The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About048-020-061T- F.ILI T- ' - t count, L-A N D 0 F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COLIN TY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3307 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: '(530) 538-7785 - www.buttecounty.net March 2, 2001' Stacey Lynn Jolliffe, Senior Planner City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: ALUC File No. A 00:-03 Dear Ms. Jolliffe: Enclosed is Receipt No.- 19265 in the amount of $83.50 for the above -referenced file. As of this 'date, the account has a zero balance and is closed. Your quick response is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, FOR Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services -TAP:jb Enclosure Date 03/02/01 Lovelopment Services Departmiont Time 10:42 am. Applicant Billing Work9heet Page 1 A 00-03 John D. Drake P.O.,�Box 1448 Chico, CA 95927-1448, In reference t6 A 00-03, Rounding None Full Precision No Last bill Last charge 08/04/00 Last payment Amount :-$0.00 Date/Slip# Descri�tion HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 06/12/00 Craig,.S. P., 3.50 206.50 #30590 Processing 59.00 06/24/00 Larry P.. P. 1.00' 59.00 #30896 Processing 59.00 06/26/00 Craig S. 1.00 59.00 #30824 Processing 59.00 07/24/00 Craig S., P' 1.00 59.00 #31263 Processing 59.00 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES.* 6.50 $383.50 TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $0.00 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $383.50 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 06/27/00 Deposit - Receipt #18497 (300.00) 03/02/01 Deposit - Receipt.,#19265, (83.50) ($383.50) TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDIT8 NEW BALANCE TOTALVEW BALANCE $0.00 .'X� , . - �* J N. - February 5, 2001 Stacey Lynn Jolliffe, Senior Planner City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 9592i RE: ALUC File No. A 00-03 Dear Ms. Jolliffe: L A N D 0 F N AT U R A L W EA*L T H A N D 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 The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found consistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on August 16, 2000, is $383.50. As of June 27, 2000., a d eposit was made in the amount of $300.00. The costs exceeded the -deposit by $83.50. Below is a breakdown: Deposit on 6-27-00, Receipt NoA 8497 $300.00 Professional Planner $333.50 Mapping $ 59,00. Total $383.50 Total Amount Due & Payable $ 83.50 Please make a check payable to the Butte County Treasurer -in the amount of'$83.50 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 538-760L Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb RECEIvEo MAR .2 2001 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION OPOVILLE, CALIFORNIA COMMUNUY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 0 CHICO. 411 Main'Street (f LINC'187Z P.O. Box 3420 Chico. CA 95 927 (530) 895-4851 TAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-4851 February 26, 2001 Mr. Brian A. Larsen Butte County D6partment of Development Services 7 County Center * Drive Oroville, CA �95965-3397 Re: GPA 00-3/RZ 00-5 Southeast Corner Eaton Road and Ceanothus� Drive ALUC File No. Arob-03. Dear Mr. Larsen: Enclosed please find City of Chico, Check No. in the aimount of $83.50 representing pqyment of the balance due forr6 I iew of the*above-refer6nced d6cument. A copy of your -liatier dated 'February 5,, 2001, is also encl6sed for your reference. Sincerely," .Stacey Jolliffe Senior Planner. jls Enclosures REOZEIVED S:\JS�\StACE�(\Eaton-Ceanothus\Larsen Ltr.wpd FEB 2 8 2001 BUTrE COUN1Y PLANNING DIVISION OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA Made Prom Recycled Paper 0 RECEIPT 19265 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING SSU 0 BY � L A N D 0 F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Fvk��tr :W7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES of 7 COO'NTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net February 5, 2001 Stacey Lynn Jolliffe, Senior Planner City of Chico Community Development Department P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 RE: ALUC File No. A 00-03 Dear Ms. Jolliffe: The total cost for the processing of the above -referenced application which was found consistent by the Airport Land Use Commission on August 16, 2000,'Is $383.50. Aso'f June 27, 2000, a deposit was made in the amount of $300.00. The costs exceeded the deposit by $83.50. Below is a breakdown . Deposit on 6-27-00, Receipt No. 18497 $300.00 Professional Planner $333.50 . Mapping Total .$383.50 Total Amount Due & Payable 83.50 7� —Trc Please make a check payable to t<e`ff_ut_kC(Tun e`a_sur7e2r)n the amount of $83.50 and remit it with the application file number, as reference'd-abo�veftoffh-e�-Depa—rtrnent 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. Pardo Director of Development Services MrA OV jj-r 9� W, L TAP:jb n, -)�+Zu Cinco, CA 9D92i Go's RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC LAFCO PLANNING PUBLIC ENV. SALES HEALTH FIRE NOEMOD F/G FEE OTHER DATE NO. RECEIVED WORKS OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING 1%-). 11 J 1-0 � 0 f= C*17 to 5*"440— APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM 184-97 RECEIPT .. . ...... . . . r�lil —7 NO. UTY.b]F. CHICO . PA0. Box 3426. N I '"ll "I'll", .11,1:Z, I M,% 0Unj& A-31 mw MEMO, D" v IZ �w -4w -,da v n t ow un A Z to Will .1 nii M., k Nit k 'N 0- 1 -k,., UA r It Ill l3w oesc 1ptabn -mg, -qp% m au n AMOU RmZr�l 54 � �.: Mal &�Wlft�wojg atr7gw -g- wwt 'NAW N3 M. W RE K WEI M fill lisp, UZZ, MIEW;R-i 10V !ut-gg- a m@gg;p W AM M "rftt A.R �U!;!� PI gpv�g A"N gg mg M. Kl, -1-ilil4wRl PM W gm, IM M J --t. va fell V. av m WN R -g �;2jw 10 i A -5-M, N, R'.."i'M ;A, C g "M I Ml'l M % ATE, - a. rd, -M gwel"Vix. R BE W -A -W02 M w 2 V Wi gpw r Pill", 4 RA , ,, . , -, ig g AM WY I �l - No I Mh Proposed Land Use Inv The City of Chico proposed changing the General Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning (describe) designation from R1 to R2. L For Residential Uses Number of Parcels or Units on Site (including secondary units) 0 existing; 350 maximum with General Plan Amendment and Rezone For Other Land Uses Hours of Use Number of Maximum Number People on Site... Method of Calculation Height Data Standard heights Height above Ground of Tallest Object (including antennas & trees) 85 of utility poles on site I's 55 feet; poles rise to 85 feet east of Cactus AvE Highest Elevation (above sea level) of Any Object or Terrain on Site 349 ft. Elevation is 234 feet at Ceanothus Avenue; 255 feet at Cactus Avenue and 264 feet at wesf—erTy Flight Hazards tLL dr'ect. Does the project involve any characteristics which could create "(�T�'e's P'VNo Electrical interference, confusing lights, glare, smoke, or other Electrical or visual hazards to aircraft flight? Does the project have the potential for attracting birds? 