HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHICO GENERAL PLAN (OVERRIDE) 210-01-01NORM ROSENE, D.D.S.
Planning Division
August 18, 1998 AUG 1 gin
OroVille, Califomia
Robert E. Koch
Risk Manager, City of Chico
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
Dear Bob,
Thank you for sending me the information regarding the Adoption of the
Chico General Plan and the override of the Butte County ALUC Findings of
Inconsistency.
In reviewing the information documenting the City of Chico's position, I
am unable to locate specific items which are required in order to legally
override an ALUC decision. Below I have summarized the missing items ac—
cording to my "layman's understanding" of the law.
1. The Brown Act requires that meeting agendas be posted at least
72 hours prior to a public meeting and that a brief general de—
scription be listed for each item to be discussed. The meeting
notices for the 1994 Chico General Plan Update (which included
the override of ALUC) do not list or mention overriding the ALUC
finding of inconsistency. The Brown Act states, "The purpose
of the brief general description is to inform interested members
of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that
they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting
of the body." Could you please refer me to the meeting notices
that specifically refer to the ALUC override for the Chico City
Council/Planning Commission meeting of 11/16/97?
2. Another requirement for the legal override process is a public
hearing and presentation of evidence which justifies the override.
While the record demonstrates that a public hearing occurred re—
garding the General Plan Update, it does not appear that a public
hearing took place regarding and pertaining to the override of ALUC.
No discussion ever occurred (that I can find in the minutes) re—
garding the evidence supporting the ALUC override. No public tes—
timony specific to the ALUC override seems to have occurred, or
exists in the meeting records. Since the General Plan Update
was read by title only, it appears that potential public testimony
regarding the override of ALUC was procedurally dismissed. Again,
this is my impression from reading the minutes and evaluating the
override requirements. I would appreciate an explanation from
1049 VILLAGE LANE CHICO. CALIFORNIA, 95926 TELEPHONE (916) 342-4300
t
Page 2 of 3
the City of Chico regarding this apparent omission, or be given
the documents.which demonstrate that a public hearing occurred
specific to the evidence and override.
3. The actual requirements for the override of an ALUC specify a
two-thirds vote of the governing body (such as the City.Council).
While I can read in the minutes that the City Council voted 7-0
to adopt the General Plan Update, I do not see evidence in the
minutes where they voted specifically regarding the ALUC override.
Since the General Plan Update was read by title only, was there
ever a vote regarding the override of ALUC that occurred separately
from the General Plan Update?
4. Lastly, the override of*an ALUC requires the presence of "specific
findings" which support the override. The listed findings in the
text of the General Plan Update include:
a. "That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is consistent
with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compati-
bility Plan."
b. "That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan pertaining
to the CMA Environs area shall be consistent with the update
of the Chico -Municipal Airport Environs Plan."
Regarding "b" above, how can a specific finding exist that relies
on a future, and as yet unwritten, document? We (ALUC) have yet
to update the CLUPs. Since the document does not exist, it is
illogical to base any sort of argument upon it. I must conclude
that this specific finding lacks merit.
Regarding "a" above, the noise compatibility study (while debatably
flawed) is certainly not comprehensive enough by itself to support
massive changes in zoning and land uses around the Chico Municipal
Airport. By definition, the noise study was just that, a noise study.
It never addressed other key factors which must be considered when
planning development around an airport. In fact, I do not believe
that the FAA Part 150 document had been approved by the FAA at that
point in time.
After reviewing the specific findings, I must conclude that they are ex-
tremely weak. They certainly do not justify the necessity for massive
zoning and land use changes as they occur in the General Plan Update. I
would certainly like to hear an explanation of the specific findings from
the City of Chico.
In order to keep this in the public forum, I would appreciate a written
Page 3 of 3
response to the above noted items 1-4. We can then discuss the city's
response at the next ALUC meeting. Since the City of Chico feels justified
in its override, more documentation must exist that I've not been privi-
ledged to examine -in order to satisfy the criteria for a legal -override.
Again, thank you for your effort in this matter. I look forward to the
city's response prior to the next ALUC meeting.
Sincerely,
Norm Rosene
pc: ALUC Commissioners and Alternates
NR: j pr
July 18, 1998
Norm Rosene
1049 Village Lane
Chico, CA 95926
RE: Materials Relating to Adoption of Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC Findings of
Inconsistency.
Dear Norm:
Per your request at the last ALUC meeting, enclosed are materials relating to the adoption, of the
current Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC findings of inconsistency including the
adopting resolutions, agenda for the 11/16/94 City Council meeting, minutes of that and prior
meetings relating to the matter and a copy of the County staff's letter indicating ALUC's .finding.
If you have any questions regarding these materials, please call City Manager Tom Lando at 895-
4802 or me at 895-4820.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Koch
Risk Manager
c: City Manager
%a�� Made From Recycled Paper
'
OFFICE OF THE
T:
CITY MANAGER
411 Main Street
CITYo►CHICO
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
INC. 11 2
(530) 895-4800
FAX (530) 895-4825
ATSS 459-4800
G-GA-2-10/Chrono
July 18, 1998
Norm Rosene
1049 Village Lane
Chico, CA 95926
RE: Materials Relating to Adoption of Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC Findings of
Inconsistency.
Dear Norm:
Per your request at the last ALUC meeting, enclosed are materials relating to the adoption, of the
current Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC findings of inconsistency including the
adopting resolutions, agenda for the 11/16/94 City Council meeting, minutes of that and prior
meetings relating to the matter and a copy of the County staff's letter indicating ALUC's .finding.
If you have any questions regarding these materials, please call City Manager Tom Lando at 895-
4802 or me at 895-4820.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Koch
Risk Manager
c: City Manager
%a�� Made From Recycled Paper
a
1 RESOLUTION NO. 82 94-95
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPDATE OFTHE
TTIiE CITY OF GENERAL PLAN OF
ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE
3 NOVEMBER 16, 1994 AND REPEALING THE EXISTING CITY OF CHICO PLAN
ADOPTED ON JULY 61 1976 —
4
5 WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes, the Chico- City Council
6 adopted a General Plan for the'City of Chico on July 6, 1976, and
7 has --.from time to time amended said plan; and
8 WHEREAS, due to the passage of time, continuing increases in
9 population and related development, other changing conditions in the
10 Chico Urban Area, and adoption of new federal and state legislation
11 affecting local land use and growth, the City Council determined to
12 initiate a comprehensive update to the General Plan; and
13 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section
14 65300, 'considered and established a Planning Area for said update
15 which encompasses an approximate 155 -square -mile territory located
16 in western Butte County, approximately 100 miles north of the City
17 of Sacramento, and 180 miles south of the northern California
18 border. The Planning Area is further defined as being bound on the
o K 19 north by Rock Creek and generally on the south by the Sacramento
IAL 20 River, Fell Road and a boundary line that extends eastward to the
I`� �''0 21 intersection of Neal Road and State Route (SR) 99, and follows Neal
I�o 22 Road to a point approximately 3 miles southwest of the Town of
m �
23 Paradise. The eastern border is formed by the existing 500 kV
9 24 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) power line, the .northernmost Bidwell
�I25 Park boundary, and an average 1,400 -foot elevation line in the
laa
26 foothills. The western border is the Sacramento River; and
I ( I I
establishing said Planning Area, the City
27 WHEREAS, after est g
28 Council initiated the General Plan update process in,late 1991 with
PAGE 1
PLD GENPLAN4.RFS
November 16, 1994
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the appointment by the City Council of a 41 -member Task Force. The
members of the Task Force resided within the Planning Area, both
within and outside of the incorporated boundaries of the City of
Chico. The Comprehensive Update of the General Plan began with the
identification of issues relevant to the update., process, an
assessment of the positive characteristics of the Chico Urban Areal's
built_ and natural environment and preparation of._ --a Master
Environmental Assessment (MEA) for the Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission and Task Force
evaluated said background information and considered opportunities
and constraints presented by this data and various planning and land
use options for the Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, based on the above background information, the City
Council, Planning. Commission and Task Force further, conducted an
extensive evaluation of various potential growth areas adjoining the
Chico Urban Area and within the. Planning Area; and
WHEREAS, the results of such analysis were used by the Council,
Commission and Task Force to direct preparation of a Discussion
Draft General Plan which contained all seven required general plan
elements: the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks,
Public Facilities and Services Element, open Space and Environmental
Conservation Element, Safety and Safety Services Element, Noise
Element, and the Housing Element. The Housing Element was
incorporated by reference because it was recently updated by the
City. Two optional elements, the Economic Development Element and
the Community Design Element, were .also included in the
Comprehensive update of the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Discussion Draft General Plan was widely
IPLD GENPLANCRFS ,
November 16, 1994 -
PAGE 2
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2E
listributed and several public work sessions were conducted with the
:ity Council, Planning Commission and Task Force to review the plan
and receive public testimony; and
WHEREAS, a Draft General Plan was prepared to reflect City
Council direction emanating from said work sessions;_ and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was also prepared
dna_ publinoticed pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, public comments on the draft Environmental Impact
Report were received and Responses were prepared and distributed in
the form of a Final EIR iri accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, this Council, having considered the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the
General Plan and: having certified said Final Environmental Impact
Report making the required findings and adopting a.statement of
overriding consideration pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the State planning and zoning laws require that the
Planning Commission make a written recommendation on the adoption
or amendment of a General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Update to
the General Plan by not less than a majority 'of the total
membership; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chico has held a
noticed public hearing and has deemed the proposed Comprehensive
Update to the General Plan to be in the public interest.
PLD GENP1ANCRES
November 16, 1994
PAGE 3
(l A
1
2 c
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:
24
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
)f Chico as follows:
1, rehensive Update of the General Plan dated
That the Comp
November 1994, including that certain text set forth in
said Plan and the Land Use Diagram which designates
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
--space land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning
25
26
27
28
al amendments deemed appropriate by
Area, and any addition
the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General
Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in full.
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated herein.
il has further acted, by a two-thirds
4. That, the City Counc
vote, to override the Airport Land Use Commission's
that the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan
finding
is inconsistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Land Use Plan, finding:
a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan.
b, That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan i
pertaining to °the CMA Environs area shall be
PLD GENPLANCRES
Novcmbcr 16, 1994
PAGE 4
L
la
th the .update of the Chico Municipal
consistent wi
1
Airport Environs Plana b
2 _ s noted in (a) and ( )
C. That in making those finding
3 Comprehensive
above, the Council also finds that the Comp
4
update of the General Plan is consistent with the
5 Part
findings contained in Article 3.5,
Chapter 4,
6_
Division 9, Section
7 21670 of the Public Utilities
1�
8 Code. of Anne
g 5.
That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory community,
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the comm
10Councilmember and Planning
li including
serving as a
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
12 reciation to the
6,_ That the Council hereby expresses.its app
13 Commission, and to
-Planning
14 General Plan Task Force, ated in and
other members of the public who have.p
articip
15tion of the new
16
contributed to the preparation and,adop
17 General Plan. That which was
the General Plan for the City of Chico,
18 -- 7. 61 1976, is
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July
19 _erseded.
hereby rescinded, repealed and sup
20g, directed to prepay(
That the Planning Director is hereby
21 Use Diagram and t'
General Plan and Land
22 a final Counci
incorporate any amendments app
oved by the City
r
23 1994.
at. the public hearing of November 16,
24 including the Land UE
25
g, That copies of the General Plan, Cle,
`
am be kept on f ile " in the offices of the City
26 Diagram, copies be ma'
and the Planning Divisi
27on, and that
28 available -to local libraries.
PA(
PLD GET'PLANCRES
1
;e
-k
ie
;E S
was adopted at a regular meeting of
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION the 16th day
1 C
the hico held on
City Council of the City of
2 the following vote:
1994 by Hubert,
3 of November
Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti,
q AYES: .
McGinnis and Owens.
5
NOES'. None.
6 ABSTAIN: None.
7 ABSENT: None. '
8 p, p VED AS TO FORM:
q ATTEST:
10
R be G. Boehm
11City Attorney
Barbarans
12 City Clerk
�.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o, n rFA'PIAN4.1LFS
PAGE E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
> 3
7
z a
18
F1
19
20
I
21
S
ml
1
n
22
$ I
I�F,
23
24
I
I> 9
25
26
271
281
RESOLUTION NO. 81 94-95
CITY OF CHICO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF CHICO
MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE
CHICO GENERAL PLAN—
Section 1. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
A. WHEREAS, the City of Chico initiated the General Plan update
process in late 1991 with the appointment by theChicoCity
Council of a 41 -member Task Force. A comprehensive update of
the 1976 General Plan began with the preparation of the Chico
General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), and then
an update of all seven required general plan elements: the
Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public
Facilities and Services Element, Open Space and Environmental
Conservation Element, Safety and Safety Services Element,
Noise Element, and the Housing Element. The Housing Element
was incorporated by reference because it was recently updated
by the City. Two optional elements, the Economic Development
Element -and the Community Design Element, were also included
in the update of the City's General Plan; and
B. WHEREAS, the Chico Planning Area (Planning Area) encompasses
an approximate 150 -square -mile territory located in western
Butte County, approximately 100 'miles north of the City of
Sacramento, and 180 miles south of the northern California
border. The Planning Area is bordered on the north by Rock
Creek and generally on the south by the Sacramento River, Fell
Road and a boundary line that extends eastward. to the
intersection of Neal Road and State Route (SR) 99, and follows
IGPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE I
1 Neal Road to a point approximately 3 miles southwest of the
2 Town of Paradise. The eastern border is formed by the
3 existing 500 kV Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E) power line,
4 the northernmost Bidwell Park boundary,,and an average 1,400-
5 foot elevation line in the foothills. The western border is
6 the Sacramento River; and
7 C. WHEREAS, a Master Environmental Assessment for the Chico
8 General Plan, January 1994 (hereinafter MEA), incorporated by
9 reference, provides a comprehensive inventory of physical
10 resources that exist in the City of Chico (as of the date of
11 publication). The MEA was used as one primary data base for
12 development of the 'proposed Chico General Plan and serves as
13 the base for existing conditions in the Chico General Plan
--14 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
15 D. WHEREAS, on November , 1994, the Chico City Council, prior
16 to reaching a decision on the General Plan EIR, independently
17 reviewed and considered the information in the Final
18 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for completeness and
-- 19 compliance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA
20 procedures.
21 Section 2. GENERAL FINDINGS
22 WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council has made the
23 following general findings in regard to the approval .of the Chico
24 General Plan based on evidence presented in the FEIR,; referred to
25 in or incorporated into the FEIR, and found elsewhere in the
26 administrative record of these proceedings:
27 A. The adoption of the Chico General Plan would establish
28
GPFINMINGS PAGE 2
Nov=bu 15. 1994
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
271
28'
4
F
allowable uses of land and would benefit the public welfare by
providing housing and employment uses for anticipated future
growth, establishing the infrastructure system for operation
of the City, and providing community -oriented uses and
programs.
B. The Chico City Council reviewed the Discussion Draft General
Plan and the Draft EIR (DEIR) in an October 11, 1994 public
hearing. During the City Council hearing, they following
substantive changes were made to the General Plan-iri response
to public comments, and to reduce potentially significant
environmental effects of General 'Plan implementation. These
project modifications were made to the proposed General Plan
in preference to the specific alternatives described in the
DEIR.
1) Housing: = The Chico city Council reduced development -
oriented land uses from the proposed Sphere of Influence.
As a result, residentially -designated land uses were
decreased by 960 acres and the total number of dwelling
units (dus) were reduced by 1,070. The reduction of
residential lands. occurred principal"ly in the East of
Airport, -Bell-Muir, and North of SR 32 areas.
2) Population: The anticipated buildout population was
reduced corresponding to the reduction in housing. The
population was reduced by approximately2,000 people,
resulting in a new buildout population of approximately'
134,000.
3) Bell -Muir growth area: The General Plan Diagram will
indicate land uses as they currently exist in that area.
GPFINDINGS PAGE 3
Navcmbcr 15, 1994
1
2'
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
271
28'
4
F
allowable uses of land and would benefit the public welfare by
providing housing and employment uses for anticipated future
growth, establishing the infrastructure system for operation
of the City, and providing community -oriented uses and
programs.
B. The Chico City Council reviewed the Discussion Draft General
Plan and the Draft EIR (DEIR) in an October 11, 1994 public
hearing. During the City Council hearing, they following
substantive changes were made to the General Plan-iri response
to public comments, and to reduce potentially significant
environmental effects of General 'Plan implementation. These
project modifications were made to the proposed General Plan
in preference to the specific alternatives described in the
DEIR.
1) Housing: = The Chico city Council reduced development -
oriented land uses from the proposed Sphere of Influence.
As a result, residentially -designated land uses were
decreased by 960 acres and the total number of dwelling
units (dus) were reduced by 1,070. The reduction of
residential lands. occurred principal"ly in the East of
Airport, -Bell-Muir, and North of SR 32 areas.
2) Population: The anticipated buildout population was
reduced corresponding to the reduction in housing. The
population was reduced by approximately2,000 people,
resulting in a new buildout population of approximately'
134,000.
3) Bell -Muir growth area: The General Plan Diagram will
indicate land uses as they currently exist in that area.
GPFINDINGS PAGE 3
Navcmbcr 15, 1994
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
The General Plan Diagram will indicate Bell -Muir as a
study area with a notation that Butte County will take
the lead in planning for the area, with assistance by the
City of Chico and local residents. Bell -Muir will be
eliminated from the Chico Sphere of Influence.
4) CSA 87: This area will be retained on the Chico General
Plan Diagram and Chico Sphere of Influence. The City of
Chico would not, however, pursue annexation of CSA 87 at
this time. The land use Diagram will be modified to
conform to the most recent alternative land use plan
prepared by Butte County for the area. A note will be
added to the Diagram to indicate that the City would
pursue a change in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and
annexation of CSA 87 if the adopted plan conforms with
City Planning. 'Conversely; an. SOI adjustment and
annexation of CSA 87 would not be pursued if the adopted
land use did'not.agree with City planning.
5) Airport Environs: The special development designation
will be applied to a portion of the original growth area
to be contiguous with the "question mark" boundary,. and
an open space (40 -acre minimum) designation applied to
the remaining land. The City of Chico would encourage
annexation of the "question mark" area into•the Chico
SOI. The City would also encourage Butte County to
retain City -designated open space in the airport environs
as 40 -acre minimum lots.
6) SR 32 (north of SR 32, east of California• Park) : This
area would be redesignated as open space (40 -acre minimum
IGPFINDINGS
Novcmbu 15, 1994
PAGE 4
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
The General Plan Diagram will indicate Bell -Muir as a
study area with a notation that Butte County will take
the lead in planning for the area, with assistance by the
City of Chico and local residents. Bell -Muir will be
eliminated from the Chico Sphere of Influence.
4) CSA 87: This area will be retained on the Chico General
Plan Diagram and Chico Sphere of Influence. The City of
Chico would not, however, pursue annexation of CSA 87 at
this time. The land use Diagram will be modified to
conform to the most recent alternative land use plan
prepared by Butte County for the area. A note will be
added to the Diagram to indicate that the City would
pursue a change in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and
annexation of CSA 87 if the adopted plan conforms with
City Planning. 'Conversely; an. SOI adjustment and
annexation of CSA 87 would not be pursued if the adopted
land use did'not.agree with City planning.
5) Airport Environs: The special development designation
will be applied to a portion of the original growth area
to be contiguous with the "question mark" boundary,. and
an open space (40 -acre minimum) designation applied to
the remaining land. The City of Chico would encourage
annexation of the "question mark" area into•the Chico
SOI. The City would also encourage Butte County to
retain City -designated open space in the airport environs
as 40 -acre minimum lots.
6) SR 32 (north of SR 32, east of California• Park) : This
area would be redesignated as open space (40 -acre minimum
IGPFINDINGS
Novcmbu 15, 1994
PAGE 4
r
r
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
development parcel) with a Planned Development zoning
overlay; this is expected to yield approximately 12
dwelling units (du). PWith a Planned Development, the
City of Chico would allow twice the designated density
(e.g., 24 du) if units are clustered and the remainder of
the property is retained in open space use.
7) Chapman/Mulberry area: The City of Chico will consider
prior Butte County planning efforts for this area into
the Chico General Plan. The City will review Butte
County road standards for this area when the City revises
its own street standards. Also, the City will consider
adoption of Chapman/Mulberry neighborhood plan into the
Chico General Plan after its adoption by Butte County.
