offset potential- impacts from increases in housing density. The
proposed GPAs and prezones are not anticipated to substantially change the need for maintenance of public
facilities.
.11
14
City of Chico Initial Study i,,�'f'''>"
Project- Chico Municipal Airport Envir Plan•Amendments
i • t �. t r,< - e
R
- �,.
• Page 15 f, •, * .
�! •
Potentially
M. Public Utility Factors: 'Will the project or its. Significant
s- .
related activities have an effect upon or result in Potentially JUnless
Less Than
a • need. for new systems or isubstantial'Significant Mitigation
Significant No
alterations -to the following utilities: _ Impact ''"` Incorporated
Impact' ' Impact,"
1. 'Sewer or septic systems?
X
2. . Water for domestic use and fire protection?
X
3. .'Natural gas, electricity, or telephone?
X
4. Storm water drainage? (See Section C.,
X
Hydrological Factors)
'
5. Solid waster disposal? t t
X R
6. Communication systems? ' ' -
X i
7. Plant facilities for any of the above (sewer plants, „y
X
t
microwave station, water, etc.)?,
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPA, rezone, and prezone could marginally increase the need for public utilities to
the degree'additional densities are actualized on sites A and B: The subdivision approval'process,ensures
adequate provision of public utilities to the site, the costs of which is borne by project applicants/developers.
z.
t
t
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport ons Plan Amendments
Page 16
3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
-
Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the
environment if any of the following are true:
= -
Potentially
r�.
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Tfian
` Significant
Mitigation Significant No '
Impact
Incorporated Impact ; r'lmpact
,1. The project.has the potential to degrade the quality
X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
''sustaining
population to drop below self levels,
threaten to eliminate a -plant or animal community,
-
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or '
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
._
2.. The' project has. possible environmental effects . _
T k X
which are individually limited but cumulatively
`
considerable. (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual project
are considerable when viewed'in connection with
the effects of past,' current and probable -future
projects.
3. The environmental effects of a project will cause
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
DISCUSSION: As supported by the above discussion, the additional density that could be permitted as a result
of the proposed GPA, rezone, and prezone will not have a substantial effect on area resources.
i
City of Chico Initial Study
Chico Municipal Airport EPro
Project nvirsPlan Amendments
Page 17
4. EARLIER ANALYSES. .•:
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or. otle'r CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately arialyzed,in•an'earlier EIR or negative: declaration {Section
15063(6)(3)(D)]. ° In this case a discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for.review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed.*, Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by'mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier, document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
5. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
All significant or potentially significant impacts indicated inSection 2 above have been described
and feasible mitigation measures recommended wherever possible. Any participant of the Initial
Study may-also make a recommendation as to whether a Negative Declaration, a Negative
Declaration with mitigation measures, more study-in a-particular area, ,or.an: EIR should .be:_ -
-prepared. Please indicate any source date relied: upon and your name and date-of comments
in the space indicated. Use additional pages if necessary.
Reviewed by: on 3-22 IJP `~ (date)
Department:
Reviewed by:, on (date)
Department:
t
City of Chico Initial Study '
Project - Chico Municipal Airport tons Plan Amendments •
Paige 18
6. PROJECT'S SPONSOR'S INCORPORATION OF'MITIGATION INTO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT:
I have reviewed the Initial Study for the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
project and any mitigation measures identified herein. I hereby will modify the project on file wits
the City of Chico Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigation set forth in this
Initial Study.
Not Applicable= -No mitigation recommended
REFERENCES:
• City of Chico General Plan, 1994!
• City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment, .Blaney Dyett/Michael Brandman
Associates, January, 1994.
• City of Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell, December 1985.
Final. EIR.for. Adoption'of the. Chico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer, and Storm. Drainage
Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of Lindo Channel,
Jones & Stokes, November 1992.
• California Natural Diversity Data Base Map, California Department of Fish and Game.
Note' The above referenced information is available for public review at the City of Chico Planning
Division, 411 Main Street, `Chico, California.
Al
rl z I I R l." �. , ". -
WWW
.Site A
A.P. Nos: 007-190-022 (portion)
GP: From Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential
my
� � �nArV
'General Plan Amendment 99-2 (City of Chico) 500 0 500 100311 Feet
r
�.
�`
�,
General Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2
and Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico)
Site D
A.P. Nos. 048-600-055 and 056
2705 and 2747 Floral Avenue
GP: From Low Density Residential to
Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: From R-1 Single Family Residential to
RS -2 Suburban Residential - 2 Acre Minimum
500 0„ .y. 500 Feet
'.attachment No. 1
. !
r JS'.
� y
i 1a � ' �'
f a �.. }'4 '. 5
,
� `♦ t'
y ^
l • .'
y
' Fax ��over.Sheet
2/22. f� 4 4 ,•
'nME: •3 . f S O.M. s s i
-GATE: J
y
TO:
PHONE: 'S3k' 7601'
.
•
'
/'
Faz: S8 %%tV r�
l
FROM: Tavh 6Sr'
«PHONE:
v
, FAX: gq S _ vZ4 .
'• Number of pages Including cover sheet: [ 3; j ,
�' ..
E T4essage: F �... •
' : r
-7
a.'G�ac,�.�at► CT6'$
} i
; .Planning Division
_
"' .. FEB 2 21999
®MVIII®,California
• 9/t :10 vi 9ZLtiS699I6
Id3Q''A3Q AlIXaMOO O�IHO '10� AlIO LI 9I (N10%d) 66 ..,ZZ '333
Dave,
Here are the changes we are contemplating. Amendments 1 and 2 are proposed as zone changes
only, since our General Plan allows existing uses on 2 acres or less to have different Plan and
zoning designations. Sites 3 and 4 would be General Plan amendments.
Sim -,Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area. Existing Plan designation is Low Density
Residential and are prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels appear to be located within
the Outer Safety. Zone and are developed with an existing single family residence. Proposed to
amend prezoning to RS -2, Suburban Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
Site 2 - Two or three parcels ranging in size from 1 to 2 acres and all are developed with a single
family residence located near Ceres Avenue. Designated Low Density Residential and prezoned
R-1. Proposed to amend prezoning to RS -2 Suburban Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot, .
Size.
Site 3 - Approximate 6 acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022). Designated Low Density `
Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned Mixed Use., This site is portion of
site planned for Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. Proposed to amend General Plan designation'
from LDR to Medium Density Residential to comply with development restrictions for Area B of
the Overflight Area.
r.
Site 4 - Largest of the four sites, Site 4 is approximately 20 acres in -size. It is located within
Area B of the Overflight Area and is designated Low Density Residential in the City. General.
Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site 4 is a portion of A.P. 047-250-141: The site is also a part of the.
"Villages" portion of the North Chico Specific. Plan (NCSP): The County adopted Specific Plan
designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The City proposal would amend this site to
Medium Density Residential consistent with the NCSP. Prezoning is proposed to remain
unchanged at this time, since both" Sites 3 ,and 4 require that future development occur as planned
developments, at which time zoning would be specified. ,
I hope the accompanying map is legible. If not we can review locations when the GIS map is
completed. Thank you for your assistance. You can contact me at 895-4853, fax 895-4726 for
further information.
f
♦
Flo +e: Map was No4- (e le 4-hereSore� 1,�wa-5 n clu�.e t
�O u r Pa c V -e,+. -
9ZLb569916 '1d3C 'A3C A_*.N[,-"OO 00'H0 30 A IO LI :9[ (xow) 66 . ZZ.'33.4 _ _
Im•' _ '.�-0111:= i��.~a\IN
��i•,
1, Hill
lb
alt
On
:::.F•nu�. ..:�..::.:..::...:.:
i
5
A
iI w
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
To: Members of the Board of Supervisors
From: Thomas A. Parilo, Director
Subject: Report on Actions Necessary Resulting from the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission's October 21, 1998, Amendments to the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan .
For: Board Meeting of April 13, 1999
Date: March 31, 1999
BACKGROUND:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted
environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
(CMAEP). ALUC amended the 1978 CMAEP in order to prevent incompatible land uses from
being developed in the Chico Municipal Airport environs and to preserve responsible airport
operations. The action of October 21, 1998, affected the extent of the Overflight Protection Zone
(OPZ) and added new text to the plan. The County has contracted with Shutt -Moen & Associates
to complete an update to the CMAEP. A draft CMAEP should.be completed before the end of 1999.
The following. is a summary of ALUC's actions:
According to the Public Utility Code (PUC), the ALUC is permitted to revise the CMAEP once a
year. Following the revision, the Board of Supervisors has 180 -days to evaluate the amendment and,
then take action to bring the General Plan into compliance with the revised CMAEP or make
overriding findings. The 180 day period ends on April 20, 1999. Government Code Section
65302.3 states the following:
Section 65302.3- Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(A) The general plan, and: any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8
(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675.. ,
(B) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary; within
180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Public Utilities Code Section 21.675.
�I w
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 2
(C) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Public
Utilities Code, Section 21675, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting
findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.
The revision to the CMA -EP will require consistency analysis for both the City of Chico and the
Butte County General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The City of Chico is processing two
(2) zoning changes and two (2) General Plan amendments in response to the revisions adopted by
ALUC. However, the City is not expected to finish before the expiration of the 180 day period. As
provided by City Planning staff, attached is a brief description of the changes being undertaken by
the City of Chico.
Changes to the Overflight Protection Zone Map:
ALUC adopted a new Overflight Protection Zone'(OPZ) which now surrounds the Chico airport (see
attached map). The OPZ is divided into subzones which are identified as "A", "A1" and `B." The
restrictions of these zones ate described below. In adopting the new OPZ, ALUC used Airport Map
III -1 contained within the Federal Aviation Regulations, , Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
Program. The new OPZ is also based upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook and the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (see attached reference
materials).
Text Amendments:
Text was added to the CMAEP specifying that new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area
defined as Zone "A." Thd Airport Land Use Commission does not want single family dwellings to
be permitted on, existing legally created parcels in Zones "A even though they are currently zoned
R-1, R-2, R-3, S -R, SR -1, and SR -3. Staff disagrees and a legal opinion has been requested
regarding. this restriction within zone "A."
It appears to be the intent of zone "Al" to allow limited residential development on existing lots.
This is termed as permitting "infill' of the existing residential parcels. However; further subdivision
within zone "A1" would be inconsistent with the new plan.
Text was added specifying that no new single family residential uses shall be permitted in Zone `B."
However, approval of multiple family residential uses within Zone `B" appears to be consistent
subject to conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and
notification of potential tenants regarding overflight activity. Therefore, Medium (6 to 12 units per.
acre) and High (12 to 20 units per acre) density would be consistent with Zone `B."
ALUC also amended the CMAEP to find that Commercial, Business Park and Industrial
development is appropriate in Zones "A", "A1" -and `B" of the OPZ. This type of development is
considered compatible upon not exceeding specified people per acre concentrations.
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 3
Language adopted by the Commission indicates that small neighborhood shopping centers and two-
story offices are reasonable within the Outer Safety Zone. Concentrations of people within this area
should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. The Outer Safety Zone is area 4 on the
amended map.
