HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC_OCTOBER_2001AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CORRESPONDENCE - September 12 — October 9; 2001
LJ
Date
Received
/Sent
Incoming To
Outgoing To
From
Subject
9/12/01
ALUC
City of Chico
Airport Land Use Planning
Seminar / Sep. 17, 2001
9/13/01
ALUC
Tom Buford, Interim
Director -DDS
Memo re: Landmark
Church
10/01/01
ALUC
Century 21 / Ken Duvall
Copy of letter sent by Ken
Duvall to Leverenz &
Ferris re: Disclosure Doc.
10/01/01
ALUC
Century 21 / Nancy
Wolfe
Disclosure Document
comments '
10/01/01
ALUC
Leverenz & Ferris /
Timothy D. Ferris
Disclosure Document
comments
10/01/01
Ken Duvall / Century 21
Norm Rosene, Chair
ALUC
Disclosure Document
res onse
10/01/01
Tom Buford, Interim
Director / Development
Services
Norm Rosene, Chair
ALUC
Land Mark Missionary
Baptist Church
10/01/01
ALUC
Norm Rosene, Chair
ALUC
Chair Rosene's Alternate
Appointment/Glen Dille
10/3/01
County
Counselproxy
ALUC
Request for Legal Svcs. re:
/ Bylaws
10/04/01
Glen Dille y
ALUC
Letter & Assuming Office
forms Y
10/9/01
Henry Roberson
ALUC
Letter & Assuming Office
forms '
10/09/01
ALUC
Felix Wannenmacher
County Counsel comments
related to proxy / Bylaws
10/09/01
ALUC
Kim Seidler, City of
Chico
ALUCP 2000 Issues
LJ
CITY OF CHICO
AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING SEMINAR'
SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 'V r
. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics -will.attend and discuss the
following topics:
• Airports as part of the statewide transportation system a
• Noncompatible land use encroachment around airports
• ' The roles and responsibilities of Airport Land :Use Commissions (ALUCs)
• _ What should. .be iii a.Coniprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
• Update of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
ALL elected Council members, Supervisors, Planning Commissioners, Airport Land Use =
Commissioners, their staff,. developers, concerned_ citizens, and anyone interested in. airport land
use .planning is encouraged to attend. u'
• For further information contact'Aifport Manager Robert Grierson at 879-3910. i
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
•
City of Chico
Attn: Airport Manager ;
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
OR .
;Call to confirm: 879-3910
❑ YES, I would,like to attend this seminar. i
n
Name (legible please) Agency + Date
Contact Phone #
S � :Gift p+� aSi:2?i.S-Si�n
51C���iU�
'
ROBERT A. GRIERSON
/ DUANE GREENWOOD
r/
1740 CARDINAL CT.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CHICO, CA 95926
1735 MONTGOMERY ST
•
OROVILLE CA 95965
t
✓ NORMAN ROSENE
✓ ROBERT D HARP
JOHN PAPADAKIS f
1049 VILLAGE LANE
1350 E. LASSEN AVE
✓1462 CREEK HAVEN PL.
CHICO, CA 95926
CHICO, CA 95973
CHICO, CA 95926
DONALD R. WALLRICH
LAMBERT
ROBERT N. HENNIGAN
4139 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
,.,/NINA
1643 RIVER ROAD
✓ 5130 ANITA ROAD
OROVILLE, CA 95965
CHICO, CA 95928
CHICO, CA 95926
RIAN BALDRIDGEART
HATLEY
TERRY HODGES
--11088 MIDWAY
1176 201' ST.
865 LONG BAR ROAD
CHICO, CA 95928.
OROVILLE, CA 95965
OROVILLE, CA 95965
HENRY ROBERSON
P.O. BOX 3099
CHICO, CA 95927
i
.M.A. MELEKA CRAIG SANDERS
Jane Dolan Mary Anne Houx Bob Beeler
Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Board of Supervisors
�•
Curt Josiassen Kim YamaguchiCount Counsel
Butte County Board,of Supervisors Butte County Board of Supervisors y
i
AVERY'- Address Labels Laser 51-60�D
�511-
0
�Ir J-as2
Richard Lelandchael Mooney
P'1660 Humboldt, Ste. 6 2465 Old Quincy Road
C ico, CA 95928 Oroville, CA 95966
"°° - ✓ Fernando A. Marin
eNma Lamb` �J 6201 Clark Road
1643 R' r Road Paradise, CA 95969
Chic , CA 95926
Chuck Nelson
3 E. Sacramento Avenue
Chico, CA 95926
•
0915 Jol a;eldwa. ,s0
slagej ssaippy o kU3 V
vuslaay5 Paaj q,00ws
VIderScott A. Tourville
Landmark Missionary Baptist Church
2626 Cohasset Road
Chico, CA 95973
C rcs)
�,p sulo�-r � u
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT. SERVICES
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
r
FROM: Tom Buford, Interim Director -Development Services' 1
a .
SUBJECT: ALUC REFERRAL PROCEDURES
DATE: September 13, 2001
This Memorandum reviews the referral procedures' followed during the processing of the
application of Landmark Church to construct a 7,000 square foot addition to their existing
sanctuary. Because the procedures followed have resulted in the lack of Commission review, the
Department's procedures have been modified, as set forth in this Memorandum.
Background Facts
• The application from Landmark Church was received by the Department on March 20, 2001.
The application materials were distributed to various departments and agencies, including
ALUC, for review for completeness. The application was deemed complete on April 19, 2001.
A memorandum regarding the revised project description was sent to M.A. Meleka as ALUC
staff on April 25, 2001.
0
Craig Sanders, Senior Planner and ALUC staff submitted the following comment, received on
May 18, 2001:
The project is located in B-2 (extended approach/departure zone). According to Appendix
E of the 2000 ALUCP a church is a normally incompatible use within the B-2 zone. As
such, it is non -conforming, and may not be expanded as per section 2.4.4b of the 2000
AL UCP.
A similar comment was submitted by the City of Chico Planning Department.
M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner and ALUC staff, and Steve Betts, County planning staff, held
several conversations with the applicant. The applicant was advised of the ALUC staff finding
by letter dated June 7, 2001, attached as Exhibit A. The applicant responded by letters dated June
11, 2001, to Mr. Sanders and Mr. Betts, respectively, inquiring as to the timeline followed for
review of the project.
Mr. Sanders, as ALUC staff, responded by letter dated June 19, 2000, informing the applicant ;
that the proposed project would not be considered a "Major Land Use Action," and would not
require ALUC review.
Memorandum to Airport Land Use Commission
Re: Landmark Church Application
September 13, 2001
Page 2
Discussion
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan includes several provisions that apply to review in
cases such as this.
Section 1.5.2 provides that state law requires that all permits involving land within an airport
influence area to be referred to the Commission until such time as the Board has either found the
Compatibility Plan to be consistent with the General Plan, or' has overruled the Commission's
determination.' Section 1.5.2(d) calls for initial review by the ALUC Secretary, and for the
forwarding of the proposal to the Commission if the Secretary determines significant
compatibility issues are present.
Section 1.5.2 further provides that it is Commission policy that only the major land use actions
listed in Section 1.5.3 shall be submitted for review. It is agreed that the Landmark Church.
application does not involve a major land use action.
Section 2.3.4 concerns the time required for Commission response for land use actions other than
amendment of the general plan or specific plan or the addition or approval of a zoning ordinance
or building regulation. After noting that specific time frames are not provided by statute, the
policy of the Commission is stated to be as follows:
• (a) Reviews by the Commission Secretary shall be completed within twenty-one (2 1)
days of when a complete application is submitted.z
(b) Reviews of projects forwarded to the Commission for a consistency determination
shall be completed within sixty (60) days of the project referral.
(c) The date of referral is deemed to be the date on which all applicable project
submittal information as listed in Policy 2.3.1 is received by the Commission
Secretary.
(d) If the Commission Secretary or the Commission fail to make a determination
within the above time periods, the proposed .action shall be deemed consistent
with the Compatibility Plan.
The Commission staff commented on the initial project referral prior to application
completeness. The application was deemed complete on April 19, 2001. A memorandum was
provided to the Commission Secretary on April 25, 2001 regarding the complete application. As
noted, the Commission Secretary/staff provided written comments on May 18, 2001, and a letter
dated June 19, 2001 was sent to the applicant by Commission staff.
State law does not actually so provide --the Commission has the right to require such referral until such Board
action. The clear intent of the Compatibility Plan, however, is that the Commission intends such referrals to be
made, unless the Commission elects not to review certain actions or proposals.
z While (a) refers to the application completeness date as initiating a 24 -day review period for the ALUC Secretary,
(b) refers to the date of project referral. This inconsistency can best be resolved by calculating both the 21 -day
Secretary review period and the deadline for Commission review from the date of project referral.
Memorandum to Airport Land Use Commission
Re: Landmark Church Application
September 13, 2001
Page 3
No review by the full Commission was initiated, and no review was completed within sixty days
of the project referral. The project was, consistent with Commission policy, therefore deemed
consistent with the Compatibility Plana
Further Action
Our Department wishes to avoid future confusion with regard to project referrals, and to ensure
that the views of the Commission are received and considered by the Planning Commission and
Board. Notwithstanding the "deemed determination" in this case, therefore, the project will be
referred to the Commission in its advisory capacity prior to the Planning Commission
hearing.
In order to avoid similar confusion in the future, the following policies have been implemented
in the Planning Division:
1. All referrals for review of completeness will continue to be routed to ALUC
staff.
2. Once a project application is deemed complete, and referral to the
Commission is required, Planning Division Staff will provide a written memo
• to the Commission Secretary confirming that all applicable project submittal
information has been or is being provided to the Commission Secretary, and
that the project is being referred to the Commission for review pursuant to
Section 1.5.1, Section 1.5.2 or Section 1.5.3 of the Land Use Compatibility
Plan. A copy of the referral shall be provided to the ALUC Chair. In some
cases, the Commission will be acting in an advisory capacity pursuant to
Section 1.5.2(b) of the Compatibility Plan.
3. The Director hereby confirms the delegation of Commission Secretary as
M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner.
The form letter for referral to the Commission is included as Attachment 1.
One issue discussed during the processing of this application concerned the filing fee required
for Commission review. The filing fee is $300.00. Because of the relatively brief period of time
provided for Commission review, and because awaiting receipt of a filing fee could delay
scheduling of the matter for Commission review, the following policy is also adopted:
4. Matters referred to the Commission for a consistency review will not be
subject to the payment of a filing fee.
We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that results from the processing of this
application. We are prepared to discuss this particular case in detail, and any additional
40 suggestions for policy changes that the Commission may propose.
TAP.jb
U
•
Memorandum to Airport Land Use Commission
Re: Landmark Church Application
September 13, 2001
Page 4
cc: Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
County Counsel
M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner
Craig Sanders, Senior Planner
Elder Scott A. Tourville, Applicant Representative
Attachments:
1. Form Letter of Referral
2. April 25, 2001 Memo to ALUC from Steve Betts, Project Planner
3. May 18, 2001 Project Comments from Craig Sanders
4. June 7 letter to Applicant from Stephen Betts, Project Planner
5.. June 11, 2001 letter to Stephen Betts from Applicant
6. June 11, 2001 -letter to Craig Sanders from Applicant
7. 'June 19, 2001 letter to applicant from Craig Sanders
k:\dds\memos\ALUC Landmark Memo
i
r
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTER OF REFERRAL TO AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
TO: M.A. Meleka, Secretary
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: Project Planner
a
DATE:
PROJECT:
This will confirm that the project application in .the above case was deemed complete on
INSERT DATE.
: '1
The project site lies within the area of jurisdiction of the AirportLand Use Commission. This
+'
confirms that referral of the above project is hereby made as of this date pursuant to Seetion-. '
of the Land Use Compatibility Plan. Commission review is required to be completed
within sixty (60) days of this date, pursuant to Section 2.3.4 of the Land Use Compatibility Plan.
•
(If applicable) This referral is for review in the Commission's advisory capacity.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.
cc: Chair, Airport Land Use Commission
l
.
Interim Director -Development Services
Applicant
i
i
.
