HomeMy WebLinkAbout055-250-033All
1. Runway Protection Zone "I":
Approximately 200+- feet of the lands located west of the runway ce nterline are
located within Runway Protection Zone "J.
A. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if this area is depicted on
'the final map as a "No Development Zone."
B. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the criteria of "G " and
"H" are included as a note on the final map. Criteria -G- and "H"
prohibits 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 persons at any time.
Communication Towers (excluding airport related facilities) are also
prohibited:
2. Inner Turning Zone "Y':
Approximately 1/3 of Parcel I and a minor portion of Parcel 2 are within Inner
Turning Zone "3. -
Criteria ."A" of the Inner Turning Zone only allows 20% coverage per acre
(buildings and structures). This will be achieved due to the large parcel sizes.
The Criteria of item I'D" requires measures to achieve an interior noise level of
45 CNEL within portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas,
and other areas where people work or congregate. The language of Criteria Item
I'D" applies to commercial and I industrial structures and not single family
dwellings.
The Criteria of items " H, 1, J and U are not applicable to this project because this
project involves a land division for building future single family residences.
The Criteria of item "E" states that residential development shall not occur in a
noise level greater than 55 CNEL. This contour is estimated to pass through the
eastern portion of Parcel 4 and the southeast comer of Parcel 3. These areas are
already proposed to be."No Development Zones " pursuant to the criteria of
Runway Protection Zone '.'] " discussed in Finding, 1.
Although the noise contour indicates that projected,exposure within most of the
project area will be at or below 55 dB Ldn, it should also be noted that residents
may be exposed to single event nois'e levels and other noise episodes which
exceed those levels.
C. A note shall be placed on the Final Map stating that prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit for a single family dwelling, the property owner shall
sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use of the
Paradise Skypark Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and
acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational
impacts.
3. Sideline Safety Zone "5":
The easterly parcels -located 500 feet from the runway centerline are within
Sideline Safety Zone -5 ". The Comrnission finds this width consistent with the
1999 CLUP amendment for the Paradise Skypark Airport. The criteria of the
1999 CLUP Density Table does not allow any dwelling units per acre within the
Sideline Safety Zone' "5
D. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the Sideline Safety
Zone, being an area approximately 500' from the centerline of the runway
and extending into the easterly portion of parcels 1, 12, 3, and 4 be
depicted on the final map as a "No Development Zone". The
Commission found that the 1000' Sideline Safety Zone does not apply
for this specific proposal due to the following:
- The adopted Cal -Trans standard for the Sideline Safety Zone is 500'
for airports with runways under 4000 feet in length and the Paradise
airport runway is 3 100 feet in length.
- Testimony received from the owner of the Paradise Airport cites that
the project is consistent with the use of his airport and will not cause any
adverse impacts to the airport.
- The topography surrounding the Paradise Airport is such that the
reduced Sideline Safety Zone provides greater protection to the airport
by providing homesites outside the height restricted area.
4. Airspace Protection:
The Commission finds that due to the topography of the project, that there are no
transitional surface problems. The subject property is located on a down slope, with a
topographic elevation that is significantly lower than the airport. Approach surfaces
would not be affected due to topography.
E. A note shall be placed 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.
F. A note shall be placed on the Final Map stating that uses which have the
potential to create visual, electronic or 'hysical flight hazards including
p 11)
the generation of dust, smoke, glare, electronic interference, or the
attraction of birds to the project area shall be avoided.
5
Safety
Accident scatter information presented in Figure 8C, Exhibit 8D (Hodges and Shutt -
1993) and Figure 9E (UC Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies - 1993) within
Chapters 8 and 9 of The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, indicate 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
land on either side of the runway. Due to the project site's location in proximity to the
north end of runway 17/35, there is an elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents
to occur within the eastern half of Parcels I through 4. Conditio ns required under
Section 2, Items IA., 2A. and 2B. within the ALUC's findings will ensure that future
residential development is ' directed to locations which are not considered to have an
elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents.
KAPLANN ING�ALUC\MEETINGS\2000\02-16-OO.MTG\E 1 -BD
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
ALUC File No. A99-06
(County of Butte - Cuseo/Bird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15)
on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120
The Airport Land Use Commission has adopted findings of consistency for the proposed project based
upon data contained -within the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for The Paradise Skypark
Airport, as amended on December 29, 1999, the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the
Butte County Airport Facilities Manual, and testimony received at the public hearing held February 16,
2000.
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review.
Section 2: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY:
A. The proposed project will be consistent with the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) for the Paradise Skypark Airport, as amended on December 29,
1999, if the requirements in Section 3 are applied to the final map.
B. Approval of the project without implementation of the requirements in Section
3 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 up 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, here say, or upon the unsubstantiated
fears and desires of the governing body.
Section 3: PROJECT FINDINGS:
A.. According to the newly adopted Paradise Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone
Map."9-1", a number of safety zones are located within the eastern half of the'
project site, as follows:
- Approximately 200+' feet of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2 3 and
4 are located within Runway Protection Zone
- Approximately 1/3 of Parcel I and a minor portion of Parcel 2 are
within Inner Turning Zone "3_7
Approximately 700'+- of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2 3 and 4
are located within Sideline Safety Zone "5.
- The remaining portions of Parcels I through 4 are located within
Traffic Pattern Zone "6."
Paradise Skypark Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and
acknowledging any �nd all existing or potential airport operational
impacts.
3. Sideline Safety Zone "5'
The easterly parcels*located 500 feet from the runway centerline are within
Sideline Safety Zone "5 ". T ' he Commission finds this width consistent with the
1999 CLUP amendment for the Paradise Skypark Airport. The criteria of the
1999 CLUP Density Table does not allow any dwelling units per acre within the
Sideline Safety Zone "5
D. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the Sideline Safety
Zone, being an area approximately 500' from the centerlmie of the runway
and' extending int6 the easterly "portion of parcels 1, 2i 3, and 4 be
depicted on the final map as a "No Development Zone". The
Commission found that the 1000"Sideline Safety Zone does not apply
for. this specific proposal due to the following:
The. adopted Cal -Trans standard for the Sideline Safety, Zone is 500'
for airports with runways under 4000 feet in length and the Paradise
airport runway is 3 100 feet in length.
- Testimony received from the owner of the Paradise -Airport cites that
the project is consistent with the use of his airport and will not cause any
adverse impacts to the airport.