0 Yes' W No If yes to either, describe REFERPONGAGENCY (TO.BE.C.()MIPLETED,-,BY.*AGiE.N.C.Y.. Date Received Type of project Agency Name 0 General Plan Amendment E3 Zoning Amendment or Variance Staff Contact 0 Subdivision Approval Phone Number 0 Use Permit Agency's Project No. 0 Public Facility L 11 Other Signature D ate (App i c a r4f o r Mh BUTtE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of July 19, 2000' E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING 1. ALUC File No. AOO-.03 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico - General Plan Amendment and Rezone, APN- 048-.020-061 (ptn) and 100 (ptn). Under Item D above, the Commission continued this item until their meeting of August 16, 2000. CITYCFCHICO INC. 1872 A commoNrh,'DEVEMOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 411 Main Street P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927. (530) 895!4851 FAX (530) 895-4726 ATSS 459-48,51 May 24, 2000 Mr. M.A. Maleka MAY 2 5 2000 Principal Planner, Cou nty of Butte BUTTECOUNTY 7 County Center Drive PLANNING DIVISION Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Request.6r Airport Land Use Commission Conformity Determination Relative to a City -Initiated General Plan Amendment and Rezone Encompas�ing 115 acres on the'Southeast Corner of Eaton Road and Ceanothus (GPA 00-3 and RZ 00-5) Dear Mr. Maleka: This letter refers the above referenced general plan amendment and rezone proposal to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for its determination of consistency pursuant to the'Public. Utilities Code. The project area is within two miles of the Chico Municipal Airport. The general plan amendment/rezone has been initiated by the City because the site is not well suited to single-family residential development (typically 4 to 5 units per acre in this area). The project site is relatively narrow, 200 to 300 feet wide, and requires an ' east -West interior access as driveway access to Eaton Road, planned as a major arterial, will not be permitted. Permanent overhead utility facilities are located to the south. During preparation and review of the' Foothill East subdivision, circuitous and undesirable land use patterns, inconsistent with the Community Design Element of the Chico General Plan, were proposed lin this area. Staff -evaluated option's to address this land use/design issue in the Alternatives Discussion of the Foothill Park Environmental Impact Report (See Attachment F). Consistent with staff s recommendation and with the concurrence of the land owner, the Chico Planning Commission directed staff to file applications to change the land use and zoning designation's for the referenced 15 acre project site from Low Density Residential .to Medium--Dehsity and from R-1 to R-2, respectively. I understand that ALUC's consistency determination will made based on the 1976 Airport Environs Plan, as amended in 1999. However, ALUC's determination of consistency with the proposed 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (draft CLUP) is also requested. Although it is unadopted, the draft CLUP incorporates more up to date information and 103 Q�& Made From Recycled Paper Mr. M. A. Maleka May 24, 2000 Page 2 provides a more recent picture of land use planning efforts relative to the Chico Municipal Airport. Under Public Utilities Code Section 21676, the ALUC must make its determination within 60 days of the date of this referral.. Several.items'a're'aftached herewith to aid,your review. Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 895-4852. Sincerely, Act, Stacey. Ly!nn Jolliffe Senior Planner jls Attachments: A: General Plan Map GPA 00-3 B: Zoning Map RZ 00-5 C: Chico Municipal Code Sections relative to the R-1 and R-2 zones D: ALUC Notice of Public Meeting Findings and/or Comments dated February 19, 1999 regarding a previous GPA/RZ application to redesignate the subject property E: Diagram of the Northeast Chico Sewer Assessment District (NECSAD), showing project site within the NECSAD F: Excerpt from the Foothill Park East EIR (SCH,94103066), Density Alternatives South of Eaton Road cc: Kim Seidler, Chico Plannirig Director w/o 'attachments Jim Mann, Rural Consulting Associates w/6 attachments 7 't T :;p OS-� 17777WI, e T ial Gene Plan Desionations VLbk --Wry Low. Density Residential' Density Residential LDR Low MDR'- Medium Density Residential �PF&S - PublicFacilities and Services, Space for Environmental'. .7 Open OSEC/S 'Zons'' ati6' 1� WN' ery /safety , Wi-T ...... �zw,- -�7 ea Pim Off, HAM IR NOON V, ...Ag INNER VLUK zga C. Cit hib neral Plan, Map.,..,,'' �_67 of, (C co Ge 1000' Feet Des L6W Den�i Residential Current ignation' ty Pr6' sed Desi hatibh'�-, Medium Density Residential PO 19 1Y� F7 BOOK: oil BONN 1-4 K*� �N. X EM V�i; gy , ..... . ...... 1 -nam ills. p -m -g, g 'r, IM 2 �JA.O.Kili �JA.O.Kili - jE its 592 Fr M v k '03 TWA gL ------------- kil Mi. iN, w MN %UtAll ggm- Nu Mn ;,Vm MEW lg,;w RM .&M ..0— .12 t �gWI-w-PIRA'.., IMP, r A rr Rea M1. 01 I'M ME -2:, V M HERON WAR 0.®r. -M. S2'ia E IS IN K 1-1-10 AX ag "jig 05 -cc N1 um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-0 T -A Ut 'ENT C TABLE 4-2 - AGO'WED USES AND PERMIT RE(116MENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ERMIT I E" tah ar 3- 6-USV LAN YIR cti6hl, Wipteri C AGRICULTURAL, RESOURCE, & OPEN SPACE USES Animal keeping P P P 19.76.040 Crop production, commercial P P(2) Equestrian facilities UP UP Greenhouses, commercial UP. UP(2) Plant nurseries UP UP RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Churches/places of worship UP Up UP UP UP UP UP Community centers/pavilions UP UP UP UP UP UP UP Golf courses, country clubs UP UP UP , UP Health/fitness clubs UP UP UP Private residential recreational facilities P P P UP UP UP UP Recreational vehicle (RV) parks UP UP Schools - Public and private UP UP UP UP UP UP UP Schools - Specialized education and training UP UP UP UP I UP UP UP KEY TO PERMIT REOUIREMENTS Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. (2) Use allowed only on a site of I acre or larger. (3) Use allowed only on second floor or above. (4) Allowed only at or above minimum density requirements of zoning district. -ATTA(HMENT C PAG E ) SATitle 19 Update\division4 (9/15/99) Page IV -6 TABLE 4--2 ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT R*E6UIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) . .. ... ...... . . UP S*'b* .:...