Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout43260 047-350-062< a Butte County Department of Development Services o�UTlFo TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 0 0 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone CDUN'�-t (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION " BUILDING * PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Mark Michelena, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ALUC File No. A 06-09 Glidewell Trust (Rare Earth Subdivision) DATE: March 8, 2006 - Please find attached a revised Agenda Report and Exhibit A. The applicants, provided_ additional findings and proposed an additional condition. The additions are underlined for your.,'...- reference. Staff_ did remove a small portion of the original .Agenda Report (shown as a strike - through). The other Exhibits (B through F) have not changed. i 1 Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Airport Land Use Commission March 15; 2006 Meeting AGENDA ITEM — E.1 ' TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Mark Michelena, Senior Planner DATE: March 15, 2006 ITEM:' ALUC File No. A 06-09 Glidewell Trust (Rare Earth Subdivision), APN 047-350-062: A consistency review for a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, which would divide an approximately 13.77 acres into 13 single-family. residential. lots, a community septic area and detention pond. The project site is located in both the Traffic Pattern Zone "Cl" and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. ' The majority - of the project site (95%) is within the "C1" Zone. Project'. location is on the east side of. Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Garner Lane, and within the North Chico Specific Plan area, north of Chico. SUMMARY: The proposed project does not meet the minimum requirements of the Traffic Pattern Zone "C 1" and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Chico Municipal Airport. The applicant has requested under Section 2.4.4(f), Otlier Special Conditions, of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) that the incompatible use be determined to be acceptable. BACKGROUND: _ • The parcel is currently undeveloped. • The property is outside the City' of Chico's sphere of influence, but is in the North Chico Specific Plan area and the Area of Cooperation between the City of Chico and Butte County. • The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential l -acre minimum) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Agricultural Residential. • The proposed subdivision map would create 14 lots (12 single-family — 1.0 acre each; 1 lot for a 1.16 acre proposed community sewage disposal area; and 1 lot for a 0.52 acre detention pond) amounting.to a density of approximately 1.06 dwelling units per acre and -an average residential parcel size of 1.0 acres. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 7 ■ • The project site is located approximately 1.27 miles northwest of the.existing runway 13L & 31R of the Chico Municipal Airport. The project site is located approximately 3,515 feet west from the extended runway centerline. - • The project site is within two Airport Compatibility Zones. Approximately 95% of the site is within the C1 (Traffic Pattern Zone) and 5% is within the B2 (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). ANALYSIS: • This project is a major land use action as defined, by Policy 1.5.3 of the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP). • The primary compatibility criteria for the C 1 and B2 Compatibility Zone is shown on the following table: Zone Residential Density (du/ac)1 Req'd Open Land Other Development Conditions5 < 0.2 Airspace review required for objects >70 C1 -Traffic Pattern (average parcelo feet tall; size > 5.0 , acres) .10/o Deed notice required. , Minimum NLR 20 dB in residences < 0.2 (including mobile homes) and buildings B2 — Extended (average parcel 20% with noise -sensitive uses13; Approach/Departure Zone size > 5.0 Airspace review required for objects >70 acres) feet tall; Deed notice required. Extracted from Table 2A of the 2000 ALUCP Note 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 the 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. 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 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 solely on public property. See supporting compatibility criteria policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land. 5. Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions involving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements apply only to new development. 13. NLR = 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. f ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ .■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 7 ■ • The residential density of the project is not consistent with Airport Compatibility Zones C1 & B2, which requires density to be less than or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes parcels with overall density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre. • Under the C1 &-B2 Compatibility Zones parcel size requirement is greater or equal,to 5 acres. • Based.on the Cl & B2 compatibility zones, the proposed project could have 2 residential dwelling lots (13.77 acres/5 acre minimum lots = 2.75 residential dwelling lots). • -Under section 4.2.6, clustering is permitted: The ALUCP states the clustering of lots -allows the lots. to be a minimum of 2.5 acres, which is a maximum of double the average density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre. ALUC determined that parcels could be reduced below the minimum 2.5 acres, to the underlying zoning, but could still not exceed double the density based on the airport compatibility zone, which in this case would be 5 lots (13.75 acres/5- acre minimum parcel x 2). • The applicant is proposing to use ALUCP Section 2.4.4(f), other special conditions to allow for 12 residential lots. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Section 2.4.4): ' • Under the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) Policy Section 2.4.4(f), "Other Special Conditions", an applicant can request that a normally incompatible use 'still be considered acceptable because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances to the site. After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the Commission may find a normally incompatible use to be acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the Commission shall make specific findings as to why the exception is being made and that the land use will not create a safety, hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use. Findings also shall be made as to the nature of,the extraordinary circumstances which warrant the policy exception. - The burden for demonstrating that special conditions apply to a particular development proposal rests with the project proponent and/or the referring agency, not with the ALUC. The granting of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. - Special conditions which warrant general application in all or part of the influence area of one airport, but not at other airports, are set forth in Chapter 3 of this Compatibility Plan. • The applicant has submitted information identifying this parcel as completely surrounded by similar or higher density within a 750 -foot radius. Staff has included a table that shows ,average density within 300 feet, 500 feet and 750 feet. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 7 ■ I . The site is an undeveloped island and is completely surrounded by existing one -acre residential development (one parcel to the north is a 2.0 acre parcel). Granting a Special Condition exception will not create a precedent, and per the ALUCP, cannot be generalized to include any other sites anyway (ALUCP, 2.4.4(f) (4).) The project site, other than one parcel to- the north, is surrounded by parcels of one acre in size., Please see the table below stating surrounding densities and uses. Distance # of Lots Total Acres 'Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size -Maximum Lot Size 300 feet 35 37.77 1.08. 0.83 2.37 500 feet 64 65.92 1.03 0.74 2.37 750 feet 102 104.96 1.03- 0.55 2.37 2. Even -though the project is not using the Special Conditions Infill Section (2.4.4 a), based on infill criteria, the project would be consistent with the average density of all parcels not only within 300 feet, but up to 750 feet. . Staff.addressed this finding as if the project parcel was able to be considered under the .S to 10 acre parcel size (even though it is 13.77). It was determined that if the, -' ;.-project parcel was two parcel less than IO acres, it would still meet the 65% bounded '-by existing uses similar to, or more intensive, than proposed Parcel Parcel Boundary Similar Uses Boundary Percentage . Current 3,802.9 3282.9 86% 1 2,296.3 1776.3 77% 2 2391.8 1871.8 78% 3. Noise exposure levels are well below recognized -acceptable 55-60 dB CNEL levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and,the CalTrans Handbook (see detailed analysis in Exhibit C, October 14, 2004 letter). The ALUCP does identify the project site as outside the 55 dB CNEL level for the Future Average Fire Season Day (Exhibit 4E), the Expanded Forecast (Exhibit 4F), and the Peak Fire. Attack Day (Exhibit 4G) Noise Impacts. But under .Chapter 2, Chico Municipal Airport, Section 2.1.2(c), it states that except to the southeast, Zone B2 fully encompasses both the expanded forecast 55 -dB CNEL contour and the peak ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 4 of 7 ■ , i fire attack day 60 -dB CNEL contour, including the portions lateral to the runway. The project would be conditioned to include Minimum Noise Level Reductions (NLR) of 20 dB in residences (including mobile homes) and buildings with noise -sensitive uses in the B2 Compatibility Zone which would reduce noise exposure to acceptable CNEL levels (see condition #7). 4. Safety risks are minimized to below recognized -acceptable levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and the CalTrans Handbook as well (see detailed analysis in October 14 letter). (Refer to attached Exhibit D) The Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan accident risk intensity map (Exhibit 4H) does identify the project parcel to be outside the risk area. But as discussed at previous ALUC Hearings, Exhibit 4H, only identifies take -offs to the south and landings from the north. The Chico Municipal Airport has no official records .for northbound landings and take -offs, but airport off cials' estimate that approximately 60 to 70 percent of flights are southbound landing and take -offs. This means that between 30-40 percent of flights comprise northbound landings and take -offs in the vicinity of the site. Aeeerding to the 200 n/" .i r r.rr+n U.___.]L....l- J- .._.1:...,. __ 41__I/W/ s_ 7 GO/_ „!' ,,.__, .,,,.„,,,.t eneempassed by -Zane -B2. ” (BQ4LUQP Seetien 1. 1AccordinQ to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook accident risk within the Inner Turning Zone (which equates to the 2000-ALUCP B Zone) is only 0.05% within one full acre. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, accident risk within the Traffic Pattern Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP C Zone) is negligible (not measurable). (Table 9D, Analysis of Salty Zone Examples, 2002 CalTrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.) The major concern with C Zone is annoyance associated with aircraft overflights' (noise). Risk -is a concern mostly with respect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high usage intensities (BCALUCP Section 1.14(a), Page 3-2). The proposed project is considered being developed at a low density residential use without any of these other uses. Since only 5% of the project site is within the B2 Zone and the C zone is mostly concerned with noise impacts, the proposed project is not in conflict with the BCALUCP. . 5. Nature of Concern - Overflight compatibility concerns encompass a combination of noise and safety issues. Although sensitivity to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another, overflight sensitivity is particularly important with regard to residential land uses. Accordine to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, the question here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise. address the concerns. Effective means by which to address overflight issues are through buyer awareness measures, such as dedication of aviQation or overflight easements, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 5 of 7 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff.- The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as partof their processing of the tentative subdivision map. ' - r r F 1 tl. m Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ . ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 6 of 7 ■ ' RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission find ALUC File No A 06-09 (Glidewell Trust) compatible to the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan under Section 2.4.4 (f), Other Special Conditions. EXHIBITS: A: Findings and Conditions B: Airport Compatibility Zones C: Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 2B — ALUCP) Noise Impact - Future Average Fire Season Day (Exhibit 4E - ALUCP) Noise Impact - Peak Fire Attack Day (Exhibit 4G - ALUCP) Noise Impact — Expanded Forecast (Exhibit 4F - ALUCP) ' D. Accident Risk Intensity (Exhibit 4H - ALUCP) E: List of References F. - Tentative Subdivision Map Uplanning\ALWALUC apphi ations\2006 FILES\A 06-09 Glidewell Trust\A06-09 Rare Earth TSM Agenda Report Revised 3-7-06.doc p , f • ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 7 of 7 0 EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: ALUC File No., A 06-09: Glidewell Trust. APN 047-350-062 The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) finds ALUC File No. A 06-09 compatible with the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and acceptable per Section 2.4.4(f), Other Special Conditions, subject to findings and conditions. The following findings and conditions have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the Lead Agency (Butte County) when making a decision on the project. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their processing of the tentative subdivision map. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposal for the Glidewell Trust Tentative, Subdivision Map (Rare Earth), to divide a 13.7 -acre parcel into 14 lots (12 for single-family dwellings) is determined to be compatible with the Compatibility Zones Cl and B2 as found in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The project site is located in AirportCompatibility. Zones C1 and B2 as listed in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2000 ALUCP) for the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). B. The 12 lot residential subdivision, with a density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre is inconsistent with the Compatibility Zones C 1 and B2. C. The proposed project is consistent with the underlying SR -1 Zoning and conditionally consistent with the General Plan. land use designation of Agricultural Residential. D. 