HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-350-013 (2)OFFICIAL RECEIPT
COUNTY OF BUTTE
.STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING
0,
- r ..
.......
u e oun
LAND: O_F NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE .
i
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE •' OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 5384785
www.buttecounty.net
March 27, 2001
Stephen Shuster
3406 Keefer Road
Chico; CA 95973
RE: ALUC File No. A 00-07
AP#047-350-013; 014 and. 015
Dear Mr. Shuster: :
Enclosed is Receipt No. 19352 in the amount of
$472.00 for the above -referenced file. As of this
date, the account has.a zero balance and is closed.
Your response is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,.
Brian Larsen
Principal Analyst
BAL:jb
EnclOsure
EDate 03/27/01 `-development Services Departfnt
Tome 8:32 ain Applicant Billing Worksheet page 1
A'00-07 * Stephen Shuster
' 3406 Keefer Road
Chico, CA 95973
In reference to A 00-07
Rounding None
Full Precision No
Last bill / /'
Last charge 09/01/00
Last payment / / Amount $0.00
L
Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE _ AMOUNT _T.OTAL
08/21/00 Craig S. / P 8.00 472.00
#31851 Processing 59.00
TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES .8.00
TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS
TOTAL NEW CHARGES
PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS
03/26/01 Deposit - Receipt #19352
TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS
NEW BALANCE
.~$472.00
$0.00
$472.00
(472.00)
($472.00)
TOTAL NEW BALANCE -$0.00
LAND. OF NAT URAL.'WE ALT H ..AND 'BEAUT"Y;..:
,L DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT• SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE:. (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
www.buffecounty.net
March 7, 2001
Stephen Shuster
3406 Keefer Road
Chico, CA 95973
RE: ALUC File No. A 00-07
AP#047-3507013,01.4 and 015.
Dear Mr. Shuster:
A letter dated February 5, 2001, was mailed to you requesting that you remit a check payable to the
Butte County Treasurer in the amount .of $472.00 to cover the cost for processing. the above -
referenced application, which was found inconsistent. Per our records, a deposit was never received
and we have not yet received your payment. Please make a check payable to the Butte County.
Treasurer in the amount of $472.00 and remit it to the Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive, -
Oroville, California 95965 within 15 calendar days. Should we not receive your final payment, we
must turn this account over to Butte County Central Collections.
Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday thru Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601. .
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Pardo
Director of Development. Services
TAP:jb
Attachment
uttecounty
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
' DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
www.buttecounty.net
February 5, 2001
Stephen Shuster
3406 Keefer Road
Chico, CA 95973
RE: ALUC'File No. A 00-07
AP#047-350-013,014 and 015 .
Dear Mr. Shuster:
The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found inconsistent by the
Airport Land Use Commission on September 20, 2000, is $472.00. Per our records, a deposit in the amount
of $300.00 was never received. Below is a breakdown:
No Deposit, Per our Record $ -0-
Professional Planner $472.00
Total $472.00
Total Amount Due & Payable $472.00
Please make a check payable to the Butte County Treasurer in the amount of $472.00 and remit it with the
application file number, as referenced above, to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division
at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 within 30 calendar days. Should you have any questions,
please contact Brian Larsen in this office Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., at 538-7601.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Parilo
Director of Development Services
TAP: jb
' i'HEFNE
STARK
,I'iV�AROIS
LAw Omcrs
Es7AUISHED 15-16
2130 Rws PLAZ1 DmVE
CUTE 431
_^.ACRAMEN:0. CA
95F33.35S3
TEL: (916) 925-6620
FAN -(916) 923-1 i'_?
March 27, 2001
GEORGE T. K&MMERER
E C E OWE!
D
W 27
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
Butte'County_Board of Supervisors Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery
Countv of Butte (530) 538-7120 (Board)
3 County Center Drive (530) 538-7785 (Planning)
Oroville, CA (530) 538-6891 (Counsel)
Re: Reasons To Approve Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision and to Overrule
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Findings (Stephen Schuster
Application GPA/RZ 00-05; TSM 0043; APL 0.1-06)
• Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of our client, Stephen Schuster of Schuster Homes; we respectfully request your
approval of the above application (the project) based upon the following substantial evidence in the
record which we believejustifies Board approval of this project and the Board's 4%5 vote to overrule
the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) finding of inconsistency of the project with
the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA), for the following reasons:
Land Use .
1. The project is surrounded by existing and approved SR -1 (one acre per home) residential
development which is built or being built at equal or greater density to the project, making
this project truly an "infill" project even though it does not meet the ALUC criteria for such.
2. The project is proposed for development at an average density per acre of about 1.3 acres per
residence which is well below the North Chico Specific Plan (N CSP) SR -1 zoning minimum
size lot per residence of one -acre, by subdividing 43.83 acres into 30 one -ace lots.
3. The 5 -acre park ,%vas moved from the north end of the site where it was tentatively proposed
to be located under the NCSP, to a better location along the southern boundary of the site.
bordering Keefer Slough where the park will serve the multiple purposes of creek corridor
• wildlife habitat and recreational trail expansion, flood plain protection, improved waste
disposal,. and could provide.an emergency landing area before aircraft reach the subdivision.
Butte County Board of Supervisors.
March 27, 200.1
Page 2
I
This relocati . on is supported bythe Chico Area Recreation* Park District (CARD) for these
same reasons.
Airport Land Use Consistency
On September 20, 2000, theButte County ALUC reviewed the project for consistency with
the CMA under ALUC's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update, adopted December 29, 1999
(1999 CLUP). The 1999 CLUP recommended a minimum..2. 5 -acre parcels per residence, despite
the fact that the Butte County Board of Supervisors had previously approved 1 -acre minimum parcel
sizes for this site under the NCSP. The Schuster project has been designed to be consiste . nt with the
NCSP I acre parcel sizes approved by the Board.
For the following reasons, the proj ect will pro,6de for the orderly development of the CMA
and the area surrounding this airport so as to promote the overall goals, and objectives of the
California Airport . Noise Standards and to p�event the creation of new noise and safety problems,
as well as protect public health, safety, and welfare by insuring the orderly expansion of the CMA
by the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive'noise and
safety hazards within areas around that airport, as required by California's Public Utilities Code
21670, et seq. (PUC):
Conditions of approval can be adopted to ensure airport compatibility and consistency.
2. The project is located further away from the CMA than the Stephens residential development
project (Stephens) which Was approved in 1998 by the Board of Super -visors. pursuant to
findinas and overruling considerations thereafter upheld by the Butte County Supenior Court
as legal and va . lid acts by the Board. The Schuster project i S' located just one-quarter mile
immediately west of Stephens. Because of this, most of the Board's findings supporting
approval of the Stephens project are relevant to Board approval of Schuster, and are attached
and incorporated by reference into. this letter for t he Board's consideration. (Attached.)
70% of the project lies within the CalTrans
Safety and Over Flight: Approximately ALUC's
'Traffic Pattern Zone' (TPZ). The remaining approximate 30% lies entirely within
self -devised Over Fli-ht Protection Zone "B". (Attached.) According to the 1993 CalTrans
Handbook at page 9-16, the discussion of "Acceptable Forms of Development'.' concerning
C' 0
the TPZ concludes that "the potential for aircraft a cidents is relatively low and the need f r
land use restrictions is minimal . . . Typical -residential subdivision densities of 4 to 6
dwelling units per a&e are acceptable from a safety perspectiv6 ... Even higher densities
mav be r easonable, especially if development is clustered to provide open space . . ." Thus,
ALUC's limit of one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres far exceeds CalTrans expert
4.. .
0
Butte County Board of Supervisors
March 27, 2001
Page 3
recommendations and is'unnecessary. The proje . ct's 1 -acre pe . r dwelling density fal Is well.
within CalTrans allowable levels of 4 to 6 dwellings per acre. The Over Flight Protection
1 0 Cp
Zone"B" wholly -created by ALUC which purportsto prohibit new single family dwellings
is not one of the six zones recognized by . CalTrans as necessary to protect airport operations
within the meaning of the PUC. Furthermore, the project proponent proposes to relocate and
expand a 5 -acre park site from the north end (TPZ) of the site to the. south end.(Zone "B")
of the site where it will provide a permanent, nearly 7 -acre area of. open'space where no
single family dwellings will be built, Which furthers th6 goals and objectives of the PUC..
In fact, at this location, the park could provide for 'greater- public safety protection by'
providing, an emergency landing area b I I
C� 0 efore aircraft fly over the subdivision, in the event it
is needed. There . fore, the project does not -create safety . problems or result in public exposure
to excessive safety or over flight hazards.
4. Noise: The 1999 CLUP "Future CNEL Noise Contours" exhibit. (attached) showg the entire
project site lies well outside.of the 55 dB CNIEL line. According, to CalTrans, exposure to
outdoor noise of 55 dB CNEL or less, which is comparable to background music or a
dishwasher running; in the next room, is considered "quiet" and fully compatible with single
family dwellings. (CalTrans Handbook, Chapter 6.) Even single -event noise such as aircraft
engine testing i s determined to result in less than a 2% chance of sleep disturbance at this
location at ni-ht time by CalTrans. Therefore, the project does not create noise problems or
result in public exposure io excessive noise hazards.
Airspace Protection: The CalTrans Handbook recommends that "airspace obstructions"
such as tall buildings and other land use characteristics which pose "other potential hazards
to, fli alit by attracting birds or creating visual or electronic: interference with air navi cation"
be avoided by development in proximity to airports. (CalTrans Handbook, Chapter 3.) The
Schuster project proposes I single family residential dwellings,and related land- uses which,
by their nature, and by existing design standards are generally limited to heights below 35
feet and are otherwise designed so as not to pose a potential airspace obstruction, nor attract
birds, nor create visual or electronic interference to air navigation. Therefore, the project
does not create a threat to airspace.protection.
V
�4
(IT'
Butte County Board of Supervisors
March 27, 2001
Page 4
Conclusion
Basedupon all ofthe substantial fa6tual evidence stibmitted-into,.the record, durincy the course
of public hearings upon the Schuster application prior to- and including Board of Supervisors
hearings, we ask that the Board of Supervisors (1) approve the Schuster project by.a 4/5's vote,
(2) overrule the A-LUC inconsistency determination, and (3)'make findings in fulfillment of the
requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq., that approval of this project provides
for the orderly development of the Chico Municipal Airport and the area surrounding the airport so
as to promote the overall goals and objectives I of the California Airport Noise Standards adopted
pursuant to the PUC, and that the project prevents ihe.creation of new noise and safety problems.
Furthennore, we ask that the Board acknow ' ledge that approval of the.Schu�ter project
adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of the
Chico Municipal Airport for the reasons described in this.letter, in staff reports, and in all other
submittals and exhibits which explain how the public's exposure to excessive noise and'safety
hazards around the Chico Municipal Airport are minimized. and which demonstrate.that adequate
over flight and airspace protection have been taken into consideration.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this very important request to approve Mr.
Schuster's Pheasant Landing project by the 4/5's vote of the Board which is required by state law.
GTKJdan
Enclosures
cc: Department of Development Services
Office of the County Counsel
Schuster Homes
KNSmistef Horresftrth Chico Subdivis ion (6096-0001)W�card of superiisors supportwod
LIM
Very truly yours,
HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP
. Z - —
4
CLUPPENSITY CRITERIO
Adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
December 29,1999
0 MAXWUM ACCEPTABLE DENSITY 40
No.
Safety Zone
Peo'le 'erAcrd
P P
Dwel ling Units per
Acre
I
Runway Protection Zone
10 GH
.0
2
Inner Safety Zone
10 ADHUL
0 EKM
3
Inner Turning Zone
10. ADH UL
I EKM
10
.4
Outer Safety Zone
25 CDFIIIL
I EKM
5
5
Sideline Safety Zone
25 CDFHM
0
6
Traffic Pattern Zone
100 CDHM
I unit EKM.
2.5 ac.
rwrumum pamd
S=
7
Area of Influence
No Limit —BCDIU'I--
4 EKM I
A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures).
B. Uses compatible- only if they do not result in a large concentration of eople. A large
p
concentration of people is defined as a gathering. of individuals in an area that would - --
result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24-
hour period ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time.
Caretaker residences are a co-� i npatible use within all CTTEL ranges, provided that they are
ancillary to the primary use of a property intended for the purpose of property protection
or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit
intruiding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows
closed, in any habitable room.
D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level, o.1F45 CNEL must be incorporated into the
design and construction of portions of buildiDgs where the public is received, office areas,
and other areas where people work or congregate.
E. Residential development shall not occur in ' a noise level greater than 55 CNEL.
F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration 'of p ersons greater than 25
persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above
ground.
G. No buildings, structures, above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or
explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10
per -sons at any time.
H. Communication Towers (Excluding airport related facilitie's):
1. ' Prohibited in all safety zones except Zone 8.
Free Stmding Towers:
RHIBIT A
1. Alternative orange'and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground-.,
2. Strobe lighting at the top of the top of the tower and shielded from'strikdng the
ground for a mile.
Towers with Guy Wires:
L Starting at 30 feet abov'e'the groind:'_
a. Blinking lights a16 � g length of to a,
n wer'and guy wires t 20 foot intervals.,
b. Three feet in diainterd brange safety'markers-'attached at 20 fb6tifitervals
on tower and guy wires.
L' Public and ' Quasi -Public:
Prohibited Uses.-.Cburches, nursing care facilities, hospitalg, colleges and
universities, elementary and secondary schools*, child care facilities' and similar
a
ggregations of persons.
J. 50% Open Space.
K. Density Bonus Prohibited.
L. No bulk petroleum products (except airport related), flammabl ei or.explosives or'chemical
storage abov ' e ground.
M.- Second dwelling units are prolubited.
All zones in areas of influence.
I., Permitted Uses:
A. All projects covered by a vested map or development agreement.
B. Any uses covered by a valid building permit.
C. All uses meetinar the airport CLUP standards at time permits are issued.
General Statements.
1. All ministerial and resi ' dential uses shall be referred . to ALUC and findings shall
be -made that there wi ' 11 be no impacts to airport operations.
2. Avigation Easements shall be signed by property owners for all uses located
within the planning boundaries of each public or special U*se airport.
,"P'ML
MA
W4
A,
lye,
"r
I So
'A
"t W,
y
40,
W-7 WS
OPOPAr
ROF RX. -
1. .0 'A I
Wit
;AP
Ap
[Nib 74i -e WN
-7.affid SPIN
101.
go
NIgo
P
S V
LIM M,
A A
6
irport Environs Plan' (C.L.U.P.)
Chico Municipal Ai
rport
Adopted by A.L.U.C. December 1999
I Runway Protection
2 Inner Safety Zone
3 Inner Turning Zone
... .... 4 Outer Safety Zone
e
5 Sideline Safetk Zon'
. ......... Alb
6 Traffic Safety Zone
7 Airport Inflti&nce Zone
7
Overflig�t Protection Zones,:,
"A"; "Al", and T"
(criteria same as 1998 amendment)
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
16
. ......... -
N T,
. .. ..... ..... ..
U!,
IN
®r
ull
City of Chico
General Plan Designations
I- im Rural rzesiaenhai
C"-_ VLDR Very Low Density Residential
t OR Low Density Residenlial
MR Meditan Density Residonfial
t.11 OR MedlUill I fiUh Dbrisily Residential
I tDR High Densily Residential
D Doniown
(-.0 Corhunily Coniniefc4a)
Mljr,iC W,ea Usb Neighbo(hood Core
CS Cornme(cia) Services
VS VIS1101 Sel"Ices
OFF Orfice
M.M&W Mankilactming and Warehousing
L�aA Pr&S Phbhc Facintics and Seivices
IP Ind"Sthal Palk
P Palk
CG Creekside Gieem/ay
OSAjRfA Open Space for Agriculture/
Recourse Managerneol
OSE(;/S Open Spare for En 0ohniental
Conservallon/Safety
EXHIBIT
6
irport Environs Plan' (C.L.U.P.)