-Stifidie :in . .... .. ... RS`:*!:[!�:� ......... . . . UP RESIDENTIAL USES Assisted living facilities for the elderly UP UP UP UP UP Fratemity/sorority housing UP UP UP 19.52.090 Guest house P P P P 19.76.100 Home occupations P P P P P P P 19.20 Household pets P P P P P P P 19.76.040 Live/work UP(3) Mobile home parks UP UP Mobile homes/manufactured homes P P P P P P P 19.76.110 Multi-fwniiy housing P P P P Residential accessory uses and structures P P P P P P P 19.76.020 Residential care homes', I to 6 persons P P P P. P P P Residential care homes, 7 to 12 persons UP UP UP UP UP UP Rooming and boarding houses UP UP UP UP UP Second dwelling unit "I P P UP UP P 19.76.130 Senior citizen congregate care housing UP UP. P P P Single-family housing P P P P(4) P(4) P Single -room occupancy (SRO) housing UP 19.76.140 Temporary dwellings TU TU TU TU TU -TU TU 19.76.170 Temporary emergency shelters P P p P P P P 19.22 Two-family housing/duplexes I 1 1 (5) P P P P KEY TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS P Permitted use, zoning clearance required. 19.16.070 UP Conditional use, use permit required. 19.24 PD Conditional use, planned development permit required. 19.28 TU Temporary use. 19.22 Use not allowed. (See Section 19.02.020-E regarding uses not listed.) Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. (2) Use allowed only on a site of I acre or larger. (3) Use allowed only on second floor or above. (4) Allowed only at or above minimum density requirements of zoning district. (5) Consistent with the overall maximum density allowed and on comer parcels as part of the subdivision approval process or by use permit. E ATTAUMENT PAG SAfitle 19 Update\division4 (9/15/99) Pige lV-7 TABLE 4-2 dWiVEWUStS AND PERMIT REQ*kE.MENTIS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Cofifinued),, h -'M, -.5 ...... . ... ....... ... . PERMITREOUMEMIES—By .... ... ... .... ............... . -us I; ju_ LAN It. (I V apter.. RETAIL TRADE USES Alcoholic, beverage establishments up Art, antiques, collectibles, gifts P .Drug stores/pharmacies, 4,000 sq.ft. or less P Furniture, furnishings; and equipment.stores. Conditional use, use permit required. Grocery stores, 40,000 sq.ft. or less 'I 'UP Grocery stores, less than 2,500 sq.ft. up up up up UP UP Liquor stores Temporary use- Petshops up -Restaurants, 2,500 sq.ft. or less _P Restaurants, more than 2,500 sq.ft. UP Retail stores, 2,500 sq.ft. or less ..P Retail stores, more than 2,500 sq.ft!,, UP' KEY TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Notes: (1) See Chap�er 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. '(2), Use allowed only on a 'site oUl a6re or'lar g I er., (3) Use allowedonly on secon d flop r,or . above. (4) �llowed only at or above minimum density �equirements of zoning district. PAG E 11 0�1-j _A a ARAGH M ENT W, 4 .1 S:\Title 19 Update\division4 (9/15/99),, Page IV -8 Fog'! 11 'LE�R#eirmi . ei� u U I I ffalmi-11 ILE M11--.1 Z 4s P Permitted use, zoning clearance required.' 19.16.070 UP Conditional use, use permit required. 19.241 PD Conditio . nal use, planned divelopment permit required. 19.28 ----.- TU Temporary use- .19.22, -Use not allowed. (See Section 19.02.020-E regarding.uses not listed.) Notes: (1) See Chap�er 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. '(2), Use allowed only on a 'site oUl a6re or'lar g I er., (3) Use allowedonly on secon d flop r,or . above. (4) �llowed only at or above minimum density �equirements of zoning district. PAG E 11 0�1-j _A a ARAGH M ENT W, 4 .1 S:\Title 19 Update\division4 (9/15/99),, Page IV -8 TABLE 4-20ALLOWED USES AND PERMIT 19QUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) REMENEBWON Rx-, P. on, .�!'LAN S.; . . ... .... ap er. SE '::'. - -.,, �.;::.: ; :,:, W cli 1. V SERVICES Automated teller machines (ATMs) 11111, � tj 1 m 1' - 'I! ',1 17, 1OWN 9 1 MON. 11; rA ,?. W uir;e i tpmerl, i# W�Rqjtj� In E ME WE m-,mven.—Wa.— P P Banks and financial services UP Conditional use, use permit required. .19.24 PD Conditional use, planned development permit required. 19.28 P Bed and breakfast inns, I to 5 guest rooms UP UP UP UP UP UP UP 19.76.050 Community social services UP Day care facilities, child/adult day care centers UP UP UP UP UP UP UP Day care facilities, large family day care homes P P P P P P P 19.76.060 Day care facilities, small family day care homes P P P P P P P Offices, accessory to primary use P Offices, business and professional P Personal services, 2,500 sq.11. or less P Public utility or safety facilities UP UP UP UP UP UP UP Storage, accessory to residential project UP UP UP UP UP UP UP Storage, located on second floor or above P Storage, personal storage facility UP UP UP UP UP UP TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATION USES KEY TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS W, �U 1 11111, � tj 1 m 1' - 'I! ',1 17, 1OWN 9 1 MON. 11; rA ,?. W uir;e i tpmerl, i# W�Rqjtj� In E ME WE m-,mven.—Wa.— P Permitted use, zoning clearance required. 19.16.070 UP Conditional use, use permit required. .19.24 PD Conditional use, planned development permit required. 19.28 Temporary use. 19.2 �A Use not allowed. (See Section 19.02.020-E regarding uses not listed.) Notes: (1) See Chapter 19.04 for definitions of the listed land uses. (2) Use allowed only on a site of I acre or larger. (3) Use allowed only on second floor or above. (4) Allowed only at or above minimum density requirements of zoning district. ATTAUMENT C, PAGE 4 ) S:\Title 19 Update\division4 (9/15/99) Page IV -9 J i +BU= COUNTY AHUPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + 7 County Center Drive, Orovige, CA 95965 4 4530) 538-7-601 FAX �SW) 538-7785 EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: A99-02 (Cily of Chico GPA98-04/RZ98-05 - Drake) on APN 048-020-060 and 061 The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). . This data,.and other documents presented in Exhibit A2.