1
i
•
ATTACHMENT NO.2
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
To: ALUC - M Meleka
From: Steve Betts
Subject: Use Permit for the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, project # UP 01-17
Date: April 25, 2001
Attached is a copy of a more through description of how the project applicant proposes to use the
proposed multi-purpose building. Also attached is a copy of the existing Use Permit for the church.
If you have any questions please let me know.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
BUTTE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
• TO: ALUC
FROM: Butte County Planning Division
RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, UP 01-17
DATE: March 23, 2001 CONTACT PERSON: Stephen Betts
The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet
is to:
1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and
submit conditions, if any; and to
2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular
environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated.
If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date
indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed, please
call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts.
This is an application for Use Permit for a 7.000 square foot multi-purpose building Activities to be conducted inside the
building include roller skating, basketball, bible studies, and fellowship dinners. The building will contain a small kitchen and
restrooms. on property zoned R-4 (Residential) located on the east side of Cohasset Road- across from Lindo Lane_ at 2626
Cohasset Road. Chico., identified as APN 048-040-065. Supervisorial District No. 3.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one)
. _X_ PLANNING COMMISSION - _ DEVELOPMENT RE117EW COMMITTEE ON July 21, 2001.
COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN April 6, 2001. If no comments or communications
are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment.
•
COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary):
7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 530-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785
ATTACHMENT-NO.4
_ utte
LAND OF NATURAL W E A L T H AND BEAUTY
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
June 7, 2001
Pastor Scott Tourville
Landmark Missionary Baptist Church
2626 Cohasset Road
Chico, CA 95973
Re: Use Permit application for the Landmark Missionary Baptist Church, APN 048-040-065 &
066, File # UP 01-17
Dear Pastor Tourville:
Thank you for the submittal of the above referenced application received on March 20, 2001. Your
project application, site plan, and related items have been reviewed by'County Agencies in order to
determine the completeness of your application. Enclosed please find copies of the comments we
have received from County agencies regarding your project. These comments have been received
as part of the initial thirty day review of your project. Please review these comments and the
conditions that are requested as part of the project's approval.
Please note that the Butte .County Airport Land Use Commission staff states that a church is
normally an incompatible use within the B-2 (extended approach/departure) Compatibility Zone as
shown in the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. They also state. that. as such,
the church is a non -conforming use and may not be expanded as per section 2.4.4.b..of the 2000
Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Should you have any further questions regarding these comments, please contact me between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Sincerely,
Stephen Betts
Senior Planner
Enclosures
0
ATTACHMENT NO.5
•LandMark 1 i s
s i
o
na
t'st Ch'
13aP
c
2626 Cohasset Road ���5�"e °�y Scott A. Tourville - Pastor
Chico, California ? (530) 892-8928
Steve Betts, Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Division
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: Use Permit 01-17— Landmark Missionary Baptist Church
Dear Mr. Betts:
• I would appreciate the opportunity to review the time line for the processing of our project.
Could you please indicate the following:
1. When the project was considered complete for processing?
2. When the project was initially circulated to ALUC staff and when comments were returned to
your office? — If there were any written comments, could you please send these to me for review
3. If ALUC staff requested any additional information of you and if so, were these request in writ-
ing?
4. If an specific application form to ALUC was/is required?
Thank you so much for you assistance on these matters.
Sincerel ,
Scott A. Tourville
Pastor
•
D ECSC E
J U 111 1 4
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
i
}
r
I
• 'ATTACHMENT NO.6
mark 1\4isslolld anary
ti 't ChUre
ap
2626 Cohasset Road ��s�"e °�y Scott A. Tourville Pastor
Chico, California e-� (530).892-8928
Craig Sanders, Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Division
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965 `
Re: Use Permit 01-17— Landmark Missionary Baptist Church.
Dear Mr. Sanders.
I would appreciate the opportunity to review the time line of our projects as it relates to the comments or con-
cerns of ALUC. If possible, could you indicate when the project was initially circulated to ALUC' staff and
when any comments were returned to Steve Betts in the Planning Division. I would also be interested if ALUC
staff requested any additional information and when the project description was considered adequate for ALUC
review. Finally, I would like to know if any application form to ALUC was/is required? Thank you for you
assistance on these matters.
Sincerel
Scott A. ourville v
Pastor
D N ECA9W.E
JUS 1 4 200
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
I L W�_ � r
June 19, 2001
Scott Tourville
Landmark Missionary Baptist Church
2626 Cohasset Road
Chico, CA 95926
`�ATAlt,
t
L A N D 0 F N A T U RAL 'WEALTH AND BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 6OU14TY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785 '
Dear Mr. Tourville,
In response to your request for timeline information on I your project, my records indicate that the
Church's Use Permit was received by the Planning Division ofthe Department of Development
Services on March 20, 200 1. Comments were 'sent out to various agencies including the Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) on March 23, 2001. 1 prepared my initial comments regarding ALUC
compatibility on March 28, 200,1. Those comments were reviewed by ALUC staff and it wag
determined that specific additional -information was needed. to make a definite determination. of ALUC
compatibility. I cannot find a record of when the request for more information was sent to you, but
the information requested was'received on April 20, 200 1. At.this time, no additional information.
was required to complete the ALUC review. That information was forwarded to Mr. Meleka, the
Principal Planner in charge of ALUC, onApril 25, 2001. Comments from ALUC were finally
returned to the Planning Division, on May 18, 200 1.
As your project is not considered a "Major Land Use A I ction" by the 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, a formal application is not required for AL -UC compatibility determination.
Sincerely,
Craig Sanders
Senior Planner
Jeffries;Lydon
3100 C;onasset Soad
Chico, California 95973
Direct 530-894-4539
Fax 530 -691 -3
E -Mail. kenouvalliarnsn.com Ken DuVall
Web Sjj6 www,kencluvallxcim Broker Associate
$100 Million in Sales
Serving Chico since 1977
REALTOR of the Year 1995
Chico Association of REALTORS
Ju L'j President 2001
Lcvcrcnz a�'Ferris
525 Wall 5trect
(loco CA 9jF7s
0"
u Form riroposcj
I-lere,, A cod re fc,
of the new 5u County Airport Lancl Use Commission disclosure
by airic� Wolfe for s,-,6mission to the Council which she brought to
Norm Ke,�4cn* as Siven to N
attention. It perhaps is kcajz8 Foe City ()rclinancc status, which would
then sPPnrently 6c
assisted or not, residential sales transactions that occur in the
required For all, Rf
LTOK&
A
aRectej arear, on tl,e map enclosed.
uite c1car anj Complete, it docs seem
As Jiii:wssecl, on 6C face of it, the 9
redundant and unnoccs:,ary in view. of our existing Civil Cojes/5tatc manclatecl Transfer
Disclosure Statement and Other disclosure rc9uircment5 Alreadyin ploac. 5FCCACA ]terri C-1 9
the TD5 addressee CCP 73'1a in accordance with the law. in addition,
there is often
ronstructive notice in the preliminary title report skowin,5an avi5atio
e9ort to avoid Q; eavoidxjq disclosure omirpsions or
Wkile we can fully appreciate. thea LUC mA;%
6t we arc alrc;,J� in U1
sales in"the affected areas, it would qFpc'.-1r t
sellcr/ag,-.rit as to
rovio'in5 t6c sti,nalar-9 o�c'arc called for in nAe ring to the regulations now in cffcct.
compliance and p
of RE
u' ' esteemed Chico Ar ALTORSO
how , Association The clucstion now ;s! Coe's our C C
of
Counsels &-.cl about the attendant m3itcr. W�en you 6ave been Ale to review the material we would
your opinion.
Looking* forward,
Y
.40
Each Office Is Independently Owned And Operated
20'd 9T: TT To, 8T d@s
VT9s-6z8-02S:X?3 NOGA1 S31dj_:J3E_"_
v..�
4.1
F ,
4'.
1
effries Lydon
31 oo•Cohasset Fid
Chico, California 95973
Business (530) 345.6615
Fax (530) $91-3641 .
Website wWw.c21 seleelgroup.com
September 18, 2001
:e
1000
To: Norm Rosene
ALUC, Chairman
From: Nancy Wolfe
Century 21 Jeffries Lydon
Norm,
r
I apologize for not getting back to you.sooner. But here goes..,.
One of the train concerns in theleal estate profession is how this docun?ent urill be
distributed. Who will be resporitibie for explaining to agents what the document is for,
ue
2I Coldwell
under whose authority (NAR, CAR, Chico Association of Realtors, Century >
Banker, etc.), how will -the offices keep trackofdisclosure inventory and tracldng, etc.
At Century 21, we are required -116 have several disclosures as part of our every file. We
do not include anything haat our;;corpoxate headquarters,
NARXAR or any other r
authoritative body requires. We find this disclosure repetitive and not necessary I havea,
given you copies of all required4sclosures, and several deal with airport noise. zoning
and related issues. We are just concerned that -this mfurther confi�se clients as we have -
ay y
already given them this informa ion(altho"ugh not'as detailed). �
This outlines the main questions/objections to using this disclosure. If there were some
reason we were going to be reged to use it, it would have to be one page. Again, we ;
generally use disclosures that have been required by our. company or a reahor association.
I hope this heaps. Please let m6. know if I can be of any further service. ;
Sincerely,
Nancy Wolfe, Realtor
CENTURY 21 Jeffries Lydon
A.
ZO'd 91:11 10, 81 � 3 b19S-6Z8_0�S:xP3
NOGA-1 S3T?Jdd3C"_ a
i
t
is
Il
r
1
a
t
I apologize for not getting back to you.sooner. But here goes..,.
One of the train concerns in theleal estate profession is how this docun?ent urill be
distributed. Who will be resporitibie for explaining to agents what the document is for,
ue
2I Coldwell
under whose authority (NAR, CAR, Chico Association of Realtors, Century >
Banker, etc.), how will -the offices keep trackofdisclosure inventory and tracldng, etc.
At Century 21, we are required -116 have several disclosures as part of our every file. We
do not include anything haat our;;corpoxate headquarters,
NARXAR or any other r
authoritative body requires. We find this disclosure repetitive and not necessary I havea,
given you copies of all required4sclosures, and several deal with airport noise. zoning
and related issues. We are just concerned that -this mfurther confi�se clients as we have -
ay y
already given them this informa ion(altho"ugh not'as detailed). �
This outlines the main questions/objections to using this disclosure. If there were some
reason we were going to be reged to use it, it would have to be one page. Again, we ;
generally use disclosures that have been required by our. company or a reahor association.
I hope this heaps. Please let m6. know if I can be of any further service. ;
Sincerely,
Nancy Wolfe, Realtor
CENTURY 21 Jeffries Lydon
A.
ZO'd 91:11 10, 81 � 3 b19S-6Z8_0�S:xP3
NOGA-1 S3T?Jdd3C"_ a
r. t't;• s ,744. y+. � r r „�,. �1: a. «,� � ,�....�
: SaR ,f{rj :ib,. ••.'X,+,. r,G' n 1 '�7F4��i' yy��xx �, 4^:1S'ti i •y •l' y ..,4•..�4t 13 `+- s .ft y.+-
v.;., .uJ,,.� �.•;i.'f'. ,:,-„ ,illa' �u r,. '�°t...e',., �W <q+ ,r`air.M1x>.�..>;-`.ts'4"n�l"'1=;_
y Y r t ; ,,
I v� � . i l . �,`�Yf �.,,;i 1 :�.�.: .dpi.. �{ �4. A.�' '� �'f$¢, '.'.V :�;:/ f. .rtl'9 a 1,.• y' 1'`( 6L YY." w C$ 11„r fl
., j
�,��1, i, 1.•• .4 "=i._ <.t.. :M1i y 1 .'�'J. ..4 M1J! r{:
b, ;`. I9 i. ;:• a IY is 4.
L'e3.1$WALLSMMT
. ..:C'ARL:�B.::�I•r`E�VE.RE�I��Z,�j ,. •: cNrcor:caLtF,�RNiA��s92s: . ' r
A:PROb E9910NAr 4�CQR PORgT1PN `• i e i� .—.ry� t, .. �lr
T.EL'.EFP'X On1'E ('S°10)'398•T 821
AM(530)394-9G43RRISTMT 'Y D.: FE
f
:0.rrORkBY ATI
AW / e
r ;r
j Z4
>=Kei�::DuVal'l .`- President; "`
i';Chtco AssodAii'dn of>Rea}t r '
111:60 E 1:'',:Avenue f,x
CA 95926.