Chico Municipal Ai
rport
Adopted by A.L.U.C. December 1999
I Runway Protection
2 Inner Safety Zone
3 Inner Turning Zone
... .... 4 Outer Safety Zone
e
5 Sideline Safetk Zon'
. ......... Alb
6 Traffic Safety Zone
7 Airport Inflti&nce Zone
7
Overflig�t Protection Zones,:,
"A"; "Al", and T"
(criteria same as 1998 amendment)
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
16
. ......... -
N T,
.. 91
w
Mij RL ez
72
Existing Land Use
AOL'
Agricultwar cukli�. N'
AgriCL]Iltjral Processing
Auto Repair Sales or Service's
Commercial Recreati6n
Eating or Drinking
Financial - f
Heavy indusuial
Hotels and Mutels
Lighi Industrial
Mulli-Family Residential
Offices
Parks
Preserve
Public
RV Parks and Campground
Retail Sales and Services
N'
Semi-PUblic
Single Family
Single Family Residential
Vacant
Distribution
Warehousing and
A
.-TA
14'
BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA REPORT - DEC . EMBER 1, 1998
Applicant: Robert and Ann Stephens. Zoning: SR-1/OS'(Suburbah Residential -
1 acre/Open Space), S -R, and OS (Open.,,.
File #: SPA97-01 Space)
Request: An amendment to the North Chico
Specific Plan adding a PD - Planned
Development combining zone, a rezone of.
83± acres from SR-1/OS to SR -1 and a
rezone applying the PD combining zon ' e to
approximately 230 acres zoned SR -1 and
OS. Consideration of overriding findings for
ALUC consistency findings.
G.P.: Agricultural Residential
APN: 047-250-141
Location: On the west side of Hicks Lane
immediately adjacent to the Chico Municipal
Airport, approximately between Keefer
Slough and Mud Creek
Parcel Size: A 230 acre portion of a 300
acre parcel
Related Projects:
Development Agreement 99-01
SUMMARY: The Butte County Planning Commissions,recommendation for this project is still a
denial recommendation. If the Board of Supervisors chooses.to approve the amendment to the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP), the Commission recommends , the use of a Development
Agreement to ensure certain conditions are met. Additionally, the Board must make findings to
override the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the project is not
consistent with the recently amended Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Due to the
requirement of overriding findings, the Board mus�t approve this project by a 2/3 majority .
DISCUSSION: On October 21, 1998 the Butte County ALU.Q approved an amendment to the 1978
Chico Municipal Airporl Environ� Plan (CMAEP). The amendments became effective immediately
upon adoption. These changes to the airport plan affect the Stephens property and therefore this
requested amendment to the North 'Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The amendments to the CMAEP
included the adoption of Overflight Protection Zones "A" and "B". Zone "A" prohibits the
establishment of all new residential dwellings and zone "B" prohibits all new single family dwellings
but allows multi -family structures.
After adoption the amended plan, the County has 180 days to either bring their general plan and
any specific plans into conformity with the airport plan or make overriding findings. Theprocedure
for an override is spelled out in detail in the Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook. Enclosed as attachment "A" are the -pertinent override sections.
Based upon the amendment to the airport plan, the Board referred this project back to ALUC for
bonsistency findings. ALUC heard the project on November 18, 1998 and found that it was
inconsistent with the amended plan. Specifically, ALUC found that the recently adopted overflight
v Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
K'Schuster HorresftrM Chico Sub&ision (6096-W01)*enda reW (bos),I*pd 1 . . M1 2.24PM -
zones A & B prohibit new single family residences in orderto minimize'the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards in area that are subject to the most intense overflight activity.
This includes flight activity from several different i types of heavy aircraft.. Noise exposure to the i site
comes from general aviation activities but the site is also subject to excessive noise levels during''
CDF response to campaign ' fires and during military aircraft operations. Additionally, Aero Union.
routinely does. engine run -ups during the nighttime hours of the summer months when the aircraft
are most heavily used. The findings also state that Stephen . s project site is located in *a'n are . a that
has an elevated likelihood of being impacted by both arrival and departure aircraft accidents. The.
full findings and supporting data is enclosed as attachment B.
BOARD OPTIONS: In making a decision on the is project, the Board should. consider"'fh-e - -----
recommendation of the Planning Commission, which was to.deny this project. The Commission's -
recommendation was based upon two main points., that an increase in residential dwellings in this
area represents a potential conflict with the Chico, Municipal Airport, and; that the development
potential of -the Stephens property was not adversely affected by the NCSP, even though 103 acres
was designated open space. It should also be noted that, in addition to previous correspondence
from a variety of interests favoring,denial of the project, t he County has received additional letters
from local residents, the City of Chico, and Aero Union Corporation strongly opposing residential
development for this site. If a motion for denial is made no specific findings are required as this'
is a legislative act.
If the Board chooses to make a motion for approval, required findings and overriding findings must
be made and recommended findings area provided as stated below:
Approval Motion:
Section 1:' Environmental Findings.
A. An Environmental Impact Report has been adopted and certified for the North Chico
Specific Plan (NCSP) which identified significant environmental impacts and provided
mitigation measures to address those impacts. The EIR also identified significant
unavoidable impacts for which no mitigation Was available; traffic and circulation, air
quality impacts and land u ' se impacts. However it was found that the NCSP had
significant benefits and overriding findings were adopted as fully discussed in
Resolution 95-47. An Initial Study,was completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act for the Stephens proposed amendment to the North Chico
Specific Plan and rezone.. No new potentially significant environmental effects were
identified that were not identified and mitigated as part of the Stephens Negative
Declaration or Final EIR (FEIR) for the North Chico Specific Plan or overridden at the
time of adoption of the NCSP. Impacts that were previously identified as significant
unavoidable impacts have not changed or been exacerbated because the Stephens
project does not exceed any of the development assumptions and thresholds
evaluated in the NCSP as witnessed below:
The NCSP EIR identified an increase of approximately 63,000 daily trips based
upon Ahe development of 3,093 new dwelling units and approximately 267 acres
of new industrial development. As adopted, the plan reduced the number of
dwellings to approximately 2,803 and the number of developable acres of
industrial land to 247 acres. With the adoption of this amendment, the
m Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
USchuster Hornesftm Chic— SubdM�n (6096-0001)% agenda repw (bos).wpd 2 31WO 12:24 Ki
residential buildout of the Plan will be 2,896 dwelling units, well within the
number cont*mplat6d by the certified FEIR;
e
2. The impacts to air quality were based upon the creation of 3,093 new dwelling
units and approximately 267 acres of new industrial development.. As adopted
the plan -provided for approximately 2,803 new dwelling units and estimates the
number of developable acres of.iridustrial land to be,247- acres. With the'.-.'
adoption of this amendment ' ''the residential buildout'of the Plan will be 2,896
dwelling units, well within the number contemplated by the certified. FEIR; and,
The loss of open space was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the�.
NCSP. The retained open space within the NCSP was -intended to help
maintainthe rural atmosphere that currently exists, and was 6. component of an.'
overall environmental strategy to mitigate .*development within the �NCSP area
as detailed on page's 6-13 through 6-16,. 7-5, 8-3, 13-7, and.1 5-3 of the NCSP
draft EIR and FEIR. The 103 acres identified on the Stephens' property as open
space by the NCSP, will be 'retained for that purpose and will not be reduced in
size.
B. An Initial Study was completed in compliance wi ' th the California Environmental
Quality Act for the proposed Development Agreement and no potentially significant
environmental effects were identified; and
C. The Board of Supervisors has - independently reviewed, analyzed and considered
both proposed Negative Declarations prior to. making its decision on the amendment
to the NCSP and rezone and the Development Agreement; and said Negative
Declarations reflect the independent judgement of the County of Butte;
Section 2: General Plan Consistency Findings.
A. The proposed amendment to the North Chico Specific Plan and associated rezoning
is consistent with the policies-, including the text and map, of -the Butte County
General Plan as discussed below:
1. The Butte County General Plan Land Use -Element designates the 230 acres
north of Mud Cre i ek as Agricultural Residential. The maximum development
potential allowed by this designation is 1 dwelling unit per acre. The net result
of the proposed amendment to the NCSP is the develop mient of up to 160
dwelling units within the boundary of the 230 acres for an average density that
is consistent with,the General Plan Land use designation.
.. Specific policies in support of the proposed amendment include:-
CA.e. - Encourage urban expansion toward the least productive soils. The site
contains marginal agricultural soils capable of supportin g only grazing or
limited agricultural,use�.
v Butte County Department of Development Service s Agenda Report a
U.Schuster McmesWorth Ch,co Subdivisien (609"001)%agenda repon (bcs).-mpd 3, M 12.24 PM
0.1.b. Provide a diversily. of housing sites va[ying in ize. density and location'.
sl
The PD combining zone will provide the ability to offer more housing -
choices in the NCSP.
D.2.a. Correlate residential densities to soil. SIODe and other nqti irql ctifim
characteristics. The site has few limiting characteristics. Sewage disposal.
and drainage are two areas that cou,ld potentially limit dieveloipirh 6 n*t.'*
However, the 103 acres of open'space acreage is available to overcome
these limitations.
D. 2. c. Relate residential densities to intensily and compatibility of adiacent uses.
The resulting residential development will, not be as dense as adjacent
residential uses in the Village"core and will provide a suitable transition to
the 1 acre parcels to the north and west.
D.2.d. Balance residential densities with traffic -carrying capacities of existing and
groposed circulation plans. The proposed circulation - plan and
improvements proposed by the NCSP will accommodate the additional
traffic generated by this project because the improvements were based
upon a greater number of dwelling units than ultimately approved by the
NCSP, including the proposed amendment.
G. 5. b. Prevent development and site clearance other than river bank protection
of marshes and significant riparian habitats. The Development Agreement
provides. for riparian protection and'enhancement through the use of creek
side setbacks and vegetation plantings.
H. 3. a. limit development in areas with siqnificant drainaqe and floodina i)roblems
until adequate drainage or flood control facilities are Provided. The
incorporation of drainage conditions to reduce peak project site runoff to
10% below pre -development conditions will serve to reduce downstream
flooding. An easement along the westerly property boundary will also be
deeded to the County in order to provide for future drainage -improvements;
that will allow the transfer of flood waters from. Keefer Slough to Mud
Creek., This is a critical component I in solving downstream flooding
problems on Keefer Slough.
10.0 Provide for a safe and convenient bicycle transportation system which is
integrated with other transportation modes. Pedestrian trails and bicycle
paths are integrated as part of the NCSP and are also required.as part of
the Development Agreement.
Section 3: Airport Consistency Findings.
1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
A. In public meetings on- November 11 and 19 . , 1997, the Butte County Airl�ort Land Use
Commission (ALUC) considered the consistency of the proposed amendment to the
NCSP and rezone with regard to noise and safety -issues near the Chico Municipal
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
X;t&,husv Hornes14" Chico Subdivision (6096-OOOI)iagenda reporl (bos).-Npd 4
I I 1W1 Z.24 PM
Airport,: located adjacent to the project site. ALUC found that increased residential
development proposed to occur within - NCSP-designated open space , was
inconsistent with the existing Chico, Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The detailed
findings are'contained in a,report from the ALUC dated December 9, 11997;�and
B. In a public hearing'held on December. 11, 1997, the Planning Commis'sidn'
recommended that the applicants revise their project to preclude the pla.ceme ntofany
residential units within the existing open space lands, addressing one of' A'LUC's
concerns; and
C. In a letter dated February -6, 1998 the Stephens' attorney responded to the ALUC
findings and provided information intended to support a finding that the project was
consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The letteralso contends
that all of the environmental and project consistency findings made by ALUC we're
either unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and/or were contrary to law
and thus invalid. and that approval of the project does hot require overriding finding S,
adopted'by a 2/3 majority vote; and
D. In a letter dated April 28,1998, the Stephens'aftorney further responded to the ALUC
finding by demonstrating that approval of the project should not require overriding
findings adopted by a 2/3 majority vote, because the amendment to Ahe Specific Plan
and the rezone remain completely consistent with all relevant findings and the
statement of , overriding considerations previously adopted by the Board -.of
Supervisors on March 28, 1995, when it approved.the NCSP and.at that time adopted
Overriding Findings Regarding the Airport, Land Use Commission finding of
inconsistency for the NCSP; and
E. In a public hearing held on February 12,1998, the Planning Commission reviewed a
project that - was revised in accordance with the Planning Commission's
recommendations made at the December 12,1997 meeting, to propose development
of up to 160 dwelling units without building upon'any land within the NCSP open
space designation; and
F. Prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing on June 23, 1998, the applicants again
revised their project to address the balance of ALUC's concerns related to the future
expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport, and agreeing to limit development of the site
to no more than 126 dwelling units until a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
was prepared. Upon adoption of the new CLUP, up to 34 additional dwelling units out
of the total maximum of 160 dwellings. could be applied for subject to a finding of
consistency with the new CLUP. At the June 23,hearing, the Board of Supervisors
recommended that a0evelopment Agreement be used to clarify and Vest both the
applicants' and, the County's rights and obligations for development of the property
under the revised amendment to the NCSP and the rezone; and
G. At a public hearing held on August 19, 1998, the ALUC reviewed. the Development
Agreement proposed for the project and found the project as proposed on that date
to be both consistent with'. the. Chic 6- Municipal Airport Environs Plan -as well as
compatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Chico Municil5al Airport. A
finding of Development Agreement consistency amounts to a consistency finding for
w Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report n
k1schuster Horms'North Chico Subdivision (6096-0001)lzgenda report (bos).wpd 5 1W 2:24 PM
0
the entire Stephens project because the Development Agreement controls all aspects
of development under the amendment to the NCSP and the rezone for the project site
including, the number and, density of dwelling units, precise approval of development
and open space areas, and timing of the construction of the dwelling u.91ts and 'public
improvements. The ALUG consistency finding Was based upon one (1) required
conditio,n, eight (8) recommended conditions and two (2) reco * mmend.6d changes to'
the Development Agreement, the details of which are contained' in ALUC's.,-
consistency finding report dated August 20,1998, all of which conditions.,tnd changes
have been incorporated into and made a part of the Development Agreement and
therefore also apply to the amendment to the NCSP and the rezone; and
H. At a public hearing held on August 27, 1998,'the PlanningCommission re I viewed the
Development Agreement and proposed further recommended changes' to the
document, none of which limited the effectiveness of ALUC's conditions or the
consistency finding. Planning staff and the Planning Commission. recommended
that ' the Board of Supervisors enter into Ihe Development Agreement if the
amendment to the NCSP and the rezone are approved; and
1. Based upon the several significant limitations upon the amendment to the NCSP and
the rezone which are made binding upon the applicants under the Development
Agreement that was found to be consistent with, the Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan as well as compatible with. the viable, responsible operation of the Chico
Municipal Airport, the Board of Supervisors4may approve'the Development
Agreement, amendment to the Specific Plan and rezone by a simple majority vote in
compliance with Public, Utilities Code Sections 21670, 21676, et seq.; and
J. Because these same numerous modifications to the project overall have brought the
entire project into compliance with the March 28,1995 Overriding Findings Regarding
the Airport Land Use Commission, adopted by the Board of Supervisors by a 2/3
majority vote when it approved the NCSP, the requirements of Public Utilities Code
Sections 21670, 21676, et sbq.,- have already been legally satisfied. Therefore, the
Stephens'Development Agreement, amendment to the NCSP and rezone provide for
the orderly development, expansion, and long-term viability of the Chico Municipal
Airport and orderly development of the area surrounding the airport in the same
manner as the NCSP such that the Board of Supervisors hereby makes the following
same findings as were made for the NCSP, th*at:
1. . Residential land uses, at densities greater than one (1) unit per acre, are not
allowed within 3,700 feet from the centerline of the main runway, as shown on
the Alternative Land Use Map in the FEIR, thus limiting the potential for
complaints.of incompatibility with airport uses;
2. Open space has been planned for the area westerly of the Clear Zone, northerly
of Mud Creek, as shown.on the Alter�ative Land Use Plan in the FEIR, further
reducing the potential for complaints of incompatibility with airport uses;
I . One acre minimum parcel sizes are planned for the area north and west of Mud
Creek, as shown on the Alternative Land Use Plan in the FEIR, which is
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
KASchustw Hunes'North Chica SubdFAsion (6096-0001)%agenda repw jbos).wpd 6 =1 2:24 PM
'L ,
0
consistent with the cu rrently-ad opted Airport Land Use Plan for the Airport and
the Airport Land Use Handbook, pages 3-1.3, 9-19 through 9-25;
4. Airport expansion through the year.2010 -is accommodated by excluding new.
development within the 5.5dB CNEL projected for.the year'201'0 as projected. by
the Noise Exposure Map for the Altern'ative'La'nd Use Plan in Chapter,5 . of the
FEIR;
5. The Specific Plan provides for airport protection measures as part of the
Development Regulations in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan, pages 7-6 and 7-7.