(Background Documents for ALUC Environmental Findings) are based upon the findings of a number of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals, firms and agencies recognized as having expertise in.the fieild of Airport Land Use Planning and land use compabbility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References) The following findings have been.prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on the project. If the local agency does not accept the findings of the ALUC, it may override the Commission's decision with. a 2/3 vote of the governing body provided it makes specific findings 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, but instead must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public, record. (See Exhibit A3, Review of Overriding Findings Process) Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. The environmental documentation submitted to the ALUC for this project does not address the compatibility of the proposal with -any airport related impacts including overflight protection, noise and safety. However, extensive environmental documentation relating to the airport was produced for the City of Chico for a previous rezone in this area. At the request of the City of Chico Planning Commission, a consultant was hired by the City to prepare the "Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operation Impact and Conflicts Study.n This document was not included with the CEQA documentation and background information provided by the City for the ALUC's hearing regarding the current proposal. However, that report is relevant to the ALUC's determination concerning any part of the Foothill. Park East project. Therefore, the ALUC finds that: AffACHMENT -D- PAGE # Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission * I The qualifications,of the consultant retain�d by the City to comment on safety issues appear to have been exaggerated and that the firm selected. had never actually done a. safety study when they contracted for this one. _(2) The safety problems associated with air tanker operations were so incorrectly presented by the consultant, that to have relied on' his'. "findings" has,created a danger for. future', residents of Foothill, Park East. In particular: (a) Crash potential for airtankers -The consultant. stated that "laden fire -fighting aircraft departures from Chico Municipal Airport have 6'low crash potential" and '.Both operators have flawless safety records." - These statements are clearly untrue. The Airtanker Pilots Memorial List, identifies 1, 18. fatalities that occurred in the United States'between'.1958 and 1§95. Many of these fatalities occurred during take -offs or landings. The list names pilots who died flying for both CDF. and USFS. Also, there have been at- least two non-fatal accidents at CMA involving tankers. (b) P6tential for harm to citizens on the ground from an emergency 'release of retardant— The consultant asserted that, uFire-retardant is routinely released at 150 feet over Fires and ground based fireLfighting personnel without injury or damage. - The retardaht'is not toxic and will not stain if items are washed soon after contact." The consultant's opinion is not corroborated by the" Firefighters Handbook, -by the CDF. technical lesson plan on uAirtanker Retardant Drop -Slafety Precautions", or by a photograph of a BLM fire engine that,.was "totally destroyed" by a low -drop on only 150 gallons of retardant that alto injured two men. Evem physically fit fire-fightdrs wearing safety gear, who have received,an hour of special safety training, are occasionally injured by,retardant drops. To assure Commissioners and Council Members that, when hit by as, much as 3,000 gallons (over- 13'tons) of retardant, travelingat a speed of over 200 feet/second, the only .,damage toontrained civilians caught unaware would be a little pink coloring Js irresponsible. Butte County Akport Land Use Commission 2 (c) The inaccurate conclusion that the noise abatement departure corridor is a safety mitigation --!The consultant states that* "The other relevant safety zone is the 'Extended Runwa� Centerfinean,d although the term Centerfine refers to a straight line from the runway, the concept of and extended runway corridor may be applied to the existing departure corridor for laden fire-fi0hting aircraft, "and "This flight corridor may b6 considered equivalent to . * an extended approach1departure corridor " Any departure path from the runway that involves turns is predicated on the pilot being in control of a. properly operating ai�craft. Since the first. action by a pilot who is experiencing mechanical difficulty or engine failure will be to get the wings level, this means the aircraft in trouble will leave that path. The next action taken by a tanker pilot will be to dump all retardant, and in only seconds at tanker speeds, the aircraft will have departed a considerable distance from the corridor. For'the City to have permitted the current density of residential development next to or underneath the airtanker fl ight corridor, never mind increasing development density as is suggested -in the current proposal, raises significant safety and land use compatibility. issues. In light of.the fact that the current proposal is a "project" under CEQA, the ALUC recommends that -the City of Chico, at minimum, re- evaluate the safety conclusions reached in the Final and Recirculated Draft EIR for Foothill Park East. Section 2: PROJECT CONS ISTENCYF IN DINGS A. Chapter 3 of the ' 1993 Airport Land Use Pianning Handbook idenfifies four functional categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns. - These include: Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise, and Airspace Protection. The applicant's proposal has been found to be inconsistent with. protection measures and policies contained in. the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport. Environs Plan which are designed to address Overflight Pr6tection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, and Noise: Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibift 1 The west'half of the project site is within Compatible Land Use Zone' (CLUZ) IV (Drawing CIC -1 3). The east half of the project site is within Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) V. The entire project site is located Within the Flight Corridor depicted in Drawings CIC -4 and CIC -6. The recommended density.of Butte County Airpoft Land Use