�' ��, �!'� • 'a����' ''fir � `,<;- ' ; p}v. 4 � >r � x .' � r � `
pox-t pisclosu
T am in.reces t of �ourliette d ec Juj 20 24a-1 and-�the docuanent'.entitled"'Real
f:; {• ,' -, . ;p 5; wt� .Y. ,orf . ., .. '
Estate Disclosure D;oc . Butte County'Air•.ports": At your request, T have
revieNvedthe.documen ani cqime. 414,16116"*
It appears that the Alzpart d >�se Co uznssion (AI-UC)19 and';is' makin available '
copies'of th- ad6pted`A1`Use �ornpatibilxry!; Placa �'orBike ,County. As you'
F are aware, and as the docent po ntstaut, a seller and liis.'or her'agent,,:p ant to i
'Civil Code Sect�ori :'1€ 02 et ` ya e`ie � red to disclose all facts tlzat' may materially
affect size value az d desrrab q Yof the property to be' tiaras erred , ,' '
In the instance of ,a ;l 4 reskiat xa beim sold: that is'1 irn acted' b a nearb.
1' . 13' e P y y
air
part, ar�d such'a 'fact beta gat closed oVia`pural as�F; lthe caznpatibility;'plan%nay ' `;> j�
eontauz further ihf6rmg , 6 ath �s o 'affttftst to.a,purehaser .of the properCy. 'You rriay
wish Co point:out to the me bels ofthe Assoc�at�on aid u hple, Listing Service, the'
r :. k
avadaiility of tie:plan fobeievw skioid they receive iriqutries from buyers orlsellers - `-�
as to the unpct of.a nearbyaa onM12klprt�cular parcel of property.. �,
Piease feel free to .contact, ridx aaiy Pher questions that; you niay have. .t '
-
4i. � 'pM1.'
TDF:ajh`
• i , r - '� °"' of � s =v
. I I, i .�•;'�,� .,e Via;„„Sl..
k
bO'd �I• IT I0, 8I des MS=6)8-ois:x23 ,_„_....- NOUAI S31aJ3 31
countit
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND .BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
September 24, 2001
Mr. Ken DuVall
Century 21
3100 Cohasset Road
Chico, CA 95973
Dear Ken,
Nancy Wolfe recently sent me -,a copy of the letter you wrote to Tim Ferris asking
for comments about the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) proposed
Airport Disclosure documents. I appreciate you asking Tim Ferris for comments,
and I have a copy of his reply letter which I will forward to the ALUC. However,
I feel obligated to clarify some misconceptions written in your letter so that
your understanding of the issue is complete.
•The draft Airport Disclosure document was not prepared by myself. I commented
on the document along the way, and requested comments from Nancy Wolfe, but the
entire ALUC including alternate members worked on the document. A specific "Dis-
closure Document" subcommittee helped'to prepare and finalize the current language.
•
Secondly, the purpose of the enhanced Airport Disclosure document is not to go
to.the City of Chico for ordinance review or development. The purpose of the doc-
ument is to provide local homebuyers with.the latest and best information regarding
our local airports. It is to be used as a tool by the local real estate profession.
Based on the complaints we get at the ALUC, and the trend in the United States,
people who purchase homes around airports are not educated enough about airport
operations as it pertains to their residences. Numerous airports around the country
have closed as a result of complaints or lawsuits by homeowner groups. It is im-
perative, for numerous reasons, that operations at our local airports not be threatened
and that the potential for future.Chico Municipal Airport expansion be preserved.
I would like to thank the real estate profession for the input and guidance pro-
vided to the ALUC'so far in this endeavor. Nancy Wolfe has done an excellent job.
of reviewing the previous drafts and providing comments. The ALUC welcomes fur-
ther comments should others wish to provide them. The ALUC sincerely hopes that
the real estate profession will embrace the enhanced Airport Disclosure documentation
once it is adopted. Enhanced homebuyer education', along with the land use desig-
nations called for in the recently adopted Butte County Airport Land Use Compati-
bility.Plan, are the two important keys for future airport viability and operation
in Chico.
Page 1 of 2
Again, thank you'for your efforts in this regard. Do not hesitate to contact me
if I can answer -any questions that you or your peers may have.
Sincerely,
Norm Rosene.
Chairman
Butte.County ALUC
pc: Butte County ALUC
Mr. Tim Ferris
Ms. Nancy Wolfe
ND. 4_
Page 2 of 2
N
r"
ffutte Count
LAND OF NATURAL 'W EALTH AND BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
September 26, 2001
Mr. Tom Buford
Interim Director -Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Tom,
Thank you for meeting with me last Wednesday (9/19/01) to discuss Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) issues and specifically your September 13 memo regarding
ALUC-Project Referral Procedures. For the record,.and to, -inform the full.
Commission of our conversation, I.would like to review the major points dis-
cussed at our meeting.
• Regarding the Land Mark Missionary Baptist Church (LMBC) application, it is
my position as ALUC Chairman:that the original staff decision regarding this
project was correct and that•the applicant was notified about the decision
within the normal time constraints. LMBC resides in-the.Chico Municipal Airport
B-2 (Approach/Departure Paths) Zone. The B-2 Zone is subject to significant
aircraft overflight at less than 600 feet altitude. Numerous FAA Approved
instrument approaches exist over the B-2 Zone to the south of Chico Municipal
Airport. In the 2000 Butte County Airport -Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP),
churches are considered an incompatible use in the B-2 Zone (Appendix E).
Nonconforming nonresidential uses may be continued, but shall not be expanded
according to the CLUP (2.4.(b)(2) page 2-19). County staff correctly utilized
the CLUP to determine that the LMBC expansion project was incompatible with
the provisions of the CLUP. This incompatibility was explained in the 5/18/01
document signed by Craig Sanders, and the 6/7/01 letter from Steve Betts to
the applicant.. Steve Betts' letter of 6/7/01 fell well within the 60 day
time limit which commenced on 4/25/01 (the date the completed application was
forwarded to ALUC staff).
At our 9/19/01 meeting, I also informed you that I had met with Steve Lucas
and Bob Grierson on 5/26/01 to discuss the LMBC application. During that meeting,
Mr. Lucas acted as an unofficial advocate for LMBC and asked me to interpret
several sections of the CLUP as they related to the LMBC application. I said
that I -would, and after studying the CLUP, telephoned Mr. Lucas a few days
later. I told him that I thought.County staff had interpreted the CLUP cor-
rectly and that the project was incompatible as presented. I mention this
meeting because it further demonstrates that LMBC was aware of the ALUC finding
• of inconsistancy well within the 60 day time limit.
It is wrong and inappropriate to suggest that the LMBC application is consistant
• with the CLUP and ALUC policy because it was never reviewed by the full Commission.
This type of minor land use action does not require full Commission review.
This is supported by CLUP Section 2.4.3(b)(2) which states that major land
use actions are referred to the full Commission, and CLUP Section 1.5.3 which
defines major land use actions. Since the LMBC expansion is not a major land
use action, it does not require full Commission review. During the two years
of CLUP development, the desire of the consultant involved was for minor pro-
jects to go through staff review utilizing the CLUP as a guide, and therefore
not necessitate Commission review. The legislative intent of the appropriate
sections of the CLUP may not be crystal clear, however should you desire to
review the audio tapes and minutes of the CLUP hearings, you will find what
I am stating (and stated at our meeting) to be true.
Despite the staff finding of inconsistancy, it has always been the ALUC's
position that every applicant can seek a hearing before the full Commission
if they desire. The rationale for this is that there may be extenuating cir-
cumstances that may allow for compatibility with certain conditions. This
offer to hear the project before the full Commission was made to Steve Lucas
at my 5/26/01 meeting with him. The offer still stands. However, if LMBC
does not desire a public hearing before the Commission, then the staff.finding
of inconsistancy is what will be forwarded to the Butte County PLanning Com-
mission from the ALUC.
It is suggested in the September 13 memo that the LMBC project will be referred
to the ALUC in an "advisory capacity" prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
• I must remind the County that during this interim period between adoption of
the CLUP and conformance of the County General Plan and the CLUP, all projects
within the mapped Airport Influence Areas require ALUC review. This review
can be accomplished by staff, or the full Commission. The determination of
either review is not advisory during this interim ,period. This is clearly
stated in 1.5.2(a) of the CLUP.
At our 9/19/01 meeting, we discussed the future routing of projects to the
ALUC. We both agreed that during initial project circulation, ALUC should
receive projects at the same time as the other agencies and departments. An
application would not be deemed complete until all the additional requested
information was obtained, including that requested by ALUC staff. At that
time, determination for full Commission review could be made and any fees col-
lected. It is the ALUC's desire to be included as part of any project review
from'the earliest possible moment. This will be more efficient for the County,
and will expedite a project's progress which is what we all strive to accomplish.
In past years, ALUC review was often an afterthought. This is no longer legal
or acceptable. Your expressed desire to develop a specific process and timeline
will help prevent future misunderstandings and problems with the flow of pro-
jects to and through ALUC review.
Lastly, in previous years, the County strongly encouraged the ALUC to develop
a fee schedule so that ALUC staff time could be directly compensated for in
the most appropriate fashion. To that end, we developed a "review fee" for
projects going through Commission review. As Chairman, I still feel that this
fee is appropriate and necessary. I do not feel that it is unjustified. The
• September 13 memo states that Commission review of projects will not be subject
to a filing fee. I do not think that this decision can be made unilaterally.
r
If you would like to address the full Commission regarding the fee issue, I
• welcome you to do so at an, upcoming meeting.
I am grateful for your willingness to meet with me and discuss these important
issues. It is the ALUC's desire to accomplish our goals by working with the t
County. Thank you for addressing th'ese'issues, and for helping to find solutions
to our common problems.
Respectfully,
Norm Rosene
Chairman
Butte County Airport Land.Use Commission
i -
i
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + �
• Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 9596.5 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 •
,• 1
I, Norman Rosene ,
Airport Land Use Commissioner, do hereby appoint the following person as my alternate to represent me in all ,
commission affairs and to vote ori all matters when I am not in attendance:
Name: /�✓, C� lei D► �IeY
Address:
T>.(). C3ox -78y3
C h t'.co C 0 9s'9Z 7
(5-3 p) 3,j 5-- �fS3 (o Zj
Phone: 8 9 `I - 3 4SS CH)
G�Lv1 _
Norman Rosene
Date: !3' 2-5-_p 1
r
K:\Planning\ALUL1FORMS\PROXY. W PD -
i
0Butte County Okrport Land Use Commission 0 3
•
•
•
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL,
REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Date Submitted: 10-3-2001 Department:
From: Tom Buford Phone Number:
Development Services
538-6821
PLEASE INDICATE THE TYPE OF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED
Opinion Request
Briefly explain the issue;
Request for Ordinance/Resolution
Briefly explain the nature of requested Ordinance/Resolution:
Is there an existing Ordinance Resolution: YES NO
If yes, please attached or cite existing County Code provisions:
Other
Briefly explain the assistance requested:
Review the proposed, revised proxy form to be utilized by the Butte
County Airport Land Use Commission., The current proxy form is
attached, for your information.
PRIORITIZATION
Indicate the priority of this request; taking into consideration any prior pending requests. Requests
receiving a "high" priority will automatically take precedence ,over existing pending department
projects, unless otherwise indicated.
High Moderate Low
Comments: The Commission will be meeting on Wednesday, October 17,
2001, ,and has requested -that this item along with an approved
proxy form be presented.' Mail out for the meeting. is Tuesday,
October 9, 2001.
FOR COUNTY COUNSEL USE ONLY
Date Received:.
Attomey Assigned:
Log Out Date:
-,%�
t. _
utte ount
-�`
LAND O.F NATURAL W E A L T H AND BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE > OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571
FAX: (530) 538-7785
www.buttecounty.net/dds/
October 4, 2001
Mr. Glen Dilley
P.O. Box 7843
Chico, CA 95927
Dear Mr. Dilley:
Welcome to the Airport.Land Use Commission. We look forward to working with you as a representative of the
Commission. You will be receiving your first agenda packet around October 11, 2001 for your first ALUC meeting
to be held on October 17`h at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers.