'This normally incompatible proposed project, however, is found to be compatible and acceptable based upon 2000 ALUCP Policy Section 2.4.4 (f), "Other Special Conditions", for the reasons explained in the March 15, 2006 staff report and the exhibits thereto, all of which are incorporated 0 herein by reference and made a part of these findings. The Commission makes the following findings: 1. After due consideration of all factors involved in this situation, the Commission finds that this normally incompatible use is compatible and acceptable based upon the specific location, and other extraordinary factors or .circumstances related to the site, and explained in the findings herein. 2. After due consideration of all of the factors involved in this situation, the Commission specifically finds that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground. or aircraft in flight, nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use, as explained in detail in= the March 15, 2006 Butte County staff report, for the following specific reasons: a. Safe i. The proposed project is outside of both the aircraft departure and aircraft approach accident risk intensity corridors for the CMA for .landing/departing aircraft , from/to the south as shown in 2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4H, "Accident Risk Intensity", page 4-9. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, accident risk.within the Inner Turning Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP B Zone) is only 0.05% within one full acre! According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, accident risk within the Traffic Pattern Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP C Zone) is negligible (not measurable). (Table 9D Analysis of Safety Zone Examples, 2002 CalTrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.) ii. Only 5% of the proposed project site is located within the 2000 ALUCP B2 Zone. The remaining 95 % is located within the Cl Zone. The major concern of the C Zone is aircraft .overflights (noise)_ Risk concern is mostly with respect to schools, hospitals and very high ' usage intensities. The proposed ,project is considered - being developed at a low density residential use without any of these other uses. iii. The project is proposing an open space area of 1.6 acres on the west side of ,the- project site. The' area is for planned 'for wastewater treatment/dispersal and a detention area. This exceeds the required open space of 1.44 acres of the C1 (10%) and B2 (20%) Compatibility ' Zones. The 248 x 316 -foot size and conformation of the open space area exceeds the 2000 ALUCP's recommended dimensions of 75 x 300 -fool for a minimally adequate emergency aircraft landing area. iv. The project site is located- approximately 3,515 feet west from the extended runway centerline: b. Noise i. Residents will be exposed to no more than acceptable decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) noise levels for the proposed use because the residential parcels lie outside of the '55 dB CNEL contours according to the 2000 'ALUCP, even on peak fire attack days, as shown on the: Noise Compatibility Criteria (`Residential land uses -50-55 CNEL—"++ clearly acceptable" ') (2000 ALUCP, Table 2B.) Noise Impacts. — Future Average Fire Season Day (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4E, p. 4-7.) Noise Impacts — Peak Fire Attack Day (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4G) Noise Impacts — Expanded Forecast (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit -4F, p. 4-8.) c. Airspace Protection i. Proposed land.uses on the project site are compatible with CMA "operations because the subdivision design protects airspace by. avoiding the creation of hazards to air navigation. Subdivision design provides' that structures , will not exceed 35 -feet in elevation, in conformance with Caltrans' guidelines and Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Furthermore, the site is located approximately 1.27 miles north of the existing runway 13L & 31R, and the project site distance from the extended runway centerline is 3,515 feet from Runway 13L & 31 R. d. Overflight i. Overflight impacts concern noise -related impacts outside of typical noise contours which are measured in terms of annoyance, and to a lesser extent concern safety issues. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, the question here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the, impacts or otherwise address, the concerns. Effective means by which to address overflight issues are through buyer awareness measures, such as dedication of aviization 'or overflight easements, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. ii. The applicants have agreed to accept conditions of approval to meet the 2000 ALUCP's overflight recommendations. 3. The project site is 100% surrounded on all four sides by existing, similar density residential development r 4. The project proponent has met the burden for demonstrating that , special conditions apply to this particular development proposal. 5. This grant of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific to the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map site and' shall not be generalized to include other sites. SECTION 4: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot A is designated as a detention pond area and no residential dwelling, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), except for a six foot high chain link security.. fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in, operation." 2. Place a note. oil a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map- or -on 'ah additional map sheet that states: "Lot B is designated .as a community septic, area and no residential dwellings, large trees or poles. (greater than 4 inches in diameter), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation." 3. Provide a deed.notice for the sale of all resulting lots notifying purchasers of the proximity of the airport and the potential for possible noise related impacts ,in an ALUC-approved-disclosure notice. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map record as a separate instrument an Avigation Easement granting the right of continued use of the airspace above the proposed parcels by the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 5.' Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with theA final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "n Avigation Easement is recorded above the parcels for the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts." 6. Place a note on a separate document which is.to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Airspace review by the Airport Land Use Commission is required for all objects over 100 feet in height in the C 1 Compatibility Zone and 70 feet in height in the B2 Compatibility Zone." L 7.- Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional Mjqp sheet that states: "As a condition for the issuance of any Building Permit, Minimum Noise Level Reduction of 20 decibel dB is required for construction of all residences." /� • +6 0- U a -Q-9-- f," `LQ-Aze�, >� S :�b&c v w { S SQ fiA Cd fu .. a i Y Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Faesimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING' y � March 17, 2006 Glidewell Revocable Trust f 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San Diego, CA 92131-3226 Re: A06-09, AP: 047-350-062 Gentlemen: ' On March 15, 2006, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the referenced project to be } consistent with the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Pan under"Section 2.4.4 (f), ? Other Special Conditions, subject to the attached conditions. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Michelena of this office at 538-7376, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. ? ` Sincerely,- Lynn Richardson } Commission Clerk Enc. cc: North Star Engineering K:\letters\merge letters\SCHEDULE.dot t F 1 i SECTION 4: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place a note on a separate document which is.to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot A is designated as a. detention pond area and no residential dwelling, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation." 2. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot B is designated as a. community septic area and no residential dwellings, large trees or poles (greater. than 4 inches in diameter), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation." 3. Provide a deed notice for the sale of all resulting lots notifying purchasers of the proximity of the airport and the potential for possible noise related impacts in an ALUC-approved disclosure notice. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map record as a separate instrument an Avigation Easement granting the right of continued use of the airspace above the proposed parcels by the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 5. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "An Avigation Easement is recorded above the parcels for the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts." 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the , final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Airspace review by the Airport Land Use Commission is required for all objects over 100 feet in height in the C1 Compatibility Zone and 70 feet in height in the B2 Compatibility Zone." 7. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "As a .condition for the issuance of any Building Permit, a minimum interior noise level of less than 45 decibel (dB) is required for all residences." 8. The subdivision cul-de-sac shall be designated with an aviation -related name as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 32. p - 0 Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Airport Land Use Commission March 15, 2006 Meeting • AGENDA ITEM — E.1 TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Mark Michelena, Senior Planner DATE: March 15; 2006 ITEM: , ALUC File No. A 06-09 Glidewell Trust (Rare Earth Subdivision), APN 047-350-062: A consistency review for a proposed Tentative j P Subdivision Map, which would divide an approximately 13.77 acres into 13 single-family residential lots, a community septic area and detention i pond. The project site is located in both the Traffic Pattern Zone "Cl" + and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport + Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The majority of the project site (95%) is within the "Cl" Zone. -Project location is on the east side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet F south of Garner Lane, and within the North Chico Specific Plan area, north of Chico. ' SUMMARY:' The proposed project does not meet the minimum requirements of the Traffic Pattern Zone "Cl" and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility -Plan Chico Municipal Airport. The applicant has requested under Section 2.4.4(f), Other Special i -Conditions, of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) that,the incompatible use be determined to be acceptable. ' 1 BACKGROUND: • The parcel is currently undeveloped: • The property is outside the City of Chico'.s .sphere of influence, but is in' the North Chico Specific Plan area and the Area of Cooperation between the City of Chico and Butte County.. •' The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential' 1 -acre minimum) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Agricultural Residential. ' • The proposed subdivision map would create 14 lots (.12 single-family — 1.0 acre each; 1 lot ' for a.1.16 acre proposed community sewage disposal area; and 1 lot for a 0.52 acre detention 1 pond) amounting to a density of approximately •1.06 dwelling units per acre and an average F residential parcel size of 1.0 acres. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ , ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 7 ■ • The project site is located approximately 1.27 miles northwest of the existing runway 13L & 31R of the Chico Municipal Airport. The project site is located approximately 3,515 feet west from the extended runway centerline. • The project site is within two Airport Compatibility Zones. Approximately 95% of the site is within the C1 (Traffic Pattern Zone) and 5% is within the B2 (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). ANALYSIS: • This project is a major land use action as defined by Policy 1.5.3 of the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). t • The primary compatibility criteria for the C1 and B2 Compatibility Zone is shown on the following table: Zone ` Residential Density (du/ac)' Req'd Open Land Other Development Conditions5 < 0.2 Airspace review required for objects >70 C1 -Traffic Pattern. (average parcel 10% feet tall; size > 5.0 Deed notice required. acres) Minimum NLR 20 dB in residences < 0.2 (including mobile homes) and buildings B2 — Extended (average parcel 20% with noise -sensitive uses 13; Approach/Departure Zone size > 5.0 Airspace review required for objects >70 acres) feet tall; Deed notice required. i i bxtractea from 1 able.LA of the ZUUU ALUUP Note 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 the 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. 3. Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general y 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 solely on public property. See supporting compatibility criteria policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for f definition of open land. 5. Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions involving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication ; and deed notice requirements apply only to new development. 13. NLR = 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. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 7 0 • The residential density of the project is not consistent with Airport Compatibility Zones C1 & B2, which requires density to be less than or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes parcels with overall density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre. • Under the C1 & B2 Compatibility Zones parcel size requirement is greater or equal to 5 acres. •. Based on the C1 & B2 compatibility zones, the proposed project could have 2 residential t dwelling lots (13.77 acres/5 acre minimum lots = 2.75 residential dwelling lots).