K As with the NCSP, theStephens'Development Agreement, amendment to the NCSP
and, rezone also protects the public health, safety, and welfare by minimi . zing
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas adjacent to the Chico;
Municipal Airport as follows:
Avigation easements are required, as indicated on page 7-'6 of the'NCSP text,
for all residential development within the Plan area;
2. The NCSP provides for airport protection measures as part of the Development
Regulation in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan, pages 7-6 and 7-7;
I The Accident Sites for Runways of 6, 000 Feet. or More, Figure 9F, taken from
the 1994 Airport Land Use Handbook -and superimposed with the Alternative'
Land Use Map for the NCSP, together with,testimony pertaining thereto at the
Board of Supervisor public hearing �on January. 10, 1995, by the County's
consultant, Steve Honeycutt, indicates that the accident probability is highest
within the boundaries of the Chico. Municipal Airport Clear Zones and very low
in the vicinity of the Village Core, which'vicinity includes theStephens property;
4. The Compan . son of Flight Tracks and School Sites, together with the testimony
pertaining thereto at the Board of Supervisors public hearing on January 10,
1995, by the Countys consultant, Steve Honeycutt, indicates that aircraft on
flight tracks at Chico Municipal Airport are at a sufficient flight distance and
altitude so as to not expose the high density residential and the elementary
school sites to excess.ive noise or safety hazards..: These aircraft flight tracks
are also at a sufficient flight distance and altitude so as to not to expose the
Stephens property to excessive noise or safety hazards;
L. Furthermore still, because the applicants incorporated into the Development
Agreement, amendment to the NCSP and the rezone, the one required condition that
the minimum lot size for any parcel is not less than 8,125 ' square feet if served by
individual wells and on-site sewage disposal systems, or 6,500 square feet if public
sewage disposal service,is provided, the effect of ALUC's consistency finding is that
the entire project is consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that
the project is compatible with the viable, responsible.operation of the Chico Municipal
Airport.
. a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a .
K:�UhusW Hcrms�.Ncrth Chico Subcfivrisian (6096-ODOI)Aendarepon (boS).,mpd . 7
Mi 2.24 PM
M. To further improve land use compatibility and provide for the orderly development of
the Chico Municipal Airport and the area surrounding this airport so as to promote the
overall goals -and objectives,of California Airport Noise.Standard*s and to prevent the
creation of new noise and safety problems, as well as to protect public he
alth, safety,
and welfare by insuring the orderly expansion of the Chico Municipal Airpo
rt and the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive �6iie'
and safety hazards within ateas around that airport, the Development Agree: dh( J.
me
amendment to the NCSP and the rezone also -adopt and incorporate the following ten'
(10) recommended conditions and recommended changes contained in'the
August 20, 1998 ALUC consistency finding, requiring that: '7
1. Residential development shall be restricted to those portions of the 126 acre
SR-1/PD area that are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour a:
depicted. on' Drawing (CIC -3) within the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
2. 'Residential densities within the Inner Turning Zone shall be restricted t . o the
densities recommended within the 199 ' 3 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(nor more than one dwelling unit per two acres) to protect the safety of aircraft
and persons on the ground. Residential densities within the Traffic Pattern
Zone shall not exceed'6 units per acre.
3. Residential dwelling units shall be" designed and constructed to achieve an
interior noise level of no more than 45 dB.
4. The property owner- shall sign an'�avigation, easement granting the right of
con - tinued use o f the Chico Municipal. Airport in.the airspace above the subject
parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational
impacts.
5. The project proponents and the County shall devise enhanced airport operations
disclosure measures which include deed notices, public notices, inclusion of
information. in the Department of Real Estate Public Report, and signage along
the entrances to.the project.
6. All land use shall be re6tricted from creating large concentrations of people that
would result in the. gathering of more than 25 persons per acre at any one time.
7. Land uses shall be prohibited that create bright.lights, smoke, particulate
emissions, or allow for the storage of hazardous, flammable or explosive
materials above ground'.
8. All project lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to
prevent adverse impacts on, adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities.
.9. Section 3.3 of the De4opment Agreement shall be modified to reference those
conditions required and recommended in Sections 3. A and 4. "A through W in
the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's August 19, 1998 Findings
relative to the Draft, Development Agreement.
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
K:'Schuster HcrtiesWorth Chico SubdWion (6096-0001)lagenda report (bos).wpd 8 IWI 2:24 PM
10. Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement shall be revised -to'reflect the
applicants' commitmehi� to the Board of Supervisors and the ALUC regarding -
the Airport Land Use Commission's review of the tentative subdivision map to
create the 34 Density Transfer Units (DTU's) within the 126 acreportion of the
property or other property located within the North Chico Specific -Plan Area.
The Development Agree ment shall stipulate that the tentative subdivision map
to create 34 DTUs within the 126 acre portion of the subject property is I to be
reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Updated
CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport when adopted or the existing Chico,
Municipal Airport Environs Plan,. if the CLUP update has not been completed
within 24 months (subsequently changed to 30 months by the Planning
�Commissi ' on) from the date that the Development'Agreement is executed.' If the
proposal to create the 34 DTUs within the 126 acre portion of the 1property is
found by the ALUC to be inconsistent with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan,
the property owner/applicant waives their right to request that the Board of
Supervisors adopt Overriding Findings. to approve the project. However, if a
finding of inconsistency is made by the ALUC to create the 34 DTUs within the
126 acre portion of the subject property, the property owner/applicant may
submit a subsequent tentative subdivision map to create the 34 DTUs within
another property that is located within the North Chico Specific Plan Area. The
tentative subdivision map, for such a transfer must also be reviewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the applicable Airport Land
Use Plan. The property owner/applicant agrees to waive their right.to request
that the Board of Supervisors adopt 'Overriding Findings to approve the transfer
of the units to another property if that proposal is also found to be inconsistent
by the ALUC.
N. On October 21, 1998,* the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
amended the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan finding that the standards
within the plan were not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act and
the guidelines contained in the CalTrans' 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
The amendment adopted an Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) and Outer Safety
Zone. Under the amendment, the Stephens property is located in both an Overflight
Protection Zone "A" and "B". Said zones "A" and "B" purport to prohibit new single
family dwelling uses. If the Stephens'- project, were brought back before ALUC for
consistency findings, it is acknowledged that the project would not, be found
compatible with the amended plan and overriding findings would be required to
approve the project. The Boa ' rd hereby makes the findings required by Public Utility
Code 21670 and 21676 et seq., as supported by those specific findings set forth in
Sections J through M above, which findings are incorporated herein and support the
conclusion that approval of the Stephens' project, as conditioned, will not create any
new noise and safety problems near the Chico Municipal Airport. Furthermore, the
approval of the Stephens' project, as conditioned, includes land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise ' and safety hazards. These
conclusions are further supported by the detailed information contained in the
"Exhibits in the Administrative Record," dated June 23, 1998, submitted by the
applicant. Therefore, the approval of the Stephens' project is consislent with the
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report n
KI.Schuster FiorriesWorth Chico Subdivision (6096-000 1)*enda report (bos). wpd 9 3,W1 2.24 PM
0
-purposes of Article 3.5 of Cha0ter4 of Part I of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code,
as stated in Section 21670.
0. If the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section.s 21670 and
21676, in the. alternative, approves the Development Agreement, amendment to the
NCSP and the rezone by a 2/3 vote, the Board of Supervisors hereby makes Sopc' " ific
Findings that the Stephens' project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilitie si
Code Section 21670,,based upon all of the findings previously described above.
Override findings to the.1998 amended Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
On October 21,1998,ALUC purported to adopt an amendment to the 1978 Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) (Because there is significant legal uncertainty as to whether
the October 21 amendment is legally in force and effect because of the manner by which
ALUC provided public notice prior to their adoption of the October 21 amendment to the'
CMAEP, the Board of Supervisors. has also made the above findings pertaining to ALUC's
prior consistency findings under the 1978 CMAEP for the Stephens' project.). On
November 18, 1998, ALUC reviewed the Stephens' application for consistency with the
1978 CMAEP as amended on October 21, 1998. . While the 1993 Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook ("CalTrans Handbook") identifies. four functional categories for
determining airport land use compatibility: Safety, Overnight, Noise and Airspace
Protection, on November 18th, ALUC reviewed the Stephens' project application for'
consistency with the amended CMAEP regarding policies to address Safety and Overflight
Protection. However, because Exhibit B to ALUC's October 21 amendment to the CMAEP
and "Other Commission Comments" included- outside of 4he- Project Consistency Findings
in the November 18 ALUC ' review of the Stephens' project, discuss noise compatibility and
allude to airspace protection, the following override findings address all four issues: Safety,
Overflight, Noise and Ai ' rspace Protection, to factually demonstrate that approval of the
Stephens' project by the Board of Supervisors rTieets all Public Utilities Code Section 21670
and 21676 requirements -
A. Safety and Overfliq ht.
On October 21, ALUC purported to adopt an Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ).
with two subzones identified as Zone A and Zone B, both of which are stated to
prohibit new single-family residential development entirely within their
boundaries. ALUC Exhibit A (Drawing CIC -14) depicts the OPZ. Exhibit AJs
designed to depict the OPZ identified in Exhibit 111-1, "2010 Airport Noise
Compatibility Plan," of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program
and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport (FAR Part 150). The four
safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 CalTrans Handbook have also
been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone (1),* Inner Safety
Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the OPZ. The only
CalTrans safety zone which ALUC states the OPZ does not incorporate is the
Outer Safety Zone (4). Because the CalTrans Handbook at page 9-16 indicates
that there are a total of six safety zones, including a Sideline Safety Zone (5)
and a Traffic Pattern Zone (6), the OPZ must therefore also incorporate the
Sideline Safety Zone (5) and -traffic Pattern Zone (6) sincethe only CalTrans
/ a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report m
K:'SchuSter Homesftr1h Chieo Subdwsim (60%0001)%agenda repcn NS).wpd 10 3/&012:24 PM
safety zone which. the. OPZ does not incorporate, is the Outer Safety Zone (4)
according to ALUC's October 22.1etter to Thomas Parilo (pps. 2-3).
.2. Approximately one.third of the northern portion of the Stephens' property lies..
within the Inner Turning Zone as identified in Drawing -CIC-14 and in the'
CalTrans Handbook in Figure 9G. it page - 9-16. In its discussions of nTh6*1-...-*,-"
Concept of Acceptable Risk" and "Protecting People and Property'on" th6'-,,,
Ground" (Chapter -9), the CalTrans'Hand book. states on page 9-22 urid , et
"Acceptable Forms of Development" that for the Inner Turning Zone,'"[t]he
minimum lot size criteria for residential uses should be somewhere in.the range -..'-
encompassed by the inner and outer safety zones; that is, between 2 and 10
acres." To assure Chico. Municipal Airport safety and ov6rflight compatibility,
the Board requires that the Stephens' Development Agreement incorporate the
following language from the August 20, 1998 ALUC Consistency Findings,
requiring that:
Residential densities within 'the Inner Turning Zone shall be
restricted to the densities recommended within the 1993 Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook (no more than one dwelling unit per
two acres) to.protect the safety of aircraft and persons on the
ground.
Based upon CalTrans criteria, the Board of Supervisors has determined that
one residential dwelling unit per two acres on the Step hens'*p rope rty within the
Inner Turning.Zone is an acceptable form of development, -as recommended in
the CalTrans Handbook'on pages 9-21 and 9-22.'For this reason, a complete
prohibition on residential development within'Zones ' A and B on the- Stephens'
property is unnecessary to satisfy the requirements of Public Utilities Code
Section 21670.
3. For the remaining majority of the Stephens' property which is located within the
Traffic Pattern Zone as identified in Drawing. CIC -14 and in the CalTrans
Handbook in Figure 9G at page 9-16, the discussion of "Acceptable Forms of
Development" states that:
Traffic Paftern Zone -- Within other portions of.the airport area
routinely overflown by aircraft, the potential for aircraft accidents is
relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is thus minimal.
. . . Only very large assemblies of people in the 150 or,more
people -per -acre range -- need to be avoided. . Typical residential
subdivision densities of 4 to 6 dwelling units -per -acre are acceptable
from a safety perspective. . . . Even higher densities may be
reasonable, especially if development is clustered to,provide open
space....
The Stephens' Development Agreement also incorporates from the August 20,
1998 ALUd Consistency Findings, the requirement that: "[R]esidential densities
.within the Traffic Pattern Zone shall not exceed 6 units per acee."
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
K.%Schuster HornesWorth Chico Subdivision (609&0001)%agenda report (bos).wpd M1 Z.24 PM
Based upon CalTrans criteria, the Board of Supervisors has determined that six
residential dwelling units pera c*re on the ' Stephens' property within the Traffic
Pattern Zone is an. acceptable form of development satisfying the requirements.
of Public Utilities Code Section 21670, as recommended in the CalTrans
Handbook on pages 9-21 through 9-23.. For this reas on, a. complete prohibition
on residential development within Zones A and Bon the Stepheris. property. is
unnecessary.
4. The Stephens'Development Agreement incorporates an amendment to the text
of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) adding a PD -Planned Development-.. 7
Combining Zone which requires that a minimum of 25% of the gross acreage
within the'PD designation will befetained as open space and that residential
dwelling units will be built upon a vahety of lot sizes, including the clustEdng of
residential dwelling units. The retention of open space and the. use of clusteMg
residential dwellings are recommended by CalTrans as strategies to improve the
compatibility of residential development within all CalTrans safety zones,
including the Inner Turning Zone and Traffic Pattern Zone, within the airport
environment. The CalTrans Handbook, on. page 9-24, in its discussion of
"Clustering Versus Spreading of Development,". states that:
. . . Mradeoffs between safety and economic concerns usually
dictate some amount of development near airports.... The premise
behind the concept of clustering is that, in most Off -airport mishaps,
the aircraft are under some degree of control when forced to land.
