HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOOTHILL PARK 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 94-3 AND REZONE NO 441COMMUNITY SERVICES
^�/^► DEPARTMENT
�� PLANNING
CITYorCHICO
INC. 1
8
72 Fifth and Main Streets
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
(916) 895-4851
ATSS 459-4851
Mr. Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager
Butte County Planning Division
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3397
August 22,,,l 994 ,..
Subject: Foothill Park 8, General Plan Amendment No. 94-3 and Rezone No. 441
Dear Barry:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation, today regarding referral of the Foothill Park'8
project to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for its determination of
consistency pursuant to the Public Utilities Code. Under section 21676, the ALUC shall
make its determination within 60 days of the date of this referral; or if it fails to make the
determination within that period, the proposed project shall be deemed consistent with the
airport environs plans (AELUP).
We are in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 1994 which highlights ALUC's historic
concern relative to the change from commercial to residential development on the Foothill
Park 8 project site. Staff recognizes the current project's similarities to past projects
which the ALUC determined were inconsistent with the policies of the Chico AELUP, but
believes that separate consideration of the current proposal is required to comply with
State law.
At its August 15, 1994 meeting, the City Planning Commission recommended denial of
the proposed general plan amendment and rezone. After comment by the ALUC, or
expiration of the 60 day response period, the project will be forwarded to the City Council
for final action. A finding of project inconsistency by the ALUC would require a two-thirds
vote of the City Council for approval.
The ALUC has received copies of the draft and final EIR for the project; should you need
additional information, please do not hesitate to give Clif or myself a call.
Sincerely,
Stacey Lynn Jollif e
Senior Planner
xc: Dan Drake, Tony Symms
City Attorney
Planning Director Planning 0813artB ent
AUG 2 9 1994
®rot�ill0, Cg tornla
August 11, 1994
I..' �A!
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601
FAX: (916) 538.7785
Mr. Clif Sellers, Planning Director
Planning Division
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
RE: Foothill 8 - Drake Homes Rezone
Dear Clif:
The above referenced application has been before the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) on a number of occasions in the past. On each occasion, ALUC expressed great
concern relative to the change from commercial to residential and the large amount of
residential units which would be located in an. area immediately adjacent to the south
boundary of the Clear; Zone.
The current Chico Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) designates this area as, a
compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) lip. The text of the AELUP indicates that the primary
constraints to development are the proximity to the 65 dB CNEL contour and the
proximity to the flight corridors: Additionally, it should be pointed out that this land is
located in -the takeoff area,'one of the most noisy areas.
The AELUP does not prohibit residential development but strongly discourages it. The
ALUC found on October 14, 1992, on a similar, if. not identical rezone request, the
following:
■ The site is in a known overflight area, of both arriving and, departing
aircraft
■ The site is in a known area of increased noise and hazards to -safety
■ The site does not conform and is inconsistent with the policies of the
Chico AELUP.
Inter -Departmental Memorandum
To: . Airport Land Use Commission
From: David Hironimus, Planning Department
Subject: Drake Homes, Foothill Park Unit 8
Date: July 1, 1992
Drake Homes has asked the Airport Land Use Commission to review the possibility of
changing the planned use of Foothill Park Unit 8 from commercial offices to residential.
The subject property is located within the incorporated city limits of Chico. The current
zoning is N -C (Neighborhood Commercial) which requires a use permit for residential uses.
The current Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan designates the area as being in a
Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) IIp. Excerpts from the plan describing CLUZ IIp are
attached. The text in the plan states that the primary constraints to development are
proximity to the 65 dB CNEL boundary and proximity to the flight corridors.
While preliminary indications are that the . noise contours will contract (upon adoption of
a revised Airport Environs Plan now under development) due to both reduced commercial
jet traffic and generally quieter newer aircraft, unforseen increases in air carrier or business
jet traffic could impact the area in the future. Additionally, development permitted now,
based on 20 -year projections, will still be in place 30, 40 or 50 years,from now. As chico
grows toward the middle of the 21st century, demand for air transportation of people and
goods will almost certainly increase.
Since the property in question is adjacent to the end of the southerly Runway Protection
Zone, almost all flights either approach or depart over the site. this situation is not likely
to change due to the design of the airport and prevailing weather conditions.
While no official application has been made, The applicant would like direction from the
commission regarding his request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Find that under the existing Plan residential uses in the area are strongly discouraged. but
note that the City of Chico is now working on a new plan which may result in policies that
are considerably different than those in effect today.. Any findings made as a result of a
formal application will be subject to the policies in effect at that time.