° • Under section 4.2.6, clustering is permitted. The ALUCP states the clustering of lots allows the lots to be a minimum of 2.5 acres, which is a maximum of double the average density of 0.2' dwelling units per acre. ALUC determined that parcels could be reduced below the minimum 2.5 acres, to the underlying zoning, but could still not exceed double the density ; based on the airport compatibility zone, which in this case would be 5 lots (13.75 acres/5- acre minimum parcel x 2). , • The applicant is proposing to use ALUCP Section 2.4.4(f), other special conditions to allow r for 12 residential lots. i SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Section 2.4.4): • Under the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) Policy Section 2.4.4(f), "Other Special Conditions", an applicant can request that a normally incompatible use still be considered acceptable because of.terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary , factors or circumstances to the site. After due consideration of all the factors involved in such situations, the Commission may find a normally incompatible use to be acceptable. In reaching such a decision, the Commission shall make specific findings as to 1 why the exception is being made and that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use. Findings also shall be made as to the nature of the extraordinary circumstances which warrant the policy exception. The burden for demonstrating that special conditions apply to a particular development proposal rests with the project proponent and/or the referring agency, not with the ALUC. The granting of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. Special conditions which warrant general application in all or part of the influence area of one airport, but not at other airports, are set forth in Chapter.3 of this Compatibility Plan. • . The applicant has submitted information identifying this parcel as completely surrounded by similar or higher density within a 750 -foot radius. Staff has included a table that shows average density within 300 feet, 500 feet and 750 feet. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 7 ■ ' _ 1. The site is an undeveloped island and is,completely surrounded by existing one -acre residential development (one parcel to the north is a 2.0 acre parcel)., Granting a Special Condition exception will not create a precedent, and per the ALUCP, cannot be generalized to include any other sites anyway (ALUCP, 2.4.4(f) (4).) The project site, other than one parcel to `the north, is surrounded by parcels of one acre in size. Please see the table below stating surrounding densities and uses. Distance # of Lots Total Acres Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Maximum Lot Size 300 feet 35 37.77 ' 1.08 0.83 ,2.37 500 feet 64 65.92 1.03 0.74 2.37 750 feet 102 104.96 1.03 0.55 2.37. 2. Even though the project is not using the Special Conditions Infill Section (2.4.4 a), based on infill criteria, the project would be consistent with the average density of all parcels not only within 300 feet, but up to 750 feet. Staff addressed this finding as if the project parcel was able to be considered under the 5 to 10 acre parcel size (even though, it is 13.77). It was determined that if the project parcel was two parcel less than 10 acres, it would still meet the 65% bounded by existing uses similar to, or more. intensive, than proposed Parcel Parcel Boundary Similar Uses Boundary Percentage Current 3,802.9 3282.9 86% 1 2,296.3 1776.3 ''' 77% 2 2391.8 1871.8 78% e y .3. Noise exposure levels are well below recognized -acceptable 55-60 dB CNEL levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and the CalTrans Handbook (see detailed analysis in Exhibit C, October 14, 2004 letter). i The AL UCP does identify the project site as outside the 55 dB CNEL level for the ' j Future Average Fire Season Day (Exhibit 4E), the Expanded Forecast (Exhibit 4F), and the Peak Fire Attack Day (Exhibit 4G) Noise Impacts. But under Chapter 2, Chico Municipal Airport, Section 2.1.2(c), it states that except to the southeast, Zone B2 fully encompasses both the expanded forecast 55 -dB CNEL contour and the peak ! .r ■ Butte County Department of Development Services n ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ 'February 15, 2006 0 Page 4 of 7 ■ fire attack day 60 -dB CNEL contour, including the portions lateral to the runway. The project would be conditioned to include Minimum Noise Level Reductions (NLR) of 20 dB in residences (including mobile homes) and buildings with noise -sensitive uses in the B2 Compatibility Zone which would reduce noise exposure to acceptable CNEL levels (see condition #7). 4. Safety risks are minimized to below recognized -acceptable levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and the CalTrans Handbook as well (see detailed analysis in October 14 letter). (Refer to attached Exhibit D) The Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan accident risk intensity map (Exhibit 4H) does identify the project parcel to be outside the risk area. But as discussed at previous ALUC Hearings, Exhibit 4H, only identifies take -offs to. the south and landings from the north. The Chico Municipal Airport has no official records for northbound landings and take -offs, but airport officials' estimate that approximately 60' to 70 percent of flights are southbound landing and take -offs. This means that between 30-40 percent of flights comprise northbound landings and take -offs in the vicinity of the site. AeeeiWing te the 200 D/' A T T Tr'D 41--4 7/10/ s.. 1 CO/ Accordin to o the 2002. CalTrans Handbook, accident risk within the Inner Turning Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP B Zone) is only 0.05% within one full acre. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, accident risk within the Trac Pattern Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP C Zone) is negligible (not measurable). (Table 9D, Analysis of Safety Zone Examples. 2002 CalTrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.) The major concern with C Zone is annoyance associated with aircraft overflights (noise). Risk is a concern mostly with respect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high usage intensities (BCAL UCP Section 1.14(a), Page 3-2). The proposed project is considered being developed at a low density residential use without any of these other uses. Since only 5% of the project site is within the B2 Zone and the C zone is mostly concerned with noise impacts, the proposed project is not in conflict with the BCALUCP. 5. Nature of Concern — Overflight compatibility concerns encompass a combination of noise and safety issues. Although sensitivity ,to aircraft overflights varies from one person to another, overflight sensitivity is particularly important with regard to residential land uses. Accordinjz to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, the auestion here is whether anv land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Effective means by which to address over issues are throw buyer awareness measures, such as dedication of avigation or overflight easements, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust 0 ■ February 15, 2006 0 Page 5 of 7 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: ' No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete, an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their processing of the tentative subdivision map. F t 1 • - t ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 0 Page6 of 7 ■ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Butte County Airport Land Use -Commission find ALUC File No A 06-09 (Glidewell Trust) compatible to the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan under Section 2.4.4 (f), Other Special Conditions. EXHIBITS: - A: Findings and Conditions B: Airport Compatibility Zones l C: Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 2B - ALUCP) " Noise Impact - Future Average Fire Season Day (Exhibit 4E - ALUCP) t - Noise Impact - Peak Fire Attack Day (Exhibit 4G - ALUCP) Noise Impact -Expanded Forecast (Exhibit 4F - ALUCP) D. Accident Risk Intensity (Exhibit 4H - ALUCP) E: List of References F. Tentative Subdivision Map • t k:\planning\ALUC\ALUC applications\2006 FILES\A 06-09 Glidewell Trust\A06-09 Rare Earth TSM Agenda Report Revised 3-7-06.doc • I r ' r , y } - r ■ Butte County Department of Development Services.0 ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell.Trust ■ 0 February 15, 2006 0 Page 7 of 7 ■ EXHIBIT'A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: ALUC File No. A 06-09: Glidewell Trust. APN 047-350-062 The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) finds ALUC File No. A 06-09 compatible with the .2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and acceptable per Section 2.4.4(f), Other Special Conditions, subject to findings and conditions. The following findings and conditions have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the Lead Agency (Butte County) when making a decision on the project. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their processing of the tentative subdivision map. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposal for the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map (Rare Earth), to divide a 13.7 -acre parcel into 14 lots (12 for single-family dwellings) is determined to be compatible with the Compatibility Zones C 1 and B2 as found in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The project site is located in AirportCompatibility Zones C1 and B2 as listed in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2000 ALUCP) for the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). B. The 12 lot. residential subdivision, with a density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre is inconsistent with the Compatibility Zones C 1 and B2. C. The proposed project is consistent with the underlying SR -1 Zoning and conditionally consistent with the. General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Residential. D. This normally incompatible proposed project, however, is found to be compatible and acceptable based upon 2000 ALUCP Policy Section 2.4.4 (f), "Other Special Conditions", for the reasons explained in the March 15, 2006 staff report and the exhibits thereto, all of which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of 'these findings. The Commission makes the following findings: 1. After due consideration of all factors involved in this situation, the Commission finds that this normally, incompatible use is compatible and acceptable based upon the specific location, and other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the .site, and explained in the findings herein. 2. After due consideration of all of -the factors involved in this situation, the Commission specifically finds that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight, nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use, as explained in detail in the March 15, 2006 Butte County staff report, for the following specific reasons: a.. Safety i. The proposed project is outside of both the aircraft .departure and aircraft approach accident risk intensity corridors for the CMA for landing/departing aircraft from/to the south as shown in 2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4H, "Accident Risk Intensity", page 4-9. According to the 2002 CalTran's Handbook, accident risk within the Inner Turning Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP B Zone) is only 0.05% within one full acre. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, accident risk within the Traffic Pattern Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP C Zone) is negligible (not measurable). (Table 9D; Analysis of Safety Zone Examples, 2002 CalTrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.) ii. Only 5% of the proposed project site is located within the 2000 ALUCP B2 Zone. The remaining 95 % is located within the Cl Zone. The major concern of the C Zone is aircraft overflights (noise). Risk concern is mostly with respect to schools, hospitals and very high usage intensities. The proposed project is considered being developed at a low density residential use without any of these other uses. iii. The project is proposing an open space area of 1.6 acres on the west side of the project site. The area is for planned for wastewater treatment/dispersal and a detention area. This exceeds the required open space of 1.44 acres of the C1 (10%) and B2 (20%) Compatibility Zones. The 248 x 316 -foot size and conformation of the open space area exceeds the 2000 ALUCP's recommended dimensions of 75 x 3.00 -foot for a minimally adequate emergency aircraft landing area. iv. The project site is located approximately 3,515 feet west from the extended runway centerline. b. Noise i. Residents will be exposed to no more than acceptable decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) noise levels for the proposed use because the residential parcels "lie outside of the 55 dB CNEL contours according to the 2000 ALUCP, even on peak fire attack days, as shown on the: Noise Compatibility' Criteria (`Residential land uses -50-55 CNEL—"++ clearly acceptable" ') (2000 ALUCP, Table 2B.) — Noise Impacts — Future Average Fire Season Day (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4E, p. 4-7.) — Noise Impacts — Peak Fire Attack Day (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4G) — Noise Impacts — Expanded, Forecast (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4F, p. 4-8.) c. Airspace Protection i, Proposed land uses on the project site are' compatible with CMA operations because the subdivision design protects airspace by avoiding the creation of hazards to air navigation. Subdivision design provides that. structures will not exceed 35 -feet in elevation, in conformance with Caltrans' guidelines and Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Furthermore, the site is located approximately 1.27 miles north of the existing runway 13L & 31R,, and the project site distance from the extended runway centerline is 3,51.5 feet from Runway 13L & 31R. d. Overflight i. Overflight .impacts concern' noise -related impacts outside of typical noise contours which are measured in terms of annoyance, and to a lesser extent concern safety issues. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, the question here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Effective means by which to address overflight issues are through buyer awareness measures, such as dedication of avigation or overflight easements, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. ii. The applicants have agreed to accept conditions of approval to•. meet the 2000 ALUCP's overflight recommendations. 3. The project site is 100% surrounded on all four sides by existing, similar density residential development 4. The project proponent has met the burden for demonstrating that special conditions apply to this particular development proposal. 5. This grant of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific to the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map site and shall not be generalized to include other sites. SECTION 4: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: L Place a note on. a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot A.is designated as a detention pond area and no residential dwelling, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation." 2. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot B is designated as a community septic area and -no residential dwellings, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and .overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation." 3. Provide a deed notice for the sale of all resulting lots notifying purchasers of the proximity of the airport and the potential for possible noise related, impacts in an ALUC-approved disclosure notice. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map record as a separate instrument an Avigation Easement granting the right of continued use of the airspace above the proposed parcels by the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any -and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 5. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "An Avigation Easement is recorded above the parcels for the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts." 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Airspace review by the Airport Land Use Commission is required for all objects over 100 feet in height in the C 1 Compatibility Zone and 70 feet in height in the B2 Compatibility Zone." + ' a + 7. Place a note, on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "As a condition for the issuance of any Building Permit on parcels within the B Zone, Minimum Noise Level Reduction of 20 decibel OB) is required for construction of all residences." } e j 1 s ' J + J EXHIBIT B Airport Compatibility Zones Site- • r f EXHIBIT B Airport Compatibility Zones Site- 4 )ject • 1 4 4 fi B2 B1 q F ' e • 1 EXHIBIT E 1 r List of References Data supporting the ALUC's findings have been generated from -studies and reports prepared by recognized professionals and agencies with expertise in Airport Land Use Planning and land use compatibility. These include, but are not limited to: Butte County 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 1 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook — January 2002 ., 1 1 , ' 1 I. s 1 . 1 1 . ` Y 1 i ` III 1 1 ' 1 ` F 1 l 1 1 I 1 r7� 0 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile �� .. February 16, 2006 ADMINISTRATION " BUILDING ' GIS ' PLANNING Glidewell Revocable Trust 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San Diego, CA 92131-3226 Re: A06-09, AP: 047-350-062 Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission held February 15, 2006; the public hearing was continued to a future agenda to consider your application for' a ALUC consistency review of a proposed 12 lot residential subdivision.. The property is located on the east side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Garner Lane, north of Chico.. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, and you will be notified of the date and time. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Michelena at 538-7376 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Commission Clerk Ar cc: North Star Engineering City of Chico kAletters\merge letters\CONTME.dot Butte County Department of Development Services OTr TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO; ASSISTANT DIRECTOR o� Fo o o 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530)538-7785 Facsimile C®UN�y ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING *.PLANNING ,j February 8, 2006 Glidewell Revocable Trust 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San Diego, CA 92131-3226 ` Re: A06-09, AP: 047-350-062 Dear Gentlemen: -Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report -concerning your application for an ALUC consistency review of a proposed 12 lot residential subdivision. on property zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels) and located on the east side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Garner , Lane, north of Chico. Should you have any concerns with the report or.conditions of approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns. A public hearing has been set for February 15, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. T. The Airport Land Use Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative ' be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Mich_ elena of this office at 538-7376, between 8:00 a.m.-and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. ; Sincerely, G Ben ict Office Specialist Senior .I Enc. . cc: North Star" Engineering i t Check Number / Cash i . 16,61I Receiv0 ed $1,531 s-TotaliFees f r $1 '5.31 00 Fish/Game $0.00 ALUC (Airport Land Use) ,_ $1,531.00 i ._ . •_•. _ . _ _, T Y _ $0.00 Non Sufficient Funds` t425.00 Cell Tower ($2500.00) $0.00 t Public Sales /Copies - $0.00 .. Other: _, ,t: --'_-- •Y $0.00 (. '. ;.._�+r .. '',Z- ., yc.. _ .�". L.•..r.- .�. ... � _ .� -� ;- ..:�y. -•s; .W..L-. � - -�. r� w .+ - .. _ r• rsa .. _' - �"_" -' r. , . . - s ' ... :.•.. - _.- � � ,- ,«: �.t...,.�..,�,...-+,.:�.- a_. .,rte _. .z._��...,. .... _ - ' _ _ -- d - - - • • • ]Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Airport Land Use Commission February 15, 2006 Meeting AGENDA ITEM— E.2 TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Mark Michelena, Senior Planner DATE: February 15, 2006 ITEM: ALUC File No. A 06-09 Glidewell Trust (Rare Earth Subdivision), APN. 047-350-062: A consistency review for a proposed, Tentative Subdivision Map, which would divide an approximately 13.77 acres into 13 single-family residential lots, a community septic area and detention pond. The project site is located in both the Traffic Pattern Zone "Cl" r. and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport Land .Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The majority of the project site. (95%) is within the "Cl" Zone. Project location is on the east side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Garner Lane, and within the. North Chico Specific Plan area, north of Chico, SUMMARY: . The. proposed project does not meet the minimum requirements of the Traffic Pattern Zone "C1" ' and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone ."B2" of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Chico Municipal.Airport. The applicant has requested under Section 2.4.4(f), Other Special Conditions, of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) that the incompatible use be determined to be acceptable. BACKGROUND: • The parcel is currently undeveloped. • The property is outside the City of Chico's sphere of influence, but is in the North Chico Specific Plan area and the Area of Cooperation between the City of Chico and Butte County. ; • The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential 1 -acre minimum) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Agricultural Residential. • The proposed subdivision map would create 14 lots (12 single-familyw­ 1.0 acre each; 1 lot for a 1.16 acre proposed community sewage disposal area; and 1 lot for a 0.52 acre detention ? pond) amounting to a density of approximately 1.06 dwelling units per acre and an average residential parcel size of 1.0 acres. M Butte County. Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 1 of 6 0 The project site is located approximately 1.27 miles northwest of the existing runway 13L & .31R of the Chico Municipal Airport. The project site is located approximately, 3,515 feet west from the extended runway centerline. • The project site is within two Airport Compatibility Zones. Approximately 95% of the site is within the C1 (Traffic Pattern Zone) and 5% is within the B2 (Extended Approach/Departure Zone). ANALYSIS: This project is a major land use action as defined by Policy 1.5.3 of the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). • The primary compatibility -criteria for the Cl and B2 Compatibility Zone is shown on the following table: , Zone Residential Density , . (du/ac)l . Req'd Open Land' Other Development Conditions5 < 0.2 Airspace review required for objects >70 C1 -Traffic Pattern (average parcelo 10% feet tall; size > 5.0. . Deed notice required. acres) Minimum NLR 20 dB in residences, < 0.2 (including mobile homes) and,buildings B2 — Extended (average parcel 20% with noise -sensitive uses"; Approach/Departure Zone size > 5.0 Airspace review required for objects >70 acres) feet tall; Deed notice required.' Extracted from Table 2A of the 2000 ALUCP Note I 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 the, 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. 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 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 solely on public property. See supporting compatibility criteria policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land. 5. Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions involving property within any of the airport influence area zones.Easement dedication and deed notice requirements apply only to new development.` 13. NLR = 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. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February. 15, 2006 ■ Page 2 of 6 ■ • The residential density, of the project is not consistent with Airport Compatibility Zones C1 & B2, which requires density to. be less than or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes parcels with overall density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre. . • Under the C1 & B2 Compatibility Zones parcel size requirement is greater or equal to 5' acres. Based on the C1 & B2 compatibility zones, the proposed project could have 2 residential.. dwelling lots (13.77 acres/5 acre minimum lots = 2.75 residential dwelling lots). . . • Under section 4.2.6, clustering is permitted. The ALUCP states the clustering of lots allows the lots to be a minimum of 2.5 acres, which is.a maximum of double the average density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre: ALUC determined that parcels could be reduced below the minirnum.2.5 acres, to the underlying zoning, but could still not exceed double the density based on the airport compatibility zone, which in this case would be 5 lots (13.75. acres/5- acre minimum parcel x 2). • The applicant is proposing to use ALUCP Section 2.4.4(f), other special conditions to allow for 12 residential lots. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. (Section 2.4.4): • Under the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BCALUCP) Policy Section' 2.4.4(f), "Other Special Conditions.", an applicant can request that a normally incompatible use still be considered acceptable because of terrain, specific location, or other extraordinary factors or circumstances to the site: After due consideration of all the factors involved 'in such situations, the Commission may find a normally incompatible use to be acceptable. - In reaching such a decision, the Commission shall make specific findings as to why the exception is being made and that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use. Findings also shall be made as to the nature of the extraordinary circumstances which warrant the policy exception. The burden. for demonstrating that special* conditions apply to a particular development proposal rests with the project ` proponent and/or the referring .agency, not with the ALUC. - The granting of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific and shall not be generalized to include other sites. - Special conditions which warrant general application in all or part of the influence area, of one airport, but not at other airports,. are set forth in Chapter 3 of this Compatibility Plan. • The applicant has submitted information identifying this parcel as completely surrounded by similar or higher density within a 750 -foot radius. Staff has included'a table . that shows average density within 300 feet, 500 feet and 750 feet. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 3 of 6 ■ 1. The site is an undeveloped island and is completely surrounded by existing one -acre residential development (one parcel to the north is a 2.0 acre parcel). Granting a Special. Condition exception will not create a precedent, and per the ALUCP, cannot be generalized to include any other sites anyway. (ALUCP, 2.4.4(f) (4).) The project site, other than one parcel to the north, is surrounded by parcels of one acre in size. Please see the table below stating surrounding densities and uses. Distance # of Lots Total Acres . Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size Maximum Lot Size 300 feet 35 37.77 1.08 0.83 2.37 500 feet 64 65.92 1.03 . 0.74 2.37 750 feet 102 104.96 1.03 .55. 2.37 f i 2. Even though the project is not using the Special Conditions Infill Section (2.4.4 a), based on infill criteria, the project would be consistent with the, average density of all parcels not only within 300 feet, but up to 750 feet. Staff addressed this finding as if the project parcel was -able to be considered under the 5 to 10 acre parcel size (even though it is 13.77). It was determined that if the project parcel was two parcel less than 10 acres, it would still meet the 65% bounded } by existing uses similar to, or more intensive, than proposed Parcel Parcel Boundary Similar Uses Boundary Percentage Current 3;802.9. 3282.9 86% 1. 2,296.3 1776.3 77% 2 2391.8 1871.8 78% 4. Noise exposure levels are well below recognized -acceptable 55-60 dB CNEL' levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and the CalTrans Handbook (see detailed analysis in Exhibit C, October 14, 2004 letter). The ALUCP does identify the project site as .outside the 55 dB CNEL level for the Future Average Fire Season Day (Exhibit 4E), the Expanded Forecast (Exhibit 4F), and the Peak Fire Attack'Day. (Exhibit 4G) Noise Impacts. But under Chapter 2, ' Chico Municipal Airport, Section 2.1.2(c), it states that except to the southeast, Zone B2 fully encompasses both the expanded forecast 55 -dB, CAL contour and the peak ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ 1 ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 4 of 6 E. fare attack day 60 -dB CNEL contour, including the portions lateral. to the runway.. The project would be conditioned to include Minimum Noise Level Reductions (NLR) Of 20 dB in residences (including mobile homes) and buildings with noise -sensitive uses which would reduce noise exposure to acceptable CNEL levels (see #5 below). 6. Safety risks are minimized to below recognized -acceptable levels according to the 2000 ALUCP and the CalTrans Handbook as. well (see detailed analysis in October 14 letter). (Refer to attached Exhibit D) The. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan accident risk intensity map (Exhibit 4H) does identify the project parcel to be outside. the risk area. But as. discussed at previous ALUC. Hearings, Exhibit 4H, only identifies take -offs to the south and landings from the. north.'