HomeMy WebLinkAbout210:07:03 ALUC CLUP 2000 FINALIZED ADOPTIONMOTION .OF ADOPTION
_0
Adopted at the December 20, 2000 ALUC Meeting
MOTION OF ADOPTION
• Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood,
and unanimously passed by vote as recorded at the end of the motion which follows:
THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OF BUTTE COUNTY, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND
USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AFFECTING THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT,
THE RANCHAERO AIRPORT, THE OROVILLE AIRPORT, AND THE PARADISE
SKYPARK AIRPORT, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING AREAS, AND ALSO OTHER
POLICIES THAT APPLY WITHIN THE BALANCE OF BUTTE COUNTY, recognizes
the need to protect airports and their planned operations from development in surrounding
areas that may interfere with those operations. The State Legislature has enacted enabling
legislation under the California State Aeronautics Act (ref. Public Utilities Code Section
21670, et. seq., and Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5, State ALUC
enabling law) to provide for airport land use compatibility planning to be conducted at the
local level; the purpose of airport land use planning is to:
• Provide for the orderly development of each public use airport and the area surrounding these
airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards
adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems;
• Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the
adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
• hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted
to incompatible uses.
Also, State ALUC enabling law provides that each Airport Land Use Commission, including
the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, shall provide for a comprehensive land use
plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding
the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of
the. inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general; the Commission
plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan, as determined by the
Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation that reflects the
anticipated growth of the airport during at least the next 20 years; State enabling law requires
that the Commission review the -plan as often as necessary` in order to accomplish its purposes;
In addition, recognizing the need to update and improve the airport land use compatibility
plans for the mentioned four public -use airports within the County, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) tasked the consultant and staff to develop an Airport Land .Use
Compatibility Plan including Comprehensive Land Use Plans for the four public -use airports:
The Chico Municipal Airport, the Ranchaero Airport, the Oroville Airport, and the Paradise
Skypark Airport and policies within Butte County in general;
Staff was aided in the formulation of the Plan proposal by a planning consultant with aviation
and airport land use compatibility expertise; staff and/or the consultant consulted with the
• local agencies and concerned parties/individuals including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and
`` Adopted at the December 20, 2000 ALUC Meeting
Paradise. After prior notice having been issued, staff and consultant conducted a series of
• public workshops in March and October, 2000 that reviewed the Draft Plan and accepted
public input. Two Public Comment Periods were scheduled. The first started on March 25,
2000 and ended on June 9, 2000. The Second Public Comment Period' started on October 5,
2000 and ended on November 22, 2000. After notice was issued in accordance with law,
many hearings were scheduled on the proposed plan before the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission, in April, May, June, July, September, and November, 2000, at which time
all interested parties might appear and testify. In compliance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and County CEQA Guidelines,
consultant and staff prepared an initial study on the proposed plan which determined that the
project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and on October 5, and
November 18, 2000, a Notice of Intent.and time extension to November 22, 2000 to Adopt a
Negative Declaration for the project were posted as required by law. At the December 20,
2000 hearing, testimony was again accepted from all interested parties, and at which time the
hearing was closed.
The Commission having considered all evidence and testimony submitted in this matter,
RESOLVED,. that the Airport Land Use Commission of Butte County finds that on the basis
of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the nronosed elan will have
a significant effect on the environment; the proposed Negative Declaration determination is
consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the
Commission finds that the Negative Declaration determination is appropriate and ADOPTS
• said determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act;
and the Negative Declaration reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis.
The Commission, hereby, and in accordance with Section 21675 (a) and (c) for the
establishment of planning boundaries and adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
each of the County's four public -use airports ADOPTS the proposed March 2000 Draft
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Butte County as amended by Addendum No. 2, as
the Compatibility Land Use Plan for Butte County, excluding any discussion in the
Addendum document (Just corrections to the body of the Draft). This adoption also
incorporates all modifications made by the Commission at the December 20, 2000 hearing
including: the changes to Figure 3-A regarding Zone C east of the Chico Municipal Airport,
the boundary between B-2 and C to the southeast; Policy 2.4.4(c), 2 & 4 regarding the
nonconforming nonresidential development to be allowed to rebuild to previously allowed
intensity if totally destroyed provided that reconstruction must begin within twelve months of
the date that the damage occurred; accepting the fire attack aircraft flight tracks information;
changes on page 2 of the Addendum #2 regarding Policy 1.5.3(b); adding one additional
appendix that incorporates the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts; and adding a chart
depictingtthe Airport Land Use Planning process to Appendix H.
The Commission further directs staff to publish the Plan and forward copies of the adopted
Plan and notify local agencies within Butte County including the Cities of Chico, Oroville,
and Paradise, and the County of Butte County that pursuant to Government Code Section
65302, they are required to review their respective general plans, and any applicable specific
•
2
Adopted at the December 20, 2000 ALUC Meeting
t, plan to make them consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by (180
days from the date o distribution of the adopted Plan); should the respective City/Town
Councils and Butte County Board of Supervisors not concur with any provisions of the Plan
required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, then it may satisfy the provisions
of this Section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code.
Staff is further directed to file with the County Clerk's Office a Notice of Determination
relative to the Commission action on the CEQA determination and on the adoption of the
proposed Plan.
The decision of the Airport Land Use Commission, Butte County, State of California was
given by motion of the Airport Land Use Commission on December 20, 2.000 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners—Chair Rosene, Grierson, Wallrich, Harp, and Causey;
Alternate Commissioner Papadakis (sitting in for Commissioner Lambert), and
Alternate Commissioner Greenwood (sitting in for Commissioner Hatley).
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
•
C7
3
CxxiCQA11JRPOR
._
._•--_-.._ ..
:
.----':
...:.
i
! �2
,
:...........,rZ, MV.
VB2...... . ..... ..........
,1
ryt, Yr
i
-.
....-.... .
s•
<,
/
Light Aircraft Pattern Y
,.,
• s
(west side)
ea Aircraft
:.
.. .. ._,_-::. <. (east side)
�,\.s>" �✓i. .,�•r ._...... is :`'•, '.'.2_. <, � i ..-_--.... `-.L---�__.
.....-..-
Ve
Q
t<
^i
:i
:
:_._...
99
.. ............... . ...............
........... ......
........... .....
..........
`:.,..
on......... . ......... .. . . . .......
.................
a:
;.,
..A
A.
iiyy ,.=
..-_.....-....}-moi `.............�.Gi ...... ...
_......---..._
r r.,
7 - �
t
....... ..... B2
RD
• .-_..-..............
.....
. ......... t
N.
MR
o•
r /
• .s,
c.
:...-.....:.. /,\,..c>: .,.. ..,. �,�.�,• � . _.. .. ' �7: •` .....
\ -k
1.
--.-........... \ .. ,. .. yr „`� ry,
.
.
- - .,� a•^ .r.� ; i:�•"9c;'"; -'Z �-'tiiai ..���y+.�..� `. y� 'a Y��j,i`9:�i �;�� �;t.-t �', �' '"�" ,..•C.,
.. eiY� lJ�I4Y�p
Legend
...... 1 QttH715" .n..i�,a s"
'? �Compatibility Zones z
• Parcels " K
,
K; mai! Butte County
Development Services Department
Geographic Information System
a ,rf z,t qs�a �'✓rte° ,`�; _ .:.
4000 0 4000 Feet
J
e: rod s a uc ig-compa > > _map . apr
NJ I TAI s
KI
s
December 4, 2000
•
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Addendum 2
This document is the second addendum to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan dated March 2000. It contains all of the proposed` revisions listed in the original addendum
dated September 26, 2000, plus additional changes in response to subsequent public input. All
newly proposed revisions are indicated by a vertical line in the -left margin.
A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective items where necessary to clarify the
intent or background for the change. In most cases, reference is made to the analysis and recom-
mendations contained in two matrices prepared in response to public and agency comments on the
draft plan. The first of these matrices was dated July 12, 2000, and the current version of the second
matrix is dated December 4, 2000 (the original version is dated November 7, 2000).
Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also be made prior to
printing of the final document. After adoption by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
these revisions will be incorporated into the plan and a final document will be printed.
is Back of Title Page: Names of commission members and staff will be listed.
Page 2-2, Policy 1.2.10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows:
Existing Land Use — A land use which either physically exists or for which local government com-
mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are
necessary
ble fe, the pmperty to be used for amythimg other them its proposed t1se. Local government com-
mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the 'foilowing have
occurred:
A tentative parcel or subdivision,map has been approved and the original period (before any
time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired:
A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved;
A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect;
A final subdivision map has been recorded;
A use permit or other discretionary land -use entitlement has been approved and not yet ex-
ired; or
A valid buildingl2ermit has been issued.
• Discussion: This change is based upon the recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. Note
that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installa-
tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditions which by themselves qualify a land use as
existing. It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for
which only those conditions = and none of the others listed above— occur. However, such a
• policy should be stated elsewhere in the policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land
use definition. Shutt Moen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects
from review under these circumstances.
Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(6) — Modify as follows:
The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property
within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in
Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 216760). Any proposed change or variance to au
such ordinance or regulation also must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise, safety,
airspace protection -and overflight as addressed herein are involved.
Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. 'It is intended to clarify that.a
zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen-
eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts
could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds
the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) — Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows:
• Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when reviewing projects under these
circumstances, local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if they
elect to approve a project without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by
the Commission.
Discussion: _This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un-
der item #1 in the matrix.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(a)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater."
Discussion This is a correction of a typographical omission.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(b) — Expand policy as follows:
For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is defined as any facility or
activity directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. Such uses
specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Fed-
eral Aviation -Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc.
Discussion:. See matrix item #23.
•
Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.3.3(b) — Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re-
quire."
Discussion: This change clarifies the original intent.
Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying
revised table:
► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12.
► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B 1 and B2,, change "office buildings" to
"buildings with noise -sensitive uses."
► Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and
tones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly.
► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of open land requirements to private property.
Also make the following revisions, not yet included in the table:
► Revise first sentence in Note 4 to read. 'The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly
prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria, unless such prohibition is
precluded by applicable statutes."
► Add note withreference to day care centers: "Family day care homes, as defined by state
law, are permitted in all Compatibility Zones except Zone A. Noncommercial day care cen-
ters ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zones 62 and C provided
that the overall use of the property meets the indicated intensity criteria."
