[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973363,"mediaKeyId","5830354-d1f60067d8fb25f09a9d4688baab3464","parentId",5830354,"title","Planning Commission backs broad zoning, fee and permit changes; directs staff to draft specific code amendments","audioSeconds",4866,"startMs",948000,"endMs",5814000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830354-d1f60067d8fb25f09a9d4688baab3464&start=948&end=5814","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830354-d1f60067d8fb25f09a9d4688baab3464/thumbnail_948000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973363/Oroville/Butte-County/California/Planning-Commission-backs-broad-zoning-fee-and-permit-changes-directs-staff-to-draft-specific-code-amendments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973363-8838d86a1c01b463d042e1f7da779f20/orig.mp4?Expires=1770910205&Signature=gHuQbe8lQf-4b2EN5DB1k6bst3AhS5Z9Yg6k2gmmPvWlChsO4zssvP6uWk9CvfA06UyLXQ1BHxlTerk36UJaCKvcne9GpJIQWpIB9pqFjP3APlDKwgHwLpe52FROxIwvZgnsfbRza6TT3kVJFuzyriiCpq18dDmppQAw9baPi6b5JIOEbXl~4RMOphIRIlzk6W4GIIjlrTGEhSooakTsNciBfzwfArRe9mMDVQDVWtY-fX2qENb1q65lo0LU7KNfNHjKd47LhCnC0e0~qXDaP72-5CpnUEd3zDc0mJan6110F55eUvziEwydMBldYEsKIjRMgPDlg~jpQlLdzIyDeg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Oroville","date","2025-09-26T03:23:19.383Z","article","The Planning Commission on Wednesday directed staff to draft formal code amendments and fee adjustments after reviewing a 13‑item package of zoning and use‑permit recommendations intended to make it easier for small entrepreneurs to open downtown, clarify where certain uses are allowed, and to establish clearer rules for emerging land uses. The commission’s direction was reached by consensus and staff said the ordinances will be returned for formal review and a public hearing before the commission and then forwarded to the City Council.

The package covers 13 main topics, including reductions in some use permit fees for business startups and for people aged 16–21; reclassifying tattoo parlors as low‑impact body‑art services; creating a new “florist and garden shop” retail category distinct from nursery/wholesale garden supply; separate rules for pet stores and kennels; new rules for animal grooming in residential, mixed‑use and commercial zones; formal short‑term‑rental permitting and transient occupancy tax capture; tiered solar permits (rooftop vs. ground‑mounted vs. large commercial solar farms); and limits on drive‑through restaurants and smoke‑shop locations. Staff also recommended tightening commercial day‑care rules in industrial zones and adding site‑specific review for large family‑day‑care operations.

Planning staff summarized the packet, saying, “What you have before you is, starting on page 4 of your packet. It is the latest recommendations by a… joint staff advisory committee, business advocacy ad hoc committee, set of recommendations.” Staff noted the package will require specific code changes and a follow‑up ratification step by the commission before going to City Council.

Key items discussed by commissioners and staff: the current fee table lists a $3,700 use‑permit fee (minor or major) and a $463 administrative permit; the committee recommended reductions for business startups and for youth ages 16–21 to lower entry barriers for entrepreneurs. Staff gave a concrete example: a motorcycle shop in the Modern Laundry building would likely qualify for a startup reduction.

Short‑term rentals: staff said short‑term rentals have been treated administratively to date and are covered under the city’s transient‑occupancy and hotel definitions in Title 3; staff reported the city believes nine short‑term rentals are permitted and about 28 operate in the city, and countywide consultants are beginning to identify listings on Airbnb and Vrbo so the city can capture TOT revenue. Commissioners discussed that administrative permits include conditions and that public‑safety and nuisance conditions can be imposed on short‑term rentals through the application packet.

Bed‑and‑breakfasts: staff explained B&B operations trigger additional inspections and approvals from county public health and fire and therefore typically remain use permits; staff estimated first‑time startup reductions could reduce an initial use‑permit fee to roughly $1,500 (from an existing table value around $4,000) if the applicant qualified as a startup under the proposed table.

Animal‑related uses: the commission agreed to require a use permit for animal grooming in residential zones (with a lower $50 fee proposed for teen entrepreneurs and a higher $1,500 fee for adult startups), require site‑plan review in mixed‑use zones, and allow it as a permitted use in commercial zones. Pet stores would move from use permits to administrative permits with new standards (drawing from Chico’s ordinance) attached to the permit. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized neighborhood notice and public input for residential‑area uses.

Solar: staff described a three‑tier approach — Tier 1 rooftop systems used on‑site, Tier 2 mixed rooftop/ground where less than 50% of power is exported, and Tier 3 large off‑site commercial solar projects. Staff recommended keeping use permits for Tier 3 (and large Tier 2) projects because of site impacts such as coverage, battery storage and fire review; an administrative permit could be used for limited Tier‑2 ground mounts in residential areas controlled by lot‑coverage limits.