. The Chico Municipal. Airport has no official records for northbound landings and take -offs, but airport officials' estimate that approximately 60 to. 70 percent of flights are southbound landing and take -offs. This means that between, 30-40 percent of flights comprise northbound landings and take -offs in the vicinity of the site. According to the 2000. BCAL UCP, "Caltrans Handbook data indicates that 10% .to 15% of near -airport general aviation aircraft accidents occur _within the area comparable to .that. encompassed by Zone B2. " (BCAL.UCP Section 1.1.3(b), Page 3-2) The 'major, concern with C Zone ' is annoyance associated with aircraft overflights (noise). Risk is a concern mostly with respect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high usage intensities (BCALUCP Section 1.14(a), Page 3-2) Since only 5% of the project site is within the B2. Zone and the C zone is mostly concerned with noise impacts, the proposed project is not in conflict with the WALUCP... ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their processing of the tentative subdivision . map. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09. Glidewell Trust ■ February 15, 2006 ■ Page 5 of 6 ■ ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ALUC File No A 06-09 Glidewell Trust ■ ■ February 15, 2006 m Page 6 of 6..m EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: ALUC File No. A 06-09: Glidewell Trust. APN 047-350-062 The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) finds ALUC File No. A 06-09 compatible with the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport And. acceptable per Section 2.4.4(f), Other Special Conditions, subject to findings and conditions. The following findings and conditions have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the. Lead Agency,(Butte County) when making a decision on the project. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their. processing of the tentative . subdivision map. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposal for the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map (Rare Earth), to divide a 13.7 -acre parcel into 14 lots (12 for single-family dwellings) is determined to be compatible with the Compatibility Zones C1 and B2 as found in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport.. SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The project site is located in Airport Compatibility Zones C1 and B2 as listed in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2000 ALUCP) for the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). B. The 12 lot residential subdivision, with a density. of 1.06 dwelling units per acre is inconsistent with the Compatibility. Zones C 1 and B2. C. The proposed project. is consistent with the underlying SR -1 Zoning and conditionally consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Residential. D. This normally incompatible. proposed project, however, is found to, be compatible and acceptable based upon 2000 ALUCP Policy Section 2.4.4 (f), "Other Special Conditions", for the reasons. explained in the February 15, 2006 staff report and the exhibits thereto, all of which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of these findings. The Commission makes the following findings: 1. After due consideration of all factors involved in this situation, the Commission finds that this normally incompatible use is compatible and acceptable based upon the specific location, and other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the , site,'and explained in -the findings herein. 2. After due consideration of all of the factors involved in this situation, the Commission specifically finds that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground- or aircraft in flight, nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed .use, as explained in detail in the February 15,'2006 Butte County staff report, for the following specific reasons: a'., Safety i. The proposed project is outside of .both the aircraft departure and aircraft approach accident risk intensity corridors. for the CMA for landing/departing aircraft from/to the south as shown in 2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4H, "Accident Risk Intensity", page 4-9. ii. Only 5% of the proposed project site is located within the 2000 ALUCP B2 Zone:. The remaining 95 % is. located within the C1 Zone. The major concern of the C Zone is aircraft overflights. (noise). Risk concernis mostly with respect to schools, hospitals and very high usage intensities. The proposed project is .considered being developed at a low density residential use. iii. The project is proposing an open space area of 1.6 acres on the west side of the project site. The area is for planned for wastewater treatment/dispersal and a detention area. This exceeds the required open space of 1.44 acres of the C1 (10%) and B2 (20%) Compatibility Zones. The size and conformation of the open space area exceeds the 2000 ALUCP's recommended dimensions of 75 x 300 -foot for a minimally adequate emergency aircraft landing area. v. The project site is located approximately 3,515. feet west from the extended runway centerline. b. Noise i. Residents will be. exposed to no more than acceptable decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) noise levels for the proposed use because the residential parcels lie outside of the 55 dB CNEL 'contours . according to the 2000 ALUCP, even on peak fire attack days, as shown on the: — Noise Compatibility Criteria (`Residential land uses -50-55 CNEL-"++ clearly acceptable"..') (2000 ALUCP; Table 213.) Noise Impacts - Future Average Fire Season Day (2000 ALUCP; Exhibit 4E, P. 4-7.) - Noise Impacts — Peak Fire Attack Day (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4G) — Noise Impacts - Expanded Forecast (2000 ALUCP, Exhibit 4F, p. 4-8.) c. Airspace Protection i. Proposed land uses on theproject site are compatible with CMA operationsbecause the subdivision design protects airspace by avoiding the creation of hazards to air navigation... Subdivision design provides that structures will not exceed 35 -feet in elevation, . in conformance, with Caltrans'. guidelines and .Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Furthermore, the site is located approximately 1.27 miles north of the existing runway _ 13L & 31R, and the project site. distance, from the extended runway centerline is 3,515 feet from Runway 13 L & 31 R. d. Overflight is Overflight impacts concern noise -related impacts outside of typical noise contours which are measured in terms' of . annoyance, and to a lesser extent concern safety issues. Effective means by which to address overflight.issues is through buyer awareness measures. ii. The applicants have . agreed to accept conditions of approval to meet the 2000. ALUCP's overflight recommendations. 3. The project site is completely surrounded on all four sides by. existing, similar density residential development 4. The project proponent has met the burden for demonstrating that special conditions apply to this particular development proposal: 5. This grant of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific to the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map site and shall not be generalized to include other sites. SECTION 4: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot A is designated as a detention pond area and no residential dwelling, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, 'and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long. as the. airport remains in operation." 2. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot B is designated as a community septic area and no residential dwellings, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as the airport remains in operation.." 3. Provide a deed notice for the sale of all resulting lots notifying purchasers of the ` proximity of the airport and the potential for possible .noise related impacts in an ALUC-approved disclosure notice. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map record as, a separate instrument an Avigation Easement granting the right of continued use of the airspace above the proposed parcels by the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 5. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the. final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "An Avigation. Easement is, recorded above the parcels for the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts." 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states:. "Airspace review by the Airport Land Use Commission is required for all objects over 100 feet in height in the C1 Compatibility Zone and 70 feet in height in the B2 Compatibility Zone." Countywide Policies / Chapter 2 occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon indoor activities. o Marginally Acceptable The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that win dows can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discour- aged. Normally Unacceptable Noise will create substantial interference with both outdoor and indoor activities. Noise intrusion upon indoor activities can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation construction. Land uses which have conventionally constructed structures and/or in- volve outdoor activities which would be disrupted by noise should generally be avoided. , — — Clearly Unacceptable Unacceptable noise intrusion upon land use activities will occur. Adequate structural noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated land use should be avoided unless. strong overriding factors prevail and it should be prohibited if outdoor activities are involved. Notes:. ' In the area south of Chico Municipal Airport, these uses are "marginally acceptable" within the 55-60 dB CNEL range. Source: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2000) Table 2B Noise Compatibility Criteria Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan . 2-27 CNEL (dB) Land Use Category 56-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 Residential single-family, nursing homes, mobile homes' ++ - - - - - - multi -family, apartments, condominiums ++ . o - --. -- Public " schools, libraries, hospitals + o - -- -- churches, auditoriums, concert halls + o o - -- transportation, parking, cemeteries ++ ++ ++ + o Commercial and Industrial offices, retail trade ++ + o o - service commercial, wholesale trade, ++ ++` + o = o warehousing, light industrial ; general manufacturing, utilities,.*,++ ++' ++ + + extractive industry, Agricultural and Recreational cropland ++ ++. ++. ++. + livestock breeding ++. + o o - parks, playgrounds, zoos ++ + . + o . - golf courses, riding stables, water recreation ++ _ ++ +, o 0 outdoor spectator sports ++. + + o - amphitheaters + o Land Use Acceptability Interpretation/Comments ++ Clearly Acceptable The activities associated with the specified land use can be carried out with essentially no interference from the noise exposure. " + Normally Acceptable Noise is a factor to be considered in that slight interference with outdoor activities may occur. Conventional construction methods will eliminate most noise intrusions upon indoor activities. o Marginally Acceptable The indicated noise exposure will cause moderate interference with outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The land use is acceptable on the condition that outdoor activities are minimal and construction features which provide sufficient noise attenuation are used (e.g., installation of air conditioning so that win dows can be kept closed). Under other circumstances, the land use should be discour- aged. Normally Unacceptable Noise will create substantial interference with both outdoor and indoor activities. Noise intrusion upon indoor activities can be mitigated by requiring special noise insulation construction. Land uses which have conventionally constructed structures and/or in- volve outdoor activities which would be disrupted by noise should generally be avoided. , — — Clearly Unacceptable Unacceptable noise intrusion upon land use activities will occur. Adequate structural noise insulation is not practical under most circumstances. The indicated land use should be avoided unless. strong overriding factors prevail and it should be prohibited if outdoor activities are involved. Notes:. ' In the area south of Chico Municipal Airport, these uses are "marginally acceptable" within the 55-60 dB CNEL range. Source: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (December 2000) Table 2B Noise Compatibility Criteria Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan . 2-27 Background Data: Chico Municipal Airport/Chapter 4 4,000' 1 0 FEET 8,000' N 1" = 4,009 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (December 2000) LEGEND Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contours (Shown for Takeoffs to the South) �1 Aircraft Approach Accident Risk Intensity Contours (Shown for landings from the North) * See Appendix C for discussion Od a.. v , I" ,t.. 3 1 F. 1 1. 1. . t "5 ,5 - ,vaxwNc�r ';SeS���x SSfitk'Nt T yq' a - , a u %' y -, .:.� ,vq .F •rt' "` � ^"- °3i 9 5� .. "r.A •• .E ...r-, yc '"-.. J,. -_.. va;.-. .._ x�.3:. ra,�.:.:-S%: •:,{ �#' �' S'%°i� '�..'., z: ,,::; .r':::':' .,.: n, ,,.,. ,.... .Q., •,. .�. _. _.,�, l _ � - _ --- OWNY t , e 5 t �,F -„M..-e �'• +,, rxs E. • { r•• sa - .an fosrtaa M • R f x- 1 3 J o''•B avo :D . e - � � .•�'• ' ` _ : 'rook F`� 1 a> .� - "e ���y<.!�� _ _-:_. ..._ kf'Y#- - , ,: ..:r9i4a� „_ ;a4:• ._ n� ..��}��.-+:'2._. .- ---/n'i'` �' a.�'..•�', S��".tom. h.�., . - -__ _- 9�n : 5sr. a.s-. h"�. .� sr ,-' _— _ i. _ ,._- _ -Landm a�4,��',. a, f L ��`' v n:. - x xd••� Y 1w f '..# �. J 'ri'.` o .,�„ _ $. C � ? 5 '� -1�." a.�Arc up ` �. �* a '�".: -.� - '• �tnt.�y�N r,,r ��,` �:° i .� n7, y �w•�.#� t 4�ta _ .,T, �•'..� bLqq,^,^. p,. �'+`-+ .:li�"y, �. .;`rM•ar� :i>a`� � to r' '�'' A' r�r „`�- a�..&�J�' ��sy�t�'vt�"n. �3>�r: i*s :$ �:t �,"����,'' L7T .' :ipn .t.� rs�? i�, :.t _ rin'tr-.S wu, b�s'"t. e ,r'. q T.'�' '�R "•�; [rt> a��� � r 'tt�!; �' a - .'{{�,'r .fi'c""'i. t l'Yfi � 'w`,� . k V.�. c t4'' F 'u�fk',t: ,. 5`. ..F�<f• -`rvtr, ..�i�.• �?,tr, �.eith���- 1. .e .`, _ 4 ,. .r k vy� $ .Y; .. '� _ ''�{ 'i � ��� - fib}• �-� r h„��: _ 7x� ''� - :. �'�,:v 'r - n '�, � . 5 rT� rt'- r >< a _ _ - }t �ic`�;'����ai�`' "` ., �`�"�r�1 •' "�S„�r.,, a�'. �;� a .r i. -y ✓' � s , i(Cs m ,r,' ?_� .� r �,s � t wi'= is 'r' � r. ><- '�, sok• �'7�''`.;:� � � a �`>Z�' v �• .F ,-a, � a:. r*�`tN�=t' :x” �� - kg�y,: � �'. q S'i• 't' �'�'' rt` �,.���' - F , r ��. A �J� §§ ��.. dirsi+.R; ( ��'p. _:j�a�ii ^ Z" Ra �- :'t? ,•'��f, •,'k,:'. F§i :>�}_ �'Gac;�•�� •F day. y4-rF�SiT�.;ry��.+i�.., .a�:y� ;ya}-i&.r�a"�� tt'3')-� 3�*`•3 `. �f.. - .1 ` :, :f�'L � W't �� '.? � S M` ,r . •, "Lj°,1 :3.'+'Su3 .L .� s�. , � �• 'I` 'f3: ,�ti},'�' }F�C,-�.vr4f , -l '' .a�„orrr t. �s- `tivt�� L .5�Y4,>. • ��.�'.3i�;,. - •; a'.}J��. :,�t'.0.• . • I'- a"t<R, �•t..,a i. !;�' , 6�h, , •�2w`' ;i�;w,lx`_V-^' :i+. �rsq ,+.?,aV^•y �}��.j+ 21s , t i` k:.3. �4-�l`i,v. .�,s. �,., 'o•s!� •: S1�.a»d. ,:; a�-„`c i�•�^y.rr , ����k..}.�u• . .V'84;.'"t:.�x^k�4�sr, k ,,"SS��r-?�+.�,,'1,r.i' .;a.� • 'a?�c' a�srai;} ,-.' ,p,e�a'r,tsd,mhia ,kz-re•1,%`�.`.�p`.�•N„�2,,-.z�,`'5•<-u'nt�..-.0-ra!S'i'ft'4'.a.if�C'y�.�Y-.<-rl u11101, 3�Wc9`r.Y ��••.a•+qyrvy.L. ;'�-�tt..Y S'•. ..