• Discussion: The first chane is necessary to make the table consistent with Poli 4.1.5(x). The
g rY Policy
others respond to matrix items #8A and #8D and the further direction provided by the ALUC.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions: .
(2) Local jurisdictions have the following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this
evaluation requirement:
The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must con-
tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel-
opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan this re-
ouires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that oroiect review oroce
dures be described);
The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference (additionally, the protect review
orocedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by -the
ALUC); and/or
The general plan ...
(3) The status of ALUC review of mator land use actions depends upon which of the precedinz
options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility
• Plan. This status in turn affects whether a local agency would be required to utilize the
override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action.
► If either of the first two options under Sub -policy (2) is selected, then referral of major
land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case, the Commission's review is advi-
• sort' and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to
approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments.
► If the third option is chosen, submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man-
datory and. override procedures would aOpT
•
Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1
in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) — Replace infill policy with the following.
Infill — Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad-
ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses
are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only'within Compatibility
Zones B2 and C.
(1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteriaIius
the applicable provisions of either Sub --policy (2) or (3) below:.
► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres.
► The site is at least 659 bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar to, or more
intensive than, those proposed.
► The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined by. the sur-
rounding, already developed, incompatible uses.
► Further increases, in the density, intensity, and/or other incompatible design or usage
characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on
the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited..
► The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land in accor-
dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com-
patibility zone. [9/26 revision]
(2) For residential development:
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is 10 acres or less, the development density
shall be no greater than the overall density represented by all existing lots which lie fully
or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided.
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than
20 acres), then the development density shall be no greater than double the density per-
mitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A).
For nonresidential development,:
► If the size of the parcel proposed for development is 10 acres or less, the usageintensi
(the number of people per acre) of the,proposed use shall be no greater than the average
intensity of all existing uses which lie fully or partially within a distance of 300 feet from
the boundary of the proposed development.
4
If the size of the parcel proposed for development is greater than 10 acres (but no larger
than 20 acres), the proposed use shall- not have an intensity (the number of people per
• acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the Primary Com-
patibility Criteria (Table 2A) .1for. example whereas an average intensity of 50 people
per acre is normally permitted in Zone B2, the infill policy would allow a total of 75 peo-
ple per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).1
(4) To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels
subsequently to qualify for infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be deter-
mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under
these infill criteria, the entity having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must
first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted planning document
approved by the ALUC. This action m@Xtake place in conjunction with the process of
amendin a F-enera) plan for consistency with the ALUC olan or may be submitted by the
local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Comnatibilihi Plan.
In either case. the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill
rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item #4, as modified by ALUC suggestions.
Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market
value."
• Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix.
Page 2-21, Policy 3.2.2 — Revise as follows:
Consistency Determination — The Commission shall determine whether the proposed airport
plan or development plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
Commission shall base its determination of consistency on:
(a) Findings that the forecasts and aviation -related development identified in the airport plan
would not result in greater noise, overflight, and safety impacts or height restrictions on:
surrounding land uses than are assumed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
LbI A determination that any nonaviation development (see definition in Policy 1.5.3(b))
proposed for within the airport boundary will be consistent with the Primary Compatibility
Criteria set forth in Table 2A.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references to automobile parking lots as
acceptable forms of open land.
(b) Roads amd atitermobile parkirig are acceptable
• (d) ...providing contiguous landscaped'amd paiking areas is
Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #813, the ALUC concludes that automobile
parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectivesfor providing open land.
Page 2-27 Policy 4.2.5 - Replace Sub -policy (c) with the following:
g.
Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire . zone. Community
general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will
be met. Application of open land requirements to individual development proposals is at the
discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some
Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement)
and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property Measures must be .
established to assure that property designated as open land will continue to meet the open land
criteria for as long as the airport remains in operation.
Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3. '
Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 = Modify introductory paragraph; insert new Sub -policy (a); and
renumber subsequent sub -policies.
Criteria for Clustering — The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing
safety compatibility in the airport vicinity and accomplishing other development objectives This
policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use.
• a) Clustering occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone is
concentrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open
land (see preceding policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering maX
apply to either residential or nonresidential development:
JL In terms of airoort land use-comoatibility planning, the primary purpose of clustering is to
provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing.
Clustering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if open land is
not provided, by shifting habitable areas away from principal aircraft flight tracki
especially tracks close to the runway ends.
ll from a development perspective, clustering may be desirable or necessary because of
various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility.
(3) Examples of clustering include:
► Residential development where the building envelopes on large lots are all close
together, such as adjacent to a street.
► Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can
be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use or preservation of an
• — environmentally sensitive habitat.
► Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas of
low -intensity uses such as landscaping
R
1•
(b) Clustering of new residential development ...
• Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C.
Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to
the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C.
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although
the zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to
frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as
schools, hospitals, and ones involving veEX high intensities.
Lcl In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport influence area, Zone C is divided into two
sub -zones designated CO) and CO. See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for
delineation of these zone boundaries.
Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.20 — Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary
determinants for Zone C as follows:
(d) Zone C,including Sub -zones CM and C(2), contains the normal traffic pattern for both
runways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider
pattern sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of
Zone C to the northwest and southeast follow.the offset nonprecision instrument (VOR DME)
• approach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated,
Sub -zone CO) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overflight annoyance
are comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development
neither exists or is planned. Sub -lone C(2) iseg nerally intended fog the comparatively less
impacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas -where extensive urban residential
development already exists. Locations where future residential development may adhere to
the criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone Con the map.
C]
Discussion: This change responds to the. Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #10D.
Page 3-5, Policy 2.2.1 — Revise as follows:
Relationshio to Lone -Ranee Airoort Develooment Plan — As of the adoption date of this
Compatibility Plan the city of Chico is nearing completion of a new master plan for the Chico
Municipal AirportIn anticipation of the near-term adoption of the new master plan and with
the concurrence of the city of Chico the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A
contained herein takes into account both the existing configuration of the runway system and the
future configuration which the city expects to ado .t.
7
(a) The existing configuration is represented by the 1977 master plan currently in effect. Also
after a new master plan is adopted, the current configuration will remain in use for an
• indeterminate period until such time as the proposed improvements can be constructed In the
meantime, land use compatibility associated with the existing,confiiguration needs to be
maintained.
LbI The future configuration is expected to include a northward extension of the primary
(eastern) runway and extension of the secondary (western) runway both northward and
southward.. If the city should decide either not to pursue these projects or to change the
length of the extensions, modification,of the.Compatibility Map maybe appropriate.
�. Discussion: See Issue #12 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Page 3-6, add new Oroville Municipal Airport Polity 3.2.1 as follows:
Relationship to Lone -Range Airport Develoioment Plan The Oroville Municipal Airport
Compatibility Map (Figure 36) is based upon the airport role and facility improvements reflected
in the airport master_plan adopted by the city of Oroville in 1990 together with construction
which has occurred subsequent to that date.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
• Page 3-9, add new Paradise Skypark Airport Policy 4.2.1 as follows:
Relationship to Long-Rahge Airport Development Plan — No master plan has been preRared for
Paradise Skypark Airport. The Compatibility Map (Figure 30 is therefore based upon the airport
configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 6B in Chapter 6 herein) as
authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Page 3-11, add new Ranchaero Airport Policy 5.2.1 as follows:
Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan = -No-master plan has been prepared for
Ranchaero Airport. The Compatibility Map (Figure 3D) . is therefore based upon the airport
configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 7B in Chapter 7 -herein) as .
authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Chapter 3, Figures 3A, 38, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal'Airport,
Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions.
• Discussion: These revisions correspond to 7/12/00 matrix item #1.0 and the comments provided
by the Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on,the Chico
8
Municipal Airport map based upon the Commission's input. Additional modifications of the
Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map are proposed. See attached map.
• Appendix D — Replace with the revised version attached.
Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory
paragraph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally
incompatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been
made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into
C(1) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and
several revisions -and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally
included in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various
other policies in Chapter 2.
Appendix F2, 2"d Page, 3'a Paragraph — Add language as follows to recommended avigation easement
document concerning property owner waiver of right to sue the airport.
Grantor, together with. its successors in interest and assigns hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to _impacts
as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement associated with aircraft.,
operations in the air or on the ground at the airportincluding future increases in the volume or
changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors and assigns shall
• have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities
or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this
waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted.
airport master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably
have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a
substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also this grant of
easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which
may from time to time have against any.air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is
recommended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is
required as a condition for development approval.
Appendix H — Expand introductory section as noted below and add attached Appendix H1 table.
As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses
within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be
consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of
when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC
by a t\vo-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making findings that the agency's
• plans are consistent with the intent of state'law.
9
This appendix contains two types of information intended to Te facilitate the general plan
consistency process, ' : (1) an initial review of the current general plan and
applicable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Plani
and (2) a checklist of general plan consistency requirements.
The emphasis in d,ts the general plan consistency review is on comparing the adopted local land
use designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other
elements of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with
the Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether
the designation is for future development or merely reflects existing uses. Where a local plan's
land use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation is not required for the
purposes of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. The existing development could remain as
a nonconforming use as indicated in the plan; policies. Any future redevelopment of the
property, however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria.
The checklist sets forth the types of modifications or additions to a community's general
and/or separate implementation documents which are .necessary in order for the plan to be fully
consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Listed items are divided into two groups: compatibility
criteria; and project review procedures.
The comparison with ... [Note: this final paragraph will be modified as appropriate once the plan
is adopted.]
Discussion: The addition of the checklist is, intended to assist local jurisdictions and the ALUC in
ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are implemented.
Initial Study = Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining
and strikeouts on the accompanying pages.
Discussion: The modifications provide additional information regarding the effect of the
Compatibility Plan on the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of
the Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports.
10
•
•
•
Countywide Polkles / Chapter 2 -
C Traffic Pattern (1) 02 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools;' day ► Deed notice required
(average care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required
parcel size - ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >100 feet tall
z5.0 acres) Hazards to flight'
or"
Max I Deesilles / loleadnt
Additional Criteria
Other User
Zone (locations
RSI
(people/u) 2 Req'd
Open
Prohibited Uses �
Other Development
s02 acres)
(dq/ae)
Aver- Single trllb land'
.