8)- Vallombrosa (and other) roads: These roads will be
designated as scenic roads. A maximum of two lanes will
be allowed. Scenic roadway standards will be developed
by the City of Chico.
9) Resource Management Program (RMP): The City of Chico
will integrate the RMP process more closely into existing
City development review processes. Policies have been
adjusted in the General Plan to indicate that the current
development review process , will be used as the
preliminary RMP review meetings.
C. The FEIR identifies one significant environmental effect which
will be reduced to less than significant levels with project
mitigation. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
t
lessen safety issues associated with the risk wildland fire
GPFIKDINGS
Novcmbcr 15, 1994
PAGE 5
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
resulting from implementation of the Chico General Plan as
identified in the FEIR. Findings regarding this -effect are
set forth in Section 4 of this resolution.
D. The FEIR identifies the following eight significant. and
unavoidable environmental effects which would ---result from
implementation of the Chico General Plan, as follows:
1) _ conversion of open space to urban uses;
2) loss of viable agricultural lands;
3) increased emissions from residential fireplaces,
residential wood combustion, leaf burning, and
agricultural waste burning;
4) increased utility -related emissions;
5) generation of significant fugitive dust.emissions during
the duration of construction activity with General Plan
implementation;
6) short-term contribution to existing exceedences of
criteria pollutants resulting from exhaust emissions of
NOx, CO, and PMIa;
7) generation of significant, regional; mobile source air.
emissions, and
8) increased regional emissions of NO,, CO, and PMIa.
Findings regarding these significant and avoidable effects and
a statement of overriding considerations -are set forth in
Section 5 of this resolution.
E. The FEIR identifies the following thirteen potentially
significant and unavoidable environmental effects that would
result from implementation of the, Chico General Plan, as
follows..
GPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16I,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) operation of some roadway segments below standard levels
of service;
2) reduction of existing acceptable LOS at some arterial
intersections to unacceptable levels and exacerbation of
currently unacceptable LOS_at arterial intersections;
3) significant increases in traffic noise for existing
sensitive receptors;
4) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
5) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in non -Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
6) loss or degradation of seasonal wetlands, including
vernal pools;
7)= degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
biological resources outside Resource Conservation Areas
(RCAs) or Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
8) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of Butte County
meadowfoam outside Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) or
Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
9) operation of some freeway ramp/arterial street
intersections below standard Levels of Service;
10) alteration of open, undeveloped visual quality of the
foothills as viewed from existing urban areas and Bidwell
Park, and
11) a substantial change in the character of foothill areas.
12) increased potential for flooding of Lindo Channel/Big
Chico Creek; and
13) increased use of groundwater supplies
GPFINDINGS
Nov=bcr 15, 19964
PAGE 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16I,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) operation of some roadway segments below standard levels
of service;
2) reduction of existing acceptable LOS at some arterial
intersections to unacceptable levels and exacerbation of
currently unacceptable LOS_at arterial intersections;
3) significant increases in traffic noise for existing
sensitive receptors;
4) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
5) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in non -Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
6) loss or degradation of seasonal wetlands, including
vernal pools;
7)= degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
biological resources outside Resource Conservation Areas
(RCAs) or Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
8) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of Butte County
meadowfoam outside Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) or
Resource Management Areas (RMAs);
9) operation of some freeway ramp/arterial street
intersections below standard Levels of Service;
10) alteration of open, undeveloped visual quality of the
foothills as viewed from existing urban areas and Bidwell
Park, and
11) a substantial change in the character of foothill areas.
12) increased potential for flooding of Lindo Channel/Big
Chico Creek; and
13) increased use of groundwater supplies
GPFINDINGS
Nov=bcr 15, 19964
PAGE 7
I '1
7 {
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings regarding these potentially significant and avoidable
effects and a statement of overriding considerations are set
forth in Section 5 of this resolution.
F.
The FEIR identifies the following two significant cumulative
environmental effects that would result from implementation of
the Chico General Plan, as follows:
1) generation of CO.emissions, and _
2) effects of generation of ozone precursor and PM 10.
Findings regarding these significant and avoidable effects and
a statement of overridingconsiderations are set forth in
Section 5 of this resolution.
G. The FEIR identifies the following three potentially
significant cumulative environmental effects that would result
from implementation of the Chico General Plan, as follows:
1) cumulative habitat loss;
2) cumulative use of groundwater supplies and
3) cumulative flooding impacts.
Findings regarding these potentially significant and avoidable
effects and a statement of overriding considerations are set
forth in Section 5 of this resolution.
H. All mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR shall be made
conditions of project approval by the City as part of City
decisions conditionally approving all discretionary approvals
implementing the project and/or future -projects requiring City
approval.
I. The Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in the FEIR has
been prepared "and incorporated into the project 'approval
pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 and meets the requirements and
IGPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 8
r i
1
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
intent of Public Resources Code Section 21081..6 for mitigation
monitoring.
Section 3. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the alternatives to
the General Plan described in the FEIR and considers these
alternatives infeasible and/or do not meet General Plan objectives
-for the reasons specified below:
A. No Further Development. Under this alternative, no further
development would occur in the City of Chico beyond what
currently exists. No increase in the size of the planned
Sphere of Influence (SOI) would occur; the existing 24,060 -
acre SOI would remain unchanged. The proposed increase in the
City`s current incorporated area of 14,446 acres would not
occur; the total developed area of 20,980 acres within the
Planning Area would remain the same. The total developed area
within the SOI and within the City Limits would also remain
unchanged at 17,400 acres and 10,360 acres, respectively.
Adverse effects with respect to conversion of open space,
conversion of viable agricultural land, visual resources, land
use compatibility, traffic and circulation, air, quality,
noise, biological resources, hydrology and groundwater
resources, and water quality would be avoided or reduced with
the implementation of this alternative. However, improvements
associated with implementation of the General Plan design
guidelines would not be implemented. Similarly, potential
visual enhancements in existing developed areas would not
occur. The new policies included in the updated General Plan
intended to enhance community character and to provide a more
GPFINDINGS
Nov=bcr 15, 1994
PAGE 9
..7
8
9
10
11
12
16
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent community design would not be put into effect.
This alternative would result in fewer demands on public
facility and community service issues, including fire
protection, wastewater, health and medical services, child
care, telephone, cable, natural gas, electricity; and safety.
For these services, however, implementation of the proposed
General Plan_ would result in. less-than-signif icant impacts
because policies are available to ensure adequate public
facilities are provided prior to development occurring and to
ensure unsafe conditions do not occur.
Because the No Further Development alternative would freeze
development at existing levels, it is considered infeasible,
and would result in adverse effects on local's economic
development. Due to existing property rights, stopping all
development within the Planning Area would in all likelihood
be legally impossible and, if achievable, would likely not be
in the best economic interest,of the community. Further, this
alternative would not provide housing for a population
anticipated to occur—at any growth rate. The No Further
Development alternative would also be expected to result in
piecemeal development within the County portion of the
Planning Area, which would cause adverse impacts on urban
form, viable agricultural land, natural resources, and
existing travel characteristics. Given the economic and
housing limitations, this alternative would not meet three
basic project objectives: a compact urban form, sustainable
development that balances growth 'and conservation, and
economic development.
IGPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
..7
8
9
10
11
12
16
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent community design would not be put into effect.
This alternative would result in fewer demands on public
facility and community service issues, including fire
protection, wastewater, health and medical services, child
care, telephone, cable, natural gas, electricity; and safety.
For these services, however, implementation of the proposed
General Plan_ would result in. less-than-signif icant impacts
because policies are available to ensure adequate public
facilities are provided prior to development occurring and to
ensure unsafe conditions do not occur.
Because the No Further Development alternative would freeze
development at existing levels, it is considered infeasible,
and would result in adverse effects on local's economic
development. Due to existing property rights, stopping all
development within the Planning Area would in all likelihood
be legally impossible and, if achievable, would likely not be
in the best economic interest,of the community. Further, this
alternative would not provide housing for a population
anticipated to occur—at any growth rate. The No Further
Development alternative would also be expected to result in
piecemeal development within the County portion of the
Planning Area, which would cause adverse impacts on urban
form, viable agricultural land, natural resources, and
existing travel characteristics. Given the economic and
housing limitations, this alternative would not meet three
basic project objectives: a compact urban form, sustainable
development that balances growth 'and conservation, and
economic development.
IGPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE -10
I
1
2
3
— 41
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28.
0
B. No Proiect. Under the No Project alternative, the proposed
General Plan would not be adopted*by the City of Chico, and
the existing General Plan would continue to guide development
in the City. Differences between the existing and proposed
General Plans occur primarily in six areas that -would remain
vacant, or would be developed in another use under the No
Project Alternative. These seven areas are identified as CSA
87, Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road, Foothill Park,
Bidwell Ranch, Humboldt Road - Foothills North &JSouth of SR
32, and Diamond Match.
This alternative would result in the conversion of fewer acres
of land in CSA 87 to urban uses, and no urban development of
Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road. Similar development
of the Foothill Park area would occur with the No Project
alternative, but without the benefits of 'General Plan policies
that would protect environmental resources, retain a park site
or open space set-aside south* of Sycamore Creek, or policies
requiring a master plan for mixed-use neighborhood cores.
Similar development in the Bidwell Ranch area would also occur
with this alternative, but without the benefits of policies
directed at minimizing the effects of development in foothill
areas, policies to control wildland fire impacts, and policies
that specify development maximums, promote clustering, protect
viewsheds and biological resources, and ensure coordination
with the Chico Unified School District (CUSD) for schools.
Potential development in the Humboldt Road - Foothills North
& South of SR 32 would not occur. Finally, ,the Diamond Match
site would be converted to industrial uses instead of mixed
GPFWDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 11
1
2
3
4
° 5
6
.. 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
231
24
25
26
27
28
use, as is proposed in the General Plan.
Implementation of the No Project alternative would reduce the
total development area as compared to the proposed General
Plan, and would result in fewer adverse environmental effects.
However, the No Project alternative would confine land use
planning and growth trends in Chico to areas identified in the
adopted General Plan, potentially limiting the City's ability
to meet the current needs and goals of the community by not
requiring special development areas, and not providing housing
and employment (project objective) opportunities. Proposed.
policies to enhance community character, identity, and visual
amenities (project objectives) and wildland fire protection
would not occur with the No Project alternative. Further,
without the proposed project, development within the
surrounding County areas could continue as piecemeal
development inconsistent with.City growth objectives resulting
in land use and natural resources impacts.
C. Elimination of Growth Areas. This alternative would eliminate
the following growth areas --which are currently viable_
agricultural lands --from the proposed sphere of influence
(SOI): 1) Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road property; 2)
a portion of what was once referred to as the. Southeast Chico
area; and 3) a portion of what is now referred to as the
proposed Humboldt Road - Foothills North of SR' 32 special
development area.
This alternative would reduce the acreage within the Planning
Area that could be urbanized, thereby reducing environmental
impacts associated with urbanization. Environmental impacts
GPFINDINGS PAGE 12
November 15, 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that would be avoided or reduced with this alternative
include: conversion of open space, visual impacts of foothill
development from the valley floor and Bidwell Park, land use
compatibility .of development in the foothill areas,
potentially significant increases in stormwater runoff,
biological resources, and potentially significant reduction in
groundwater availability. However,. these impacts_would not be
reduced to less -than -significant levels. This alternative
would result in similar impacts to the proposed General Plan
related to air quality, traffic, and noise.
This alternative would reduce the City's ability to
comprehensively plan and expand development into relatively
large vacant lands, and would reduce opportunities for
economic development (project objective) within the Chico
region. Moreover, proposed policies to enhance community
character, identity, and visual amenities (project objectives)
would not occur with this alternative, and the inventory of
land available to provide anticipated needed housing would be
less.
D. Sketch Plan B. This alternative would extend the Planning
Area west and southwest (towards agricultural areas), as
compared to the proposed General Plan and would retain the
foothills in their existing state, except for specific areas
where development is already approved'or anticipated as part
of an existing assessment district. More urban growth would
be accommodated under this alternative than under.the proposed
General Plan, with a "holding capacity" (maximum population)
of 163,400, or about -30,400 more than under the proposed
IGPFINDINGS
Novembu 15, 1994
PAGE 13
11
2
3
4
5
6
-7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General Plan. However, because some land might remain vacant
or in its current use over the planning period, the probable
buildout population may be somewhat less.
This alternative plans higher density development in proximity
to SR 99 and the railroad and may provide more efficient
traffic patterns than the proposed General Plan, and because
higher population level could be accommodated_ than the
proposed project, it would better meet anticipated growth into
the future. In addition, this alternative would result in
fewer impacts to biological resources, a lower demand for
wildland fire response.
However, this alternative would accommodate development on
more prime agricultural land, a significant and unavoidable
impact, than the proposed project, and would result in higher
air emissions, and higher demands on public services and
utilities. The potential for land use compatibility conflicts
and exposure to herbicides and pesticides would be higher with
the alternative than with the proposed project since
development would be extended further into agricultural- areas.
E. Nance Canyon and Gateway Areas.• This alternative is similar
to Alternative C in that -three areas, one located east of the
airport and two located in southeast Chico, would be removed
from the proposed General Plan with this alternative.
However, this alternative would include two additional growth
areas, identified as Nance Canyon and Gateway.
This alternative would allow the City to comprehensively plan
a currently undeveloped site that has few owners. The area
has access to major roadways and it would not remove prime
IGPFWUINGS
Navcmbcr 15.1994
PAGE 14
1 agricultural lands with urbanization. However, this
2 alternative would accommodate" developmentupon biologically
3 sensitive lands, is farther from the urban core, and would
4 result in traffic impacts due to constraints of existing
5 roadways in the area. In addition, this alternative would
6 result in noise and air quality degradation associated with
.7 introducing urban development in southeast ._Chico, the
8 potential. for flooding associated with increased runoff, the
9 potential to disturb cultural resources, and the need to
10 extend City services.
11 F. Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Further
12 Development alternative would be considered the
13 "environmentally superior" alternative because it would
14 eliminate the' significant and potentially significant
15 environmental impacts associated with any new development in
16 the City of Chico by completely restricting new growth. The
17 complete restriction on new development. would be virtually
is impossible to implement, however, because of: 1) the current
.19 goals and policies included in the existing General Plan; 2)
20 historic, and projected growth in the Chico area; and 3) legal
21 rights of landowners which allow the development of these
a
22 vacant lands as long as their development is in conformance
23 with existing City policies and regulations. In addition,
24 projects that .have been approved and are, currently under
25 development would continue to be developed. To restrict these
26 developments and possible. future developments that are
27 consistent with the existing General Plan would severely
28 hamper the City's economic viability. Therefore, due to the
PAGE 15
GPFIT,MINGS
November 15, 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
181'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
infeasibility of this alternative, it was not selected as the
preferred project.
As CEQA requires selection of another environmentally superior
alternative if the No Project alternative is identified as
environmentally superior, Alternative C: Elimination of Growth
Areas would be considered the environmentally superior
alternative to the proposed General Plan. ..With. this
alternative, potentially significant impacts related to the
conversion of open space, visual and land use compatibility
impacts of foothill development, traffic, short-term and long-
term air quality, increased noise levels at existing sensitive
receptors, storm water runoff, biological resources, and
groundwater availability, would be reduced. However,
s-ignificant or potentially significant and unavoidable impacts
would, as with the proposed General Plan,•still occur in the
following areas: conversion of open space, traffic, and short-
term and long-term air quality, and biological resources.
Section 4. FINDINGS REGARDING FULLY MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the - following
environmental effects, more fully described in the FEIR, can be
fully mitigated by means of mitigation measures"set forth in the
FEIR.
A. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the effect.as identified in the final EIR:
Safety
1) Potential for wildland fire impacts from the lack of a
GPFWUINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
1911
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
City requirement for fire-resistant building and roof
materials. Approval of -the Chico General Plan would
continue to allow the construction of dwelling units and
other structures using building and roof materials that
are not fire-resistant.
Mitigation Measure. Mitigation measure 4.10-1 would
require the City of Chico to develop standards to protect
structures in the wildland fire areas for inclusion in a
Best Management Practices Manual or similar implementing
program. These standards will include use of fire-
resistant building and roofing materials, installation of
fire-resistant landscaping, maximum road gradients, and
clearance of vegetation proximate to structures.
Section -5. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT. AND POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED AND ADOPTION
OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following significant
effects described more fully in the FEIR cannot be fully mitigated.
A. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
.of the rationale for each finding. The following findings
apply to potentially significant and significant impacts that
would occur with project implementation:
Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
GPFINDINGS
Nwembcr 15, 1994
PAGE 17
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the final EIR,—but significant effects would remain.
Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Land Use and Community Character
1) Conversion of open space to urban uses. This effect is
significant and unavoidable because the loss of open
space is substantial and irreversible. Although
implementation of General Plan policies and recommended
mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, there are no
mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially
lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan
policies. The City shall prepare a nexus study to
establish an appropriate mitigation fee to offset impacts
to loss of open space lands.
2) Loss of viable agricultural lands. This effect is
significant and unavoidable because the conversion of
viable agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses is an
irretrievable commitment of resources. Although
implementation of General Plan policies and recommended
mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, there are no
mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially
lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of. General Plan
policies. The City shall prepare a nexus study to
IGPFINUINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
establish an appropriate mitigation fee to offset impacts
to agricultural lands.
Transportation
3) operation of some roadways secrments below standard Levels
of Service. This effect is potentially significant and
unavoidable because operation of roadway segments at
unacceptable LOS is substantial. Although implementation
of the General Plan Transportation Systems Management
program, General Plan policies and recommended mitigation
would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether
such measures would be capable of improving operating
conditions at affected roadway segments to acceptable
levels so as to avoid or substantially lessen -this
effect.
Mitigation Measure. To mitigate potentially significant
traffic impacts of individual projects proposed in
accordance with the proposed General Plan, subsequent
project -specific review processes will examine the effect
of a proposed project on the transportation system based
upon conditions in existence at the time, conditions
reasonably expected in the future, and conditions
possible within the limitations of the General Plan.
4) Reduction of existing acceptable LOS at some arterial
GPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
intersections to unacceptable levels and exacerbation of
currently.una::ceiptabla LOS at arterial intersections.
This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable
because conditions at some arterial intersections, which
currently operate at acceptable LOS, may operate at
PAGE 19'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MI
unacceptable LOS with development of General Plan land I
uses. At some arterial intersections, which currently
already operate at unacceptable LOS, unacceptable
conditions may be exacerbated. .Although implementation
of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would
serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such
policies would be capable of improving operating
conditions at affected arterial intersections to
acceptable levels so as to avoid or substantially lessen
this effect.
Mitigation Measure. To mitigate potentially significant
traffic impacts of individual projects proposed in
accordance with the proposed General Plan, subsequent
project -specific .review processes will' examine the effect
of a proposed project on the transportation system based
upon conditions in existence at the time, conditions
reasonably expected in the future, and conditions
possible within the limitations of the General Plan.
This will permit responsible local officials to compare.
the individual project -related impacts to the framework
permitted within the limitations of the General Plan, and
establish appropriate mitigation actions to preclude, to
the extent feasible, significant impacts.
Air Quality
5) Increased emissions from residential fireplaces,
residential wood combustion, leaf burning, and
agricultural waste burning. This effect is significant
and unavoidable because the collective increase in
GPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
emissions from these stationary sources, which are
irreversible, would contribute to existing and projected
future exceedances of state and federal ambient air
quality standards. Although implementation of General
Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to
reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures
available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Prior to approval of the Chico
General Plan, the following policy will be included to
reduce stationary source impa.cts: LOW NOx WATER HEATERS
SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ANY NEW RESIDENCE BUILT WITHIN THE
PROJECT AREA.
6) Increased utility -related emissions. This effect is
significant and unavoidable because the collective
increase in utility -related emissions, which are
irreversible, would contribute to existing and projected
future exceedances of state and federal ambient air
quality standards. Although implementation of General
Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to
reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures
available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Prior to approval of the Chico
General Plan, the following policy will be included to
reduce utility emissions from energy -consumption:
ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY, WITH THE ENERGY
EFFICIENCIES MANDATED BY TITLE 24 CONSTRUCTION
REQUIREMENTS. NEW FACILITIES WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY
MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN THE FACILITIES THEY
PAGE 21
IOPFINDINGS
November IS, 1994
1
2
— 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is 15
16
17
18I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLACE OR EXISTING UNITS, EVEN AT HIGHER DENSITIES.