^.,'• ;-�,Y. - .,_sr4�"{r'�'� 'Ju'�-r'. O a �•r �rl .s: t �.' JR _e. - -.�? Zs '? ' �' �. � �� !��� �` . hT'm� p gr. ._.� ,�,,'eP.?v :..x< 'r,�•` .��ai' F ' :� : it' a3 :1.v .) , .: .eE2 t;s1, 's f 4 �td. .i[ , ' `/T'. {"C• Se .-lEC. 'fr 1 r'K4i?{• •Cr ,mAx.�'� • :.-'K.: ,. L� •� i K2 1 -i 'h:” tt .{.. 1 ,yf qy ,Y ,� yu fY �' ..J,. °, � �i. :.1w. .A'S�. (ja'a^a �aq .`%i. " � • 'd - x''i) � � . � �° .',S ,vi,1. „jam r c " wb*y+a'� �,3�ly'"tu :''�S. �U , T y �A�;: :1,.�n; N �'. �_,. .'•g ':�i-:."' •} _ � "• e ' s�, : �..a - ,)•t S� <"', o-:,.. .s3i�' ,.�a_` ® �s?�+ '•'$„S., .c '4m?r ;a.. # :1 _ti•._ sr• � . �.::� �'7 t-. .n>r:; . t _i': '`. „` : t }�•�r�:<_i. .'tv,,, ,. � _ �s'4 S � --t :ayky< ,_sec ';F�v'k'1' �s '''�+� ; �%'� 'iska � .i'�" prir:°".-x• ;k. '� .,.� ;`+,� �,: "s' - �j°•? i�'. -V : , (s� i . � - `L�• " � .' `k•. "neTx x: , .v.:q. � 4v ' ''t, ^3. t.,- c. w Y. rte, , - . yY•ii"y�`�"`r'��.i. ? � "" sr,L.%�3 ,, ik �,,'��•• y�.. `,�', _. # .. <: � 3, ,,;r•• �� `.Fzfifh'. �'r�',R kap, D �v_ I�`�"�n '+y). �` a-�,,T�S' _ s - �v`� ?. �`'. 't;f1�Ct^ � a .° ,x•.', � R � `}t., rtsi �... &���.. .h, 'r YZ. .q _��F�. - a... :�,'b.:s c� bs�r:�. u �` �'• 1 > s _ : �'. �... .��.irr- �;r:� . ���� fl "�t.,�-��. 5- '; - �'• - a"-�, k F;� - '� ^�,y, k y ,��., ia{'.za`:.' 1..a. �.a� 1:. `a.s ''kd �,g•.' ^s. 4•. u�" t.8z�''' �•�- �" _:.7��.. _ - �; tP'k .�'a 3 5y - � � � �.��� r'���y �. , x ' a'Sr. X�1 .#� ,y ' R3' � ��.v2 °i �`; ;:1, .N;_ i• .•:C•4-'ltA" - !Ca" f 1"'F , M,t% t�.. (, q �� - V '� �'tCT � o, �.'nri'F - d'Y"" t` 'Y� �, y�'�, �t.�.zk.;l�` y'iSP�: 4`fa `.L 1 - �{}.� �a. tt •7, �,_ ae .i �.. ,�,(FR,. i � .�� � .,�, ��� l,I .1$'- `}\TYs :. :�}j:,,•-����4 •�-^� . v$ , S . y 't3k3'. i `('tF y�'�, `` .u. :<z , tiF t;;i .. .3,, ax Y. .)•? ° i .{k(, :ir �. � ry+•" �. ® .�G �,, .F; {� Yn. e•r _ -r � s�; t3=.. r .:�Z,,�`' = �� � :zia„ • r- ___� - ., -., ,.:.- '­�� _', _-, -,, :" ,­-, - � - - - " - , _­,�_­�� "I - _-­:_ . . _L' , . . � , 12�1` _,__� _�­__�_,_i_ , �, -�� " ��_ �� __L�__._�, .1 I I -___ �_- ,- , , . �._�_" � L�1_ -'---,'. .1 - _.� ,�, -i�---- �_:". ,_­­ - _ ��'4`­_` 11_ F��_ - __r�__ � - - - - i , �� I ­>"."."�r,a-.!,, - ,, - - - - � . . � I . . � � v" - . . - .� . , - - -, - , � I � I I ­­ � - _­ - - �, , . '. , �, .., , , . '1:11 � _ 1. I " , , * , -1� - . - .1 - I .; � I , , - , " 3, , - ,,-�, -, - -. -. ;11. , , , , � .� . - , � . - , , '. •- -t7;� - __1., , , '� : . . 'I' �� I , � , , - I ,� . : -__ , . . , .. , I I'll - : � , .1 I . � �V__, ­ , , � � I _,", -, '­ ; , ,�, �, - , , - � , '. , ," , r, " - .� : 1,�� 1:, *, . , . - , " %. , , . - . I - - , ,:�� - - - � . I , - � I : - - -, I I ;. - ­ _ , , " , .� , , .,..-: , ., �,,. . -,--, __ '':', __!, � , - _�.-:�� ,1 �_ - . I � . . I :1 . I - - u , , . � -1. � ,,- , � I - .,-- . . " � ': I � I - I I I I , !- - 1. f - -: - - - � - � , � " -,- �­ -,-,--� - - ".. "­ ­­ � , , - - - . ., ­­ - �. � . _� , . I . � � I , , , , , � - . , � -.1 I . IL -1 - - - - - ! �� I . , I I _-� � ,� _4','� � - , I �,, �, � "',"J �` - -_ i I , �. - 1-1 , ­ . - . " � - ��,­­�, ­­. ,,�� _­.- �. - �_. ­; � Z., .:: . ­ - ,�: !_.-,;*--",�_ , _-, - � x-;. .-, 1, - -_ -, _ , 1- ­ ". - - -: - � , __ - � , , . , I ,; �: . � , I .,� _,. . - . I " 11 I � - -S -. - �� --- - .- - . I � ­ I I . , I , * I .., - ., � , � . , , , , . �, ! I - � . - - . I �, � - �,� �, , 1, I '. � " , , , , . " . . . I 1, �- ,,,, � . , ­ . , I . - � q � � � . � � , "" , , - I � � . I �, I - , , - " - . , �,, - '. ,�, " . _ - I � � , - I � �11 I I - .. , ­ , 11 -v " '' ,*- . , - '. '. 1, 11 ��, � I � - . .. . I - I 1, 1� -1 I . I I � I :. �. '. � , - �_.', - �, , � ; . �". - I - 'I. I � N-- :�__ - - - . I 11 . , ` . � " . � " - , , .". . I I . ..... -, 11 � , I - � � ­w� � I. . e I . - .. . . - , - . , � I . A , �. I I I . - . , , , _ � - , - ., . I , . - �, ".. � 0 � t � .,,--,.. , - - -, - � ! �' ( � , .., - � " , - , , , ^ - , , , , , , , . - 3 , I I , , , - I - .� -_ , . , -. I . " , I � ., , I,'1, . - , - I . I I I � � 1. , t., � , - I , * I . I . , I I , � , ., , ;�, � F, ,,��: * I - , I - � , , , , I 11_' - , , " , - , � -, I I , I , . * 1� , ,-, I - - - - 4-1 - � � -,�- ..' , ,,�,� , ;, -�- .�' o ". , , ,�'� %- ,; ��, �, - - -i 1', , _�� ,"', '*,, " -� .,-, -,­,� -,- -- , , , .�0.1 I'� J, . _ , . �! , , . -,' � '� _: 1� .1 I , j__. � . � . , I 11 , - I , , - ­ -1 ,� w .,- , , -�­ __ �� . , - - " � , , .1 . 11 � I -, 1. � � , - -, � , � �­ � , " ��: " , .,: - - I - I I I ; I - -I 1� .1 -III _1 - I I , , - 0 , "'__ 1. , I - , , , � " , .'_ ., , - - ; � , � . � . , , �' 1-111 __ .- � I - I. � I .� , �:. .1, . I I - 7 -1, � ., 1, f� - " :, " � , ,�•: , . t _. ,_ ": , , '. " - �. , , � , " - I, ,� - I , , , � . ,, - f . - , � ;, � ,': 1 , , , . I � , � , .�., : .. , , � � - ,� - -,, . �,. 1. � -, I -1 " I - .", - '­ - -, . -, 1, -, i � ­,� ��. �, 4'1 � - ,_ � I "I , - - - , __ - I . 1, - _41 2 .- . - - " - - '11, _ I " ,.'v',�. ,� ',� ;1, � I I .- A - � n', " , � I - . , I ":_ , - , , - - � .1 I , -- , - , � - , -, , , - � ,_ " ,�,',.��,z " I , .1, .. � . - . , , . , � , . , , I- - �, , � � , " " , . _;,� ': �: - t, � _�, - , ., , �', �, , , -, . , , - - 4. d � " " _� ,.- - . . � . �1� - , , , - - . i I __ - -1- . 11 1-1 - � , �. " � . 1. - ,� H ,.-- ,-'.a - . . � ftiaa"! . : N - . Ws� 0111 , '­ -, .. 1'. . . I., M, 0Wm __ - 10 - .� - , , ., ;� . . � 11 �- . . I I , ­­ gwg \ i I - - � , . . I � � "I. , ,� �,,!� ON I ,., 10m : _ W - �,'.,"� -, - I ., - �j5 - I'M 11 d", K42--_1 . ... RIM 40.nll I I � 11 __ � .. , . = '_�_ ..7 � � � - 11 ., . ffi�l S, � - I ;, ,� ,__ - � � _'. 61 U�drnarl -: __ � ; �i; , w I o' , .�.,_, , , 1�1 ,*l112-1 1 I I i ______ 4 ". ."W'. .. ­.. , "' 41 " " " -A I I I c Rio I 15' I - , 1� 1, ; _2 ­ . , , , , ,8 " _ �1� � �.� � a 1� I - I - Al - - - .- � -1 �;, : � . � � rook , �' '; - 6 I � � Dfive!,�, .- 1. � I , I . . -,', :, - - �11 I .. I ;��,' - i � . . I - I I , , �,J�, - ggm-g- r - ill, , I ; � - � I ...... , ,,.j F � oo - - � 7 I . u �, ��: � � . 0 I .13 N 101 ff , , ,,,, t", "'�,` , , , '' �­­ M id6w Ln.,' " 0 _111'&11-�m ­� Vn­rQ1__ , ­­_ I---- �L �. .. . ,----= -_ -6;------ A- ­5�; ,-,-, -�� - � I I �. ­_ � - - I - . I - , .", , mgm 0 � - 77�,� � .. ,--�-*� ,�­ 1 " mm�p�'; L�� . I I - , 4-_R,t_ `� Y�__ m. _.. ...'. , � , I � ,��,"12- . .,. !, � ___ NZ.,N-11-1--� t 1- _.,_� ', 't� � : ,z ;, .11 - . � . 1, �, . I , M , - 1, N " 1-1 - - jJt-4xg7, , - 'g, , � '. IM -Am ,ffi IN ;r L gsW-,.&g7 - - I . - I � ; I I .. , , . - . , _ ,% . Is, �, I : 11 MMA , , - 3 � i �i _!_r-;;;;,--� � �, " - -",I . � . I '..; I " , W, I , , I � , I - . . N . I ,o�­ I , -, I . 11 - - . . - I I ____ ; 09-0 -_ � - - W -4m, X; 7 -_ .11 . I I I 111.�.- . 1 , I ­­ .-1� I �_ - - :L , , , - -, ', " . . _'_ , , -!7 , : W� . �, - ,f,. � . F_ W_ , , , � I . - . � I -1 �A _',�___.._____ __ e _.- - jM U-- I �. I-,- . I I . LOCATION -- � _ . ; I ". I., I_1' -IT- . , - - , 'A _A_ - � . a , '� _� - ­ - _� I I _.� _� .Azjg��, 11/1`;I�tlll 11._'� -m ;-K I 11 I.- - . , _-A 1 - " .. �,Ad �, I I , ,w --w-M. t i ----rq -a Is N I R0, " CT , , .,�,g I , I . I - - '. - 11gs I ,( .'w"10100- , I ,�' - , .- - '�p il-��!Eg-4� gm R � __1�1'._1�11'.__.-- 1- .. , . . . I . 11 ., 11 �� I - , - �1,;_1��l'-.1i", - -,M-- -1. F. Z 0M, § ME - - gggg 1. . I �.; _�u �. - -,, � , _�, - ��� "', � - .� �� , - 2� , , , 5&.,��.- ggmg, , %. ,,- , � ­. I I- - � :�; � = � , - I - ,%.,A_g� '*�11_1 . . _�- � . ­ . .1 I ...., - , � gz; ��:'­;Z,�_----y " . I I . I, I . •- I * __ v ". � � . _ 7� .1. I "Lg,q I- .ef 11 ,_',�-, �.' -, "', �� . ,� �! , - , 711 �Nw FIR �_`_ F01s F�v_111 - -V-,-- � , I I � � i��, , 'a , 111 m. - . ., _.� ,_­., . � , � ,..i 0jEm)Jjs1y_ � � , , 1. I � W Www ,-,ffi,W.,;4V;, WON 065-m- 1. - "' s� - - � . I I --y; l- � ;, RN - -- m . - I m 1� , �­`V , i_ N I m,g-w. _�.-�mgg, 'g. q I . � I I -1 ". - , - 311 . , , *1 - . I'm - I " I , I . 11 I f= so I � I - � I , 0 Pheasant ;i�� � % I .� � . �' � 0 - ��:__ 1, �_�_' I -.1% iii 1,. '. _.�. '�� 11, L . . � I . I , I Run. - -_1 - - S',"N.,��u ­,Y.w�lw."., . ,_ 1-1 . - �, - � _jg , � -V !�11 -_ , -- ., � I ''. . J': � - , -'r I - - I - - 11115114 M . � , _W�� , ". I I , - -, -1-1-. 412,111- i�'Y) w , _­_.... - , 0 .� ,, , &,;�.�� 1"' � - � '- I I - _119MME _11 - �Z.,_,r -g Kim i ki rp;g�al 61-_5� �, 1-N � 10 ___ MUX -M, giv7i',-,4 -�- -$,m", _­ � " w gg_g�_­ �Vzl .,� I _��,' � - "I - ,-r ;_� _11 - _____ ____ - __ ,k gy�;� � M11- - pp � !n r -,-----,e - - I � Du S T PA. .., - .� p - _.: - - __ I �i.'�'j* - _ - -� I � ".. 11 .., 1.�c , "' I IF 9� ! F. W-.- I , - , - , . , " � - ,-17��, - .:� ME - % - , �yl -� W11 . 7� �,��', . ,- , �"', .- - '... :,��, I I,'- �� �� AQQW.�f, 5MU - - -- - -- i, �-5.1 - MIRT, W . . I I I ,.GRE6WMF �w T " I - " � I , I - r .., ,79 M 7�` 1 - " Rancha.% Road I- - � . ­­ , , I !� I., I , - I - 1-'�'i­,�­, I ,_ - -,:I �, � �, I't �,,.' - - . �'- , - , - . . , -, I � , �; . �_, � " 11- ME . .. .. � �2 � 1,41421y.kffill - , ,.I,-nil�-12�,-�','r-'I��-0,1"6 " I �;IIIROIRFNW , . I . . .. " ____ i I -v - 0' - 0 -. : e- , , I � , - , , .2 . - 0 - -:;s M � 'I 1 ,_ 1, I � - , I : � , - , - m � � : - - , &�- W ., . , �. ..�.wl � .. _1 I r/M,�//Vli , : " � . � 12=1 ,I 0 91 I - - 1k - ­�, � :, Stibi �' - Lane .-------- - - - .. -1-1111, -;, - R , � I - Ms, "'•W - - y :�: *� ,,� " C .. , . I -11 i ___ , , W_ , � - , 71MBE gr � .f R T, " -- Im. 1� � � _?,)� , W- -, I " . , ow I , . '' � I ,;_ C� , -, -, - �­ � . , � � I , . , , , - � " 1.1 .1 , - UM . � ,�,� 4 � 1, . . . _��X' �i I I . i 11 ;� 1410_%�, - ! r ", _,K"', - - L , - � �1216W:_��311 %W� -:20, . ,j , , � , I �r, f � . "I "'! . - - w �.. IN ?.... � , . � .1 - , - j . . . I . 'ing- ; - '',,;�,.� 1 I �, -1 ­% I I , " fr , � ., , . , I I _11 I MW -0711 1.41-1111 IN,-�'�7_,�,j�-­,. . � , . � I ­­­_ .� 11 _iv _­� I - , . I LIS i 1 M . ­ . I I I 's" �� . � � *w , . , . T111 -M-001 101 m: I 1� . ; _ ,-!rrlN--MMMi---.ir-. - I IM" , rlml- 'A _v= - oli, - IN I �//I I I - , , Vf -3 I I Me N ., i - � IM's �.`._ . ,, I 6 , Im, I_ '. ­..'� I - �, � - - .., I ..,.- - - el - - "U, "'I " 4 V, I Wigi , ii"�,_, �� ._, �' )dr.,WY; 1, � ­ ­�i , - I .1 1, ­- -, , * * N-ok �. . 11 - , , ? ` ­�`�'� -IK7-. ,"T ,,'. . I I ,' I , , � - � ,- � - 7. z 1! � . -, - , , - -�, . '. . . � ­ "' I � , .. - . , - - I , .�?, t :1, rt.­� ,:, : '� ­�� ­ .� 1; _/ � 11_� _11� � � , �­ , , ,� `_ " " �' :�,4;". . -1-1 =W410 I � ;', - ",;:i !�. _Z , , �]�', ..��, , . , ".1---.11 -, , : , , 'i-' �,,.,�,_ ,,, �� ­`,`­-� - ��a,�- '' - e,',.'�,;, I .. � I . � �.'� � 1�1 Wgrly'zliii V, ,'�', -,., " _; .- . , , � -i . , �' I -��, �gl . � - - �­, ,� '� --,,�, .. , � - �' ,r'_,� .1 Im I ___ I w � � 4 ': � , ,� '' ,�­ . OL , , ` " __ � '. '. ��, - �_ __, _ � - - �, . - 1-1 --- ­­. -- , , � 1. . • �, - T ? 111'� - - � W� - . -, - ,,�:,,; , -, ,, , - -�:,­�,­ - 1, i� , 1A - 11 - �W,ecg�_ 4. � L. wom WV,,A�AP � " I " . . ,,�,�,',-� ! _ � - , , _ . I I , I �i­ I '*% � ��!M.�W'i'-',i�'$,'--'�-,,�,�,;��k"j-t�z.- NW, , I.. ; , , I , I I - 'i,:,_`;;-.- �,!��, . 'I, �,' . : �, �� , � 111:,i:��', I , . � NEI __4, 1. � . -.,_1 " 511�1. I ''. . . ..�, .. �­ � � ,�, � . , 1, ,1,-,:, �.. I . - �.ra' , - ­; 2T2W_!1T1= " I � r;,�! ... � _____F_ - SIR �1%k -,-, - ,�-, � - ,�P-­­ -t•- , '' _ ,_�,:_ . W 8 m, j �%.,;� �, � �, � - -�.­_ -_�,­ � I I'M' - � I . I - - 11 . _'__,,� L� - , .11 1�- I 1_4 � 2 , I _�, ; 191 9 §1 " W" �, I . , , , , 1, . I i I - FW011 - , ­ , -,m �• I � ��_' - �.", -- :��- �. i �' ", , _-, 1. � I 1-1. A ,�kNIJ 51ULUN , . , ,� p,�, - - , �_ � I E`��-";---, L � , �� ,'!,i, . . L%W11 L . , I .11 � .., - 'rYs6111 ,��'- �­'j, 'r '�,r - __ �, -,-.- - . �[�,_ " IN '. , . , 1�"_ �1 - , plaw.00 , : � , . I � � �,,. i , .,�� t �­ � I - �io�E, , � �--� '11�1' . � I ;,:,_,1_, Im 1. Ibl. .., , ­­ .:" � I., . � �,, ...""',_ - � I - . ; "' I - 1 � , ­. Z,.' EXTENDED 'APPROACH AND � . .�,, :. .1 ",�'i"T" �.-, - :,� . ,,_ , � �1­11 .. I "'. 5. tf - I - �­ , , , _'. _: � I .. I � , . . ,.,rl �', � - I , . . : � -r, �:. �f : 1� ­ � , I, I - � ]I' ,1 .� �- M,., --Cl, . - TRAFFIC, PATTERN: �- "Q ; I I �.", 11I.W41MOW-11• I " 7 � . ­ lj,�A, NG'UNIT PER MINIMUM 5 -ACRES I I . I � - ... ".. 11. - 1. I �111,11 11 :, - I i.� - I •, i ", , �� * I G __ -,, '' ., . - .,._.: ,, � , gNA-g � *,� - - . _7�1,�, - - - _1 . .�, . . I . _ " e l;­`��'7�� - I 1i gggrll , , ,vdil�..T� , . . - . I R . . I , 10 . ..:_� � 1­x.�g- V1,-, " ­ - g*,'gL,.!p,ft I � ,_ m. - � � W'. t 1, �� 0, -- ,4. 'i � ,,, � �, � , . , 1. 1.2, L m W ­',,,! '_ I '. wsm; -'._ � . _�, �, - � - . ` - i� I . . I , , - . "; a:., '' , , I_ , ,., � �_ � . ,�.1.1, "al.."'i': " I ,�� 1� �­ I ," I - , I• -- I , R � :;� .� , 11 ", " -:, !_1 , " I - � - - ­ - ,". . , * ,[ _,.�i�', I'll, . - �11 .. 11 - " ., _ .� ." , " , r, , . , � - - �''.�.� � , .,�, _ ,; , , . . - ' ' I L . , , . ______ ­.. = L !11$ �.­ �A_.., It �_ I I I ,*.-�­,, " , � . ­:, ,.. ' ' ' ,*� . q . . , , , !�� - ' , ­ ' 1 1, ­_ � , - - - .1 ­ .... BUT -TU , �: - 1� " I r I I ,'L, - ,,�,� ,,, -, 1-- , �,�:�., _ I g , , . - , , _ �,_. , � ., , - � : ��:L , � 1'� -CT(, _ .:..�, -1 _ _� �� I " ., _ , � g! . I . � = I _ . , - - � - ,_: _ejr ,fp��!,*�� C�QUNTTY - . . I ''. - , '', . , - - - , , � - - I il ".. '� ; �, _���., �� - .;, . ­­ , " I , " I �,.._��: ­ ," ., . - I -1, . - I '' . I - � �. � - , - - L ".: , .- . - ,,77!"_'.'�: , � - !11 11 , - - -1 -1 I 1� � � - � . . ' :* ,z-: I , �_, I.- , 1, - ., "I - 11, . �,` � : - . , .' - " . , I , , , . , ,�, _��,,, I , I '.. '�­. �1. �.: �_ I �­ � " � . I . ;� % !'' , , _ I � ., , �:­ - , � ". , _..,, - - I . .� - - .. .1 , .� ��. �'� - : .-,���."-.,�",!"-:�,-,�,',,,, '�,'�­-,- 4�� , �!­ , ,___� '? - , . , � :,',­;� ", " ­; �, - � "', , , " , , , _,_:,;_ " , - .: , , ,. - , L - ? ,� ., - -�, , ,­J� _', r � ", ,,�t .x'­-�', '. , I . - 11! -1 - , , . , ,,, � , ; - r , . � . , I I I I " , , . I � � � " . q I , I .1.11 I- I - �. �, 1, , ,- .. , - , , , , , - . � . �, - 11 .1� �z 1. ,, I , -,.-�� �., � I . . , - ' I � I ­ 11 I .. - . , - - � , ! .. � - . ..� � - - , .., ' , � �,:_ , . � - , � I I . I , ,�� - ­ I , - I � ,- - �' I � - - i . ��, -, . �- 1:�. I �,_ - ,, " , , ' , L , . . , , : I I - � , . : - , �.,' , ,- - " " , ". -, v__ ', __ - -,�� �'. �Ii�).*:,.'�' - r,,,, I �, � " � � i , , , '. , - , � ,� - ­--� ­- -�!.-, �, I __ - , ,, � , , , , .. � , � . � � -, - " - -- � .- -1 - -, I'll - .- i 1-1 :1 , . . , � � � - _�! -'�,.'`:1/11 , , . , ,"', � - , _.. " , - . � '­; ,.-,� � " , . �. , , , 1, . . ., , . , . - �,_._� � . 1,1 ­ 1 , , , ;, . , :: 1i � . . ,,,, - - -1 . t , I 11 ., :, 1: I" �� - - - . - � 1� � . , � _ W_ - I .* : I I , , - I . r I , .1 I , �; "I �, 1; 1� ^ . I �, - _ , - . I 11 I , " "' . 1, � "I. -'i -, - 1, � �, �:,� � � - � FEB 0 i 2006 . , . I � L ­ � , . �. " ' : .. I., 4., - � I 0�.:. .� � I . � - I 1. 11 . ,. I � � � w � -, ­ I. �,�. _ .� � . I"- " " � � � , :..� �­'.-�� "' ." .: , " I � 1�� __ I I -�* ­1�111 , '.­:,�, ­;�_ V . I , , , ... 1, � - I . . - - `.., , . �� 7 .. 1, . o � I . 1-1- . � . . ::�;.�, .':, I ,;,,r _ '' "�,.,��_ � I . I - ! i, �,"""..'' .1 . I , - .1 I . I . I . I " . , , - . I I ­ " . . '. . ..'�' , .''