Enclosed is a - Statement of Economic Interest Form 700 for your completion. Please submit the form upon
ompletion in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Under provisions of.the Conflict of Interest Code, the Form
00 must be used for the required filing of the Statement of Economic Interest in the Office of the County Clerk-
-Recorder, Elections Division, where•it will be retained as a public record pursuant to Government Code §87200
et seq.
Please feel free to give me a call to schedule time. to go over the packet with you or to answer any questions you
may have. I can be reached Monday through Friday at (530)538-6572, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
M. A. Meleka I
Princip 1 Planner
MAM:cs
cc: Norm Rosene, ALUC Chairman
Enclosures
�- r^
Rate coun,
t
LAND OF NATURAL VV E A L T H AND BEAUTY
'}l AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571
FAX: (530) 538-7785
www.buttecounty.net/dds/
October 9, 2001
Mr. Henry Roberson
c/o Air Carriage
P.O. Box 3099
Chico, CA 95927
Dear Mr. Roberson:
State law requires that an Assuming Office, statement be placed on file for all Commissioners and Alternates. As
a relatively new member of the Airport Land Use Commission, I am forwarding instructions and forms for
completion.
�nclosed is a Statement of Economic Interest Form 700 and a self: addressed envelope. Please submit the form
upon completion. Under provisions of the Conflict of Interest Code, the Form 700 must be used for the required
filing of the Statement of Economic Interest in the Office of the County Clerk -Recorder, Elections Division, where
it will be retained as a public record pursuant to Government Code §87200 et seq.
Please feel free to give me a call to schedule time to, go over the packet with .you or to answer any questions you
may have. I can be reached Monday through Friday at (530)538-6572, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
M. A. 4eleka
Princip 1.Planner
cc:. Norm Rosene, ALUC Chairman
•
•e� tF. INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
'co�N�� • OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
0#0`1-174
TO: Tom Buford, Interim Director, Development Services
FROM: Felix Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Review of ALUC Proxy Form
DATE: October 9, 2001
You requested that I review'the revised proxy form for the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission.
I note that the revised proxy form is very similar to the old proxy form. The major
difference is that there are three alternates, in essence three proxies, on the revised proxy
form while there was only one alternate on the old proxy form.
In ALUC's bylaws, I note that in section 1.3.1, following the term "Alternate Members," it
• states that "Each Regular Member shall appoint a single alternate..." Likewise, under
section' 1.3.2, entitled "Alternate Members," it again states "Each Regular Member shall
appoint a single alternate..."
I further note the reference to Public Utilities Code §21670(d) when "Alternate Members"
is discussed in the ALUC bylaws. §21670(d) states that "Each member shall promptly
appoint a single proxy..."
ALUC's revised proxy form, designed to allow regular members to designate threeproxies,
does not conform to ALUC's current. bylaws, but more importantly, it does not conform to
state law.
Any revised proxy form should only allow a regular member to designateone proxy.
Further; §21670(d) makes clear that each regular member must promptly designate a
proxy and that the written document doing so must be kept on file.
If you have any questions -or comments, please contact me.
cc: Bruce Alpert
Cheryl Spoor
• G:\0PINI0N\01-174.wpd
10/08/2001 MON 13,40 FAX 530 895 4726 CITY OF.'CHICO—BUILDING , 9 001/011
' ,� . •, _ is
. _, .. ; ; 4 1. 4 i ` ' � • p ,sem . �,
'City of Chico
Planning Division ji
P.O. Box 3420. y t
all Main Street i r
CITYMCHKO Chico, CA .95927
(530) 89.55-4851
Date: 1018101 r '
Number of Pages (including this cover, page): 11
• FROM: ,
Name:., Kim Seidler
Planningbirector, i
� .
-Phone Number: (530) 895-4743 Fax Number.: (530) $95-4726 -
Name: M.A. Meleka
Company: Butte County Department of Development Services !
FAX Number: .`538-7785 + {
MESSAGE: Here is�the letter we' discussed earlier, Meleka. On 10/171.01 ` I will i .
need to •leave.Oroville at 11:00; it would be most,helpful to me if this
matter were placed; fairly early in the ALUC..agenda. On the infill
issue, I'expect that the developer of.the;proposed Flordl Commons
{ subdivision.. which "I -have referred' to in the letter, will be in
attendance at the meeting.
Hand copy follows by post. Please `contact me if any issues arise that
need10 be aware of. As usual, thank .you very" much ,for your,
assistance.
' CC�E0
x OCT
• � f , ` . .p -. ! 45.E • '.i
`,�', • BUTTE COUNTY 1�
a PLANNING DIVISION
{
-10/08/2001 MON 13:40 FAX 530.895 4726 CITY OF CHICO—BUILDING 0002/011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
{
-
DEPARTMENT :r `. ..
PLANNING
" •
Clt�jCaHICO
d,
411 Main Street. a
t
72 P.O. Box 3420
Chico. CA 95927' .. ,
(530) 895-4851. :., ..
FAX (530) 895-4726 t :-
.
ATSS 459-4851 ,
October 8, 2001 4
i-
Airport Land Use Commission
;
7 County Center`Drive ('
Oroville, California 95965
`
Re: Eaton Road Property; Infill+ Policy
Dear Commissioners: rs
This letter addresses the following unresolved issues related to the 2000 Airport Land Use
'
` Compatibility, Plan., I respectfully requesfthat they -b6 included_ 'oh 'Your, next meeting ;
agenda for discussion and possible resolution.
1'. You may recall that both before and after adoption of the Compatibility Plan'botfir the
•
Chico City Manager expressed'signif(cant reservations concerning the Plan's C (1)
i
compatibility zoning for ce`rtain*.properiies located north'of Eaton Road (please- see
• Attachment #1)., The -City's prezoning of. these properties would have allowed
development of between 550 and 920residential units, but the C (1) compatibility zone
would limit that number to ;11.
'
At the joint meeting of the ALUC and the Chico City. Council on the' Compatibility Plan
last February 20, 2001". the City Manager proposed a compromise in which a. large
,
portion of -these properties would be prezoned with. Community- Commercial zoning,
,
- leaving a smaller area fog residential development. This concept originated with ,the
x
City's Airport Manager, and would provide for a 300466t -deep strip, of commercial,
zoning -along the properties' Eaton Road frontage, and on both sides Qf .the• planned : -
CMA west -side access from Eaton north across Sycamore Creek. At the meeting,
Chairman Rosene replied that the Compatibility Plan was not written in stone; it could
-be modified, and the ALUC would be willing to look at'a speck proposal.
I
Attachment #2 shows that specific proposal. I anticipate attending your meeting to .,
Lr
address any questions you may have-
}
• S:%)4rrA,LU&h2nge requ"I ttrvwpd r , _ _ • . - 1 .
4
r , Mede Pmm Recycled I%per'
:•
0
10/08/2001 MON 13:40 FAX 530.895 4726 CITY OF CHICO-BUILDING
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
October 8, 2001 '
Page 2
9003/011
-Request: Amend the Compatibility Plan to allow the City to amend its General' Plan
and rezone the property consistent with the proposal shown in Attachment #2.
#
2. Another issue raised by both the City Manager and me had to do with the Compatibility
Plan's infill policies, and we' are relying on' the ALUC's assurances that the
.
Commission would be prepared to work through this issue.
+
In his letter to you dated November 15, 2000, the City Manager wrote:` `
{.
We do agree with the need for a, definition of infill in. order. to distinguish
4.{
qualifyingproperties from those whose development would truly represent an
`
outward expansion of the developed area of the City. Once that definition has
been established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop
consistent with existing zoning provisions and the use restrictions listed in Table
2A, and without further airport -related limitation. As proposed, the draft Plan
provides that even if a property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three
bullets -of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1), depending on its size there is an additional
limitation on the dansity orintensify ofthat propertyas shown in 2.4.4(a)(2) and
(3). We do not view additional limitations affecting true infill parcels as a
necessary measure to protect the airport from encroachment by incompatible
'
land uses,. and recommend that they be deleted.
i can readily understand concerns that outward expansions of incompatible urban land
uses toward the airport may be inappropriate, and ' that it is proper that the
CompatibilityPlan address these. It does not appear, however, that a true infill site'
+
well within the developed urban fabric will adversely affect airport operations if that site
is developed consistent with the city's General, Plan.
An example of an infill development project that. has run afoul of the Compatibility
Plan's current infill policy is.the proposed Floral Commons Subdivision, located on
4.59 acres west of Floral Avenue (please see Attachment #3); and currently moving
through the City's planning. process. 'The subdivision consists of 29 lots at a density
of slightly less than 6 units per gross acre, which satisfies the density requirements of
the Chico General Plan, (pleasesee Attachment #4). It, meets each of the infill
provisions except for that contained int Bullet #1 of Policy 2.4.4(a)(2): the proposed
'
density is greater than the overall density represented by all existing lots'which lie fully
• or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided.
We have calculated the overall densiti of these surrounding lots at 3.7 units per net
I
acre, and for,comparison the density of the proposed subdivision at just over 6 units
I,
SAMALUC%chwvt rmest Arnd t
10/08/2001 MON 13:41 FAX 530.895 4726 CITY OF'CHICO-BUILDING Q004/011'
Letter to Airport Land: Use Commission
October 8, 2001. ;
Page 3 t ,
per net acre. The subdivision: is •clearly more dense than surrounding development,
and is therefore inconsistent with the infill policy.
- f
In fact, however, to be consistent witKthe policy, the proposed lots would need to be �
larger than the majorityof.'existing Iotsnearby, because the average is skewed by the
presence of several large parcels which themselves would be considered potential infill
sites. ! .
In the,presentcase, and in, the case ofother infill sites that in every other way meetthe
infill criteria as presented in the Compatibility Plan, there appeacto be no substantive '
'issues regarding the long-term viability of the airport that is sufficiently unequivocal as x
to necessitate•disallowing development that is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Request: Amend the Compatibility Plan's infill policies to'delete the references to ; {
consistency with surrounding residential development that are included in 2.4.4(ax2).
I very much appreciate your consideration of these matters, and hope you will age'ndize N
them for discussion and'possible action. of your October 17 meeting.'
' Respectfully, , • t
.: . f,.' + � •' Kim Seidler �� •
;.
Planning Director
Attachments:,' 1. Letter from Tom Lando ,Dated 11-/16/'00 : w
2. Proposal for Zoning of Eaton Road Properties'
3. Location of Floral Commons Subdivision
4. Floral Commons Propertyand Surrounding Parcels
cc: M.A. Meleka a .
Tom Buford I
CM, CA, AM, CDD
' Dan Hays l 1.
10/08/2001 MON 13:41 FAX 530 895 4726 CITY OF CHICO-BUILDING 005/011
'
OFFICE OF THE <•
CITY MANAGER - =
" y
C1TYOT H!co
,Hc
411 Main Street
Ro. Dox 3420
ChitO. CA 95927 e
r
(530)895-4800
- FAX (530) 895.4825 ,
i
ATSS 459-4800
November 15; 2000
.Butte County Airport Land Use, Commission
7 County Center Drive o , - ' ..
'Oroville, California 95965
Re: Draft `2000 Airport Land Use'Compatibility Plan 4
Dear,Cornmissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. We have been quite gratified by the willingness of the Airport Land Use
Commission to work with the City in•addressing the concems we raised about the first draft
Plan last April, and from our point of view; substantial progress has •been made in the
. preparation of a• documerif the City will be able to support. There are, however, several
, remaining issues that may need clarification:.
•, 1... Density reduction in C(1). The draft Plan proposes to applyC(1) compatibilityzone
i
a
..a
for a several large parcels north of Eaton -Road that have long been designated, and
`
t
toned for residential development. Based on current City zoning, these parcels could
' support the development of,550 to 920, residential units, but the.C(1) zone would :'..`
allow a,maximum of 11•. This represents a very significant reduction in the potential
development of housing needed to support Chico's long-term anticipated growth, and .
'would
k
•1
k , substantially shorten the effectNe' life of our General Plan: The original draft
provided a'choice (either 5 -acre minimum lots or at least •5 units acre) that is no
.per
longer reflected in the C(1) zoning, In addition, it does not appear that the effects of
;
_ density reductions associated with the proposed compatibility'Zoning for these parcels .
have been addressed'in the draft initial study.