Noise
7) Significant increase in traffic noise for existing
8)
II GPFINDINGS
Nov=ber 15, 19964
sensitive receptors. This impact is potentially
significant and unavoidable because existing sensitive
receptors., adjacent to noise -impacted roadways may
experience a significant increase in traffic noise with
buildout of the General Plan. Although implementation of
General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would
serve to reduce potential noise impacts, it is unknown
whether such mitigation will avoid or substantially
lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. In conjunction with roadway link
improvements that significantly .increase traffic
capacity, noise attenuation devices shall be implemented
to reduce impacts to acceptable levels, as practicable.
Biological Resources
Degradation removal and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs).. This
effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because
the degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in RMAs is substantial and irreversible.
Although implementation of General Plan policies and
recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact,
it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. To reduce potentially significant
impacts related to sensitive resources in RMAs, prior to
PAGE 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9)
GPFINDINGS;
Novcmber 15. 1994
adoption of the General Plan, policy OS -I-22 will be
modified to require Final RMP components for buffer
zones, wildlife movement corridors, recreational and
educational plan, habitat for special status species,
mitigation monitoring program, and habitat enhancement at
the Draft RMP stage; refinements thereof will be required
with the Final RMP. Although this mitigation would
reduce impacts, it cannot be conclusively determined that
reduction would be to a less -than -significant level.
While close adherence to the RMA policies and RMP
guidelines would . substantially prevent impacts on
biological resources through the Planning Area, some
disruption of important habitats and loss of sensitive
acreage or- protected species could still occur with
future development. Unless policies that offer complete
protection to all special status species, and
preservation of all sensitive or regulated habitats are
instituted, this impact would remain potentially
significant and unavoidable.
Degradation removal, and/or disruption of sensitive'
resources in non -Resource Management Areas (RMAs). This
effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because
the degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
resources in non-RMAs is substantial and irreversible.
Although implementation of General Plan policies and
recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact,
it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or
substantially lessen this 'effect.
PAGE 23
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
is
16
17
i8
191
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mitigation Measure. In addition to implementation of
General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to
evaluate individual project impacts to determine if
sensitive habitats in non RCA- or RMA -designated areas
can be avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant
level. If avoidance of sensitive habitats in non RCA- or
RMA -designated areas is possible, then _ less -than -
significant impacts would result. When avoidance is not
possible mitigation including revegetation and offsite
mitigation could also reduce this impact to less -than -
significant. However, in some instances, this impact may
not be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant
level, and this impact would, therefore, remain
potentially significant and unavoidable.'
10) Loss or degradation of seasonal wetlands, including
vernal pools. This effect is potentially significant and
unavoidable because the loss or degradation of seasonal
wetlands or vernal pools is substantial and irreversible.
IGPFINDINGS
Nov=bcr 15, 1994
Although implementation o -f- General Plan policies and
evaluation of individual project proposals would serve to
reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures
would avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. In addition to implementation of
General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to
evaluate individual project impacts to determine if flora
and fauna associated with seasonal wetlands can be
avoided,. or mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
If avoidance of .flora and fauna associated with seasonal
PAGE 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
wetlands is possible, then less -than -significant impacts
would result. When avoidance is not possible mitigation
including offsite mitigation could also reduce this
impact to less -than -significant. However, in some
instances, impacts to seasonal wetlands may not be
avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level and
would, therefore, remain potentially significant and
unavoidable.
11) Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive
biological resources outside Resources Conservation Areas
(RCAs) or Resources Management Areas (RMAs). This effect
is potentially significant and unavoidable because the
IGFFINDINGS
November 15. 1994
degradation -removal anct/or aisrupLluil V1
biological resources located outside RCAs or RMAs is
substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of
General Plan policies and evaluation or inalvluuai
project proposals would serve to reduce the impact, it is
unknown whether such measures would avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. In addition to, implementation of
General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to
evaluate individual project impacts to determine if
sensitive species which occur outside of RCAs or RMAs can
be avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant
level. If avoidance of sensitive species which occur
outside of RCAs or RMAs is possible, then less -than
significant impacts would result. When avoidance is not
possible, mitigation measures could reduce impacts to
PAGE u
I
less-than-significant. However, impacts to certain
2
species including those officially listed as threatened
3
or endangered, could remain significant and unavoidable.
4
12)
Cumulative habitat loss. This cumulative effect is
5
potentially significant and unavoidable because continued
6
development within the Planning Area in conjunction with
7
_ _
regional growth is likely to result in the substantial
g
loss of sensitive habitat and habitat for species that
g
are currently, or in the future, considered rare,
10
threatened, endangered, or candidates for such listing.
11
No feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or
12
substantially lessen this effect.
13
mitigation Measure._ Implementation of proposed General
14
_
Plan policies to preserve regional biological values and
is
project-specific mitigation would.-lessen impacts; however.
16
potentially significant cumulative impacts remain.
17
13)
Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of Butte County
18
meadowfoam outside Resources Conservation Areas (RCAs) or
ig
Resources Management Areas (RMAs). This effect is
20
potentially .significant and unavoidable because the
21
degradation removal and/or disruption of Butte County
22
meadowfoam located outside RCAs or RMAs is substantial
23
and irreversible. Although implementation of General
24
Plan policies and adoption of a revised Conservation Plan
25
for Butte County meadowfoam (in progress) would serve to
26
reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures
27
would avoid or substantially lessen this effect-.
28
Mitigation Measure. To reduce potentially significant
PAGE 26
GPFIN'D1NGS
Nav=bet 15, 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impacts to Butte County meadowfoam in non -RCA or non -RMA
areas, the City of Chico will adopt a revised
Conservation Plan for Butte County meadowfoam.
B. Section 15o91 of the State. CEQA Guidelines states that no
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project_.unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. The following findings
apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with
project implementation:
Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in
the final EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of
Chico. Such changes have been adopted by, such other agency or.
can and -should be adopted by another agency.
Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified
in the environmental impact report.
Transportation
1)
GPFINDINGS
Ncvcmbcc 15, 1994
operation of some freeway ramp/arterial street
intersections below standard Levels of Service. This
effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because
the operation of freeway ramps/arterials at unacceptable
PAGE 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LOS is substantial, and in most cases right-of-way
constraints under or over SR 99 preclude the construction
_ of additional to improve LOS, making the effect
potentially unavoidable. Improvements to freeway
ramps/arterials may.be under the authority -of the City of
Chico, Caltrans, the -Federal Highways Administration, or
any combination thereof. Although implementation of
General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would
serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether traffic
improvements or traffic flow modifications would avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. To maintain adequate Levels of
Service at freeway ramp/cross arterial intersections, the
following actions will be implemented in cooperation with
Caltrans. _These are intended to reflect a combined
approach of maximizing operational and low -construction
cost alternatives, modifying travel patterns, and
evaluating the appropriate level of service requirement
for freeway operations.
• Review intersection control systems (signals,
signing, marking) and check for adherence to
standards, together with review of access control
options on arterial street approaches. Closuring
and/or restricting movements at driveways, providing
alternate site access routes, and purchasing access
rights should be considered.
• Evaluate operational control options including peak
period turn prohibitions to increase intersection
capacity, and approach signal timing along arterial
streets.
• Evaluate interchange locations for opportunities for
reconfiguration of lane layouts, possibly requiring
design exceptions, to add maneuver lanes to
accommodate especially heavy movements. Reassess
II GPFINDINGS
November 1S, 1994
PAGE 29
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
.. 7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
right-of-way availability.
• Conduct regular traffic monitoring studies of peak
period freeway operations and determine the extent
to which local traffic uses SR 99 -as an "arterial"
roadway for travel between adjacent or second
interchanges, instead of'using surface arterial
streets. Evaluate options for changes in traffic
control systems to favor arterial street travel for
short, local trips.
Evaluate each freeway interchange location for
_ operational effectiveness at different levels of
service, and consider changing 'LOS standard for
ramp/arterial street intersections.
Review intersection control systems (signals,
signing, marking) and check for adherence to
standards, together with review of access control
options on arterial street approaches. Closuring
and/or restricting movements at driveways, providing
alternate site access routes, and purchasing access
rights should be considered.
• Evaluate operational control options including peak
period turn prohibitions to increase., intersection
capacity, and approach signal timing along arterial
streets. .
Evaluate interchange locations for opportunities for
reconfiguration of lane layouts, possibly requiring
design exceptions, to add maneuver lanes to
accommodate especially heavy movements. Reassess
right-of-way availability.
Conduct regular traffic monitoring studies of peak
period freeway operations and..determine the -extent
to which local traffic uses SR 99 as an "arterial"
roadway for travel between adjacent or second
interchanges, instead of using surface arterial
streets. Evaluate options for changes in traffic
control systems to favor arterial street travel for
short, local trips.
Evaluate each freeway interchange location for
operational effectiveness at different levels of
service, and consider changing LOS standard for
ramp/arterial street intersections.
Water Service
2) Increased use of groundwater supplies." This cumulative
GPFINDINGS
Novcmber 15, 1994
effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because
PAGE 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IGPFWDINGS
November 15, 1994
approval of the Chico General Plan would result in
substantial population growth that would substantially
increase demand for groundwater supplies. Although
implementation of General Plan policies and recommended
mitigation would serve to reduce the --impact, the
availability of groundwater resources cannot be
specifically quantified until the Butte Basin. -Groundwater
Model is available. Resolution of this issue is
regional, requiring the cooperative effort of, at least,
the Butte Basin Water Users Association and the City of
Chico.
Mitigation Measure. 4.11-2(a): Following completion of
the Butte Basin Ground Water Model, the City will have
accurate estimates of the amount of groundwater available
in the Butte. Basin. General Plan policies PP -I-24
through PP -I-26 will enable the City to use the model to
set limits on groundwater withdrawal and establish a
realistic water budget that will allow for sustainable
levels of growth planned in the General P-lan,. while.
protecting basin supplies from becoming overly committed
as the General Plan is implemented. The Butte Basin
Water Model, when available to the City, together with
General Plan policies (PP -I-24 through PP -I-26), would
allow for groundwater management and would reduce
potentially significant groundwater availability impacts
to a less -than -significant level. No further mitigation
is necessary.
4.11-2(b): The City of Chico will develop a list of
PAGE 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
—14
15
16
17
18
1T
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
water conservation measures to be imposed on projects in
the event that groundwater availability drops below
acceptable levels, as will be established by the City of
Chico after review of the outcome from the Butte Basin
Groundwater model. These conservation measures may range
from buy-back incentive programs to more stringent water
metering requirements. _
3) Cumulative use of groundwater supplies. This cumulative
effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because
continued development within the Planning Area in
conjunction with regional growth is likely to result in
the substantial drawdown of the water table, increased
cost of pumping, drying of wells, and- reduced water
quality. No feasible mitigation measures are available
to avoid or substantially lessen this effect: Although
implementation of General Plan policies and recommended
mitigation would serve to reduce the project's
contribution to this cumulative impact, the availability
of groundwater resources cannot be specifically
quantified until the Butte Basin Groundwater Model is
available. Resolution of this issue is regional,
requiring the cooperative effort of, at least, the Butte
Basin Water Users Association and the City of Chico.
Mitigation Measure. 4.11-2(a): -Following completion of
the Butte Basin Ground Water Model, the City will have
accurate estimates of the amount of groundwater available
in the Butte Basin. General Plan policies• PP -I-24
through PP -I-26 will enable the City to use the model to
II GPFINDINGS
November 15, 1994
PAGE 31
1
set limits on groundwater withdrawal -and establish a
2
realistic water budget that will allow for sustainable
3
levels of growth planned in the General •Plan, while
4
protecting basin supplies from becoming overly committed
5
as the General Plan is implemented. The Butte Basin
6
Water Model, when available to the City, together with
7
_ General Plan policies (PP-I-24 through PP-I.-26), would
8
allow for groundwater management and would reduce
9
potentially significant groundwater availability impacts
10
to a less-than-significant level. No further mitigation
11
is necessary.
12
4.11-2(b): The City of Chico will develop a list of
13
water conservation measures to be imposed on projects in
14
the event that groundwater .availability drops below
15
acceptable levels, as will be established by the City of
16
Chico after review of the outcome from the Butte Basin
17
Groundwater model. These conservation measures may range
18
from buy-back incentive programs to more stringent water
19
metering requirements.
20
C. Section 15091 of the ,State CEQA Guidelines states that no
21
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
22
an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
23
significant environmental effects of the project unless the
24
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
25
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
26
of the rationale for each finding. The following findings
27
apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with
28
project implementation:
PAGE 32
GPFINDINGS
Novcmbcr 15, 1994
1
2i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
�14
15
16
17
18I
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings. Changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
not the City of Chico. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can -and should be adopted by another agency.
Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified
in th.e final EIR. _
Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality
1) Increased potential for flooding of Lindo Channel/Big
Chico Creek. This impact is significant and unavoidable
because implementation of development accommodated by the
General Plan would result in increases in impervious
2)
GPFIN DINGS
November 15, 1994
surface area, peak runoff, and total runoff volume.
Improvements along Lindo Channel/Big Chico Creek are
principally under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Although it is possible that increased urban
runoff would not increase the potential for flooding of
Planning Area waterways, some controversy exists with
respect to the capacity of Planning7Area waterways and
100 -year flood characteristics. Therefore, although
implementation of General Plan policies would serve to
reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures
would avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed policies
PP -G-12, PP -I-30, PP -I-31, PP -I-45, PP -I-29, PP -I-32,
PP -I-46, PP -I-47, PP-G-11,.PP-G-18, PP -I-33, and PP -I-36,
and no other mitigation is warranted.
Cumulative Flooding Impacts. This cumulative effect is
PAGE 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
' 11
12
13
14
15
15
D.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
potentially significant and unavoidable because continued
development within the Planning Area in conjunction with
regional growth is likely to result in the substantial
conversion of open space to developed uses which will
increase peak runoff and total runoff -volumes. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or
substantially lessen this effect. Flood control
improvements are under multiple jurisdictions including
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento Area Flood
Control Authority., and other regional flood planning
agencies.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan
policies, continuation of local, and FEMA studies, and, no.
additional mitigation is necessary.
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no
public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an,EIR has been completed which identifies one or more
significant environmental effects of the project unless the
public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation
of the rationale for each finding. The following findings
apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with
project implementation:
Findings. Specific economic, social, or other considerations,
make. infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the final EIR.
Land Use and Community Character
1) Alteration of the open, undeveloped visual Quality of the
PAGE 34
IGPFINDINGS
Novcmbu 15, 19%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
foothills as viewed from existing urban areas and Bidwell
Park. This effect is potentially significant and
unavoidable because the loss of views as a result of the
conversion of open space to urban uses is substantial and
irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan
policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce
_ the impact, no mitigation measures available -to avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan
policies and no additional mitigation measures are
feasible.
2) Substantial change in character of foothill areas. This
effect i's potentially significant and unavoidable because
the change in. land uses on otherwise open hillside lands
would result in a substantial. change in character
resulting from the contrast of urban uses 'on. open lands,
density and intensity of development, and alteration of
visual setting. These changes would be substantial and
irreversible, and there are no mitigation measures.
available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan
policies and no additional mitigation measures are
feasible.
Air Quality
3) Generation of significant fugitive dust emissions during
the duration of construction activity with General Plan
implementation. This effect is •significant and
unavoidable because construction workers and the
4
GPFINDINGS
Nav=ber 15.1994
PAGE 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is isl
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
population in the vicinity of individual developments
accommodated by the General Plan would be exposed to air-
borne dust during construction activities. Although
implementation of General Plan policies would serve to
reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures
available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures
exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General
Plan for fugitive dust emissions.
4) Short-term contribution to existing exceedances of
criteria pollutants resulting from -exhaust emissions of
NO, CO, and PM10. This effect is significant and
unavoidable because exhaust emissions of NO,, CO,- and PMIo
would be generated by construction vehicles such that
current exceedances of state standards would be
exacerbated for the duration of construction activities
for individual projects accommodated by the General Plan.
Although implementation of General Plan policies would
serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation
measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this
effect.
Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures
exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General
Plan for exhaust emissions from construction equipment
and vehicles.
5) Generation of significant, regional, mobile source air
emissions. This effect is significant and unavoidable
because the addition of regional mobile source air
II GPFINDINGS
November IS, 1994
PAGE 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 -
8
9
10
11
7)
6 )
12
24
13
26
14
27
15
16
Novcmbcr 15, 1994
17
18
19
20
21
22
7)
23
24
25
26
27
28
GPFINDINGS
Novcmbcr 15, 1994
emissions to the basin is irreversible and would
exacerbate existing adverse air quality conditions.
Although—implementation of General Plan policies and
transportation control measures detailed in the 1991 AQAP
would serve to reduce the impact, there are rib mitigation
measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this
effect. _
Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures
exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General
Plan for regional, mobile source air emissions.
Increased regional emissions of NOx CO and PMIo. This
effect is significant and unavoidable because increased
generation of NOx, CO, and PMIo, which is irreversible,
would contribute.to existing violations. of state AAQS.
Although implementation of General Plan policies would
serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation
measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this
effect.
Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures
exist beyond those provided in the General Plan for point
and area source emissions.
Cumulative CO emissions. This cumulative effect is
significant and unavoidable because projected growth
under the Chico General Plan, in combination with other
regional growth would increase traffic congestion and CO
emissions in the Northern "Sacramento'Va1ley. No feasible
mitigation. measures are available. to avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
PAGE 37
1
2
—3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is 15
16
17
i8
19
20I
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed General
Plan policies and no additional mitigation is feasible.
8) Cumulative ozone Precursor and PM1. effects. This
cumulative effect is significant and unavoidable because
projected growth under the Chico General Plan,. in
combination with other regional growth would contribute
_ to future violations of ozone and'PM10 standards. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or
substantially lessen this effect.
Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed General
Plan policies and no additional mitigation is feasible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council,
in approving the Chico General Plan, finds that the benefits of the
project, as approved, outweigh the identified unavoidable adverse
effects for the below noted reasons. Individual reasons are found
adequate for the purposes of these overriding considerations;
invalidation of one reason does not invalidate the remainder.
A. The proposed project is a comprehensive update'of the City's
General Plan, which was last completely revised in 1976; it
provides the necessary framework for long-range development in
the City of Chico. The General Plan embodies the spirit of
City administrators, public committees, and other interested
individuals for future .growth in the City of Chico The
comprehensive .update of the proposed Chico General Plan was
initiated Iin late 1991 with the appointment by the Chico City
Council of a 41 -member Task Force. The Task Force, consisting
of members with wide-ranging backgrounds, -was initially asked
to review the City's 1976 General Plan and to advise the
IGPFINDINGS
Novembee 15, 1994
PAGE 38
1
2
3
4
5''
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
is 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Council on updating the Plan. The General Plan Task Force,
meeting over a six-month period, identified critical issues
facing Chico and recommended that a comprehensive update to
the Plan be undertaken. The City Council concurred, and the
proposed General Plan is the culmination of a three-year work
effort to accomplish the comprehensive update.
�. The —General Plan contains all elements as mandated by
California Government Code, Section 65302:
1) The Land Use Element establishes policies which are
intended to. guide future growth in the Planning Area. The
element defines and maps various land uses and their
intensities, and defines an updated Sphere of Influence.
Through the land use policies and Diagram, the element
encourages land use compatibility, protects. agricultural
uses, continues a compact .urban form,._. and sets forth
community -oriented uses (e.g. schools, parks) for future
generations.
2) The Transportation Element establishes a roadway
hierarchy and network, and includes policies for- the.
provision of a variety of transportation modes. The
element also encourages non -automobile transportation
modes and a reduction in auto -dependent trips.
3) The Parks, and Public Facilities and Services Element
includes policies relating to the prrovision of park
facilities, use of natural and open spaces as parkland,
and policies to provide adequate school facilities. This
element also ensures that residents of the Planning Area
are provided water, wastewater, and storm drainage
IGPFNDINGS
Novcmber 15, 1994
PAGE 39
1
services by establishing thresholds that must be met with
2
new development.
3
4)
The open Space and Environmental Conservation Element
4
addresses issues associated with several resource areas
5
including air quality, biological resources, water
6
quality, natural open space, agriculture, mineral
_ -7
_ _ ._
resources, energy, resources,_ and waste management and
8
recycling.