DIABLO
Apartments
Sycamore Glen
Retirement Communhy
„a
Cn
C”
y
L '
DIABLO
Apartments
Sycamore Glen
Retirement Communhy
Ito, .. lnne Pine o
o
s
cC Dhersion ChQ,
S
1
Planning Delis +0-1
JUN 2 4 19P2
Orovlll®,;�
LEGEND
S".7.
V-7
n,
j.
Z:..
9
4i)' -
1000 0 1000 2000
SOURCE: R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES SCALE IN FEET
Approved: Designed 'Drawn DRAWING NO.
pr"c AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN -
By ----- ---- REA JRM 'LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MAP cic- 13
IL DIXON VEA* ASSOCIATES, INC. Checked Date
• -CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
By - Apor Date Date JEP JULY 1978
EXHIBIT 8-1
COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONE (CLUZ) CRITERIA
I. CNEL 65 OR HIGHER IN OR OUT OF CORRIDOR: .
Residential land use prohibited after 1985 by California Administrative*.
Code Title 4, Subchapter 6, Article 2. -
:'Other land uses subject to guidelines for appropriate criteria as
recommended by State of California Department of Health._
Acceptability of commercial office development determined primarily by_ _
degree of noise insulation.
Transient lodging development will require indoor level of CNEL 45
under CAC Title 25 (Noise Insulation Standards).
II. CNEL 60-65 IN CORRIDOR:
Residences other than detached single family units (3 feet or more from
property line, 6 feet•or more between buildings ) require indoor CNEL
45 under California Administrative Code Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter.
1, Article 4 (Noise Insulation Standards).
Transient lodging required to achieve CNEL 45 (indoor) under CAC Title 25.
New single family residences require indoor CNEL 45 by Butte County/
Chico City Ordinance.* Ordinance should follow CAC Title 25.
No mobile home park development by Butte.County/Chico City Ordinance.*
Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment. -and. voluntary
action of real estate board.* Publish map of record in recorders office to
be addressed in Title Search.
IIP. CNEL 60-65 IN CORRIDOR: PROTECTED AREA
Same criteria as Category I for those areas -immediately bounding the.
CNEL 65 isoline.
*Recommended actions
11
(5) Other proposed land uses should be subject to
acceptable noise exposure level guidelines as
recommended by the California State Department
of Health (Exhibit 4-3).
8.3.2 -CLUZ Area IIP
The next level of.restriction.is-applied to areas -which would normally
qual ify.- for residential Land use .i f -the. noise exposure. l evels constituted
the only constraint to development. ---.There are two additional considera-
tions which have been applied in defining this special category. First,
the land in this category abuts the existing airport south property
boundary. This factor, taken together with the location of the CNEL 65
contour as a second consideration, indicates a potential for more serious
future land use conflicts than might normally the associated with the
CLUZ II area. The CNEL 65 contour boundary, projected for future flight
operations, extends to the limits of the airport property to the south.
Any unforeseen increase in air carrier or busindss jet traffic at CIC
beyond the forecast levels could cause this legal restriction on resi-
dential,land use to extend onto these adjacent parcels. If this situation
were to occur, it would create a clear mandate for future acquisition of
any affected residential properties.
There are two large parcels having boundaries common with the south
airport property -line which are. affected -by the CLUZ IIP category. Each
of these parcels was subdivided for planning purposes when the county
staff created the Interim Zone boundaries. The easternmost -of these two
parcels is transected by the two branches 'of Sycamore Creek. These two
creek beds form -easily identifiable natural geographic divisions on the
property: It was decided.to use these to further refine the CLUZ planning
.area in order to avoid a blanket restrictive categorization of the entire
parcel. This has the dual- benefit of maintaining practical divisions of
the -parcel for planning and reserving a portion of the property for land
8-11
use which would prove more beneficial to the property owner. It is
recommended that the CLUZ IIP boundary be extended .to the east to
follow the north branch of Sycamore Creek and continue along the
Interim Zone boundary and the south limit of the two parcels in
question, as illustrated. in CIC -13. This allows for maximum pro-
tection of both the CNEL 65 noise exposure area and the flight corridor
concept.: Recognizing that most of the Interim Zone property between
-the two .creek.beds 'falls -outside the flight corridor, there is an -
.argument to be made for pulling the CLUZ IIP boundary back to the
south branch•of Sycamore Creek. This would constitute a "least re-
strictive" option for ultimate zoning of this parcel—The final
decision between this and the recommended "most restrictive" option
s' should be made locally and should reflect local community attitudes
and priorities.