The topography surrounding the Paradise Airport is such that the
reduced Sideline Safety Zone provides greater.protection to the airport
by providing homesites outside the height restricted area.
4. Airspace Protection:
Commi�sion finds that 2due to the topography of the project, that there are no
transitional surface problems. The subject property is located on a down slope, with a
topographic elevation that is significantly lower than the airport. Approach surfaces
would not be affected due to topography' -
E. A note shall be placed oii 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.
F. A note shall be placed on the Final Map stating that uses which have the
potential to create visual, electronic or physical flight hazards in6luding
the generation Pf dust, smoke, glare, electronic interference, or the
attraction of birds.to the project area shall be avoided.
--BUTTE,COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION pd(q�,
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OkOVILLE, CA 95965-3397 j2S
RETURNSERVICE REQUESTED1
-;OPP.
use
Joh Cuse and Larry Bird
C
57( nd Valley Ranch Road
Paradise CA 95969
CUSE747 95969a156 1399 17 OR125100
RETURN TO -SENDER
CUSEO-STRAUSS
MOVED LEFT NO ADDRE55
UNABLE TO FORWAR
7,1
,�, -z
, 11,1JI;l1l.
'Q,
- ---------
I I
.1
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of January 19,'2000�
3
,4 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5
6 B. ROLL CALL Present:
7
8
9 Absent: Commissioners Causey and
10 12
11 Others Present: Paula Lea -sure, Pftncip
12 Barbri:Duncan, A R s a
Bf n.
13 Teri4 idenhagen
14 Alt-Mommiss ner al
mmi -
15 Al�'t&q S' ner Pa ai:d'
16 Toffi,Wftfikle, Sierra West:
17 Nick E1lefiSj!-,,Qhico Enterprise Record
pp
,4
18
19 C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of November 17, to elf
20
Commissioners Grierson, Rosene, LamVert,
Gerst and, Chair Hennigan
21 Ms. Leasure said Commissioner Gerst w�a-&'46-.-supgly change'- -t, ..A e November 17, 1999,
22 minutes, and those changes have not-b6en received"
. . . . . . . . . . .
0 93
24 D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
25
26 The Commission accepted,� 4genda� presente
27
28 E. BUSINESS ITE S
AtA
29
M A
30 ITE—M-S,WITH PUBLIC.H-EARI GS
31
1. Ir T,Tf.1
32 1. "9-�Caunty of Butte Cuseo/-Bird Tent.,
T
33
on AM055-250-033, 035, 037 &120* Tentative Parcel Map and Lot
-'�'-Lin&`�A-Aiustm-bnt invofving 4 existing parcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size'
34
35 AP' re�sulting-FOtha-epeation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre
36 parcel a'nd--fivd'2-0 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, -
37 20 acre minimum). The project site lo6ated in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N,
38 R3E off.both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles
39 southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise.. Recommendation: Staff recommends
40 ALUC find the project conditionally consistent with 1985 Paradise Skypark CLUP.
41 Continuedfrom the meeting ofJune 16, 1999.
42
43 Ms. Leasure explained that the soil test was completed. She suggested reviewing this project
44 under the 1985 CLUP because the application was complete before the adoption of the 1999
45 CLUP. She feels the applicants were operating under certain rules and regulations and to
06 change it a week,before the hearing date would not.be right. Staff is recommending �he
47 project be approved subject to several conditions listed in the staff report.
48
the runway. They spell that out in FAR Part 77. The other issue that the Commission would
be addressing really falls under the Ca Itrans Handb ook, but it c omes down to what the
3: communities have adopted.
4
5 Mr. Wrinkle said it would be. very helpful in the process of this type of review that they
_-6 supply the applicants with that information. So that if there is a dispute as to the accuracy
7 of the information, they could evaluate it. The applicants should know �hat the rules are'.
8 Then the applicant could tak� the infor miation and- plot it on their own map. s and see if it
9 corre'sponds -to the staff report, for example. They are not sure exactly wh e 'taff is getting
10 their information as far as'pioperty boundaries, topography, etc..
"'.1 A&N,
e i , ihat C ade regarding the
12 Commissioner Rosene said he appreciated th d awmg A:
av5w A50TA', Af
13 transitional surface and how the land dies off.'HoW'dbes that affdot E-iffilSit," C ?ghat chang'e
14 does that make to the inner safety zone and the iiRier tuming-zone? How_,Zdo6sA.hat-civeilay
010,
15 over the" site?'
16
ap As far as the parcel goes,
17 Mr. Cuseo said he looked at that and there is no sc ld,.on4
18 this is inaccurate. He does not think that the size ifftheipropeftfes or the size of the runway
19 is correct. The inap says right on the bottom, no'scale. Thisli�jdstan arbitrary explanation
169-13f;the zones are. :It does
.20 of what the zones are and the map is not accurgfeon what th8�a
21 not indicate how they -go up from thegu"A'way.,
q map do "Tnot indicate the different
22 elevations of the runway and the elev:rt.�'o�n—s"o4?i-�.�','tlie,or6p.erty.
23
4 Commissioner Rosene said -the zones overla t srconcem. He understands what
thFI-land dyi - g off.
25 the applicant is saying about
44A.
26
27 Mr. Cuseo said the end otthe airpooRas farth e -north than it is depicted. That pu s that
es-IftreRiendous difference on the property. Exhibit
28 overlay zone fartherifiort, ic
29 Ond,;Pkilthe staff repoWishows he, rsom ones are depicted arid where the lines overlay
"th6'-Jop o
ef,'�
30 ov f thE'-'. ro' hat was from an old airport measurement. Also, the
31 t o p 6'gr'aP'hy'; , is , d 1 ffle r e o at the topo map shows. When the airport is 450 feet from
32 their p'roperty,ijine the end,'of,thF.-runway, that moves the airport ver� far north.
,y
.33 V
34 Comffiis§i6if&,R6seh-e-asked ifow much farther?
35
36 if we.use our plot map'and the geological map. He thinks that
Cuseo said 1.
37 almost.an ar i t r "a" stamp on the map'because it is not accurate on that ridge. The
38 direction pro�b�b
is origin al, but he does not thihk the pos itioning is.
39
40 Chair Henniian said the runway was extended to the north awhile back and the map on.
41 which the work was based may precede the extension of the runway to the north.
42
43 Mr. Cuseo said we have the measurements.
..44
45 Chair Henniaan said to clarify, there are really three things that the Commission is concerned
46 with and the airspace protection is one of those. Those are the surfaces that go up. People
.0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 3M
Chair Hennigan said the issue th�t Commissioner Gerst is making, is one of health and
safety. In the inner turning zone what is our adopted density?