ANALYSIS:
Because of the amount of property involved and due to limited staff resources, a thorough
evaluation of the implication, of the new Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) has not yet been
completed: On the east side of the Airport, land within the County is designated by the.General
Plan for Industrial or Agricultural Residential use and the effect of the new OPZ may be relatively
minor. However, on the west side of the airport, the new OPZ overlays portions of the North Chico
Specific Plan. Most of these properties are zoned Industrial (M1 and M2), Public Service (PS), Open
Space (OS) and Commercial (C2) and are not affected by the new OPZ. However, there are many
parcels zoned SR -1, R-1 and R-2 which are affected by the new OPZ.
Therefore, staff is providing two options for consideration:
The Board may wish to direct staff to initiate a consistency review of the Butte County
General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan, and either:
a) Amend said plans to be made consistent with the Chico Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or
b) Where planning factors determine that consistency cannot be made, prepare
overriding findings determining that the current general plan and specific
plan designations are consistent and do not compromise airport safety and
noise problems. (Note: This requires specific findings and approval by four
fifths vote of the Board.) Or, 11
2. Direct Staff to submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and discretionary permits located
within the area effected by the amendment to ALUC until the fully revised Comprehensive
Plan is completed, deferring the detailed compatibility review until after adoption of the final
plan.
Option No. One will require a detailed consistency review of the Butte County General Plan and
the North Chico Specific Plan. General Plan amendments and possible rezones may be necessary
for parcels found to be inconsistent. This option will require a significant amount of staff and
consultant time.
Option No. Two will allow ALUC to review projects occurring within the amended overflight
protection zone until such time that the comprehensive CLUP revision occurs. Since the number
of projects occurring within this area is anticipated to be minimal during the next year, the use of
staff and consultant resources would be less than option one.
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 4
The Airport Land Use Commission's comprehensive land use. plan update is expected to be
completed in 1999. Staff recommends that a consistency review of the General Plan and the North
Chico Specific Plan occur at that time. -
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
1. Select Option No. Two, and
2. Direct staff to submit projects located'within the affected area to ALUC for consistency
findings.
3. Direct staff to prepare a letter advising ALUC of the Board's decision to submit individual
projects for review and that staff will conduct a complete compatibility review after the
comprehensive land use plan is complete.
Attachments:
1. Memo from Tom Hayes, City of Chico regarding Proposed City General Plan Amendments
2. Minutes of the October 21, 1998, ALUC Meeting
3. Letter of October 22, 1999, to Director of Development Services from Laura Webster,
ALUC Contract Planner - Pacific Municipal Consultants
4. Overflight Protection Zone, adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1999
5. Overflight Protection Zone, adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1999, with Existing Zoning
K:\PLANNING\ALUC\BOS.MEM\ALUC.R-EV
+BUTTE COUNI'� AIRPORTLAND USE COMMISSION
e 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95865 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 e
TO: City of Chico Planning Department
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FINDINGS AND/OR
COMMENTS: ALUC File No A49-04 (Proposed City of Chico
" General Plan Amendment 99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-1): In
response.to the amendments to the CMAEP made by the ALUC on
October 21, 1998-, the City of Chico is processing four General Plan
Amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report,
initial study and a letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to
PUC 21676 (b), the City requests that the ALUC make a
determination of consistency regarding the proposed amendments.
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 28, 1999
This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission held a public meeting on April 21,
1999 and approved the findings and/or materials attached as Exhibits A and Al.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the
ALUC staff, at (91.6) 533-1131. The, -project file may be reviewed at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
+BUTT E COUTA AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 536-7785 •
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone/Prezone Modifications
A99-04 (GPA99-02/RZ99-02/PZ99-01)
Site A (portion of APN 007-190-022)
Site B (portion of APN 047-250-141)
Site C (APN's 048-670-048 and 054)
Site D (APN's 048-600-055 and 056)
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained
within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). This data, in turn is based upon
the findings of a number of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals, firms and
agencies recognized. as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use
compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration
of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on the project. _
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A Environmental documentation provided for the project consists of an Initial Study
and Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The purpose of the
City's proposal is to apply land use designations and zoning recommended in the
1998 CMAEP to ensure the compatibility of future development with any airport
related impacts including overflight protection, noise, airspace protection, and
safety. The City's proposal, as conditioned below, has been found to accomplish
those objectives. '
Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY, FINDINGS
A. Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four
functional' categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns.
These include: Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise, '
• and Airspace Protection. The applicant's proposal has been found to be
conditionally consistent with protection measures and policies contained in the
.1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to address
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise, and -,Airspace
r Protection:
e Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • ,
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility
1. Sites A and B are located within Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone
depicted in Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Compatible land uses in this
zone include Multiple Family Residential (7 and 35 dwelling units per
gross acre), Commercial, Business Park and Industrial. The City's
proposal to redesignate Sites A and B from Low Density Residential (2.01
to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) to Medium Density Residential (4.01
to 14 dwelling units per gross acre), is -consistent with the policies of the
CMAEP upon implementation of the following required conditions:
A. Residential development within Site A shall be limited to a total of 24
multiple family dwelling units in' clusters of 7 units per gross acre.
Residential development shall only occur on the eastern 3 acre portion
of the site. The western 3 acre portion of the project area shall remain
in open space.
B. Residential development within Site B shall be limited to a total of 80
-multiple family dwelling units in clusters of 7 units per gross acre.
Residential development shall only occur on 8 of the 20 acres
contained within project area. The remaining 12 acres shall be kept
in open space. Flight pattern requirements and conditions associated
with Aerial Applicators' operations shall be considered and addressed
as part of site plan development.
Sites C and D are located within the Outer Safety Zone depicted in
Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Rural residential land uses with lot
sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range•are considered compatible within that
zone. Therefore, the City's proposal to redesignate Sites C and D
from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross
acre) to Very Low Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per
acre) and rezone the sites from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2
Suburban Residential .(2 acre minimum lot size) will effectively
preclude further residential development at these locations and meet
the intention of Outer Safety Zone policies.
Safety .
2. Accident scatter maps based upon data generated by Hodges and
Shutt and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993) have been adopted as part of the
CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support the finding that
Sites A through D do not have an elevated likelihood of being
impacted by aircraft accidents.
® Butte County • Airport Land Use. Commission •
2
•
0
Noise
3. According to Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 of the CMAEP, Sites A, B and
C are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour for the Chico
Municipal Airport and Site D is located on the boundary of the projected
55 dB CNEL contour. Exhibit 4-4 of the CMAEP "Land Use
Compatibility for Noise Environments," indicates that single family
residential development is considered normally acceptable. in areas
exposed to up to 55 dB CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in
areas exposed to between 55 dB and 70 dB CNEL. Multiple family
residential development is considered normally acceptable in areas
exposed to up to 60 dB CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in
areas exposed to between 60 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL. The City's
proposal will preclude future single family residential development on
Sites C and D and direct multiple family residential development to Sites
A and B which are outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour.
Although the noise contours discussed above indicate that projected
exposure in the project areas will be at or below 55 dB CNEL, it
should be noted that residents may be exposed to single event noise
levels and other episodes which exceed those levels. The location of
the projected noise contours may also change when the effect of the
proposed extension. of runway 13L/31R is more comprehensively
analyzed. Therefore, the following required conditions for multiple
family residential uses in Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone,
(e.g., Sites A and B of the City's proposal), will inform future
residents of airport noise related impacts and protect future airport
operations:
A. Prior to development, the property owners of Sites A and B
shall dedicate avigation easements to the airport operator.
B. Potential tenants of multiple family residential developments
on Sites A and B shall be notified through written and graphic
depictions on rental and/or lease application forms. of the.
proximity of the development to the Chico Municipal Airport.
The written notice shall also disclose the potential for
overflight activity and associated noise related impacts
including single event noise levels in excess of 55 dB CNEL.
Airspace Protection
4. According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites A and B are located within the
Horizontal Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport which has an elevation
of 388 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The elevation ranges for Sites
A and B are 183-186 feet MSL and 200-205 feet MSL, respectively.
The maximum allowable height for primary structures within the PMU
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission a
3
i
zoning district is expected to be 35 feet. Based on that limitation the
anticipated total project elevation in both cases will not penetrate the
Horizontal Surface.
According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites C and D are located within the
transition area between the 50:1 and 40:1 Approach Surfaces for runway
13L/31R. Text on page 5-3 of the CMAEP indicates that the Approach
Surface at this location is approximately 200 feet above the runway
threshold elevation, which is 205 feet MSL. According to USGS
topographic information, the elevation ranges for Sites C and D are 213 -
216 feet MSL and 215 - 218 feet MSL, respectively. Since the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for these sites will preclude
additional residential development, only new accessory structures could
potentially be constructed. The maximum allowable height for accessory
structures within the proposed RS -2 Residential Suburban zoning district
is 20 feet. Based on that limitation the anticipated•total project elevation
in both cases will not penetrate the Approach Surface or result in an
obstruction to air navigation.
The ALUC has also considered the location of Sites A through D with
regard to the revised location of FAR Part 77 Surfaces resulting from
future extension of runway 13R/3 IL and determined that the City's
proposal will not result in the penetration of any future FAR Part77
surfaces.
Fj
• Butte County s Airport Land Use Commission •
4
e 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 e
EXHIBIT Al
List of References
Data supporting the ALUC's findings have been generated from studies and reports prepared by
recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning and land use
compatibility. These include, but are not limited to:
R, Dixon Speas Associates - Prepared 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) - Prepared accident
scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data
was used to develop Drawing CIC -17 of the CMAEP.
Hodges and Shutt - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CIC -18 of the CMAEP.
• Butte County i Airport Land Use Commission •
5
F
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COi��SSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 * (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
AGENDA ITEM - E.3.
TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: ALUC Staff
DATE: April 16, 1999
ITEM: ALUC File No. A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico General Plan
Amendment 99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-1): In response to the
amendments to the CMAEP made by the ALUC on October 21, 1998, the
City of Chico is processing four General Plan Amendments/Zoning Changes.
The City has forwarded a staff report, initial study and a letter describing the
proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676 (b), the City requests that the
ALUC make a determination of consistency regarding the proposed
amendments.
FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of April 21, 1999
SUMMARY: The City of Chico has submitted proposed General Plan amendments and
zoning/prezoning changes for four specific areas in order to conform with amendments to
the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) adopted by the ALUC on October 21,
1998. The City is requesting that the ALUC review the proposed amendments at this time
and make a consistency determination regarding the proposal. Staff recommends that the
Commission find the project conditionally consistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan. Staff's review consisted of overflight protection/land use compatibility,
safety, airspace protection and noise sensitivity.
ANALYSIS: The location and descriptions of the proposed amendments for the four areas
under consideration are summarized below.