The second, or westernmost, of the two parcels affected by the CLUZ
IIP category was also subdivided by the county staff in defining the
Interim Zone boundaries. In this case, it is believed that there is
a clear requirement to use the parcel boundary and the.Interim Zone
boundary to define the remainder of the CLUZ IIP area. Again, this
reserves approximately half the total parcel for land uses more bene-
ficial to the.pr-operty owner. The particular characteristics of the
Interim Zone boundary, i.e., the series of ninety degree turns in the
perimeter, result in an intrusion of some small segments of uncon-
strained property into the noise exposure and flight corridor on this
second of -two parcels. These small intrusions currently carry an S -R
zoning designation, allowing single family residential development with
a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet. Any residential land use
would be unacceptable in these small segments of the parcel lying within .:
the flight corridor.. If the existing SR zoning is to be retained for
8-12.
remainder of the parcel, it will be necessary to incorporate a more
restrictive zoning on these small segments to protect these areas.
The other (easternmost) parcel has the� Interim Zone overlap extending
outside the flight corridor. This presents the opportunity fora
separate zoning category in the segment outside the Interim Zone area,-.-
consistent with the Interim Zone boundaries.
Recommendations:
(1) The parcel segments, within the -Interim Zone
.' boundary, designated as CLUZ IIP areas should
carry an A -X (Agricultural) zone.classification.
consistent with the size of.parcel.
(2) Residential units (one single family) allowed
under this classification should be restricted .
to contiguous property outside the CLUZ IIP
area. -
(3) Use permits for any uses involving concentrations
of people (parks, golf courses, churches, other
public or quasi -public uses) should not be granted.
8.3.3 CLUZ Area II
All areas falling under the CLUZ II category lie within the Interim Zone
boundaries. The only residential land use specifically excluded -under
this category is mobile home park development.. This is designed to-elim-
inate
o-elim-inate concentrations of -residential units with potentially unacceptable
outdoor -to -indoor noise reduction characteristics. Other residential
units are subject to controls over building.construction methods and
procedures as specified in -existing state law and recommended County
Ordinance.
8-13
M
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
of an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
on the proposed
FOOTHILL PARK UNIT NO.8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT REZONE,
AND VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
April 21, 1993
TO: State Clearinghouse
—Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
City of Chico General Services Department
City of Chico Community Development Department
City of Chico Fire Department
Butte County Air Pollution Control District
Interested Parties/Organizations
RE: NOP for Foothill Park Unit #8 Development
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines, please be advised that the City of Chico will be the lead agency and
will prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the FoothillPark
Unit No.8 development project. To ensure that the focused EIR, for this project is
thorough.and adequate, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope
and content of the environmental information which -is germane to your agency's
statutory authority. Your agency may need need to use the Project EIR prepared
by the City when considering your permit other approval for the project. In
addition to the proposed entitlements, the scope of the project EIR will also include
all other necessary implementing actions within the City Council's authority.
The project description, location and the probable environmental effects are
contained in the attached materials.
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the
earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days from the date identified below.
Please send your response to Brian Crawford at the adress below. We will
need to know the name of a contact person in your agency.
PROJECT TITLE: Foothill Park Unit No.8 General Plan Amendment,
Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map
DATE: April 21, 1993
:r PREPARED BY: G° .
Brian C. Crawford
Associate Planner
AGENCY: City of Chico, Planning Division
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
TELEPHONE: (916) 895-4&52
cc. Clif Sellers, Planning Director
Tom Lando, City Manager
Tony Symes, Drake Homes
Doug Aikins, Esquire
Sierra Club
Butte Environmental Council
SUPPLEMENT
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
FOOTHILL PARK UNIT NO. 8 DEVELOPMENT
Project Description and Environmental Issues:
The Foothill Park Unit No.8 project site is located on a vacant 19.5 acre
property north of East Lassen Avenue between Eaton Road and Ceres Avenue in
the City of Chico. The project site is currently designated and zoned for
neighborhood commercial use which is intended primarily for commercial office
development. The project sponsor, Drake Homes, has filed applications for a
general plan amendment, a specific plan amendment, and. a rezone to R -2 -
Medium Density Residential. An accompanying Vesting Tentative Subdivision
Map has also been submitted to subdivide the property into 72 lots for 144 attached
single-family residential units. A 1.25 acre community park is proposed in the
Chico Municipal Airport clear zone northwest of the. residential development.
The project site presently consists of vacant grassland. Surrounding land
uses include: single-family homes to the east, multi -family homes to the south
and southeast, a church to the south, and vacant land designated for commercial
use to the west. The clear zone of the Chico Municipal Airport is located north
and northwest of the project site.