Clustering thus allows a greater,'amount of open space towards
which the pilot can aim. In addition to reducing the risks for people
on the ground ', open space also- provides benefits for aircraft.
occupants.
Regarding the Inner Turning Zone, the CalTrans Handbook states on page
9-27, "[a]t least 15% to 20% of the zone should remain as open space."
Regarding the Traffic Pattern Zone, the CalTrans Handbook states on page
9-27, ". . . 10% to 15% useable open space or an open. area approxima , tely
every 1/4 to Y2mile should be provided.". Because the new PD zoning and the
Development Agreement both require the retention of 25% of the gross acreage
as open space, the Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the goals and
objectives of Public Utilities Code 21670 to minimize the public's exposure to
excessive safety (a'nd. noise) hazards are already accomplished by the
Stephens' project design. In fact, the new PD zoning, NCSP amendment and
the Development Agreement together now, for the first time, allows clustering
of dwellings, variable lost sizes and requires much greater open space
retention, actually making residential development upon the Stephens' property
more airport compatible than under the prior zoning for the property.
5. In Exhibit D (Drawing CIC -17) and Exhibit E (Drawing CIC -18) to the ALUC
October 21, 1998 action, ALUC alleges that these exhibits -- which were
adapted from the CalTrans Handbook and the University of California Berkeley,
Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) -- identify areas with particular
safety-related concerns. When the text and Exhibit 8F, "Accident Sites for
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report w
U-14huster HormsNwh Chiw SubdivWcn (6096-CM1)%agenda report (bos).wpd 12 IWI 2:24 PM
is
7. As described above, on November 18, 1998, ALUC reviewed the Stephens'
application for -consistency with the October �1, 1998 purported amendment to
the 1 ' 978. CMAEP. The Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) adopted as part of
these amendments seeks to prohibit new single-family residential development.
Based solely upon unspecified information allegedly from the Chico.Municipal
Airport tower, ALUC's unsubstantiated opinion is that an unquantified number
of heavy military aircraft and firefighting air tankers make unscheduled
low -altitude approaches, which operations involving these types of aircraft can
be particularly annoying to residents because of their size. Based solely upon
this statement unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record,
ALUC-concluded that the only effective strategy is to prohibit residential
development because the CalT ' rans Handbook 'recommends that the ideal
strategy cited on Page, 3-9 of the handbook 'is to avoid development of
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report s
K:Schustor HomsXcrlh Chico Subdimsion (6096-0001)�zgenda repon (bos).wpd 13 31&01214 PM
Runways of 6,000 Feet or More," in the CalTrans Handbook are. referenced to
explain the meaning 6f ALUC Exhibits D and E depicted in Drawings CIC -17
and. CIC -18, talTrans Handbook states. on pages 8-32 and 9-26 -that,
"Accidents in which aircraft are under control are bunched relatively close to the
runway ends mostly within, about 3,000 feet -- both for arrivals and deoartu'res.'':,
These observations lead to the'following suggested criteria: ...... Inner
Turning Zone 15% to 20% ... open space- . . Traffic Paftern Zone
10% to 15% usableopen space. . . As described previo'usly.ih the�e
findings, particular safety-related concerns are minimized by design
requirements for the Stephens' project so that the Stephens' property no longer
needs to be identified as an area with particular safety-related concerns. For.-:
example, residential land uses at densities greater than one (1)- unit per acre, -
will not be allowed within 3,700 feetfrorn the centerline of the existing main
runway, thus limiting the potential for complaints of incompatibility with airport
uses. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors finds that, because the open
space provided by the new PD zoning exceeds that recommended by CalTrans
for residential developments within both the Inner Turning Zone and Traffic
Pattern Zone, where the Stephens' project is located, safety, as well as noise,
overflight and air space protection concerns, are reduced well below CalTrans'
recommended thresholds to ensure a.irport compatibility.
6. Based upon the location of the Stephens' project within the Inner Turning Zone
and the Traffic Pattern Zone, CalTrans data further demonstrates that the
safety hazard risk for all accident sites--- arrivals and departures -- is minimal.
Specifically, the CalTrans Handbook "-indicates 'on page, 9-17 that for airports
with runways of 6,000 feet or more, --.the chance of all -aircraft accidents within the
Inner Turning Zone is 0.03%/acre in Table 9A, "Safety Compatibility Issues."
The likelihood of all aircraft accidents within the Traffic Pattern Zone for runways
of the same length is 0.02%/acre as indicated in Table 9A in the CalTrans
Handbook. Because the likelihood of ain aircraft accident is so low, between
2/100 of 1 % and 3/100 of 1 % anywhere within a full one -acre area, the Board
of Supervisors finds that the likelihood of an aircraft accident involving any
particular residential dwelling represents an exceptionally low safety risk, well
within.the acceptable limits recommended by the CalTrans Handbook.
is
7. As described above, on November 18, 1998, ALUC reviewed the Stephens'
application for -consistency with the October �1, 1998 purported amendment to
the 1 ' 978. CMAEP. The Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) adopted as part of
these amendments seeks to prohibit new single-family residential development.
Based solely upon unspecified information allegedly from the Chico.Municipal
Airport tower, ALUC's unsubstantiated opinion is that an unquantified number
of heavy military aircraft and firefighting air tankers make unscheduled
low -altitude approaches, which operations involving these types of aircraft can
be particularly annoying to residents because of their size. Based solely upon
this statement unsupported by substantial evidence in the administrative record,
ALUC-concluded that the only effective strategy is to prohibit residential
development because the CalT ' rans Handbook 'recommends that the ideal
strategy cited on Page, 3-9 of the handbook 'is to avoid development of
Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report s
K:Schustor HomsXcrlh Chico Subdimsion (6096-0001)�zgenda repon (bos).wpd 13 31&01214 PM
residential uses in affected locations. However, page 3-9 of the CalTrans
Handbook also states that:.
To the extent that this approach is not, practical, the alternative is to
make people better aware of the airport's proximity before they move
to the area. This can be accomplished through.buyer aw6renes.s
measures such as:
Dedication of aviation or overflight easements,
Recorded deed notices; and/or
Real estate disclosure statements.,
Thus, the Board of Supervisors concludes that a complete prohibition of new
tingle -family residential dwellings is hot only not practical, -but. clearly not*,
necessary. if these three CalTrans-recommended measures are followed. Inthis
case, the Stephens Development Agreement minimizes potential incompatibility
with the airport by already incorporating all three of these- buyer awareness
measures. Because of the inclusion of these several buyer awareness
measures in the Development Agreement, the Stephens'. application
incorporates other adequate "compatibility 'strategies" recommended by
CalTrans to make the project compatible with the'Chico Muni.cipal Airport
without the need to avoid, residential development in this location.
8. Regarding whether the Stephens' -project, creates.'a. safety or overflight concern
posing any threat to continued -firefighting- air tahker dperations at the Chico
Municipal Airport, Gary, F.Ross, Unit'Chief, Butte Ranger Unit, Butte County
Fire Department and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
states in his May 6, 1998 letter to the Board of Supervisors that:
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the
Butte County Fire Department find no potential negative. impact
resulting from the proposed amendment to the North Chico Specific
Plan which would allow increased residential density on certain
portioris of the property owned by Robert and Ann Stephens. The
property, identified as APN 047-250-141, is located west of'Hicks
Lane in Chico, California.
In that the planned development provides for leaving 103 acres
along Hicks Lane as open space, adjacent to the Chico Airport,
there will be no significant impact on the fire fighting air tanker
activities that operate from the airport. Likewise, the increased
density from one acre parcels to 3/4 acre parcels on the remainder
of the property, as specified in the proposal, will have no significant
negative impact on fire fighting resource planning requirementsw
Based upon Mr.. Ross'letter and all of the reasons described in Sese findings,
the Board of Supervisors hereby concludes that establishment and application
o'Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report n
14 Mi 2:24 PM
KASchuster Hor=ft* Chico SubdiNision (6096-0001)%agenda repod (bos).wpd
of the OPZ by ALUC on October 21 and November 18, 1998 along with ALLIC's
corresponding policies and measures are unnecessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare, as well as to protect the continued viability of aircraft
operations to and from the Chico' Municipal Airport. F ' urthermore, the. Board
concludes that because the Stephens' application already includes the.
application of.the several significant land use measures described herein which
minimize the public's exposure to excessive. safety (and noise) hazards in'
compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and 216.76.
B. Noise.
'The Chico Municipal Airport FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program
and Env ' irons Plan (FAR Part 150) states on pages 1-5 and 1-8 that the General
Plans of Chico ' and Butte County set forth maximum exterior noise 'levels for
residential and other noise -sensitive uses to be a Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEULdn) of 65 decibels (dB). The intent of these standards is to
establish guidelines and methods for determining the acceptability of specific
land uses with ' respect to various noise levels since these levels usually allow
normal outdoor and indoor activities, such as communication and sleep, to occur
without interruption. CNEL 65 dB is the criterion noise level above which
residential and 'other noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., schools, churches,
hospitals and libraries) should not be allowed unless noise attenuating
construction is utilized. Table 111-1, "Recommended Land Use Compatibility
Designations Chico Municipal Airport" from FAR Part 150, states that residential
land uses are compatible in areas .,exposed -.to a.'CNEL of..up..,to* 70 dB, but
recommends that measures to achieve outdoor -to -indoor noise*reduction levels
(NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB shodId.b*e`incorporated into -building codes
and be considered in individual approvals.
According to the FAR Part 150 study, the maximum amount of noise to which
any portion of the.Stephens' project site is exposed, even projected for the year
2010, is a'CNEL of 60 dB. Approximately 25% of the site lies between the 60
d13 and 55 dB contours. The remaining approximately 75% of the site lies
outside of the 55 dB contours as -demonstrated in Exhibit 1-3, "Noise Exposure
Map: 2010 Forecast.Conditions," and Exhibit 111-1, "Airport Noise Compatibility
Plan."
2. As explained previously, in Exhibit B (Drawing CIC -1 5) to the October 21, 1998
action, ALUC sought to amend the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
(CMAEP) by combining the "CNEL Noise Contours" (Drawing CIC -3) in the 1978
CMAEP with'the CalTrans Safety Zones described above. The noise contours
from CIC -3, which were prepared*in 1978, have been shown by much more
recent analysis to be an overly optimistic view of future air traffic potential for the
Chico Municipal Airport. In an "Aviation Activity Forecast" prepared by P & D
Aviation (P & D).as part of the Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report in 1992, it
'was revealed that the Federal Aviation Admini s*tration's National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) growth forecast was in excess of 5% per
year for Chico airport expansion*. This underlying assumption ?or the noise
contours in CIC -3 of the 1978 CMAEP is now "believed to be an
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
K:SchustefXornesWo*ChiCo Subdivision (6096-Ml)lageidarepon(bos).'mpd 15 YH1.2:24 PM
overly -optimistic view of future air traffic potential." (P & D, p. I 11-10.) The result
being that,-"[t]he 1978 Environs Plan [CMAEP] forecasts have proven to be
highly optimistic." (ibid.) Bated upon more current and more precise data, P &.
D also considered an "Enhanced Growth Forecast" for the Chico Municipal
Airport to seek to determine a more accurate u . pper range for aircraft activity
that more realistically might result from increased aircraft activity at the Chico
Municipal Airport. The Enhanced Growth Forecast assumed .'the
commencernent of a Flight Training Center at the Chico Municipal Airport by.the
year 1995. Flight training operations,were assumed to increase at an average
annual rate of 3% per year through the year 2010 forecast p , eriod. . (P. & D"
Exhibit 111-1 on p. 9 and pp. 111-12 to 111-14.) At the end of 1998, a flight training
facility has not yet been established. "The Enhanced Growth Forecast provides
for the introduction'of approximately 5,000 annual operations of turboprop
aircraft operations (e.g.,'Beech King Air) by the year 2000.... The Enhanced
Growth Forecast also includes allowances for yet additional.flight operations of
multi -engine aircraft for several classes of general aviation users.... Allows for,
greater.use by heavy turboprop.... For example, expanded aerial firebomber.
operations or additional corporate aviation.... The potential for greater levels
of corporate turbojet activity is also provided for in the "Enhanced Growth
Forecast." (ibid.) The Enhanced Growth scenario resulted in a total of
approximately 173,000 total annual aircraft operations in the year 2010 for the
Chico Municipal Airport. (P & D, Exhibit 111-2on page 111-16.) The1978CMAEP
assumed a total of 250,000 annual aircraft operations in the year 2010. (Ibid.)
(This is 77,000 fewer operations or 31% less than the assumptions which
created the noise contours in Drawinq CIC -3 of -the CMAEP that were relied
upon in Drawing CIC -15 by ALUC on'Octobe-r 21', 1998.) P&D also analyzed.
in the same study an '.'Indigenous Demand Forecast" projecting,growth based
upon actual annual aircraft operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. The
Indigenous Demand Forecast projected a total of approximately 130,000 annual
aircraft operations in the year 2010. (Ibid.) (This is 120,000 fewer operations
or 52% less than the assumptions which created the noise contours in Drawing
CIC -3 which were relied upon in'Drawing CIC -15 by ALLIC on October 21,
1998.)
Based upon this expert analysis, P & D concludes that, "[i]t is very important to
note that available annual airport capacity greatly exceeds the 20 -year forecast
for aircraft operation's under both the 1ndigenous and enhanced growth
scenarios." (P&D, p. 111-15.) This means that under either current total aircraft
operations, or a more realistic forecast of future growth, total aircraft operations
at the Chico Municipal Airport fall far short of the much higher total aircraft
operations assumption reflected in the noise contours in Drawing CIC -3 of the
1978 CMAEP which comprise the noise contours now relied upon by ALUC.in
Exhibit B (Drawing CIC -14) to the October 21, 1998 ALUC action.
It is unclearwhy ALLIC only chose to incorporate portions of the 1995 FAR Part
150 study in its 1998 Safety and Overflight analysis and not to incorporate the
updated Noise analysis from the same 1905 study found on Exhibit 1-3, "Noise
Exposure Map: 2010 Forecast Conditions" and Exhibit 111-1, "Airport Noise
Compatibility Plan." A portion of Exhibit 111-1 was incorporated into ALLIC Exhibit
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report s
K:Zchustar HcMeSUM Chico Sub6wsion (6096-0001)kagenda report (bos):*pd' 16 ISO 1 2:24 PM
A (Drawing CIC -1 4) and ALUC Exhibit B (Drawing CIC -1 5) in the October 21
ALUC action to establish the Overflight Protection Zone but the noise contours
in*Exhibit 111-1, which are based upon the better data described above which are
17 years more current, were ignored by ALUC with no explanation.
This aberration is significant and would appear quite. arbitrary since ALUC has
stated in writing repeatedly that its position is that the entire .1978 CMAEP. is
"terribly outdated." The Board of Supervisors chooses instead to rely upon the
much more recent and reliable data found in the 1995 FAR Part 150 program
to determine airport noise compatibility, in addition to the 1992 Aviation Activity
Forecast for the Chico Municipal Airport by P & D. Both of these more recent
studies conclude that, even with future growth scenarios forthe Chico Municipal ,
Airport, the Stephens'project is, and will likely remain for some time, compatible
with, Chico Municipal Airport operations.