Site A: A vacant site consisting of about 6 acres located on the east side of Morseman
Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of Eaton Road (portion of APN 007-190-022). The
property is currently designated Low Density Residential in the City's General Plan and
prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU). This portion of the site is planned for Mixed Use
Neighborhood Core development. The proposal would amend the General Plan
designation for this area from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross
acre) to Medium Density Residential (4.01 to 14 dwelling units per gross acre). The
current prezoning for this site would remain unchanged since a development plan has not
yet been prepared. According to text within the City's General Plan and discussions with
City staff, a neighborhood mixed use center would typically include a combination of
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •.
neighborhood commercial and residential development. Any future development would
be approved through a Planned Unit Development procedure (use permit) and must be
consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation.
Site B: The largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and located
on the south side of Mud Creek west of Hicks Lane (portion of APN 047-250-141). The
property is currently designated. Low Density Residential in the City's General Plan and
is prezoned Planned Mix Use (PMU). This site is also part of the "Villages" portion of the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The proposal would amend the General Plan
designation for this area from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross
acre) to Medium Density Residential (4.01 to 14 dwelling units per gross acre). Since a
specific development plan has not been prepared for this area, the current prezoning for
this site would remain changed at this time. As with Site A, a neighborhood mixed use
center would typically include a combination of neighborhood commercial and residential
development. Any future development would be approved through a Planned Unit
Development procedure (use permit) and must be consistent with the Medium Density
Residential designation.
Site C: Two parcels, consisting of approximately 1 and 2 acres in area located on the east
side of Ceres Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of East Avenue (APN's 048-670-048
and 054). The parcels are currently developed with three existing single family residences,
designated Low Density Residential in the City's General Plan and zoned R-1 Single
Family Residential. Under the current zoning, the subject parcels could theoretically be
developed at a density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposal would amend the
General Plan designation for this area from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling
units per gross acre) to Very Low Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per gross
acre). The zoning for this site would be changed from R-1 Single Family Residential to
RS -2 Suburban Residential (2 acre minimum lot size).
Site D: Two parcels, ranging from 2.0 to 2.5 acres in size located on the west side of
Floral Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of Glenshire Lane (APN's 048-600-055 and
056). The parcels are currently developed with existing single family residences, but are
large enough to accommodate further residential development. The sites are presently
designated Low Density Residential in the City's General Plan and zoned R-1 Single
Family Residential. The proposal would amend the General Plan designation for this area
from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) to Very Low
Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre). The zoning for these sites would
be changed from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential (2 acre
minimum lot size).
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility
Sites A and B are located within Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in
Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP and the Light Aircraft Traffic Pattern shown in Drawing CIC -2.
Both sites are also located outside of the Departure Clear Area shown in Drawing CIC -16
and the Flight Corridor depicted in Drawings CIC -4 and CIC -6.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
2
According to text adopted by the ALUC in conjunction with the Overflight Protection Zone
(OPZ), no new single family residential uses are permitted within Zone B of the OPZ.
Approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B must contain conditions requiring the
dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants
of overflight activity. Additional clarification made by the ALUC .on November 18, 1998
indicates that multiple family residential development ranging between 7 and 35_ units per
gross acre, Commercial, Business Park and Industrial development are considered consistent
within Zone B of the OPZ. The City of Chico's proposed General Plan amendment to Medium
Density Residential would allow densities between 4.01 and 14 dwelling units per gross acre.
Some neighborhood commercial development is also likely to be incorporated when a
development plan for these sites is prepared. In order to ensure that future development
conforms to the residential density range and development types described within the
CMAEP, future residential projects on Sites A and B must consist of multiple family residential
structures at densities not less than 7.0 units per gross acre.
Sites C and D are located within the Outer Safety Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. Site
C is located within Flight Tracks depicted in Drawing CIC -2. Both sites are located outside
of the Departure Clear Area shown in Drawing CIC -16 and the Flight Corridor shown in
Drawings CIC -4 and CIC -6.'
Text adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission in conjunction with the Outer Safety Zone
indicates that, "Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be
avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be
considered acceptable, however." Text which accompanies the Overflight Protection Zone
notes that when a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the_ restrictions
proposed for the OPZ, the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents. Application of this directive with -Lin -the -Outer
Safety Zone would result in a recommendation that 5 acre minimums be maintained.
However, because the existing parcels within Sites C and D range from 1 to. approximately
2.5 acres in size, the City's proposal to redesignate the areas for 2 acre minimums will
effectively preclude any further residential development at these locations.
Safety
The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting accident..scatter
characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the
University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Drawing CIC -17
of the CMAEP depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico
Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Drawing CIC -18 of the CMAEP depicts an
overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and the
surrounding environment. The purpose of these exhibits is to identify areas with an elevated
likelihood for aircraft related accidents. According to staffs review of Drawing CIC -17, no
theoretical accident sites fall within Sites A and B, although there are a few in the surrounding
area. Two theoretical accident sites are shown in the vicinity of Sites C and D, but do not
actually fall within the parcels which make up those sites. The accident scatter data shown
in Drawing CIC -18 presents almost identical information. Since none of the accident scatter
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission
3
data is located within the boundaries of the involved properties, Sites A through D are not
considered to have an elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents.
Airspace Protection
Drawing CIC -5 of the CMAEP identifies the location of all FAR Part 77 Surfaces for the Chico
Municipal Airport. According to Drawing CIC -5,, Sites A and B are located within the
Horizontal Surface. Text on page 5-3 of the CMAEP indicates that the Horizontal Surface is
at an elevation 150 feet above the established airport elevation. The established airport
elevation is 238 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Therefore, the Horizontal Surface. is at
388 feet MSL.
According to staffs review of USGS topographic information, the elevation ranges for Sites
A and B are 183-186 feet MSL and 200-205 feet MSL, respectively. The maximum
allowable height for primary structures within the PMU zoning district is expected__to be 35
feet. Based on that limitation the anticipated total project elevation in both cases will not
penetrate the Horizontal Surface.
According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites C and D are located within the transition area between the
50:1 and 40:1 Approach Surfaces for runway 131J31 R. Text on- page 5-3 of the CMAEP
indicates that the Approach Surface at this location is approximately 200 feet above the
runway threshold elevation, which is 205 feet MSL. According to staffs review of USGS
topographic information, the elevation ranges for Sites C and D are 213 - 216 feet MSL and
215 - 218 feet MSL, respectively. Since the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning for these sites will preclude additional residential development, only new
accessory structures could potentially be constructed. The maximum allowable height for
accessory structures within the proposed RS -2 Residential Suburban zoning district is 20
feet. Based on that limitation the anticipated total project elevation in both cases will not
penetrate the Approach Surface or result in an obstruction to air navigation.
The City of Chico is currently in the process of preparing an Updated Master Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport. Preliminary plans indicate that land will be reserved to the north
of runway 131-/31 R to accommodate future expansion of that facility if determined desirable
in the future. Draft project descriptions for the Updated Airport Master Plan also propose
to extend runway 13R/31L approximately 1,700 feet to the north and 1,300 feet to the
south to create a 6,000 foot runway. Even with these modifications, Sites A and B would
remain within the Horizontal Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport. Once the southern
1,300 foot extension of runway 13R/31 L is completed, the south end of that runway will be
approximately 900 feet north of the south end of runway 13U31.R. Depending upon
whether runway 13R/31 L is ultimately developed as a non -precision or precision
instrument runway, the Approach Surface for that facility would either extend out 10,000
feet at a slope of 34:1, or 10,000 feet at a slope of 50:1 with an additional 40,000 feet at
a slope of 40:1. In either case, the elevation of the future Approach Surface for runway
13R/31 L would be higher than the existing Approach Surface for runway 13U3.1 R where
Sites C and D are located. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning will not result in the penetration of any existing or future FAR Part 77 surfaces.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
4
Noise Sensitivity
According to staffs review of Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 of the CMAEP, Sites. A, B and C
are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour for the Chico Municipal Airport and
Site D is located on the boundary of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour. Exhibit 4-4 of the
CMAEP "Land Use Compatibility for Noise Environments," indicates that single family
residential development is considered normally acceptable in areas exposed to up. to 55 dB
CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to between 55 dB and 70 dB
CNEL. Multiple family residential development is considered normally acceptable in- areas
exposed to up to 60 dB CNEL and maybe conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to
between 60 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL. The City's proposal will preclude future single.family
residential development on Sites C and D and direct multiple family residential development
to Sites A and B which are outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour.
Although the noise contours discussed above indicate that projected exposure in the
project areas will be at or below 55 dB CNEL, it should be noted that residents may be
exposed. to single event noise levels and other episodes which exceed those levels.
These events may include intensive CDF air tanker operations during campaign fires,
occasional military activities, and other aircraft engine testing or maintenance procedures.
Air tankers consisting of P -2's, P -3's and S -2's with piston engines, may, create the
greatest impact because the weight of their load requires them to make extremely low
altitude departures. The location of the projected noise contours may also change when
the effects of the proposed extension of runway 131/31 R is more comprehensively
analyzed. As noted earlier in this staff report, approval of multiple family residential uses
in Zone B of the OPZ must contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. These
required conditions, which apply to Sites A and B of the City's proposal, will inform future
residents of potential airport noise related impacts and protect future airport operations.
Environmental Documentation
Environmental documentation provided for the project consists of an Initial Study and
Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The purpose of the City's proposal
is to apply land use designations and zoning recommended in the 1998 CMAEP to ensure
the compatibility of future development with any airport related impacts including. overflight
protection, noise, airspace protection and safety. The City's proposal has been found to
accomplish those objectives.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission find that the proposed City of City of Chico General Plan Amendment and
Rezone/Prezone Modifications A99-04 (GPA99-02/RZ99-02/PZ99-01) for Site A (portion
of APN 007-190-022), Site B (portion of APN 047-250-141), Site C (APN's 048-070-048
and 054), and Site D (APN's 048-600-055 and 056), are conditionally consistent with the
1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as noted in the findings presented in the
attached Exhibit "A".
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
5
Attached: A: Findings
Al: List of References
B: City of Chico Correspondence (Dated April 13, 1999)
C: City of Chico Staff Report (Includes location maps)
D: City of Chico Initial Study (Includes location maps)
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
6
+BUu u LLA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 County Cerner Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
City of Chico -General Plan Amendment and_Rezone/Prezone Modifications
A99-04 (GPA99-02/RZ99-02/PZ99-011
Site A (portkmoiAPN 00.7-1.90-022)
Site B (portion of APN 047..-250-141)
Site C (APN's._0.48-67.0-048 and 054)
Site D (APN's 048-600-055 and 056)
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based_upon. data
contained within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP).. This data, in
tum is based upon the findings of a number of studies, documents and reports generated
by individuals, firms and agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport
Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and -are for the
consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on the project.
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Environmental documentation provided for the project consists of an
Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact. The purpose of the City's proposal is to apply land use
designations and zoning recommended in the 1998 CMAEP to ensure
the compatibility of future development with any airport related impacts
including overflight protection, noise, airspace protection, and safety.
The City's proposal has been found to accomplish those objectives.
Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
A. Chapter 3 of the 9993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies
four functional categories that address airport land use compatibility
concerns. These include: Overflight Protection/Land . Use
Compatibility, Safety, Noise, and Airspace Protection. The applicant's
proposal has been found to be conditionally consistent with protection
measures and policies contained in the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan which are designed to address Overflight
Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise, and Airspace
Protection:
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility
1. Sites A and B are located within Zone B of the Overflight
Protection -Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
Compatible land uses in this zone include Multiple Family
Residential (7 and 35 dwelling units per gross . acre),
Commercial, Business Park and Industrial. The City's
proposal to. redesignate Sites A and B from Low Density
Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) 'to
Medium Density Residential (4.01 to 14 dwelling. units per
gross acre) with a neighborhood commercial component as
part of the Planned -Mixed Use (PMU) zoning designation, is
consistent with the policies of the CMAEP upon
implementation -of -the following required condition:
A. Residential development projects on Sites A and B
shalL consist of multiple family dw.el.ling__types_ and
contain a minimum of 7.0 dwelling units per acre.
Sites C and -DL -.are. located within.. the. Outer. -Safety- Zone
depicted in Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Rural residential
land uses with.lot.sizes in the 2. to.5 acre range are -considered
compatible within that zone. Therefore, the City's proposal to
redesignate Sites C. and. D. from Low Density ResidentiaL (2.01
to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) to Very Low Density
Residential (0.20 to. 2.0 dwelling units per acre) -and- rezone
the sites from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban
Residential (2 acre minimum lot size) will effectively preclude.
further residential development at these locations and meet
the intention of. Outer Safety Zone policies.
Safety
2. Accident scatter maps based upon data generated by Hodges
and Shutt and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993) have been adopted as part of
the CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support the
finding that Sites A through D do not have an elevated.
likelihood of being impacted by aircraft accidents.
Noise
3. According to Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 of the CMAEP, Sites
A, B and C are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL
contour for the Chico Municipal Airport and Site D is located on
the boundary of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour. Exhibit 4-4
of the CMAEP "Land Use Compatibility for Noise Environments,"
indicates that single family residential .development is considered
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
8
normally acceptable in areas exposed to up to 55 dB CNEL and
may be conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to between 55
dB and 70 dB CNEL. Multiple family residential development is
considered normally acceptable in areas exposed to up to 60 dB
CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to
between 60 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL. The City's proposal will
preclude future single family residential development on Sites C
and D and direct multiple family residential development to Sites
A and B which are outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour.
Although the noise contours discussed above indicate that
projected exposure in the project areas will be at or below 55 .
dB CNEL, it should be noted that residents may be exposed to
single event noise levels and other episodes which exceed
those levels. The location of the. projected noise contours may
also change when the effect of the proposed extension of
runway 13U31 R is more comprehensively analyzed.
.Therefore, the following required conditions for multiple family
residential uses in Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone,
(e.g., Sites A and B of the City's proposal), will inform -future
residents of airport noise related impacts and prntect_future
airport operations:
A. Prior to development, the property owners__o� Sites A
and B shall dedicate avigation easements to the airport
operator. '
B. Potential tenants of multiple. family residential
developments on Sites A and B shall be .notified
through written and graphic depictions on rental. and/or
lease. application forms of the proximity_ of the
development to the Chico Municipal Airport. The
.written notice shall also disclose the potential for
overflight activity and associated noise related impacts
including single event noise levels in excess of 55 dB
CNEL.
Airspace Protection
4. According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites A and B are located within
the Horizontal Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport which has
an elevation of 388 feet. above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The
elevation ranges for Sites A and B are 183-186 feet MSL and,
200-205 feet MSL, respectively. The maximum allowable
height for primary structures within the PMU zoning district is
expected to be 35 feet. Based on that limitation the
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
9
,.
anticipated. total project elevation in both cases will not
penetrate the Horizontal Surface.
According•to Drawing CIC -5, Sites C and �D are located within
the transition area between the 50:1 and 40:1 -Approach
Surfaces for runway 13U31 R. Text on page 5-3 of the CMAEP
indicates that the Approach Surface at this location is
approximately 200 feet above the runway threshold elevation,
which is 205 feet MSL. ' According to USGS topographic
information, the elevation ranges for Sites C and D are 213 - 216
feet MSL and 215 - 218 feet .MSL, respectively. Since the
proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for these
sites will preclude additional residential development, only new
accessory structures could potentially be constructed. The
maximum allowable height for accessory structures within the
proposed RS -2 Residential Suburban zoning district is 20 feet.
Based on that limitation the anticipated total project, elevation in
both cases will not penetrate the Approach Surface'or result in
an obstruction -to air navigation. ,
The ALUC has. -also considered the location of Sites -A. through
.D with regard to the revised location of FAR Part 77 Surfaces
resulting from future � extension" of runway 13RL3.1 L. and
determined that the City's proposal will not- result in the
penetration of any future FAR Part 77.surfaces.
+BUTT]E COUNTY AIRPORT ]L=AND USE COMMISSION +
0 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
EXHIBIT Al
List of References
Data supporting the ALUC's findings have. been' generated from studie's and.. reports
prepared by recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use
Planning and land use compatibility. These include, but are not limited to: '
R. Dixon Speas Associates - Prepared 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) -
Prepared accident. scatter data. presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CIC -17 of the CMAEP.
Hodges and Shutt- Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CIC -18 of
the CMAEP.
• Butte County • Airport Land. Use Commission •
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
TO: City of Chico Planning Department
Other Public Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: ALUC-File No.
A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment
99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-01)
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 19, 1999
This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on
the following matter at the time and place listed below:
HEARING DATE: April 21, 1999
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room
Butte County Administration Center
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
ALUC File No. 'A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-
02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-1): In response to the amendments to the CMAEP made by
the ALUC on October 21, 1998, the City of Chico is processing four General Plan
Amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report, initial study and a
letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676 (b), the City requests that
the ALUC make a determination of consistency regarding the proposed amendments.
Staff recommends that the Commission find the project conditionally consistent with the 1998
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster,
of the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and
written testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The
project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, California.
Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
1
COMMUNITY
DEvELAPMENT
EN
PLANNING
411 Main Street
CfTY«ac wn�� P.O. Box 3420
Chico. CA 96827
(5301 896-4851
FAX (53C) 896-4726
ATSS 469-4861
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965.3397
Dear Commissioners:
EXHIBIT B
April 13, 1999
•
APR 13 1999
In response to ALUC amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP)
adopted on October 21, 1998, and Government Code Section 65450, the City of Chico has
proposed certain amendments to the City of Chico General Plan to bring it into
conformance with the AL amendments to the CMAEP• These amendments are noted
below and are described in greater detail in the City of Chico Planning Commission Report
for its review and action pursuant to Public
dated April 5, 1999, and forwarded to ALUC
Utilities .Code Section 21676 (b).
Site A - Approximate 6 -acre vacant site located on the east side of Morseman Avenue,
approximately 700 feet south of Eaton Road. Designated Low Density Resof idtil in the
site
General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned Mixed Use. This site is a per'1larger
proposed for a mixed use neighborhood center. Area B of the Overflight Area restricts
residential development to multiple family residences with avigation easements and tenant
disclosure. it is proposed to amend the General Plan for this site from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. The PMU Planned Unit Development zoning
would remain since it continues to be consistent with the new General Plan designation.
Site g - Largest of the 4 sites, Site S is approximately 20 acres in size. it is located within
.Area B of the Overflight Area and is es Low
Dof the Vensity elagestlportion of the
al in the City
General Plan and is prezoned PMU The site sao apaThe Count -adopted Specific Plan designates the site
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). Y
for Medium Density Residential. The City proposal would amend this site to Medium
sed to remain
Density ResidentialconsistentictSites A and 9th the require P. rthat future development is ccur as
unchanged at this time since b
g would be specified consistent with Medium
planned developments, at which time zonin
Density Residential.
its G - Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area. Existing Plan designation is Low
Density Residential and are zoned and prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels. +
K•d0 trwo a•oblea PAP11
9
5,-1Z� '3ov3
9Zt.b5699 :6 :33C 'n -C A- 7Uto� oz'X� 30 .t_: D 3- ° : ( -) 66
Airport Land Use Commission
April 13, 1999
Page 2
appear to be located within the Outer Safety Zone and are developed with existing single
family residences. Under the current zoning, the subject parcels could be further
developed ata density of up to six dwelling units per acre, inconsistent with the recent
ALUC amendment.- General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rezone 99-2 and Prezone 99-1 would
redesignate these parcels from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential
and amend the existing R-1 Single Family Residential zoning to RS -2 Suburban
Residential -Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. This amendment precludes further residential
development of the subject parcels.
Site D. - Consists of ,two parcels located on Floral Avenue at the farthest limit of the
amended Outer Safety Zone. As with Site C these parcels are developed with existing
single family residences, but area large enough in size (approximately 4.5 acres) to
accommodate further residential development. General Plan Amendment 99-2 and
Rezone 99-2 proposes to redesignate these. parcels from Low Density Residential to Very
Low Density Residential and rezone the parcels from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -
2 Suburban Residential -'Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. This amendment would preclude
further residential development of the parcels.
It should be noted that Sites C and D, within the Outer Safety Zone, contain the only
remaining residentially designated parcels with further development potential.
As mentioned above, the City of Chico Is acting in accordance with State Law to conform
Its General Plan to the CMAEP as amended by ALUC. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code
21676 (b) the City requests that ALUC make a.determination of consistency regarding the
specific proposed amendments. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Hayes
Senior Planner
jig
CC: CM/CA/RM/CDDIPID
4
9/9 'aOV3 9?L'�:E99:6 ' _3aC 'ASC A_'N.^.i`CACD 0:) F0 10 A_dJj' 15:9: (3T_: 66; 'U,4v
Apr -15-99 07:51 butte county plan nin�y 530 538 7785 P.04
nrx. 1 y V!0 (Wb;::) : D » l : Y UT cm;cu CUUK%tvN:TY D V. DEP 9160954-726 FACE.
EXHIBIT C
SLOW Report
G.enerel Plan Amendment 99-2/
Reione 99-2 and Prozone. 99 -1 -(City of Chico) -
_
CITYcr CHICO
'"`:"':
Prepared By: Senlor Plartnsr.flaysd
Genera/ In&abatien
Mai
:.ApplicenL, :
City of.Chka
Property Owners:..
: iS;A:
Ser9io:snd Mersa Orestano..:P,O. Box 8997, Chico, CA 95927:-
5927:-
Stephens
Stephens Chaktabie, c/o Douglas Gunn 250 West Crest St.; •
EscoAdidO.:CA 920.25 .:. :-
Ulm
Cares Avenue, Chico, CA 96929 Wi d
.Se`:•�•Kriu�an-Parhlly:Trtist,1874
`•4ary
srtidVerry Houser, 2670 C*ns Avenc», Chico, CA 65926=
� '�
Lois C- .: L*e, P.O. Box 1604. Chico,'CA 95927 end Layne Chapman,
P.Q. Box'r.1-, Chico, CA 95927
Adios Requaatid:
'Genrrrsl Plan Arne, ndmenVRezone and Prozgne
Purpose::.:
•,�,� ris 'the General Plan land use desiQnatlorti and tenir� to eenfen"
to reciint Airport Land Use Commission. amendments to Chleo
Municipal Airport Comprehehaive Land Use Plan (CLOP): -
Location: - -.various
Locations.wlthin CLUP.Ctierfllght Zone an4 Outer 6afety Zone
Assessor$ Parcel
SHA -A -
-Portion -of 007-190-022
Site B'
:Portlon!ot047-250-141.