On two occasions prior to submittal of the subject applications, the project
sponsor has requested a general plan amendment, a specific plan amendment,
and a zone change for the project site to allow for residential development. The
City of Chico denied these prior requests due to their inconsistency with the .City
objective of maintaining job opportunities in the area by retaining the possibility of
additional office development and identified airport land use conflicts. An initial
study prepared by the City for the original applications identified the following two
issues related to the project site's proximity to the airport:
Noise = The project site is located within .an overflight corridor
of the airport and is overflown by aircraft frequently. These
overflights may produce substantial noise in the indoor and
outdoor living areas of the proposed residences.
Safety - The proposed project would introduce a population to
an area within an airport flight corridor and adjacent to the
airport clearzone.
In addition to noise and safety issues, the following other issues have been
identified for focussed analysis by City staff:
• Traffic Circulation - Future residences associated with the -
project would generate additional vehicle trips on the local
roadway network which may contribute to level of service
impacts at affected intersections.
• Air Quality - Vehicle trips generated by future development of
the project and construction activities would produce air
pollutant emissions which may conflict with State and/or
' Federal air quality standards and contribute' to non -attainment
status of the Chico Urban Area for carbon monoxide and Butte
County for ozone and particulate matter (10 microns or less in
size).
After evaluating the issues raised in the original initial study and further
review of the project's relationship to applicable land use planning documents,
the Planning Director has determined that an EIR must be prepared before the
project proposal can be considered for action. The issues which specifically need
to be addressed in an EIR for the project include the issues summarized above.
The project EIR will also address other CEQA-mandated topical issues,
including:
• Alternatives to the project proposal
• Cumulative impacts, including traffic and air quality impacts
• Growth inducing effects
• Significant unavoidable adverse impacts
• Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources
• Relationship between short-term uses of man's environment
and maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity
• Effects found not be significant
OOTHILL PARK UNIT 48 NOP • =_
33 r
-
If
' Eli
+-
I:a. 3240•'-..;�J`'Y, '
r -:Shasta Unione:. cd"
•fit.. 29
i'
r r/
am
203
• ' L Q I . pl...aat Villsy
3'•
•.•. ••---- .... _
Ir w .lGM1l.Fr '47' w'Iti; t' Cii,CO ,.a-rrr v+•6n11 : �...r,..rr. cre. ... i
'
SITE
MOP
�
CaE
•EX
EATON AOAO
dG
icy�9 4•�qy `�
;qti
9L
}
9� F
LUPIN
AV E.
H
of
W
J
Q
1
`
o o
z
W
v
b.
EAST
AVE.
LOCATION
MAP
NO SCALE
Inter -Departmental Memorandum
To: Airport Land Use Commission
From: David Hironimus, Planning Department
Subject: . City of Chico Referral of Rezone from N -C to PD/R2, AP 48-430-006- and 008
Date: October 7, 1992
This Proposed Rezone is for the Area Reviewed by three members of the Airport Land
Use Commission for Drake Homes, Foothill Park Unit 8, at their July 8, 1992 meeting (no
quorum present). Attached for reference is the package of information from that. meeting.
Since the previous meeting the City of Chico has accepted a Draft Airport Noise
Compatibility Program: Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report. The Report has not yet
been adopted. Maps contained in the report indicates that the subject property is located
within a noise sensitive area between the 55 dB and 60 dB contours for both existing and
all future projections. Policies within the existing Land Use Plan for the subject area
indicate that residential uses should be prohibited. Policies in the existing plan for areas
with similar noise characteristics as those discussed above indicate noise' control measures
should be. required in all new residential construction.
It should be noted that the existing land use policy was based not only -on noise exposure,
but also on safety. The project site is located on the extended runway centerline and in a
direct line of.sight from the airport. Accident statistics contained in the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook prepared by the California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics indicates that 22% of accidents take place within 1 mile of the airport involved.
The site is approximately 1 mile from the end of the runway.
While the noise exposure maps indicate that there may be cause to revise the, land use
policies in the area, there has been no change in the safety aspects -of the site. Until the
land use policies are formally changed, the existing policies prohibiting residential uses are .
still in effect and must be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
Find that the proposed rezone site is in an area that is known to be subject to overflights
of both arriving and departing aircraft and related, noise and safety hazards and find that
the project to rezone AP 48-430-006 and 008 to PD/R2 does not conform to' the Policies
of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and forward this finding to the City of Chico.