Drive‑throughs: after discussion of stacking, safety and queueing at local drive‑through restaurants, staff proposed continuing to require use permits so the city can review stacking and circulation. The commission supported that approach.

Process and timing: staff told commissioners the red‑lined changes will be prepared, vetted by the city attorney, and returned to the commission; staff said the earliest implementation after the commission and council process would be about four months out. The commission provided consensus direction to staff to prepare the code changes for formal review and to return them to the commission for ratification and subsequent Council consideration.

Commissioners emphasized the package is intended to balance easing entry for small entrepreneurs while preserving neighborhood livability: as one commissioner put it, incentives should not “encourage just filling space to fill space” and changes should not create new nuisance conflicts. Staff said the final draft will include recommended conditions, notice procedures for use permits and precise fee tables for commission review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","09.25.2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission on Wednesday directed staff to draft formal code amendments and fee adjustments after reviewing a 13‑item package intended to lower barriers for small entrepreneurs, clarify permitted uses and tighten review of large projects such as commercial solar farms.","taxTitle","Oroville, Butte County, California","taxId",55587,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973358,"Commission reviews resurrected 2005 downtown historic design draft and a city‑loaned home rehab at 1453 Montgomery",758,264000,1022000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5830354-d1f60067d8fb25f09a9d4688baab3464&start=264&end=1022","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5830354-d1f60067d8fb25f09a9d4688baab3464/thumbnail_264000.jpg","/articles/5973358/Oroville/Butte-County/California/Commission-reviews-resurrected-2005-downtown-historic-design-draft-and-a-cityloaned-home-rehab-at-1453-Montgomery","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973358-02da46d097a7c85d1d0ddfdb7d565892/orig.mp4?Expires=1770910205&Signature=dOuavNY~H06lE42Bp2k3DsrD1nXBnxh4hTVLpSb1mnaXTjL-CgeI65deWxxNb0FEoChn5xtEw~QTNAzc5mxOeF-o7KSZJaEOR9voDtS4qqnoauN8~o7pZJbxBiy4VcWba9tYa7KxxhrMZT6pzkMgmNM1lOGyAKh3E3Q8sdFM956q7neQRGCVe2yiDMV0LqzvAmD3JB3M7PPqg32PWHMY5OZAwEkPW1xOkT3tYqImIrdTgTssQb0oNNVEjvwEVeTPx5M76H3xorDW77hwUvDljbAsPVe8SdzTjoqzBsl67w3JNJTpmttUnk8eKjC3yGO8pdaFybRwWxCnPx1aT7N5Eg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission received a presentation on draft design guidelines for the Downtown Historic Overlay District and on a city‑assisted residential rehab at 1453 Montgomery Street, then gave staff direction to review and report back. Staff said a multi‑volume 2005 draft of downtown design guidelines was found in the files but that they could find no record the document was ever formally adopted.

Staff showed photos of the challenged property at 1453 Montgomery — described as a blue house adjacent to a church playground — and said the city is loaning money for exterior improvements. The staff presenter said the homeowner intends to “replace the windows size for size… the screens will remain. The windows are not tinted,” and that the proposed trim and shutters will be white. The house is the first of two loaned rehab projects; the second will be presented at a later meeting.

Commissioners asked whether the draft 2005 guidelines should be resurrected for formal adoption or whether design reviews should remain a staff‑level administrative review, with only significant external changes routed to the Historic Advisory Commission. Staff noted that municipal code contains development standards for the downtown mixed‑use district (on page 66 of the packet) but that those standards primarily govern new structures rather than changes to existing buildings. Municipal code references to “historic integrity” and the process for landmark designation (Title 17 and related sections) were discussed as the legal basis for any expanded historic review.

One commissioner suggested holding a public workshop to obtain stakeholder input before seeking adoption. Staff recommended a side‑by‑side comparison of the 2005 draft with the city’s adopted design guidelines (three volumes) so commissioners could see which ideas are already reflected in existing policy and which would be new. The commission gave consensus direction for staff to examine the draft, prepare comparisons to existing adopted guidance, and recommend whether certain projects should continue as staff decisions or be routed to the Historic Advisory Commission. Staff said the matter will return for further discussion.","Planning staff presented a 2005 draft downtown historic design guidelines document (apparently never adopted) and a staff‑loaned rehab project for 1453 Montgomery; commissioners asked staff to compare the draft with current adopted design guidelines and consider public workshops and Historic Advisory Commission review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission backs broad zoning, fee and permit changes; directs staff to draft specific code amendments

Commission reviews resurrected 2005 downtown historic design draft and a city‑loaned home rehab at 1453 Montgomery