I understand that a feasible resolution of this issue may lie in an- extension of the
r
general aviation runway to'.the north. •We are actively studying that alternative; and y .
-will keep the Commission informed of any progress made.
a
V'
, i
2- Bidwell Ranch. 'The draft Plan• includes the Bidwell 'Ranch property in' the 62
k
compatibility zone. We do understand the reasons for the inclusion of this land in 02,
- and frankly agree With the underlying' philosophy that prompted it- To this point,
AHACHMENT I
• ��� ' T Made From jtQge$ed+Payer
10/08/2001 AEON 13.42 FAX 530 893 4726 CITY OF'CHICO-BUILDING
t
0006/011
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission y
November 15, 2000
Page 2
• however, the City has made no decision with re and
g to future use of that property,
and until that decision is made, it would be premature to amend the City's General
Plan to conform to the compatibility zoning proposed -in the draft Plan_ As you may
know; the City is seeking funds to provide for a permanent set-aside of a large portion
of this land for The purpose of ensuring a permanent flight corridor, and we are
optimistic regarding our chances for success in this- Nevertheless, 1 regret to inform
you that we are currently not in a position to support the B2. compatibility zoning for
Bidwell Ranch.
3. C(2) west of the airport.; We .recommend that the :draft Plan provide for C(2)
compatibility zoning on the Bechtel property east of the airport' as it already does on
-land west of the airport_ The City is currently reviewing its existing inventory of land
designated for future residential development throughout the urban area, and will be
looking at possible new residential sites. Residential development of the Bechtel
property would require an amendment to the City's General Plan;. obviously, until site-
specific analysis is conducted; we do not know whether such an amendment could
ultimate) `
• y be supported. Still, C(2) compatibility zoning here would* leave the door
open to an exploration of this potential by the City, and it does not appear'that it
would be inconsistent 'with the purposes of the draft Plan_.
4. Sycamore Creek. Attached for your reference is a section of the Land Use .
Compatibility map, as modified by City Staff to show more detail of underlying
features (Attachment #1).' As discussed in my letter to you dated October 11, 2000,
I recommend that the southern boundary of the B2 compatibility zone at this location
coincide with the channel of Sycamore Creek, the nearest geographical feature and
parcel boundary. Although there are significant environmental constraints here and
it is therefore highly unlikely that the land lying immediately to the south of the creek
will be developed, the extent of - than area has not yet been identified, and any
delineation of it by the 132 compatibility zoning boundary south of the creek is
premature.
If the Commission wishes to include some additional property south of Sycamore
Creek in the B2 compatibility zone in this- general area, we recommend that it be
configured as shown in Attachment #2. The additional land this recommendation
includes in B2 has already been designated through Army Corps of Engineers permits
as an open space conservation area, and it will therefore not be developed.
5. - ' InfW policy. There area number of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in the City that
appear to be affected by. the .infill policy of the draft Plan. 1 do appreciate your
assurances that the Commission is prepared to work through these infill issues with
the City as a part of this adoption process, and anticipate that City staff -will be .
I
•
•
0
10/08/2001 BION 13:42 FAX 530 895 4726 CITY OF'CHICO-BUILDING
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
November 15, 2000
Page 3 '
Q OOT/011
meeting with you shortly to do so_ Still, at this point we have several concerns
regarding the infill policy_
We do agree. with the need for a definition of infill in order to distinguish qualifying
properties from those whose development would truly represent an outward
expansion of the developed area of the City. Once that definition has been
established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop consistent
with existing zoning provisions and the use restrictions listed in Table 2A, and without.
further airport -related limitation.. As proposed, the draft Plan provides that even if a
property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three bullets of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1),
depending on its size there is an additional limitation on the density or intensity of that
property as shown in.2.4.4(a)(2) and (3). We do not.view additional limitations
affecting true infill parcels .as a necessary measure to protect the airport from
encroachment by incompatible land uses, and recommend that they be deleted.
The fourth bLllet of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1) is not clear to us, and seems inconsistent with
the three bullets preceding it, all of which set criteria for determining whether parcels
qualify as infill.
6. Project review The draft Plan correctly states that once the City's General Plan has
been made consistent with the adopted Compatibility Plan, advisory review of major
development projects will be subject to voluntary agreement between the City and the
Commission.. Such agreement might ideally be reached through additional
discussions between the Commission and our staff prior to Plan adoption. With
regard to Policy 1.5.3(b), however, determinations of the extent to which land uses
on airport property constitute aviation or nonaviation development lie solely within the
;City's, as opposed to the Commission's, purview.
7. Prohibited uses. The City of Chico may not have the authority under its land use
regulations to prohibit some of the uses listed as prohibited in Table 2A. Public
schools, for example., are exempt from these local regulations, as to a great extent
are small and large family day car facilities. 'In -addition, sore of these uses may not
be inappropriate, such as a'day care center accessory to a commercial or industrial
use otherwise permitted. We recommend that the Commission.provide some level
of flexibility in allowing case-by-case review of the appropriateness, of these uses.
8: People per acre. Despite the direction Appendix C provides in calculating the number
-of people per acre associated with a particular land use; there is still substantial
confusion as to how these calculations can be fairly and consistently applied.
Furthermore, we do not concur that there is a need for people per acre limitations in
10/08/2001 MON 13:43 FA%330.895 472.6 CITY OF CHICO-BUILDING 9008/011 ��•
" . Letter to Airport'Landr Use G ,,emission =
November 15, 2000
Page 4
much ofthe urbanized area covered by the draft Plan. This. is a topic otir staff will be.
discussing with you in greater detail.in ahe near future..
9_ • Nonconforming uses,: We are -still :unclear:as to the implications of the draft Plan's",
nonconforming and reconstruction policies: Foi' example, is an otherwise permitted'
and conforming use that exceeds the maximum number of number of people per acre, {
considered. nonconforming for the purpose of reconstruction?• Our staff will'be:
working vi►ith you,to enhance our.understanding of your intent in this regard_
While we still have concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review prepared in '
connection with'the draft Pian (expressed in Kim Seidler's letter to you dated April 6, 2000),
these concerns have been djr6ished tQ the extent that revisions to the drain have reduced
the potential forsignificant land use impacts.. This is clearly an ongoing process. As stated
above, we have appreciated the Commission's willingness`to work with the City to achieve.
resolution of remaining issues, .and progress is undeniable. • We• understand the i
Commission's desire to ;as quickly as reasonably possible adopt a Pian that is supported -r
by- all jurisdictions involved, and we share that desire. To that end, we are prepared to
actively participate in continued discussions with the Commission.
f
Sin ely,
•. - ? Tom Lan
i City Manager
. cc: City Council .. i
Planning Commission 1 -
. = ACA. CA. AM, RM, CDD; CDA PID '
Y
ATTACHMENT 2
r
GL®J6f�AE W
I I
Ft
i
Density Evaluation - Parcels within
300' of Floral Commons
r
o
o
N
t o
300' of Floral CommonsI— /, I , I -V. 1
z
r
w
I N
- s
baa
w
- w
O
00
to
N
�P
N
n
H
O
M
O
I
W
r
MMr
v
M
z
ARM
100 0 .100200300 Feet
LOCATION MAP
70-
October 3, 2001
Board of' Supervisors
Attn: Marion Reeves
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH'
THOMAS REID, DIRECTOR
18-9 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Telephone:, (530) 538-7282
Fax: (530) 538-2165
RE: #8 Woodhaven Drive, Chico, AP# 056-110-010
Dear Chairman Josiassen and Members of the Board:
D
C E M E
OCT 8 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
As requested by the County Administration Office,, this. Department reviewed the
complaint letter dated September 10, 2001 signed by a number of Cohasset
residents. The letter expressed concerns about a residence located at #8
Woodhaven Drive, Cohasset.
Attached is a Department chronology of actions taken to address the complaint.
In summary form:
■ In April 2001 the Department received a complaint that a different property
(AP# 056-110-069) than the above was being -illegally occupied with a
motorhome. Additionally, a septic tank system did' not exist to receive
liquid waste.' -
■ Upon notification by the Department'of the violation, the occupants re-
located to #8 Woodhaven Drive. AP# 056-110-010, a property with both a
well and septic tank system.
■ In addition to a well and septic system, the property usage required
installation and camping approvals issued by Development Services.
■ The occupants were advised by letter of these additional requirements
and the matter was referred to Code Enforcement.
B E A U T Y
•
Board of Supervisors/#8 Woodhaven Drive
October 3, 2001 _
Page 2
Although additional follow-up was referred to Code Enforcement, the Department
will assist as may ' be necessary to maintain compliance with Public Health
requirements and to provide compliance with other County regulations.
Sincerely,.
Thomas Reid, Director
Division of Environmental Health
TR/mlf
cc: Gary House, Director of Public Health LL
Tom_ Buford, InterimDirector ± of- Development Services '
Mr. and Mrs. Perry Johnson, 10021 Cohasset Road, Chico, CA
Mr. .and Mrs. Harold Wells, 159 Woodhaven Drive, Chico, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Gene Kelly, 165 Woodhaven Drive, Chico, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Greg Epperson, 170 Woodhaven Drive, Chico, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Mark Greenwald, 190Woodhaven.Drive, Chico, CA .
Mr. James Molieri, 191' Woodhaven Drive, Chico, CA
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Prejean, 192 Woodhaven Drive, Chico, CA
Craig Erickson, Program Manager
#8 Woodhaven Drive 10/3/01
Lt) .�
.Sent By: BUTTE CO ENVIRONMENTAL'HEALTH; 530 895 6512; Oct -3-01 9:04AM; Paye 2
CB/gUcomplain/woodhavcn
•
camping still exists.
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUN
TO:
Carl Durling, Planning Div., Code Violations
Div.
FROM:
Clifford Bottenfield, Jr., Environmental Health
SUBJECT:
Illegal Camping, Woodhaven Drive, Cohasset
DATE:
August 13, 2001
Date
Action Taken
April 5, 2001
Complaint received regarding illegal camping; property has a well
but no septic system.
April 25, 2001
Site visit: Motor home, van andtrailer noted on property,
(APN 056-110-069);
April 27, 2001
Courtesy Notice sent to property owners, John & Leona Carter;
owners live across from property with campers.
May 23, 2001
Call from complainant that motor home, etc., moved to another
property at 8 Woodhaven Drive; Cohasset, (APN 056-110-010).
• May 29, 2001
Site visit: Motor home, etc.,,had indeed inoved to 8 Woodhaven
Drive; motor home connected_ to existing permitted well -and
septic system. Septic system is sized for 3 -bedroom home. Travel
'
trailer being used as a bedroom.
June 4, 2001
Courtesy Notice sent to property owner, Ruth Cadruvi, regarding
illegal camping. Mrs. Cadruvi has never contacted this office.
July 10, 2001
Site visit: Motor home, travel trailer, etc., still on property. No
garbage on site. Owner stated they take garbage down to Chico.
Septic system appears to be working satisfactorily.
Since there were no problems with garbage, septic and water, the
complaint was forwarded to Planning/Code Enforcement.
July 30, 2001
Letter from adjacent property owners received. Problem of illegal
CB/gUcomplain/woodhavcn
•
camping still exists.
10/03/01 WED 12:30 FAX 5305387470 BUTTE DDS.
10 5+,p 01
The Plonorable Board of supervisors
Burrs County
25 County CemcrDrive
Omivilte, CA 93955
X1005
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SEP 2 12001
OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA
mar Gen lemen
On 24 Jul, the property owners on Woodhaven Drive in Cohasset wrote letters to tate Code Enforcement
Old: and a similar letter to the Environmental Health office in Chico. The letters were complaints about
an illegal residence at 09 Woodhaven Drive, and covered health as well as social issues.
Please find attached, a copy of one of the letters.
We hive seen no sign of interest by eitber of the agencies contacted. It is possible that tpese agencies do
not hhtve a staff -ed table of organization but provide only telephone answering services. We are concerned
aboot a fanuof two adults and eight ehddren living in an assortment of motor biomes and trailers with
inadequate waste disposal and, we understand, children sent home from school for health reasons. If,
indead, the two organiadons that should be interested do not really have a presence, we think that Butte
County is not acting in the best interests of it's residents.