Commission 3 ATTACHMENT D. . '"GE rA development within CLUZ IV is one dwelling unit per acre. No development is recommended -in areas designated ' as CLUZ V that fall within the Flight Corridor. The applicant'.s proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone would allow residential densities ranging between 4 and 14 units/per acre. Therefore ' , the project is not consistent with Compatible Land Use Zone (CLUZ) recommendations contained within the CMAEP. Safft 2. A6 accident scatter map, 'based upon data generated by -Hodges and Shutt, has been adopted as part of the CMAEP (Drawing CIC -18) and -supports the finding that the projectsite is located in an area which has an elevated likelihood of being impacted..by aircraft accidents associated with departures. Noise 3. The project site is located between the projected 55 dB CNEL and 60'dB CNEL contours for the Chico Municipal Airport (Drawing CIC-3'and CIC -15). Exhibit 8-1 refers to lands designated as CLUZ IV within the 55-60 dB CNEL contour uln Corridor (applies to the west half of the site), and recommends: Noise control measures in building permit plan check; disclosure of, the aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntaryaction of the real estate board; and, that mobile home park development be prohibited. No noise related rec * ommendations are made for lands designated as CLUZ V within the 55-60 d13 CNEL contour "in Corridor" (applies to the east half of the site), because it is suggested that development be prohibited in that area. Airspace Protection 4. The project site is located within the ' Conical Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport (CIC -5). The maximum structure height permitted in the propo * sed R-2 zoning district, without a use, permit, is 35, feet. Based *upon USGS topographic information provided by the City of Chico, the siteelevation is approximately 240 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Theref ore, the proposal could result in a total project elevation of approximately 275 feet MSL. The height of the Conical Surface at its lowest point over the prpje�t site is estimated to be 425 feet MSL. Therefore, the ALUC finds that project will not penetrate any FAR Part 77 Surfaces. - Butte County #Airport Land Use Commission 0 4 AITACHMENT D PAGE_.5�. Section -3: OTHERCOMMISSION COMMENTS A. Noise - The area encompassed by the project site is likely to be exposed to� single event noise levels.and other episodes which exc6ed-the levels noted in Exhibit 4-4 as "normally acceptable" for residential development. Noise levels in excess of the recommended CNEL are likely to occur in conjunction with intensive CDF air tanker" operations whicti-are necessary. durina campaign fres,. occasional - military operations, and other aircraftengine testing or maintenance procedures. Air tankers consisting of P -2s, P -3's and S -2's with piston engine ' s, may create the ' greatest, impact because the weight of their load requires them to make extremely low altitude departures. 0 Butte County *Airport Land U 5 P%A GIE +BU= COUNTY ARiPORT LAND US9 COMMISSION + 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 * (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 5384785 EXHIBIT All' List of References Inconsistengy Findings Data supporting the ALUC's inconsistency findings have 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 not limited to: R. Dixon Speas Associates - Prepared 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. H . odges and Shutt-' Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing. CIC -18 of' the CMAEP. Environmental FindiocLs The following documents -ai�6 also being. provided by.the ALUC as support for the Commission's Environmental, Findings. April .14, 1997 letter from City of Chicoto Paula Leasure - States that. the firm of Charles M. Salter Associates was recommended by Caltrans. May 8, 1997 letter fro� n Christa Engle (Caltrahs Aeronautics Programl to Barbara Hennigan - Disagrees.with the City of Chico assertion that Caltrans recommended the firm of Salter Associates. Firm profile from Salter Associates sales brochure -,.,Representing the fi rm as acoustical consultants. Airtanker Pilots M - emorial List - Documents 118 fatalities between 1958 and 1995. Firefighters Handbook on Wildian.0 Firefighting by William C. Teie Photo of BLM EngineCaught in a low retardant drop. Map of. Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel 'Departure.. Route in relationship to Foothill Park East. Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission 6 A, TTA HI M +BUTl' COUNI-,*'IAIRPORT.11.,,,,'§xl§�M-US]Et-OMMISSI'ON+ e 7 County Center Drtve, Oroville, CA 95965 e (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 EXHIBIT A27 Back round Documents for the ALUC's Environmental Findings See Aftached v Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission 0 7 ATTACHMENT PAGE +BU= COUNTIOAMPORT LAND USEPOMMSSION + 7 County Center Drive, Orevik, CA 95965 4W 538-76M FAX (530) 538-77-85 EXHIBIT A3 Review of Werriding Findings Process The override process involves three mandatory step! s,. including: (1) The holding of a public.hearing. (2) The making of specific findin ' gs,that the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as,- stated in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code and summarized below: ... to provide for the orderly development'of each public use airport in this state..." ... to provide f& ihe orderly development of ... the area surrounding these airports so*.as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the,California airport noise standards.,..." ... to provide for the orderly development of ..... the a ' rea surroundihg these airports so as .... to prevent thebreation of new noise and safety problems." ... to protect the b1th, safety, 'and welfare by ensuring the orderly public.hec expansion of airports. -..2' to protect the public health,.safety, and welfare by..: the adoption of land use measbres that minimize,,the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety'hazards'iw'ithin areas around,pUblic airports.to the extent that -these areas are not al�eady devot . ed to incompatible land uses." J- (3) Approval of the proposed action by a -two-thirds vote of the local agency)s governing body. The Offide of Planning and Research offers several guidelines regarding what constitutes sound, legally sufficient findings. The ffiost basic