.3. In ALUC's November 18, 1998 transmittal, ALUC states outside of its "findings"
in "Section 3: Other Commission Comments" that the project site is likely to be
exposed to single -event noise levels and other episodes which exceed "normally
acceptable" noise levels for'residential development. Potential single -event
noise level generators are listed as unquantified "intensive" CDF air tanker
operations during campaign fires and occasional military activities, Aero Union
and other businesses under *contract with CDF and the U. S. Department of
Forestry which periodically run up their.aircraft engines at night for the purposes
of aircraft engine* maintenance and operational testing. No known or estimated
decibel levels were specified by ALUCand no noisestudies are:cited to support
this contention. To the contra r)r*, the -,� Board, of,"Sup�ervisors, cites the 1993
CalTrans Handbook at Page 6-27 in its'discussion entitled, "Sleep Disturbance,"
which states that:
A British study (UK Department of Transport --.1992) found that an
average person has only a 1 in 75 chance of being awakened by an
aircra ' ft noise in the outdoor range of'90 dB to 100 dB SEL. Allowing
.for the noise level reduction of the structure, this indicates that
indoor single -event sound levels of 70 dB to 80 dB will cause less
than a 2% chance of sleep disturbance.
Based upon thi's recent British study'and other supporting analysis in Chapter
6 of the CalTrans Handbook, the Board of Supervisors finds that the likelihood
of single -event noise, even at extreme 90 dB to 100 dB SEL outdoor ranges to,
which people might be exposed during summer months with open windows at
nighttime, present no more than minimal public -exposure to noise.
1
4. Based upon the testimony of Robert Koch, an ALUC member representing the
City of Chico. and present in ALUC's- public hearings on October 21 and
November 18, 1 998, the City of Chico has experienced minimal if any
complaints by the'public regarding single -event or any other noise levels
generated by the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Koch stated on thepublic record
that the City of Chico keeps detailed logs of citi.zen complaints and the logs
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report a
KASchuster Hornes\Norb) Chico Subdi-ision (60964001)1agenda repon fts).wpd 17 IS101 2.24 PM
A
r
reflect few if any complaints regarding noise of any type generated by the Chico
Municipal Airport.
In the ALLIC public hearing on November 18, Commission* Member Norman
Rosene also stated on the record that it was his belief that no noise study data
existed for single -event noise to support ALUC's conclusion that single -e vent
noise expos ' ed the public to a hazard of excessive noise. ALUC staff member,
Laura Webster, stated, too, that she was unaware of whether CalTrans or any
other expert in the field had established specific standards for determining when
single -event noise exposure to the public was excessive.
5. ALUC relies upon Exhibit 44, "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments" found on page 4-33 of the'1978 CMAEP for the premise that
noise levels for residential land uses are "normally acceptable" up to CNEL.60
dB. However, Exhibit 4-4 also states that exposure of residential land uses to
CNEL up to 70 dB is'also acceptable' if new construction or development is'
conditioned to require noise reduction and noise insulation features in housing
design. Exhibit 4-4 also states that, "[c]onventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice"
by itself to keep noise levels in the acceptable range -- even without noise
reduction and noise insulation features included in design and construction.
Because the Stephens' Development Agreement already requires that
"[r]esidential dwelling_units shall be designed and constructed to achieve an
interior noise level of no.more.than 45 dB,�'the Board of,Supervisors concludes
that community noise'environments.for.resid6ntial,dwellidgs on the Stephens'
project, including single-�event noise levels, will remain within acceptable levels
under not only the 1978 CMAEP, but also according to the specifications in the
FAR Part 150 program and the CalTrans Handbook.
C. Airspace Protection.
The November 18 ALUC "Project Consistency Findings" state that Chapter 3 of
the CalTrah s Handbook identifies fourfunctional categories that address airport
land use compatibility concerns. These include: Noise, Safety, Airspace
Protection and Overflight ' Protection. While ALUC only found the applicant's
proposal to be inconsistent with the 1998 amendments to the 1�978 CMAEP
based uponimeasures and policies designed to address Overflight Protection
and Safety, the Board of Supervisors also hereby finds that the Stephens'
project is compatible with Chico Municipal Airport operations because it does
not cause a significant risk to the Airspace Protection. In determining a project's
compatibility with Airspace Protection, the.CalTrans Handbook states on pages
3-7 and 3-8 that the particular hazards of concern are "airspace obstructions"
and land -use characteristics which pose "other potential hazards to flight. by
attracting birds or creating visual or electronic interference with air navigation."
"Compatibility Strategies" recommended by CalTrans for protection of airport
airspace are, (1) to avoid airspace obstructions by limiting the heigqt of buildings
and antennas'and other types of structures and trees so as not to pose a
potential hazard to flight and (2) land uses which may create the types of
a Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report w
K:'Schuster Homes%NcM Ctico Subdmsion (6096-0001)%agenda repw (bos).wpd . 18. MI 124 PM
0
A
E.
Ibed above should be avoided near. an airport or modified so as
hazards descr
not to include the- offending characteristic (i.e., attractions to birds, creation of
visual or electronic inte'rference with air navigation).
The Stephens' project proposes single-family residential dwellings and related.,.
land uses which, by their nature, and by existing.design standards,. are generally
limited to heights below 35 feet and. are otherwise designed so. as not to pose
a potential airspace obstruction. Furthermore, no evidence has been presented
by ALUC or'otherwise on the record to demonstrate that land uses associated...,.'
with the project create potential hazards to flight by attracting birds *or creating
visual or electronic interference with'air navigation. These'types of hazards are
not hazards which would normally be expected as a component of a standard
single-family residential development of this type on the Stephens' property.
Conclusion to airport consistency find
Based upon all of the substantial factual evidence . submitted into the record during the
course of the several public hearings upon the Stephens' application before ALUC,
the Butte County Planning Commission, and the -Butte County Board of Supervisors
in 1997 and 1998 as described in these findings and the exhibits and attachments and
other data referenced herein, including the Applicant's Exhibits in the Administrative
Record dated June 23,''1968, all of which are incorporated herein into the
administrative record by reference, the Board of Supervisors hereby concludes in.
fulfillment of the requirements of Public.Utilities Cod'e-Sections 21670 and 21676 that
approval of the St ' ephens' project provides for the,orderly development.of the Chico
.Municipal Airport and the area surrouhding!the airport so as to promote the overall
goals and objectives of the California Airport Noise Standards -adopted pursuant to
Section,21669 of the Public Utilities Code, and, as designed and conditioned, the
Stephens' project prevents the ' creation of new noise and safety problems.
Furthermore, as designed and conditioned, approval of the Ste ph ens' project protects
.the public health, safety and welfare -by ensuring the orderly expansion of the Chico
Municipal Airport by'and through the adoption -of the numerous land use measures
described herein. and in the exhibits attached hereto which rhinimize the- public's
exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within a.reas around the Chico
Municipal Airport, and which also.adequately provides for overflight and airspace
protection.'
Documents to be made part of the Administrative Record
Data supporting the Board of Supervisors findings have been accumulated. from
studies and reports prepared by recognized professionals and agencies With expertise
in airport land use planning and airport land use compatibility. These do.cuments that
are available to the public and include:
1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs..Plan - R. Dixon Speak Associates
1995 FAR Part 150 Airport ' Noise Compatibility Program and Environi Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport - PI & D Aviation
m Butte County Department of Development Servic.es. Agenda Report a
K.Wusmr HanesNort Chico SuVjymion (60%-M)'agenda reporl. (bos).wpd 19
31012:24 PM
0
Aviation Activity Forecasts for the Chico Municipal Airport, May 1, 19R2 - McClintock,
-Becker & Associates
Aircraft Noise Exposure Mao Report including Aviation Activity Forecasts for the
Chico Municipal Airport � December 7, 1992 - McClintock, Becker. & Associates
1993 Airport Land'Use Planning Handbook -'Cal Trans Division 'of Aeronautics
Notice of adopted -amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan,
'October 22, 1998 - Butte'County Airport Land Use Commission
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission riecommendations and findings regarding
Development Agreement DEV99-01 (Stephens) on APN 047-250-141 - Butte County
Airport Land Use CommissicP
Stephens' application exhibits in the administrative record - Robert & Ann Stephens
Section 4: Development Agreement findings.
A. Find that.the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the Butte County
General Plan, the North Chico *Specific Plan, and Board of Supervisors Resolution
84-160 because -the Development Agreement simply implements conditions of the
Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning which have been found to be consistent with
the General'Plan and North Chico Specific Plan, as per sections 2 and 3 above.
Section 5: Action.
A. Adopt N ' egative Declarations for amendment to the North Chico.Specific Plan and the
Development Agreement;.and
B. Adopt a Resolution to amend the North Chico Specific Plan to add a PD combining
designation, amend the -uses permitted in the OS designation, and amend,policy 7.1-6
--as well as any -other section -to -make. the, document consistent-with.the proposed
action, as,stated in e��:ib'it "A" of Board Packet for 10/2'V98.`
C. Adopt an Ordinance rezoning �3± acres from SR-1/OS t o SR -1 and applying a PD
.combining zone to approximately 230 acres zoned SR -1 and -OS affected by file SPA
97-01; and
D. Adopt an Ordinance entering into a Development Agreement with Robert and AKn
Stephens, file DEV99-01., as stated in exhibit "C" of Board Packet for 10/27/98.
Attachments:
A: Override Procedures
B; ALUC report and findings 11/20/98,
a- B'utteCounty Department of . Development Services Agenda Report a
K."Schuster Homsftrih Di= Subdvis;an (609&0001)Iageftda rePW (bos).-Pd 20 31&1012:24 PIM
0—ft En vironmsent
'VO'Jh
• Bikeways should be designed in accordance with Caltrans standards.
• Adequate bicycle parking and facilities to encourage cycling (e.g. showers for
employees) should be provided.
Proposed Specific Plan Improvements
The overall circulation concept for the North Chico Specific Plan (NQSP) area.is development --
of a circulation pattern which provides adequate levels of service, a reasonable and conv6ni6n't'-
access pattern, and recognizes and corrects existing and potential access problems..... The
circulation system for the Plan area was developed based on results of the traffica�a�is
prepared for the Specific Plan which evaluated project traffic generation, road and intersection..
operations under existing and buildout conditions. Traffic was distributed on vicinity roads
based on utilization of the Chico Area transportation model developed by the City of Chico. In
developin- the circulation system for the Specific Plan, Level of Service "C" was assumed io
be the minimum acceptable standard. It was also assumed that no new traffic signals would be
installed alon- State Route 99 (per Caltrans policy), that existing lane configurations would be
used as the basis for all scenarios, and that Eaton Road would be extended to State Route 32
and easterly to Manzanita to form a ring road around the urban area.
In order to provide an adequate circulation system through the Plan eenumber of road and
T 1 9-6. All roads wil
intersection improvements will be necessary, as surnmarized in Z16 1 be 2
lanes, except the new arterial roadway, constructed through the Plan to serve as primary
access to the area, which will have 4 lanes between Eaton and Hicks Lane. Eaton Road, a
is 1� U :11 ;A ; t A I At
m or arterial bordeiina Me Man area.un t C; WUL , IL;;4u I'- W %.'11 11r, V CUM.'a, TV
widenin- of the State Route 99 a-�s and modifications of the interchange at this location.
L__
CV e I TO 5�
Existing intersections will require s e modifications, especially along Eaton Road where
signals will be required at the intersections with the State Route 99 interchange, the New
Arterial, and Cohasset Road. Due to the proximity of Hicks Lane to the Eaton/State ' Route 99
intersection, the Plan requires traffic control on Hicks Lane to right -turns in and out, only.
Within the NCSP area, multi -way stop signs will be necessary at the intersections of the new
road with realigned Hicks and Garner.- -A stop sign also will be needed on the New Arterial at
its intersection with State Route 99. The Plan also provides for the safe and efficient
movement of vehic'les, bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. A network of bicycle paths
and pedestrian trails link the North Chico Specific Plan area with surrounding areas within the
Chico community.
LMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of Significance: For the purposes of traffic and circulation impacts, the criteria
for determining significance include creation of or contribution to unacceptable leveli of
service; inadequate road width; an&or creation of inadequate circulation patterns.
Impact: Implementatio * n of the Specific Plan will result in an increase of
approximately 63,000 daily trips and approximately 7,000 PNI
peak hour trips. With road improvements planned in the Specific
Plan, all roadways and intersections will operate at acceptable
9-9 Traffic and Circakition
Draft Environmenkd I
p7ad Repo
North Chko Specific n
V
-tturn --movemeiRts Jrom -Keefer
levels of service, eNp!pptJor_left.
o --- t'ate""M " �te '99 which is constilere"d ii:,.SignsJzcant,
R6ad--ont S ou
ble* impact. J
unavo
Tables 9-3 and 9-4, re spec'iively identify trip generation rate�'and resulting trip generation for
the project. -As shown, buildout,under the Specific Plan will result in increa�sed daily traffic of
e PM lieak hour.'This'indudes trips
approximately 63,000tri s, with ab.out 6,700 trips in th
- p - . may result from infill arialolf spli S" i,
generated by approximately 200 dwelling units that
.existing developed areas.
4)
TABLE 9-3
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use'
Units
Trip Generation Rates
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM�: Peak Hour.
I n
Out
in�
Out
Single Family
Trip End/DU
9.5 . 5
0.19
0.55
0.65
0.35
Mufti -Family
Trip End/ . DU
6.47
0.09
0.42
0.43
020
Commercial
Trip End/KSF
54.50
0.77
0.45.
2.55
2.55
Industrial
Trip Enld/Acre
51.80
6.23
1.28
0.87
6.39
Off ice
Trip End/KSF
14.03
1 1.69
0.21
0.32
1.58
Elementary School
Trip End/Employee
13.39
1.76
1 1.18
0.1 2
0.16
Source: h Edition, Instime of Transportation Engineers. 1992 i !� 0
TABLE 9-4
S PECIFIC PLAN TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Quantity
Trip Gener ation 0
I
Daily
AM Peak Hour
phi Peak Hour
In
Out
in
Out
Single Family
2,369DU
22,624
450
1,303
1,540
.
829
Multi -Family
724DU
4,684
65
304
11
3.11
145
Total - Residential
3,093DU
27,308
515
1,607,
1,8�1
974
Com,mercial
200,000 SF
10,899
154
90
510
Industrial
267'A
13,851
1,666
342
233
1,709
Off ice
23.0 Acres
3,753
452
56
.�86-
423
-
Elementary School
30 Emp
402
53
35
1 4
5
Total - Other
28,905
1 2,325
523
833
2,647
Grand Total
56,213
2,840
2,130
2,684
L3fl
Trafru- und Cirridatime 9-10
0
0
A 4,
Dft B.,dronmental Impact I Report
North Chico S�e�rw Plan
Increased traffic was distributed along vicinity road systems, utilizing the "Chico A - rea
Transportation Model" developed by the City of Chico. Figure 9 1 illustrates peak houri-r-'ad'-fic
8`0
with the additional Specific Plan project traffic added. The resulting intersection level's'dr
service are shown on Table 9-2, whicsh indicates th *at unacceptable 'lqy�elsoif service *641d
result at the intersections of Keef&/S'ta1eR6ute 99, Eaton/Hicks/State 'Route- 99,-a"nd
Eaton/Cohasset. All other vicinity intersections would operate mostly at "A" leV61s of sei-Vice.2,
Table 9-6 summarizes road improvements that are planned as part of implementation of th�
North Chico Specific Plan. Construction of,these improvements will result in.acceptable levels
of service at all intersections as shown on Table 9-5,*except at the Keefer/State Route 99
intersection. Westbound left turns from Keefer onto 99 will continue to operate at Level
Service "E." The feasibility of potential improvements to this intersection is limited-dy.e.'.0
Caltrans' policy which would discourage si analization at this location. - The only mitigation to
reduce the level of service to a "less -than -significant" level would be the construction of.a"full
interchange. Therefore, traffic at this'intersection will exceed acceptable'servic6-,1eV6,1§,'
resultifig, in a significant, unavoidable impact, although overall traffic volumes will remain
relatively low at this location (262 total peak -hour trips with project compared to 174 existing
trips, with total left -turn movements increasing by 20 peak -hour trips).