4 Commissioner Gerst said one unit in 5 acres.
5
6 Chair Hennigan'said he agreed that the large parcels are approph.ate in this'location and 20
7 acre parcels are not going to be aproblem.
8
9 Mr. Cuseo said he would provide the Commission with more accurate inf6mation.
10
pli
11 Commissioner Gerst said he would make a motion F inten t&Meldottplicitnt know's the
12 Commission is serious.
13
'I of
14 Laurie Cuseo said that if they had notified.them.
e eet,,- s they w; 1d%. -,ha;;
15 this taken care of before the new 1999 CLUP was
0 ed. S e would re roject
16 stayed under the 1985 rules.
17
18 Chair Hennigan apologized. He does not knov�,W-. y st ff- Chot notify the applicant. He
19 does not think there'was 'a problem either way. b issi,oneri*Gerst's point is that because
20 the issues are noise and safety, the Commissidn—is..'reluctant'to,�gr�didfdther things in. He is
21 sure that the Commission can approve the 117r- ect-,,tither way WaUse the project meets the
22 density requirements.
23
.104 Ms. Cuseo said that when they talked to Mr. oody 4:'ej Wed them other issues in the new
5 plan. That 'is whythey would�'ffef'er tb 'be' under th Id plan.
.26
Aff
27 Chair Hennig�n asked wlidf,bther issues9
28
29 Mr.,,Cuseo said he did40timow an& y is not here. It was his recommendation that
t F "rules. ap lic I did have everything in and done under that
30 li&p-foijebft'�stay udd6r-Ah , blitrules. e ant
31 time,z&ne.,
32
33 Commissiffi&-VMhbe as "'en staff deemea this project complete?
WEr
34
ec aer 15.
35 Ms-. Leasure aiT
36
31- Commission r Lambe said staff deemed the application complete before the adoption of
38 the 1999 CLUP.�There w�re no hearings scheduled before the December 29 hearing -
39
40 Ms. Leasure §'�Id that was correct.
41
U
42 haif.Hennigan said, Paradise Airport runs -downhill to the so th and so in rriost'wind
43 conditions most people choose to land uphill and take off down. Which'further reduces the,
44 impact in this direction.' Chair Hennigan asked Commissi6ner Gerst if that Were a motion
45 of intent?
6
Butte Airport Land Use Commission E'Minutes of January 19, 2000 N Page 5 0
%
Commissioner Gerst said he could make it a motion of inteht because he is satisfied that
what the Commission.adopted recently favors this project., The traffic pattern zone allows
3 one unit in 2V2 acres... This project is way over that.
5 Chair Hennigan said the project went way beyond what is required. He does not foresee any
6 problems eith�r.way. Commissioner Gerst has made a motion of intent.
17
8 Commissioner Grierson seconded the motion of intent.
9 AW
'A
10 Ms. Leasure asked what is the motion of intent? Staff would lik hsomel, ecific language.
4®r
pany updi ings.
12 Chair Hennigan said to pr�pare an accurate map to -i A r16( in find
13
AVV
14 Commissioner Gerst said his motion,of intent Ets to appi.Zve this le �..l se .0, the
15 pending receipt of the maps.
16,
17 Commissioner Gerst said he was very confident t 'Vi in the applicants favor to do
18 that.
19
Ing to wan -
20 Commissioner Grierson said the applicants arg 7199— a out the conditions.
21 Are the same conditions going to apply?,1- 10\,
22
23 Commissioner Gerst said there are-.-Teally Amp xMitio 's there
ZVO
10" 9
zr
*5 Chair Hennigan said 55 dI3 L-46tfs the only"' one.
26
27 Ms. Leasure said the proje-CA was outiAde the Ldn.
28
n ed' 0
29 M. 17: %i"W` ni nn kic I e c o e t' -that recomm Conditi' n C limited the building sights on the
30 i�Ve,kdfl��4:half of t ie�� qe1s.,-,, if the— ission adopts..that condition the project has no
31 s e,,� a g -e* is -p" -o' s a ea
�pplicants would not have a project.
V-ItiAx
32 *C"'t
33 Commissiohet.,Gdrst.said he'didhot want to go back on anyof the conditions. He wants io
34 start.. ihth6W1Jhaps. The overflight area is not just the western part. That includes
everything in area.. If there is iinything that goes to the east and goes in the
36 k-?yfurning zone or ifiekii0y zone it only has to be in the safety zone that would limit the
37
applicant'
P
38
39- Mr.,Wrinkle said he was referring to page 3 of Laura Webster's.staff report.
40
41 Chair Hennigan noted the first paragraph at the top, where it says it is recommended that any
42 residence or structures be constructed in the west half of the parcel to insure no penetration
43 of the.ira'nsitional surfaces.
44
45 Commissioner Gerst said he would like to eliminate the back staff report and start from
6 scratch with the new maps.
0 Butte Airport Land Use (tornmission N Minutes of January 19,- 2600 0 Pag'e 6 0
Ms. Leasure'said that she was recommending the Corimission-direct staff to do it.
2 --
Chair Hennig an said it would be up to the Board whether they would want to do that.
.4
5 Ms. Leasure said she thought that the Commission -stood a better chance of having an
ordinance amendment if it is kept simple and is based on the existing ordinance with a minor
7 definition change, rather than cominj in with completely revised ordinances'
8
ponsibility
9 Commissioner Gerst said in the General Plan it states that the language is.th-
10 of the Airport Commission to protect the airports and so forth.
right back to the
11 Supervisor' - s because they adopted the Genera aon
.12
11 P
" t s,t
13 Commissioner Grierson asked if the existing ordinance equatel'� pr I e,areas aro
14 the airport, except for Ranchaero? Do we absolutely. need to pitch the t "Qut� d�re. te
15 the wheel?
16
17
Chair Hennigan said, unfortunately, it refers to ot air zoning map, rather than
18 referring to Part 77 -surfaces. Chair Hennigan suggestediffi"�Zhg two changes. The first is
The Commission is
19 to change the definition of airport to mean any public use a iff,
porl
20 conc6med about public use airports. So anyiffilic use airp"qaX's`h'6dld be protected, rather
21 than referring to the Chico Municipal aim0ft-air..'zoning map, be more appropriate
22 to refer to the surfaces described in Pait4'�"7'7-"of-q'tli--6*-,F'8d&r,,aI AirAegulation
23
1 4 Ms. Leasure said to refer to surf4cbs desc e i 1 Vi -E,- Part77?