Site C
:004T6�048and 084
2h1LII
-•048-60a.0S5"and 058
MUL6
83
Site
20t
Sita C .
33
= gyp::.
4.5-r
Existing Zcning:
Sitti ..
(P)PMU Prezoned Planned Multipta Use
fi tai
(P)PMU Prazoned Planned Multiple Use
Site Q:.
(P)R-I' Prezoned and torsed Singts-Fs'nlly Resldentiat (SFR)
filigim
R-1 Single-Falinily Residentlal
General Plan Designation::.:
Lew Density Residential
Environmental Review::
Nogative oedarabon
Apr -15-99 07:51 butte Anty planning 530 A 7785 P.05
APA. 14 99 (WE52 *15': 39 C 1 :'Y OF CH: CC COXVUN: Y DEV. DEP: 9166954726 PACE. 3/12
-�, CITY OF CHICO MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission (Mtg 4119/99) DATE: April 5, 1999
PROM:. Senior Planner Hayes (x4853) FILE: GPA 99-2/RZ W2/PRZ 99.1
A. GPA 99-21RZ 99-2 and PRZ 99-1 (City of Chico) To bring certain properties
into conformance with the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive land
Use Plan
1. . SUMMARY
In order to conform the City General Plan and zoning to the Chico Municipal Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP). as amended by the Butts County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC), staff recommends that the Planning Ccmi mission forward a
recommendation to City Council to adopt a negative declaration and approve General
Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2 and Prozone 99-1.
!1. BACKGROUND
'rhis project proposes to amend the General Plan Diagram land use designation and
zoning of several properties affected by recent changes to th* Chico Municipal Airport
. CLUP. State law requires that a CLUP be adopted for each airport facility, with the
purpose of protecting airport facilities and operations by.aurrounding land uses that are
'compatible with them. Local airport land use cornmisslons are charged with.adopting
such CLUPs. Pursuant to Government Cods Section 85456, general plans or any
applicable specific plans must be consistent with a local CLUP adopted by an,ALUC in
accordance with State law.
The Chico Municipal Airport CLUP was originally adopted In 1978 as the Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan. ALUC is currently in the process of preparing a new
CLUP.
The CLUP serves as a guideline for adoption or the revision of all eirport•compatible
land use plans and contains land use compatibility guidelines for height, noise, safety,
ovsrfI!gk, and flight surface restrictions and considerations. The CLUP guidelines are
lncorpvrated into the city and county general plans and land use regulations to
rninlmlzs the public's exposure to safety hazards and excisslvs levels of noise, and to
ensure that no structures effect navigable airspace,
The CLUP provides guidellnes as to the type of land use that should be permitted within
an airport "er" of influence (generally defined as the surrounding area within two mllss
of an airport). The proposed General Plan and zoning changes contained in this
recommendation are consistent with the CLUP and the goals and policies of the Chico
General Plan.
0 •
Apr -15-99 07:51 butte county plannin530 538 7785 P.06
APA. i4 ' 99 (WED; 15: 34 CITY OF CH:C0 COMMUN:"Y Dg DEPT 9:68954726 PACE. 4/". 2
GPA 99.2/PZ 99.1/RZ99.2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99
Page 2
On October 22, 1998 ALUC adopted certain arnsndme.nts to the CLUP, Incorporating
portions of the 1993 City of Chico Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 1150 Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan. The FAR Part 150 Plan assessed noise
impacts of existing and future airport operations and recommended compatible land
uses to reduce noise lmpacts on surrounding land uses. The specific amendments
adopted by ALUC restrict further development of single-family residential housing in
Overflight Prateation Zones A and g and residential development on lots undertwo
acres In site within the Outer Safety Zone. The attached Exhibit A depicts these various
:ones sro the affected properties. in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan
and zoning to the amended CLUP, the General Plan and zoning amendments noted
below are proposed:
Sits A An approximately 6 acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022) which is
designated Low Density Ftssidential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU
Planned Multiple Use. This property is a portion of a sit• planned for a Mixed
Live Neighborhood Core development. The proposal would amend the
General Plan designation from Lew Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential to comply with development rostrletlens for Area 9 of the
Overflight Protvation Zone. The PMU prazoning for Sites A and B are not
proposed to be changed, since any future development of these sites would
be approved through the planned developrr»nt procedures.
Surrounding land use: Single- kfamily residential Is located to the south and
west of the site. Vacant lend is•located to the east and north.
,$ Largest of the four sites, Site S is approximately 20 acres in size and is {orated
within Area 6 of the Overflight Protection Area. It Is designated ss Low
Density Residential in the City General Plan and Is prezoned PMU. Site 8 is a
portion of A.P. 047.250.141. The site Is also a pert of the "Villages' portion of
the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), The County -adopted specific pian
designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The proposed GPA would
emend the general plan desisnatlen for this site to Medium Density
Revidentlal consistent with the NCSP and overnight Protection Zone
restrictions prohibiting single-family residential housing.
Surrounding land use: Young orchards are located to the south and west of
the site. Vacant land is located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses
the northern border of the site and Is leveed at this location.
Sits C Site C contains two parcels, approximately 3 acres In area (A.P.N.s 043.670-
048 and 054, 2070 through 2674 Cares Avenue), located on the east side of
Ceres Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue, The site is
currently designated Low Density Residential and is prezoned and zoned R-1
Single -Family Residential. These parcels are located at the farthest extension
of the Outer Safety Zona (OSZ). The OSZ is a corridor 1000' by 6000'
extending from both ends of the Overflight Protection Zone A. The OSx
defines the primary approach and departure corridor and therefore the area
most impacted by airport operations. The proposed GPA and rezone and
prezone would effectively restrict subdivision of the properties to develop at
Apr -15-99 07:52 butte county planning 530 538 7785 P.07
APR. 14 '99 (WED* 15:34 CITY Oi CHICO CONOCUNI'.Y DEV. DEPT 9:689547$6 PACE. 5,` 2
GPA 99-2/PZ 99.1/RZ99.2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19/99
Pa e 3
greater density. The subject parcels are proposed to be redesignated frorn
Low Denstty Residential to Vary Low Density Residential and rezoned and
prezoned from R-1 Single -Family Residentlal to AS -2 Suburban Residential,
Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
Surrounding land use: Site C Is surrounded by single-family residential
daivelopmant,
Site D
Site D contains two parcels tA.P.N s 048.600-055 and 056, 2706 and 2747 Floral
Avenue) ranging In sisa from 2 to 2.6 acres and both developed with a single-
family residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue some 100 feet
south of Glenshire Lane. The parcels are designated Low Density Residential
and zoned FW Single -Family Residential. The proposed General Plan
amendment and rezone would effectively restrict subdivision of the properties
to develop at greeter density. She 0 parcels we proposed to be redesignated
from Low Denshy Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoned
from R-1 single -Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential, Two Aare
Minimum Lot Size.
Surrounding lend use: Single-family resfdential development also surrounds
Site D.
Page 6 of the fetter from ALUC (Attachment D) explains that when a CLOP is amended,
:f... es was done by ALUC lest October, Stbte law requires that Chico's General Plan be
brought into conformance with those ainamdments within 180 days. If the City does not
con6ur with the amendments, it has the option of adopting overrlding findings instead.
VMhere ALUC finds that tha City has neither revised its general plan nor adopted such
findings, it may require that the City submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and
permits to ALUC for its review until one of these options is completed. On March 17,
1988, ALUC adopted a motion to require such submittals.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A negative declaretion' Is proposed for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEGA). No potentially significant Impacts were identified
In the Initial study as a result of the GPAJRetona/Prezone, The initial study is attached -
for reference.
IV. GENERAL PIAN
The proposed amendments are consistent with the following General Plan policies:
L U-0.31 Protect the City's investment in the Municipal Airport end promote siiDort'
related development in the Airport industrial Park end Airport Environs.
LU -0-92 Sefequerd the Chico Municipal Airport and its environs front 1»tVsion by
uses that could limit expansion of air services to meet future evletlon needs.
GPA 99.2/PZ 99.1/RZ99.•2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19199
Page v
LU -Q-33 Prevent development in the Akpors environs that will pose hazards to
sviet/on or interfero with or endanger the landing, Coking off, or maneuvering
of aircraft.
LU4.47 Ensure that the ,Ali -port Environs Plan and the General Plan are consistent
and adopt and implement en Airport Noise Compatibility Program pursuant
to Pert ISO of the Fedare/ AViation Regulations.
LU -148 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and /and use regulation* designed to
promote compatible development of the Airport end its environs. Such
regulAprions prevent development that would pose on airport hazard by
ettab/lshing height limits and use restrictions and inning districts Chet are
sp dross Ar intended to promote compatible airport -related development.
V. ANALYSIS
Both the General Plan and State law affirm the directive to strive for consistency
between the Airport Comprehensive lend Use Plan and the City General Plan. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the ALUC amendments to the CLOP, Sites
A and 8 would be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Medium Density Residential development would be consistent with the
location of the sites in proximity to nelghtforhood mixed use cores. Because both sites
would only be developed In conjunctidn with approval of planned developments,
conditions will be stipulated requiring muitlple-family residential development,
V.,execution of avigatlon easements. Ond requirements for disclosure of aircraft overflight.
'`Although It is anticipated that both sites will develop In the City In order to extend
sanitary sewers, both are now In the unincorported area. As noted earlier, the North
Chico Specific Plan adopted by Butte County shows Site 8 designated for Medium
Density Residential, Therefore. the proposed amendment for Site 8 would be
consistent with the specific plan as well as the CLOP.
This ALUC preference for multiple family residential housing over single. family
ownership housing is based on the more temporary nature of rental housing. Renters
who are uncomfortable with the noise or frequency of overflight can more readily
choose to reside elsewhere than can homeowners. in addition, noise attenuation and
Impacts can be mors readily reduced in multiple family residential construction.
Sites C and D are developed with single-family residences and are within an area
@Xclusively developed with such housing. These sites would be redesignated from Low
Density Residential (2.1 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Density Residential
1.2 to 2 dwelling units per acre). Zoning of these parcels, however, would further
restrict development consistent with the ALUC amendments, restricting new single-
family residential development to one dwelling unit per two scree. Sites C and D ars
the only remaining residential parcels within the Outer Safety Zone not already
developed or In the process of development. Although only one parcel remains In the
County, all were originally developed In the County. The large. parcel sizes
characteristic of this early development In this area accommodated septic systems and
a seml-rural lifestyle. The most significant effect of the proposed amendments will be
Apr -15-99 07:53
butte county
planning
530 538 7785 P.08
APR. 14 99 CwEC: 15:35
C::Y CF CH:CO
COMht:>l1-Y DTVDEP-
9/68954726 FACE. 6/12
GPA 99.2/PZ 99.1/RZ99.•2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19199
Page v
LU -Q-33 Prevent development in the Akpors environs that will pose hazards to
sviet/on or interfero with or endanger the landing, Coking off, or maneuvering
of aircraft.