The traffic identified for buildout of the NCSP area represents a worst-case condition and doe's
not take into account two key components of the Plan: inclusion of shopping and employmen ' t
centers within the Plan area, and incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian tails to fa�ilf - t - e
alternative modes of transportation within the Plan area. Key components of the Plan aire.
integration of land uses which minimize commute traffic and a system of trails to encourage
pedestrian and bicycle travel. The mixed-use desi an of the Plan, combining residential,
commercial, industrial, and grade school in close proximity, allows for greatly increased
pedestrian and bicycle trips in place of automobile trips. To achieve a reduction in auto trips,
the Plan emphasizes the separation of vehicular traffic from other modes of ' transportation,
making, non -auto trips short and pleasant. These features of the NCSP could reduce project
trips by 5% to 10%.
Project Elements that Mitigate. Impact
• Construction of a new arterial roadway to serve as a primary access route through the
0
Plan area, extendin- from Eaton Road on the south to State Route 99 on the west.
• Improvement of Hicks and Garner Lanes, especially the southern segments.
• Restriction of traffic to and from Hicks Lane below Sycamore Creek.
• Improvement of the intersections at Eaton/Hicks/State Route 99, New Arterial
Road/Eaton, Eaton/Cohasset, SR99/Gamer, and SR99/Keefer Road as summarized in
Table 9-6.
Development of an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian trails to facilitate
non -auto uips throuLyh the Plan area. especially within the Villaze Core.
0 Provision of design/land use features and orientations which minimize commute traffic
and encourage pedestrians and alternative transportation modes through provision of
shopping anjemployment OPPOI-Rinities within the Plan area.
9-11 Traffic and CircuLation
I
Traffic and CircuLation
9-5
JABLE
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVE'.
L`,OF SERVICE ANALYSIS———
:._ -MITIGATED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
Intersection
Movement
Existing
Ex.,11-sting.'.
Cumulative
Cumulative
with Project
'with' Project
V/C'
LOS
-V/C
LOS
V/C
Los
V/C,�
-LOS
-!or
or
or
PC
RC
RIC.
R.0
SR 99/Keefer
WB Left
t 44
E
1
!'E
-34
F1
.'�63`
"F 1
W8. Richt
696
'A
658
"A
628'j
A
'4578' --
SB Left
528
A
464'
422";
t�k
SR 99/Garner—
Al (Signal)
0.41
A
0.65
B
0.58
—'A
0.80
C
SR 99 NB Ramps/
SB Left'
'3'11
B
0.68
B
0.51
A
0.76.
C
Eaton -Hicks
NB Left
223
C
EB Left
824
A
SR 99 S
SR 99 S8 Ramps/
Ramps/
SB Left
�31
C
0.65
B
0.4i
A
0.63
Ai
Eaion
Eaio n
W8 Left
654
A
K er
eefer/Garner'
NB All
931
A
717
A
905
A
717
A
WB Left
976
A
879
A
961
A
879
A
Keefer/Hicks
NB All
974
A
752
A
968
A
.772
A
WB Left
996
-A
993
A
'996
A
995
A
Garner/Esplanade
WB All'
831
A
994
A
767
A
581
A
S8 Left
966
A
672
A
923
A
800
A
Eaton/E�splanade
All (Signal)
Eaton/Cohasset
NB Left
628
A
0.71
C
0.70
13
0.77
B
S8 Left
929
A
S8 All
206
C
WE3 All
�65
Notes: Volume to capacity ratio (signalized intersections)
,L— PC = Reserve Capacity (Unsignalized intersections)
Traffic and CircuLation
72
0
0 .
9-12
72
0
0 .
TABLE 94
SUMMARY OF NORTH CHic6-sPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
Location
Condition
Existing + Project
Cumulative (2007)
Cumulative + Project
SR 99/Keefor
. Add right turn lane on NB SR99
Same
Same
- Add left turn lane on WB Keefer
Keefer/Gamer
- None
None
None
Keeler/Hicks
- None
e None
e None
SR99/Gamer
- None
- None
# None
Esplanade/Gamer
- None
- None
None
Eaton/SR 99
- Install signal
- Install signal
Install signal
(SB ramps)
- Add EB thru lane
e Add WB left tu rn lane
Add EB thru lane
- Add WB left turn lane
Add WB left turn lane
Eaton/SR 99
- Install signal
* Install signal
Same as Existing + Projdct Condition
(NB ramps -Hicks).
- Restrict Hicks to right turn in and out only
* Add WB right turn lane
. Add second fight turn lane on SB Hicks
- Add EB left turn lane
. Add EB and WB thru lane on Eaton
- Add WB right turn lane on Eaton
- Add EB left turn lane on Eaton
Eaton/Cohasset
- Install traffic signal
Same
Install traffic,signal
- Install left turn lane, thru lane and thru-right lane on all
Install left turn lane, ru aniand -thru-fight lane on-,
th V I
approaches
WB. approach and S8 approach
Install left turn lane, two thP4 lane's and. right turn
lane on EB approach
Install two left turn lanes'. o6 i6i lan� and a thru-
-right-lane on NB approach,
Eaton/Now Arterial
- Install traffic signal
None
Same. as Existing +
. Install two left turn lanes, one thru and one right turn
lane on SB approach
0 Installone leftanclone thni-fightturn lane on NB
approach
- Install one left, thru and right turn lanes on WB
approach
- Add two left and one thni-right turn lane on EB
approach
Eaton
- Widen to four lanes - Now Arterial to Esplanade
Widen SR 99
Widen to four lanes from Cohasset to Esplan ade
overcrossing to three
lanes
Now Arterial
* Widen to four lanes
None
Widen to four lanes
p (Eaton to Hicks)
* Nv-)� fF1W RoJ, lkt,"l q,7
Draft EnyironmenW Impad Report
Norfh Chko specific Plan q
b4,
Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan will*result in creation' Of a
new. east/west route With a connection at State Route 99. this
C, will improve east/west circulation through the Plan area,lbut w
ri 7- result in a - new at -grade intersedion along State R66ti 99,
7.
Caltrans policy Due. to ",design. 'eieini'iiis
inconsistent with
contained in the "Specific Plan, this 'intersection will not4&Wt'in
mp*a
significant volumes, resulting in a les's-than -sign ific'ant i ct."
,The section of New Arterial Road between Garner Lane and SR99 will priman*ly serve
residential traffic from within the U* ="ediate area, and traffic to and from north of the'Plin aa
to the industrial land uses near the airport, with a ma*onity of traf�q using Garner Lane. -ti -7,
I V� e, 4V r, -
C_ f V -'I
Project itements that Mitigate, Impact'
Construction of a new arterial roadway to serve as a primary access"route throug h th�o
Plan area, extendincy from Eaton Road on the south to State Route 99 on the west
Improvement of Hicks and Garner'Lanes, especially the southern segments.
Restriction of traffic to and,from Hicks Lane below Sycamort Creek.
Impact: The - proposed project will contribute to cumulative ..traffic
increases in the vicinity, resulting in the need for additional road
improvements 6eyond those planned and" funded by existing' -
programs, which,is considered a significant impact.
The Chico Area Transportation Model forecasts cumulative traffic upon buildout of the Chico
area. The resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figures 9-3 and 9-4. The resulting Levels of
Service shown in Table 9-5 indicat6 that most intersection levels of service that would decline
with the buildout under the NCSF would also decline under cumulative . buildout conditions
without the Spe6ific Plan and under existing General Plan desic'nations for the area. Addition
of Specific Plan traffic to cumulative traffic would further decrease the level of. service at the
State Route 99/Garner Lane intersection, necessitating the addition of a southbound lane on
Garner. Cumulative traffic increases would also further worsen cumulative conditions at the
Eaton/State Route 991Hicks intersection and the Eaton/Cohasset intersection. Add. tional turn
lanes would need to be added under the cumulative condition, as summarized in Table 9-6;
With implementation of these improvements, intersections would operate at acceptable levels of
service, as shown on Table 9-5. The only exception would continue to be left -turn movements
from Keefer Lane onto State Route 99,as discussed above under project impacts.
Project Elemehts That Mitigate Impact
Construct left -turn lane on s'outhbo'und Garner Lane at intersection. with State Route 99.
Construct additional westbo'Und left -turn lane on Eaton at intersection with State Route
99 southbound. ramps.
le 9-6.
Other 'Lmprovements as summarized in Tab
Trafflic and Circulation 9-14
0
Oight at an altitude above acquired easementsurfaces, right to cause noise, vibration, fumes,
dust and fuel particle emissions, right to prevent erect o . n or growth . of --all cis 'a' `V�
obie bo e
unusual
acquir , ed easement surfaces; and the right io prohibit creation of electrical interference'
light source's and other hazards to aircraft flight.
Irrespective of land use compatibility criteria used by the FAA,'Caltrans, land the'Czty`�o ico
for noise impacts, and the attendant absence' of legal responsibility �herefor, resideniiial
occupants may register complaints that, over time and in sufficient quantity, couldpotentiall
lead to resirictions in airport 6per&dtibns 6ftraffic-p"attMV. -in a tile
direct pressure on airport operations, the attractiveness and. C'ompefitiveness'bf the adjacent
industrial lands for the location ofjob-producing indust?ialfacilities that require airport usage
may potentially be decreased. Due to the subjective nature qf these complaints and. the' -
uncertain effect on decision -makers, the long-term effects are difficult toforecast.
Recognizing that many complaints regarding conflicting land uses arise from' ;4e perceived.,...'
failure of, disclosure as to the potentially offen . sive use, the Specific Plan requires se*,v�r�l
measures meant to3ensure proper notice. These measures may be'.inadequate, however, in
.ensuring proper notice to prospective renters of multifamily dwelling 'units within the Village
Core. This could be remedied by requiring disclosure language in -rental -agreements similar to
thatproposedfor homeowners.
Additionally, persons receiving notice may la ter claim: that the nature or*se rt I
verity..of airpb.,
operations materially changed, rendering them impacted beyond the'level anticipated when Mey
Wcided to reside in that location. Language should be included in discl6sure documents which
ates clearly that airport and aircraft operations. in the vicinity may change in nature and
severity in thefuture.
.Project Elements That Mitigdte Impiact.
Establi ' shment of open space, industrial, an d low-density residential uses adjacent to 1he
airport and clear zones.
Development regulations requiring dedication of avigation easements,as paif of new
development adjaeeftt te di� aifpe throughout the plan area
Noise attenuation features incorporated into new construction.'
Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximity of the
airport and related issues.
"Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points into the Plan area.
Nan-dn- of key streets with aviation' -related street names.
0
Changes, Clarifications & Corrections 3-12
Additional Measures Needed to Mitigate Impact
15.1 Establish a 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer between existing residences and
higher -density residential areas to provide a visual barrier between land uses.
15.2 Limit dwellings within the higher-density'residential areas to single story Within 25
feet -of property line where abutting existing lower-d6nsity residential uses.
_,.paet. i
Genelusien; With implementatien ef mitiga -A 5.1 1
redueed te less than sigmfieant sta
Page 15-5 to end of -section is revised to read as follows:
Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in incre""�d.'.
densities and population adjacent to the Chico Municipal Airport.'
With implementation of Specific Plan elements, this will be*.a
I ess-than-si gnifi cant impact.
Airport operations raise issues of safety, noise, and thus land use compatibility issues -for larid
uses adjacent to the facility. Noise issues are discussed in the Noise section of, this EIR.,,_
Althouah none of the Plan area is within airport clear zone, the area is withiq general flight
pattern areas, which raises concerns regarding safety. Currently, land uses in the Plifiliriii
adjacent to the Airport are undeveloped, open space lands, which appear to be mostly subjecte'd
to noise, rather than safety issues. The areas immediately adjacent to the Airport are generally
designated for low-density residential or light industrial uses, which typically would not result
in significant concentrations of people.
The proximity of the airport to the area also raises safety issues associated with siting of a new
elementary school as proposed in the Plan. During the course of preparation of the NCSP, the
Chico Unified School District (CUSD) Site Acquisition Steering Committee evaluated five
potential elementary school sites in the NCSP area.
These sites were evaluated against the District's siting crit ' eria, and reviewed by the -U—.S-.
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics due to their close proximity
to the Chico Municipal Airport. The Aeronautics Division detem-dried that of the five proposed
sites, the sites along Keefer Road and Hicks Lane were unsuitable for school sites because of
safety and noise issues related to frequent overflights at 400 to 800 feet above ground level.
The school site identified in the North Chico Specific Plan was approved by the CUSD, and
the -1�. California Dept. of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
ne proposed land use plan, overlain by generaliZedflight tracks to illustrate the 'relationship of
movements within the traffic pattern parn . cularly to the Village Core, is shown in, Figure 15-1.
As the area develops, and the residential population increases, there may be increased
complaints regarding airport operations or noise. The development regulations set forth in the
Specific Plan require dedication of avigation easements as part of new development.
0-1
Generally, an avigationeasement is intended to protect certain airport rights, such as right -of -
3 -11 Changev, CLarifications & Corrections
EXISTING CONDITIONS
15. LAND USE
Existin2 Land Uses
The North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area is located north of and adjacent'to the bulk o'f'tfi6,,,r
Chico urban area. The Plan area is genierally bounded by Sycamore Creek,on' 'the south, St-
ate
Route 99 on the west, Rock Creek on the north "and. Chico Municipal Airport anddear ion'e-o' n-"
the east. An an -n of the NCSP boundary extends northwesterly: between Keefer Road'a"nid"
Rock Creek. Two smaller portions of the Plan area, consistin of approximate'ly. 1'70 Acres,'air-e
located south of Sycamore,Creek to the north of Eaton Road.
As more fully discussed in section 3 Project Description, the Plan area is partially devel6ped'
with suburban and rural residential, oene'ral commercial and industrial land uses.
Approximately 630 dwelling units and 1,450 residents now reside within the area, with:Ian
additional 70-80 dwelling units immediately adjacent. Lot size is variable, ranging from I to�'5�
acres in the area adjacent to Keefer Road to smaller, more suburban-8ized lots (.5± a6r�s) in*th�'�.'
subdivisions eas ' t of State Route 99. The residential area along Keefer Road appears wl*ell
established, with little potential for change, except for some limited infill. Figure 3-2 provides
a graphic summary of developed and undeveloped lands within the NCSP area.
The undeveloped parcels within the Plan area total. approximately 2,100 acres and are
comprised mostly of fallow land, with roughly 500 acres of almond, walnut and olive
orchards. The orchard uses are generally in th"e westerly portion of the Plan area, where soils
are deeper. The majority of soils in the NCSP are classified as Class VII according to the Soil
Conservation Survey. Under these *classifications, Class I or Class 11 soils are con sidered
prime agricultural coils. There are limited areas of Class I soils adjace.nt-to State Route 99.
Other vacant parcels have been used for seasonal livesiockgrazing, A forTner quarry is located
in the central portion of the area, north of Mud Creek and east of C'
Garner Lane.