9
5)
The Safety and Seismic Services Element addresses methods
10
intended to maximize emergency preparedness and minimize
11
the threat to life and property from wildland fire,
12
seismic events and other natural events.
13
6)
The Noise Element establishes new standards and policies
14
for acceptable outdoor noise levels to minimize future
15
noise impacts associated with new growth.
16
7)
The Housing Element of the General Plan incorporates the
17
City's recently updated Housing Element.
18
8)
The General Plan .also contains an optional element
19
directed to specific economic development and community_
20
character attributes of the City of Chico. The economic
21
development element provides direction for the economic
22
vitality of the City through specific land uses and
23
policies of the General Plan.
24
9)
The Community Design Element is another optional element
25
of the General Plan which includes policies to protect
26
and enhance community -recognized features of the City
27
related to community form, continuity and connection,
28
neighborhood conservation and development, downtown
GPFINDINGS
PAGE 40
November 15. 1994
to ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
' 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
areas, commercial and industrial areas, residential
neighborhoods, public art, and specific development
areas.
C. The policies, maps, and diagrams of the General Plan are
internally consistent, as required in California Government
Code Section 65300.5, while providing a balance of land uses,
and directives to resolve issues, and meet competing community
objectives.' Based on issues identified and prioritized by the
Task Force, and consistent data provided by the City of Chico
and its consultants, the City and its designated Task Force
conducted a multi-year program to define, prioritize, and
compromise on mechanisms to resolve issues by various means in
(the General Plan.. This program allowed for systematic
decision-making in. the development of policies that are
contained in the nine elements of the General Plan.
D. The General Plan establishes a. comprehensive framework for the
City's subsequent adoption of a wide range of policy
documents, standards, specific plans, and regulations, all of
which would be consistent with the guidelines provided. in the
Plan. Specifically, the General Plan is the basis for the
City of Chico to pursue the following:
1) Sphere of Influence boundary adjustment
2) pre -zoning, zoning, and annexation of property within the
proposed Sphere of Influence
3) zoning code amendments
4) subdivision code amendments Y
5) development of a Best Practices Manual
6) creation of a design manual
7) completion and use of other ordinances, guidelines, use
permits and other actions consistent with the General
Plan or necessary for its implementation
GPFINDINGS PAGE 41
Nov=bcr 15, 1994
1
2
3
41'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18�
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The General Plan Diagram and other maps and figures establish
potential sites for housing, schools, parks, creekside
greenways, open space, various commercial and industrial uses,
roadways, and other public infrastructure necessary for the
continued health and well being of Chico residents, and for
operation and maintenance of the City.
F. The adoption of the Chico General Plan establishes allowable
uses of land and benefits the public welfare by providing
housing and employment uses for anticipated future growth,
establishing the infrastructure system for operation of the
City, and providing community -oriented uses and programs.
G. Without the General Plan, additional lands necessary to
accommodate growth anticipated in the City would not be made
available. These lands would remain under the land use
authority of Butte County, which has established open space
and very low intensity rural land uses. Population
projections would not be accommodated with the existing
General Plan. Land necessary to accommodate employment -
oriented uses would not be provided without adoption.of the
proposed General Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special joint meeting of the City
Council and *Planning Commission of the City of Chico, County of
Butte, State of California, on the 16th day of November, 1994, by
the following voter
IIGPFINDINGS
November 15. 1994
PAGE 42
PAGE 43
GPFINDINGS
Novcmbu 15, 1994
1
AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert,
McGinnis and Owens.
2
NOES: None.
3
ABSTAIN: None.
4
ABSENT: None.
6
ATTEST:
Ara
A. Evans
9
City Clerk
10
11.
"EDFORM:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE 43
GPFINDINGS
Novcmbu 15, 1994
AGENDA - CHICO CITY COUNCIL
AND CHICO PLANNING COMMISSION
Chico Municipal Center - Council Chamber - 421 Main Street
Adjourned Regular Meeting - Wednesday, November 16, 1994 - 7:00 P.M.
1. CAIS. TO ORDER.
1.1. Flag Salute.
1.2. Roll Call - City Council and Planning Commission.
2. _ NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE REGULATION AHENDHENTS,
—REZONING' PROPERTIES IN THE CITY, AND PREZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CHICO
URBAN AREA.
City staff will provide a brief overview of each resolution and -
ordinance and be prepared to respond to Council and Planning
Commission questions and comments.
The Mayor will open the hearing to the audience and request that
speakers state their name and address.
The Mayor will ask for any further Council or Planning Commission
discussion and then close the hearing.
A. PLANNING COHHISSION ACTIONS:
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO
_ RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN.
Adopt motion recommending amendments to Title 19 "Land Use
• Regulation" and Title 18 "Subdivisions".
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO
LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PREZONING
PROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CHICO URBAN AREA TO LAND USE
DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
B. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO CERTIFYING THE
ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CHICO
GENERAL PLAN (SCH92123062f.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO MAKING
FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING
TITLE 19 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "LAND USE
REGULATION", TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT
PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHICO -
FINAL READING AND ADOPTION.
11/16/94 Page 1.
UPDATE - FINAK
FINAL READINIi tuvu nu�+r say.•
g• ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF AGENDA.
4. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR.
5. CLOSED SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT•
Page 2.
11/16/94
4 d b Novcr..bcr 16, 1996
Council was provided with a letter dated 11/15/94 from Independent
Living Services of Northern California requesting that the Council
consider leasing it space in either the Finance or Engineering Building
if they would be retained.
Following discussion, Councilmember Guzzetti moved that the Engineering
Building located at the corner of Fourth and wall Streets and the
Personnel Office located at the corner of Fifth and wall streets not
be demolished. The motion was seconded but failed to carry with
Councilmembers Andrews, Guzzetti and Hubert voting aye, Councilmembers
Francis, McGinnis and Owens voting no, and Councilmember Fletcher being
absent. Therefore, the buildings would be disposed of per the
municipal Center plan.
REVIEW OF PARR FACILITY FEES: City manager Lando reviewed the report
dated 11/8/94 regarding anticipated revenues, expenditures and
development in Fund 331 Neighborhood Park Facility Fees, in each of the
ten Neighborhood Park benefit zones, in Fund 330 Community/Creekside
Park Facility Fees, and in Fund 332 Bidwell Park Land Acquisition
Facility Fees. Be recommended that Neighborhood Park Zones "D' and "El
be combined and Zones •F* and 'G" be combined since the number of units
estimated to be developed in zone •D• and Zone IF, would not generate
adequate income to support a park in those zones. Be also recommended
charging -interest -on any loans made to Park Funds at the same rate the
General Fund was currently receiving.
Councilmember Francis moved to include in the new General Plan the City
Manager's reco;Tendation to combine and modify zones as outlined in his
11/8/94 memorandum, and that any loans made to Park Funds be charged
the same interest rate as the General Fund was currently receiving.
The motion was seconded and carried with Council- mb
Park
Facility
Fees
e e. HCGinnis voting
no and councilmesuer Fletcher being absent.
CITY ATTORNEY'S SCHEDULE OF PENDING ORDINANCES AND CODIFIED
City
RESOLUTIONS: City Attorney Boehm Submitted his quarterly schedules of
Atty.
pending ordinances and codified resolutions and requested that the
Council
Pending
review the schedule and indicate whether it reflected their
priorities. Be noted that the list reflected a small percentage of his
Ord./Res.
workload, and that he would begin. providing a monthly report of his
Schedule
other activities.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: The following reports and communication
Reports
;.
_items were provided for the Council's information. It was noted that
'+� J
no action could be taken on any of the items unless the Council agreed
6 Comm.
to include them on a subsequent posted agenda.
1. state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, application for
on -sale beer and wine license, eating place, Pillars,
121 Broadway.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. this
evening in the Council Chamber for a General Plan Hearing (joint
meeting with Planning Co -mission).
JAN 17 1995
Date Approved
City Clerk Mayor
ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Pursuant to adjournment, the City Council met in joint session with the
Planning commission at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 1994, in
the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center. Present at roll call -
Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti,
Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - None. City staff in attendance - City
Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Community
Development Director Baptiste, Planning Director Sellers and Senior
Planners Hayes and Jolliffe.
Planning Commissioners in attendance - Chair short and Commissioners
Crotts, Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort and Wright.
NOTICED PUBLIC REARING - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE REGULATION AY_ENDMENTS
Hearing
REZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY AND.PREZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CHICO
General
URBAN AREA: Senior Planner Y.ayee reviewed his memorandum dated
'
11/10/94 sum_^iarizing the major changes that the Council directed be
plan
made to the Draft General Plan and EIR, and submitting the Planning
Update
Commission and City Council ordinances and resolutions which would
Novccibcr 16, 1994 439
adopt the General Plan, certify the EIR, a --rend land use and subdivision
regulations, and rezone/prezone parcels in the Chico urban area.
Senior Planner Hayes also reviewed his memorandum dated 11/16/94
attached to which was additional correspondence received since
distribution of this evenings agenda, an amended Resolution making
findings and Adopting a Statement of overriding Considerations for the
Adoption of the General Plan, all Planning Commission resolutions, and
the Resolution Adopting the Comprehensive update of the General Plan
(Attachments 'A' through 'F'). This evening the Council was provided
with additional letters received from Ferguson t Brewer Investment
Company (11/16/94), Jon wren (11/16/94), Colby Family Trust (11/16/94),
and Steve Davis (11/14/94). He advised that staff had also received
a verbal request from Pleasant valley Assembly of God that .the land use
designations and zoning for its property (off Humboldt Road) be left
open for consideration when staff reviewed the zoning/pre zoning in the
future.
Senior Planner Hayes related that many of the comments addressed the
rezone and prezone proposal; that zoning errors had been made for the
properties listed on Attachment 'I' which would be corrected by
deleting the parcels from the proposed rezoning, thus retaining
existing zoning; that staff believed many of the other requests for
zoning changes merited further consideration; that staff suggested that
LO
the zoning ordinances be adopted this evening as proposed, and that
0
staff analyze the additional requests and make other changes to -the
General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoning for consideration by the
Council and Commission within the next six months. He also stated that
—�
the vacant parcel (005-443-011) on Ricky Court proposed for the Skip
m
Reager low income housing project was inadvertently shown on the rezone
map as R-3 High Density
Residential, and staff requested that the
Q
Council amend the rezoning of Parcel 005-443-011 as R-2 Medium Density
Residential.
In regard to Attachment 'G', west of Airport Environs, Senior Planner
Hayes reported that during hearings on the Draft General Plan, the
Council directed that policies addressing development of the CSA 87
growth area include language that the Courty•s adopted specific plan
be consistent with those land uses shown in the City's General Plan.
However, this language was inadvertently otitted, and Implementing
Policy Lu -I-54 had been added to correct the omission. In addition
Attachment 'H', Resource Management, was revised to further clarify
r-: •:.:..
that this program would be integrated with the environmental assessment
process, but still require that certain resource information be
' •
submitted during the Development Review process and that a
P p Resource
management, monitoring and Reporting Program be incorporated into final
environmental documents.
Senior Planner Hayes further related that concerns were raised relating
to visual simulations in the Community Design Element of the final
General Plan, that additional information would be provided as part of
the zoning ordinance, and that additional detail could be added if the
Council wished. He also noted that Page 5-28, Table 5.6-1 in regard
to storm drainage, the performance standard 'No alteration in the
drainage flow through a site' was an oversight and should be deleted,
and that staff reco=ended adding to the second sentence of PP -I-47
—
relating to community -wide funding for library facilities, language
that the City would work with LAFCO and Butte County to explore the
feasibility of establishing community -wide funding for library
facilities and services.
The Mayor opened the hearing.
Darrell Kaiser, 1259 East First Avenue, stated that he and adjacent
property owners requested that their properties which were the only
parcels remaining on the south aide of East First Avenue east of the
freeway zoned R-1 Single Family Residential be rezoned R -P because they
were unsuitable for residential purposes due to their proximity to the
freeway and problems associated with traffic.
Charles Felver, 1069 Woodland Avenue, reviewed hie letter dated 11/8/94
requesting that Parcel No. 5177004 which consisted of a house located
at 196 East 15th Street and a fence contracting business at 1430 Locust
_
Street retain its existing commercial zoning because it conformed with
the commercial zoning on the west side of Locust Street from 13th to
15th Street.
Ben Bos, 178 East 7th Street, reviewed his 11/7/94 letter objecting to
prezoning his property presently designated R-3 High Density
Residential in the County to City R-2 because he had operated his
business from his home at this location since 1971, it was surrounded
on three sides by nonresidential parcels, the property was too small
for residential develorment, and R-2 zoning would reduce the value of
the property, and requesting instead a C-1 or C-2 designation.
November 16, 1994
440
Jack Horgan, 1524 Manchester Road, a Partner in Esplanade Enterprises,
reviewed his letter dated 11/15/94 in opposition to prezoning of Parcel
No. 6-36-10, located on the Esplanade and consisting of approximately
3.5 acres, to R -P Residential Professional and R-2 Low Density
Residential. He related that the parcel was purchased as C-2
commercial; that with the exception of two parcels, all of the property
on the east side of the Esplanade between Lassen and Shasta Avenues was
zoned C-1 Commercial; that he proposed that the back 640 feet be zoned
R-2 which was adjacent to medium density property, and that the front
of the property being used as commercial be zoned C-1 or C-2. Be also
i advised that the owner of Parcel 6-36-16, who could not attend this
evening's meeting, also requested commercial zoning for his property.
Lee Colby, Trustee, Colby Family Trust, 72 Fairway Drive, reviewed his
letter dated 11/16/94 protesting the downzoning of Parcel No. 2190024
located on Notre Dame and Forest Avenue from C-1 to R-2 and Parcel
No. 2260014 from C-1 to R-3. He explained that he owned additional
parcels zoned C-1 (surrounding the NCR building), and he was primarily
concerned that the downzoning would decrease the property value and
yield less revenue. He also expressed concern that he was not
personally notified of the zone change, that when it came to his
attention, Planning staff indicated his property would not be affected.
He requested his property remain C-1, but if it would be downzoned,
that notice be -mail -ed to individual property owners.
Greg Brown stated that his property located at Yosemite Heights Drive
and Highway 32 was currently designated neighborhood commercial and was
proposed for medium to high density residential; that the property was
unsuitable for attached housing because it was bifurcated by power
lines and approximately one-half of the property would be taken by
setback requirements. He requested that the property not be rezoned
for reasons of safety (due to the power lines) and economic hardship
to his partnership, and that the property be zoned for home storage and
recreational vehicle storage to serve the adjacent area. He noted that
Sierra Sunrise supported this use because California Park's CC&R'6 did
not permit parking of recreational vehicles in the subdivision.
Councilmember Fletcher stated that the surrounding property owners
should be noticed and a public hearing set if Y.-1 zoning was to be
considered for the site.
With regard to the property at Highway 32 and Yosemite Drive, Mo West,
•' ...: .._the developer of Sierra sunrise village, disagreed with staff that
Bruce Road and Highway 32 should be zoned neighborhood commercial
•'" because the newer lots and apartments in California Park did not have
adequate room for P
qu parking recreational vehicles or boats and they could
not be parked on the street; that he agreed it was improper to permit
industrial use in California Park, and that he requested a zoning
designation which would permit this site to be developed with a home
storage facility to serve the area (as discussed in a letter dated
11/16/94 from Ferguson t Brewer) and which would also address the needs
of other narrow lot projects. In addition, he believed that the
newspaper legal ad was inadequate public notice and unfair to property
owners and suggested that when future General Plan revisions were
proposed that all owners be directly and personally notified.
Sandy Anderson, 8 Tilden Lane, stated that she had informed her clients
that the parcel at Highway 32 and Yosemite would be developed with a
facility providing recreational vehicle and home storage, that it was
shown on the California Park Master Plan, and she believed that the
project could be designed to be compatible with the' area with
appropriate landscaping.
Nancy Magill, 1958 Hooker oak Avenue, related that their property was
zoned R-1 which permitted existing horse uses, that they believed a
density of less than two houses per acre was more appropriate for the
area, and they requested RS -20 zoning with a grandfather clause
permitting existing horse uses to be passed to new owners if the
property was sold.
Councilmember McGinnis suggested zoning the north side of Hooker oak
Avenue which contained larger lots and ranchettes as RS -10 which would
meet the General Plan designation of low density for the area.
Steven Schwartz, 1985 Hooker Oak Avenue, also requested that the area
be rezoned from County R-1 to very low density or RS -20 in the new
General Plan; however, RS -10 would be preferable to R-1 zoning. Joanne
savage, 20 oak Manor Court, and Maurice Mow, 22 Roble vista Court, also
spoke in support of RS -20 zoning for the neighborhood.
Richard Mounkes reviewed Chico Nut Company's letters dated 11/8/94 and
11/15/94 requesting that Parcel 003-351-005-000 bounded by East 9th,
10th and Oleander Avenues, be rezoned from C-1 Restricted Commercial
to Y.-1 Limited Manufacturing consistent with the other parcels used in
the Chico Nut Company operation which would permit the construction of
truck scales and a scalehouse for the business. In response to Council
Kovc:nbcr 16, 1994
441
questions, he indicated they would prefer M-1 zoning rather than PD K-1
'
zoning to preserve their options for use of the parcel.
-
Councilmember McGinnis expressed concern that the neighbors had not
received notice of a potential change in the zoning.
-------------------------------
The Council recessed for 15 minutes and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
-------------------------------
Sally Smith, 952 Filbert, requested a compromise that would address
uses for parcels over one acre and the needs of individuals who owned
i '•
animals which would permit the transfer of the right to ora animals to
a purchaser without requiring existing owners to maintain animals on
the property until it was sold.
^
Norm Rosene, 6327 Cohasset Road, expressed concern that a great deal
of residential usage was being applied to the Airport area and that the
Airport might be adversely impacted if future residents objected to
increased activity.
- _
- Erica Johnson, representing Karen Reeves, a resident of the Hooker Oak
- -
- Avenue area, requested that Hanzanita Avenue to Vallombrosa Avenue
remain very low density residential.
Kathy Russo, 23 Roble vista Court, indicated that the neighbofs would
accept a compromise to zone Vallombrosa to Hooker Oak, Juniper to
Hanzanita RS -20 and the north side of Hooker Oak RS -10 or RS -20.
Kirk smith, Citrus Heights, requested the Council to consider rezoning
to C-1 Community Commercial a 14 acre parcel to the west of the Cub
Food Store site located at Forest and 20th Street which was currently
.
zoned R-P.with some high density residential when the other properties
were considered for downzoning either tonight or at a subsequent time.
Gene Damschen, 20 Betsy Fay, a partner in Springfield Properties, the
owners of property at 20th Street and Springfield Drive, related that
they had recently received a letter with regard to bicycle problems
with the school being in the area, and that Smith Hawkins had agreed
if the zoning was favorable, that they would cooperate on a•bikeway
through the easement:
• ;a:.:'.: . •
Margaret Ford, 24 Roble Vista Court, also requested zoning for the
Booker Oak area as discussed earlier this evening.
Keith Gurnee, consultant on the Diamond match property owned by
Louisiana Pacific, expressed support for the recommended rezone/prezone
for Diamond latch and adoption of the General Plan.
Grant Magill, 1958 Hooker Oak, requested RS -20 zoning for his property
but indicated he would accept RS -10 as an alternative.
Steve Honeycutt, Heritage Partners, supported the General Plan adoption
this evening and discussion of further planning or suggestions for
several properties they represented in the future.
No one else spoke from the audience, and the Mayor closed the hearing.
City manager Lando believed it would be appropriate to proceed with the
commitment that staff would review the rezone/prezone requests and
related General Plan amendments and within six months staff come back
before the Planning commission and Council after notifying property
owners and holding neighborhood meetings.
Councilmembers then discussed whether some of the zoning issues should
be resolved this evening or at a subsequent time. Both Council and
Commission members expressed concern that the neighbors were not
notified of potential changes, and City Attorney Boehm pointed out that
any significant change might bear on the environmental review.
Co=issioner Wright announced that he would abstain on issues relating
to the Hooker oak'Avenue area.
_.
Councilmember McGinnis recommended designating the area bounded by
Manzanita, vallombrosa, Juniper and Hooker oak as RS -20, and the north
side of Hooker Oak between Hooker Oak and Lindo Channel as RS -10.