LU4.47 Ensure that the ,Ali -port Environs Plan and the General Plan are consistent
and adopt and implement en Airport Noise Compatibility Program pursuant
to Pert ISO of the Fedare/ AViation Regulations.
LU -148 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and /and use regulation* designed to
promote compatible development of the Airport end its environs. Such
regulAprions prevent development that would pose on airport hazard by
ettab/lshing height limits and use restrictions and inning districts Chet are
sp dross Ar intended to promote compatible airport -related development.
V. ANALYSIS
Both the General Plan and State law affirm the directive to strive for consistency
between the Airport Comprehensive lend Use Plan and the City General Plan. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the ALUC amendments to the CLOP, Sites
A and 8 would be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. Medium Density Residential development would be consistent with the
location of the sites in proximity to nelghtforhood mixed use cores. Because both sites
would only be developed In conjunctidn with approval of planned developments,
conditions will be stipulated requiring muitlple-family residential development,
V.,execution of avigatlon easements. Ond requirements for disclosure of aircraft overflight.
'`Although It is anticipated that both sites will develop In the City In order to extend
sanitary sewers, both are now In the unincorported area. As noted earlier, the North
Chico Specific Plan adopted by Butte County shows Site 8 designated for Medium
Density Residential, Therefore. the proposed amendment for Site 8 would be
consistent with the specific plan as well as the CLOP.
This ALUC preference for multiple family residential housing over single. family
ownership housing is based on the more temporary nature of rental housing. Renters
who are uncomfortable with the noise or frequency of overflight can more readily
choose to reside elsewhere than can homeowners. in addition, noise attenuation and
Impacts can be mors readily reduced in multiple family residential construction.
Sites C and D are developed with single-family residences and are within an area
@Xclusively developed with such housing. These sites would be redesignated from Low
Density Residential (2.1 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Density Residential
1.2 to 2 dwelling units per acre). Zoning of these parcels, however, would further
restrict development consistent with the ALUC amendments, restricting new single-
family residential development to one dwelling unit per two scree. Sites C and D ars
the only remaining residential parcels within the Outer Safety Zone not already
developed or In the process of development. Although only one parcel remains In the
County, all were originally developed In the County. The large. parcel sizes
characteristic of this early development In this area accommodated septic systems and
a seml-rural lifestyle. The most significant effect of the proposed amendments will be
Apr -15-99 07:54 butte county planning 530 538 7785 P.09
APA. :4 99 fwE:J) 1� 35 CITY Or CH:CC COWAUN:TY DBv. 7EPT 9168954726 PACE. 7/i2
GPA 99-21PZ 99-1/FtZ99.2
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/19199
Page 3
the inability of the property ownsrs of parcels Sites C and D to further subdivide and
develop their prop•r'tYheAenC biieves that t d by furthersmandments will result In developmentdQ •Iopment of the parcels reduced
external impacts from Pa
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Planning pivision staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend' that the
City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 98-2.
Rezone 00.2 and Prezone W1, finding that the proposed change is consistent with the
policies, standards, and lend uses specified in the General Plan.
1. The recommended general pian amendments and zone changes are consistent
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport as
iimended October 22, 1998.
The proposed general plan designetlons and zone chenpee will encourage
development of certain properties with uses that ere consistent with the uses
recommended for specific safety areas In the CLOP.
2. The recommended general plan amendments and sono changes are consistent
with City of Chico General Plan policies, standards, and land uses speclfled in the
General Pian and any applicable jpkific plan,
The recommended general plan amendments and tone changes will assist In
protecting the future operation of airport, promote compatible uses with the airport
operatlons, prevent development which is hazardous to aviation, and assist to
implement the Airport Noise Compatibility Program,
3. The Planning Commission, after considering the proposed Negative Declaration,
the recommendation of the Planning Director thereon, the lnitlsl study, comments
received and other Information contained in the administrative record compiled to
the date of Planning Cbmmisslon meeting. recommends that the Clty Councli
adopt a negative declerstlon for the proposed general, plan amendments and zone
changes.
Prgp2sed Mgticw
I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for City Couneil
neral
n Amendment
Pratos - a negative declaration and approval of d Rezone 99.2 subject to the findings aselisted IniaSeetion VI of the staff
Prezone 99 1 e
report dated March 30, 1999.
Respectively submitted,
Tom ayes
Senior Planner.
Apr -15-99.07:54 butte Awt y planning 530 538 7785 P.10
A?A 14 99 04= 15:36 C1'.V OF CH:CO C xm-UNiTY JtY. UYYT Y16dYy4'Y� YALE. 8/12"
GPA 99-2/PZ 99.1/RZ99.2
Planning Comm, Mt9 6119/99
'
Page 6 r
ATTACHMENTS ,
A. Overall Location Map
B. Site Location Map*
C. Initial Study
D. Latter. from ALUC staff, dated October 22, 1998 r
cc: ,8utU County ALUC
Sergio and. Marla Orestano, P.O. Box 8997, Chico, CA 95927
Stephens Charitable, c%o Douglas Gunn, 260 -West Ctast St., Escondido, CA 92025
Kirkman Family Trust, 2874 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 96926
Gary and Jerry Mousier, 267o cons Avenue, Ch1co, CA 95928
Lola C. Lee, P.O. sox :1804, Chico, CA. 95927
,
Layne Chapman, P.O. Box 71, Chico, CA. 93927
Rocky Campbell, 794 Marcia Ct. Chico, CA 95973 '
CM/RM
;
r
• r
err
� W 'I.- ww.
•
fell
AL
IVY
I
ho
Apr -15-99 07:56 butte county planning 530 538 7785 P.13
rWfen c LVUM'-Y DE DEPT 9'68954'/'L6 r�c:e. :;/I id
Ex
mww%l L31omrwA M
F]
INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT D'
City of Chico
Environmental Coordination and Review
ROUTE TO:
[ X ] City of Chico- City Council
[ X ] City of Chico - Planning Commission
[ X ] Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
[ X ] City of Chico Airport Commission
.1: Project Description
A. Project Name: Land Use Changes for Consistency with
Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan (CMAEP)
B. Project Location:
Site A Approximately 6 acres located easterly of the intersection of Morseman Avenue and
Eaton Road (portion of A.P. 007-190-022).
Site B Approximately 20 acres located southerly of Mud Creek and westerly of Hicks Lane
(portion of A.P. 047-250-141).
Site C Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area located on the east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue (A.P.N.s 048-670-048 and
054; 2670, 2772, and 2674 Ceres Avenue).
Site D Two parcels ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single
family residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue approximately 100
feet south of Glenshire Lane (A.P.N.s 048-600=055 and 056; 2705 and 2747
Floral Avenue)
C. Type of Application(s):
Site A General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2A), changing the General Plan designation
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply with
development restrictions for Area B of the Overflight Area.
Site B General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-213), changing the General Plan designation
from.Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, consistent with the
County adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP).
Site C General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2C), changing the general plan. designation
from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Prezone change
(PZ 99-1) for 2670 Ceres amending the prezoning from R-1 Single Family
Residential to RS -2, Suburban Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
City of Chico Initial. Study • •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 2
Rezone Change (RZ 99-2A) for 2672 and 2674 Ceres, rezoning the propertyfrom R-1
Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential -.Two Acre Minimum Lot
Size.
Site D General Plan Amendment (GPA 99-2D), .changing the general plan designation
from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Rezone (RZ 99-
B) amending the zoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban
Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
D. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): See project location, above.
E. Current Zoning:
Site A City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU) ,
County: Suburban Residential (SR)
Site B City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU) +
County: Medium Density Residential (R-2)
Site C City: 2672 and 2674 Ceres are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential
2670 Ceres is prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential
County: 2670 is zoned Suburban Residential (SR)
Site D City: R-1 Single Family Residential
General Plan Designation:
Site A Low Density Residential
Site B Low Density Residential
`Site C Low Density Residential
Site D Low Density Residential
F. .Environmental Setting:
Site A Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature landscaping/orchards
trees. The site is identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory
performed by Michael Brandman Associates for the 1.992 Master Environmental Assessment.
Trees are located generally on the western and southern periphery of the site and would be well
located to accommodate preservation with future development. Aerial photographs from 1991
(1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on the central
portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands.
were not observed due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle which
obscured ground visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 aerial, and/or the possibility that the,
wetlands had been filled.
City of Chico Initial Study r
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 3
Site B Site B contains non-native grassland. It contains no visible trees and appears to be previously
graded or cleared., Mud Creek is located adjacent to the site to the north and is leveed at this
location.
Site C is currently developed with three single family residential homes.
Site D is currently developed with two single family residential homes.
G. Project Description: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan (CMAEP). These amendments adopted portions of the City of Chico 1993 FAR
Part 150 Study. Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer Safety Zone (refer to
attached map, Ekhibit A). along with tekt regulating appropriate land uses in these
zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable
specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The specific amendments adopted by
ALUC restrict further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and
residential development on lots under two acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone.
In order to conform the City of Chico General Plan and zoning to the amended CMAEP,
the General Plan and zoning amendments �noted below are proposed:
Site A is an approximately six (6) acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022) which
is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned
Mixed Use. This site is a portion of, a site planned for a Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center. The proposal would amend the General Plan designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply with development restrictions for
Area B of the Overflight Area.
The initial study, presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
Site B - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and is located
within Area B of the Overflight Area. It is designated Low Density Residential in the City
General Plan and is prezoned PMU. ' Site 2 is a portion of A.P. 047-250-141. The site
is also a part of the "Villages" portion of the North Chico, Specific Plan (NCSP). The
County adopted Specific Plan designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The
proposed GPA would amend this site to Medium Density Residential consistent with the
NCSP. Prezohing is proposed to remain:unchanged.at this time, since both the site
requires that future development occur as planned developments, at which time zoning
would be specified. -
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico.Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 4
The initial study presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
Site C - Site D contains two parcels, approximately 3 .acres in area (A.P.N.s
048-670-048 and 054, 2670 and 2674 Ceres Avenue), located on the east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue. The site is currently designated
for Low Density Residential and is prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels are
located within the Outer Safety Zone and are developed with three single existing single
family residences. The proposed GPA and PZ'would effectively restrict subdivision of
the property to develop at greater density.
Site D- Site D contains 2 parcels (A.P.N.s 048-600-055 and 056, 2705 and 2747 Floral
Avenue) ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single family
residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue approximately 100 feet south of
Glenshire Lane. The parcels are designated Low Density Residential and zoned R=1.
The proposed General Plan amendment and rezone would effectively restrict
subdivision of the property to develop at greater density.
H. Surrounding Land Uses:
Site A Single family residential is located to the south and west of the site. Vacant land
is located to the north and east.
Site B Young orchards are located to the south and west of the site. Vacant land is
located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses the northern border of the
site and is leveed at this location.
Site C Site 3 is surrounded by single family residential development.
Site D Site 4 is surrounded by single family residential development.