5
26 Chair Hennigan said rather;--thifi�refe .*.- g to an adopted map, the ordinance should refer to
4��+W A%" .43%
27 those surfaces that the Foddral'Goveffiffient hasdstablished.
28
, �,W
AsINF Awl. _4
Corffiffissioner G
29 ersf.'�WW' hen the 6rdiRM was adopted, Chico was the only airport that
47._
30 haa4'i*h`aO, showihjKFAR, art 77. Tlialt is probably why. That is all the Co- mmissio"n has
-31 tod4.." f6v"Ille has t6ld"hiffi';the'y have a ma , but he has never seen it.
p
V� 7 *-Rt Pl�A
32
aff c
33 Ms. Leasuie��s"a`iid:st ould'ffi�ke'those changes and bring it back to the next meeting. Staff
34 c o u I d' ha'Vei t Id oin' e-fiffly..quickly for the Commission to make consistency findings and move
to the Bo d
35 it�,.on
,36
37 Chair Hennigan ith the enforcement mechanism here, it shall be the duty of the County
38 Counsel to brin d prosecute an action.
39
40 -The hearing was opened to the public.'
41
42 �Barba'r'a Hennigan said she did not have a copy of theexisting ordinanc�; but she keep's
43 seeing references to creation of nonconforming uses and allowing nonconforming uses. By
44 definition a nonconforming use is one that causes -the FAA or the State to come in and close
45 the airport. So you really cannot have a mechanism to create nonconforming -u�es. Right
6 now, there. are no nonconforming uses because no one airport has been restricted.
N Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19,'2000'm Page 100,
1. Ms. Leasure said ther a
e is big difference in the law. LAFCo has the.ability to become an
independent agency. The law states how LAFCo obtains staffing, legal counsel and so forth.
'Whereas in the code for ALUC, it states thafthe County provides staffing through the
4 Planning Department. In order for the Commission to make a move, ALUC would be
5 looking at going through negotiations through the Administrative office. It is not something
.6 easily 4one. Also, LAFCo collects quite a bit of money in fees from projects submitted.
7- Where as to' date ALUC has not collected fees. ALTJC could not become even close to self
8 supporting.
9
10 Commissioner Grierson said he did note recently there is more tha-Poknne ifidependent ALUC.
wmr
11 The number is closer to ten. A lot of them seemA, be contfacting,)
gfith the Regional
12 Transportation Planning Agency. He has not seew,,an'�- contractif -�W_with�,��traigh�t -private
y
13 sector planning companies.
14
Y
Commissioner Gerst'said he would be intei Intk-m-now, -how th doAlha.".. - oticed
,15 rested.
1.6 some of them operate underwhat is.known as B G',,"r . er than pl ing.* 6 e times
17 when he thinks it might be a better way to go. BCAG,,isrs�- ty.
,,,,_parate from the Coun
18
- 4�G�O,-
19 Chair Hennigan said there are only two Commissi6ns inAh6lC6uhty that exist under State
20 law as opposed to County charter. ALUCis�thje-�other Cofiiifii��§i6n_Nbesides LAFCo. He
21 knows thatthe Commission has expenen'c'e,--d-�-,,s'�o"'m"'et�tresses dif&:§tTains. Chair Hennigan
22 asked what is the sense of the Corii�§sion? �6U.Wthe Commission like to explore this
23 possibility?
..... .....
0
Commissioner Grierson saidAft6'Avas not sure if thb�l ission really has a choice not to
26 explore the' possibility righ'(�-now. 0,�)Y,,ith the co plete restructuring 'of -staff that the
4�
27 Commis�ion is looking afl§ a result,-of,L Co,de arting. It behooves tl�e Commission to
28 examine what all the�.`bpti�hs are goin s well as determine what the Commission
29 'is .,g6ing to have t6-�.*&Emith com es, he thinks the Commission owes it to the
30 airp-6tts..'6fButte CoMyj$'explore t ti s they have.
31
Co
32 rrirni'�;si8ilfkosene slaild-46,,fliought the Commission should explor this only because of
z� -4 , e i
33 the' probl6i�s�.ffi6.,Q-.6nunissioh",I�gg had in the past, such as the Commission's lack of having
34 the,abil1`ty'to,-%'g-'o -.16, County Cbunsel for any infdrmation. The Commission does need the
taff and legal issues. -The Commission does not have that right
35 ability to have som.q,�sayim�s
'36 now
and it has haT fedthe Commissions ability to do the job., He would be willing to look
37 at it.
'38
39 Alternate Comniissioner Baldnidge said there are some resources the Commission could tap
40 into to find.ou"t how els� it is being done. Not only in the State, but in the country. He could
41 talk-.,46��,Tdw people that he knows. A meeting the other day showed that there is some
42 .:,it,11egis`1'aR'ion in Sacramento along these lines. Buite County ALUC is not the only one who
43 is experiencing this problem with conflicts.in siaffmg. In tlie next ye ar or,two there may be
44 more direction frorn'the, State and even some budget mechanisms.
45
N Butte Airport Land Use Conunission 0 Minutes 6f January 19,2000 E Page 12M
0 0
Commissioner Gerst said there is quite a lot ' of activity in the State to protect the airports
because they lose so many of them. It is a concern down there.
3
4 Chair Hennigan said the FAA had announced a new incentive as well. They have announced
5 that they are going to get tough with local jurisdictions that have not been living up to their
6 grant agreements. Chair Hennigan asked who could be on the committee?
7
8 Commissioner Grierson said he did not have the time to work on the committee, but he does
9 have the contacts in place. He could do some initial digging, but he wouldA& work with
10 someone else on this as well.
12 Chair Hennigan asked Commissioner Grierson to-C-liair that committee and if there was
13 anyone else who could help.
14
15 Commission Rosene said he would help Cornnussioner, Grierson if Alternate E61nni'ssioner
16 Baldridge would help.
17
18 Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said he would help'�'
'7/
19
20 Alternate Commissioner Papadakis said this"*i§�something--thk hasbeen on his mind for
21. some time. He said he would support the Cornhim"i9sio"nlooking into,some sort of independent
22 agency.
23 "IN
1 4 Chair Hennigan said there is no nq"&d for a'vote. A(�o) tte'e has been appointed to explore
5 the independent status option'for ALUC..