ConmonEe
No Hazards to flight'
► Airspace review required
i
8P6 PXM7Bom
Limit Limit
Req't
A Runway Protection
0
10 Not Not All
► Afl strictures w=pt aero-
► Avigation easement dedica-
Zone
Compatibility Zone
Appll- Appy Remain-
nautical facilities with lo-
tion
and
cable
cable cable Ing
cation set by FAA criteria
Within Building
tion required
► Assemblages of people
Restriction line
► Objects exceeding FAR
Part 77 height limits
• Aboveground bulk storage
of hazardous materials
► Hazards to ftht9
B1 AppmachlDeparture
4.1
25 50 Not 30%
► Children's schools,1* day
► Locate sbtrchxes maxi -
Zone
pkbw
Ap*
.pre centers libraries .
mum distance hom ex-
xand
and
parcel size
cable .
► Hospitals, nursing homes-
tended runway centedine'
Sideline Zone
210.0
► Highly noise-sensfllve
► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
acres)
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residences and buildings
aters)
with noise -sensitive uses 12
► Aboveground bulk storage
► Airspace review required
of hazardous materials"
for objects >35 feet tall ".
► Hazards to flight'
► Avigabon easement dedica-
ton
82 Extended.
s02
50 100 130 20%
► Children's schools,'° day
► Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
ApproactVDeparture
(average
care centers, libraries
residences (including mo -
Zone
parcel size
► Hospitals, nursing homes
bile homes) and buildings
25.0 acres)
► HighVnoise-sensitive
with noise -sensitive uses12
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
► Airspace review required
aters)
for objects >70 feet tall
► Hazards to flight'
► Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern (1) 02 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools;' day ► Deed notice required
(average care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required
parcel size - ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >100 feet tall
z5.0 acres) Hazards to flight'
or"
Table 2A
Primary.Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian
2-14
(2) 24.0
(age
parcel sae
s02 acres)
D Other
No No
No Hazards to flight'
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects >100 feet tall
' Height Review -
Same as Underlying
Not Same as Underlying
► Airspace review required
12 •
Overlay
Compatibility Zone
Appli- Compatibility Zone
for objects >35 feet tall
cable
► Avigation easement dedica-
tion required
Table 2A
Primary.Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian
2-14
•
11
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
NOTES:
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones B2 and
C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations.
2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.)
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
.3 Open land requirements are intended to. be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or
implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met Application of open land require-
ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the
size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area
requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility
policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses fisted here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions fn..
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development
6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the
indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C R the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. -See Policy 4.2.7 for details.
9 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the. attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details. -
10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12.
11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
12 NLA = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel
size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average
parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable,
the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed,
the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the
discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations.
This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant
compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized
either by limiting the number of dwellings'in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. (Corrected 9/261
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
•
0
Please refer to Exhibit '1 a included in
the minutes ofDecember .20, 2000.
NINE! �����
m�
.
4
■
?.caw•
:r.� .:� ��liG : � 6 e •wmnm
•
�J
Appendix D
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte Coun-
ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility crite-
ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of com tibility versus incompatibility are based
upon assumptions as to the tMical characteristics of the respective land uses, particularly with regard
to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with Hurd to the
sensitivity of each use to noise and overflight annoyance and to the height of the structures. Atypical
cases of a Darticular land use may be more or less compatible with air -activities than ari evalua-
tion indicates. These evaluations. are therefore not regarded as adopted ALUC policies or criteria: In
case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific land uses and the policies and criteria in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail.
Land Use
Agricultural Uses
Truck and Specialty Crops .
Feld Crops
Pasture and Rangeland
Vineyards
Orchards
Dry Farm and Grain
Tree Farms, Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses
Fish Farms
Feed Lots and Stockyards
Poultry Farms
Dairy Farms
Natural Uses
Fish and Game Preserves
Land Preserves and Open Space
Flood and Geological Hazard Areas
Waterways: Rivers, Creeks, Canals,
Wetlands, Bays, Lakes
Compatibility Zones
A B1 B2 C D
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
-
0
+
+
+:
-
0
+
+
+
0
0
+
+
-
0
+
+
+
0
0
.0
0
0
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
+
Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) ,
+ Normally compatible
Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
D-1
Compatibility Guidelines for Sr.ecH k Land Uses /Append& D
Compattitiplty Zones
Land Use A 81 182 1 C2 D
Residential
# 25.0 acre average parcel size
- 0.
+
+/-
+
# 1.0-4.9 acre average parcel size
- -
+ .
# 1.1-3.*9 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
+
# - 4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
# 28.0 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
Mobile Home Parks
- -
-
/+
+
Institutional
* -Children's Schools
* Colleges and Universities
- -
-
0
+
Day Care Centers
0
Hospitals and Residential Care Facillties
- -
-
-
+
• * Churches
-
-
0
+
Memorial Parks /Cemeteries
- +
+
+
+ `
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse),.
0 0
+
+
+
Goff Course Clubhouses
,- 0
0
.0
+
Parks (low intensity; no group activities)
0 +
+
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas
- 0
0
+
+
* Athletic Fields (with small or no bleachers) :.
- 0
0
+
+
Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes. or -Stadiums-:. : =
-
-
-
+
• Riding Stables
_
0
+
+
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
- 0
+
+
+
Health Clubs and Spas
- -
0
0
+
Tennis Courts
- 0
+
•+
+
Swimming Pools
- 0
0 .
0
+
Fairgrounds and Race Tracks
- -
-.
-
+
Resorts and Group Camps
- -
0
0,
+
Shooting Ranges
- 0
0
0
+
Industrial
Research and Development Laboratories'
- 0
0
+
+
Warehouses and Distribution Facilities
- 0
+
+
+
Manufacturing and Assembly
- 0
0
+
+
Cooperage and Bottling Plants.
- 0
+
+
+
Printing, Publishing and Allied Services
- 0
+
+
+
Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products
- -
0
0
+
Food Processing
- -
0
0
+
Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
• + Normally compatible
Revisions from March 2000 Oran Plan
# Addendum Revisions (9/26/00)
D-2
i .CompatINAly Guldellnes for Spea/llc
Land Was /Appends D
•
Compatibility Zones
Land Use
A
B1
B2
C
D
Commercial Uses
Low -Intensity Retall(e.g., auto, furniture sales)
-
0
+
+
+
Retail Stores (1 floor)
-
0;..
0.
+
+
*
Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.)
-
-
-
0
+
*
Restaurants and Drinking Establishments (no drive thru)
0
0
0
+
*
Fast Food Restaurants
-
-
0
0
+
Auto and Marine Services
-
0
+
+
+
Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment
-
0
+
+
+
*
Office Buildings (1 or -2 floors)
-
0
+
+
+
*
Office Buildings (3 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
*
Banks and Financial Institutions (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
0
+
+
Repair SeMoas
-
: CY
0 :
+.
+
Gas Stations
-
0
0
+
+
*
Government Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
-
0
0
+
+
*
Motels (1 or 2 floors)
-
-
0
0
+
*
Hotels and Motels (3 floors)
-
-
-
0
+
Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls
-
-
-
0
+'
Outdoor Theaters
-
-
-
0
+
Truck Terminals
-
+
+
+
+
*
Any Uses with morethan 3 habitable floors aboveground
-
-
-
-
0
Transportation, Communications and Utilities =
Aircraft Storage
0
+
+
+
+
Automobile Parking
0
+
+
+
+
Highway and Street Right -of -Ways
• 0
+
+
+
+
Railroad and Public Transit Facilities
0
+
+
+
+
Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals
-
0
+
+
+
Reservoirs
-
0
0
0
+
Power Lines
-
0
0 1
0
+
Water Treatment facilities
-
0
+
+
+
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities
-
0
0 ,
0.
+
Electrical Substations
-
0
0
0
+
Power Plants
-
-
0
0
+
Sanitary Landfills
-
-
-
-
0
- Normally incompatible
.
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see. Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
Revisions from March 2000 DraR.Plan
D-3
•
•
•
Sample Implanentatlon Documents /Append& F
This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between hereinafter
referred to as Grantor, and the llnsert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor-
nia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee.
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac-
knowiedged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The
property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on'Exhibit R
attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property]
The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is
described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part
77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hori-
zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport official runway
end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSC), as determined by [Insert name and Date of
Survey or Airport layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said
plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to:
(1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit
the flight by any and all persons; or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in,
through, across, or about any- portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and
(2) The easement and right to cause or create; or permit or allow to be caused or created within all
space above the existing surface of the her described real property'and any and all Air-
space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air,
illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the
operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight
in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or
improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish
those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into
or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend
into or above the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which
extend into or above the Airspace; and
(5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property,
for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after rea-
sonable notice.
Appendix F2
Typical Avigation Easement
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
F-5
f
•
Sample Implementation Documents / gppendbc f
For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Insert
County or City namel, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport
hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct,
install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to
allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace,
or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation; or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the
easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the'direct
benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the insert County or City
namel State of Califomia; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the
benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or
right -of --way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport,
or in otherwise flying through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors: or assigns for monetary damages or other'redress due to imoacts, as
described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air
or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said
operations. Furthermore. Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate
such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air-
craft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or
character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a funda-
mental
undsmental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this ease- .
ment and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft ooerations: Also,
this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights .
which may from time to time have against. -any- air carrier -or private operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec-
utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property
firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant
tenement.
DATED:
STATE OF }
ss
COUNTY OF }
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Appendix F2, Continued
MU,
0.,
Local Platte Consistency Review /Append& H
Compatibility Criteria
General Plan Document
The following items typically appear directly in a general plan document.. Amendment of the general
plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)).
> Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general
plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi-
nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable
densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility
Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria
provided that limitations can be set on the intensity of usage (see below).
> Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum
noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must be made
consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4:1.4). Note, how-
ever, that a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than
for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged
to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises).
Zoning or Other Policy Documents
The following items need to be reflected either in. the general. plan or in a separate policy document
such as a combining zone ordinance.. if a separate: policy.. document is adopted, modification of the
general plan to achieve consistency.with the Compatibility Plan may not be required. Modifications
would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to
make reference to the separate policy document. .
> Secondary Dwellings — The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the
same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations.: This factor needs to .. .
be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting
secondary dwellings where their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria
> Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the
usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done
by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre
— indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Altematively; local jurisdic-
tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within eacrh
compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of this type). For certain land
uses, such a list may need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors,
and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria.