Councilmember and Andrews and Hubert indicated they could only support
the change if the Capshaw development was excepted because the Council
had already approved R-1 zoning for that property, and Councilmember
McGinnis agreed to the exception.
Following discussion, Commissioner Gruendl moved that the Planning
Commission recommend to the Council that the Hooker Oak Avenue area
under discussion be removed from the rezone/prezone ordinance with the
exception of the Capshaw development, and that the Commission not
recommend any rezone for the area at this time. The motion was
.� 442
Novembcr :6. 1996
seconded but failed to carry with Commissioners Gruendl and MCAdams
voting aye; Comm4e sioners Crotts, Keene, Monfort and Short voting no,
and Commissioner Wright abstaining.
Commissioner Keene then moved that the Commission recommend to the
Council that the rezoning and prezoning ordinances be amended to
designate the area bounded by Hanzanita, vallombrosa, Juniper and
Hooker Oak as RS -20, and the north aide of Hooker oak between Hooker
Oak and Lindo Channel as RS -30, excluding the Capshaw property located
at 1972 and 1976 Hooker Oak Avenue. The motion was seconded and
carried with Commissioner Monfort voting no -and Commissioner Wright
abstaining.
Following discussion, Commissioner Gruendl moved that the Commission
adopt the three Planning Commission resolutions, and that staff review
all rezone/prezone requests and related General Plan amendments and
submit the matter to the Planning Commission and Council within six
months. The motion was seconded and unanimously carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN: The resolution received reading by
title only. Commissioner Gruendl moved adoption of the
resolution, including the revisions noted by senior Planner Hayes
at the commencement of the meeting. The motion was seconded and
carried by the following vote: AYES: Co=issioners Crotts,
Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort, Wright and short. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner Keene moved that the Commission recommend to the
Council adoption of amendments to Title 19 Land Use Regulation'
and Title 18 -Subdivisions-. The motion was seconded and
unanimously carried.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO
PLAN UPDATE: The resolution received reading by title only.
Commissioner Gruendl moved adoption of the resolution, amended
to include the zoning changes for the Eooker Oak Avenue
recommended by the Co=ission above. The motion was seconded and
carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Crotts,
Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort, Wright and Short. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
015TKICT5 CON51STENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
The resolution received reading by title only. Commissioner
Gruendl moved adoption of the resolution, amended to include the
zoning changes for the Hooker oak Avenue recommended by the
Commission above. The motion was seconded and carried by the
following vote: AYES: Commissioners Crotts, Gruendl, Keene,
McAdam, Monfort, Wright and Short. NOES:— None. ABSENT: None.
B. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS:
Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved to amend the
rezoning and prezoning ordinances to designate the area bounded
by Hanzanita, vallombrosa, Juniper and Hooker oak as RS -20, and
the north side of Hooker oak between Hooker oak and Lindo Channel
as RS -10, excluding the Capshaw property located at 1972 and 1976
Hooker Oak Avenue, which was previously prezoned R-1 by ordinance
No. 2021 adopted on 11/1/94. The motion was seconded and carried
with Mayor Owens voting no.
RESOLUTION NO. 80 94-95 - RESOLUTION OF TF.E CITY COUNCIL OF TF.E
1rSYAUT x,Lrux'1' run '1'r1L CxSCO 4LNLxA1. FL'An Tne
resolution received reading by title only. Councilmember Andrews
moved adoption of the resolution, and the motion was seconded and
carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews,
Pletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Eubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None.
Planning
Comm..
Resolution
Approving
General
Plan
Update
Planning
Comm.
Resolution
Recommend.
Rezone
Ordinance
Planning
Comm.
Resolution
Recommend.
Prezone
Ordinance
Res. 80
Certifying
EIR for
General
Plan
:.i
Res. 81
Findings b
State. of
Overriding
Consid. for
General
Plan
Res. 82
Adopting
General
Plan
Update
Ord. 2025
_Amend_ —
Land Use
Regs. to
Implement
General
Plan
Ord. 2026
Modif. to
Subdiv. Design
Consistent
With
General
Plan
Ord. 2027
Rezoning
Properties
Consistent
With
General
Plan
Ord. 2028
Prezoning
Properties
Consistent
With
General
Plan
November 16, ;994 4 4:3
RESOLUTION NO. 81 94-95 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHICO MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN:
The resolution received reading by title only. Councilmember
Andrews moved adoption of the resolution, and the motion was
seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert,
McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ASSENT: None.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 94-95 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CHICO ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL
PLAN OF NOVEMBER 16, 1994, AND REPEALING THE EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN ADOPTED ON JULY 6, 1976: The resolution received reading
by title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the
resolution, including the revisions noted by senior Planner Hayes
this evening. The motion was seconded and carried by the
following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher,
Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, Mc C,innis and Owens. NOES: None.
ASSENT: None. -7 _p \)
ORDINANCE NO. 2025 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHICO AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE. CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, nTITLED
'LAND USE REGULATION', TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REOUIRED'TO
IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
CHICO: The ordinance received final reading by title only.
Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the ordinance,-and•the
motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert,
McGinnis and Owers. NOES: None. ASSENT: None.
rlyVlrl�Allyrl yr JUZa.vlaly" 01—
STANDARDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN: The ordinance
received final reading by title only. Councilmember Andrews
moved adoption of the ordinance, and the motion was seconded and
carried by the follcwing vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews,
Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES:
None. ASSENT: None.
OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: The ordinance received final
reading by title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of
the ordinance, amended to include the motion the Council adopted
above. The motion was seconded and carried by the following
vote: AYES: CounciLmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis,
Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnia and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None.
ORDINANCE NO. 2028 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHICO PREZONING PROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CHICO URBAN
AREA TO LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: The ordinance received final reading by
title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the
ordinance, amended to include the motion the Council adopted
above. The motion was seconded and carried by the follcWing
vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis,
Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None.
The Council concurred with City Manager Lando's recommendation that
staff review all other prezone/rezone requests and related General Plan
amendments by geographic location, meet with applicants and neighbors,
and then submit recommendations to the Planning comaission and Council
for consideration.
Mayor Owers thanked General Plan Task Force Co -Chairs Jon Luvaas and
Jeff Carter and the other Task Force members and the Planning
Commission for the work they had contributed during the General Plan
update process.
Mayor Owens then presented Tom Hayes with a Mayor's Award for his time
and commitment to the General Plan, and also presented a Mayor's Award
to the Planning office which was received by Planning Director sellers
and senior Planner Jolliffe.
The Mayor also thanked Co;:ncilmer.bers Fletcher and Francis who would
be completing their to=s of office in December and leaving the
Council.
444
Novcmber 16. 1994
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
City Clerk
JAN 17 1995
Date Approved
Mayor
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 6, 1994
REORGANIZATION: The City Clerk called the meeting to order at
7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 1994, in the Council Chamber.
Members of the sierra Cascade Council Girl Scout Troop #20 presented
the colors and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Reverend
Michael J. Newman of the Newman Catholic Center delivered the
invocation.
Honorable Ann Rutherford, Judge of the Butte County Superior court,
administered the oath of office and delivered certificates of Election
to Mary Andrews., Rick Keene and Kimberly King (four year terms). The
remaining Councilmembers in attendance were Councilmembers Guzzetti,
Hubert, McGinnis and Owens.
The City Clerk then opened nominations for the office of Mayor for a
term expiring December 3, 1996. The Council agreed that if there was
more than one nomination, that the names would be placed in a box and
voted upon in the order in which they were drawn.
Councilmember Andrews nominated Ted Hubert for Mayor, and Councilmember
Guzzetti nominated Michael McGinnis for Mayor. Nominations were
closed. Councilmembers Guzzetti, King, McGinnis and Owens voted for
Michael McGinnis. Michael McGinnis was elected Mayor.
The City Clerk then opened nominations for the office of vice Mayor for
a term expiring December 3, 1996. Mayor McGinnis ncminated Ted Hubert
—for Vice mayor. The nominations were closed, and Ted Hubert was
elected vice Mayor by a unanimous vote.
The City Clerk thanked all who participated in the evening ceremonies
for swearing in the newly -elected members of the City Council.
-------------------------------
The Council recessed from 7:40 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
-------------------------------
JAN 17 1995
Date Approved
City Clerk Mayor
REGULAR REDEVELOPY.ENT AGENCY Y=ETING - DECEX.BER 6, 1994
The City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of
the Redevelopment Agency, met in regular session at 8:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, December 6, 1994, in the council Chamber, Chico Municipal
Center. Present at roll call - Mayor McGinnis and Councilmembers
Andrews, Guzzetti, Hubert, Keene, King and Owens. Absent - None. City
staff in attendance - City manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, Assistant
City manager Dunlap, Risk manager Koch, General services Director
Shaddox, Community Development Director Baptiste, Director of Public
works Ross, Planning Director sellers, Personnel Director Erlandson,
Chief of Police Dunbaugh, Finance Director Sesnon, Economic
Development/Redevelopment Manager Smail, Housing officer McLaughlin,
Assistant City Attorney Barker and Park Director Wright.
Reorgan-
ization
CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor announced that anyone on the Council or in Consent
the audience could have any item removed from the Consent Agenda for Agenda
separate discussion or action. He then read the following items on the
Consent Agenda, copies having been furnished in advance to
Councilmembers:
:•)
November 8, 1994 2
aware that Mr. Wright was cousin to the City Manager's wife, and that
this fact did not influence their opinion that Mr. Wright was the most
qualified applicant for this position.
Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved that Rollie wright
be confirmed as the City's Park Director at a monthly salary of $5,106.
The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember Guzzetti being
absent_
The Mayor expressed the Council's appreciation to General services
Director shaddox for his many hours of work in acting as Park Director
:...
since the vacancy occurred.
General
GENERAL PLAN: city Manager Lando stated that the primary purpose of
Plan
today's meeting was to introduce the ordinances implementing Code
revisions; that when zoning designations were made, some errors had
occurred, a list of which were provided to the Council this evening,
and that staff requested that the ordinances be introduced this evening
including these corrections. He further related that a public hearing
_
on the ordinances was scheduled for 11/16/94 concurrent with the
_ — — --
-hearing on the General Plan update.
In response to Councilmember Andrews, senior Planner Hayes explained
that the Bell -Muir core area was eliminated and relocated to Eaton Road
and the Esplanade, but other core areas were not listed specifically,
O
but only generic examples of mixed use neighborhoods were provided.
Councilmember Andrews stated that it was her understanding that Bell -
Muir was to be eliminated from the development area and the area
handled in cooperation with the County, but the map of special
m
development areas (Figure 3-7) still showed Bell -Muir.
Q
Mayor Owens believed that it was inappropriate to indicate the Bell -
Muir area since other core areas were not shown, and that the area
should not be eliminated as a special development area in the General
Plan even though the County had primary responsibility because the City
would still be involved in the process.
City Manager Lando clarified that the Bell -Muir special development
area would only indicate special development concerns existed with the
intent of assuring the neighbors that the City recognized the existing
land uses in Bell -Muir.
Planning Director sellers reviewed changes to City Codes which were
necessary to facilitate implementation of the General Plan upon
adoption. These changes included the following:
1. Adoption of an ordinance amending the City's Land Use
.
Regulations, including the establishment of new zoning districts,
to implement policies contained in the General Plan. A revised
copy of the ordinance was provided to the Council this evening.
He reported that the ordinance was intended to provide changes
to the zoning ordinance that would reflect new language and
policies in the General Plan. The first major revision was the
requirement that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan
as far as zoning and land uses permitted. It also established
six new land use designations.
2. Adoption of an ordinance amending the City's subdivision
standards to allow modification of Design criteria and
Improvement standards where necessary for a subdivision design
to be consistent with the General Plan.
3. Adoption of an ordinance rezoning certain portions of the City
limits to new land use districts consistent with the General Plan
designations. A revised copy of the ordinance was provided to
the Council this evening.
4. Adoption of an ordinance prezoning the unincorporated portion of
the Chico urban area to land use districts consistent with the
General Plan designations. (?rezoning would only become
effective upon annexation to the City.) A revised copy of the
_
ordinance was provided to the Council this evening.
The Planning Director reported that some corrections would be made in
the zoning map which were primarily bookkeeping errors or as a result
of requests .from property owners with which staff concurred.
City Manager Lando reiterated that the intent was to correct the Bell -
Muir area so that the zoning reflected existing land uses. In regard
to the Enloe Hospital site, staff recommended that it remain at the
current R-1 low density residential designation (with P -Q for the
hospital site) until such time as the Development Agreement was
executed.
424
24 November F. 1994
In response to Councilmember McGinnis, City Manager Lando advised that
subsequent to adoption of the General Plan, Title 19 would be reprinted
and wouid include a table of contents.
Senior Planner Hayes reviewed the list of zoning errors and some of the
changes made from the Draft General Plan which were made on the General
Plan Diagram, noting that the zoning map reflected parcel specific
zoning while the General Plan Diagram did not.
Senior Planner Hayes then reviewed changes which had occurred since the
Council's 10/11/94 meeting. He reported that the owner of property on
the west side of the Esplanade south of Shasta Avenue (Enloe family?) --�
which extended back a considerable distance wished to retain the County i
commercial zoning. Staff designated commercial along the Esplanade and _
low density residential farther in, but the owner would be able to
utilize the property for commercial purposes with n use permit.
Associate Planner Hayes further advised that Chico Nut Company
submitted a letter concerning its parcels located near the Esplanade
and Oleander which were zoned H-1 Limited Manufacturing with the
exception of one parcel which they requested be rezoned from C-1 ,
_ Restrictad Commercial to M -1 -consistent with the other parcels. staff
recommended retaining the existing zoning since specific details were
not submitted.
Richard Mounkes reviewed Chico Nut Company's 11/16/94 letter and J
requested that they be allowed to present their zoning request at the
11/16/94 hearing. They believed that rezoning the one parcel located
west of oleander between East Ninth and Tenth Avenues from C-1 to M-1
would be consistent with its current use and would permit them to
construct truck scales and a scalehouse on the site for use in their
nut processing operation.
Councilmember Francis suggested that it would be more appropriate to
discuss any rezone of the property subsequent to the 11/16/94 hearing
so that adequate notice could be given to the neighbors that the matter
was being considered.
Senior Planner Hayes also advised that an owner of property on
M.anzanita Way wished to rezone the property C-1, but staff believed it
was more appropriate to retain R -P zoning which was more consistent _
with the other properties in the area. He further reported that an
owner of property at'the northwest corner of Marigold and East Avenue
wished to designate the property co=ercial. Councilmember Hubert
supported rezoning this property, but none of the other Couneilmembers
expressed an interest in doing so.
In response to councilmember Hubert, City Manager Lando explained that
zoning changes were involved for 40,000 parcels; that the City Attorney
recommended that parcels be listed by assessor's parcel number rather
than by property owner; that the notice was published in a newspaper
legal ad, and that staff believed it was the host appropriate and
efficient way to provide notice for a large number of parcels.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AlKENDING TITLE 19_ Ordinance
OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "LAND L'SE REGULATION TO Amending
INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED Land Use
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHICO: Councilmember McGinnis moved that Regs. to
the ordinance be introduced as amended by reading its title only. The Implement
motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: p
Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinni4 and Owens. Revised
NOES: None. ABSENT: Gouncilmerber Guzzetti. General
Plan
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18. ENTITLED "SUBDIVISIONS'
Councilmember McGinnis moved that the ordinance be introduced by
reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried by the
following vote: AYES: CouncilneLbers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis,
Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember
Guzzetti.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO REZONING
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO LAND
USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
Councilmember McGinnis moved that the ordinance be introduced as
amended by reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried
by the following vote: AYES: councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher,
Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT:
councilmember Guzzetti.
Ordinance
Amending
Subdiv.
Standards
Consistent
With
General
Plan
Ordinance
Rezoning
Property
Consistent
With
General
Plan
::ovcmbcr 8, 1994 425
Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO PREZONING
Prezoning
PROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CH:CO URBAN AREA TO LAND USE
.•::•.:' Property
DISTRICTS CONSISTENT W107H THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE:
Cons
Consistent
Consamended
Councilmember McGinnis moved that the ordinance be introduced as
by reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried
With
by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher,
General
Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Plan
eouncilmember Guzzetti.
Emergency
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT SKATING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING STRUCTURE:
Ordinance
City Manager Lando and City Attorney Boehm reviewed the proposed :
Prohibiting
ordinance regarding an amendment to Chapter 10.60 to add n section
Skating
prohibiting roller skating within any multi -floor parking structure.
They explained that the emergency to be addressed by this ordinance was
in City
the frequent use of the newly opened municipal parking structure on
Parking
Salem Street by roller skaters, which use posed a serious hazard to
Structures
those roller skaters and to others using the parking structure for
parking motor vehicles.
Councilmember Andrews moved that the council find that the need to take.
action on this item arose subsequent to the agenda being posted_ and
that an emergency situation existed. The motion was seconded "and
carried with eouncilmember Guzzetti being absent.
'^ Ord. 2023
ORDINANCE N0. 2023 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP'CP.ICO
Ln Prohibiting
AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10.60 OF THE CHICO MUNI_CIPAL CODE,
Skating •
ENTIT'ED 'ROLLER SKATING". BY ADDING THERETO A NEN SECTION 10.60.040,
in City
TO B£ ENTITLED "ROLLER SKATING WITHIN PARKING STRUCTURES --
PROHIBITED": The ordinance received final reading in its entirety.
Parking
CounciLmember Andrews moved adoption of the ordinance, and the motion
Structures
was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers
Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinn_s and Owens. NOES: None.
Q
ABSENT: Councilmember Guzzetti.
Councilmerber Andrews requested that staff review the safety of the ..
strands of wire which were installed in ladder -like fashion in the
parking structure.
ADJOURNY_-NT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. to Wednesday,
11/16/94 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room No. 1.
JAN 17 199S
Date Approved
City Clerk Mayor
ADJOURNED REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING - NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Pursuant to adjournment the City Council, acting in its capacity as the _
Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency, met at 9:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, November 16, 1994, in Conference Room No. 1, Chico Municipal
Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Andrews,
Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - None. City
staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City
Attorney Boehm, Assistant City Manager Dunlap, Risk Manager Koch,
General services Director Shaddox, Community Development Director
Baptiste, Director of Public Works Ross, Fire Chief Lowden, Chief of
Police Dunbaugh, Personnel Director Erlandson, Finance Director Sesnon,
Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager Smail, Housing officer
McLaughlin and Management Analyst Pierce.
Hearing
P.EARING ON FIVE YEAR IKPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE CHICO MERGED
5 -Year
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE GREATER CHICO URBAN AREA
Implement.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARTA (CONTINUED FROM 11'/1/94): The Mayor opened
the hearing. City manager Lando reviewed the Economic Development/
Plans for
Redevelopment managers memorandum dated 11/3/94 reporting that the
Chico
California Community Redevelopment Law provided that on or before
Merged 6
12/31/94 and each five years thereafter, each agency that had adopted
GCUARPA
a redevelopment plan prior to 12/31/93 adopt, after a public hearing,
an implementation plan containing the specific goals and objectives for
the project area; the specific programs, including potential projects,
and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five
years; and an explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs,
and expenditures would elir,inate blight within the project area and
implement the requirements of the Cormnunity Redevelopment Law
pertaining to low and moderate income housing. Attached to the
memorandum were the resolutions listed below. In response to
Council mber McGinnis, the City manager explained that the plans would
be updated each five years or earlier if necessary, and that priorities
• .1 ;1 f► October 4, 1994
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to Tuesday,
10/11/44 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
N U V 1 G 19y
Date Approved
City Clerk Mayor
ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 11, 1994
Pursuant to adjournment, the City Council met at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday,
October 11, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico municipal Center.
Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Andrews, Francis,
Guzzetti and Hubert. Absent - Councilmembers Fletcher and McGinnis.
City staff in attendance -.City manager Lando, City Clerk Evane, City
Attorney 'Bcihm, Community Development Director Baptiste, Planning
Director Sellers and senior Planners Hayes and Jolliffe.