26
27 F. MONTHLY STATUS R.9,VORT
28
29 Ms. Leasure said-the'.Nofth Chico.Spe , cific'Plan was going to be discussed at the joint
30 meeting with the B6#dbf Supervisors.' Ms. Leasure wanted to let the Commission know
31 that she has received an 4dmim.strative draft from Shutt -Moen and chapters two and three of
32 the proposedCLUP. Thi's--,Is.a' preliminary staff draft. Staff has been requested to inform Mr:
33 Brody of ariy'p'ote''n'tial problerfis.' She said she is just about done with the review and she
34 will be sending' hefcOmments--back to Mr. Brody. He will be looking at it to see if he needs
35 16, -make changes-.
36
37 Commissioner st sked if the Commission is supposed to make any cornments at this
38 staoe.
39
40 Ms. Leasure said no, this is the staff portion where staff will look at it and try to iron out any
41 potential problems, before it is brought to public hearing before the Commission.
42
43 Commissioner Grierson asked if it is the inventory and the forecast.
44
45 Ms. Leasure said it was a list of policies. Chapters two and three talk about the purpose, the
6 definitions, geographic scope, and types of airport impacts. Also, the actual review of land
0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission N Minutes of January 19, 2000 IF Page 13 0
%
t
use actions and the review process for community land use plans and ordin es. That is
anc
2 what staff is looking at. There is a table that.she has not yet reviewed. Much like the one
3 the Commission adopted at the'last meeting. The table talks about -maximum density,
4, intensities and additional criteria that apply to the CLUP.
5
6 Comm' issio'ner Grierson said the reference portion of the document should identi�y what
.7 supporting references were used to create that document. Does Ken Brody refer to the 1993
.8 Caltrans Handbook or does he refer to the Caltrans Handbook without a date?
10 Ms. Leasure said since this is only chapters two and three, theregs, ot. list of references.
- *Mli
Commissioner Grierson said the reason he' brougNW,,hat tip is'bed' is in the
'13 process of updating their Land Use Handbook. ti -W-1,11 probabl, 1-1'e ine-.,yyeqarV 51 1 befo
L re -
adoption.
15
16 Ms. Leasure said Ken Brody and Shutt -Moen are p iithe Ca trans Han' So they
17 are looking forward to what they believe will be 1n-,thE-,n(5w_-,Caltrans handbook. Also the
18 mapping that we have, is the mapping presented o.,the '. Commission a couple of months ago.
19 This is the direction the Caltrans Handbook will"be mov!�Lw
nN I
"W1
io
21 Commissioner Gerst said he found. out Itiat-ithepapping is t Ft.." that'is-being proposed
-All
22 for the fiew Handbook. It is'not a customary t M,
�7pe%Prmn in it' t we use to make airports
23 today.
A.
4
led
25 Commissioner Grierson said, st 11
�j s airports,�are I sition. Most airports are still trying
26- to' get into compliance with`�119,93.
.27-
28 Ms. Leasure said shegave,the Co ssi e inforrnation that we received from County
29 Couh�eVs office. Thi' ifidental"di0r1mation for the Commission and staff. Staff can
S'ls con
30 Uhing re"a�dy,,1qf6`jQ'thq next me8tin . The subdivision map was approved in 1993.
9
31 The;fiEil,map with all4herd6nditions met was filed in October 1998.' Mr. Doody was
32 supposed td��-b6�,lookingto,.4'§ee,-.,,l-f the pr 'ect had been referred to ALUC in 1993.
01
�N,
P.-
33 Unfortunately'j-'he,pas been ouf6f the office for several days and did iot get that information
":J;w
34 for her. Sin" '��-itwa�sqpproved in 1993, the Commisgion has passed the time liriiit for
.35 submitting any '6;bje'6t'_ibns;. She said she looked at the subdivision yesterday and it is well
36 j,11.under construction?kTibisis the project that is located on the north -side of,Feather Avenue,
37 west of Ruddy Creek."It is the one brought to the attention of the Commission at the.last
38 meeting.
39
40 Commissioner" Gerst asked if they have a vested map?
41
42 -.Ms. Le�sure said she did not know if they had a vested map. What Mr.,Doody submitted to
43 'her was an approved subdivision map. He did not say whether it was vested or not.
-44
45 Commissioner Gerst asked, in Ms. Leasure's opihion, what status would that put the map in,
06 in relation to the Airport Commission?
E Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of hnuary 19, 2000 E Page 140
1 Ms. Leasure said they have the drainage pipes out. The ditches are dug and they are
2 probably putting the pipes in this week.
453
4 Commissioner Gerst said they have the pipes on top of.the ground. . He does not know if they
5 have anything in the groufid. He does not think they have been working lately.
6
7 Ms. Leasure said she went by- the project site yesterday and it looks like they have'been
8 working.
9
�0
'0
10 Commissioner Gerst said he did not think they should be stoppe t, there s ould be some
kind of burden put on the City to start cooperating wi&ALU.
.,gs like this.
12
1 AW
the "as
13 Chair Hennigan said maybe Jane Garvey s get tough polic City�h
14 to pay back the six million dollars, that might gqt',,,.t,heir att ni-i
15
16
Ms. Leasure apologized for not having any st ffff, tim0accounting fo the -o"nimission.
17 Numerous staff members have been off the last coupld;ofweeks with the flu. It was difficult
.18 even getting the packet out. Staff will try to getffie time'a-c-counting to the Commission at
19 the next meeting.
.20
21 Chair Herinigan said we are already two'WE6Rsydhead of the - ro osed'schedule, for the
22 spring, for adoption for the. new . C -L -UP o -P- 0 upd if Ms. Leasure has the
23 administrative draft in hand. �d n -V
4 4 *Y1
15 Ms.- Leasure said she only,ftdfj�wchapters o and ee of the administrative draft. She
26 believes this means staff isigoing to hqv-"e'�"the com&te administrative draft by January 3 1.
4
27 Chair, Hennigan
f h �.Q
28 3ai&his p0l'int was i n'Ca'n get ahead of this schedule at all,
29 doing-�'§o would befd,&iabje. The s6 --gliows the Commission doing the public review
1111ir". FrI tw: 11 1 -
f` t-qf�
30 prq"c-`e`§'s�du'n'ng M96h"5't4fstaff`. can s ar the sallent'portions of the draft with the agencies,
31 Cit" -i6f Chico 'and the -Cit"
y _y-Zof,0roVille particularly. There may be substantial public
32 'co e
33
34 Ms.�, eas -.,w I `e orking with Ken Brody and Laura Webster. They have
35 Apt gone over i ed it to her after five o'clock last night. She willineet with Ken
36 �SBrody and Laura�, on this and try to set up specific meetings and time lines to rn�et
37 this date. Ken tion that the Commission may have to have a special meeting to
38 complete, it by end of April.
