|
UNINCORPORATED
CHICO AREA-WIDE WORKSHOP
Butte County General Plan 2030
Community Meeting Summary
The Butte County General Plan
2030 Community Workshop for the Unincorporated Chico
Area was held on Saturday, June 16, 2007, at the
Pleasant Valley Recreation Center. This meeting is
one of 20 community meetings scheduled to take place
in locations covering all of the unincorporated
parts of Butte County. The meetings are designed to
take input directly from community members about
their area’s assets, issues, and consideration of
land use changes during the General Plan 2030
process.
About 77 people attended the Unincorporated Chico
Area-Wide Workshop. Also in attendance were seven
members of Butte County's Citizens Advisory
Committee (William Black, Jeff Carter, Richard Coon,
Allen Hackett, Todd Hall, Kate Leyden and Bruce
McClintock). Tim Snellings, Butte County
Development Services Director, introduced the
workshop and staff and consultants. David Early,
Founding Principal of Design, Community &
Environment (DC&E), the lead General Plan
consultant, provided an overview of the meeting
content and format. Butte County Department of
Development Services Principal Planner Dan Breedon
then provided an overview of the Butte County
General Plan 2030 process and General Plan 2030’s
Guiding Principles, which were approved by the Butte
County Board of Supervisors on February 13, 2007.
DC&E Associate Tanya Sundberg then presented a
summary of existing conditions in the Unincorporated
Chico Area and of issues that were raised during
prior public workshops and meetings. For the next
45 minutes, County and DC&E staff facilitated seven
breakout discussion groups, each of which focused on
a neighborhood in the Unincorporated Chico Area,
discussing its assets, issues, and areas for
potential future change. The following summarizes
the assets and issues discussed at this meeting.
North Chico
The North Chico groups discussed the North Chico
Specific Plan (NCSP), the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), and the proposed Walmart.
Many participants supported the NCSP’s village core
concept, which would help to reduce dependence on
automobiles. Participants preferred this village
core concept over the proposed Walmart, especially
due to traffic impacts associated with the Walmart
proposal. Other participants were concerned that
the village core would be too close to the airport,
and directed the County to implement the ALUCP in
order to protect the airport from inappropriate
residential development. In addition, participants
felt that industrial lands adjacent to the airport
should promote clean industry, and that there are
wind and solar energy opportunities in the area
north of the NCSP. There was discussion about
traffic and transportation in the north Chico area,
and participants requested several intersection
improvements. People felt that the area lacks a
sufficient east/west connection, and that additional
bike routes, equestrian routes and public
transportation are needed.
The North Chico groups also discussed wastewater,
water quality and flooding issues. Participants
highlighted technological advances in wastewater
treatment, allowing higher densities in areas
without sewer. Participants also emphasized the
need to protect aquifers and their recharge areas.
There was also a focus on Rock Creek and its
drainage issues; participants felt that the drainage
issues should be resolved before new development is
permitted, and that regular maintenance is
required. Participants were also concerned about
air quality, noting burning of residential yard
waste as a problem.
The North Chico groups also discussed the Greenline
and agricultural buffers. They felt that buffers
are needed to address the agriculture/urban
interface, and they would like development directed
to non-agricultural areas in order to protect
agricultural soils.
Bell Muir
Participants in the Bell Muir
neighborhood felt that growth is appropriate here.
They directed the County and City to coordinate its
efforts regarding an annexation process for this
neighborhood. Although the group agreed that
single-family residential development is
appropriate, there was disagreement about lot
sizes. Some participants felt that ˝-acre lots are
necessary in order to make development economically
feasible, while others wanted 1-acre or larger lot
sizes in order to preserve the quality of life,
suggesting that denser development be directed to
eastern Chico and that densities increase in a
transition zone that extends towards the
agricultural lands.