DRAFT CHICO GENERAL PLAN: Mayor Owens announced that a public hearing General
was held by the Council on the Draft Chico General Plan on 9/27/94. plan
This evening the Council would review staffs responses to letters and
comments received to date and make recommendations for incorporation
into the Final Plan.
senior Planner Hayes provided the council with his memorandum dated
10/10/94 providing additional comments from the public regarding the
Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report which were
received after preparation and distribution of his 10/7/94 memorandum
to which staff had not yet been able to respond. Additionally,
comments dated 10/11/94 were received from Butte County at this
evening•e meeting. He requested direction from the Council on whether
it wished to 1) direct staff on major policy decisions based on
comments and staff responses, and authorize staff to make responses to
additional comments received which would then be submitted to the
Council for approval, or 2) hold another meeting to allow staff to
respond to additional comments.
- -------------------------------
councilmember McGinnis arrived at 7:10 p.m.
-------------------------------
Councilmember Guzzetti wished to ensure that the Council and public had
opportunity to respond to comments to date including those made this
evening in a public meeting. He suggested that General Plan discussion
be included on the regular Council agendas prior to the next General
Plan hearing.
City manager Lando explained that a final hearing or hearings on the
£IR and to adopt the General Plan in November would provide additional
opportunity for Council and public input. He indicated that staff
would provide a report to the council responding to comments received
to date and staff responses.
Senior Planner Hayes recommended that the Council approve those changes
recommended by staff in its responses to comments contained in
Attachment •A' to his report with the exception of the major issues
mostly in regard to the map, which would be discussed this evening.
senior Planner Hayes related that the Council previously directed that r-..._
the Bell-muir area be included as a potential growth area, and it might
be appropriate to eliminate the specificity in regard to this area and
to indicate a generic mixed use on the map. In response to various
comments received, he emphasized that it would be made very clear in
the city's General Plan that the County would take the lead in regard
to the Bell -Muir area, and the City would provide appropriate
assistance.
In response to Councilmember McGinnis, senior Planner Hayes explained
that at the Discussion Draft stage, staff was directed to only include
for potential growth the area to Bell and Muir Roads, but if land was
developed beyond that it should be at urban densities. It was
determined that there was enough developable vacant land to accommodate
a mixed use core in the Bell -Muir area. He also pointed -out thdt-
staff's opinion was that the Plan provided a good foundation for
development in the community, and if all the development did not occur,
there was still the framework for it, and with the one and five year
reviews, there was opportunity to determine if additional areae should
be added. In response to Councilmember Andrews, he was not certain if
another EIR would be required if the core was moved to the intersection
of Eaton Road and the Esplanade.
October 11, 1994 - 39-1
Senior Planner Hayes further related that sone property owners of the
area along the Esplanade indicated low density use was too great a
change from the existing commercial use designation proposed. The
Plan's intent was to reduce strip commercial along the Esplanade.
staff responded that staff believed that an option of going to medium
density and office mixed use on the west side would still provide for
some residential and mixed uses with a transition into the low density
residential areas.
-------------------------------
Councilmember Fletcher arrived at 7:20 p.m.
-------------------------------
Senior Planner Hayes reported that in regard to CSA 67, staff proposed
including discussion of the county's revised specific Plan, and if a
Final Specific Plan was adopted by the County, that it be included in
City's Plan.
'Senior Planner Hayes advised that the County indicated that it wished
to be involved as far as specific plans for areas east and west of the -
_
_" _
-- Airport, and that such direction was included in the Plan and.could_be:
strengthened. In addition, east of the Airport and on the western part
of the site north of Highway 32 the intent was to cluster development,
however the environmental constraints could limit development in these
areas. J
0
senior Planner Hayes further advised that the Planning commission
recommended removing the foothill area north of Highway 32 as a
development area and replacing it with the Dayton Road area.
(n
Senior Planner Hayes noted that the Pleasant valley Assembly of God
Q
opposed the removal of the C-1 designation from its 19 acre parcel
bordering Humboldt and Bruce Roads and reduction of any R-3 designated
portion of the land to a medium density. Currently this area included
over 60 acres of commercially designated land use which staff believed
was too much and reco=-vended that the commercial designation be
balanced out on both sides of Bruce Road but to reduce it to a minimum
(approximately 20 acres) to reflect the amount of residential in that
area.
In regard to a comment by the County in regard to the Chapmantown-
Mulberry Improvement Plan, Senior Planner Hayes indicated that staff
had responded that the City's General Plan would indicate that the City
would work with the county, but since the County had not adopted the
Improvement Plan, it would be premature to adopt it into our General
Plan. However, we would include the Street Improvement standards
contained in the Plan which the county had apparently adopted.
Senior Planner Hayes further stated that in regard to comments that
vallombrosa Avenue be redesignated from a major arterial to a lesser
status, staff responded that it was designated as a potential scenic
road within the urban area and standards and guidelines would be
developed for that area. City Manager Lando added that many of the
issues, i.e. that it remain a two-lane road, could be clarified through
the design details.
In regard to Hooker oak Avenue, senior Planner Hayes noted that the
City had received petitions from a number of residents east of Juniper
and west of Manzanita Avenue requesting that the General Plan
redesignate the area from low density residential to very low density
residential. Staff responded that the area should remain low density,
the market would determine the density range.
In regard to concerns that the plan did not include sufficient policies
for neighborhood planning, the Plan clearly called for design district
guidelines in the community Development Element and included discussion
of neighborhood planning in the introduction section. staff requested
direction as whether the Council intended to only involve neighborhoods
or to provide for actual planning for specific areas.
Senior Planner Hayes reported that at the Council's direction, staff
was currently completing a study of the feasibility of establishing a
greenbelt on the west side including reviewing what other communities
had done. If the council wished to include additional language in the
Plan as to funding mechanisms for a greenbelt, it should so indicate.
Staff had received comments that a more comprehensive approach was
needed to develop viewshed corridors primarily in the northeast and
southeast into the foothills, that the Community Development Element
discussed policies to consider the location and siting of parks, open
space, etc., and staff would like council direction on whether this was
sufficient.
Senior Planner Jolliffe reviewed the Environmental impact Report (EIA)
Executive Summary including some of the findings, focusing primarily
on mitigations that were identified for the various categories of areas
which could be impacted.
October ll, 1994
399
Councilmember Guzzetti expressed concern that additional discussion and
mitigation had not been provided for the potential impacts on air
quality. He also believed the Plan was weak in effecting an overall
picture of various concerns which was not accomplished by merely cross-
referencing policies.
Senior Planner Hayes noted that the General Plan included a number of
mitigations, and generally all the items discussed in the Air Quality
Element provided by the Air Pollution Control District were included
in the Plan, but staff did not feel all parts of the Element should be
included in the General Plan. The City Manager added that the EIR
contained approximately 20 pages dealing with air quality.
eouncilmember Andrews requested that language be included in the Plan
for some form of regional coordination to reduce the impact on air
quality in the Northern Sacramento valley.
senior Planner Jolliffe outlined some of the measures addressed in the
EIR and General Plan to improve air quality and indicated that the City
would need to continue working with the Butte County Air Pollution
Control District and the State. In response to Councilmember Hubert,
she indicated that noise attenuation walls would be an option along
busy thoroughfares if there was sufficient room to accommodate them.
Responding to Councilmember Andrews relating to the Hydrology, Flooding
and Hater Quality section, she indicated that Best Management Practices
would be developed at a later date.
Councilmember Fletcher recommended incorporating into this section new
technology for landscaping standards from the state. we should include
as far as water service the intention to develop policies for more
efficient landscaping in new development (PP -1-27).
Councilmember Hubert noted that if the Nitrate Action Plan was
confirmed that the recharge of groundwater from septic tanks would no
longer be available.
Councilmember McGinnis believed stronger language was needed that if
developer fees were not sufficient to mitigate the impact on schools,
then additional growth would not be permitted. City Manager Lando
advised that the City was charging the full mitigation fees which were
determined by CUSD's nexus study to provide full school facilities.
The Council recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
Councilmember Andrews recommended eliminating the Bell -Muir core area
and a core area be established at Eaton Road and the Esplanade.
Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved to eliminate the
Bell -Muir core area; to match the existing land uses (densities) with
the County's existing designations rather than rural residential; to
move the urban core area to Eaton Road and the Esplanade; to amend
LU -I-49 to eliminate "up to 4,200- and to include residents of the area
in the planning process; to delete all of LU -I-50, and to eliminate the
last line of LU -I-51. The motion was seconded and carried with
Councilmembers Fletcher, Francis and Owens voting no.
Councilmember Andrews believed that the commercial on the Esplanade
should have more of a core rather than a strip effect with cross-
referencing in the Plan, that there was not a need for commercial north
of the Esplanade west of Eaton Road, and that single family residents
would not want to be located on the Esplanade, but perhaps
multifamily/office would be appropriate.
The Council agreed that it would be appropriate to designate office and
multifamily residential uses on the southerly part of Esplanade.
Councilmembers did not indicate a preference north on the Esplanade.'
Councilmember Hubert stated that he would abstain on items relating to
CSA 87 due to a financial conflict.
City Manager Lando advised that the language in the General Plan would
permit the inclusion of the County's Plan for CSA 87 as long as it
protected the Airport.
Following lengthy discussion, Councilmember Mccinris moved to include
the County's CSA 87 Plan in the city, s..eneral Plan as long as it
protected the Airport and did not permit urban growth south of the
existing sphere, that the City request LAFCO to not amend the City's
sphere of Influence to allow growth south, and to continue to oppose
amending the sphere until the County adopted a plan for CSA 87, that
if the County's CSA 87 plan was different than the City's policy, that
the it be further reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. The
motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember Hubert abstaining.
Councilmember Andrews recommended that the General Plan provide for
more cooperation with the County east of the Airport and greater
communication to ensure an area for industrial development which would
CSh
1
October 11, 1994.
399
not jeopardize the Airport and would avoid the environmental constrains
on the east side and the low areas where water flowed down from the
foothills. City Manager Lando advised that the area was identified as
a resource area which would be analyzed based on development potential,
and those statements could be strengthened.
Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved that on the east
side of the Airport the City's development be restricted to the area
shown as a dotted line on the General --Plan update Expansion study Areae
Map and to encourage the County to keep the current zoning in place.
The motion was seconded and unanimously carried.
Mayor Wens noted that the EZR indicated that the area north of
Highway 32 east of California Park was impacted and environmentally
constrained, and it would be preferable to remove the area from the
Plan.
senior Planner Hayes stated that additional studies were conducted
which located some areas in the west which could be developed with some
homes.
Councilmember 'Andrews suggested clustering and developing oLber-
standards (i.e. permitting septic tanks) which would provide for
development appropriate for the environment. she also recommended the
LO
Plan include the ability to transfer densities.
Q
Councilmembers Fletcher and McGinnis recommended a mechanism which
would permit the purchase of conservation easements or the purchase of
open space in the foothills.
Following discussion Councilmember McGinnis moved to delineate the area
co
North of Highway 32 east of California Park as open space with a
Q
planned development overlay and to develop mitigation measures to
preserve the open space. The motion was seconded and carried with
Councilmember Hubert voting no.
City manager Lando recommended if the Council wished to consider adding
the Dayton Road area as a growth area, that the discussion not occur
this evening to permit staff to notify the neighbors of the date the
matter would be considered.
councilmember McGinnis moved not to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation to include the Dayton Road area as a growth area. The
motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember Hubert voting no.
councilmember McGinnis believed 20 acres would be sufficient commercial
zoning for the Bruce Road and Highway 32 area and possibly a specific
plan would be in order. Councilmember Fletcher suggested the
commercial be divided between both sides of Highway 32.
The Council concurred that staff examine the constraints for
designating a maximum of 20 acres commercial on both sides of
Highway 32 on two corners.
Following discussion, councilmember McGinnis moved that staff obtain
a copy of the standards for the Chapmantown-mulberry Improvement Plan
and submit a recommendation to the Council for those standards which
should be included in the City's General Plan after they were adopted
by the County. The motion was seconded and carried with councilmember
Hubert voting no (because he wanted to review the entire plan).
City Manager Lando believed it was more appropriate to designate
Vallombrosa as a scenic road rather than a rural road (from Arbutus to
Manzanita) which would remain two lanes and to examine alternative
design standards.
Councilmember McGinnis believed it was important to extend the bike
lane to Highway 99. City Manager Lando indicated that the sidewalk
should also be examined.
Councilmember McGinnis moved that vallombrosa Avenue be designated as
a scenic road and that design standards be developed.. The motion was
seconded and unanimously carried.
Councilmember Guzzetti moved that the Hooker oak Avenue area
designation be changed from low density residential to very low
residential to correspond to County Rs -20 zoning.. The motion died for
lack of a second.
-------------------------------
The Council recessed for 5 minutes and reconvened at 10:25 p.m.
-------------------------------
councilmember McGinnis recosmended both examining specific areas where
it would be appropriate to develop specific plans and to involve the
neighbors in the planning process. Mayor Wens added that the budget
process would determine the level of funding which would be available
for various areas, and subsequently areas could be prioritized for
specific plans. The Council concurred.
400
October 11. 1994
In response to Councilmember Hubert, Senior Planner Hayes explained
that -Resource management Plans (RMP's) would be part of the
environmental review process, and the information which would be
provided by RxP's was required by CEQA. However, it was important to
staff that the RMP's be completed at the commencement of the process
so that the information could be utilized to determine whether the
project design was taking full advantage of protecting resources on the
site, subsequently, the final RMP would be integrated into the CEQA
environmental review document_
CouncilmemberFrancis suggested that the preapplication submittal
meeting for projects within an RMA which was discussed on page 7-16 be
part of the Development Review Committee process rather than a separate
meeting. Planning Director Sellers indicated that the Planning -
Commission had expressed similar concerns, and the change would be made
in the final draft.
Councilmember McGinnis recommended the addition of a mitigation measure
which provided that when open space was used that a fee was paid into
a pool to purchase conservation easements or other land, a measure
which provided for the transfer of development rights, or other _
measurer-whioh would ensure the preservation of agricultural land in -
perpetuity.
Councilmember Fletcher agreed and suggested also exploring whether
residents would be willing to pay a small fee and a matrix of other
funding mechanisms to establish a greenbelt.
Councilmember Francis indicated that he did not feel enough information
was available at this time to support the concept. councilmember
Andrews expressed the concern that the fees would be minimal but would
discourage some areas from development that were needed to achieve the
densities needed.
City Attorney Boehm advised that impact fees might only be permissible
when agricultural land was converted for housing development, but not
when other lands were being converted.
Following discussion, Councilmember Fletcher moved to include the
requirement of impact fees as a mitigation measure to offset the impact
of the conversion of agricultural land to facilitate the purchase of
a greenbelt, unless it was not legally feasible. The motion was
seconded and carried with Councilmembers Andrews, Francis and Hubert
•_ voting no.
City Manager Lando indicated that staff would secure information from
other communities relating to impact fees to offset conversion of
agricultural land.
Councilmember Guzzetti moved to add as a mitigation measure for
projects impinging on views to the foothills that the applicant would
complete a view corridor study for projects from Bruce Road, Highway
32, East Avenue and what remained of Highway 99 which included their
project and how it affected the surrounding areas. The motion was
seconded but failed to carry by the following votes AYES:
Councilmembers Guzzetti and McGinnis. NOES: Councilmembers Andrews,
Fletcher Francis, Hubert and -Owens. ABSENT: None.
In response to Councilmember McGinnis, senior Planner Bayes related
that CUSD was consulted and indicated generally where schools would be
needed. City Manager Lando added that it would be appropriate also as
a policy issue to indicate that additional schools were needed.
Councilmember McGinnis recommended including in the General Plan that
it was desirable to have smaller neighborhood parks (about two acres).
He believed there was a need for a park site somewhere between Bruce
Road, Forest Avenue and 20th Street, and the small corridor on the
south side of 20th street might be suitable, that it might be
appropriate to include smaller neighborhood parks in California Park
and the Drake Homes property on the north side regardless of whether
housing was developed there, and that what was designated office space
be redesignated as a park site. The Council concurred.
Senior Planner Hayes stated that Elizabeth Devereaux requested the
addition of more detail as to what might be included in an inner ring
and to include the concept in the Transportation Element as well.
In response to Councilmember Hubert, Senior Planner Hayes advised that
the grid pattern would be corrected throughout the document to
stipulate 5001.
Councilmember Hubert stated that Table 5.6-1, page 5-27 - Storm
drainage, the performance standard should read 'No net increase in peak
stormwater run-off.' City manger Lando indicated that the statement
would be eliminated.
City Manager Lando agreed with Councilmember Hubert that special
development areas (page 3-4e) should be more general and require
specific plans instead of including the criteria in the General Plan.
Octobcr 11, 1994 4 0 1
City Manager Lando agreed with Councilmember Hubert's recommendation
that the requirements provided for in policy S -I-10 (page 6-13)
relating to fire sprinklers for new development be included in the
Building Code rather than the General Plan.
City Attorney Boehm indicated that he would determine whether the
requirements would be legal. .
The Council agreed to replace policy s -I-10 with a policy to provide
adequate fire protection measures" in subdivisions that had the
potential for wildfires.
In response to Councilmember Francis, concern that the diagram on
page 2-30 could imply the assumed approval of the design, City Manager
Lando indicated that the diagram would be eliminated.
The Council agreed with Councilmember Francis that T -G-9, T -i-22 and
T -I-23 (pages 4-16 and 4-17) would be modified to encourage rather than
'to require employers to adopt and implement TSM programs.
The. Council also concurred with Councilmember Francis to modify policy
T -I-42 (page 4=28), the fifth bullet, to encourage rather.than.._to:
require that cul de sacs be limited to no more than 30% of all streets,
to also require bicycle and pedestrian connections, and to include
residential as well as commercial properties, in policy PF -1-37
(Page 5-24).
O
07
Councilmember Andrews moved to eliminate policy PP -I-44 (page 5-25) and
funding for
to include in policy PP -1-43 the concept of community
libraries. The motion was seconded but failed to carry with
CO
Councilmembers Francis, Guzzetti, McGinnis and Owens voting no.
Q
In response to Councilmember Andrews concern, City Manager Lando
indicated that staff would consider alternative language in the first
paragraph of page 4-22 (relating to collector streets providing a link
between local streets and arterials) which would support the concept
of neighborhoods.
The Council concurred with Councilmember Andrews recommendation to
eliminate T -I-16 (page 4-14) relating to bicycle detector loops and
mid -block bicycle -activated signals; to modify LU -G-17 (page 3-37) to
promote neighborhood identity and encourage alternative modes of
Y,
transportation, and to modify the first line of LU -G-19 as follows:
ate"
-Provide specific sites for automobile -oriented services. Limit
expansion of . . .
Future
FUTURE MEETINGS: The Council agreed to schedule at its 10/18/94
Meetings
meeting a hearing on the Final Environmental impact Report and adoption
of the General Plan. Councilmember McGinnis requested that staff
submit a list of what the Council should review to be prepared for the
hearing.
City Manager Lando requested that at its 10/18/94 meeting the Council
consider rescheduling the 11/16/94 all -day work session due to several
staff members having been summoned to appear at a hearing on that date.
Sierra
SIERRA PACIFIC PACKAGING BUILDING AT THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT: City
had
Pacific
Manager Lando announced that negotiations not progressed
sufficiently to discuss this item this evening, and it would be placed
Bldg.
on the 10/18/94 agenda.
at CMA
CONFIRMATION OF 10/26/94 COUNL MEETING RE: ENLOE HOSPITAL REZONE:
CI
Meeting
g
Mayor Owens requested that the Council confirm that a quorum would be
re Enloe
in attendance at the 10/26/94 meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. regarding
Hospital
the Enloe Hospital rezone inasmuch as councilmembere Guzzetti and
Rezone
Fletcher could not attend on that date, and he and Councilmember
Council
Francis would abstain due to a conflict of interest. The
agreed to cancel the 10/26/94 meeting, and to discuss alternative dates
on 10/18/94.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. to 10/18/94 at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
DEC 0 `3 '094
Date Approved
city Clerk, Mayor
Hearing
General
Plan b .
Draft EIR
Scptembc[ 20. 1994 381
The Council designated Council +ember Francis to take minutes during the
closed session.
The Council reconvened to open session at 9:20 p.m.
------------------------------------
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to Tuesday,
9/27/94, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
City Clerk
OCT 1 R 1a94
Date Approved
Mayor
ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEM8ER 27, 1994
Pursuant to adjournment, the City Council met at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday ,�
September 27, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center.