39
40 G." COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
41
42 Noh6.
43
44 H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
45
6 None
E Butte �irport Land Use Cornrni�sion N Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Pag . e 160
AGENDA ITEM'- E.I.
TO: Honorable Chair and Airp6rt Land,Use Commission
FROM: ALUC Staff
DATE: January 11, 2000
ITEM: ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte Cusea/Bird, Tentative Parcel Map
TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &1,20- Tentative Parcel Kap and Lot
Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels of 20,37, 40 and 40 acres in size
resulting in the creation of two additibnal parcels in' a configuration of one 36 acre
parcel and five 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational,
20 acre minimum). The project site is located irf the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N,
R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approiimately 1.5 miles
southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise'. The pro'j ect kte is'located just west of
the north end of runway 17/3 5. (Continuedfrom- January 19, 2060),
FOR: Airp'ort Land Use Commission Meeting ofFebruary 2000.
SUMMARY: Staff recommends AL UCfind the project consistent with the 1985 Paradise Skypark
CL UP as ame nded December 29, 1999.
ANALYSIS: According to the newly adopted Paradise Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone Map
"9-1," a number of safety zones are located within the eastern half of the pioject site, as, follows
Approximately 200+- feet of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2 3 and 4 are located
within Runway Protection Zone "l."
Approximately 1/3 of Paicel.1 and a mirior portion of Paicel 2 are Within Inner Turning
Zone "3."
Approximately 700'+- of the eastern portions of Parcels 1,2,3 and 4 are located within
Sideline Safety Zone "5."
-'The remaining portions of Parcels I through 4 are located within Traffic Pattern Zone "6."
*Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
Criteria "K"- Does not apply because the proposed project does not involve the use of density
0 bonus. - I
0
Criteria 'V'- Does not apply because the proposed project does not involve the use of bulk
petroleum products.
W M I I -
The remaining portions of Parcels 1 through 4 are located, within The Traffic Pattern Zone "6."
Airport operations will not be adversely affected by. the proposed land division. No further
restri6tions are warranted.
At the January 19, 2000, ALUC meeting the consensus of the Commission was that due to the
topography of the project, that there are no transitional surface problems. The subject property is
located on a down slope, with a topographic elevation that is significantly lower than the airport.
Approach surfaces would not be affected due to topography. Execution of an avigation easement
is recommended to protect future airport operations and light and glare restrictions are warranted as
well.
In addition to single family residences and utility facilities, The FR -20 zoning district permits a
variety of agricultural and mining activities as uses that are permitted outright and/or -subject to a
conditional use permit. Some activities associated with particular agricultural and mining operations
do have the potential to create flight hazards within an airport environment. Page 9-31 of the Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook notes that flight hazards may be visual (in the form of distracting
lights, glare, dust and smoke); 'electronic (which includes uses that could interfere with aircraft
instruments or radio communications); and physical (ranging from tall structures and objects, to
*water areas (pond,$) which may generate ground fog, or other uses which involve ' or'attract birds to
the airport environment). These potential hazards should be considered and avoided as future
development of the parcels occur.
The 1985 CLUP for the Paradise Skypark Airport, as amended on.December 29, 1999, does not
contain diagrams which depict the locations of potential aircraft related accidents for the facility.
Therefore, staff consulted general accident scatter information presented within The 1993 Airport
Land Use Planning Handbook. Figure 8C on page 8-13 of the Handbook shows accident location
data collected by Hodges and Shutt for 14 -general aviation airports. The figure indicates that the
highest concentration of both departure and arrival related aircraft accidents takes place within the
Runway Protection Zone and Approach Surface. Exhibit 8D on page 8-30 of the Handbook shows
accident sites for runways less than 4,000 feet in length. This information is also based upon data.
collected by Hodges and Shutt. Again, a majority of departure and arrival related accidents are'
.shown to be concentrated off the ends of the runway, and on either side of ihe runway. Figure 9E
on page 9-13 of the Airport Land Use. Planning Handbook is based upon accident scatter data
collected by the University of California,, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) and
demonstrates similar findings. Due to the project site's location in proximity to the north end of
*Butte County &Airport Land Use Commission
4
0,
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained
within the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for The Paradise Skypark Airport, as
amended on December 29, 1999, the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Butte
County Airport Facilities Manual. This data, in turn, is based upon the findings of a number of
studies, documents and reports generated by individuals, firms and agencies recognized as having
expertise in the field of Airport Land.Use Plahning and land use compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List
of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the. ALUC and ar ' e 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: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY:
A. The proposed project will be consistent with the 1985 Comprehens'ive Land
Use Plan (CLUP) for the Paradise Skypark Airport, as amended on December
'29, 1999, if the requirements in Section 3 are applied to the final map.
B. Approval of the project without implementation ' of the requirements in
Section 3 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 up substantiated facts and must be support�d by new
substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record that the
proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in
Section2f670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion,
here say, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body.
Section 3: PROJECT FINDINGS:
A. According to the newly adopted Paradis6 Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone
Map "94", a number of safety zones are located.within the eastern half of the
project site, as follows:
Butte County *Airport Land Use Cornt�ission
6
Approximately 200+- feet of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2 3
and.4 are located within Runway T!roiection Zone
Approximately 1/3 of Parcel I and a minor portion of Parcel 2 are
within Inner Turning Zone "3.
- Approximately 700'+- of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2 3 and
4 are located within Sideline Sqfety Zone "5.
- The remaining portions of Parcels I through 4 are located within
Traffic Pattern Zone "6."
1. Runway Protection Zone "i"
Approximately 200+- feet of the eastern portions of Parcels 1, 2,3 and 4 are
located within Runway Protection Zone
A. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if this area is depicted
on the final map as a "No Development Zone."
B. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the criteria of "G
and '.H" are included as a note on the final map. Criteria "G" and
"H" prohibits builldings, structures, above groundtransmission lines,
or storage of flammable or explosive material above ground, and no
uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons at any time.
Coinmunication Towers (excluding airport related facilities) are also
prohibited.