Recional land uses are generally far less ext
C� ensively developed, with heavy agricultural uses
westerly of State Route 99 (Skg9*), and open space/seasonal grazing to the'l-north between
SR99 and the foothills. The Chico Municipal Airport and clear zones predominate the easterly
edge of the Plan area, along with a former missile base (now abandoned), and rural residential
uses.
Chico Municipal �iMorT Operations
The Chico Municipal Airport contains two parallel runways that are used by air carriers, air
taxi, and -eneral aviation operations. Runway 13L/I'R 6,722 feet long and is used by air
carriers and other heavy aircraft, as well as a majo ity of the creneral aviation operations.
ri
Runway. I ' )R/3 I L is 3,004 feet lon(Y and is used for liolht aeneral aviation aircraft operations.
I -; I Land Use
Local flight patterns operate both east and west of the airport, but foothills located easterly of
the airport limit pattern operations in that direction.
Approximately 150 permanently -based aircraft were housed at the facility in 1992'. Ile
number of annual airport operations has fluctuated between 58,000 and 9 1,000 over the last 14
years. Operations in 1992 totaled 74,642. It is projected that total operations will incre'w.to
173,000 by the year .20 10 (McClintock, Becker & Associates, December'l 092)
In evaluating potential conflicts arising between the airport and other land
uses, three issues
must be addressed: safety, flight hazards and noise. Airport noise issues are addressed in.
section I I of this draft EIR. Areas near airports are' exposed to various levels 6f accident'
potential depending *on the type of aircraft using the airport, the frequency of aircraft
overflights, and local weather conditions. Historically the risk of being killed or injured on the
ground near an airport is extremely small. Various reasons have been offered for the-low-.-�
incidence of major accidents near airports in relation to the volume of traffic handled. These
include the safety features designed into modem general aviation and commercial aircraft, pilot
actions in accident situations, and preventive land use planning. (Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, 1983).
Enaine failure or malfunction is the most frequent type of general aviation accident. Eng"ine',.'.
failures are most common during climbout when the engine is exerting maximum power. No
all engine failures result in crashes, since the pilot may be able to make a controlled landing at_.:',.
the airport or in a clear area around the airport. Control problems are more difficult in twin
engine aircraft if an engine fails. The principal types of accidents occurring during landin'gs are
short landing, stalling the aircraft (due to lack of air speed), running out of fuel, failure to"clear
obstructions in the approach path, and engine failure (ibid.).
A variety of safety zones are established around airports to minimize impacts of an accident.
Clear zones/safety zones are established in order to provide for land use controls around
airports. The purpose for establishing land use restrictions in safety zones is to minimize the
number of people exposed to aircraft crash hazards. The two principal methods for reducing
the risk of injury and property damage on the ground are to limit the number or concentration
of persons in an area and to limit the area covered by structures occupied by people.
The FAA clear zone and imaginary approach surfaces that extend outward from an airport's
4=
runways along the extended runway centerline have commonly been used to establish airport
Im
safety zones. Clear zones are fan -shaped (trapezoidal) areas nearest to the runway that must be
kept clear of major structures or concentrations of people. These areas lie on the ground
underneath the imaginary runway approach surfaces described below. Safety concerns are
areatest in the clea�zone areas due to the possibility of crashes on takeoff or landing. The
dimensions of runway clear zones vary according to ihe type of aircraft that utilize the airport
and the operating capability of the airport during poor weather (Ibid.).
C C
The Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (1978), evaluates noise exposures and safety
considerations regarding airport operations, and recommends guidelines for development in the
0
airport environs. "Compatible Land Use Zone" (CLUZ) planning areas are established in the
C
Airport Plan and were developed by superimposing the noise contours, au'craft flight corridors,
and land ownership boundaries. The plan recommends where and what type of nolse control
Land Uie I ;.-)
-�x
0 Draft -Environnsemat Impacf
Norfh i6 SpeciJ
measures and land use intensity" m—ay 'be, necessary to achieve consistency with airport
operations. The City currently is in the process of updating the Airport Environs Plan, and has
completed the first phase of the process...
th Airport
The updated noise data set forth in 61992 Noise Compatibilityreport indicates that,
If PI
at the year 20 10 forecast horizon, only minor' portions o the anardaare'- ected.byauport
noise, even at the lower CNEL 55dB level. These areas, off.the northerly clear zonii and. -
within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of the NCSP boundary aoj�cent to.the airport, are: desig'nated,for,,"
industrial, open space and low-density suburban -residential land uses. _The most critical area
an- di�iiidl,;l-acre
directly under the straight-out flight path is currently zoned SR- I (Suburb Resi
minimum f il "d. Ili
parcel size) and much of this area is already developed with single;- �Uh y we ing
units on parcels rangingfrom .1 to 5 acres in size.- SR -3 (Suburban-Residdntial,"3-acre
minimum parcel size) = is proposed in the Specific Plan at this location.- A4ort noisie issues are
discussed in Section 11 Noise.
LMPACT� AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of Significance: Future development would be considered to..-resule. in
significant impacts if land use patterns or character of the surrounding area are substantially
altered, planned land uses result in incompatible uses adjacent, or land use intensities are.
incompatible.with airport operations.
The majority of the Plan area is undeveloped, but the existing residential subdivisionsalong
Keefer Road and east of State Route 99 establish a development pattern for these portions of
the Plan area. The combination of ±1 -acre residential lots and surrounding open space also
creates a rural character for the area. The proposed I- to 3 -acre lots'nor-th of Mud Creek are
consistent with lot patterns established in this area. The planned Mud Creek greenbelt also will
serve to buffer existing and planned lower density residential land uses north of the creek from
planned highu density uses in the Village Core, south of the Creek. However, an area -of
medium density residential (6-8 units/acre) is planned north and west of the existing 1 -acre' lot
subdivision off of Caballo Way. This does not allow for adequate buffer between existing
suburban I -acre densities and the higher urban densities of the Village Core.
Impact: Conversion of approximately 1,630 acres of existing open space
to urban/suburban uses. This is considered -a significant,
unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Specific Plan will cause the developrhent of a majority of the existin-
a
open space/vacant lands within the plan area to urban and suburban uses. This is significant
because the acreaoe involved is substantial and the conversion is irreversible.
C
Project Elements that Mitigate- Impact
The desi-nation of approximately 500 acres to open space uses.
Additional Measures Needed to Mitigate Impact
No miti2ation is available.
15-3 Land Use
aft EnyironmenW Impad Report
rth Chko Spectyk Pl�n
0
Impact: Future development north of Caballo Wa'Y� "mai-Y' �'be incompa'diiie"
with the larger lots that exist. along Caballo- Way, west
lof,Hicks,�
!side' -'d*"-
Lane." This* is '6n re aP.
s;gn __.n..Impact.�.-,
Project Elements that Mitigate Impact
Planned I- and 3 -acre residential l6f siz"es* norihof Mud Cie'ek area compatible With
existing character of the area.
Planned kreenbelt corridor's along drainages' provide natural buffers b d''
et*een uses
separate the Village Core'south of Mud Creek from lower density uses north 'f Mud
Creek. -0
Additional Measures Needed to Mitigate Impact -
15.1 Establish a landscaped buffer between existing residences and the' hio, er-de 's
residential areas to provide a visual barrier between land uses. tDh n' .4ty'
15.2 Limit dwellings within the higher -density residential areas to single story within* 50'*
feet of property line where abutting existing lower -density residential uses.
Conclusion: With implementation I of mitigation measures 15.1 and 15.2, this impact is
reduced to less-than-sigi�ificant. status.
Impact: Future high density development near Eaton Road west of the new
arterial may be incompatible with the existing large -lot
neighborhood along Bridal Drive. This is considered a
potentially -significant impact.
Project Elements that Mitigate Impact
* None.
Additional Measures Needed to Mitigate Impact
Implementation of mitio, i
,ation measures 15.1 and 15.2.
Conclusion: INith implementation of mitigation measures 15.1 and 15.2, this impact is
reduced to less- than -signift cant status.
Land Uje 15-4
0
t
Ovrot Environffwnlallmp"t Report
North Chico S�eiirwklan
Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan will result ..in-- increased
densities and population adjacent to -the Chico -MuhicipAl AirporL
With implementation of Specific Plan elements, this:will 'be a'
less-thani-significant impact.''
Airport operations raise issues of safety, noise, and thus land use compatibility'issues for land
. y
uses adjacent to the facility. Noise issues are discussed in the Noise section of this EIR.
Although none of the Plan area is within airport clear zone-, the area is within general- flight
P ' d ses in the Plan�;area
pattern areas, which raises concerris regardine safety. ' Currently, Ian u
adjacent to the Airport are undeveloped, open space'lands, which appear to be mostly subjected
'he Airport are generally -
to noise, rather than safety issues. The areas immediately adjacent to t
designated for low density residential or light industrial uses, which typically would not result
in sianificant concentrations of people.
The proximity of the airport to the area also raises safety issues associated wi ' th siting o f anew
elementary school as proposed in the plan. During the course of preparation of the NCSP, the
c'
Chico Unified School District (CUSD) Site Acquisition Steering Committee evaluated five
potential elerfientary school sites in the NCSP area.
These sites were evaluated against the District's siting criteria, and reviewed by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics due to their close proximity to the Chico
Municipal Airport. The Aeronautic.s Division determined that of the five proposed sites, the
sites alon,, Keefer Road and Hicks Lane were unsuitable for school sites because of safety and
noise issues related to frequent overflights at 400 to 800 feet above ground level. The school
site identified in the North Chico Specific Plan was approved by the CUSD, and the U.S.
Dept. of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
As the area develops, and the residential population increases, there may be increased
complaints regarding airport operations or noise. The development regulations set forth in the
Specific Plan require dedication of avigation easements as part of new development.
Generally, an avigation easement is intended to protect certain airport rights, such -as right-of-
fli-ht at an altitude above acquired easement surfaces, right to cause noise, vibration, fumes,
ve
dust and fuel particle emissions, right to prevent erection or growth of all objects abo
acquired easement surfaces; and the right to prohibit creation of electrical interference, unusual
C
light sources and other hazards to aircraft flight.
Recognizing that many complaints regarding conflicting land uses arise from the perceived
failure of disclosure as to the potentially offensive use, the Specific Plan requires several
measures meant to ensure proper notice.
Project Elements That Mitigate Impact
Establishment of open space, industrial, and low density residential uses adjacent to the
airport and clear zones.
Development regulations requiring dedication of avigation easements as part of new
4:1
dt-velopment adjacent to the a�rport.
Noise atteruaLion features incorporated into new construction.
1;_; Lnnd Use
Draft Environowntallh%va-Wrf
North Chico specific Plan
Enhanced disclosure measures to alert prospective residents as to the proximityof the
airport and related issues.
"Overflight Zone" road signage installed at key access points'intothe'Plain area.
Naming of key streets with aviation -related street names'.
Impact: Implementation of the Spiec"ific Plan will result in.conversion' of
approximately 436 acres -of agricultural Jands. '-:' Beciuse -the
majority of the soils. are not considered prime agricuitur"af:soils,
this is considered a less -than -sign ifican t impact.
There are approximately 368 acres between State Route 99 and Garner Lane that are in
agricultural production (orchards) and zoned for A-10 (Agriculture, 10 acre minimum parcel
size). An additional 68 acres easterly of Garner Lane, now in agricultural'use, is currently
zone SR- I (Suburban -Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) and are proposed to remain in
that designated land use. The County's existino, greenline policy establishes State Route 99 as
the boundary between urban/ suburban to theeast and agricultural uses t6the , west.' Therefore,
the agricultural portions of the Plan area are not located within an area identified for permanent
agricultural use.
If any agricultural uses are retained, land use conflicts between agricultural and residential uses'
cyricultural operations often result in noise, dust and odors which can be
could occur. A,=
annoying to adjacent residents. Another problem is the potential "drift" from pesticide
applications. As development occurs near agricultural areas, farmers also are,confronted with
issues of theft, vandalism, pest control and other effects resulting from urbanization. Existino,
Zn
aaricultural'uses in the -Plan area are lar ely contained in the area immedia
9 tely east of State
Route 99, and west of Garner Lane. Keefer Slough provides some buffer between agricultural
lands and residential uses to the north.
Mitigation
None. required.
EVALUATION OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH AREA PLANS
Butte Co ntv General Plan
Tile P1,111 Is located entirely within the unincorporated area of Butte County. The County
is in tile pro%:ess of revising its General Plan, which may result in refinement t'o existine land
use designations and policies. A General Plan Background Repo rt andan Issues and Options
Report WUC SLIN11MCd to the Board of Supervisors in March, 19933. The latter s'zenerally
identified tile north Chico area as an "expanded development. opportunity" (Pp. 4) At this
tinic, potcimal 1,111d use and policy changes that may result from the Genefal Plan Update
Pi-OCCSS 11V Unknown. Therefore. this document presents and eV�IlLlatc., existin,-, designations
.!nd pohcic�,.
/a/1.11 *,,. 1 ;.6
;A
*Drdft �nviro'n�7'nwnlal
North Chico I se
Land Use Designations. The existing Butte County General Plan desigq4fes th'bar'e'a-
primarily for "Agricultural Resideniial' u9ds, with some areas designed for indugfifal �(ddjfacent'.'
to the Airport) and some areas designated for urban residential (generally south of S
ycamore.,
Creek).' The permitted General.Plan densities*'rang*e'fro'm I'to 40
'i'e' 'vdilabilit It
depending on various resource constraints --an Sery c a' Y, a houg
predominant zone district (SR- 1) allows one'-a6re minirfitim parcel sizes'.,." Tlie"Planare'a" 'so'u"th"."
of Sycamore Creek is des'ionate d "Low Density' IZ'eisidefitia . 1, and
sity,,..
Residential." These are urban -level designations which allow densities of I to 66'uhits/acre arid'�..
7 to 13 units/acre, respectively.
A 320± -acre. area adjacent to the Airport is des'ionated "Industrial". --A smaller, 60+�acrie"'laie'a
a
east of State Route 99 and northwest of Garner Lane also is designated Inid'ustrial.-.The"
"Industrial" designation allows processing, manufacturing, packaging'', storaoe a6ddiitiibu_'tio'Jh'
of &Oods and "commod i ties, as well as light commercial uses, and dwellings.
4_1 0
The Plan area also contains a small area of "Public" designation along State Route 99 at Garner
Road. This I desi-nation allows for a wide range of public and q'uasi-public* facilities', such as'
schools, recreation facilities, fire stations, and hospitals.
The proposed NCSP generally is consistent with existing Butte County 'General Plan'
desiomations, except for the Village Core. In this area a combination of commercial, . office aid
urban -density residential uses are.proposed. A review of project consistency with existing
County policies is provided in Appendix A of the Specific Plan. The analysis does not reveal
any inconsistencies.
The existing Butte County General Plan Land Use Map also designates a "Greenline" on the
Land Use Map to define the limits of urban/suburban development, and separate these uses
from agricultural uses. This line generally borders State Route 99 in the project vicinity.
According to County policy, the "agricultural side" of the greenline includes lands to the west
of the line, which generally includes the area west of State Route 99. Lands to the edst of the
greenline. including the Plan area, are considered the "urban side" of the greenline. All uses on
the agricultural side of the gre-enline are intended to remain a--ncultural.
Citv of Chico Plans
As pre,;1ously indicated. the NCSP area is.located on the northern boundary of the Chico
Urban Area as s:,.,-nerally defined by the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). Approximately 408
acres in the south and southwestem portion of the Plan area are- located within the SOI, adopted
by the B.utte County Local Agency Formation Commission in 198-5. The SOI denotes the
ultimate urban limit for the Citv. and SLI�Z�IeSt.S that areas included within are suitable for urban -
le% -el de%-t-lopment. The relationship of Chico's SOI to the Plan area is- shown in Figure 3-3).