Appendix H1
Checklist of.General Pian Consistency Requirements
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
H-11
•
U
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
> Identification of Prohibited Uses — The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals,
and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig-
nations. Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com-
patibility criteria.
> Open Land Requirements — The Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring
that a minimum amount of open land is preserved in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local
policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be iden-
tified on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area
included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the
open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac-
teristics of eligible open land also must be established.
> Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes to take advantage of the infill development provisions
of the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be
shown on a map.
> Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight —To protect the airport airspace, limitations
must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be
based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects on
high terrain as provided for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also must be
established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically, visual
or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic-
tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up
to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement.-
>-
equirement.
> Noise Insulation Requirements — The compatibility criteria (see Policy 4.1.5) call for certain
buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zones B1 and B2 to demonstrate that--
they
hat=they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level.
These criteria apply to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise -
sensitive uses. Local policies must include parallel criteria.
> Buyer Awareness Measures — As a condition for approval of development within certain com-
patibility zones, the Compatibility Plan requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the
airport proprietor or placement on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A,
Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The
plan also encourages, but does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a policy stating that air-
port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac-
tions regarding property in the airport influence area.
> Nonconforming Uses and Reconstruction — Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform-
ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati-
bility Plan (see Policies 2.4.4(b) and (c)).
Appendix H1, Continued
H-12
Local Ph—, Conslsfency Review /Appendbr H
IReview Procedures
In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents
must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the
compatibility criteria.
> Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC Review - State law specifies which types
of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy
1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's
intent to comply, with the state statute.
> Other Land Use Actions Potentially Subject to ALUC Review — In addition to the above ac -
tons, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to. the
ALUC is dependent upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction
fully complies with all of the items in this general plan consistency checklist or has taken the
necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary. On the
other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria
and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the
ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard.
> Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions — If a jurisdiction chooses to sub-
mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the
procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during
review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in-
cludes reference tacompatibility criteria; use -of a geographic information system to identify all
parcels within the airport. influence area; etc..
> Variance Procedures —Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance
must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility cdte-
ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com-
patibility as addressed in the Compatibility Plan must be referred to the ALUC for review.
> Enforcement — Policies must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria
during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with
regard to limitations on usage intensities and the heights of trees.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000)
Appendix•H1; Continued
H-13
I-]
L
•
is
Revised September 1, 2000
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft)'
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mr. M. A. Meleka
530/538-6572
4. Project Proponent's Name and Address: .
Same as #2 above.
5. Project location:
The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within
the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville
Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport The plan defines the
affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed
boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport
influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to .
5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan
applies are the sites of. (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2)
any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero-
nautics Program.
6. General Plan Designation:
Various. '
7. Zoning:
Various.
8. Description of Project:
• - The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi-
cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen-
IS -1
•
•
17_�
s
Initial Study of Environmental umpacts
cies that have jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte
County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes
policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and
development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor-
dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
> Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing
residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open. land to the east.
> Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of
Thermalito to the northeast State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref-
uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area.
> Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity.
Town of Paradise a mile to the north.
> Ranchaero Airport:. Orchards immediately around airport Residential neighborhoods of
Chico nearby to the north and northeast.
10: Other agencies whose approval is required:
The Butte County Airport Land Use .Commission can adopt the plan without approval from
any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan,'the Commis-
sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub-
lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec-.
tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be
accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use
within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the
town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent
.with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure.
The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote.and specific findings must be supported.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow-
ing pages.
IS -2
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
_ Agricultural Resources
_ Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
_ Air Quality
_ Geology / Soils
Land Use/ Planning
Ml"l 8tac ly of EnWronmeMal Impacts
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
-fit. I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ,
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN-
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially .
significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at
tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but.it must analyze only
• the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that, although the proposed- project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIK or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required:
Prepared by:
Signature
Date
Printed Name Representing
•
IS -3
Initial Study of Environmental „npacts
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation'lncorporated,"
"Less Than Significant Impact;" and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets.
General Comment
The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land
use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in
Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to' anticipatethe spe
cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be'asso-
ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un-
changed from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither. precludes new
development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely.
limits the density, and intensity, and he ht of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety.
compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af-
fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan.
• Given these considerations,. it is concluded.that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues:
1.
Aesthetics
All
2.
Agricultural Resources
All
3.
Air Quality
All
4.
'Biological Resources
All
5.
Cultural Resources
All
6.
Geology and Soils
All
7.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues a), b) c), d), g), h)
8.
Hydrology and Water Quality
All
9.-
Land Use and Planning
Issue a)
10.
Mineral Resources
All
11.
Noise
Issues a), b), c), d)
12.
Population and Housing
Issues b), c)
13.
Public Services
Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv)
14.
Recreation
All
15.
Transportation / Traffic
Issues a), b), d), e), f); g) . .
16.
Utilities and Service Systems
All
17.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues a), c)
For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the
above General Comment.
IS -4
•
•
1. Aesthetics
Issues
Would the project: .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.,
Mitigation:
None required.
r of ErWro,nmenta/ Im
E
IREK WE z
x.
X
2. Agricultural Resources
�.
C�� e 4 O e� ■
E
Issues
coa a « °e C a
E JN 3� �t� E z
a°v�
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess-
ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm-
land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to -the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a.
Williamson'Act contract?
x
IS -5
"
Init/al Study of Envlronmentai.
jpacts
•
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
.
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
x
Discussion:
See preceding Ceneral Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibilitypolicies in the Compatibil-
ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports. .
Mitigation:
None required.
3. Air Quality
,, m •- .. � m� o a
Issues
E�ii �� a ��ii a'
c o. a '$ a c
ave Ems z
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the -following-determina-
following determina-tion.
tion.Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation -of the applica-
ble air quality plan?
x
"b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex-
isting or projected air quality violation?
)t
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis-
sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
x
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con-
centrations?
x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- .
ber of people?
�t
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -6 ,
kuaal Study of Envftnmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required:
4. Biological Resources ,.
a
Issues Ca t a c
C6 r* E is mA z
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified- ,
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
,local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? x
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- •
nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
• Wildlife Service? %
c) Have a substantial. adverse effect on: federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,.
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? x
d) Interfere substantially.with the movement of any native .
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es-
tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nurserysites? 1t
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance? x
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con-
servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation -Plan, `
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat'con-
servation plan? x
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -7.
Initial Study of Environmental aripacts
•
Mitigation:
None required.
5. Cultural Resources
Issues
a
dmE
o► m
o, C d
E
3v, 2rn E
z
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
�t
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5?
�t
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
�t
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
•
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
6.' Geology and Soilscc
a
C
Issues
a
S f S
E
a°N E
33 1 �NE
z
Would the project:
a) Expose.people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
iarea
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
x
IS -8
•
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac-
tion?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,.
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub-
stantial risks to life or property?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
lnrtidl Study, of Envfronmental Impacts .
X
X
X
7. Hazards and Hazardous Material
�.
O- O
Ciii a
E
Issues
a a t c� CL ...
E 'n3�v� E. z
a°v� CO
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of.
hazardous materials?
X .
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment throughreasonably foreseeable upset and acci-
dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma-
terials into the environment?
x
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
-
within one-quarter mile.of an existing or proposed
school?
X
U
IS -9
Initlal Study of Environmentaiipects '
• d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz-
ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern-
ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or environment? . �t
e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a,
public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? - )t
f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac-
uation plan? X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res-
idences are intermixed with wildlands?
• Discussion:
X
7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue . ,
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport
aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near
the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re-
duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other -objects which might pene-
trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks"
to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of
the land area in critical areas near.the airports to remain -open and reasonably suitable for. a
survivable emergency aircraft landing.
7-f) Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifiically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable.
7.a), 7-b), 7.c), 7.d), 7.g), and 7.h): See.preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required
IS -10
/ti a Study of Environmental Impacts
8.
Hydrology and Water Quality:
�. o
Issues
' is
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or�waste discharge
requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere .
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of course
of a stream or river; in a manner which would result in.
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or,river, or substantially increasethe
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol-
luted.runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary.or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
J)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving inundation by5eiche, tsu-
nami, or mudflow?
�r
E
2
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
'39
X
IS -11
Initial Study of Environmental..apacts
Discussion:
•
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
9. land Use and Planning
C0
Issues
8
�2 o $2 =
d�E�
a
E
3�H E
Z
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj-
ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe-
cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation.P Ian . .
or natural community conservation plan?
�t
Discussion:
9.a) See preceding General Comment. `
i
9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over
land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its
general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibilityplan (or to
go through the special .process required to override the airport land use commission). With
regard to the draft Butte County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would
apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap-
pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis-
tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications
to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse-
quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan.
For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility Plan,' it must do both of
the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it
must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ-
ated within an airport influence area.
IS -12
Ir.. -it Study of Environmental Impacts -
Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which
are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. `Elimination of these conflicts will require
reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air:
ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land
uses even if those uses do'not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. The Compatibil-.
ity Plan would be. applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc-
tion were to be proposed.
The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other
policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other" compatibility factors such as lim-
its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The
project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil-
ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen-
eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption. of the Compati- .
bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the
. ALUC for compatibility review.
Although ALUC-adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es'-
tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not
have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juns
dictions through the general plan consistency process described above.. Because the affected'
jurisdictions have multiple options with regardto how to implement the compatibility -criteria,
• as well as the option to override the ALUC,.the specific land use environmental impacts which
may result cannot be determined at this time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri-
marily with regard to housin , is presently_ possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing
Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the
CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in
response to the Compatibility Plan.
9.0 .The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or' natural
community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were
to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the, vicinity of the.
airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra-
tion policies. ,
Mitigation:
None required.
-
(..
c
Initial Study of Envfronmentel'nnpects '
•
10. Mineral Resources .
o
« §
E
Issues
19 E g
c
a. M WA
z
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re-
source that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
#
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site- delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Discussion:
See preceding Ceneral Comment.
Mitigation:
None.required.