:_ � p ,a s mea t � "t � `r 4 7�+r � :ac- I ak s ri's +r >s t'-3. i •�; Wo,
AM
.J.'zp , :r�r,.'.�
• ♦ < , . . •t •' •� ` .�'• i ''���• rj r r.`sr i'c`S 3 �' 'HAc Y'.�<..%Yr } s'Zt rs Vi f•'Wa, s. ''i%•t> 1 b +.yi• •?✓
--7• tf��At�� pwp +c.°`.�5�' ZIN"•c•..f�y.+4' �?f �.2. * c riAFr't•'�
5 t ••A L _ "'> : sof,-{rr��1�,n+a.A
... r: . _ '.'J'✓', Z >" f i +.V F:ytJ ��`r, i. `...1e5..*1...0� Y . •.?.w4. 3._ S.i't-�, }yt•. �� -
. . F: •. X r "'•. y.� '"CYC- `�Y cti � hK'4� t,. �r•�nh w r
e - •�...l��i CCS
tz
. , • �.
_ R E PTO RT .
`{
�dlr�.tE�l,cx..5�},.If�
TO: City. Staff �- �' DATE: September 29,199Z`
1. . ''�Y� ! 4 ty{ Y'li! f 'f•Y
FROM: Planning Staff - FILE: A-Zon- 3 (441)
SUBJECT: Rezone No. 4414 Foothill Park Unit-8 Subdivision (Drake Homes)
Eaton Rd. and East Lassen Ave: -
GENERAL INFORMATION
' APPLICANT: Drake Homes,. P.O. Box 1448, Chico, CA 95927
OWNER: Same . �.
REQUESTED ACTION: Rezone
PURPOSE: To rezone to PD/R-2 Planned Development Medium Density
Residential, 'and change provisions of 19.40.050 for minimums lot
3 size and lot width (see . attached) to 'create 71 lots for '
development with duplexes (or attached single family dwellings).
LOCATION: North of East Lassen Ave., west and south of Eaton Road
EXISTING ZONING: N-C Neighborhood Commercial, limited by the Northeast Chico
Specific Plan to office development with other uses permitted by
use permit.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 048-430-006 and 008 `
SIZE: - 19.5 acres
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant Land
SURROUNDING LAND USE: N Airport Clear Zone/Single Family Residential - Zoned R-2
S Church/Multiple Family Residential`-Zoned N-C
E Single Family Residential - Zoned R-2
W Office Development -_Zoned N-C
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial - limited by the Northeast Chico
Specific Plan to office development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Focused EIR
!
' JG
' � R
ADDENDUM TO t ��
APPLICATION FOR REZONING J
AP #'S 4843-06 & 08' i� r
FROM NC TO P.D. R-2' .q
The requested zoning to P.D. R-2 is requested in order to change provisions of chapter
19.40 of the Land Use Regulations of the City of Chico as follows:
19.40.050 minimum lot size
A. The minimum interim lot width at the setback line to be changed
from 45 feet to 35 feet.
B. The minimum interior lot area to be changed from 4000 square feet
to 3500 square feet.
C. The minimum corner lot width at the setback line from 50 feet to
45 feet.
All other provisions of chapter 19.4cof the Land Use Regulations of the City of Chico
are to be complied with in full.
57CAM0
TIN ROAD
T C
L
' 'J
S N
SI TE '
O L,
LOCATION MAP
NO SC :LE
a
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY AT TA( -'HED HOMES
�I
P.:NGI PARKING PARKIWG
7TALI-
�T4LL
TYPICAL OFFSITE PARKING AND
DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION LAYOUT
SCALE I"= 40'
LUPIN
AV E.
4i
a
uj
a
a
J
N
a
0
0
u
0
Z
W
u
--CA -ST
I AVE.
LOCATION MAP
NO SC :LE
a
PROPOSED SINGLE
FAMILY AT TA( -'HED HOMES
�I
P.:NGI PARKING PARKIWG
7TALI-
�T4LL
TYPICAL OFFSITE PARKING AND
DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION LAYOUT
SCALE I"= 40'
3NOZ HV313 IL'Oduly
INI
3nN3AV N3SSp1
H
9
/
S GN J-1Nn NklYd 7lfHtGo�
i
04f
0 i SLY
i F4
4a 04i
\
�4rs
�� •r
1.1
Ir—
r—L
ILA
i
a�
<tt
`
C
3 #W
3d
i�
U313d
� O /
1 /
a�
u W
�
a
H
/
INI
3nN3AV N3SSp1
H
9
/
S GN J-1Nn NklYd 7lfHtGo�
i
0 i SLY
i F4
4a 04i
\
�4rs
�� •r
taps
Ir—
r—L
ILA
i
a�
<tt
`
C
3 #W
3d
U313d
� O /
1 /
a
Drake Homes
Real Estate Development
Lic. No. 456440
John D. Drake Anthony G. Symmes
June 23, 1992
Mr: David Hironomus
-BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7 County Center Drive
s Oroville, CA 95965
RE: "FOOTHILL PARK UNIT 8
Dear Mr. Hironomus:
I would .like to get on the schedule for the Butte County Airport Land use commission
to have a preliminary. discussion on the use of Foothill Park Unit No. 8 as a residential
subdivision for approximately. 140 affordable homes. Please advise me when this can be
scheduled and what further documents or displays I should prepare in order to have an
informal discussion with the commission. 'I will call you next week to discuss this request
:.. further.