The curr,-nt City of Chico General Plan difsiLmates the southei-ri portion of'the Plan w -ea that is
Within th-, SOI a -z Low Density Residential H -6 unitsilacre) wi-h Thorou-:,hfare Commercial and
InUILMI-iai near Smte ROLIte 99/Eaton Road interchange. Tl-,,- Chico Gfr.,-ral Plan designates
m t k) I,'!;, -, . C�
41 reir,2'nder ofthe Plan area
4 .7 Idind Uve
Enviro nwnw Repoli*
&C
Chico 30 -if
As with the Butte County General Plan, the City of Chico General Plan is currently undergoing
a comprehensive'update.
A 230 -acre area southwest of theAirport is designated Industrial. This'industirial area is 'within
the study area, but outside the City's adopted Sphere of Influence. ..A ',creek.si.de green
also is designated along Sycamore Creek. As noted in*the Chico General Plan, -Sy'c"a-m—p—re
Creekis dry most of the year, except during Winter, and ai greenway in'this"location may -be
primarily of value for a bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails system.
The City also has established by resolution, a "Green Line" around city limits which defines
the outer edae of all urban development. It is the City's intent to maintain anagricultural
designation beyond the Green Line, and likewise -encourages the County to establish
agricultural zones for lands beyond the Green Line.
Park and Recreation Plans
The Chico Area Park and Recreation District, which boundaries include the Plan area, adopted
a Comprehensive Park and Recredtion Plan in 1988. A 10 -acre neighborhood park site is
identified in the central portion of the Plan area on the north side'of Mud Creek, with a
greenway extending from the site south to connect to Sycamore Creek. The proposed NCSP
park, open space and path/trail system implements these elements.
The Plan also identifies a 25 -acre community park site in the Plan area, south of Sycamore
Creek and east of Hicks Lane. Since the Park and Recreation Plan was adopted, the preferred
community park site has been shifted away from that shown, due to concern over potential
conflicts %vith lichtinc, of softball/soccer fields and lialitino, of the airport. (David Wells,
personal communication, October 1992).
hind L'Ye 15-14
0
AGENDA. ITEM - E.1.
4 W
0, . . .11,
TO: - Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: ALUC Staff
DATE: September 13, 2000 -
ITEM: ALUC File No. AOO-07 Consistency Findin2 for Steve Schuster - General Plan
Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013,
014, and 015: Consistency review of a request to amend the North Chico Specific
Plan to relocate a 5 -acre neighborhood park and concurrent review of a revised
tentative subdivision map application to create 30 parcels on approx ' imately 44 acres.
The parcels range in size from 1.0 to 1.3 acres. The�property is located on the east
side of Garner Lane, immediately north of Keefer Slough, northwest of the Chico
Municipal Airport.
FOR: Airport Land UseCommission Meeting of September 20, 2000
SUMMARY: Staff recommends ALVCfind the project inconsistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal
Airport CL UP as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999. 1
BACKGROUND: The project site is located northwest of the airport on the east side of Garner
Lane, immediately north of Keefer Slough. The property is in the County's jurisdiction and is within
the North Chico Specific Plan. The applicant previously submitted a Tentative Subdivision Map for
this site proposing 34 lots. On May 18, 2000, ALUC found that project inconsistent with the 1978
Chico Municipal Airport CLUP as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999.
ANALYSIS: The northwest comer of the project site is designated on the North Chico Specific Plan
as the location for a 5 -acre neighborhood park. The proposed park location contains the best soils
on the property for sewage disposal. As a result, the applicant is proposing to relocate the park site
to the southerly portion of the site, adjacent to Keefer Slough. This requires an amendment of the
NCSP to change the General Plan for the old park site from Public to Agricultural Residential and
from Agricultural Residential and Open Space to Public for the new park site. Corresponding
rezoning to PQ and SR- I will also be implemented. The NCSP currently requires a I 00 -foot riparian
buffer and a I 0 -foot bike path easement along the north side of Keefer Slough. The change* will
replace the open space land with a neighborhood park for this stretch of Keefer'Slough.
Along with the proposed general plan and zoning changes, the applicant has submitted a revised
Tentative Subdivision Map to create 30 parcels ranging in size from 1.0 to 1.3 acres. The proposed
design utilizes a single loaded street adjacent to the park land, consistent with the design standards
in the-NCSP. The resulting average density is one dwelling unit per 1.5 acres.
* Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission #
ml
oi
0
I
0 0
According to the 1999 Chico Airport Land Use Plan amendment, Safety Zone Map "6- 1," the project
site is partially located in, Overflight Protection Zone A/Overflight Protection Zone B and totally
situated within Safety Zone 6 -Traffic Pattern Zone (refer to Exhibit Q. Overflight, Zone A prohibits
new residential uses. Overflight Protection Zone B prohibits new single family residential uses but
allows multi -family residential development. Safety Zone 6 allows residential development at a
density not to exceed one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
As proposed, Lot 1.8 and half of lot 1.7 in Overflight Protection Zone A and cannot be developed
with any type of r esidential uses. The majority of lots 19, 20, 29, and 30, as well as half of lot I are
in Overflight Protection Zone B, where the development of new single family dwellings is prohibited.
The remainder of the property, approximately 28 acres, may be developed with a 2.5 acre minimum
parcel size. The current project proposes an average density of one dwelling unit per 1.5 acres.
Taking into account all of the CLUP provisions, the development potential for the site is
approximately I I parcels of 2.5 acres or larger. All lots must be located in Traffic Pattern Zone 6.
Development in this zone is subject to other criteria that are not applicable to the proposed project
for single family residential uses.
The proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning are more compatible with airport operations
than the existing plan layout. By moving the park area adjacent to Keefer Slough, more non-
residential acreage is placed in the more restrictiVe Overflight Prbtedction Zones A and B. However,
the SR- I zoning must stillbe found inconsistent with the density recommended by the ALUC.
The proposed changes do have one positive feature, potential useable open space for emergency
landings. " The combined park, roadway, and drainage detention basin provide an area approximately
250 feet wide -and 1,400 feet long. With consideration given to where trees are planted, this could
be one of the "bail out" sites the Commission desires. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
deed this land to the County or Chico Area Recreation District if the project were approved for the
number of lots proposed.
Flight Tracks:
The subject property is located directly under the generalized flight track for light aircraft. According
to available maps, it, is also under the location where planes are turning to make a landing. As
discussed at the July 19, 2000, ALUC meeting, this is a point where pilots are having to make
adjustments to their aircraft to prepare for landing. The general consensus of the Commission was
that densities should be limited in these areas. I I
Consistency with the draft 2000 CLUP:
Since the Commission appears to have reached some consensus on the Draft 2000 CLUP, staff has
included an analysis for a consistency finding relative to the prov isions of this Draft. At this time, only
a preliminary review is possible, along with the understanding that the proposed planisin a state of
flux and may still change. At the July 19, 2000, ALUC meeting, it was the consensus of the
Conunission to designate this area as a compatibility zone C 1. The C I compatibility zone limits the
N
*Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
2
0 , 0
residential density, to not more than one dwelling unit per five acres. Based upon the recommendation,
this project would not be compatible with the proposed 2000 CLUP criteria.
Airspace Protection and Safet
The topography of the site is ' generally level. The site elevation is approximately 200 feet above sea
level. The project site is located under the horizontal surface which has an elevation of 388 feet
above sea level. With approximately 188 feet between the ground and horizontal surface, and a 35 -
foot maximum building height imposed by the zoning, no conflicts are expected. The execution of an
avigation easement is recommended to protect future airport operations.
The 1978 CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, contains
diagrams which depict the locations of potential aircraft -related accidents for the facility based on
general accident scatter information presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(refer to Exhibit D - CIC -17). The highest concentration of both departure- and arrival -related
aircraft accidents takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and Approach Surface. Due to the
project site's location ' in an overflight zone, approximately 6,000 feet away from the northerly end
of runway 13L, the risk of aircraft -related accidents is not considered significant for the residential
density recommended in the CLUP.
Environmental Documentatio
No environmental documentation has yet been prepared for this project.
RECOMAHNDATION: Staff recommends that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
find that ALUC File No. AOO-07, General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map (APN 047-350-013, 014, and 015) is inconsistent with the 1978 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and
December 29, 1999. If a residential subdivision is to go forward on this property, it is recommended
that the project be re -designed in accordance with the conditions listed in Exhibit "A".
Exhibits: A: Findings
B : List of References
C: Tentative Subdivision Map with airport safety zone boundaries
D: Project Location illustrated on Chico Municipal Airport -Airport Environs Plan
Map and 1999 CLUP Density Criteria
K:\ALUC\MEETINGS\2000\09-20-OO.MTG\El.RPT
Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
3
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY A]IRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY INDINGS FOR:
ALUC File No. AOO-07 for Steve Schuster'- Amendment to the North Chico Specific Plari
and Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 014, and 015
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based on data contained
within the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended
on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and
the Butte County Airport Facilities Manual. These data are based on the findings of a number of
studies, documents, and reports generate& by individuals, firms, and agencies recognized as having
expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility (refer to Exhibit B, List
of References).
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration
of the Lead Agency (County of Butte) when *making a decision on the project.
SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review.
SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. The proposed project is inconsistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21,
1998, and December 29, 1999, as follows:
I A portion of the proposed project is located in Overflight Protection
Zone A. This, area is subject to frequent low altitude overflight
activity. No new residential uses are permitted within this zone. The
proposed project shows one parcel and the majority of two other
parcels, planned for single-family residential use, in this zone.
2. A portion of the proposed project is located in Overflight Protection
Zone B. This area is subject to less intensive overflight activity. No
new single-family development is allowed, but multi -family uses may
be permitted in this zone. The proposed project shows three par cels'
and the majority of four other parcels, planned for single-family
residential use, in this zone.
3. The balance of the proposed development is in Safety Zone 6 (Traffic
Pattern Zone). This area permits residential development at a density
not to . exceed I dwelling unit per 2.5 -acres. Inconsistent with that, the
proposed project shows residential lots ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 acres
in size within this zone. I
Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
4
0
B. Approval, of the project as proposed would necessitate the -adoption of
Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings
by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and
must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the
public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics
Act. as stated in Section 21670. Overriding Findings cannot be adopted as
matters of opinion, heresay, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of
the governing body.
SECTION 3: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY
If the applicant wishes to revise the development proposal to conform with the
requirements of the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico
Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, the
following conditions shall apply:
The lot design shall be amended to show no single family residential building
sites within either Overflight Protection Zone A or B. No residential lot for
a single family dwelling shall be less than 2.5 acres in gross size.
2. A condition shall be required on the Final Map stating that prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit the property owner shall sign an avigation
easement granting to the City of Chico the right of continued use of the Chico
Municipal Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and
acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts.
SECTION 4: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
A. Airspace Protection
The Conunission finds that due to the topography of the project, there are no
transitional surface problems. The subject property is located slightly below
the airport surface with approximately 188 feet between the ground level and
the horizontal surface. Approach surfaces would not be affected due to
topography or ftiture development.
A condition should be included on the Final Map stating, that any
project -related lighting shall be directed within the project site and
shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft
flight activities.
#Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission #
5
2. A condition should be included as part of the proposed rezone or
future parcel map stating that uses which have the potential to create
visual, electronic, or physical flight hazards including the generation
of dust, smoke, glare, electronic interference, or the attraction of birds,
to the p rioject area shaU be avoided.
Accident scatter information adopted as part of the October 21, 1998, Chico
Munic*ipal'Airport CLUP Amendme ' nt, Exhibit D (Hodges and Shutt -1993.
and UC- Berkeley, Institute, of Transportation Studies - 1993) indicates that
the highest' concentration of both departure- and arrival -related aircraft
accidents� takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and Approach
Surface off the ends of the runway and on either side of the runway. Due to
the project site's location away from these runway areas, no special conditions
ate necessary for safety -purposes provided that the recommended residential
density is adhered �.to.
O'Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
6
EXHIBIT B
'List of References
Data supporting the ALUC's findings ha�e been generated from studies and reports prepared by
recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning and land use
compatibility. These include, but are 'not limited to:
R. D . ixon Speas Associates - Prepared ButteCou�ty Airpoft Facilities Plan and Map of PAR Part
77 Surfaces for the Chico Municipal Airport.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Hodges and Shutt -Prepared accideni scafter data presented in Chapter 8'of the 1993 Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook.,
University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) - Prepared
accident scatter data presented in Figure 9E on page 9-13 of the 1993 Al�' t Land Use Planning
por
Handbook.
K:\ALUC\A4EETINGS\2000\09-20-OO.MTG\EI.RPT
*Butte County *Airport Land Use� Commi . ssion
7
71 4"7 It tIE fa ttt06 '4494w, V/ p LN - 4k' 7?q,
1999 CLUP DENSITY CRITERIA
Adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
December 29, 1999
MAXIMUM ACCEVTABLE DENSITY*
No.
Safety Zone
People per Acre
Dwelling Units per
Acre
I
Runway Protection Zone
10 GH
0
2
Inner Safety Zone
10 ADIIUL
0 EKM
3
Inner Turning Zone
10 ADIUM
EKM
10
4
Outer Safety Zone
CDF11IL
EKM
5
5
Sideline Safety Zone*
25 CDFHIL
0
-
6
Traffic Pattern Zone
100 CDHIL
I EKM
2.5
muumurn P&=1
7
Area of Influen(
Limit
4 EKM
A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures).
B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A
large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that
would result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour
during any 24-hour perio& . ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 . persons.per acre at
any time.
C. Caretaker. residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, provided that
they are ancillary to the primary use of a property intended for the purpose of
property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that,'all residential
units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise leve Is do not
exceed 45 CNTEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room.
D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is rdceived,
office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate.
% 'hall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL.
E. Residential development s
F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration of persons greater than
25 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive. material
above ground.
G. No buildings, structures$. above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable
or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gatherina of more
than 10 persons at any time.
cc I - I, -(: �0 C IL 11,94 f
_V
--Do
H. Communication Towers (Excluding airport related facilities):
1. Prohibited in all safety zones' except Zone 8.
Free Standing Towers:
1. Alternative orange and white pat nt starting at, 30 feet above the ground.
2. Strobe lighting at the top of the tower and shielded from striking the
ground for a mile.
Towers with Guy Wires;
1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground:
a. Blinking -lights along length of tower and guy wires at 20 foot
intervals.
b. Three feet in diarn . eter orange -safety markers attached at 20 foot
intervals on tower and guy wires.
Public and Quasi -Public: s . and
Prohibited Uses: Churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, college
pniversities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities and similar
aggregations of persons. /*
1 50% Open Space.
K. Density Bonus Prohibited.
L. No bulk petroleum products (except airport related),* flammable or explosives or
chen�ce stora'ge above ground.
M. Second dwelling units are prohibited.
All zones in areasi ofinfluenct.
1. Permitted Uses:
A. All projects covered by a vested map or development agreement.
B. Any uses covered by a valid building permit. -
C. All uses meeting the airport CLUP standardsat time permit$ are
issued.
Gefi�ral Statements.
1. All ministerial and residential uses shall be referred to ALUC and findings
shall be made that there will be no impacts'to airport operaticins.
2. Avigation Easements shall be signed by property owners for all uses
located within -the planning boundaries. of each- public or special use airport.
The minimum pa-rcel size is 8,000'square feet.
KMUC%CLL;P%19"CLU