11. Noise
C E C C
m� =a o as
'«�
w
Issues
c�2; o 6=1;
a« r a s
E ca E
E
o
z
LU)
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
>K
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
x
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev-
els in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
IS -14
e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo-
sure of people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
Jn,.. _i Study of Envfronmentd Impacts
11.a), 11.6), 11.c), and 11.d): See preceding General Comment
11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to. in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive
aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations
near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishing noise level reduction
requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted locations. The plan does not
regulate. the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au
thorityover such matters.
11.f) Although the Compatibility. Plan does.. nonspecifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts.presented•in the, plan would be generally applicable.
Mitigation:
None required.
12. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne-
cessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
• c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
CrM
a a C Q
m t
r
c 0a a
dwE' 9—w �
'� as
AWE
V
10
CL
E
0
z
r
InlHat Study of Envlronmentat ..apacft
• Discussion:
12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region-
ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential
and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and
safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently
adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu-
lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the
data summarized in the following paragraphs any .such shifts would be small relative to the
overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be
less than significant.
Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan the two having -potential for extensive
urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air-
port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility
Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinity of
these two airports.
Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati--�
bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning
Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development12otential of parcels
designated agricultural -residential in that under the Butte County Genera! Plan, the minimum -
parcel sizes for this designation range: from -aslittle as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres (it is
recognized that the'land use zoningof these parcels can be changed without amending the
General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat-
ibility Plan criteria.)
The estimated percentage of each compatibility zone which is already developed is taken into
account in the calculations of future development potential For the purposes of these calcula-
tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning
criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com-
patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par-
cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion.
The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelline units to be eauiva-
lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and for most subdivisions the two numbers are
identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated
as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where
some differences could occur are with respect to seconda[y dwelling. units. The lost potential
for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this
impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed.
Chico Municipal Airport
> Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential oragricultural resi-
dential uses within this zone are either alreadv developed (250+ acres) or have land use
IS -16
Initlal Study of Environmental Impacts
zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit Rer 10.0 acres
maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with-
out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan.
> Comoatibility Zone B2: Nearly 1_700 acres �nned for residential_ or aericultural resi-
dential uses.
► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan
would be on 400± acres (a portion of the .Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico
for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the
Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross
acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated.
An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the
airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not -the city
general plan). The Compatibilit.y Plan has'no affect on continued residential use of this
ro
► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre
suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan
would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller
than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated.
> Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of
• land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has
been divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone C(1) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling
unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least
4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi-
ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights).
Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone C(1), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini-
mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the
airport, is consistent- with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3 -
acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the
minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re-
maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than
100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is planned for urban low-density residential development
(up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total,
implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400
new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan-
ning and zoning_
Sub -zone C(2), together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low-
density option covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop-
ment. The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future
residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is
estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to
4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in
some 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici-
ap ted.
IS -17
Initlal Study of Environmental..,spacts
> Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in
hieher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to
the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above the net effect could
be a loss of between 250 and 1.050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000
acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area
This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone Cl
For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would
reduce the loss to no more than 450+ residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether.
By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwellin
' units within the future Chico city limits The overall imRact of the Compatibility Plan on
potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant. `
Oroville Municipal Airport `
> Compatibility Zone Bi: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currenty
require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres The Compatibility Plan thus would have no _
effect'on the number of potential new residential lots.
> Compatibility Zone B2: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi-
dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low -
or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi-
ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels
> Compatibility Zone C: The Compatibility Plan requires future residential development
within Zone C to be either very low density 6 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderated .
high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre) -
Of the approximately 1.900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at
Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini-
mum parcel sizes. Over 250`acres are planned for medium -density residential which
requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These designations are consistent
with the compatibility criteria.
►..:The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of
this area is already developed Implementation of the compatibility plan would re-
quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of
the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
> Total Airoort Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Orovi lie Mu-
nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi-
cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations.
12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com-
patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of
single-family: houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use
• regulations. Also see preceding General Comment.
IS -18
Inibel Study of Environmental Impacts
0 Mitigation:
None required.
13. Public Services
c V . C C
1r
���
v `L
a
Issues
c a a S
o
z
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi-
cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant impacts, in order to main-
tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
X
ii) Police protection?
�t
iii) Schools?
X
• iv) Parks?
X
v) Other public services?
X
Discussion:
13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new;schools within much of the influence area of each
airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con-
flicts between aviation activity and school uses. In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant.
13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
• simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for AL UC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
IS -19
1nNa1 Study of Envlr+onmental Impacts
• Mitigation: -
None required.
14. Recreation
Issues
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh-
borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili-
ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re-
quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa-
cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
�c
c c
m2
$a
E
111. 19 E
z
CLWI
Mitigation:
x
X
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment:
Mitigation:
None required.
15. Transportation / TrafficC
C
= E
,
V V
o
.a
a
E
Issuesa
.
0 E
3 15
9H€.
z
•
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela-
tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume'to capacity ratio on.
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established. by the county congestion'
management agency for designated roads and high-
ways?
IS -20
r"
Iti _I ;4w of Environmental !MpfttB
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a. change in location that
results'in substantial safety risks?
�t
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom-
patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
1t
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup-
porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus -tum -outs
bicycle racks, etc.)?
�t
Discussion:
15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.0, and 15.g): See preceding General Comment.
15-0 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it
does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which .
could have off -airport compatibility implications.
•
Mitigation:
None required.
16. Utilities and Service Systems .
8 za ° t�
Issues a E a
o.
6,204.
aa� E.3N 3
c
z
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap-
plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X .
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or -
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing .
facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater '
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
.construction of which could cause significant environ-
mental effects?
X
IS -21
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
•
Ol
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commit-
ments?
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal,'state, and local statutes and regu-
lations related to iolid waste?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required. .
X
17. Mandatory Findings of SignificanceC
C
C
0
a�
1�
K
e� o
r�
E=
e�
��%
a
as
E
Issues c-�
dM E
0
�U) �
a iA
�U) -
o
2
IS -22
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant.or animal community, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam-
ples of the major periods of California history or prehis-
tory
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim-
ited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur-
rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro-
jects.)
h..,el Study of Environmental Impacts
i'
• c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei-
ther directly or indirectly? X
Discussion:
17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment
1 Tb) . Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any
physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ-
mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air-
port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other
public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County.. With-
out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality and to commu-
nity livability — of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation
plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant.
r
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -23
NOTICES POSTED
y
NOTICES POSTED
Posted as required by law
Public Comment Period March 25, 2000
30 -day time period extended to June 9, 2000
Public Comment Period October 5, 2000
November 17, 2000 extended to.November
2292000
Posted in the Chico Enterprise -Record,
Oroville Mercury -Register,. -And the Paradise
Post.
Mailings to interested parties also.
r~
`_•Public Hearing Notice
Notice of Availabilityof ._ and - _ • . Y • _
Draft Year 2000 Airport Land Use ,� ,
Compatibility Plan
NOTICE IS HEREBY- GIVEN -THAT THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT IAND USE
COMMISSION IS -CONSIDERING'ADOPTION OF ANEW COMPREHENSIVE LAND,USE
PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS IN -BUTTE COUNTY. -;
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly updwIi c the'coiinpr`ehensive
land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport' land ��se"plan
contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's
public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport,"Ythe Paradise
Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo P
Airport.�f��
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section
21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly
area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safegrowth of the
guard the general welfare of the inhabitants within
the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Ai
rport
Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land and may
determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the
planning area. Airport Land Use Plans do not apply to the actual airport property, only the area
surrounding the airport, within the Area of Influence.
ADOPTION SCHEDULE
A. Consultation Hearing with the Butte County Board of Supervisors on March 28, 2000, at
1:15 pm in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville.
B. Open House for the General Public on March 28, 2000, from 5:00 pm to 7:30 at the Chico
Municipal Airport Conference Room, 150 Airpark Blvd. The project consultant will bg
giving a presentation at 5:30 pm with a question and answers session following.
C. Final Adoption Hearings(s) by the Airport Land Use Commission on April 19, 2000, at 9:00
am. Hearing(s) to be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 25 County Center Drive,
Oroville.
Copies of the Draft Year 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan are available for purchase from the
Department of Development Services,' at the address listed below and are at the Butte Count
Libraries in Chico and Oroville. y
The project file, Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for lublic ?
GQ. ��c�itteo�
flt.0 C/r? /4
`� / "— -Q ✓ 1f 5. G sy! 3�,2 3 Al
0 /
This list includes all businesses
'known @ CMA, including tenants Henry Roberson
roperty owners (who may Air Carriage
109 Convair
no have a business as such). Chico, CA 95973
Associated Pension Consultants
1000 Fortress, Suite 800
Chico, CA 95973
Chico Door Systems
275 Fairchild Ave, #107
Chico, CA 95973
Debco Roofing Supplies
1060 Marauder -
Chico, CA 95973
Dynamic Traffic Systems
5050 Cohasset, #10
�o, CA 95973
Federal Express
100 Lockheed, #B
Chico, CA 95973
Four Counties Roofing
3 Crusader Court
Chico, CA 95973
Hardesty & Sons
2 Crusader Court
Chico, CA 95973
251 Boeing Ave.
Ghiee, GA 95973 Same as
Jeff Day/Brady's
•
Jeff s Truck Service & Repair
5050 Cohasset
Chico, CA 95973 .
BiTech Software -
890 Fortress .
Chico, CA 95973
Cloud Nine Studio
275 Fairchild, #101A
Chico, CA 95973
Don Ray Drive -A -Way
4950 Cohasset Rd., #B
Chico, CA 95973
Elgin School Supply Co.
260 Ryan Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Fleet Irvine
1100 Fortress Street
Chico, CA 95973
From the Garden
681 Liberator
Chico, CA 95973
Hardwoods of California, Inc.
1070 Marauder, #B
Chico, CA 95973
1070 Marauder
Gh*ee, ^" "r�No longer @
Airport per note 9/8/99
Kipp Aircraft Sales
109 Convair
Chico; CA 95973
All-Star Packing
295 Convair
Chico, CA 95973
Chemonics Industries, Inc.