2. Inner Tuming-Zone 'T'�
Approximately 1/3 6f Parcel 1 and a minor portion of Parcel 2 are within
Inner Turning Zone -3.
'Criteria "A" of the Inner Turning Zone only allows 20% coverage per acre
(buildings and structuies). This will be achieved due to the large parcel sizes.
The Criteria of item "D" requires measures to achieve an interior noise level
of 45 CNEL within portions of buildings where the public is received, office
areas, and other areas where,people work or congregate. The language of
Criteria Item "D" applies to commercial and industrial structures and not single
family dwellings.
The Criteria of items H, I,J and U are riot applicable to this project because
this project involves a land- division for building future single family
residences.
The Criteria of.item "E" states that residential development shall ' not occur in
a noise level greater than 55 CNEL. This contour is estimated to pass
*Butte County Airpoft Land Use Commission
7
4
through the eastern portion of Parcel 4 and the southeast comer of. Parcel 3
These areas are already proposed to be "No Development Zones " pursuant
to the criteria of Runway Protection Zone "I " discussed in Finding I
Although the noise contour indicates that projected exposure within most of
the project area will be at or below 55 dB Ldn, it should'also be noted that
residents may be exposed'to single event noise levels and'other noise
episodes: which exceed those levels.
C. A note shall be placed on the Final Map stating that prior to the
issuance of a Building Perniit for a single family dwelling, the property
owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued
use of the Paradise Skypark Airport in the airspace above the proposed
parcels and acknowledging any and all existing br potential airport
operational impacts.
3 Sideline Safety Zone "5"a
The easterly V2of parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 are within SidelineSafety Zone "5
The mapping data presented to the Commission show a 1000' Sideline Safety
Zone. The Commission finds this width consistent with the 1999 CLUP
amendment for the Paradise Skypark Airport. The criteria of the 1999 CLUP
Density Table does.not allow any dwelling units per acre within the Sidelini
Safety Zone "5".
D The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the Sideline Safety
Zone, being an area approximately 1000' from the centerline of the
runway and extending into the easterly V2of parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 be
depicted on the final map as a "No Development Zone".
4. Airspace Protectiom
The Commission finds that due to the topography of the. p*roject, that there are no
transitional surface problems. The subject property is located on a down sl6pe,'with
a topographic elevation that is significantly lower than the air -port. Approach
surfaces would not be affected due.to topography.
E. A note shall be placed 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.
F. A note shall be placed on the Final 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 t6 the project area shall be'avoided.
*Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
8
5.
Accident scatter information presented in Figure 8C, Exhibit 8D (Hodges and Shutt
-1993) and Figure 9E (UC Berkeley, Institute bf- Transportation Studies - 1993)
within Chapters 8 and 9 of The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, indicate
that the highest concentration of both departure and arrival related aircraft accidents
takes place within the Runway Protection Zone' and Approach Sdrface off the ends
of the runway and on either side of the runway. Due to the project site's location in
proximity to the north end of runway 17/35, ihere' is an elevated likelihood for
aircraft related accidents to 6ccur within the eastern half of Parcels I through 4.
Conditions required under Section 2, Items 1A., 2A. and 2B. within the ALUC's
findings will ensure that future residential development is directed to location� which
are not considered to have an elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents.,
*Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission
9
List of References
Data supporting the ALUC's findings have beengerierated 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. Dixon Speas Associates. - Prepared Butte County Airport Faci lities Plan and Map of FAR Part
77 Surfaces for The Paradise Skypark Airport:
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics - 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Hodges and Shutt - Prepared accident scatter 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 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
KAPLAN N IN G\ALUC\MEETI NGS\2000\02-16-00. MTG\E 1. RPT
*Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission.*
10
j
EXHIBIT, "B"'
1999 CLUP DENSITY CRITERIA
Adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
December 29, 1999
MAXE%1UM ACCEPTABLE -DENSITYo—I
No.
Safety Zone
People per Acre
.1
Dwelling Units per
Acre
I
Runway Protection Zone
10 GH
0
2
Inner Safety Zone
10 ADHIJL
0 EKM
3
Inner Turning Zone
10 ADFHJL
I EKM
10
4
Outer Safety Zone
25 CDFHIL
I EKM
5
5
Sideline Safety Zone.
25 CDFHIIL
0
6
Traffic Pattern Zone
100 CDHIL
I
I EKM
I
2.5..
MUMUM pu"I
SEW
7
Area of Influence
I No Limit BCDFII
1 4 EKM
1*
A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures).
B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A
larae concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that
0 -
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.
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 levels do not
exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room.
D. measures to achieve an interiornoise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of buildings 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 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 gathering of more
than 10 persons at any time.
I
0
7
Suluty Zullu Nuilluo
(1-'VL*I)
I-luinvay Pluluctiull Zullu
400
I'lliul saluly Zunu
7-5 0 0
If 11 lut Tul I)il lu Zuf 10
0
Outul Salul), -Lullu
4-0007c
sidulille Oululy Zullu
.5o
000
'riallit; Palluill ZU110
.6-000,
_L�Lqa of Influbtice
7
'Slifuly zutlu U1111 Oflujullu
(1-'VL*I)
A-
400
7-5 0 0
13
0
, - L
4-0007c
.5o
000
.6-000,
I 5�cl
0
/000
q-5-00
ZOOO
I'PaVIPC-C) (3\") P9GP
He6r, Y15. AAop�ed
0.1
w
9
t
two
Acc
71
0
0 0
EXHIBIT E
mmim
��W
15,000-
10,000-
5.000-
0-
-5.000-
-10.000.
INMEM
I I
—10.000
Source: HodVee & Shutt (Docember 1993)
0 5.000 10.000
Start of
Takeoff Roll
Landing
Threshold
ExNbIt aD
Accident Sites for Runways of L.69s than 4,000 Feet
Deceffim" 1 W3
I
0 0 0
A.
