HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail received from Karen Aronson regarding the draft ordinance for special events facilities Sweeney, Kathleen
From: karen aronson [karonson10@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:05 PM
To: Breedon, Dan; Snellings, Tim; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Michelena, Mark; Calarco, Pete;
mkcranberry@gmail.com; rockdonati@aol.com; cnelson880@aol.com;jhwilsonl
@comcast.net; Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Teeter, Doug
Subject: Concerns for Draft Ordinance; Special Event Facilities
Dear Mr Breeden, Planning Commission Members, Dept of Dev Services and CB0ARP OFPURERVISQRS
I am including everyone so that everyone will be in the loop. NOV 1 9 2013
OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA
Since I am unable to attend the public workshop for the Draft Ordinance for Special Event Facilities, I want to
let you know some of my concerns for the Special Events Facilities Ordinance so far. Also, I would like to
officially request that there be another public workshop before this goes to public hearings.
1. Of utmost concern is that the proposed ordinance allows a Special Event Facility within the Greenline and that
this is not in adherence to the current Greenline regulations. Creek Haven Vineyard Estate does not reside in
proximity to the Greenline, it exists within the Greenline. Therefore allowing this Ordinance(24-XXX) for
Special Event Facilities within the Greenline is in direct violation of the Greenline by allowing purely
Commercial Business (that have nothing to do with agriculture) within the Greenline.
2. Under exemptions, could you again clarify? From what was clarified to me by Dan Breedon, the section 24-
XXX does apply to properties within the Greenline, such as Creek Haven Vineyard Estates. If 24-XXX does
apply to properties within the Greenline, then it appears that 24-XXX supercedes the Greenline and basically
renders the Greenline impotent. This point needs to be deeply considered before moving forward in favor of
this ordinance.
3. 24-XXX does not directly address or contain the language of"Special Event Facilities within a residential
neighborhood." In other words, 24-XXX allows Special Event Facilities to exist within residential
neighborhoods. And, as our neighborhood has experienced, this has failed miserably in terms of maintaining a
peaceful, quiet neighborhood where people can enjoy their own homes and yards during events with
amplified music until late at night, traffic for 200 people, and 200 people partying, and event lighting are going
on 25 feet from the property line. In addition, for our neighborhood, weddings happen every weekend and
sometimes two weddings per weekend, which is extremely disruptive and upsetting to the neighborhood.
4. I strongly object to having the owner of the Special Event Facilities being the person/persons the neighbors
call in the case of a noise complaint. This is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse and seems very biased
in favor of the Special Event Facility; in short, this is a conflict of interest as it puts the Special Event Facility
owner in charge of code enforcement. To have an ordinance where neighbors must ask the facility owners to
turn down the amplified music feels unsafe when the relationship with the facility owner is hostile. Question:
What is the next step when the event owner does not agree with the complaints of the neighbors? What
happens if a noise complaint is made to the facility owners and the facility owners do nothing? With all the
power in the hands of the facility owner, where do the neighbors turn for help with this?
5. Table 24-XXX-1, please explain how this table works and who exactly has the power to decide how many
events and how many people may attend? In the case of the Greenline, how does agricultural production fit
into this? /
✓ 1
6. What happens if the event facility is not the primary residence of the property owner and the property owner
pretends to live on site?
7. Could you further explain the setback for properties in an agricultural zone... specifically the 300 feet? Does
this apply to parking lots and tents?
8. When the Special Events Facilities Ordinance was written, I see that there were meeting held with Special
Event Facility owners. How were the surrounding neighborhoods represented at these meetings?
Thank you very much for your consideration in all these matters. Again, I am requesting another workshop to
work on this ordinance.
Sincerely,
Karen Aronson
2931 Kennedy Ave
Chico, Ca 95973
2