Very trul yours,
Ant oSSymmes
AGS:rr
Enclosures
P.O. Box 1448, Chico, CA 95927 0 Telephone 916 895-3931 Ci Telecopier 916 895-3938
P
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT
LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 12, 1993
Commissioner Stevens wanted to bring up the fact that Chico Municipal Airport page 5-
20 has quite a bit of commercial, and flight instructions and should be included on page
5-20.
4. Review- Foothill Park Unit No. 8, Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact
Report. .
Staff stated the Chico City Planning Commission had discussed the -project of the Foothill
Park Unit No. 8, a couple of times in the past. The. proponent of the project has gone
ahead with the `project, through the City of Chico, and an Environmental Impact Report
has been required. The phase now is to provide input for that Environmental Impact
Report. In the initial study the issues of noise and safety are covered. The City of
Chico has copies of the minutes and discussions from ALUC.
Commissioner Koch asked if we had given someone an informal direction that the
ALUC Commission did not want to see the Foothill Park Unit No. 8 project developed?
Staff noted yes, that it was premature until the Commission received the Environs Plan,
and higher density development right off the end of the runway, and it's extension was
probably not in the best interest of anyone.
Commissioner Lambert noted she specifically wanted to talk -about the 1 1/4 acre
community park, with 144 single family residences, with 3+ people per unit, it comes out
to 400+ people.
f
Staff stated he was not clear as to who proposes the -park, or whether it was in the clear
'zone.
Commissioner Stevens seconded the same concerns aforementioned by Commissioner
Lambert.
Staff stated he, would forward these comments also.
Staff also stated since the Commission is commenting on environmental impact reports,
and are concerned with safety regarding noise, location of park, and types of uses
proposed, this is not the place to recommend, it will come up in later hearings. General
concerns and comments at this point will suffice. The studies by the consultant will
expand as appropriate, and as is related to future constraints.
Commissioner Stevens asked if we need 'to be more specific.
Staff noted we had been more specific in the initial study. The Commission does need
12
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT
LAND. USE COMMISSION NMgUTES
MAY 122 1993
some expansion on the question of the park. However, the overall questions were stated
very well:.
Commissioner Rossas asked how the Commission can be more emphatic.
Staff noted the Environmental Impact Report was one of the steps in the process.
Hopefully the City of Chico will reiterate our concerns.
Commissioner Gerst stated this Foothill Park Unit No. 8 didn't seem to be in the best
interest of the airport or an that will.live there.
Commissioner Rossas noted the only reason the Foothill Park Unit No. 8 -was being
constructed was because it was there, and they :got it cheap.
Commissioner. Koch stated this was a chance for the Commission to comment, and
should reiterate the Commissions'. concerns again for the record.
Staff noted -the Commission would send comments, and past minutes containing
comments to the City of Chico.
5. Status Report.- Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision.
Commissioner, _Rossas stated he would report next month.
6. Status Report- - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport 'Noise
.-Compatibility Programa
Commissioner Koch noted there was not much to report. The consultant is working on
the various aspects of it. The latest being the year 2010 noise assumptions, and, are
working with the community group SOS is reviewing, and considering their ' concerns.
Regarding the figures being used, as soon as those are reviewed `they will be in .a
report, which is about 97% complete, probably on the June or possibly the July Agenda.
7. Business from the floor
Mr. John Papadakis of Chico, in'. the -County of Butte came to .the podium:
Mr. Papadakis stated what he heard today is quite disturbing to him, and feels the City.
of Chico should think quite -seriously about whether the airport could exist or not. The
City of Chicois considering projects that are encroaching very close to the safe operation
13
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT
LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTE
October 14, 1992 -
missioner ranklin said there is on is that would require the need to continue,
the hearing. He said Dr. Coats stated. there are only two airplanes using the .airport and
both are owners of the airport property. He said, as he sees it, it does not violate the
definition of a private use airport.
Commissioner Lambert said it may be in violation of land use. She. said it needs to
be resolved in whoever's jurisdiction it belongs. She asked if five people have' been
sold landing rights, will it still come under the original approval of,a permit for a private
use with one owner?
Commissioner Crotts said she doesn't know what definitions apply or what the Division
of Aeronautics has classified the airport.