Very truly yours
Cona:rned Woodhaven Drive property owners
1002 I. CohassetRd, Chico CA 95973-8810
• Mr Perry Johnson:
Mrs Cherie Johnson:
159 NVoodhaven Dr, Chico CA 95973-8810
Mr Harold Wells: e441 --a
Mrs Nancy Wells: Cil tJ�
165 Woodhaven Dr, Chico CA 95973-8810
Mr Gene Kelly.
Mrs Nilmah Kelly:
170 Woodhaven Dr, Chico CA 939734310
Mr Greg E:ppetsom -
Mrs Mary Epperson:
10/03/01 DYED 12:30 FAX 5305387470 BUTTE DDS, X006
190 •Woodhaven Dr, Chico.CA 95973-8810
Mr Mark Greenwald: c� JAW
Mrs Valerie Greenwald;
191 V�oodhavea Dr, Chi;;95973.8810
Mr lames MoIit4,W
19'Woodha'ven Dr, Chico CA 959734810
Mr Robert Pvjean:
Mrs Carol Prejean:
•
0
C7
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Development Review Commission
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission
County Departments
FROM: Tom Buford, Interim Director
SUBJECT: Environmental Review Forms and Procedures
DATE: October 4, 2001
p ECE.0VE
OCT 4 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
The Department of Development Services is the Department most often charged with the
preparation of environmental review documents required for projects, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). .This Memorandum summarizes recent and
ongoing changes in the environmental review process followed by the Department, including
modifications to the document templates used by the. Department. These changes, and ongoing
efforts with regard to our environmental review, will improve our environmental review process
by the production of documents that are more clear and concise, while ensuring that our
documents and procedures comply with the statutory requirements.
CEQA requires that environmental review be conducted for each project. A "project" is
generally defined as one requiring the exercise of discretion by the local agency. As an example,
the issuance of a use permit would require the exercise of discretion, because the County has the
authority to prohibit or permit the use unless certain conditions are met. In most cases, on the
other hand, the review of plans submitted in connection with an application for a single-family
residence on a residentially zoned parcel would not require environmental review, because the
permit is viewed as a ministerial act.
Our Department prepares environmental documents in most cases in which the County is the
lead agency. This occurs most often in connection with an application for a use permit, tentative
map, or other permit processed by the Planning Division.
We have instituted the following changes:
(1) Initial Study:
We have revised the form for the Initial Study. The Initial Study is conducted to review the
various environmental issue areas, and to disclose both the staff conclusion as to whether the
environmental impact is potentially significant, and whether mitigation measures could be
Allemorandum Re: CEQA Compliance
6ctober 4, 200/
Page 2
imposed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. If so, we would issue a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for public review.
Our revised form was adapted from a review of forms currently in use in a. number of .other
public agencies.
(2) Agreement to Accept Mitigation Measures:
The Initial Study now includes a form to document that the applicant has agreed.to include the
proposed mitigation measures in the project description." If the applicant will not accept the
proposed mitigation measures, the identified environmental impact would not be reduced to a
less than significant level, and an environmental impact report would be required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b)(1) indicates that a mitigated negative declaration -may be
prepared and distributed for public review in those cases in which potentially significant effects
have been identified, but "Revisions in the project plans made by or agreed to by the applicant
before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public
review... " would reduce any identified impacts to a less than significant level. Our Department
procedures have been revised to require" that the applicant or authorized representative provide
written consent to the proposed mitigation measures prior to distribution of the mitigated
negative declaration. Documenting the acceptance makes good sense, and avoids potential
misunderstandings in later stages of the planning process.
(3) Notice of Intention:
We have revised the form utilized for the Notice of Intention to Adopt a ALfitigated Negative
Declaration. The revised form conforms to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, and
specifically sets forth the opening and closing dates for public comment. Our Department has
also instituted procedures to ensure that the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines regarding
public notice are complied with.
(4) Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Lead agencies are required to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for approved projects
subject to a mitigated negative declaration. We have instituted procedural changes to document
the mitigation monitoring program in connection with project approvals. -We are also examining
the manner in which ongoing mitigation monitoring requirements are satisfied. These efforts
may involve monitoring over a long period of time, and the budgetary and staff impacts should
be considered to ensure that mitigation occurs.
(5) Other issues:
There are 'a number of other procedures relating to the environmental review process that deserve
attention. These include the establishment of standard mitigation measures, to better ensure that
• we achieve consistency in the mitigation process.
If you have questions regarding any of the revised forms or procedures, please contact me. We
welcome suggestions regarding improvements in Department practices at any time.
Sip 27 01 01:4.0p Daniel. Hays
• FIRE PROTECTION' SYSTEM:
(530) 342-2222
FOR PURPOSES OF FIRE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARCELS, THE DEVELOPER SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
PERMITS, PROVIDE AND INSTALL A PRIVATE PRESSURIZED WATER
SYSTEM.
THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 20,000 GALLONS WATER
STORAGE AND A PRESSURIZING SYSTEM
AT 20 PSI. CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
WATER TO THE FIRE .HYDRANTS AT THE RATE OF 2000 GPM, MINIMUM,
THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE FOR AUTOMATIC WATER . RECOVERY TO
THE STORAGE TANKS AT ALL TIMES AND WHEN IN USE.
THE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH 6" PVC PIPE TO TWO .(2) FIRE
HYDRANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH. COUNTY OF BUTTE, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, STANDARD. NO. S-27 (FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION).
SPACING OF SAID FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 300'
(THREE HUNDRED FEET) APART AND THE LOCATIONS OF EACH, SHALL
BE APPROVED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE MARSHALL.
THE SYSTEM SHALL 'BE TESTED ANNUALLY BY AN AUTHORIZED PUMP .
TESTING COMPANY; AND COPIES ' OF SAID TESTING AND RESULTS
SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT.
ALL BUILDINGS ON ALL PARCELS. WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE EQUIPPED
WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHEN REQUIRED BY
THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.
•
D ECEod�
OCT 4 2C01
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
•
4
Sep27 01 01:40p Daniel Hays (530), 342-2222
Sep -27-01 11:41P CDF Fire Prevention 13TU 916-538-2105
�.r co v, vo:iaa uanjei nays 15301 342-2222
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTFL&
FOR PURPOSES OF FIRE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PAR EUS, i HE , WVELOPER SHALL, AS A CO NU111UN Of- 1 Ht BUILOING
PERiwii i S, PROVIDE AND iNS i ALL A PRIVATE PRESSURIZED WATER
Sy$ i tM.
THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE A NHNIMAUM OF 20,000 GALLONS WATER
STORAGE AND A PRESSURIZING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF DELfVERING
WATER TO THE FIRE HY!)RANTS AT T149: RSTF O< 2nnn r,3e& a��uiew�ua
AT 7n PRI
THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE FOR AUTOp NC MMR RIEG1OWRY ro
IrLr` vTv.�nvE'.."�`ii;$ ni k. T&d^ Pw'rCi 3iv' .uoi�i
A PA -4 vfA
THE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED WrrHA67 PVC PIPE TO TWO (2) FIRE
WI DRANTS iN ACCORDE d f 1 h GUUN 1 Y'Uf HU T It, DEPARTMENT OF
I''UftH: WOK KS, 8IANOARD. NO. S-27 (FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION).
SPACING OF SAID , FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 3w
(THREE HUNDRED FEET) APART AND THE LOCATIONS OF EACH, SHALL
BE APPROVED RY THE BUTTE CA1,NTV F1RF."A11
THE SYSTEM SHALL BE TESTED ANNUALLY BY AN AUTHORIZED PUMP
�cTlur CO,Jpaidy� ANn rop!Ea OF SM 'c'oTl."iG Ar4V "• S
• • d'lT�a
Q RI 1 OG M�Of.' C11 T/� f M M MTr n .. .wE Oft . �.� �� ,�
v. �' �- V vn �"1 �i Gv � V T1 µ, Y V � 1 � vOvSS'i f i-►n� vcre�ts / amts+/ l ..
J
0
/%'�r+�.• I S 1 ti.1 L�LLo¢.DLkLG�t_, �..1�-f��1 a vic.
4�'I.VS►SIco-• c� ° a:�i..l..,w. 1C G �� Iot.l�
'�i'� �,Mw. ! e.� ►1 A w 6 (.A.e topN 40 AM- Ltd
1
p.2
P.O1
P.1
i
t
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '
DEPARTMENT D "�
PLANNING I
411 Main Street
1ITYorCHICOp.0. Box 3420 OCT 10 2001
INC. wc.ie7z Chico, CA 95927 t
(530) 895-4851 BUTTE COUNTY
FAX (530) 895-4726 PLANNING DIVISION
ATSS 459-4851
October 8, 2001
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Re: Eaton Road Property; Infill Policy
Dear Commissioners:
This letter addresses the following unresolved issues related to the 2000 AirportLand Use
Compatibility Plan. I . respectfully request that they be included on your next meeting '
agenda for discussion and possible resolution. ;
1. You may recall that both before and after adoption of the Compatibility Plan, both the
Chico City Manager expressed significant reservations concerning the Plan's C-(1)
compatibility'.zoning for certain properties located north of Eaton Road (please see.
Attachment #1). The City's .prezoning of these properties would have allowed
development of between 550 and 920 residential units, but the C (1) compatibility zone
would limit that number to 11.
At the joint meeting of the`ALUC and the Chico City Council on the Compatibility Plan
last February 20, 2001, the City Manager proposed a compromise in which a large
portion of these properties would be prezoned with Community.Commercial zoning,
leaving a smaller area for•residential development. This concept originated with the
City's AirportManager, and would provide for a 300 -foot -deep strip of commercial
zoning along the properties' Eaton Road frontage, and on both sides of the planned
CMA west -side access from- Eaton north across Sycamore 'Creek: At the meeting,
Chairman Rosene replied that -the Compatibility Plan was not written in stone; it could
be modified, and the ALUC would be willing to look.at a specific -proposal.
Attachment #2 shows that specific proposal. I anticipate attending your meeting to
address any questions you may have.
l
SAKim\ALUC\change request Itr.wpd
f
I
g�� Made From Recycled Paper
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
October 8, 2001
Page 2
Request: Amend the Compatibility Plan to allow the City to amend its General Plan
and rezone the property consistent with the proposal shown in Attachment #2.
2. Another issue raised by both the City Manager and me had to do with the Compatibility
Plan's infill policies, and we are relying on the ALUC's 'assurances that the
Commission would be prepared to work through this issue.
In his letter to you dated November 15, 2000, the City Manager wrote:
We do agree with .the need for a definition of infill in order to distinguish
qualifying properties from those whose development would truly represent an
outward expansion of the developed area of the City. Once that definition has
been established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop
consistent with existing zoning provisions and the use restrictions listed in Table
2A, and without further airport -related limitation. As proposed, the draft Plan.
provides that even if a property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three .
bullets of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1), depending on its size there is an additional
limitation on the density or intensity of that property as shown in 2.4.4(a)(2) and
(3). We do not view additional limitations affecting true. infill parcels as a
. necessary measure to protect the airport from encroachment by incompatible
land uses, and recommend that they be deleted.
I can readily understand concerns that outward expansions of incompatible urban land
uses toward the airport may be inappropriate, and that, it is proper that the
Compatibility Plan address these. It does not appear, however, that a.true infill site
well within the developed urban fabric will adversely affect airport operations if that site
is developed consistent with the city's General -Plan.
An example of an infill development project that has run afoul of the Compatibility
Plan's current infill policy is the proposed Floral Commons Subdivision, located on
4:59 acres west of Flora'I Avenue (please see Attachment -#3), and currently moving
through the City's planning process: The subdivision consists of 29 lots at a density
of slightly less -than 6 units per gross acre, which satisfies the density requirements of
the Chico General Plan (please see Attachment #4). It meets each of the infill
provisions except for that contained in Bullet #1 of Policy 2.4.4(a)(2): the proposed
density is greater than the overall density.represented by all existing lots which lie fully
or partially within a distance of 300.feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided.
We have calculated the overall density of these surrounding lots at 3.7 units per net
acre, and for comparison the density of the proposed subdivision at just over 6 units
• S:WmWLUC\change request Itr.wpd
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
M October 8, 2001
Page 3
per net acre. The subdivision is clearly more dense than surrounding'development,
and is therefore inconsistent with the infill policy.