. � � I - . . . . . ­ " I . I , , . I . .. , :­ -. :"; m. - - L" _�. � I ... . . � . . - I 1. . . 1. . .. - I . , ': ;,, ... �­ I..", I �,:.� ',:' . . I I. I � ., ", .1.1 � , I ., _ ''. � ' - � ,, . - .1 � I . I - - I .. ,,­_�P� . _:, . ­'...., . , .:. - � " . I , : - ,, - I . 1, - I I � 7_ , � r, -1 - - ­­, �� , r. I - : .. � 1. I I - I "" . - ., I , � " " " - , I - li : . - - I �. .1 . 1. . � �. �. . � , , . I-, ... I I � I . . 1� I I- '­­ I rl�' ,';* _.;' . . . I I . . - . - I I I � I � DEVELOP , � I - � , 11 - . � I � I . I - I . I , '' "" � , " � , , * -�-- - � ­- 9"" ' " - -1 I . , ; - ­�g � I I � .1 . . . . . . . . , � . � '. . I . ,Q � , , , � , - - I I, � I I , - , I 1. � . _ I , .1 . �, � I ,, '. - � - � , , . �7 .i . � I .. � I . � . I I . � .. - , � '' . - " , - , .- , , -­ - , -1 1: I ; : :, , . . . . . . .. . . .. 11�_ - . - - . ,., � . . I I I . , � , , I , I ,- , " ,,;'., ­_,� � I I � _... , ". '. , SERVICES -� - ­ . � '. ., 11.1. 11 lo, � . . � 1. I . I . . . , ,�'. - '. I I � I ,� . - . . . . � .. I � . ;­� ,� - � I .. , I , 4 . -11 - � " , '.:1,� ,�', �, � I .1 � -.� ,:"..; ,�:�, , I � . , .�� '. r , I j ". ;. � . I . , I - �, � � . . I I � ., I I . � � I . . , 11 � , ,- - ;� " *­ '� "' , "'I , . I �.. �', 1. 1, I . - I �. ., I " . I . . , . . . . I . -1 I . , _�, I - .;_ _4." , . ... , � I � : . .. ,� � I ` I 11 ... � , - ... 4 .., - ­, I ,. � 1. - � , , " I . . . . I - 1 � � ;, �, ., ' I � . I , . : . � � 11 �` � , I ,; -�-­� , � -- , I - - :�'. , " ., � �.;"� � � . " . � . ,�, .,• - � . . - , , . . � , , . , - , 1. �. "t, L . I . I � , .� � ., . . I - �, I , _ � . . -1 � � � . ., . � -- � - - - 1, . - - I I , � - - - . ; I . � z I . . . , .- - � I I 1. . _ I - _- , , I I 11 I " . - . . :. I _ . I .1. I � . � . '. � Z, . I . . �� � . . � . 1,I ,� � - - ­L,� "' . '. . . - . � , 'L I 1, . .* ". �, I I " L .: - , - , * , : 11 " I ­ ` I . 11 . I. : . �. , I � . : -_ , � .� I : , � I . I . " . .. 7 � I I I , . I 11 11 " I . ­­ , -1 � . .1 .� " � . I � I . I 1. ". . � . I . - - I -. I I . I .:. I 1, ,. I . . . ".. . . - I . �� __ � � I 11 I - . I , - I � - , - . � � I..BUTTE -1- .; .1 � 4, - AIRPORT . " - . ". , . �USE . , , , I - -` COUNTY I . . . I ­ I I . . . 11 I . . " . I '.:, . -BUTTE. �� , - -_, :LAND - : I I -, - . - - �� .. , 1 I . I I . . I I . , , 'M ` 1, I .,� ��,�,:. I �,.�­ , _ � .. .'''. - I'll . 1- �, I -_ ­ . '. . I . - � �,. . 1, '.. - . I 1. I I ...., lltll , r`�- I 1 , -, , , , � �. I I . : ... I 1�. I... "...... I . , -, 11�i , " - , 1, : , . I . , i 47, .11 I I . . I I : � . � � , - ­ I I . !93�"_`:�, .- ',"'?":,-,-"i , . �. I � . . . . . � , '. �,-_', ,11:�;-"­,.� - . I � � � w . I . . , . I .1 I . - I - I . . . 11. - . I,-:1111 -_ I , ,:. - - r _�.,-;:._ _:�, .,_,� ,- I , , ,,, I I I I - . . I _. - I ­ I . ��,-, � * - I " ,.1. , '' - '' -1 '' " ; �_. . I I . � ,. . I I . �_;.": . r I ..%" -- 1 "' - _`� " "' �' - , � �..: " I I . I . � � - .. , ,,, �� I I ..� I I I :. _ . I . ­ I % � . . I I . , " ':­111�1'�", '' _:,_ , " _: - �..%, - *,�, " j� 1- �If�11, , - -- I . I ,.:, � I .. , '� � WMMISSION, 'EXHIBIT . � '­ . I I * " ­ I r, � ��_ I . .. �' , . I � � I �� � _ � I I I, v, , 11 .., , .AIRPORT�IJ 1, D - I I " � . . . - � . ,4� � ., ­_ �',L. . �. ,,q,-''/ . , . _ , U � - . . � � ": �, � �1_ * - �, _ , _ , - - - .,�� , ., , . , � � . ., . . . .1 ... � ":* I I � . �: ­.: . ".1 " , , '.." I _ ..� ,a , , '_��'_ I I "I r . . . I �* . -.1 - .: , , 'j:�'�`,, _,"I" . L'��: ­ , , , ­� : . , I . ,�. � _1_ .. I , I . I .� - � I I , - L' - I L ."', . .'', _ 11 .. I I -1 _.: Lr,� ­� I � -�` -. .'�. , �. _: , : , , _��'�: 1:�, .; . - .-, , . ,al - - I � __ . ..". . . - I �� ... - 111*1"t, I . - - I ..t_ ,:" ". ,:�,.;, ��-­,�.­`,_ _� '' , '. , , - . . I . '. I . I , -, -�.­ - 1., � I � . �-,_:`;�;�.'­­ ,-- � , . - ,� , I . I . . , . .: I .:,' , "�, .,.,. ,:p , - . , ''.. , - ,, - "I 'Lrjj��_ �'�� - . . :, , I �-' � T 1.4, 1. A 1, I . 11 �_ - I �1; -, GAMER I . �, _1 1. r . � ,.: 2!k , -, , I - � - :1 - - � ��,� , � �� - , ,, L, . ." _1 . . 1-. L .� ': .11 . . . I 11 , , COU . �-,:,� , '�_�'"UFQWIA' I � . 1- I . - . I � . - .. �-, 1. I., -1 . - _. . r. � Z� . . - - . . I . . . I I . � - � -1 1. , T " - . . .1 �1 . , . .- . . I � I I ' KiT E _*T� , . ". � - . I I 11- " ' - �, I I . . " 11 " . I I . I I 11 � . I -1 1: , � V , - , � - . � . .. � ,�; � , t ,: " - . - I . . .. I '. . I - .1 , I �_:,-,�_ ,1 .. . . �- . I 1, I , '. - - - , , � I I . . � , 2- ­ I FOR . 4� . � . . . I . � I z � . . ... - �-��_�'--.',.,,,.-',.,e.,;-�:,�, � , I .1. . , I I , '. . . 1. . . . I I - . . v , . . � - 11 .., , ; I I-', * �, . I � - - I I .1 * , - - � 1. , . . . ��; ,,� ". ; _'-1 � �, ''. � , - I I . v . ': -, , � I . . . I , , , . " - * , I � ., I . . � � � ,,, � * � i :-�­,.:'::�,.,, : , , , I I . DESE1. �� :,1,RU9T , - I , � Wow_� -� -�:'_%,_�.' _�;,­,,� - - " .. -�-,- �. I - I - �.�., I . - 1�. . . . . . , . - I � '. x. . � �, -;14 i � _1_11 ,,r�_:,,, __1 _� - ,_ . . . . I I - � �! I I " � I : - " , 1, I . ' . ,�, ., I - " '. I . r , 1 L EXISTING. LkND'USJE. �LAND,:'` , P� - , - I . , �, I I . " , , .­�,,­ � 1...- I VACANT,, PASTURE' LA . . 11 I.. � , . - , "' ­­�,' I 1. . .,� Z ­� "I : , _ . - : - 1, 1 7 . . I . 1. . .. .1 . .. , - FAMILY . I . I . . : . . � - I I - �� . - , �. ,,, 2;; PROPOSED, LAND USE:.12 LOTS SINGLE � FAMILY,- RESIDENT] AL! SUBDIVI SIOW _ ., . .. I � I . . . "' . . I - I - - 20 Declaration Drive � ,� �i :�,, , I 11 � I . � , 11 �� � "'.1, . - , -1 . � I .. .. 1, - , - . ."j, , . 1. I . 1.� gki.� _� icorCalifornia � '_ *e. , _,' .- � , I .1 I � - ol�z,._-, - , ,- .- _��� � , . I I . . ", . � .. . � - ,,,�,­ � . I icd,� , . , � ,,.,; , , li,_."I'll, � �!,� , . .,:. ,;�. �: � , i�', � ''*, , - , I .. , - - . i- , . . ,-. - --��­, , , 95973 'I 1 , l-, . . I I - � � I , . . , . .. I , I " - , - , .. ' I . 1� , ", 3., AD " _­_-<� I - . . '. � '... -, , , - " , *su , , `�,' ". one; (530) 893-1600 fax (530) 8 3 -,.',' .1-1.1 11 I I I , ! , �1 . rmm., -� . ., I I .. � � �. - � . - . ­­ � I . , 9 1-1 �.`IVI , , , ' N - ,� ;6',`-'ACRES.;_-_,­",---�' , _� ' ' ; I �;:; *,. �, ". , * . . : , , :, 7. , , ,, �' 1, �­ �L�. 1, _ � I �, , - -, , " -_ ',-p,- - ., % ,,�,,�, �m'��,,.. �, .,; ,,,-,_,, _�; 1. I I..''-: ­ .:; _w. � . I I ,*, .. - . � - . ,. 1, . , , ,7 - 614, 1 W , �­­' r, 11 SES-'��SINGLE'FAMILN',',R�'�I'D��*L-,:��.,M6�E,'�T�Ah �J.:DWELLING " , I . , . I . . I . 11 . - 11, . . , -­ .1-1 , 93-211 11" ,� 111" �'­' I L'. ''. - ­ I I . . . I I-!, -, d,ii,�_�-6j --- -1 I ..,11- - I I I . - - , e S* I I I �­­­­- , � ,."...,�� , PER 'y �,z, ,",­,-;-,.,-::�, _ I . I I I . . . . - . . - - I . . , _� I - - I - ` 111,11 I I.;, " .�� " �,;:, ", '. - " � * �. ", I I , , � `� . ,�� ," , , .�: . : - � 'I, ,h�,_ , � , 1z . 1, I . , . �, . � V L - � � , - ., - . , ; I . , Site: .northstareng.com I �, � .• . I . I 11 '_' L:." �, - : _ Cldao, 1, , ,- - ­ I , . I - . I I . I . - , 4 � , - I � . - � - - -.11 � , I � . I . I , , I , : � ,, z " 1. I - " � , �i : , i lz� .1� " � , - I - � . . , . I , I r , ,:�:, . . - , -, I , � - ;1 , I - I � '_ - I i I . I - . ., I . . __ . , ., �. , - - . , �t, " � .1 I . , I � . - . I 11�1�r_:_;Islw " `-, , , - -, "i, , -, -, 11 r -, " " 11 " � , , , � �11 -11 I ____ - I ,��,r,,-,.,_--r�,�,i�-4,4t-k-ll,-�-,�F I'll I ... , I . , .1 1-1 � � . . . I I 1, . - 1� � . , . . I I . 8738 :.:.� I , I . - I . - ir'' � .­' , , �_ � :: '_ _� "�­ . 1. , : ; I e ' im N&, - f .!, , __ �,WLY, �005 . ��., 'I", " I - v �: ,; � - ; .,'� " 11 �' , .., ,, 1� - � � �. _� , t� � ,, ,, � _­, ,�, �� �- 4� � - - ­:.'111"'�',,, - -,��,_"-;­; --;­�', --_'�,�,-.' ­�', - - -.­!,�,�­ --- : 1-""."r"�-'',"",�--,-.-�,�i-, �..­_," ':'_1 . I I ­-, I �i.:_ 11 . - - . I I .:�­� "; � . I .. _� ,�. ,�� ___ , I 1 ��11i: �,-, I ''. 1��,.) 1 " � I -!;..:" T-?, �, _ - .1 � I I . ":.;, . . _ . - I I . I - ;,�, 1��, , ­_ -,o,:'. 'L , , I, .111 ' ,�.' _�, : ,.:.". . � . -, .. - . I " �.­'� " . � � - .,�`` ',.'. 11: I , . ­ I . , . I - I . � . . '. . 1 1", - ` - - - ,, ­--�,­, _., ,, " " , " . .. ," I ­ �­ � :­ _:�_ .'I.. - - . 11,� - . . ,� I � . I I . . . ': I ,. ., I . _- L,,,, �:_111,1,11`,111- __ ..; -�t :,.:,�, �7, " _- , " ��,1�17 I•-� � '�' ' " ' ' �­ ­ I . I ., - ." - . .. � I . , I . . . ; . . . . � � 1, . .: ,"�.".J' _' I ., ., , ' ' . . � I , _ I , . : . . I ­ . 1 I ,� . *1 �', 1�1 . , .. I , . I I - - I I ., I I . I I .11, . I . � . � - �. � I � . , 1p, - . . , - : 1, � , 1. - """ .) , . I � .. I I - I- . I . . r;I ; ,_;.�:r , I - � " � , I . .. I '. " ! kl- . - I . - I . . � � I . I I .� I . � 1, .:,. � ­ - �. . _ �­'­ :,',_� � � I I . . 11 I I . . . I I . . - , . � -�` . ...... - - 17� I . I I - , ­- , , , , �__ - �- �_�,, .. I ,. I �'..,_ �� - , -� ��-"-'�� �_� .. . " � �� %1-_!� _, �- �. _ -- , ------.,---- _-_- ,, "." -; - " `3,1 - , . __._���� _ I. - 1. ­';�-, ,r - , ., . I � I ,, ,� '' - , I-- _,;f� I � . " . -L - , . LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: A06-09 APN: 047-350-062 APPLICANT: Glidewell Revocable Trust 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San DiegoCA92131-3226 a, OWNER: Glidewell Revocable Trust REPRESENTATIVE: North Star Engineering REQUEST: ALUC consistency review of a proposed 12 lot residential subdivision. LOCATION: on the east side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Game_ r Lane; north of Chico. SIZE:, 13.77 acres SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # 0 EXISTING ZONING: SR -1, ((Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcels)) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AR(Agricultural Residential) ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: n ASSIGNED PLANNER: Mark Michelena Date Application Received: 2/1/2006 Date Project Assigned: 2/1/2006 IDR Date: 12:00:00 AM 30 -Day Complete: 12:00:00 AM f i, 3 - F� /llllll' I Li`itlll 11\ 0JUril`i 1 FILE NO: id (� (o— oq - AP# `I APPLICANT: 6� W -P 1 OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: N o,,-qxSAty - `�vlq c Vlee�-�✓t� { PROPOSED REQUEST: (to be filled out by person taking in application). Acvc P-eyacw W- }A x/01150 FINAL REQUEST: (to be filled out by project planner) SIZE: SUPERVISORIAL; DISTRICT # EXISTING ZONING: S�I1-1 �iVCS/') GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: a" . ASSIGNED PLANNER: 1 V (V,U/ lL� PLANNER's INnTv+Ls Date Application Received Date Project Assigned IDR Date 30 Day Complete Tentative Hearing Date K:\P1anning\Forms\Lead In Sheet.doc COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICANT: PLANNING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FILE NO.: DATE: AP NO: County Offices and Cities: Planning Division X Assessor's Office - Mapping BCAG X Environmental Health City of Biggs ALUC _ Building Manager. City of Chico APCD X LAFCo City of Gridley .. Butte Co. Farm Bureau X 'Agricultural Commission ' City of Oroville Chico Airport Commission X Public Works/Land De Town of Paradise - Chief Administrative Officer Fire Protection: X California Department of Forestry _ EI Medio Fire Protection District Domestic Water:. S.F:W & P. Agency (OWID) _ . ' Butte Water District _ Del Oro Water Co. California Water Service Co. _ Thermalito Irrigation District _ Other Utilities: PG&E North - Chico — Pacific Bell _ Chambers Cable TV . PG&E South - Oroville Viacom Cable TV Irrigation District: Biggs / West Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation Dist.. Paradise Irrigation Dist. _ Richvale Irrigation Dist. Table Mountain .Irrigation Dist. Sewer: L.O.A.P.U.D. Sterling City Sewer Main_ Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21) Drainage Districts: _ Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. _ Reclamation District No. 833 Drainage District 200 _ Reclamation District No. 2054 Reclamation District No. 2056 State Agencies: CalTrans _ Dept. of Water Resources _ Dept. of Fish and Game Federal Agencies: . _ U.S. Forest Service = U.S. Bureau of Land Management Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc.: K:\Planning\FORMS\APPLICATIONS\Lead-in Sheet Distribution List.doc PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE #: A 06-09 AP #: 047-350-062 ' APPLICANT: Glidewell Revocable Trust ADDRESS: 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San Diego, CA 92131-3226 (858)566-6824 OWNER: same REPRESENTATIVE: NorthStar Engineering ADDRESS: 111 Mission Ranch Blvd., Suite 100, Chico, CA 95926 PROJECTDESCRIPTION / LOCATION: an ALUC Consistency Review of a proposed 12 lot residential subdivision. DESIGNATION: 1. Application submitted: February 1, 2006 Amount: $1,531.00 Receipt # 443698 F] Photocopy of deposit check received 2. Comments (sent to / received from): 3. Staff Report (date / prepared by): Staff Report in file 4. Published: (date / specify where) Hearing Notice, if published 5. ALUC Commission Hearing(s): U Agenda Action taken: 0 Found to be Consistent 0 Found to be Inconsistent Notes/Special Conditions: 6. ❑ Minutes CLOSED FILES: Billed out $ date El Received Check Amount: $ Receipt # F-1 Sent them Refund or F1 Check box if County-initiated—"Exempt from fees" K:\Planning\ALUC\ALUC Applications\2006 FILES\A 06-09 Glidewell Trust\A06-09 Glidewell summary sheet.doc . 