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
00
0
(9
* Arrivals
* Departures
I I
—10.000
Source: HodVee & Shutt (Docember 1993)
0 5.000 10.000
Start of
Takeoff Roll
Landing
Threshold
ExNbIt aD
Accident Sites for Runways of L.69s than 4,000 Feet
Deceffim" 1 W3
I
xx
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x x %x
x
x
x x x x
x
x
x
25%
xx
x
X
Start of
x
X x
Takeoff Roll
-5000 x
SOOO
Landing
XX
25% X
U)
Threshold
x
x *x
x
x
E
x x
x
x
x x x
x
x -SOOO(
x
75%
XX
x
x
x
x
-1000-0
Source: UniversAy of California, Berkeley, InstNute of Tranaportedon Swag&& (1993)
Contour Plots of Accident Location Pattern'
Decen-ber 1993 9-13
Li
MAP I)I&ITI-ZC-0
&(5 I-Ar5 F'.O,IE T*-C-
eot-r^.cj&so S*-(IocLrk
- 4L k-- 4-(tz a; cec-4-; 0 VA, d
IL
sulfuly ZQllu 14ailluo
Silloty ZU110,ulmollulullo (Fuel)
I
Flum-my Piulucliull Zullu
limui 'Saluly Zunu
"4-
3
limul 'Fulohly ZU11L,
1700
v/,l
Oului Safoly Zum,
4
6-0 0
5
sidulillu Salely ZUIIL'
1000
-r
5c) o 0
tj
Tiallic Flatiom ZU110
-
006
7
/Vea'of lrlfl uence
�71
Saluty Zujlu NuIlluio
Flullway Pluluctiull zullu S11,01Y Zullu U111jullulu 10 (Fuel)
11111ol*Saluly Zuilu
hillul *I'Ull)illu Zullt-,
Oulul, Saluly ZUIIL' 4-00 0 0
-OPO 70
Sidulii m Salely -Zul IL,, 13 5co 4.1 -
ZU110 6000
Area of hill6crice
D / 15 �C)
/000
q-5 00 GI 2000
plae WCA:5 NOT US -
pi rK, -55 i oA F- ie 6- 50T T74
he— PArA-8;,,e Sic%? 94ry
SWuly Zuiiu Dimmulum (Fuel
A
13"fuly zuIlu 141111luli
lullway I-)IuluL;Iiull Zullu
11,11ul saluly Zullu
IIIIIUI 'I'Ull;illy ZU11L,
Oulur SZIIUIY ZU1 . I L,
/?
Siduliiiu*SajLjy Zu,ju
Tiallit; Pauuiij'Zul'lD
5
-LkE0.a of Influence
F
S00.
SWuly Zuiiu Dimmulum (Fuel
A
Rso
.;z 000
4�0
/?
�Loo
1.2SO,
5
/?-S-0
F
S00.
T
o 0
F
4-6�oo
U
Zoo
OUSEO/BIRD
TERRIAN MAP
L
V3
rao 1000
ON
iO4�
'00.,
QL
000,
41
CE
44
FEB 9 201
VUT m
ING DIIN,,,
N
J,F- ikrl,
40
, Al
Imp
to
j"..
�Mj
'ws
"'r, sit,
".RW. QUN�
10 a
0 Q AS
.0, YM
off
. in*
a lit
k Oak
lam M c "
i4
Wi'v
A5
E
rw
From: SIERRA*WM SIJRVEY�� 916 877 6054 01-10-00 14:26 P. 001
�Y:
SIERRA WEST SURVEYING
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
FAX NU MDER,, TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
5.
PHONE NVMBERZ SeNDEK:5 REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: YOUR FERENCE NUb4)3g&-
CIURGENT ;9poRRrviEw PLEASE COMMENT CIFLEAiEREPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
41
RECEIVED
JAN 18 2000
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
$437 BLACK OLIVE DRIVE
PARADISE, CALIFORNIA 95969
(530) 87? -6153
(530) 07-62S4 - FAX
Conical Surfaces. Since the height of the -Transitional Surface gradually increases as the horizontal
distance increases toward the west, and the site elevation within Parcels I through 4 gradually
decreases to the west, it is recommended that any residences or other structures be constructed within
the west half of those parcels to ensure that no penetration of the Transitional Surface occurs.
5 "e
in addition to single farnily residences and uti!ity facilities, the FR -20 zoning district permits a variety
of agricultural and mining activities as uses that are permitted outright and/or subject to a conditional
usepermit. Although these uses are noted as compatible outside of the � Clear Zone within Exhibit
2 of the 1985 CLUP for the Paradise Skypark Airport, some activities associated with particular
agricultural and,mining operations do have the potential to create flight hazards within an airport
environment. Page 9-31 of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook notes that flight hazards may
be visual (in th� ' form of distracting fights, glare, dust and smoke); electronic (which includes uses
that could interfere with aircraft instruments or radio communications); and physical (ranging from
tall structures and objects, to water areas (ponds) which may generate ground fog, or other uses
which involve or attract birds to. the airport environment). These potential hazards should be
considered and avoided as future development of the parcels occurs.
The 1985 CLUP for the Paradise Skypark Airport does not contain diagrams which depict the
locations of potential aircraft related accidents for the facility. , Therefore staff consulted general
accident scatter information presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Figure 8C on page 8-13 of the Handbook shows accident location data collected by Hodges and
Shutt for 14 general aviation airports. The figure indicates that the highest concentration of both
departure and arrival related aircraft accidents takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and.
Approach Surface. Exhibit 8D on page 8-30 of the Handbook shows accident sites for runways less
than 4,000 feet in length. This information is also based upon data collected by Hodges and Shutt.
Again, a majority of departure and arrival related accidents are shown to be concentrated off the ends
of the runway, and on either side of the runway. Figure 9E on page 9-13 of the Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook is based upon accident scatter data collected by the University of California,
Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993) and demonstrates similar findings. Due to the
project site's location in proximity to the north end of runway 17/35, there is an elevated likelihood
for aircraft related accidents to occur within the 'eastern half of Parcels I through 4.
Noise Sensitivity
The 55 dB, Ldn contour for the Paradise Skypark Airport is depicted on Exhibit I within the 1985
(CLUP) for the facility. This contour is estimated to pass through the eastern portion of Parcel * 4 and
the southeast comer of Parcel 3. Airport noise policies listed. on page 21 of the CLUP note that
multiple family residential development is pem-titted within the 55 dB Ldn contour subject to an
acoustical analysis which demonstrates that 0 structures have been designed to limit interior noise
levels in any habitable.room to 45 dB Ldn. Single family residences are not addressed and, therefore,
are only considered compatible outside of the 55 dB Ldn contour.
Butte County @Airport Land Use Commission
3
`
`�
�N�^ �
��� ���|
_-''--_'' ~
�
^
x�� �
�_ 0-l� \ � ��/ ��'~' | \��' . '
--____-'----__--_--_ --__-_--_'_-_-- '-_''-__''---'-- __---___�
/ U /^n