In fact, however, to be consistent with the policy, 'the proposed lots would need to be
larger than the majority of existing lots nearby, because the average is skewed by the
presence of several large parcels which themselves would be considered potential infill
sites.
In the present case, and in the case of other infill sites that in every other way meet the
infill criteria as presented in the Compatibility Plan, there appear to be no substantive
issues regarding the long-term viability of the airport that is sufficiently unequivocal as
to necessitate disallowing development that is consistent with the City's General, Plan.
Request: Amend the Compatibility. Plan's infill policies to delete the references to .
consistency with surrounding residential development that are included in 2.4.4(a)(2):
I very much appreciate your consideration of these matters, and hope -you will agendize
them for discussion and possible action at your October 17 meeting.
o -
Respectfully,
Kim Seidler
Planning Director
Attachments: 1. Letter from Tom Lando Dated 11 /15/00
2. Proposal for Zoning of Eaton Road Properties
3. Location of Floral Commons Subdivision
4. Floral Commons Property and Surrounding Parcels
ccuM:A: Meleka, ?
Tom Buford
CM, 'CA, AM, CDD
Dan Hays
• SAKim\ALUC\change request Itr.wpd .
Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Re: Draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you forthe.opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. We have been quite gratified by the willingness of the Airport Land Use .
Commission to work with the City in,addressing the concerns we raised about the first draft
Plan last April, and from our point of view, substantial progress has been made in the
preparation of a document the City will be rabl6to support. There are, however, several
remaining issues that may need clarification.
1 _ Density reduction in C(1). The draft Plan proposes to apply a C(1) compatibility zone
for a several large parcels north of Eaton Road that have long been designated and
zoned for residential development. Based on current City zoning, these parcels could
support the development of 550 to. 920 residential units, but the C(1) zone would
allow a maximum of 11. This represents a very significant reduction in the potential
development of housing needed to support Chico's long-term anticipated growth, and .
'would substantially shorten the effective life of our General Plan. The original draft
provided a choice (either 5 -acre minimum lots -or at least'5 units per acre) that is no
longer reflected in the C(1) zoning. In addition, it does not appear that the.effects of
density reductions associated with the proposed compatibility zoning for these parcels
.have been addressed.in the draft initial study.
Understand that a feasible resolution of this'' issue may lie in an extension of the
general aviation runway to the north. VWe are, actively studying that alternative; and
will keep the Commission informed of any progress made. .
2. Bidwell Ranch. The draft Plan includes the Bidwell Ranch ,property in the B2
compatibility zone.. We do understand the reasons for the inclusion of this land in B2,
and frankly agree with the underlying philosophy that prompted it. To this point,
ATTACHMENT 1- 0a ,
Z<9 Made From Recycled'Paper .
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
411 Main Street
CIT to Mlco
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
,,,c 1871
(530) 895-4800
FAX (530) 895-4825
ATSS 459-4800
Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Re: Draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you forthe.opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. We have been quite gratified by the willingness of the Airport Land Use .
Commission to work with the City in,addressing the concerns we raised about the first draft
Plan last April, and from our point of view, substantial progress has been made in the
preparation of a document the City will be rabl6to support. There are, however, several
remaining issues that may need clarification.
1 _ Density reduction in C(1). The draft Plan proposes to apply a C(1) compatibility zone
for a several large parcels north of Eaton Road that have long been designated and
zoned for residential development. Based on current City zoning, these parcels could
support the development of 550 to. 920 residential units, but the C(1) zone would
allow a maximum of 11. This represents a very significant reduction in the potential
development of housing needed to support Chico's long-term anticipated growth, and .
'would substantially shorten the effective life of our General Plan. The original draft
provided a choice (either 5 -acre minimum lots -or at least'5 units per acre) that is no
longer reflected in the C(1) zoning. In addition, it does not appear that the.effects of
density reductions associated with the proposed compatibility zoning for these parcels
.have been addressed.in the draft initial study.
Understand that a feasible resolution of this'' issue may lie in an extension of the
general aviation runway to the north. VWe are, actively studying that alternative; and
will keep the Commission informed of any progress made. .
2. Bidwell Ranch. The draft Plan includes the Bidwell Ranch ,property in the B2
compatibility zone.. We do understand the reasons for the inclusion of this land in B2,
and frankly agree with the underlying philosophy that prompted it. To this point,
ATTACHMENT 1- 0a ,
Z<9 Made From Recycled'Paper .
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
November 15,'2000
Page 2.
• .however, the City has made no decision with regard to future use of that property,
and until that decision is made, it would-be premature to amend the City's. General
Plan to conform•to the compatibility zoning proposed in the draft Plan. As you may
_know, the City is seeking funds to provide for a permanent set-aside of a large portion
of this land for the purpose.of ensuring a permanent flight corridor, and we are
optimistic regarding our chances for success in this. Nevertheless, I regret to inform
you that we are currently not in a position to support the B2 compatibility zoning for
Bidwell Ranch.
3. C(2)' west of the airport. We -recommend that the draft Plan provide for C(2)
compatibility zoning on the Bechtel property east of the airport; as it already does on
land west of the airport_ The City is currently reviewing its existing inventory of land
designated for future residential development throughout the urban area, and will be
looking at possible new residential sites. Residential development of the Bechtel
property would require an amendment to the City's General Plan; obviously, until site- -
specific analysis is conducted; we do not know whether such an amendment could
ultimately be supported. Still, C(2) compatibility zoning here would' leave the door
open -.to an exploration of this potential by the City, and it does not appear that it
would be inconsistent with the purposes of the draft Plan..
• 4. Sycamore Creek. Attached for your reference is a section of the Land Use
Compatibility map., as modified by City Staff to show more detail of underlying
features (Attachment #1).. As discussed in my letter to you dated October 11, 2000,
recommend that the southern boundary of the B2 compatibility zone at this location
coincide with the channel of Sycamore Creek, the nearest geographical feature and
parcel boundary. Although there are significant environmental constraints here and
it is therefore highly unlikely that the land lying immediately to the south of the creek
will "be developed, the extent of* that: area has not yet been identified,' and any
delineation of it by the B2 compatibility zoning boundary south of the creek is
premature.
If the Commission wishes to include some additional property south of Sycamore r
Creek in the B2 compatibility zone in this general area, we recommend that it be
configured as shown in Attachment #2. The additional land this recommendation
includes in B2 has already been designated through Army Corps of Engineers permits
as an open space conservation area, and it will therefore not be developed.
5. Infill policy. There are a number of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in the City that
appear to be affected by the infill policy of the draft.Plan. I do appreciate your,
assurances that the Commission is prepared to work through these infill issues with
the'City as a part of this adoption process, and anticipate that City staff will be .
Letter to Airport Land. Use Commission
November 15, 2000
Page 3
meeting with you shortly to do so. Still, .at this point we have several concerns
regarding the infill policy.
We do agree with the need for a definition of infill in order to distinguish, qualifying
properties from those whose development would truly represent an outward
expansion of. the developed area of the City. Once that definition has been
established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop consistent
with existing. zoning provisions and the use rest rictionslisted in Table 2A, and without
further airport -related limitation.- As proposed, the draft Plan provides that even if a
property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three bullets of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1)-
depending on its size there is -an additional limitation on the density or intensity of that
property -as shown in2.4.4(a)(2) and (3). We do not view additional limitations
affecting true infill parcels as a necessary measure to protect the airport. from
encroachment by incompatible land uses, and recommend that they be deleted.
The fourth bullet of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1) is...not clear to us, and seems inconsistent with
the three bullets preceding it, all of which set criteria for determining whether parcels
qualify as infill.
6. Project review The draft Plan correctly states that. once the City's General Plan has
been made.consistent with the adopted Compatibility Plan, advisoryreview of major
development projects will be subject to voluntary agreement between the City and the
Commission. Such agreement might ideally be reached through additional.'
discussions between the Commission and our staff prior to Plan adoption. With .
regard to Policy 1.5.3(b), however, determinations of the extent to which land uses
on airport property constitute aviation or nonaviation development lie- solely within the
.City's, as opposed to the: Commission's, purview:
7. Prohibited .uses. The City of Chico may not have the authority under its land use
regulations to prohibit some of the uses listed as prohibited in Table 2A.. Public
schools, for example, are exempt from these' local regulations, as to a great extent
are small and.large family day car facilities. In addition, some of these uses may not
be inappropriate, such as a day care- center accessory to a commercial or industrial
use otherwise permitted. We recommend that the Commission. provide some level'
of flexibility in allowing case-by-case review of the appropriateness of these uses.
8: People per..acre Despite the direction Appendix,C provides in calculating the number
-of people per acre associated with a. particular land use, there is still substantial
confusion as to how these calculations can be fairly and consistently applied.
Furthermore, we do not concur that there is a need for people per acre limitations in
Letter to Airport Land Use C„rnmission"
November 15", 2000
Page 4
much of the urbanized "area covered by the draft Plan. This is a topic our staff will be
discussing with you in greater detail in the `near future..
9. "Nonconforming uses. 'We are -still unclear as to -the implications"of the draft Plan's
nonconforming and reconstruction policies. For"example, isan otherwise permitted*
and conforming use that" exceeds the maximum number of number of people per acre
considered nonconforming for the purpose of reconstruction?, Our "staff will be
working with you to"enhance our. understanding of your intent in this regard.
While we still have concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review prepared in
connection with'the draft Plan (expressed in Kim Seidler's letter to you dated April 6; 2000),
these concerns have been dyninished tor the extent that revisions to the draft have reduced
the:.potential"for significant land use impacts. This is clearly an ongoing process. As stated
above, we have appreciated the Commission's is
to"work with the City to achieve
resolution of 'remaining issues, "and progress is undeniable. We understand .the
Commission's desire to as quickly as reasonably possible adopt a Plan that is supported
by all jurisdictions involved;" and we share that desire. To that end, we are prepared to.
actively participate in continued discussions with the Commission.
Srinel
.1om Land
City Manager
cc: City Council "
Planning Commission
ACA, CA, AM, RM; CDD, CDA, PID " _
H
Hil
til
U -b
..........
Hil
til
U -b
1:�
�:
�'
�r
* ---------- F
W HITEW OD WAY
- WHITEWOOD WY _ c
300' of. Floral-Commons
-
�-
HEMMING W DESCHUTES OR
GLENSHIRE LN^G�
"
GLENSHIRE W ',- _ K_ - - _._
• IRELN - - • .
- GARDEN PARK DR
GARDEN P,
o : " ubdiuis ono
SILVER K DR, .
• t O m A � r ..c...'a " ?•�vn' hof , 2t - -
k c
* ARTESIA DR
JA C OR
CORTINA DR' O
I
ARTESIA DR ARTES
100 0 100 200 300 Feet
-Dens ityrEvaluation - Parcels-within
LOCATION
300'.'of Floral Commons MAP Qhiro.
- .. GIS
40
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
PLANNING
411 Main Street
-P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
(530) 895-4851
FAX (530) 895-4726
ATSS 459-4851
October 8, 2001
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965 .
Re: Eaton Road Property; Infill Policy
Dear Commissioners:
OCT 10 `2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
This letter addresses the following unresolved issues related to the 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. I respectfully request that they be included on your next meeting
agenda for discussion and possible resolution.
1. You may recall'that both before and after adoption of the Compatibility Plan, both,the
Chico City Manager expressed significant reservations concerning the Plan's C (1)
compatibility zoning for certain properties located north of Eaton Road (please see
Attachment #1). The City's prezoning of these properties would have allowed
development of between 550 and 920 residential units, butthe C (1) compatibility zone
would limit that number to 11.
At the joint meeting of the'ALUC and the Chico City Council on the Compatibility Plan
last February 20, 2001, the City Manager proposed a compromise in which a large
portion -of these properties would be prezoned with Community Commercial zoning,
leaving a smaller area for residential development. This concept originated with the
City's Airport Manager, and would provide fora 300 -foot -deep strip of commercial,
zoning along the properties' Eaton Road frontage, and on both sides of the planned
CMA west -side access from Eaton north across Sycamore Creek. At the meeting,
Chairman Rosene replied that the Compatibility Plan was not written in stone; it could
be modified, and the ALUC would be willing to look at a specific proposal.