1335 Fortress
Chico, CA 95973
Coit Services
275 Fairchild, #103
Chico, CA 95973
Dorvin Industries
1070 Marauder, #A
Chico, CA 95973
Feather River Display
255 Sikorsky Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Flight Link
290 Airpark Blvd., #6
Gh*ee, GA 95973
Undeliverable
Hanson Racing Technology
4950 Cohasset, #4
Chico, CA 95973
Haver Survey Stakes
650 Thunderbolt
Chico, CA 95973
Jackson RV Transporters
1020 Marauder
Chico, CA 95973
Landacorp
900 Fortress Street, Suite 100
Chico, CA 95973
LDS Storehouse
0Marauder
o, CA 95973
1020 Meraader
eh*eo e A _ 9
5
9
99 Undeliverable -
9/17/99
Teodo's Deli
999 Marauder
Chico, CA 95973
Western Woods, Inc.
275 Sikorsky
Chico, CA 95973
Margaret Davidson
LCSW
290 Airpark Boulevard
So, CA 95973
Lothar Kleiner
P. O. Box 87
Los Altos, CA 94023-0087
Real Estate Dynamics, Inc.
8124 W. Thirst St.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Fleetwood Motor Homes of
California, Inc.
300 Ryan Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Charles W. Lohse
2 Laguna Point Road,
Chico, CA 95928-2977
•
McClelland Air Conditioning, Inc.
690 Thunderbolt
Chico, CA 95973
McNeill Manufacturing Peugeots Only
4950 Cohasset, #15 5050 Cohasset, #71
Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973
Ron's Mobile RV Service Sudco
4950 Cohasset, #40 275 Fairchild, #104
Chico,'CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973
Bill & Jeanne Gaines
Transfer Flow, Inc.
270 Boeing Ave.,
1444 Fortress
Ghiee, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
Returned 9/7/99
Yellow Cab Company
'Fire Trol Holdings LLS
4950 Cohasset
Tim Jenack
Chico, CA 95973
1335 Fortress Street
1063 Woodland Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Belmont Farm Hays Trust
Omnibus Limited
Curt Hays
2812 Hegan Lane
1111 Marauder
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95973
Design Concepts
John G. Sears
c/o Gene McFarren
P. O. Box 2023
1063 Woodland Avenue
Chico, CA 95927-2023
Chico, CA 95928
Lares Research
National Data Funding Corp.
295 Lockheed Avenue
290 Airpark Blvd.
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
Charles & Fay Hays
RNR MAP LP
1111 Marauder Street
447 Posada Way
Chico, CA 95973
Fremont, CA 94536
John E. Dandl Living Trust
John E. Dandl, Trustee Gerald K. & Linda Richter
2050.Springfield Dr., #221 P. O. Box 4402
Chico, CA 95928-6366 Chico, CA 95927-4402
California Water Service Co.
Robert & Susan Reed Mark Lightcap
751. Liberator Street. 1540 Esplanade
Chico, CA, 95973 Chico, CA 95926
• Sisco Revocable Trust et al
FAc & Ann Sisco, Trustees
omerset Place
Chico, CA 95926
Kushner White Associates
c/o Beatrice Kushner
35 Presidio Terrace
San Francisco,'CA 94118
Fortress Development Group
Attn: Howard Slater
3753 Morehead
Chico, CA 95928
CTS Adventures
Attn: Joan Reed
170 Airpark Blvd.
Chico, CA 95973
Chico Aerial Applicators, Inc..
Dutch Wahl or Russ Schaffer
P. O. Box 3549
�o, CA 95927-3549
Chico Westside Little League
1354R East Ave., #204
Chico, CA 95926-7336
Koret of California
Attn: Dan Kempers, Vice President
1210 Marauder
Chico, CA 95973
Bradys Moving & Storage Inc.
Jeffery B. Day .
251 Boeing Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
HLS General Partnership
Lowen Real Estate
250 Vallombrosa Ave., Suite 266
Chico, CA 95928-3958
Ameriflight, Inc.
Attn: Gary Richards, President
4700 Empire Avenue, Hangar #1
Burbank, CA 91505
Budget Rent A Car
Attn: Mary Rudicel, Location Mgr
2659 Esplanade
Chico, CA 95926
Albert Penna et al
265 Boeing Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Charles & Judy Cadet
6 Kingston Circle
Chico, CA 95926
Bradley Brothers
Gerald R. Bradley, Partner
9332 Frederick Lane
Durham, CA 95938
Butte Training Center
Attn: Craig Rigsbee, Director
3536 Butte Campus Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Chico Moulding Co. Chico Travel Service
Attn: Velma L. Middleton, President Attn: Patty Gillett
P. O. Box 1729 150 Airpark Blvd., Suite #20
Chico, CA 95927-1729 Chico, CA: 95973
Fortress Independence Partnership
Attn: Karl W. Hall
1353 Woodland Avenue
Chico, CA 95928
Harold Schooler .
Schooler Flying Company
4702 Cable Bridge Drive
Chico, CA 95928
Is A/C Industrial Services
Pam Wilson Nick Buck
Beachfront Deli 1111 Marauder Street
160 Convair Avenue, Suite #100 Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
Glyn Pye Vending
3110 Thorntree Drive
Chico, CA 95973
Avis Rental Cars
Attn: Rich Cornelius
#3 Premier Court
Chico, CA 95928 .
Mike Hagen
_Rapid Package
FAX: 894-5880
Sylvester & Evelyne Willingham
620 Oasis Drive
Chico, CA 95973
Mary Mooney
Mooney Farms
1220 Fortress Street
Chico, CA 95973
Union Flights
Tri Counties Bank
Attn: C. Jay Paynter, President
Attn: Rod Stanberry, Vice President'
Executive Airport
15 Independence Circle
6273 Freeport Blvd.
Chico, CA 95973
Sacramento, CA 95822
WestAir Industries, Inc.
United Express
Attn: Lawrence Olson, President
Attn: Joellen Indiveri, Local Manager
P: O. Box 7735
150 Airpark Blvd., Suite #10
Fresno, CA 93747
Chico, CA 95973
Is A/C Industrial Services
Pam Wilson Nick Buck
Beachfront Deli 1111 Marauder Street
160 Convair Avenue, Suite #100 Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
Glyn Pye Vending
3110 Thorntree Drive
Chico, CA 95973
Avis Rental Cars
Attn: Rich Cornelius
#3 Premier Court
Chico, CA 95928 .
Mike Hagen
_Rapid Package
FAX: 894-5880
Sylvester & Evelyne Willingham
620 Oasis Drive
Chico, CA 95973
Mary Mooney
Mooney Farms
1220 Fortress Street
Chico, CA 95973
Aero Union Corporation
Alvistur
Lockheed Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Skywest Airlines
Joellen Indiveri, Station Manager
150 Airpark Blvd., #10
Chico, CA 95973
Retta Herfi
129 W. Shasta Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
.•
Linda.Patrick, Manager
Pacific Flight Services
109 Convair, #10
Chico, CA 95973
Schooler Flying Co.
Paul Farsai
Harold Schooler
Mach 1
100 Piper Ave.
1000 Fortress Street, #700
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
Herfi Aircraft
Bell -Carter Foods
P. O. Box 515
5 Glacier Peak Lane
Chico, CA 95927-0515
Chico, CA ,95973
Merit MedTrans, Inc;
Larry Burgoyne
Stan Gungl
Lewis A. Everett Drako, Inc., Dan Drake Randall E. Caviness
2165 Nord Aveue, Suite 10 P. O. Box 1448 1040 Mangrove Avenue
Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95927-1448 Chico, CA 95926
Oles James
157 Valley Ridge Drive
Paradise, CA 95967
Vayda Enterprises
2667 Aspen Springs Drive
Park City, UT 84060
Paul T. Persons . \
1834 Arroyo Canyon Drive
Chico, CA 95928
-Don
Robert N. Ryan, D.D.S.
S. Lieberman
,Butte Creek Aviation, Byron Parsons
525 Salem Street
5420 Scottwood
P. Box 24
Chico, CA 95928
Paradise, CA 95969
CA 95927-0024
L. R. Morgan, M.D.
Don S. Lieberman
Butte Flying Club -
18 Williamsburg Lane
5420 Scottwood
P. O. Box 101
Chico, CA 95926
Paradise, CA 95969.
Chico, CA 95927-0101
Wallace A. (Tod) Davis, Jr.
Robert A. Grierson .
Retta M. Herfi
6041 Kifisia Way
1740 Cardinal Court
P. O. Box 515
Fair Oaks, CA 95628-2519
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95927-0515
Butte Flying Club
Tom Seely
Tom Aylward J ;
P. O. Box 101
925 Dias Drive
14577 Camaren Park Drive
Chico, CA 95927-0101
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95928
Jim Fletcher - _
Agri Electric, J.Thorpe
C. Randy Landis
272 Pinyon Hills Drive
11011 Midway
107 Donald Drive
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95973
Jack D. Hagewood, M.D., Inc.
Thomas R. & Gaye DeVor
Roger Mathews
578 Rio Lindo Avenue, #3
219 Estates Drive
P. O. Box 4342
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95927-4342
Scott D. Memmott -
Stephen Schwartz -
Randall E. Caviness, M.D.
P. O. Box 111
1985 Hooker Oak Avenue
1040 Mangrove Avenue
Willows, C A 95988
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95926
Lila Bacon
Leslie or Roberta L. Sue
Edgar G. Knox
56 Mimosa Lane
208 Tom*Polk Circle
636 Bryant Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973-0679
Chico, CA 95926
Lewis A. Everett Drako, Inc., Dan Drake Randall E. Caviness
2165 Nord Aveue, Suite 10 P. O. Box 1448 1040 Mangrove Avenue
Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95927-1448 Chico, CA 95926
Oles James
157 Valley Ridge Drive
Paradise, CA 95967
Vayda Enterprises
2667 Aspen Springs Drive
Park City, UT 84060
Paul T. Persons . \
1834 Arroyo Canyon Drive
Chico, CA 95928
Onini-c Del Carlo and Steve Silacci Tom Doty Aaron Lindberg
2246-D Esplanade 1284 Manzanita Avenue 1080 Lassen, #36
Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA. 95973
Lewis N. Hyatt `
John Burghardt, Attorney
Richard J. Powell, M.D.
' 16414 Highway 99
1092 Cormo Real
392-A Connors Court .
CA 95973
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95926
Carl Selkirk
Charles Carhart and
John Eckalbar .