Public Agency Approvals: The City of Chico Planning Commission will make a
recommendation. prior to City Council action on the GPA,
prezone, and rezone applications.
J. Applicant:
City of Chico
Address:
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95926
K. Initiated By:
Tom Hayes, Senior Planner
Contact:
Tom Hayes, Senior Planner
Prepared By:
Stacey Jolliffe, Senior Planner
City of Chico Initial. Study • •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
( ] Geophysical Factors [ ] Cultural Resources ( ] Energy and Natural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ J Open Space/Recreation [ ] Economic Factors
[ J Hydrological Factors [ ) Hazards [ ] Transportation/Circulation
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Noise/Light and Glare [ ] Public Services
[ j Land Use and Planning
PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[ X j I find that the proposed project COULD NOThave a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ J I find that although the proposed projectcould have a significant effect on the environment, thele
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measuresdescribed herein have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but at least ore
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards. Any such effect(s) has been addressed by mitigation measuresbased on the earlier
analysis as described herein. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[ ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, thele
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have bees
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and have.been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
iignature/
Printed N me
3 - zL/- C) g
Date
For
City of Chico Initial Study • i
Project . Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 6 '
2. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the proposed project will
have or potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it°is based on project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on
established threshold inertia).
• All answers must take into account all phases of project planning, implementation and operation,
including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operation impacts.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made an EIR is required.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact" The initial study will describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 4, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross-referenced). .
-t
r
• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section
155063(c)(3)(D)j. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 4 at the end of the checklist.
• Initial studies may incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. the general
plan or zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
A source list attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. ,
_ 1
Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the proposed project will
have or potentially have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it°is based on project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on
established threshold inertia).
• All answers must take into account all phases of project planning, implementation and operation,
including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operation impacts.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made an EIR is required.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact" The initial study will describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 4, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross-referenced). .
-t
r
• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section
155063(c)(3)(D)j. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 4 at the end of the checklist.
• Initial studies may incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. the general
plan or zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
A source list attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted are cited in the discussion. ,
City of Chico Initial Study • , 1 •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 7
DISCUSSION: All subject sites are relatively flat and contain no unique geologic features. Mud Creek is located
on the northerly boundary of site B; therefore, future development would be required to provide a 100' setback from
the top of bank.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
B. Biological Resources: Will the project or its. Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant X
or animal officially listed as threatened or
endangered?
2. Substantial loss or degradation of any habitat X
identified as sensitive in the MEA?
3. Substantial interference with the movement of any X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species?
4.. Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for a X
fish, wildlife, or plant species?
5. Substantial fragmentation of large areas of X
contiguous wildlife habitat?
6. Increase in the danger of fire hazard in areas with X
flammable grass, brush, or trees?
DISCUSSION: Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature. landscaping/orchards trees. The site is
identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by .the City's biological inventory performed by Michael Brandman
Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment. Trees are located generally on the western and
southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future development.
Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on
the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands were
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
A. Geophysical Factors: Will the project or its Significant
Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Substantial change in topography or unstable soil
X
conditions due to excavating, grading or filing?
2. The destruction, covering, or modification of any
X.
unusual or unique geologic or physical features?
3. Any changes in wind or water erosion of soils or
X
sands or any erosion which may modify the channel
of a waterway or other body of water? (Water
Quality is discussed in Section C.)
4. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
X
such. as earthquakes, expansive soils, volcanic
hazards, liquefaction hazards, land subsidence,
slope instability, or similar hazards?
DISCUSSION: All subject sites are relatively flat and contain no unique geologic features. Mud Creek is located
on the northerly boundary of site B; therefore, future development would be required to provide a 100' setback from
the top of bank.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
B. Biological Resources: Will the project or its. Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant X
or animal officially listed as threatened or
endangered?
2. Substantial loss or degradation of any habitat X
identified as sensitive in the MEA?
3. Substantial interference with the movement of any X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species?
4.. Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for a X
fish, wildlife, or plant species?
5. Substantial fragmentation of large areas of X
contiguous wildlife habitat?
6. Increase in the danger of fire hazard in areas with X
flammable grass, brush, or trees?
DISCUSSION: Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater, at
least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and several other mature. landscaping/orchards trees. The site is
identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by .the City's biological inventory performed by Michael Brandman
Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment. Trees are located generally on the western and
southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future development.
Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature (150' diameter) on
the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands were
City of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 8
not observed due perhaps to' the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle which obscured ground
visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 aerial, and/or the possibility that the wetlands had been filled. In any case,
prior to site development and in conjunction with future subdivision map application, a wetlands investigations
should be performed by a qualified wetlands specialist to determine whether jurisdictional wetland occur on the
project site.
Site B also contains non-native grassland. It contains no visible trees and appears to be previously graded or
cleared. Mud Creek is located adjacent to the site to the north and is leveed at this location. Future development
will be required to setback 100' from the top of bank for compliance with the City's General Plan, which could
influence_ the site to develop at the lower end of density range for medium density residential development.
Sites C and C are currently developed with single family residential homes; the proposed project changes will have
no effect on biological resources on these sites.
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and B are zoned planned mixed use and require a use permit for future.
development The use permit will trigger environmental review which, for site A, will require wetland investigation
to determine to .what extent, if any, wetlands are present on the site. The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
requires permits for the fill of wetlands over one-third of an acre. If wetlands are identified, permits and mitigation
are required in compliance with existing Corps standards.
On site A, if wetlands are identified,. then the project applicant is required to meet the City's no net to ss of wetlands
policy OS -1-28 through the construction of wetlands or the payment of in lieu fees at a ratio of 1:1 (wetlands
destroyed: wetlands constructed) prior to the issuance of grading permits or other construction activity on site A.
DISCUSSION: The project will not redirect a waterway or stream channel. Development of sites A and B as
medium density residential sites could generate additional runoff as compared to the existing
single family residential designation. However, adequate capacity exists in Mud Creek and
Sycamore Creek to receive this runoff. The rezone of sites A and B to medium density residential
would not substantially change the water quality or flood protection provisions required for single
family residential.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
C.
Hydrological Factors: Will the project or its Significant
Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1.
Changes in the course or direction of water
X
.
movements?.
2.
'Generation of runoff from new development that
- X
exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains
or substantial obstruction to groundwater recharge?
3.
Exposure of people or property to flood hazard?
X
4.
Generation of .pollutants or sedimentation which
X
would affect surface or subsurface water quality?
5.
Development of five acres or more as defined by
X
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Permitting Process (NPDES)?
DISCUSSION: The project will not redirect a waterway or stream channel. Development of sites A and B as
medium density residential sites could generate additional runoff as compared to the existing
single family residential designation. However, adequate capacity exists in Mud Creek and
Sycamore Creek to receive this runoff. The rezone of sites A and B to medium density residential
would not substantially change the water quality or flood protection provisions required for single
family residential.
City of Chico Initial Study • `
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 9
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and Bare larger than 5 acres in size and therefore are required to comply with.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination permitting Processes during development.
All future development will be required to provide Best Management Practices (BMPs)for the protection of water
quality..
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
D., Air Quality,., Factors:. Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Generating pollutants (hydrocarbon, thermal, odor, X
smoke, radiation, etc.) which would deteriorate -
ambient air quality? -
' 2. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant concentrations?
- 3. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or X
temperature, or any change in climate locally or
regionally?
4. Inconsistency with air quality related plans (e.g.,. X
Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin 1994 Air
Quality Attainment Plan; and Chico Urban Area CO
Attainment Plan)? .
DISCUSSION: Additional traffic and air quality analysis will be required for subdivision or development of sites A
and B to determine how best to'mitigate air quality impacts associated with a specific development proposal. (The
proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone effectively limits future subdivision of sites C and D for additional densities.)
Increases in vehicle trips as described in section K, Transportation, would result in marginal increases in air qualit y
emissions. Given the scale of the density changes, however, increases in vehicle emissions would not be
considered potentially significant given the incorporation of specific measures to control construction dust Indirect
Source Review Guidelines administered locally by the Butte. County Air Quality Management District indicate that
multi -family housing projects become "significant" polluters, after site specific provisions to control construction
dust, only when the development contains over 700 units.
F
City of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
E. Land Use Planning: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities be inconsistent with: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. General Plan or Specific Plan. policies, or zoning X
regulations?
2. General Plan population growth rates for its X
planning areas in conjunction with other recently
approve development?
I Result in substantial conflict with the established X
character, aesthetics or : functioning of the
surrounding community?
4. Be a part of a larger project involving a series of X
cumulative actions?
5. Result in displacement of people or business X
activity?
6. Conversion of viable prime agricultural land to non= X
agricultural use, or substantial conflicts with existing
agricultural operations? (Viable agricultural land is
defined as land on Class I or Class II agricultural
soils of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on no more
than one side to existing urban development.)
DISCUSSION: 'On,October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The
CMAEP is intended, in the most general terms, to protect the airport from land use intrusions
which would hinder or displace airport operations. The proposed amendments adopted portions
of the City of Chico 1993 FAR Part 150 Study. Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer
Safety Zone (refer to attached map, Exhibit A) along with text regulating appropriate land uses
in these zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable
specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended pursuant to
Public Utilities Code Section 21675. The specific amendments adopted by ALUC restrict
further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and residential development
on lots under two acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The General Plan and zoning
amendments discussed herein are proposed in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan
and zoning to the amended CMAEP.
As the project sites are vacant and without agricultural operations, no displacement of existing
uses will occur.. All land is currently designated for urban development.
City of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 11
DISCUSSION: The project sites contain no buildings or other readily -apparent evidence of previous historic
occupation. The sites would require records searches with the Northeast Information Center prior to subdivision
or development
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
Less Than
F. Cultural Factors: Will the project or its related • Significant
Mitigation Significant
No
activities: Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
1. Disrupt or adversely affect historical buildings or
X
sites?
2. Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic
X
archaeological site or a property or historical or
X
cultural significance to a community, or ethnic or
social group?
X
3. Disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site
X
except as part of a scientific study?
DISCUSSION: The project sites contain no buildings or other readily -apparent evidence of previous historic
occupation. The sites would require records searches with the Northeast Information Center prior to subdivision
or development
DISCUSSION: None of the project sites are designated as open space, a scenic vista -point, a community
recreation area or agricultural land. None of .the sites contain unique, resources which would lead to such
designations.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
G. Open Space/Recreation: Will the project or its Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
related activities: Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
1. Affect an officially. designated scenic vista -point,
X
scenic highway or corridor or other unique aesthetic
value?
2. Affect an important existing or potential community
X
recreation area?
3.. Affect lands preserved under an agricultural, scenic,
X
or open space contract or easement?
DISCUSSION: None of the project sites are designated as open space, a scenic vista -point, a community
recreation area or agricultural land. None of .the sites contain unique, resources which would lead to such
designations.