Many felt that agricultural uses are not viable in
this neighborhood, and suggested moving the Chico
Greenline to follow Mud Creek, which would serve as
a wide, natural buffer, eliminating the constraints
posed by the 300-foot buffer requirements on
adjacent urban lands.
This group felt that the existing public facilities,
such as parks and schools, and commercial services
are adequate, although they will need to be expanded
as the area develops. However, participants pointed
to studies that indicate the existing roads and
infrastructure are inadequate. In particular, the
group was concerned about Bell Road, which has high
traffic but is narrow and unmaintained.
East Chico
The East Chico groups discussed
potential growth areas, noting the region east of
the Airport Industrial Park and the Potter property,
which proposes clustered development and a regional
park. Participants suggested the inclusion of
adequate neighborhood commercial uses in these areas
to minimize transit needs, and they indicated that
circulation and public services should guide
development. These groups also emphasized the need
for the City to annex unincorporated islands in
order to increase the efficiency of services.
Participants discussed appropriate densities for
development in this area, supporting the lower
density of the Foothill Recreational zoning district
in the Butte Creek Canyon area. Participants also
noted that cluster development is not appropriate
everywhere, and that development should be designed
to minimize impacts on neighbors. Participants also
supported the Chico Greenline, suggesting that it be
protected and possibly expanded.
These groups were concerned about watershed
protection, highlighting the need to protect
groundwater recharge areas and to recognize the
connection between aquifers and creeks. The groups
discussed the use of alternative sewage disposal
systems, which they felt were appropriate for
smaller developments; participants felt that larger
projects should connect to the municipal sewer
system.
Fire safety was also an issue in this area, and
participants suggested that development should be in
a clustered pattern for more efficient fire
fighting. They also highlighted access issues for
both fire and flood emergencies, and the need for
adequate water supply for fire fighting.
The East Chico groups also discussed biological
resources in the area, emphasizing the need to
protect deer herds and suggesting clustered
development patterns in herd areas. Participants
also felt that viewsheds should be protected,
including along the Skyway. They were also
concerned about excessive lighting, noise, pollution
and other nuisances. These groups also would like
recreational facilities to be better managed.
West Chico
The West Chico group focused on
agriculture and the Greenline. Most participants
would like lower densities in the west Chico area,
and they supported an agriculture transition concept
with parcel sizes increasing from 5- to 10- to
20-acre minimum lot sizes or a straight 10-acre
minimum as the transition. Others disagreed in
favor of one-acre minimums or similar densities with
a cluster concept allowing for community
gardening/small scale farming on individual
properties or a commonly owned property. Another
opinion expressed was for higher densities, if any
land was to be developed, in order to reduce land
consumption and preserve agricultural lands. There
was general support for the Greenline; however, it
should also include a buffer on the residential side
to allow agriculture to be productive adjacent to
the line. Participants felt that the County needs
to identify appropriate uses within the buffer area,
and that it needs to establish the buffer width
based on the noise, dust, spray and other typical
agricultural operations. Of those that expressed an
interest in moving the Greenline felt that it should
be adjusted to a natural feature, such as creeks, so
that the feature can serve as a buffer component and
may inhibit the potential of moving the line beyond
that feature.
The group also discussed the need for adequate
infrastructure prior to new development.
Circulation patterns should direct traffic to the
existing urban areas, and in general, the County
should ensure that new development does not occur in
a sprawling pattern. The group also highlighted the
need for the City and County to coordinate its
annexation strategies. Where lands have not yet
been annexed, the County needs to maintain those
roads.
South Chico
The South Chico group discussed
growth, which it felt was appropriate in south
Chico. The group suggested that Chico grow from the
inside out in order to maintain a compact urban form
and ensure efficient delivery of services and
infrastructure. Participants also suggested the use
of growth boundaries that are logical, clear and
based on natural features, such as creeks, wetlands,
and recharge areas.
Participants felt that development should account
for traffic impacts, and suggested the need for
improvements to Highway 99, Southgate and Neal Road,
and for a connection to Park Avenue. The group also
discussed the landfill, which they felt is an
important facility, but its aesthetic impact should
be reduced from Highway 99.