among these guidelines is that findings must be substantive not just recitations of the law: "Generally, findings are not sufficient if they merely recite the very language of -the local ordinanceor staie statute that requires them." In otherwords, findings must bridge the analytical gap between raw data and the ultimate decision. This assertion -was affirmed in the 1992 court case, California Aviation Butte County *Airport Land Use Coinmission 8 ATTACHMENT D ME Council v. City of Ceres. In.this case the court found that the Ceres city council had merely referred to the ALUC statutes and then concluded that the proposed land uses min'imized public exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards in the airport area. The findings did not document the critical links between the proposal, the finding and the facts. It is the opinion of the ALUC, which is supported by both legal statutes and case law, that agencies wishing to override the Commission's findings must: (1) provide factual data and evidence from qualified sources which essentially refutes the data examined by the ALUC and the conclusions reached by the Commission; and, (2) demonstrate how the agency's actions will adequately meet the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act as specified in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. developable acreage would be reduced and a corresponding decrease in population /anticipate The effect on overall density, however, is dependent upon the specific residential use(s) and reages affected by the set -asides. The project density could decrease, increase or remain the me. An p increase in density could result in an inconsistency with the General Plan and a projec redesi gn or i plan amendment would be required. The number of residential units developed, in a case, will be g . reater than the 547 units proposed in the Foothill Park East project. TransportationlAir Quality tive, the in umber of residential With the implementation of the specific plan alterna crease in t n ]n units and population will result in a corresponding increase in traffic local roadways and air contaminants generated. Although intersection and roadway level of service will most likely I operate at acceptable service levels, the significance criteria for indi 'dual air contaminants could be exceeded. As Butte County is in non-atiainment for state sta ards for 03 and PM10 and the Chico Urban area for CO, the increased emissions will only se to /exascerbeaChe existing air quality. Public Facilities and Services City and private service providers (e.g., fire, police,,w er, etc.) will be required to increase the . ' �ic services they provide as a result of increased service d ds from a larger population anticipated with Alternative B. Local schools will experience /erollment increases over those predicted from I Foothill Park East. In either scenario, enrollmen at the Marigold School would exceed capacity. .10 Project development under Alternative B, ho ver, could increase enrollments at both Bidwell I junior High and Pleasant Valley High to lev s that exceed capacities. The impact analysis of several environme * areas addressed in the analysis of the Foothill Park I East project will report will remain re,/lativy unaffected by project development under Alternative B. 'J Since the ±172 acre site is to be develo in either case, the resources reported, or lack of resources in some cases, will remain the same in bo, scenarios. These areas of environmental areas include: Biological Resources Prelirnin grading and the relocation of delineated wetlands has occurred and a ±31 acre preserve ar established. Assurrdng the same land dedications will be required ;ru op under Alternative B, diev pment under this alternative will not increase impact levels discussed L/ I I in the Biological Resou es chapter. GeologylHydrolo Grading impacts under either scenario will remain the same. It is possible, however, that/off volumes may increase under the specific plan due to increased impervious gy surface area. creased runoff with the Foothill Park East project is less than significant due to r Sycamore Cr k capacity. The same will be true with Alternative B. Noise e principa ' I noise source will result from vehicle traffic on area Toadways. As with d FoothAPark East, the increase in traffic anticipated with Alternative B will result in increase noise levels along the study roadways. Already identified as a significant impact'to future Eaton Road residences, implementation of this alternative will not change the noise impact previously identified. Aesthetics Although a higher density development would be anticipated under the specific plan alternative, visual and' light/glare impacts created by residential development will remain virtually unchanged. Alternative C—Density Alternatives south of Eaton Road Consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the site, the applicant initially proposed single-family homes for the entire buildable portion of the project site, or approximately 142 acres. Staff has recognized that, given the size and shape of the area located south of the proposed Eaton Road alignment and north of a permanent utility easement, it would be difficult to develop single - Foothill Park East Recirculated Draft EIR 65 A ACHMENT PAG E family parcels at the ±4 units per acre. This area is approximately 200 to 300 feet in width. To accommodate single-family homes, a vehicular access road (62' r -o -w width) must be provided within this area because driveways will not be permitted off of Eaton, a major arterial. The initial proposal, at a density of about 4 units per buildable acre, included numerous north -south cul-de-sacs which formed a circuitous and undesirable land use pattern, inconsistent with the objectives of the Cornmunity Design Element of the General Plan. To address this concern, the Design Manual, submitted subsequent to the initial circulation of the DEIR, recommends development of the subject 15 acres near the 7 units per acre maximum permitted within the zoning designation. Presumably, development at this density would permit townhouses or other design considerations to address the. constraints of the site. This provision of the Design Manual is advisory, not mandatory. Due to site constraints described above, the single-family density range of 4 to.7 units per acre as contemplated by the applicant may not be appropriate. Alternatives