Present at roll call - Mayor wens and Councilmembers Andrews, Francis,
Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - Councilmember Fletcher. City
staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City
Attorney Boehm, Community Development Director Baptiste, Planning
Director Sellers, Senior Planner Hayes and Senior Planner Jolliffe.
NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HEARING DRAFT OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN
AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Mayor announced that the
purpose of today's hearing was to receive public testimony on the Draft
General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Senior Planner Hayes noted that the Council was previously provided
senior Planner Jolliffe discussed the purposes of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and provided an overview of the various
categories of impacts (land use, transportation, air quality, noise,
bydrology, flooding and water quality, biological resources, safety,
water service, and cumulative impacts), whether mitigation measures
were available to offset the impact, whether the impact 'remained
significant and unavoidable, or whether the impact was not known
because all information was not yet available.
The Mayor opened the hearing to the audience.
Vince Phelan, North Avenue, believed that water quality would be
significantly affected by the cumulative impacts identified in the
Draft EIR. He recommended 1) assigning priority to Table PP -I-24, 25
i 26, page 11-5-1, to protect groundwater resources both as to quality
and quantity, and 2) delaying consideration of the Draft General Plan
until the Butte Basin Groundwater Model was completed and its findings
could be assessed.
Jerry Ball, 3135 Aloha Lane, speaking for herself, her mother Mary
Ball, and approximately 100 residents of the Bell Muir area, opposed
the inclusion of the Bell Muir area as an urban growth area in the.
General Plan.
with copies of the Chico Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Draft EIR). He reviewed his memorandum dated 9/26/94
providing background information and an overview of these two documents
and setting forth the recommendations of the General Plan Task Force.
He noted that this evening the Council was provided with a letter dated
9/27/94 from Mary Joan Leaver submitting comments on the Draft General
Plan.
Senior Planner Hayes also reviewed his memorandum dated 9/27/94
providing additional comments from the public and providing the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. He related that the
commission recommended that the Council accept the Draft EIR subject
to any additional comments and information received through the comment
period, that the comment period on the Draft EIR not be extended from
10/13/94 to 10/31/94, and that the Council accept the Draft General
Plan subject to additional comments, to revisions to .reflect the
cbanges recommended by staff on Attachment •A', and to revisions
recommended by the Commission set forth in the memorandum. Be advised
the Council that staff had not been able to respond to all comments,
and would need additional time after today's hearing to respond to
prior comments and those received this evening. In regard to comments
relating to Vallombrosa Avenue, he advised that the General Plan
designated valloabrosa as a two-lane road, and it would not be
developed to a four -lane arterial.
senior Planner Jolliffe discussed the purposes of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and provided an overview of the various
categories of impacts (land use, transportation, air quality, noise,
bydrology, flooding and water quality, biological resources, safety,
water service, and cumulative impacts), whether mitigation measures
were available to offset the impact, whether the impact 'remained
significant and unavoidable, or whether the impact was not known
because all information was not yet available.
The Mayor opened the hearing to the audience.
Vince Phelan, North Avenue, believed that water quality would be
significantly affected by the cumulative impacts identified in the
Draft EIR. He recommended 1) assigning priority to Table PP -I-24, 25
i 26, page 11-5-1, to protect groundwater resources both as to quality
and quantity, and 2) delaying consideration of the Draft General Plan
until the Butte Basin Groundwater Model was completed and its findings
could be assessed.
Jerry Ball, 3135 Aloha Lane, speaking for herself, her mother Mary
Ball, and approximately 100 residents of the Bell Muir area, opposed
the inclusion of the Bell Muir area as an urban growth area in the.
General Plan.
3 8 2 September 27. 1994
Ray Schoenfeld reviewed his letter dated 3/25/94 to the Butte County
Board of supervisors indicating his concurrence that the area south of
Bell and Muir Roads should be a •study area- the subject of a Specific
Plan prepared with involvement by the County, City and land owners of
the area. However, he believed that terminating the warner/Holly
connection at 6th Street and then continuing at 8th Street was poor
planning, and noted that page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR discussed the
need for parallel routes west of SHR 99. _.
Gloria Bettencourt, 1366 Vallombrosa, reviewed a petition from
approximately 154 residents of Vallombrosa Avenue and adjoining cul-de-
sacs requesting that the City reaffirm its commitment in the General
Plan to protect Bidwell Park and that vallombrosa Avenue be
redesignated from an arterial to a scenic rural road. Mike Borzage,
1662 Vallombrosa Avenue, and Darrell Stevens, vallambrosa Avenue,
concurred.
Tanya Henrich, Sierra Club P.O. Box 2012, reviewed her comments
regarding the Draft General Plan dated 9/27/94 and requesting that the
theme of sustainable development and balanced growth and conservation
be removed from the General Plan. she did support Page 11-8 of the
Implementation Plan.
Billie Crosby, 1378 vallombrosa, requested that Vallombrosa Avenue be
protected because traffic was presently too fast and heavy for the
number of individuals crossing over into the park, that existing
homeowners be considered when development was being evaluated in any
area, and that additional arterials be determined rather than impacting
existing property owners.
Tim Murphy, 881 Forest Avenue, reviewed his letter dated 9/27/94
submitting comments on the General Plan.
Pat Kelly, 900 East 19th street, believed that the General Plan did not
adequately protect the wetlands and meadowfoam, and that more specific
protection was needed for the sirmons, stonegate and schmidbauer
properties. He noted that Figure 6-1, page 6-5 of the Implementation
Plan showed -the area which was recently graded by Drake Homes without
regard to protection of these resources.
Greg Webb, requested that the property on north Esplanade on the went
aide across the street from Philadelphia Square, which was previously
zoned commercial by the County, be redesignated ccr-iercial or at a
minimum remain residential professional office.
Kelly Meagher, Friends of the Foothills, 645 Flune, inquired whether
the General Plan added 2,000 acres to foothill development.
Mayor Owens explained that additional areas outside the City's sphere
of influence were shown as hatched areas.
Mr. Meagher stated that he opposed developing into the foothills, that
the Draft EIR did not adequately address the importance of the area to
groundwater recharge of the aquifer, water quality, where drainage
would occur, and whether it could be severed, that a ridge line
ordinance was needed to protect the viewshed if the area was to be
developed and that he took exception to the five minute limit on
speakers because he believed public participation and allowing the
public to respond in a timely manner was an essential part of the CrQA
process.
Mike Campos, 777 Hillview Way, requested that "covered, be removed from
Policy T -I-6, page 11-36 of the Implementation Program, relating to
secured covered bicycle parking because it would be infeasible to
retrofit existing facilities. He believed that the provisions of
page 5-11, PP -I-2, relating to protection of riparian habitat with a
100' setback along creeks would create difficulty when homes designated
as R-3 from Park Avenue to Dayton Road needed additions or improvements
because they were not 100' deep. In regard to page 11-24, Land Use
Element, LU -I-1, he agreed with zoning and development standards being
consistent with the General Plan and the zoning =ap being amended to
be consistent with the diagram, but requested clarification as to the
designation of a boot shaped portion of Pomona Avenue. He proposed
that the property north of Pomona Avenue be zoned high density because
of its proximity to the University, that the R-3 designation around
Taco Cortez on Dayton Road remain R-3 also due to its proximity to the
University, and that the Dayton Road area be added back in as a growth
area as recommended by the Planning Commission.
senior Planner Bayes explained that some errors had been determined in
the diagram, and the Council had been provided with a series of diagram
changes which included the section of property to which Mr. Campos
alluded.
September 27, 1994
35:3
Terrell Murphy, 681 Forest Avenue, did not believe that compacting the
City by increasing the density in infill areas would accomplish the
objectives of the General Plan nor achieve affordable housing.
Les Garton, 795 Caprice way, stated that he agreed with Mary Anne
Pella-Donnelly's 9/4/94 letter suggesting that a resource-based General
Plan needed to establish guiding and implementing policies that limited
growth, that he objected to foothill development because downstream
homes could be flooded, that he believed the majority of citizens
wished the City to remain compact and rural without increasing density,
and that additional study was needed on biological resources to ensure
their protection before the General Plan was adopted.
Tim Bousquet, 462 East 3rd street, stated that the majority of his
objections to foothill development would be submitted in writing. Be
reviewed a map of the general area designated for foothill development
and illustrated planned new residential developments on the east side
(Bruce Road area?). He believed PP -I-32 which required no net increase
in peak stormwater runoff and LU -I-33 which provided that runoff would
be minimized were contradictory policies. He believed adoption of the
Plan should be delayed until the results of the Butte Basin Water User
Association computer model could be evaluated to determine what the
impact of development would be on drainage, flooding and the water
table, and fire standards specific to foothill characteristics should
be established. Be also reviewed a chart showing prior public
objections to foothill development.
-------------------------------
Councilmember Fletcher arrived at approximately 9:20 p.m.
-------------------------------
John !tiller, 173 East Sacramento Avenue, believed that future
population was underestimated in the General Plan based on the accuracy
of past estimates,'and that the majority of citizens did not wish the
City to grow a great deal. ,.'w
Pete Giampaoli provided the Council with two letters dated 9/27/94 from
the Building Industry Association and Horthstate Business Center
submitting comments on the Draft General Plan which he asked be given
consideration. He recommended using the word *discourage* rather than
prohibiting the use of high walls on page 2-49, CD -G-48, and using the
word "encouraging" rather than •requiring, parking to be located behind
buildings on page 4-28, T -I-42. In regard to page 5-25, PP -r-42,
he did not object to a fee for libraries if it included the entire
community, but not a fee for only new development. with respect to
Table 5.6-1 Resource -Based standards and Review Criteria for Public
Facilities/services, be believed no net increase in storm water runoff
was inconsistent with the previous page which discussed peak runoff.
In addition, it provided for no alteration on a drainage site; however,
The Council recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:40 p.m..
-------------------------------
Dan Shedd, Hignell c Hignell, on behalf of the Enloe family, the owners
of property on north Esplanade across from Philadelphia Square, related
that they had been processing a subdivision map to subdivide a six acre
parcel into three parcels, which was to be redesignated from commercial
to low density residential in the new General Plan. They believed it
inappropriate to change the designation at this time and requested that
it remain commercial because it was not possible to tie developifient-
into the Webb Homes site dueto construction of a sound wall, and the
size of the parcels would not.be suitable for residential development.
O
.
Sandy Moran, 1053 Woodland Avenue, the owner of a 2.5 acre parcel -It
the corner of Marigold and East Avenue, requested that the Council
consider an exception to the zoning for this property which would
m
designate it neighborhood cor=ercial so that she could provide services
to Pleasant valley High School.
Q
Steve Schwartz, 1985 Booker oak Avenue, reviewed his letter to the
Planning Commission proposing that the General Plan reflect very low
density for the neighborhood bounded by vallombrosa, Manzanita, Hooker
oak and Juniper and for the neighborhood on the west side of Booker oak
Avenue from 1874 through 1966 in order to preserve the ambiance and
semi -rural lifestyle of the area.
Tom DiGiovanni, Heritage Partners, in regard to the Diamond Match plan,
believed that page 2-37 of the Community Design Element, Policy CD -G-34
- Encourage a positive connection and orientation to Comanche Creek,
could=not be implemented because Diamond Match was 700, away from
'
Comanche Creek on the other side of the greenline. He also recommended
that the provisions of page 3-52, LU -1-38, relating to a 300, noise
buffer up to the railroad right of way be addressed in the specific
t-1511planning
process and evaluated by the EIR for the project rather than
in the General Plan.
Tim Bousquet, 462 East 3rd street, stated that the majority of his
objections to foothill development would be submitted in writing. Be
reviewed a map of the general area designated for foothill development
and illustrated planned new residential developments on the east side
(Bruce Road area?). He believed PP -I-32 which required no net increase
in peak stormwater runoff and LU -I-33 which provided that runoff would
be minimized were contradictory policies. He believed adoption of the
Plan should be delayed until the results of the Butte Basin Water User
Association computer model could be evaluated to determine what the
impact of development would be on drainage, flooding and the water
table, and fire standards specific to foothill characteristics should
be established. Be also reviewed a chart showing prior public
objections to foothill development.
-------------------------------
Councilmember Fletcher arrived at approximately 9:20 p.m.
-------------------------------
John !tiller, 173 East Sacramento Avenue, believed that future
population was underestimated in the General Plan based on the accuracy
of past estimates,'and that the majority of citizens did not wish the
City to grow a great deal. ,.'w
Pete Giampaoli provided the Council with two letters dated 9/27/94 from
the Building Industry Association and Horthstate Business Center
submitting comments on the Draft General Plan which he asked be given
consideration. He recommended using the word *discourage* rather than
prohibiting the use of high walls on page 2-49, CD -G-48, and using the
word "encouraging" rather than •requiring, parking to be located behind
buildings on page 4-28, T -I-42. In regard to page 5-25, PP -r-42,
he did not object to a fee for libraries if it included the entire
community, but not a fee for only new development. with respect to
Table 5.6-1 Resource -Based standards and Review Criteria for Public
Facilities/services, be believed no net increase in storm water runoff
was inconsistent with the previous page which discussed peak runoff.
In addition, it provided for no alteration on a drainage site; however,
384 September 27, 1994
alterationswould be necessary when they relocated the natural
drainage. In regard to the Carriage Park property, the land use map
discussed mix uses and approximately two acres called for commercial
use. However, the General Plan called for 8-12 acres, and he proposed
that those 6-12 acres be designated over those four corners, and that
at the south end of that parcel, high density residential be reduced
to medium density residential to be more consistent with the Enloe
Hospital development. -
George Matthews, 316 Orient, spoke in support of smaller 2500 foot lots
which he believed would provide more affordable housing by creating a
denser urban cluster which would encourage the use of alternative
transportation.
Jeff Carter, 600 Parkwood Drive, vice Chair of the General Plan Task
Force, believed the General Plan was a good document which reflected
the views -of tKe majority of the community after much discussion -and
compromise, and it should be adopted.
Jon Luvaaa, Chair of the General Plan Task Force, encouraged the City
to respond to the County's comments and keep the process open with J
them. He agreed with the County's recommendations for Chapmantown, but
believed that the Bell Muir area should be included as a planning
concept for discussion only. He indicated that it should be made clear
to the County that the Plan did not call for growth north or south of
Chico. He recommended that growth east of the Airport be considered
even though it was not recommended by the Task Force; however, that
growth area was contemplated for industrial purposes, which was not
consistent with the Task Force's recommendations. He also recommended
that all areas be considered for solar alignment, and that the
Implementation Plan include an assessment of what could be done to
preserve the remaining views of the foothills.
John Herz, 175 Rose Avenue, recommended that the comment period be
extended for a minimum of 30 days, that the hearing be continued to
10/11/94, that a base line for growth in the City be determined, that
staff be directed to provide as analysis of projects in the pipeline,
and that a --growth control mechanism be established which insured
controlled growth.
Don Schwartz, Rancho Palos Verdes, reviewed his letter dated 9/26/94
submitting comments on the Draft General Plan as it related to the
current and future uses of property he owned consisting 5500 acres
located south of Chico and outside of and abutting the City's sphere
of influence. ,
Kelly Meagher expressed concerns relating to environmental constraints
for foothill development, i.e. impacts on the viewshed, riparian
habitat, migrating deer herd movement through the foothills, water
quality, oak woodland preservation and vildland fires.
In response to Mr. Meagher (pages 4.10-4 and 4.10-5 of the Draft EIR),
Senior Planner Hayes explained that the City already had and would
continue its agreement with the County for vildland fire emergency
response.
In regard to the Draft EIR, Mr. Meagher noted that page 4.10-4, S -I-11
and S -I-12 both encouraged the County to cooperate with the city. He
requested that today's hearing be continued to allow the County to
respond and that the comment period be extended another 30 days. Be
believed to "encourage" the County was ambiguous and therefore not
appropriate; that Bell Muir should not be developed because it would
be altering or breaking the greenline; that the sections on
alternatives and cumulative impacts were inadequate, and the document
was confusing for a layman to read.
Mark Radabaugh, 40 Mill Street, believed the Plan was as close to a
consensus as could be reached with a few minor technical adjustments
and should be adopted.
No one else spoke from the audience.
Mayor Ovens recommended that the Council close the hearing this
evening, that the Council hold a workshop to discuss all comments and
make recommendations on 10/11/54, and that staff provide responses
prior to the meeting.
councilmember McGinnis preferred to review the responses prior to
closing the hearing. Councilmerber Guzzetti concurred, and added that
because the Draft General Plan was only recently received in its final
form, and the should be open for public, comment for at least two
meetings.
rollowing discussion, Councilrerber Eubert moved to close the hearing
this evening, and that the Council hold a workshop on 10/11/94 to
review comments and make recc=-nendations for incorporation into the
3
Septembcr 27, 1994
385
Final General Plan. The motion was seconded and carried with
Councilmembers Guzzetti and Hubert voting no.
The Council agreed that the 10/11/94 meeting would be scheduled for
7:00 p.m., and requested staff to provide responses to comments prior
to the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
OCT i 8 RJT
Date Approved.
City Clerk Mayor
REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING - October 4, 1994
The City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of
the Redevelopment Agency, met in regular session at 7:30 p.a. on
Tuesday, October 4, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal
Q
Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembers
Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent -
Couneilmember Andrews. City staff in attendance - City manager Lando,
City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Assistant City manager Dunlap,
m
Risk Manager Koch, General Services Director shaddox, Planning Director
Q
sellers, Personnel Director Erlandson, senior Planners Figge and
Jolliffe, Housing Officer McLaughlin, and Economic Development/
Redevelopment Manager Smail.
Invocation
INVOCATION: An invocation was given by Pastor Tom Mount of Valley
Community Church.
Proclamation
PROCLAMATION= Mayor Owens presented a proclamation to Fine Arts
Commission Chair, Cris Guenter proclaiming October as National Arts and
Humanities month.
-------------------------------
Councilmember Andrews arrived at 7:35 p.m.
-------------------------------
Consent
CONSENT AGENDA: The mayor announced that anyone on the Council or in
Agenda
the audience could have any item removed from the Consent Agenda for
separate discussion or action. He then read the following items on the
Consent Agenda, copies having been furnished in advance to
Councilmembers:
Finance
1. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON MEETING HELD 9/12/94 AT 4:00 P.M.
Comm.
By memorandum dated 9/22/94, the Finance Committee submits a
report on its meeting held 9/.12/94 at 4:00 p.m., at which time
the following matters were considered:
Housing
1. (Action as RDA) Housing Proposal for Single Family Project
Proposal
at 657 East 20th street (Skip Reager) - Recommended that
E. 20th St.
the Council approve Mr. Reager's request for a $15,000
(&eager)
predevelopment loan for preliminary engineering,
architectural and other site development services relating
to the project.
Advertising
2. (No Action - Committee Still Reviewing) Advertising on CATS
on CATS
Buses - Recommended that staff further research the matter
Buses
and contact other cities concerning the success of their
programs, the revenues they had received, any problems they
had encountered and the amount of their city staff time to
administer their program. (Councilmember Francis opposed.)
RDA
3. (Action as RDA) Establishment of an RDA Funded
Manufacturing/
Manufacturing/ Industrial Loan Fund - Recommended approval
Industrial
of a Redevelopment Agency Revolving Line of Credit Loan
Guarantee Fund in the amount of $250, 000 as outlined in the
Loan Fund
Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager's 9/2/94
memorandum, with the minor modifications in language as
noted in the Committee's report.
MSP Policy
4. (Action as RDA) mortgage subsidy Program Policy -.
re Maximum
Recommended that a maximum housing expense ratio for
Housing
mortgage subsidy Program loans be set at 388 for fixed rate
Expense
mortgages and 359 for adjustable mortgages at the start
Ratio
rate, and that the lenders be required to identify the
relevant compensating factors that justified their approval
when the ratios exceeded 339 for adjustable and 359 for
fixed rate loans.
co��nst
Suite
:AND OF NATURAL Vel EALTh ANC =:AUTY
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965.3397
TELEPHONE: 19161 538.7601
FAX: (916) 538.7785
October 25, 1994 RECEIVED
OCT 2 51994
C1'Y MANAGER
Tom Lando, City Manager "'y OF `"'r
City of Chico
P. O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
t
Re: City of Chico's request for ALUC to review the draft General Plan for consistency
with the Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and Ranchero
Airport.