- y City of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 12
DISCUSSION: Nothing in the proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone would substantially change the risk of
developing the project sites. No hazards are known to exist on the project sites; additional environmental will occu r
in conjunction with the development of sites A and B.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
I. Noise/Light and'Glare: Will the project or its Significant
Significant
related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
Potentially Unless
Less Than
H. Hazards: Will the project or its related
Significant Mitigation
Significant No
activities:
Impact Incorporated
Impact Impact
1. Present a hazard to people or property from risk of
X
explosion or release of hazardous substances
hospitals, schools) to exterior noise levels of 60
either on site or in transit, in the event of accident or
3. Significant new light or glare impacts on the site or
otherwise?
surrounding area?
2. Result in the creation of health hazards, or potential
X
health hazards, or in the increased exposure of
people to existing or potential health hazards?
3. Increase the danger of fire hazard in areas with
X
flammable grass, brush or trees?
4. Expose people or property to wind hazards?
X,
DISCUSSION: Nothing in the proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone would substantially change the risk of
developing the project sites. No hazards are known to exist on the project sites; additional environmental will occu r
in conjunction with the development of sites A and B.
DISCUSSION: Development of sites A and B at higher densities will generate no substantial differences in noise,
light, and glare, as compared to single-family residential densities. Potential differences in traffic, as evaluated in
section K, Transportation, are not substantial enough to change nosie levels. Lighting, and associated glare,,is
required to meet City Municipal Code standards whereby light is not permitted to spill onto adjacent property.
y
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
I. Noise/Light and'Glare: Will the project or its Significant
Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Exposure of residents in new hotels, motels,
X
apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-
family dwellings) to interior noise levels (CNEL)
higher than,, 45 dBA in any habitable room with
windows closed?
2. Exposure of sensitive receptors (residential, parks,
X r
hospitals, schools) to exterior noise levels of 60
dBA L or higher?
3. Significant new light or glare impacts on the site or
X
surrounding area?
DISCUSSION: Development of sites A and B at higher densities will generate no substantial differences in noise,
light, and glare, as compared to single-family residential densities. Potential differences in traffic, as evaluated in
section K, Transportation, are not substantial enough to change nosie levels. Lighting, and associated glare,,is
required to meet City Municipal Code standards whereby light is not permitted to spill onto adjacent property.
y
City of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 13
' Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
J. Energy and Natural. Resources: Will the project Significant Mitigation Significant No
or its related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact .
1. Affect the use, extraction or conservation of any X
natural resources?
2. Use an excessive amount of,fuel' or energy or ' ' X
require development of new sources of energy?
DISCUSSION- The project is very minor as compared to overall development within the urban area.
5. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for X
new parking not provided for by the project?
6. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, X
pedestrian or other traffic?
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPAs and rezones will, relative to city plans, effectively allow greater density of
future development for sites A and B, from single family to multi -family densities. They will restrict future
subdivision of sites C and D for additional residential density. For site A, -the proposed GPA and rezone could
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
K. Transportation/Circulation Factors: Will the. Significant
Mitigation Significant No
project or its related activities result in: Impact
` Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Traffic volumes which exceed established Level of.
X_ -
Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments or
at intersections, or which do not meet applicable
safety standards? Based on proposed General Plan ,
policies, significant impacts would generally result '
if traffic exceeded LOS C on residential streets,
LOS D on arterialand collector
streetsfintersections, and . (under specific
circumstances) LOS E in built -out areas served by
transit
2. The absence of bikeway facilities in the general '.
X
locations identified in the General Plan, consistent
with guidelines in the Chico Urban Area Bicycle
Plan, or failure to meet applicable design
requirements and safety standards?
3. Travel characteristics which are not consistent with
X
standards established in the 'Butte County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP), or other
General Plan policies related to Transportation
Systems Management (TSM)?
4. Substantial impact on existing or proposed public •
X,
transit systems including waterborne, rail and air
traffic?
5. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for X
new parking not provided for by the project?
6. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, X
pedestrian or other traffic?
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPAs and rezones will, relative to city plans, effectively allow greater density of
future development for sites A and B, from single family to multi -family densities. They will restrict future
subdivision of sites C and D for additional residential density. For site A, -the proposed GPA and rezone could
City of Chico Initial Study • •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 14
permit an additional 42 housing units from that allowed under current conditions. For site B, an additional 140 units
could be permitted. These additional densities, if actualized, would generate additional vehicle trips on area
roadways. Single-family development is assumed to generate, on average, ten vehicle trips per day, including on e
peak hour trip. Multi -family development is assumed to generate, on average, seven vehicle trips per day, including
one peak hour trip.
Subdivision and development on both sites A and B are subject to additional environmental review. Both sites are
within a planned mixed use (PMU) city zoning designation, therefore, a use permit and accompanying
environmental review will be required for all subdivision or development on these sites. The City's General Plan
requires a traffic analysis for projects generating over, 75 peak hour trips, and both sites, will exceed this criterion
when developed in conjunction with the overall parcel. Site A is a portion of an 18 acre parcel, and site B is a,
portion of a 300 acre parcel; both are anticipated to contain neighborhood commercial cores. .
It should be noted that site B is currently zoned as R-2, medium density residential, under County jurisdiction,
consistent with the Northeast Chico Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed GPA and prezone change for this
property represents no change from existing County plans. Also, a worse case scenario is presented for illustrative
purposes; it is very likely that the project sites would develop at below the maximum permitted density range given
current and foreseeable market conditions.
Potential density changes associated with the proposed GPA, prezone, and rezone would have no substantial
effect on bike way plans, congestion management plans, or public transit as they are minor in scale. Any additiona I
parking demand or transportation hazards that could be generated by site specific development would be
addressed through compliance with the City's Municipal Code.
EXISTING REGULATION: City of Chico General Plan, Table 5.6-1, requires traffic analysis for projects ge nerating
75 peak hour vehicle trips or more. Chico Municipal Code, Title 19.28 specifies parking regulations.
DISCUSSION: The potential increase of 182 residential units as compared to the density currently permitted on
sites A and B could generate marginal increases in the need for public services. Police and fire services are
evaluated annually in conjunction with the City's budget cycle. Additional funding is allocated as necessary to
achieve acceptable police and fire service, including reasonable response times. Fees for parks and schools are
collected on a per residential unit basis, which offset potential impacts from increases in housing density. The
proposed GPAs and prezones are not anticipated to substantially change the need for maintenance of public
facilities.
Potentially
L.
Public Service Factors: Will the,project or its
Significant
related activities have an effect upon or result in Potentially
Unless
Less Than
a need for altered governmental services in any Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
of the following areas: Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
1.
Fire protection?
X
2.
Police protection?
X
3.
Schools?
X
4.
Parks and recreation facilities? (See Section G:
X
Open.Space/Recreation)
5.
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads,
X
canals,,etc.?
6.
Other government services?
X
DISCUSSION: The potential increase of 182 residential units as compared to the density currently permitted on
sites A and B could generate marginal increases in the need for public services. Police and fire services are
evaluated annually in conjunction with the City's budget cycle. Additional funding is allocated as necessary to
achieve acceptable police and fire service, including reasonable response times. Fees for parks and schools are
collected on a per residential unit basis, which offset potential impacts from increases in housing density. The
proposed GPAs and prezones are not anticipated to substantially change the need for maintenance of public
facilities.
s w
City of Chico Initial Study •
,•
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 15
Potentially
M.- Public Utility Factors.: Will the project or its
Significant
related activities have an effect upon or result in Potentially
Unless
. Less Than
- a need for new systems or substantial Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
alterations to the following utilities: Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
1. _ Sewer or septic systems?
x
2. Water for domestic use and fire protection? '
x
3. Natural gas, electricity, or telephone?
x
4. ,Storm water drainage? (See Section C.
x
Hydrological Factors)
5. Solid waster disposal?
x
6. Communication systems?
x
7. Plant facilities for any of the'above (sewer plants,
x
microwave station, water, etc.)?
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPA, rezone, and prezone could marginally increase the need for public utilities to
the degree additional densities are actualized on sites A and B. The
subdivision approval process ensures
adequate provision of public utilities to the site, the costs of which is borne by project applicants/developers.
h
•
t
city of Chico Initial Study •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page.16
3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the
`environment if any of the following are true:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality
X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
2. The project has possible environmental effects
.X
which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual project
are considerable when viewed in- connection with
the effects of past, current and probable future
projects.
3. The environmental effects of a project will cause
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
DISCUSSION: As supported by the above discussion, the additional density that could be permitted as a result
of the proposed GPA, rezone, and prezone will not have a substantial effect on area resources.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal AirportEnvirons Plan Amendments
Page 17
4. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section
15063(c)(3)(D)]. Inthis case a discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
C. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
5. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
All significant or potentially significant impacts indicated inSection 2 -above have been described
and feasible mitigation measures recommended wherever possible. Any participant of the Initial
Study may also make a recommendation as to whether a Negative Declaration, a Negative
Declaration with mitigation measures, more study in a particular area, or an EIR should be
prepared. Please indicate any source date relied upon and your name and date of comments
in the space indicated. Use additional pages if necessary.
Reviewed by: . , �y on -3 _L Z — 9%` (date)
Department:
Reviewed by: on (date)
Department:
City of Chico Initial Study • •
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 18
6. PROJECT'S SPONSOR'S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT:
I have reviewed. the Initial Study for the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
project and any mitigation measures identified herein. I hereby will modify the project on file wifi
the City of Chico Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigation set forth in this
Initial Study.
Not Applicable --No mitigation recommended
REFERENCES:
• . City of Chico General Plan, .1994.
• City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment, Blaney Dyett/Michael Brandman
Associates, January, 1994.
• City of Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell, December 1985.
• Final EIR for Adoption of the Chico Urban Area Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage
Master Plans, Northwest annexation, and General Plan Amendments North of.Lindo Channel,
Jones & Stokes, November 1992.
• California Natural Diversity Data Base Map, California Department of Fish and Game.
Note: The above referenced information is available for public review at the City of Chico Planning
Division, 411 Main Street, Chico, California.
General Plan Amendment 99-Z
Rezone 99-Z and
Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico)
Rural Res.
Very Low Density Res.
Low Density Res.
�J Medium Density Res.
Medium High Density Res.
® High Density Res.
Mixed Use Neighborhood Core
Community Commercail
Commercial Services
Office
Manufacturing & Warehousing
Industrial Park
Downtown
Visitor Services
Public Facilities & Services
(— Open SpacelRM
LJ Open Space Environ. Con./Safety
Creekside Greenways
Parks
(Q1
2000 0 2000 Feet
Surface , ._ _.. r_ .... .....,
0
GIS
s
Kim
ISIM
NU
iii'♦ Site A
���i ���� �°;•`:� ,•' ••��i �!,�• ♦`♦�� �� �� ��` '•, .��1
� 1 �O � d ♦ ' . !I/��� �VIIIII
A.P. Nos. 007-190-022 (portion)
GP: From Low Density Residential to
Medium Density, Residential
y Ar
gr, 'IF
co
ME
j� '�♦ I�� ♦° �`�, :1 ���! ■ •�i�9= =pull
a�
=�_dmwl
-`General_ Plan Amendment 99-2, (City of Chico)
500. 0 .500 1 500 Feet
General Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2
and Prezone 99-1 (City of Chico)
j
500 0 500 Feet