consider higher densities (e.g., 7- 14 units' per acre) and lo ' wer densities (e.g., 2 urtits per acre) for the 15 acre portion of the site during the current entitlement process. Alternativ'e C1 -*-Incieiasid. Residen't'ial Density� south of Eaton Road The 7 to 14 units per acre can be considered a transfer of residential density from proposed open space and public areas, as encouraged in the Chico General Plan. However, as the current zoning ordinance has no provisions for such density transfers, a rezoning would be necessary. If this alternative is supported by the Planning Commission, the 15 acre area would be subject to rezone to increase density subsequent to approval of the Master Vesting Tentative Map. The analysis of Alternative CI belowconsiders only the changes. in the project -resultant from the potential increase in. residential density and multi -family uses on this southern 15 -acres. Assun-dng the highest densities- scenarioi the. 15 �acres developed at 7 to 14 ur-dts per-acre:wouldi yield:105 to 210 multi- family units and 60 less single family residential units. The changes in. impacts anticipatedby the development of -Alternative Cl include: Land UselPopulation The primary changes in land use on the project site would be the clustering of density in the southwest portion of the site. This alternative would provide more variety of housing types�, including more affo ' rdable housing, consistent with the General Plan. The increased density contemplated by' this alternative is consistent with General Plan policies to promote new development at an intensity sufficient to ensure a long-term compact urban form and to strive for an overall density for new development within the urban area of 7 units per acre. General Plan policies also encourage transfer of density for the protection of sensitive resources, as would be the case with the wetlands preserve on the Foothill Park Fast site. Construction of multi -family housing on the site, rather than 60 single family residences, would result in an increase in population of approximately 109 to 362 persons. TransportationlAir Quality With the implementation of the increased density alternative, there will be an increase in the number of vehicle trip per day. Multi -family -residential units average 6.6 vehicle trips per day resulting in a maximurn of approximately 1,390 average daily trips for the 15 acres (14 units/acre.X 15 acres X 6.6 trips per day = 1,386 average daily trips). Less the daily traffic associated with 60 single family homes (60 homes X 9.6 trips per day = 576 trips per day), the net i ' ncrease in daily vehicle trips is approximately 810 total trips, or 81 peak hour trips. For comparison purposes, the existing p.m. peak hour trips on East Avenue are approximately 980 and existing plus project p.m. - peak hour trips on East Avenue are projected to be approximately 1,608 trips. The change in density will result in marginally increased traffic on local roadways and -air contaminants generated. Although intersection and roadway -levels of service will operate at acceptable service levels, change would incrementally increase air contamination which already exceeds established Foothill Park East Recirculated Draft EIR ATTACHMENT PAG E 66 i . 1, - threshold levels. As Butte County is in non -attainment for state standards f or 03 and PMlO and the Chico Urban area for CO, the increased ernissions will serve to marginally exacerbate existing air pollution. Public Facilities and Services City and private service providers (e.g., fire, police, water, etc.) may be required to increase the services they provide as a re - sult of service demands from a larger population anticipated with multi -family development. Local schools will experience enroHment increases ove r those predicted from the current Foothill Park East. Per -Michael Weissenbom, Facilities Planner, Chico Unified School District the student yield rate of 0.43 students per dwelling unit is applicable to either single family or multi-fan-dly dwelling units. Given tM.s yield rate, the net increase in number of students would range from 19 to 65 students. Noise The principal noise source will result from vehicle traffic on area roadways. As with Foothill Park East, the increase in traffic anticipated with Alternative C1 will result in marginally increased' noise levels along the study roadways. Already identified as a significant impact to future Eaton Road residences, implementation of this alternative will not change the noise impact previously identified. Aesthetics A higher density development would be anticipated near.the southwest portion of the project site. Due to the proposed density increases visual quality enjoyed by nearby residents will likely be affected. Light/glare impacts created by residential development may also be increased in that area of the project site. However, unlike single family residential development, multi -family projects are subject to architectural review by the City and would-be conditioned for appropriate design features. The landscaped, utility easement will provide a buffer -to- larger lots to the south. Biological Resources The -footprint -of -development will not:.change -with implementation.of Altemative.'Cl. Preliminary grading and the relocation of delineated.: wetlands has.-..occurred:.and..a.±31 acre.�preserve area established. Assuming- the ..same land dedications wilLbe -required under Alternative C1, development under this alternative will not increase. impact levels discussed in the Biological Resources chapter. GeologylHydrology Grading and runoff impacts under the multi-farridly scenario will likely remain the same as the current project. Del;einding on the design of a multi -family project, there may or may not be an increase in impervious surface and resultant runoff. The potential for increase in runoff volume is considered insignificant due to adequate Sycamore Creek capacity. Ai� "'C2—Decreased Density Alternative south of Eaton Road..:.:-... Alternative C2 contemplates another approach to address site constraints for single-family development of the 15 acre area. Under this alternative, the fifteen acre area would develop at the low end of the existing R-1 zoning designation, approximately 2 units per acre, yielding 30 single- family homes. The changes in impacts anticipated by the development of Alternative C2 include: Land Use Population The primarily change in