The South Chico group also discussed specific
development proposals along Highway 99, and how the
City and County could split revenue on such
projects. With such expansion, the group
highlighted the need to maintain Chico’s downtown
core.
The information obtained from this meeting will be
provided to the Butte County 2030 Citizens Advisory
Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board of
Supervisors. The information will be used to help
create the Butte County General Plan 2030 land use
alternatives that will be discussed in Workshop
Series #2, which began with a Public Workshop on May
17, 2007.
ISSUES
RAISED BY AREA
North
Chico:
¨
Need a retail core
¨
Promote infill development
in urban core
¨
Protect the airport
o
Disagreement about whether
the ALUCP provides sufficient protection
o
Use airport as air attack
base for fire protection
o
Airport improves economy
¨
Need better east-west
routes
¨
Need more transportation
options, including public transit, biking and
equestrian facilities
¨
Flooding issues
o
Development east of
Highway 99 increases flooding west of Highway 99
o
Rock Creek watershed
experiences flash flooding problems
¨
Protect recharge zones
¨
Air quality
o
Concerns about burning and
smog from cars and trucks
Bell
Muir:
¨
The City and County should
coordinate on an annexation strategy for this
neighborhood
¨
The Bell Muir neighborhood
can accommodate growth
o
The City should not “jump
over” this neighborhood
¨
Disagreement about
appropriate parcel sizes
o
All agreed that single
family residential densities are appropriate
o
Some wanted 1-acre lots
o
Some wanted ˝-acre lots
o
Should transition to lower
densities in a westerly direction (towards
agriculture)
¨
The Greenline should
follow Mud Creek, which is a wide, natural buffer
o
Using the wider creek
(about 300-feet in width) addresses the constraints
to development on parcels adjacent to the Greenline
that are subject to the 300-foot buffer
¨
This neighborhood is
well-served by existing public facilities and
commercial services
¨
The roads in this area are
in need of improvement
¨
There are nitrate issues
in this neighborhood
¨
The County should
incentivize and/or require solar panel installations
on private homes.
East
Chico:
¨
Consider use of growth
boundaries with transition areas of 5- to 20-acre
lot sizes
¨
Need to annex islands in
Chico to increase efficiency of services
¨
Protect Foothill
Recreation zoning in Butte Creek Canyon area
o
Promotes large lots
o
Cluster development is not
appropriate here
¨
Protect and/or increase
the Greenline
¨
Address fire issues at
wildland/urban interface
o
Need adequate water supply
for fire protection
¨
Need to investigate
alternative wastewater treatment
¨
Protect groundwater
recharge areas
¨
Protect quantity and
quality of water
¨
Concerns about light,
noise and odor pollution
¨
Maintain viewsheds both
into and out of the area
¨
Protect wildlife
West
Chico:
¨
There are many small farms
in this area that have been there for a long time
¨
Maintain lower densities
in west Chico
¨
Protect the Greenline
o
Use natural barriers like
creeks for the 300-foot buffers
o
Buffers allow agriculture
to be productive adjacent to the line
o
Need to identify
appropriate uses within the buffer area
o
Support for agriculture
transition concept with parcel sizes increasing from
5- to 10- to 20-acre minimum lot sizes
¨
Protect the area from the
threat of urban sprawl
¨
Infrastructure should be
in place prior to development
¨
Need increased
coordination between the City and County regarding
annexations
¨
Protect groundwater
South
Chico:
¨
Chico should grow from the
inside out to maintain a compact urban form
¨
Chico will likely grow to
the south, which is appropriate
¨
Growth boundaries should
follow natural features
¨
Growth should connect to
existing infrastructure
¨
Need to address
circulation issues
¨
The landfill is an
important facility; need to improve aesthetic impact
¨
Need to determine how to
split revenue with the City of Chico |