1026 Sheridan Avenue
Margaret A. Murphy-Carhart
41 Crow Canyon Court
Chico, CA 95926
P. O. Box 1580
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95927-1580
Paul Persons
Gene Kemper, Sr. -
M. B. Keeney
1834 Arroyo Canyon
42 Edgewater Court
2243 Durham -Dayton Highway
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95928
Durham, CA 95938-9651
James Mead
Robert Madama & Lee Exum -
Doug Guillon ' `-
3111 Burdick Road
1478. Country Oak Drive
110 Independence Circle, #201
Chico, CA 95928
Paradise, CA 95969
Chico, CA 95973
Ralph Plemmons
Rene Brunel
Leslie and Roberta L. Sue
756 Lorinda Lane
P. O. Box 414
208 Tom Polk Circle
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95927-0414
Chico, CA 95973-0679
Ken Callan KCLLC _
John Patrick
Ronald J. Engstrom
P. O. Box 1391
50 Guynn Bridge Court
60 Guynn Bridge Court
Chico, CA 95927-1391
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95926
Robert N. Ryan
Beverly Strisower ",
Dave Murray
525 Salem Street
203 Brookvine Circle
P. O. Box 4299
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95927-4299
Phillip Wolfe - --
Tony Nasr
Clay Kangerga
781 Sierra View Way
88 Lazy S Lane
1058 Mangrove Avenue
Chico, CA 95926
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95926
Steve G. Nettleton
Stan or Leslie Gungl
Chico Admin Services, David C. Favor
165 Falcons Pointe Dr.
129 W. Shasta
P. O. Box 1297.
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95927-1297
Onini-c Del Carlo and Steve Silacci Tom Doty Aaron Lindberg
2246-D Esplanade 1284 Manzanita Avenue 1080 Lassen, #36
Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA. 95973
is
Hugh Tyler
Seward Schreder
Ed and Missy Knox
12 Via Flora Court
P. O. Box 7785
636 Bryant Avenue`
CA 95973
Chico, CA 95927-7785
Chico, CA 95926
`
Thomas J. Aylward
Richard'L. Ramsey
Thomas J. Aylward .
14577 Camaren Park Drive
2961 Highway 32, #1
14577,Camaren Park Drive .
Chico, CA 95973
Chico, CA 95973
_ Chico, CA 95973
Bell Carter Foods, Inc.
Roy Grossman, M.D.
Doug Benson
1012 Second Street
2500 Zanella Way, Suite F
1711 North Cherry Street,
Corning, CA 96021
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95926
James F. Schlund
V. L. Wood
'
3257 Shadybrook Lane
621 Paseo Companeros Road
Chico, CA 95928
Chico, CA 95928
is
C,
C.
NOTICE OF .AVAILABILITY OF THE
DRAFT BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is pleased to announce the release of the draft Butte
County Airport Comprehensive Land use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP establishes criteria for evaluation
of compatibility of proposed development within an airport's area of influence. The proposed CLUP
surrounds each of the four public use airports in Butte County. Airports affected by this plan are:
Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark and Ranchearo Airport.
The draft CLUP was prepared by Shutt Moen Associates, a Santa Rosa consulting firm specializing
in airport planning and engineering. Funding for the CLUP update was obtained from the Caltrans
Aeronautics Program.
Following the release of the document, a series of hearings and workshops will be held on the Plan
to received public input. The first meeting will be held by the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission on:
March 15, 2000 @-9:00 am
Butte County Board of Supervisors Chambers
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA. 95965
Public meetings will also be held by the Board of Supervisors, the City of Chico and the City of
Oroville at a time to be announced.
You may review the draft CLUP and Negative Declaration at the address listed below. Please
contact Paula Leasure, ALUC staff at (530) 538-7601 if you have any questions regarding this
project. You may submit written comments to:
K:\ALUC\CLUP\CLOP-NOT. W PD
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA. 95965
Paradise Post
i
Declaration of Publication
! State of California
County of Butte
Declarant Says:
That at all times herein mentioned Declarant is and was a
resident of said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one
years; not a part to nor interested in the within matter; that
Declarant is now and was at all times herein mentioned the
Legal Clerk
of the Paradise Post, a tri -weekly newspaper, which said
newspaper was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation .
on November 12, 1946, by Superior Court Order No. 22262 a
entered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court; and that said
newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thursday
and Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that the
Notice Of Public Hearing
Notice Of Availability Of Draft Year 2000 Airport Land Use
Butte County Planning
134-00
of which the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a true
printed copy, was published in said newspaper in the issues of
March 25, 2000
and that such publication was made in the regular issues of
said paper (and not in any supplemental edition or extra
thereof).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true an
correct.
Executed on March 25, 2000
At Paradise, California
zi� M a (I� gzi::
Declarant
PUBLIC HEARING NO ICE
.r ��= - . and , � • .. � :.
Noticewof Availab♦
ility of Draft Year 2000'
T• d A.r d
Airport -Land Use Compatibility Plan. '
NOTICE IS HEREBY"GIVEN THAT THE BUTTE COUNTYAIRPORT LAND USF,"COMMIS=''
SIOMIS CONSIDERING ADOPTION OF A NEW COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR''."-
THE PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS N. BUTTE COUNTY COW
Summary Project Descrip n
'Public UtilityCode Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update"to the comprehen
sive land use plans for each of the County's public use, airports.' The proposed airport land use plan ,
contains a comprehensive, ieview of the compat11
ibility criteriaiapplicable,to• each of•the County's.,
public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Auport, the Paradise p
ort and=the Rancheard'L
Alt'port ++ -.i- i , } , �•::- 4�.n:
The Butte County Aiipoit Larid Use Cop mssion is required by Publie Utilities Code Section 21675
a') to formiilate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly*growth of the area
:Surrounding each airport. Such plans will-safe&aid the 'general .welfare'of the inhabitants within the e
c;v cinity of the airport and the public in gerieral. In formulating the plan, the Butte.0
:; .and Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may. so "utt 'Ceounty Airport of land and
_may determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports with-
rn the planning area.
.q, Adoption Schedule
A.' Consultation Hearing with the Butte County Board of Supervisors on'March 28,2000, at
. .1:15 pm in the Bboard of Supervisors Chambers', 25 County Center Drive, Oroville.
'. B. Open House for the -General Public on March 28, 2000 from 5:00 pm to 7:30 at the Chico
Municipal Airport Conference Room, "150 Airpark Blvd. The project consultant will be ...
giving a presentation at 5:30 pm with a question and answers session following.
C. Final Adoption Hearing(s) by the Airport Land Use Commission on April 19, 2000; at 9:00
am. Hearings) to be held in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 25 County' Center Drive;
Oroville.
Copies of the Draft Year 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan are available for purchase from the
Department of Development Services, at the address listed below and are at the Butte County
Libraries in Chico and Oroville.
The project file, Comprehensive Land Use Plan•and Iditial, Study are on file and available for pub- f
lic viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, California between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Questions and informa-
tion requests may be directed to Paula Leasure, Principal Planner at (530) 538-7601 between the
hours of 8:00 am. and 4:00 p.m. ;
The proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan is defined as. a project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration are proposed to be adopted
by the Lead Agency which is the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. Written comments
may be submitted at any time prior to the hearing on April 19, 2000, or orally at the meeting or at
another hearing if continued to a later date by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. If
you challenge the proposed Initial Study, Negative Declaration and related informational docu-
ments in court, you may be. limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Butte County
Airport Land. Use Commission, at or prior to the public. hearing on April 19, 2000.
THOMAS A. PARILO
DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
March 25, 2000
134-00
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
o
�Sl
I
It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to extend the
written comment period for the Draft CLUP and Initial Study to June 9, 2000 to allow agencies
additional time to respond and comment.
Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Stacey Jolliffe, City of Chico Community Development Department, said the City had submitted three
letters commenting on the Draft CLUP. One from Mayor Steve Bertagna dated April 3, 2000, another
from City Manager Tom Lando dated April 7, 2000, and one from Kim Seidler, Planning Director, dated
April 6, 2000. She said the letters summarized the City's position on the t�ropose lan.
George Kammerer, Hefner, Stark & Marois, said he repr
2,000 acres close to the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr.
2000, summarizing the concerns of the landowners.
Jim Mann, representing the Building Industry As
Commission so that the CLUP will be a plan that
within Butte County.
Pete Giampaoli, owner of property within Zone B2 of `tlie
Draft CLUP rendered his property economically unfeasible to
as currently proposed at 5 acre parcels, the Commission,must
value androfit of his property. He said he would .7eto see
P P
allow the existing City of Chico General Plari'and zot g' :_
Bill Davis, City of Oroville, said the
making recommendations to the City:
be tailored to boundaries that; alrea
boundaries. The City will beforwar
heari
G RECONVENED AT 10:30.
Chair
impacts
of Coac
be
approximately
dated ApriL7,
:iation,"`MedWW
kith the
for the future�oairports
Chico " unicipal Airport, said the present
develop the ALUC adopts the Plan,
be rea Y to co pensate him for the lost
the A UCPIan amended which would
)ked at the Draft CLUP and will be
ission believes that the zones should
are roadways, property lines, or natural
to the Commission.
ner.G erson requeste:c sta f to request County Counsel to provide a written opinion o the
Ffi fluences of the cases of Furey v. City of Sacramento, as cited by Tom Lando, and City
a``vuRiverside.County ALUC, as cited by George Kammerer, by the May ALUC meeting.
y, he requested that the Department of Development Services advise whether an EIR should
I for the 2000-CLUP.
Staff was directed to schedule a future agenda to amend the ALUC By -Laws and MOU to designate a
secretary to make the CLUP, By -Laws and MOU consistent.
the, consensus of the Commission to refer the following items to Ken Brody:
Consideration of special zoning for residences approximate to small, privately owned airports.
2. Review of the eastern boundary of Zone C of the Ranchaero Airport, as it may be too close to
the airport.
On page 224, paragraph 4.1.6, Mr. Brody states that "nighttime engine test noise is not
accounted for in the model." This has to be taken into account because of night time fire
fighting activities.
• Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of April 19, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■
•
•
approximately 8 -acre riparian buffer zone parcel on the south side of the development. The
property is located on the east side of Garner Lane immediately north of Keefer Slough,
northwesterly of the Chico Municipal Airport.
4. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued:
'Review of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan
contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the
County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark
Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. Comment. The public comment period for this item has Ji
been extended to June 9, 2000 in; order to alloiv'agencies additional time to respond and
comment on the proposed draft CL UP. No action to be taken.
a. Additional comments and testimony.
b. The role and expectation of the sub -committees.