Dear Mr. Lando:
At the October 12, 1994 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) meeting, the Commission
found the draft General Plan for the City of Chico consistent with the Ranchero Airport
Land Use Plan. However, the draft General Plan was found to be inconsistent with the
1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan (CMAELUP). In order to find the
CMAELUP consistent with the draft General Plan, the City Council must override ALUC's
findings by a 2/3's vote.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me Monday through Thursday,
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Sincerely, ,/ I /
14 1`l. H CL
80
Barry K. Hogan
Planning Manager
BKH:bd
DATE AOF310A FILE _A cm
CLmt Cd Deck I ACM CA_—AU—
Counetl FU I ED?i11 / UA PR
16d* p0 / wO COP PO_FC_f0_
AcT,O otrwp,g r i Tr
5 P +IA1cs
i QDDs : a
,-
commuNrry'bMVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
PLANNING
Rahn ng ®.' vl slon
C�11NC.1872 411 Nlain'Sfreet cc
P.O. Box 3420 J U L 2 u
Chico, CA 95927 1999
' ..'FAX(530)(895-485-1
1, = . s•. (or®vI18e,Cf®Y
n s
":.
ATSS,459:4851
• N` 'j^ c'
July 19, 1999
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA. 95965-3397
Subject: Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rz 99-2/Prz 99-1
Dear Commissioners:
At your meeting of May 19, 1999, City of Chico amendments to its General Plan Land Use Element
were discussed. These amendments were in response to amendments adopted by ALUC in October
1998. The City is proceeding with amendments to the sites noted below. It is our understanding that
ALUC concurred with the City that no action on Sites C and D should be taken at this time,.- and that
the subject properties should be addressed in conjunction with the update of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
Site A - Approximate 6 acre vacant site located on the east side of Morseman Avenue approximately
700 feet south of Eaton Road. Designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned
PMU Planned Mixed Use. This site is a portion of a larger site proposed for a mixed use
neighborhood center. Area B of the Overflight Area restricts residential development to multiple
family residences with avigation easements and tenant disclosure. It is proposed to amend the
General Plan for this site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The
General Plan text would be further amended to limit density to a maximum of 24 multiple
family dwellings clustered in the northeast corner of the site, providing open space buffers
along Morseman Avenue and development to the south. Access to the subject development
would also be limited to Eaton Road. Sites A and B would also include development standards
requiring avigation easements and disclosure of aircraft overflight to future tenents. The
PMU Planned Unit Development zoning would remain since it continues to be consistent with
the new General Plan designation.
Site B - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size. It is located within Area
B of the Overflight Area and is designated Low Density Residential in the City General Plan and is
prezoned PMU. The site is also a part of the "Villages" portion of the North Chico Specific Plan
(NCSP). The County adopted Specific Plan designates the site for Medium Density Residential.
The City proposal would amend this site to Medium Density Residential consistent with the
Q;<9 Made From Recycled Paper
NCSP. The General Plan text would be further amended to limit density to a maximum:. of 80
multiple -family dwelling units located on the western half of the site: Prezoning is proposed
to remain unchanged at this time, since both Sites A and B require that future development
occur as planned developments, at which time zoning would be specified consistent with
Medium Density Residential and other General Plan development standards.
Site C - Two parcels; approximately 3 acres in area. Existing Plan designation is Low Density
Residential and are zoned and prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels appear to be located
within the Outer Safety Zone and are developed with existing single family residences. Under the
current zoning, the subject parcels could be further developed at a density of up to 6 dwelling units
per acre, inconsistent with the recent ALUC amendment. General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rezone
99-2 and Prezone 99-1, would redesignate these parcels from Low Density Residential to Very Low
Density Residential and amend the existing R-1 Single Family, Residential zoning to RS -2 Suburban
Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. . This amendment precludes further residential
development of the subject parcels. No action is proposed at this time. To be addressed during
update of CLUP.
Site D - Consists of two parcels located on Floral Avenue at the farthest limit of the amended Outer
Safety Zone. As with Site C these parcels are developed with existing single family, residences, but
are large enough in size (approximately 4.5 acres) to accommodate further residential development.
General Plan Amendment 99-2 and Rezone 99-2 proposes to redesignate these parcels from Low
Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezone the parcels from R -i Single Family
Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential.- Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. This amendment would
preclude further residential development -of the parcels. No action is proposed at this time. To
be addressed during update of CLUP:
Again, it is our understanding that the above actions would meet our legal obligations for General
Plan consistency at this time.' Please let me know if you have a different understanding of these
proposed actions. Pending your response we will proceed with amending our General Plan.
Sincerely,
Tom Hayes
Senior Planner
_CC: CM/CA/RM/CDD/P1D/AM
' .,,," 1
IL
AW
41
- r
-
To: Laura Webster.
' Fax #•, 6-33-701,1 •. RaIMILE
Re: City of Chico GPA 99-2/Rz99-2/Prz99- L
.
Date: July 27; ;I
Pages: 3,'including this cover sheet. ri '
•
i,
Please take a look at the attached letter from the "City of Chico Planning Division. I don't think
' this is an item that will have to go to the Airport Land Use Commission but will need review
-to see if the City is in compliance with the October 1,998 Clup amendment.. Please let me
know if what the City is proposing complies with the CLUP. If not, I guess we have to write
the City and le"f the Commission know. _
'r Hope all is well with this. ' ft"tired of fighting with,,the Commission! -
'
Paula Leasure
•,
.
, • le
_
r
I
From the desk of...
'r
+ ` ' y f Paula Leasure
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
7 County Center Drive
��-��•cf%� t t' , 4 , _ _ ; Oroville, CA 95965
y
. a, �
a,.+ • - , 530538-7601
,
Fax: 530 538-7785.
-
�t y 4
►�-1�= E CO �IIIE�®IE�7C ]L �7�2 COMMISSION +
• Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: ALUC Staff
DATE: July 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Overide of ALUC Inconsistency Findings for the 1994 City of Chico General
Plan
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Rosene. Commissioner
Rosene will present his concerns to the Commission at the meeting.
Staff researched the issue by conducting a thorough review of minutes of the ALUC meetings.
However, there were no minutes for the closed sessions held by the Commission. Based on
available information staff determined that the Commission was advised by Legal Counsel that
the statute of limitations had run out on ALUC's ability to sue the City of Chico for preparation of
inadequate findings. The Commission was advised that if the City of Chico failed to request
ALUC's review of projects requiring a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, or Specific Plan, or
failed to prepare adequate overriding findings on a project, then the ALUC could then take legal
action. The Commission was also advised that preparation of the updated CLUPs is critical and
would require additional action by the City.
KAPLANN ING\ALUCWEETINGSU U LY15-9\CHIF IND.RPT
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
October. 25, 1994
Tom Lando, City Manager
City of Chico
P. 0. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
Coun�
u ite
A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N C =_ A U T Y
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (9161 538.7601
FAX: (916) 538.7785
RECEIVED
OCT 2 51994
Ci'Y MANAGER
Clry OF
Re: City of Chico's request for ALUC to review the draft General Plan for consistency
with the Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and Ranchero
Airport.
Dear Mr. Lando: `
At the October 12, 1994 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) meeting, the Commission
found *the draft General Plan for the City of Chico consistent with the Ranchero Airport
Land Use Plan. However, the draft General Plan was found to be inconsistent with the
1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan (CMAELUP). In order to find the
CMAELUP consistent with the draft General Plan, the City Council must override ALUC's
findings by a 2/3's vote.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me Monday through Thursday,
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
60
Barry K. Hogan
Planning Manager
BKH:bd
OATS Aae1OA FILE A CM
Cort ca D�_j_Aaa u _AGA__
Courla Pit ► ED.� / UA PST
Wdta_CW / OSO COP PO_FC_FO_
ACr.h OIJI- 4 i �r r
5 P iAjcs
C
- 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the•City Council of the.C1�
2
of Chico"as follows:
3
1: That the Comprehensive Update of the -General 'Plan ldated '
4
November 1994,' includingthat•certain text set'for.th-in
5
said Plan' and the Land Use Diagram, which designates
6
residential, commercial, industrial, public- and open
7
space land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning,;
- 8
Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate by ;
9
the City: Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,'
10
i is hereby .adopted',;_effective immediately, as the General
• 11
Plan for the City of•=Chico. -.
12
2."'That all mitigation measures set. forth -in the Final
13
Environmental, Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update ;-
'14
of -.the: -General• .Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
15
as`.if set forth herein in 'full".
16
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
.17
Final Environmental Impact Report -is hereby adopted -by
18
reference and incorporated herein. -
19
4 That, the City 'Couhci•l~has-�further',acted, by�a twords
. _ ...
20
- vo e` lto overrlde��)5the'Airport' Lane Use';1Commissi0n's
Z*= -.V :.c
t
.-4�5:if.LL.._. .r.,\....._cV..aJ wn.__. r,.v.. F!l w.n:.Lwl:-.,'.i..Y•,•l Y....b.Wfl.Ixii:.rf, -
: W :ikW •.riYC-'r..:Tf.:. r.Li
21
f find ng that the Comprehensive Update .o the General
;Plan
22
isnconslstent` with the197.8°."_Chico;'
;�Munici.pa.
M �rAirport
23„Environs.
Land Use Plan finding
'
'�J�3lSK'Zri:&�vtr..`x'Y,i^kw ",L4. .hr y r v• }„,�.L _'T yr' -:. y. f• Y ,'(51- •
-. 14 _:11'2 .7.,,..« cc•f. YL._"s..i..'ii_.k:.Y,'�:..� �:�..f:xut F ... t�4 .r . _ ...
24
a. That -the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
25
cons istent.:with the updated 1994 Chico• Municipal
26
Airport.Noise Compatibility Plan.'._
27
i G, b.• That the- Comprehensive. Update' of -the General” Plan
',
• 28
M ertainin - ,r • ,
P. g ;to 'the CMA Environs;'area shall be
PLD GENPLAMAES
November 16, 1994 ' - . • PAGE 4
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 -
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
Airport,Environs Plan.
C. That in making those -findings noted in (a) and (b)
above, the Council also finds that the Comprehensive
Update of the General Plan is consistent with the
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part
1, Division 9, Section 21670 of the Public Utilities
Code.
5. That the General Plan be dedicated to.the memory of Anne
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community,
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
6. That the Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
General Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, and to
other members of�the public -who have participated in and
,contributed to the preparation and adoption of the new
General Plan.
7. That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, -is
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
8. That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
a final General Plan and Land Use Diagram and to
incorporate any amendments approved by the City Council
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.
9. That copies of the General Plan, including the Land Use
Diagram, be kept on file in the offices of the City Clerk
and the Planning Division, and that copies be made
available to local libraries.
IPLD GENPLANCRES PAGE S
November 16, 1994
ti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci-,
Ilof Chico as follows:
1. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan dated
November 1994, including that certain text set forth in
said Plan and the Land Use Diagram which designates
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning
Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate by
the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General
Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in full.
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated herein.
4 . `Th'at; fhe"City "'Council has further -!=acted, v`.by a :tltwo-thirds
ote; oto override the QAirport Lane `User Commi"ssion!s
xf ending that the `"Comprehensive` Updateof the, General Plan
".wi''M�S�ttp 1.3131:;w.e. ,. _u L'w_G__ii..,.._i:✓`..:. ........... _._. _r..a...-.... u. i.........s...._...s>'r.....,._e .r _..Li,i .... ✓ .
is 77inconsistent with the;1978,Chico;Municipal Airport
`Environs ,Land Use Plan, finding
a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan.
b. That the Comprehensive Update of the General 'Plan
pertaining to the CMA Environs area shall be
PLD GENPLIN4.RFS
November 16,19%
PAGE 4
N
;I
2
3'
4
5
•6
7
8
9
5.
10
it
12
13
6.
14
15
16
17
i8
7.
19
20
21
8.
22
23
24
25
9.
26
27
28
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan.
C. That in making those findings noted in (a) and (b)
above, the Council also finds that the Comprehensive
Update of the General Plan is consistent with the
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part
1, Division 9, Section 21670 of the Public Utilities
Code.
That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory of Anne
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community,
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
That the Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
General Plan .Task Force, Planning Commission, and to
other members of the public who have participated in and
contributed to the preparation and adoption of the new
General Plan.
That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
adopted by Resolution No. .4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, is
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
a final General Plan and, Land Use Diagram and to
incorporate any amendments approved by. the City Council
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.
That copies of the General Plan, including the Land Use
Diagram, be kept on file in the offices of the City Clerk
and the Planning Division, and that copies be made
available to local libraries.
IIPLD GENPLANCRES PAGE S
November 16, 1994
r�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci.,
of Chico as follows:
1.
That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan dated
November 1994, including that certain text set forth in
j
said' Plan and the Land Use Diagram which designates j
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
public
and open
space land use within the
Chico Urban
Area and
Planning
Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate by
the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General
Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in 'full.
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated herein.
4. jThat' �th'e"City Council ha`s-further=acte`d,�ab'ya :two-thirds
oterytooverrlde the,t'Alrport sLane Used Commission's
flndingthatthegComprehensive Update "o'f the General Plan
is zillconslstent with'. the .1978 Chico.u;Muhiclpal Airport
`Environs7TLand UsePlan, finding
{
��i�:G�..�..�::L, .`:.i,KaC_.
a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan.
b. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan
pertaining to the CMA Environs area shall be
PLD GENPL NCRES
November 16, 1994
PAGE 4
N
r` 1
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
2
Airport Environs Plan.
3
C. That in making those findings noted in (a) and (b)
. 4
above, the Council also finds that the Comprehensive
5
Update of the General Plan is consistent with the
6
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part
7
1, Division 9, Section 21670 of the Public Utilities
g
Code.
9
5.
That the General Plan be dedicated -to the memory of Anne
10
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community,
it
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
12
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
13
6.
That the Council hereby expresses its,appreciation to the
14
General Plan Task, Force, Planning Commission, and to
15
other members of the public who have participated in and
16
contributed to the preparation and adoption of the new
17
General Plan.
18
7.
That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
19
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, is
20
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
21
8.
That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
22
a final General Plan and Land Use Diagram and to
23
incorporate any amendments approved by the City Council
24
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.
25
9.
That copies of the General Plan, including the Land Use
26
Diagram, be kept on file in the off ices' of the City Clerk
27
and the Planning. Division., and that copies be made
28
available to local libraries.
PAGE 5
PLD GENPLAN4.RES
`November 16, 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by. the City Council of the Ci-,
of Chico as follows:
1. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan dated'
November 1994, including that certain text set forth in
said Plan and the Land Use Diagram which designates i
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning
i
Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate by
the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General
.Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in full.
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated herein.
�
4. 'That',' the "City-"'Counci-i� has further --,acted; ",;by, a :_two-thirds
vo a to override the K'Alrport ' Lane t Use '> ion s
Minding cthat the Comprehensive Update of'the.General Plan
is inconsistent with the 1978-.Chico.Municipal Airport
Environs Land -Use -.Plan, finding -,
a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
PLD GENPLAN4.RES
Novombat 16, 1994
consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan.
b. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan
pertaining to the CMA Environs area shall be
PAGE 4
1
1
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
_
2
Airport Environs Plan.
3
C. That in making those findings noted in (a) and (b)
4
above, the. Council also finds that the Comprehensive
5
Update of the General Plan is consistent with the
6
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part
7
1, Division 9, Section •21670 of the Public Utilities
8
Code.
9
5.
That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory of Anne
10
Dorr Longazo.(1920-1993) whose service to the community,
11
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
12
Commissioner, spanned three decades.'
13
6.
That the Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
14
General. Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, and to
15
other -members of the public who have participated in and
16
contributed to the preparation and adoption of the new
17
'General Plan.
18
7.
That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
19
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on, July 6, 1976, is
20
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
21
8.
That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
22
a final General Plan and ;Land Use- Diagram and to
23
incorporate any amendments approved by the City Council
24
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.'
25
9.
That copies of the General Plan, including the Land Use
26
Diagram, be kept on file in'the offices of the City Clerk
27
and the Planning Division, and that. copies be made
28
available to local libraries..
PAGE 5
PLD GENPLAN4.M
Navcmbu 16, 1994
• t `
n9a Sk
;1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
.13
• 14'
15
16
- 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City 'Council of the Ci.\
,Of Chico as follows:
1. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan'dated�,
.November 1994, including that certain text set forth iri-
said Plan and the Land.'Use Diagram which 'designates
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land use within the'Chico Urban Area and Planning
Area and any additional amendments: deemed appropriate by
the City- Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately,"as the General
Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation 'measures set forth' in' the Final
Environmental Impact',Report for,the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in"full., ,
3. That the'mitigation'monitoring'program contained in the
Final Environmental:Impact Report,'is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated,herein..
4 . � .i�r
_`That, theCity°Counci•1 has'rfurther` acted; .�by'a awo-thirds
v to eoto overrides the 'Airport '' Laney`'
b i :�, r zUse Commi"ssion; s
finding: at the�Comprehensivdi pdate ofIthe General --Plan
::�''•m:• .oma.. -..z..,... -_..,a.o:s',..i..:.-t.:.SSa _.... _...,......,sr3- u_.. ..W...
nc i i tent _ ��
y 2 ons s � with the 197.8 Chico ' Mufiicipal x Airport
;irons �!Land«-Use r Plan,l f finding f -
Trpnv+� x,.:.��r.7S..s�.�n..�•ie't,T-.:.w?�....r..,te.s;,!�....'..'.3,.��.v:6aiab2..au:'k..r.w..
a. That the Comprehensive Updateof the General -Plan is
consistent with the updated, 1994 Chico Municipal
` Airport Noise Compatibility Plan. '
b. That the Comprehensive Update of .the General.Plan
pertaining "to the CMA• Environs. area shall be
PLD GENPLAM.RES _ PAGE 4 .
4ovemb" 16, 1994 '
2
3
4
5
•6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan.
C. That in making those findings noted in (a) and (b)
above, the Council also finds that the Comprehensive
Update of the General Plan is consistent with the
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4, Part
1, Division 9', Section 21670 of the Public Utilities
Code.
5. That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory of Anne
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community,
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
6. That the Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
General Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, and to
other members of the public who have participated in and
contributed to the preparation and adoption of the new
General Plan.
7. That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, is
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
8. That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
a final General Plan and Land Use Diagram and to
incorporate any amendments approved by the City Council
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.
9. That copies of the General Plan, including the. Land Use
Diagram, be kept on file in the offices of the City Clerk
and the Planning Division, and that copies be made
available to local libraries.
IIPLD GENPLAN4.RES
November 16. 1994
PAGE S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci',
11 of Chico as follows:
1. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan dated
November 1994, including that certain text set forth in
said Plan and the Land Use Diagram which designates j
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning
i
Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate b
Y
the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing,
is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General
I
Plan for the City of Chico.
2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update
of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth herein in full.
3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by
reference and incorporated herein.
4. "That;-Ythe`City•Council-has' further>acted.,'Yby:a two-thirds
vote;c,�tooverr l'de theh'AlrportL;ane Use; Commi'ssion's
:finding�that the-.Comprehensive;Update of the,General> Plan
j7,,' h,ip, _...�.. :t6—.n ji.......d,E .......>;.v .._:.H _.. -....i::....
is ificonsistent with the ' 1978-. Chl.66.'�"Municipal Airport
h,Environsf,�.,Land -PUse, Plan, finding v�t4 -
a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is
consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal
Airport Noise Compatibility Plan.
b. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan
pertaining to the CMA Environs area shall be
PLD GENPLAN4.RES
November 16, 1994
PAGE 4
4
5
•6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with the update of the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan.
C. That in making those findings noted in ( a ) and ( b)
above, the Council also finds that the Comprehensive
Update of the General'Plan is consistent with the
findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter 4., Part
1, Division 9, Section 21670 of the Public Utilities
Code.
5. That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory of Anne
Dorr Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community,.
including serving as a Councilmember and Planning
Commissioner, spanned three decades.
6. That the Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
General Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, and to
other members of the public who have participated in and
contributed to the preparation -and adoption of the new
General Plan.
7. That the General Plan for the City of Chico, which was
adopted by Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, is
hereby rescinded, repealed and superseded.
8. That the Planning Director is hereby directed to prepare
a final General Plan and Land Use Diagram and to
incorporate any amendments approved by the City Council
at the public hearing of November 16, 1994.
9. That copies of the General Plan, including the Land Use
Diagram, be kept on f ile in the of f ices of the City Clerk
and the Planning Division, and that copies be made
available to local libraries.
PLD GENPLAN4.RES
November 16, 19%
PAGE 5