land use resulting from this alternative is that single-family residences would develop near the bottom of the density range for the R-1 zoning designation, approximately 2.1 units per acre. In as much as areas north of Eaton Road are anticipated to develop at approximately 4.2 to 4.4 units per acre, alternativ ' e C2 would be expected to provide a greater variety of housing types by providing larger lots and presumably more expensive homes. Although Foothill'Park East Recirru!at i*EIJR 67 ARACHMENT I E- � Ku 1: no land use incompatibility was identified for the proposed project, the larger lots would also be more in keeping with existing lots to the south. Recommended mitigation measures for a landscaped buffer in the existing utility easement would not be necessary. At the same time, Alternative C2 is only marginally consistent with General Plan policies to promote new development At an intensity sufficient to ensure a long-term compact urban form and to strive for an overall density for new development within the urban area of 7 units per acre. Substantial additional development at low densibes would be inconsistent with the General Plan. TransportationlAir Quality e number of vehicle trip The decreased density alternative would -result in a slight decrease in th per day. The average daily traffic associated with 60 single family homes of 576 trips per day (60 homes X 9.6 trips per day = 576 trips per day) would be halved. The result is a net decrease in daily project' vehicle trips of 288 trips. The'change in density would result in minimal decrease in project traffic on local ' roadways. Nearby intersection and roadway levels of service- would remain the same. There would also be a corresponding slight decrease air contamination resulting from motor vehicle operation. Public Facilities and Services City and private services anticipated under Alternative C2 would be nearly the same as under the proposed Foothill Park East project. Due to slightly smaller population, services would be slightly less impacted. Based upon student yield figures, local schools could expect 13 fewer students over those predicted from thecurrent Foothill Park East. Noise A- reduction in vehicle -traffic- on -area roadways.would -marginally lessen-tra * fficnoise.: impacts from those'anticipated. with% -development of FoothiH -Park.East.- This -� alternati Ve� w.ill not change the noise impact- previously identified as significant to future,Eaton Road.residences. Aesthetics As -stated above, the larger lots would also -be more in keeping- with- existing- lots to.the south and the recommended mitigation measures for a landscaped buffer in the existing utility easement would not be necessary. Light/glare impacts N%ill result from any residential development- in this area. Biological Resources The footprint of development A -M not change with implementation of Alternative C2. Preli.n-dnary grading and the relocation of delineated wetlands has occurred.and a ±31 acre preserve area established. Assuming the same land dedications will be re�uired under Alternative C2, development under thisalternative will not increase impact levels discussed in the Biological Resources chapter. GeologylHydrology Due to the similarity in development types, any change in grading or drainage impacts from implementation of Alternative C2 is considered insignificant. . EITMONMENTAItY - S . UP . EIUOR ALTERNA-1 - IYL Other than the No -Project Alternative, which would result in none of the impacts associated with development of the Foothill Park East project, Alternative C2 - Decreased DLinsity-Altemative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. This determination is made based upon the marginal decrease in environmental impacts resulting from 30 less single fan-dly residences in the project area. This analysis concludes there I would be a slight decre . ase in traffic, air contan-driation, traffic - related noise, and student yield. Foothill Park East Recirculated Draft EIR 68 MOMENT PAG (3enerai Pian Amendment UU-3 and Kezone uu-t Eaton Road and Ceanothus Ave'7 nue City of Chico Zoning Districts r7 CC Community Commercial - =1 CS Service Commercial E= CD Downtown Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Restricted Commercial M C-2 Commercial Services = OC Office Commercial E= OR'Offioe Residential ML Light Manufacturing MG General Maufacturing/Industrial MP Manufacturing/industrial Park R1 Low Density Residential R I - 10 Low Density Res. (110, 000 sq. ft. min.) RI - 15 Low Density Res. (15, 000 sq. ft. min.) R2 Medium Density Residential R3 Medium -High Density *Residential R4 High Density Residential r-1 RD Downtown Residential RR Rural Residential RS -20 Surburan Residential (20,000 sq. ft. rr RS -1 Surburan Residential (I acre min.) RS -2 Surburan Residential (2 acre min.) RS -3 Surburan Residential (3 acre min.) OS1 Primary Open Space EM OS2 Secondary Open Space 11771 PQ Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PMU Planned Multiple Use A Aviation AC Airport Commercial AM Airport Manufacturing/Industrial AP Airport Public Facilities � Sphere of Influence Line a I ."T Q, ML AP ZVI It Sam All 6MI111 G -PA: from -Low De I nsity Residen�ialjto Medium Density Residen'..1 Rezone: from R1,Low Density.Resi ential 'to R2 Med um Density Resid ritiat I H V 7' -v- 4, 4� , RezoneIGPA Si 0S1 0 '.',,PM UL Mr R1 General Plan Amendment 00-3 and Rezone 00-5 Eaton Road and Ceanothus Avenue City of Chico Zoning Districts FL_—j CC Community Commercial CS Service Commercial CD Downtown Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Restricted Commercial C-2 Commercial Services OC Office Commercial OR Office Residential r7i ML Light Manufacturing EM MG General Maufacturing/Industrial MP Manufacturing/industrial Park R1 Low Density Residential Rl-10 Low Density Res. (10,000 sq. ft. min.) Rl-15 Low Density Res. (15,000 sq. ft. min.) - R2 Medium Density Residential R3 Medium -High Density Residential R4 High Density Residential =.RD Downtown Residential RR Rural Residential RS -20 Surburan Residential (20,000 sq. ft. mir. RS -1 Surburan Residential (1 acre min.) RS -2 Sutburan Residential (2 acre min.) RS -3 Surburan Residential (3 acre min.) OS1 Primary Open Space OS2 Secondary Open Space PQ Public/Quasi-Public Facilities PMU Planned Multiple Use. A Aviation AC Airport Commercial AM Airport Manufacturing/industrial AP Airport Public Facilities Sphere of Influence Line L__j a 21