C., The development of timeline.
d. Update on request for a legal opinion.
5. Ruddy Creek Mobile Home Park.
ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Discussion to change the regular meeting time of -the Airport Land Use Commission. .
H. Monthly Status Report.
I. Committee Appointments.
J. Correspondence and Commission Announcements:
K. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to ftve.minutes.
The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented
if it is not listed on the agenda.)
L. Closed Session - None.
M. Adjournment.
Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A.
Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you.
'Any person may address, the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda.
*Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of
S. 08 per page.
RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte
AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time.
ArAirport Land Use Commission, May 17, 2000 Agenda,'&Page 2
Cs' I &:
1
k
A
v
ti
r1
U
Paradise Post
Declaration of Publication
State of California
County of Butte
Declarant Says:
That at all times herein mentioned Declarant is and was a resident of
said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one years; not a part to nor
interested in the within matter, that Declarant is now and was at all
times herein mentioned the Legal Clerk of the Paradise Post, a tri-
weekly newspaper, which said newspaper was adjudged a newspaper o:
general circulation on November 12, 1946, by Superior Court Order
No. 22262 as entered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court; and that said
newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that the
Public Hearing Notice
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
Notice of Public Review period for the
Adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration F251553
416-00
of which the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a true printed copy,
was published in said newspaper in the issues of:
October 5, 2000
and that such publication was made in the regular issues of said paper
(and not in any supplemental edition or extra thereof).
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 5, 2000
at Paradise, California.
Declarant
7o 206
Noy. 2 z, ?-600
2
• Butte Bounty Airport Land Use Commission
Notice of Public Review period for the
adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration
Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an environmental document
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for the proposed adoption
of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive
land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan
contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's
public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise
Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport.
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section
21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the
area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within
• the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and
determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the
planning area.
The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public
viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
•
AAW, Z?r 2,.'06
•
Paradise Post
Declaration- of Publication
State of California
County Of Butte
Butte Countv'Aimort Land tlse G m(sston
Notice of Public Revlew Eidenston-Pet"ilfor Uie
.: Airport Land Use Corribatt ' "'Plarl'artd" "
Declarant Says:
That at all times herein mentioned Declarant is and was a resident of
said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one years; not a part to nor
Adoption of a Prhosed Negative'Declaraffor
,.-;'•;
Noti8g.W Mefb wit• the' Butte Coup AV ' '
h'` _ ! °
d Butte
Commission that. the Butte Cqunty Airpo ° s
Compatibility Plan and an g6Wonment& alit;.
interested in the within matter; that Declarant is now and was at all
pursuant to the California Environmental;luai '.;Act,;'
times herein mentioned the Legal Clerk of the Paradise Post, a tri-
has been prepared.fdradoption.; .; s
weekly newspaper, which said newspaper was adjudged a newspaper of
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION '
.:
During the November, 15, 2000 meeting,Stie'AlrpoR
general circulation on November 12, 1946, by Superior Court Order
Land Use Commission extended>;the�sCommerit:
No. 22262 as`entered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court; and that said
Period for the referenced Plan toNovembe�22; 2000:1.
newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thursday and
This would allow more time for •any` concemed`entitjil
Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that the
to make comments.
Public Utility Code Sections 21674'(c)' and 21'675 et.?
Public Hearing Notice
seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensl�le,lanci;
County of Butte
use plans for each of the County's`public use:airpgits°
The proposed airport. land use plan contains'a;com-.r
Airport Land Use Commission
prehensive review of the compatibility criteria applic-
492-00
able to each of the County's •public -Use• -airports;.
which applies,to:.the Chico. MurncipaI:Airpo'rIj*' ie.
Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the
4
of which the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a true printed copy,
RanchaeroAirport.°: ,;
The Butte County.Airport Land Ilse Commission is;:
was published in said newspaper in the issues of:
required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to;.
formulate a comprehensiye land:,use.plan that. will:
November 18, 2000
provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding':
each airport. Such plans will safeguard the General;
welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity'of'the-air -:
and that such publication was made in the regular issues of said paper
port and the public in general. In formulating the'planr
the Butte County Airport. Land Use Commissto-r
and not in an supplemental edition or extra thereof).
.( Y PP f)•
develop height restrictions on buildings; specify.,use.
Of land, and determine building standards to' include`;
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
soundproofing of structures adjacent to airpoks'with=
in the planning area
The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.and ;
Executed on November 18, 2000
Initial Study are on file and available for public view-:'
ing at the office of the Butte County Department of'°
at Paradise, California.
!
Development Services, 7 County Center:: Drive ;;i
Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) .538-6571-.
(Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.):. .. I
Declarant
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. PARILO,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Nov. 18, 2000
492-00, i
0
•
Qom; 57- IVY, /-7, 400o
lJI'HI.0 r -UN I-1L.uvV Dr
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 4t'"
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
In the Matter of
Notice of Public Review.
..................................................................................
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of California
County of Butte ss.
The undersigned resident of the county of
Butte, State of California, says:
- That I am, and at all time herein mentioned
was a citizen of the United States and not a party
to nor interested in the above entitled matter;
that 1 am the principal clerk of the printer and
publisher of
The Chico Enterprise -Record
Oroville Mercury Register.
That said newspaper is one of general circula-
tion as defined by Section 6000 Government
Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796
by the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned was printed
and published daily in the City of Chico and
County of Butte; that the notice of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, was published in
said newspaper on the following days:
Oct.-5,2000-
I
ct.-5,.2000.
I certify (or declare), under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, at
Chico, California.
Dated ............ Oct.! .... 5.,..2QO.Q., ...............................
at Chico, California.
......................
.. ...�?......
(S1ignare)
_
No..................................
suant
tions 216,',
at. seq: a
date to th
land use'l
the Count
ports.. The
land use
compreher
the comps
plicable to
tys pubfii
S,ypark Ai
Ranchearo IU�rptirt•,
The Butte County A)rpw
Land Use Comrrilk4 V. re
quired by Puble.s(1ti6H'
Code Sectlori 21 S�'(N _t
formulate a rnpr
._.
I and useplan.that.
vide for,
ffie oide'
of the area ,'
each airport Such,
safeguard the
fare of the Inha
the Oclnity'of they,
and s h
the public in •general;; tiOr
mulatlng the plan V).
County . AirportMA
Commission
height restrictions 6W,
ings, specify use, og,', tUiQ.
and determine :'W
standards to,include`so�u
proofing of strudUres`ad{a:
cent to airports• within; the
planning area.
The Draft Airport Land
Use Compabbillty Plan and
Initial Study are on file and
available for public viewing
at the office of the Butte
County Department of De-
velopmental Services, ..7
County Center Drive, Oro-
ville, CA. For information
call: (530) 538-7601 (Mort
day through Friday. 8 a.m. i
to 4-p rh.).-Comments may,
be submitted until Novem-'.
ber 17,2000. t•
BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. P. PARILO,
DIRECT DEVELOPMENT.
M
Butte Bounty Airport Land Use Commission
• Notice of Public Review period for the ,
adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration
Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an environmental document
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for the proposed adoption
of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
on 1' • D I I I' • PIUVIU71 • 1
SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive
land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan
contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's
public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise
Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport.
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section
21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the
area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within
the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and
determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the
planning area.
The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public
viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center
Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
•
e if
GAO oto ems '/ dd
(SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
In the'Matter of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REUIEW.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of California
ss.
:County of Butte.
The undersigned resident of the _county of
Butte, State of California, says:
That I am, and. at all time herein mentioned
was a citizen of the United States and not a party
to nor interested in the above entitled matter;
that I am the principal clerk of the printer and
publisher of
The Chico Enterprise -Record
The Oroville.Mercury-Register
That said newspaper is one of general circula-
tion as defined by Section 6000 Government
Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796
by the Superior Court of the State of California,
in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned was printed
and published daily in the City of Chico and
County of Butte; that the notice of which the
annexed is a true printed copy, was published in
said newspaper on the following days:
NOU 18, 2000.
Dated November 21, 2000
at Chico, California.
1
(Sign re)
No.
`M
POWWOW-
Co�patibllity Plan and. ° j
Adootlon of a'Prosed -.
NeoatIva Declamillon n:..
Nobce is he'- reb�yr giveli by.
the"'Butt Coo % ArWrt
Commission that.lhe.86tte
county Airport. Land-tlse
envirc
s Y: �Rt,*
twin
DESCRIPTION s+
During the November 15,
2000 meeting,AW-Airport.
Land Use Cominissi6n;ez-
tended the Commeru Pqr qd
for the referenced' Plin10
November 22; �2QM:. This
would allow'mord-time'for
any' concerned:: entity -7 to
make co'mments:8.k
:'
Public Utili 'Co
tions 21674 (c� and:21675
et. seq. allow a.yskly rip
date to the compPrehensive
land use plans' r each of
tha County's public'use air-
ports. The proposed airport
!and use plan .contains a!
comprehensive review. -of
the compatibility criteria ap-
plicable to each: b11-:1he
County s public use airports,
which applies to: the Chico!
Municipal Airport;:tha.Oio-1
ville Airport, the Paradise)
Skypark Airport, _arid the
Ranchaero Airport.'
The Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission is re-'
quired by Public Utilitles`
Code Section 21675 (a) to!
lormulate a comprehensive '
land use plan that'will pro-
vide for the orderly growth
of the area surrounding
each airport. Such plans will
safeguard the general wel-
fare of the inhabitants within
the vicinity ot. the airport
and
the public in general. In for-
mulating the plan, the Butte
County Airport Land Use
Commission may '.develop
height restrictions on build-
, irgs, specify use of land,
and determine buildingg
standards to include sound-
: croofing of structures adia-
' cent to airports within the
Manning area.
The Draft Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan and
! ;nitia! Study are on file and
available for public viewing
at the office of the Butte
: County Department of De-
"vopment Services, 7
j County Center Drive. Oro-
! CA. For information
;ad: (530) 538-6571 (Mon -
gay thrcugh Friday, 8 a.m.
p 4 p.m.).
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT
COMMISSION"
ThOMAS A. PARILO, DE-
vELOPMENT SERVICES.
!RECTOR
F257241
=�J:ttsh:November18.2000