Attachment #2 shows that specific proposal. I anticipate attending your meeting to
address any questions you may have.
SAKimWLtJQchange request Ilr.wpd
•
i
}
Made From Recycled Paper
a
a
i
1
I
5
t
j
a
,
n
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
October 8, 2001
Page 2
Request: Amend .the Compatibility Plan to allow the City to amend its General Plan
and rezone the property consistent with the proposal shown in Attachment #2.
2. Another issue raised by both the City Manager and me had to do with the Compatibility
Plan's infill policies, and we are relying on the ALUC's assurances that the
Commission would be prepared to work through this issue.
In his letter to you dated Novembe'r 15, 2000, the City Manager wrote:
We do agree with the need for a definition of infill in order to distinguish
qualifying properties from those whose development would truly represent an
outward expansion of the developed area of the City. Once that definition has
been established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop
consistent with existing zoning provisions and the use restrictions listed in Table
2A, and without further airport -related limitation. -As proposed, the draft Plan
provides that even if a property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three
bullets of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1), depending on its size - there is an additional
limitation on the density or. intensity of that property as shown in 2.4.4(a)(2) and
(3). We do not view additional limitations affecting true infill parcels as a
necessary measure to protect the airport from encroachment by incompatible
land uses, and recommend that they be deleted.
I can readily understand concerns that outward expansions of incompatible urban land
uses toward the airport may be inappropriate,. and that it is proper that the
Compatibility Plan address these. It does not appear., however, that a true infill site
well within the developed urban fabric will adversely affect airport operations if that site
is developed consistent with the city's General Plan.
An example of an infill development project that'has run afoul of the Compatibility
Plan's current infill policy is the proposed Floral Commons Subdivision, located on
4.59 acres west of Floral Avenue (please see Attachment #3), and currently moving
through the City's planning process. The subdivision consists of 29 lots at a density
of slightly less than 6 units per gross acre, which satisfies the density requirements of .
the Chico ' General Plan (please see Attachment #4). It meets each of the infill
provisions except for that contained in Bullet #1 of Policy 2.4.4(a)(2): the proposed
density is greater than the overall density represented. by all -existing lots which lie fully
or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided.
We have calculated the overall density of these surrounding lots at 3.7 units per net
acre, and for comparison the density of the proposed subdivision at just over 6 units
0 -
SAKim\ALUC\change request Ilcwpd
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
October 8, 2001
Page 3
per net acre. The subdivision is•clearly more dense than surrounding development,
and is therefore inconsistent with the infill policy. F.
r
In fact, however, to be consistent with the policy, the proposed lots would need to be
larger than the majority of existing lots nearby, because the average is skewed by the
presence of several large parcels which themselves would be considered potential infill
r'
sites.
In the present case, and in the case of other infill sites that in every other -way meet the
infill criteria as presented In the Compatibility Plan, there appear to be no substantive
issues regarding the long=term Viability of the airport that is sufficiently unequivocal as
to necessitate disallowing development that is consistent with the City's General Plan.
J
Request: Amend the Compatibility Plan's infill policies to delete the references to
consistency with surrounding residential development that are included in 2.4.4(a)(2).,
I verymuch appreciate your consideration of these matters, and hope you will agendize
them for discussion and possible action at your October. 17 meeting.
Respectfully,
Kim Seidler
Planning Director
Attachments:. 1. Letter from Tom Lando Dated 11/15/00
j 2. Proposal for Zoning of Eaton Road Properties
3. Location of Floral Commons Subdivision ;
4. Floral Commons Property and Surrounding Parcels
t
cc: M.A. Meleka
Tom Buford t
CM, CA, AM, CDD f
Dan Hays
SAKimWLUMchange request Itr.wpd r t
O>;'F7CE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
411 Main Street
�0
CITY or cHlco P.O. Box 3420
,,x.1871 Chico. CA 95927
(530) 895-4800
FAX (530) 895-4825
ATSS 459-4800 „
November 15; 2000
Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 9596.5
Re: Draft 2000 -Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Dear Commissioners:
DC��oWE
OCT. 10 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2000 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. We have been quite gratified by the willingness of the Airport Land Use
Commission to work with the City in addressing the concerns we raised about the first draft
Plan last April, and from our point of view, substantial progress has�b.een made in the
preparation of a document the City will be able to support. There are, however, several
remaining issues that may need clarification:
1. Density reduction in C(1): The draft Plan proposes to apply a C(1) compatibility zone
for a several large parcels north of Eaton Road that have long been designated and
zoned for residential development. Based on current City zoning,.these parcels could.
support the development of 550 to 920 residential units, but the .C(1) zone would
allow a .maximum of 11. This represents a very significant reduction in the potential
development. of housing needed to support Chico's long-term anticipated growth, and
'would substantially shorten the effective life of our General Plan. The original draft
provided a choice (either 5 -acre minimum lots or at least'5 units per acre) that is no
longer reflected in the C(1) zoning. In addition, it does not appear that the effects of
density reductions associated with the proposed compatibility zoning for these parcels
have been addressed in, the draft, initial study.
J understand that a feasible resolution of this issue may lie in an extension of the
general aviation 'runway to the north. -We are actively studying that alternative; and.
will keep the Commission informed of any progress made. .
2. Bidwell Ranch. The draft Plan- includes the Bidwell Ranch property in the 132
compatibility zone.. We do understand the reasons for the inclusion of this land in B2,
and frankly _agree with the underlying philosophy that prompted it. 'To this point,
ATTACH MINT . (�
&9 Made From Rmcled1Payer
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
November 15, 2000
Page 2.
however, the City has made no decision with regard to future use of that at property,
and until that decision is made, it would be premature to amend the City's General.
Plan to conform to the compatibility zoning proposed in the draft Plan. As you may
know, the City is seeking funds to provide for a permanent set-aside of a large portion
of this land for the purpose.of ensuring a permanent flight corridor, and we are
optimistic regarding our chances for success in this. Nevertheless, I regret to inform
you that we are currently not in a position to support the B2 compatibility zoning for
Bidwell Ranch.
3. C(2) west of the airport. We .recommend that the draft Plan provide for C(2)
compatibility zoning on the Bechtel .property east of the airport, as it already does on
eland west of the airport_ The City is currently reviewing its existing inventory of land
designated for future residential development throughout the urban area, and will be
looking at possible new residential sites. Residential development of the Bechtel
property would require an amendment to the City's General Plan; obviously, until site-
specific analysis is conducted; we do not know whether such an amendment could
ultimately be supported. Still, C(2) compatibility zoning here would leave the door
open.to an exploration of this potential by the City, and it does not appear that it
would be inconsistent with the purposes of the draft Plan..
4. Sycamore Creek. Attached for your reference is a section of the Land Use
Compatibility map, as modified by City Staff to show more detail of underlying
features (Attachment #1). As discussed in my letter to you dated October 11, 2000,
1 recommend that the southern boundary of the B2 compatibility zone at this location
coincide with the channel of Sycamore Creek, the nearest geographical feature and
parcel boundary. Although there are significant environmental constraints here and
it is therefore highly. unlikely that the land lying immediately to the south of the creek
will be developed, the extent of, that: area has not yet been identified, and any
delineation of it by the B2 compatibility zoning boundary south of the creek is
premature.
If the Commission wishes to include some additional property south of Sycamore
Creek in the B2 compatibility zone in this general area, we recommend that it be
configured as shown in Attachment #2. The additional land this recommendation
includes -in B2 has already been designated through Army Corps of Engineers permits
as an open space conservation area, and it will therefore not be developed.
5. Infill policy. There are a number of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in the City that
appear to be affected,by the.infill policy of the draft Plan. I do appreciate your.
assurances that the Commission is prepared to work through these infill issues with
the City as a part of this- adoption process, and anticipate that City staff will be
41
;r
Letter to Airport Land Use Commission
November 15, 2000
Page 3,
• meeting with you shortly to do so. - Still, at this point we have several concerns
regarding the infill policy.
We do agree. with the need for a definition of infill in order to distinguish qualifying
properties from those whose development would truly represent an. outward
expansion of. the developed area of the City. Once that definition has been
established, however, it is appropriate to allow infill properties to develop consistent
with existingzoning provisions and the use restrictions listed in Table 2A, and without
further airport -related limitation. As proposed, the draft Plan provides that even if a
property qualifies as an infill parcel under the first three bullets of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1),
depending on its size there is an additional limitation on the density or intensity of that
property :as shown in2.4.4(a)(2) and (3). We do not view additional limitations
affecting true infill parcels as a necessary measure to protect the airport from
encroachment by incompatible land uses, and recommend that they be deleted.
The fourth bullet of Policy 2.4.4(a)(1) is,.not clear to us, and seems inconsistent with
the three bullets preceding it, all of which set criteria for determining whether parcels
qualify, as infill.
6. Project review. The draft Plan correctly states that once the City's General Plan has'
been made consistent with the adopted Compatibility Plan, advisory review of major
development projects will be subject to voluntary agreement between the City and the
Commission. Such agreement might ideally be reached through additional
discussions between the Commission and our staff prior to Plan adoption. With .
regard to Policy 1.5.3(b), however, determinations of the extent to which land uses
on airport property constitute aviation or nonaviation development lie solely within the
City's, as opposed to the Commission's, purview.
7. Prohibited uses. The City of Chico may not have the authority under its land use
regulations to prohibit some of the uses listed as prohibited in Table 2A.. Public
schools, for example, are exempt.from these local regulations, as to a great extent
are small and.large family day car facilities. In addition, some of these uses may not
be inappropriate, such as a day care center accessory to a commercial or industrial
use otherwise permitted. We recommend that the Commission .provide some level
of flexibility in allowing case-by-case review of the appropriateness of these uses.
8: People per.acre. Despite the direction Appendix.0 provides in calculating the number
of people per acre associated with a particular land use, there is still substantial
confusion as to how, these calculations can be fairly and consistently applied.
Furthermore, we do not concur that there is a need for people per acre limitations in
0
Letter to Airport Land Use,G�rrnrnission
November 15, 2000
° Page 4
much of the urbanized area covered by the draft Plan. This is a topic our staff will be
discussing with you in greater'detail in the near future..
9: NonconforTning uses. We are -still unclear as -to -the implications of the draft Plan's
nonconforming and reconstruction' policies. For example, is an otherwise permitted
and conforming use that. exceeds the maximum number of number of people per acre
considered nonconforming for the purpose of reconstruction? Our staff will be
working with you to enhance our understanding of your intent in this regard.
While we still have concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review prepared in
connection with'the draft Plan (expressed 'in Kim Seidler's letter to you dated April 6, 2000),
these concerns have been diminished tor the extent that revisions to the draft have reduced
the..potential'for significant land use impacts: This is clearly an ongoing process. As stated
above, we have appreciated the Commission's willingness to"work with the City to achieve "
resolution of'
remaining issues', and Progress is undeniable. We understand the
Commission's desire to as quickly as reasonably possible adopt a Plan that is,supported
by all jurisdictions involved, and we share that desire.- To that end, we are prepared to
actively participate in continued discussions with the Commission.'
Sin ely,
V `^'t
om Lando
City Manager,
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
ACA, CA, AM, RM -,.CDD, CDA, PID
•
Suggested Option:
1. Band of Commercial Zoning
1
N 300' ;from future*access roa_'d;
and the northside of Eaton Road,
east of the future access road.
u Anticipate 2. Multi family Residential Zoning in
Access Road fo the NE corner.
Industrial Park
Sycam a Creek
C E
OCT 10 2001
ATTACHENT 2 BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
v
1n,
Row
'qEW
WHITEWOOQ WAY
r,
-4
300'of Floral
Commons,
:
WHITEWOODWY
c
Z
C
o
'
HEMMING LN
DESCHUTES DR
i
T- E
GLENSHIRE LN
GLENSHIRE LN '- + 'AG4LN'
Commons`
GARDEN PARK DR, NPARKR
ARTESIA DR
3
JA C OR
R • �
_ -
A
CORTINA DR
rr
O
.
-
D
ARTESIA DR.
ARTES
100 0
100 200 300
Feet
Density Evaluation - Parcels within
- -
:•
"C"'.
300' of Flo' 'dommons
LOCATION MAP
GIS