Commissioner Gerst agreed. He said the Airport Land Use Commission should request
that it be researched, so a determination can be made as to the status of the airport.
It was a consensus of the Commission to continue this -item to the November 18, 1992
meeting, with additional information coming from staff, and so" legal representation. for
Mr. ,Johnsen can 'be present.
Chairman Rossas said all parties involved should be notified.
Staff will ask Jim Michaels, Division of Aeronautics; Ca1Trans, to attend next month's
meeting.
2. Review - City of Chico referral of a .Rezone I for Drake Homes from ' N -C
Neighborhood - Commercial) to PD/R2 (Planned Development Medium Density
Residential) for property located south of and adjacent to the southerly boundary
of the Chico Municipal Airport Property and the Airport Protection Zone,
identified as AP# 048-430-006 and 008.
Staff said this item was discussed at the July .8, 1992 ALUC meeting. (There was no
quorum present to take action). He said it ' is now ' an official application and ALUC
must make a finding of conformity.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Barbara , Hennigan, Chico, said in 1948, the Board of Supervisors was , asked to. protect
the .property around Chico Airport. She said at the time, the reaction was that Chico
Airport was way out in the country with grazing land. She said Cliff Johnsen's Airport
is a good example that nothing stays *the same. She stated the City of Chico requires
5
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT
LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
- October 14, 1992 '-
•
avigation easements and proponents of airport activities. think it's time for the County to
do something to protect the airport. She asked the Commission what would be the ,best
procedure for airport proponents to tackle this issue on the County level? She said the
Division of Aeronautics has stated there should be no schools within two ''miles of an
airport. She said this states a legal basis for drawing a protection line around an airport. _
She said a two mile circle around Chico airport takes up about 17 square miles -or 1
percent of the land in Butte County. And that if avigation easements were required by.
the County as well as the City of Chico in that 1 percent of the land, the people who
like airplanes would be delighted to buy and move into that 1 percent, and the people
who do not particularly like airplanes can buy in the other 99 percent of .the County.
She said this particular proposal is an encroachment of people into that two mile circle.
She said those home owners and the airport need to be properly informed.
Chairman Rossas said part of Ms. Hennigan's statement should of came under Business
From The Floor.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Staff said the County does have an Airport Land Use Plan around Chico Airport that
extends out a couple of miles. He said this project would allow uses that would place
people near the airport, but the property owner has the right to apply for change.
Commissioner Koch referred back to ALUC minutes of July 8, 1992. He said. on behalf
of the City of Chico, Chico's City Council has considered this matter and the council was
not in favor of the proposal at. that time. He said there has been no action.
Commissioner Lambert said it does not . conform to the current policies of Chico
Municipal Airport Environs Plan and does not know what the new proposed plan will
be.
Commissioner Koch said it is likely the noise contours will be pulled back and this area.
will be located outside those contours, but the overflights and the flight patterns will. still
exist. He said this is more of a safety issue than a noise issue. "
Chairman Rossas said at the July 8th meeting, the Commission was not in favor of the
proposal. He said with the Japanese Flight School flying overhead several times a day,
safety becomes a major factor.
Commissioner Lambert said one of the statements that was made at the July meeting,
was that any findings would be subject to what was in effect at the time of the
application. She said it does not conform to the existing Chico. Airport Plan.
6
BUTTE COUN'T'Y AIRPORT
LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES
. October 14, 1992
Commissioner' Koch asked if Tony Simms from Drake Homes was notified of this
hearing? He said Mr. Simms was present at the July 8th ALUC meeting and asked
ALUC to take action. Now the application comes before ALUC, he is not present to
speak to the Commission. .He said all applicants should be notified.
Staff said this is a referral from Chico Planning Department to ALUC for
recommendations. He .said this is not a public hearing and there are times that the
applicant is notified, but in this case, Mr. Simms was - not notified.
On a motion made by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Franklin, and
unanimously carried to find ' "that the proposed rezone site is in an area that is known
to be subject to overflights of both arriving and departing aircraft and related noise and
safety hazards and find 'that , the • project to ,rezone AP# 048-43.0-006 and 008 to PD/RD2
does not .conform to the Policies of the Chico Municipal _ Airport Environs ' Plan and
forwards this . finding to the City of Chico.
3. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise
Compatibility Program.
Commissioner Koch said " the initial noise compatibility map will be completed in
approximately one month. The report is still be reviewing by staff and the consultant
is currently responding to comments. He said the development. stage of the, program
is 60 to 70 percent complete and should be completed in approximately two to three
months. He said at that time a public hearing will be held.
4. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Barbara Hennigan asked the Commission how airport proponents in a community might
bring pressure . to create more legal protection for airports? She said all airports are
having the same problem with encroachment and the problem will only get worse.
Staff said the State Law sets up this Commission as a requirement. One of the
requirements this Commission has to work within, is to prepare an Airport Land Use
Plan for each airport within the County. Under the Government Code, the first step
is the County and City General Plan's must be compatible with the Airport Land Use
Plan. The second step is implementing those General Plans and the Cities and Counties
usually control that through zoning. He said in most cases, the zoning around our
airports, either reflects the plan or existing development. - He said we need the support
mainly at the implementation level of when the application is received.
7
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTES - July 8, 1992
Review - Drake Homes. Potential for residential development on property now
zoned N -C ' (Neighborhood Commercial) located in Foothill Park, Unit 8, adjacent
to the southerly end of the Chico Municipal Airport Runway Protection Zone.
Staff said there has been no official application filed at this time. Drake Homes wanted
to get input from ALUC as to what the concerns would be. Staff said Drake Homes is
looking at changing the use from N -C and are considering to go residential uses. Staff
said since there is no official application, no official action can be taken by ALUC at
this time. He said the property is located immediately adjacent to the end of the Clear
zone. He said the existing 65 dB CNEL contour comes right up to this area. He said
the existing airport environs talks about allowing residential uses under these conditions
but the new Environs Plan that the City is working on might not allow for this. Staff
said there is a safety concern for noise.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tony Simms; representative for Drake Homes, said that there is not enough affordable
homes in Chico and this project would make for affordable housing of 140 single family
dwellings. He said Chico is updating a new Environs Plan and that the new CNEL lines
are being pulled way back and that the noise concerns are getting better with technology,
insulation, notice to property owners are given that people know what they are buying
when they buy a home in the general area of the airport and are aware of the noise
issues. He said Drake Homes has built 100's of homes in the airport environs area. He
said after environmental review, he hopes to apply with a tentative subdivision map by
the end of 1992. He asked the Commission for direction. He said that Drake Homes
is working with the Army Corps of Engineering for additional lands in Foothill Park to
be set aside for permanent reserve.
Mike Kelly, president of Butte County Taxpayers Association, asked that the Commission
look favorably toward this project. He said that Drake Homes are producing affordable
homes that Butte County needs so much. He said the buyers are now aware of the close
proximity of the airport and can adjust to this. He said tax money that this project
would make would help Butte County.
Vince Phelan, 3010 North Avenue Chico, stated that Drake Homes does build good
quality homes but does not look favorably toward this project. He is opposed of the
commercial airline flight training facilities at Chico Municipal airport.
Bob Koch, Assisting City Manager of City of Chico he said from the City of Chico
standpoint would recommend that any decisions . would be deferred because the new
CNEL contours have not yet been established and could have a significant impact on
rather or not it is appropriate to put residential housing in this particular area. He said
the City does receive frequent noise complaints on low flying aircraft that comes from
the area north of East Avenue, the area that is in question as well as other places in the
2
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTES - July 8, 1992
city. He said the City Council will not take, official action on this proposal until after
the environs plan is adopted.
The hearing was closed to the public.
Commissioner Crotts said she would feel uncomfortable making any kind of
encouragement at this time until the airport environs plan is updated and because of
noise complaints that come in daily from this specific area.
Commissioner Schwartz said he is concerned with safety. He said the issue of noise is
controllable. He said it' is an unfortunate place to want to put a lot of houses because
it is at the end of the main runway.
Staff said that the City of Chico has commercial zoning in this' location which does not
allow .for large concentrations 'of people where in a residential zone it does:.
Commissioner Schwartz asked about the different noise complaints that the city managers
office takes?. He asked if there is a log kept of the different complaints?
Mr. Koch said that they come from different areas. He said no log is kept at this time,
but would be a good idea to have one started and will see that it is done.
It was a -consensus of the Commission to wait until the Airport Environs Plan is adopted
and more information becomes available.
3. Review - Dept. of Transportation, potential school site. CUSD. within 2 miles of
Chico Municipal Airport.
Staff said located directly under one of the flight paths from the McClintock study and
near another flight path. Staff, said noise does not appear to be a factor and the existing
plan permits Quasi - Public Quasi uses through the Use Permit process. He said without
having the new Environs Plan and policies. in place it is difficult to make a finding.
Since we are dealing with, a school, safety would be the biggest -concern of the
Commission.
Commissioner Schwartz said safety should be our major concern. He said itis tough
when you need a new school with a .good area. '
Staff said he spoke with Jim Michael of Division of Aeronautics and their concerns is
that of an alternate site.
3