1. T Glidewell Trust.A 06-09, a consistency review for 'a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, which would divide an approximately 13.77 acres into 12 single-family residential lots, a community septic area and detention pond. The project site is located in both the Traffic Pattern Zone "Cl" and the Extended Approach/Departure Zone "B2" of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The majority of the. project site (95%) is within the "Cl" Zone. Project location is on the east -side of Garner Lane, approximately 2,300 feet south of Garner Lane, ana within the North Chico Specific Plan - area, north of Chico. (MM) (A 06-09) " Mr. Michelena gave a brief summary of the project. He .submitted a new report with additional findings. He said the changes are shown with insertions in underlines and.the deletions in strikeout. He said he did not find any other parcels in the area that could use these'same findings for an exception. He gave a brief explanation of what is,in this area that can or can not be developed. Chairman Sherman said she respected the Commissioners commitment in implementing the CLUP. ' She explained why she believed that the Commission has already adopted some rules that she thought they should be paying attention to and'they have to do with infill even though this project is not ` coming in as an infill project. She said the fact that she cannot get away from is that this applicant ' can make his project qualify'for infill. She said they did not know if there were'too many properties , larger than 10 acres that Mr. Michelena has shown the Commission on the map that when split and faced with adjacent properties that are huge, because it is being split, would still qualify as an infill, ' project. If and when the'County does its map; if this applicant splits his property and he qualifies, • ALUC's policies won't allow us to talk about noise, overflight patterns, density, etc: other than does it qualify for the infill. None of the other circumstances that the Commission has .talked about will apply. She believed that was a part of the special circumstances. She felt the situation was one of, the County finishes their infill map, this applicant splits his property and comes in for.infill, the Commission will be bound by a. policy. to approve the application if it comes in as infill, but the applicant won't qualify or be identified as an infill site unless he splits the property. She said the special circumstances is whether the Commission wants to make the applicant go through the extra step,'does it have any.practical value.. She questioned if the Commission was going so far off of our regulations to say the special circumstances here is that this is the only property that could be split to meet our criteria and she felt the Commission's credibility might be affected if they make the applicant go through the extra step just to get to the same end result. She asked the Commission to consider the fact that if the -applicant goes through the steps and the County finishes -their map they will not be talking about noise, overflight patterns, etc. ' s The hearing was opened to the public.' - George Kammerer, representing the-, applicant, said. he supports.. staff s. analysis. He said they provided additional findings at the request of the Commission. He agreed with Chairman Sherman's statement. He did not feel this .project would.set a,precedent.. He said the property is 100%, surrounded by residential development. The project is outside of the 65 CNEL'contour. He noted that only a small portion of the property is in the B2 zone where the noise concern is the largest. He said the safety risk on this property is lower than what is allowed in the CalTrans Handbook. He said there is X1.6 acres of open space provided on the project site. He said Page 5, Item 5, of the revise report addresses overflight patterns.. He said one of the special conditions is.this is the only parcel in 'the area that could come to the same conclusion if it is done.in two steps or one. -- _ - _ M,-Airport,Land'Use,Commissiori ■-Minutes 6f -Meeting of October 19 2005 ■ Page'2'■•- "v -'1--tea..." .r.-•-� -+• --�--..-..a .yam. ,. [ ...,y Commissioner Hennigan asked what they are planning to name the•st`reet. ' He said the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) requires that street names are to relate to aviation. Mr. Michelena said they could make that a condition of this project also. Chairman Shermari asked if the applicant signed an agreement to not object to the noise, would it be binding. She said the agreement would run with the land. ,Mr. Thistlethwaite said easements are a restriction of a particular use, of the property and he was not ; comfortable with recommending an agreement that might limit someone's ability to, voice concerns. _' •:, ' Commissioner Rosene said avigation easements do not stop people from forming citizens groups to complain about the noise of an airport being a nuisance. 7' Y , Commissioner Hennigan said statistically about every 7 years there; will be an airplane accident in ' this neighborhood. He said when an accident occurs the people in this area will then be sensitized to the danger, and will become more vocal, about the airport. ` Mr. Kammerer~ discussed having a ' prohibition on complaints: He discussed restrictions on how far - r the County can go to stop someone from complaining. Commissiorier'Baldridge asked what the cost would be to have the -reduction requirements to lower the dB levels for all the homes on the entire property. The same as the area being required in' the portion of the property that is in the B2 zone.. _ e Pat Conroy, builder, said they can reduce the interior noise levels with more installation at a low cost. -{ He said 2 x 6 walls will decrease the noise at'a low cost: He said beyond that they could put in RC " channel on the inside of the walls to help quiet the wall for'.the house within the B2 Zone, which is also not a large cost Chairman Sherman asked if, he would object if the Commission placed a' requirement to add additional installation. Mr. Conroy asked if she meant for the one lot in the B2 zone. Y Chairman Sherman said -the question- to Mr: Conroy was whether, or not -it would be reasonable to expect additional noise protection for the entire subdivision: ' ~ �Mr. Conroy said'that'would be unreasonable. To require the wall to'be 2 x 6 with a2 x 4 base would not be unreasonable. He,said putting RC channel"on all the;exterior walls of all the houses that would , b`e very expensive per house. Chairman Sherman said that a -requirement for -the 2 x 6 studs would be more than what would automatically occur in most subdivisions.. She asked aboufputting a condition on'this project that the exterior'walls be framed with 2 x 6 rather than 2 x 4. ' • • , `• i .. +tilt � y ` • , , . . r T �; ■:AiTp6rt'Land'Use Commissiom.�: Minutes of_M_eeting of October-l_9_;_2005 -3�� a 14 Mark Adams, NorthStar Engineering, said construction, manuals address noise level reductions: He said you needa starting point fora reduction from where to where. He 'said' the condition 'should read that interior noise levels are 45 dBs or below. He said the 45 dB levels are required in the existing ' Building Codes. ,..Commissioner.Hennigan said that CNEL is an average.: He said'most of the time its quiet at this , location. He said the`worse case is from an S2F Tractor on, a left hand turn from runway 31, and if it " . is 400 feet above the property the noise level at the surface would be 105 dBs. He said they can vote*. F • to call something that he,did not think was compatible as' being compatible or they can vote no • ` `..knowing they will be overridden. He was unhappy with either choice.. He asked Commissioner Harp to read from the California Public Utilities.Code Section 2165 2. b.- Commission_ er Harp read the following from the Code: "(b) The action, regulation, or permit shall «; ,be deemed approved only if the public notice required by this subdivision has occurred. If the applicant has provided seven days advance notice to the commission of the intent to provide public- r ,notice pursuant to this subdivision., then, not earlier than the date of the expiration of the time limit established by Section 21675. 1, an applicant may provide the required public notice. If the applicant ` • - chooses'to provide public, notice, that notice shall include a description of the proposed action, S regulation,,or permit substantially similar to the descriptions which are commonly used in public t notices by the commission, the location of any. proposed development, the application number, the i. name and address of the commission, and a statement that the action, regulation, or, permit shall be '. deemed approved if the commission has not acted within 60 days. If the applicant has provided the public notice 'specified. in this subdivision, the time• limit" for action by the commission shall be ' extended to 60 days after the public notice is provided. - If the applicant provides.notice pursuant to ' this section, the commission shall refund to the applicant any fees which were collected for providing notice and which -mere not used for that purpose." Commissioner Harp said`it states if the Commission does not take action within 60 days, the project is considered approved. J ' ' Commissioner Hennigan said that is the way he reads it' He said this was a way out of the.dilemma of voting for or against this item. {� r Commissioner Rosene'felt the .Commission has an, obligation to, make a decision. That is why they',,,; were appointed. He said their job is not,to avoid making decisions. He said he was willing to vote on a' this item. r , Commissioner Lundy said his main concern; was that they would have . more people follow this application'through, and now he does not think that will happen. He said he did not have a problem ' with this item. - Mr. Michelena said this did -not mean there would be an end to the use of this section. He said, as ti long as the section is in the code and someone comes•in with a'45 acre parcel and tries to use it, the 'question is does approval of this project come up with findings for the next project: He did not believe so. •" , r Chairman Sherman said the noise was a factor. ^ She said there is less of a safety issue. t , — ,-- , ■ ..F .- Airport LandUse Commission Minutes of,Meeting o Oct ber�19;•2005:�-Page 4 ■: .� �' It was moved by Commissioner Wheeler, seconded by Commissioner Baldridge, and carried to find ALUC File No. A 06-09 for Glidewell Trust compatible to the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan under Section 2.4.4 (f), Other Special Conditions, subject to the findings and conditions listed in Exhibit A. Commissioner Harp said Section 2.4.4 (f) states that there has to be extraordinary conditions because „ ` of terrain, specific location, etc. He said as a Commission they are concerned about safety, noise, and. , other parcels coming in under this section. He said according to CalTrans there is not a huge safety problem, the noise is outside the 55 CNEL areas, and staff states that there are not a huge number of , other parcels that fit the criteria coming in the future. He thinks another factor is that the property is surrounded 100'percent by residential'- He felt they could meet the criteria of Section 2.4.4 (f) without having to talk about the fact that this parcel would fit the infill criteria. Mr. Michelena said the infill criteria was not mentioned in the findings, but was just part of the -discussion at this meeting. Commissioner Rosene said he could not support this project because it goes against the science " behind the airport. He said they are not talking about a 1000 foot pattern altitude over this property; they are talking about the turning zone, aircraft descending, and the minimum altitudes for instrument approaches are 4-500 feet at this location. 'He'felt they were throwing out the, C-1 zone if they vote + for this and he felt there will be a future problem with the southern C-1 on the west side. He said if they do not believe in the reason for the C-1 here, regardless of what can be done down the road to get this project approved, the C-1 to the south will,beAhe next area to develop. He was concerned with protection of the public airport. He could not support this project. He said the airport is getting r busier with 20-25 small jets -are coming in each week. He said -the planes are making instrument _a� ' approaches over this parcel. - The findings ,'and conditions are: . , h .. l EXHIBIT A BUTTE. COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION _ CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR: Y ALUC File No. A 06-09: Glidewell Trust: 4 APN 047-350-062 The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) finds ALUC File No. A 06-09 compatible with the 2000, Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and•acceptable per-Section�2.4.4(f), Other Special Conditions, subject to findings and conditions. ,i The following findings and conditions have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for - ' the consideration of the Lead Agency (Butte County) when'inaking a decision on the project: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDINGS T ■-Airport Land'Use Commission 0 Minutes .of Meetinkof October,19,'2005`E-Page,5 0 A. No environmental documentation has been completed for this project by ALUC staff. The Butte County planning staff will complete an environmental initial study and make a determination per the California Environmental Quality Act as part of their processing of the tentative subdivision map. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposal for the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map (Rare Earth), to divide a 13.7 -acre parcel into 14 lots (12 for single-family dwellings) is determined to be compatible with the Compatibility Zones C1 and'B2 as found in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The project site is located in Airport Compatibility Zones Cl and B2 as listed in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2000 ALUCP) for the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA). B. The 12 lot residential subdivision, with a density of 1.06 dwelling units per acre is inconsistent with the Compatibility Zones C 1 and B2. C. The proposed project is consistent with the underlying SR -1 Zoning and conditionally consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Residential. D. This normally incompatible proposed project, however, is found to be compatible and acceptable based upon 2000 ALUCP Policy Section 2.4.4 (f), "Other Special Conditions", for the reasons explained in the March 15, 2006 staff report and the exhibits thereto, all of which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of these findings. The Commission makes the following findings: 1. After due consideration of all factors involved in this situation, the Commission finds that this normally incompatible use is compatible and acceptable based upon the specific location, and other extraordinary factors or circumstances related to the site, and explained in the findings herein. 2. After due consideration of all of the factors involved in this situation, the Commission specifically finds that the land use will not create a safety hazard to people on the ground or aircraft in flight, nor result in excessive noise exposure for the proposed use, as explained in detail in the March 15, 2006 Butte County staff report, for the following specific reasons: a. Safety i. The proposed project is outside of both the aircraft departure and aircraft approach accident risk intensity corridors for the CMA for -------------- ■ Airport Land'Use Commission'E' Minutes -of Meeting of October 19, 2005 ■'Page,6,■- 44 ` landing/departing aircraft 'from/to the south as shown ' in 2000 ` ALUCP, ' Exhibit 4H, - "Accident • Risk Intensity", page 4-9. According to the 2002-CalTranis Handbook, accident risk within the Inner Turning Zone (which equates to the 2000 ALUCP B Zone) is only 0.05% within one full acre. According to the 2002 CalTrans r Handbook, accident risk within the Traffic Pattern- Zone (which 'equates to the 2000 ALUCP C Zone) is negligible (not measurable). r . (Table .9D, Analysis of Safety Zone Examples, 2002 CalTrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.) ` ii. Only 5% of the proposed,,project site is located within the 2000 ALUCP B2 Zone. The remaining 95 % is located within the Cl Zone. The major concern of the C Zone is aircraft overflights (noise). Risk concern is mostly with respect to schools, hospitals and very high usage intensities. The proposed project is considered being developed at a low density •residential use without any of .. A - these other uses. iii. The project is proposing an open space area of 1.6 acres on the west side of -the *project site. -- The area is planned' for wastewater treatment/dispersal and. a detention area. This exceeds the required • r open space of 1.44 acres of the C1 (10%) and B2 (20%) f -Compatibility Zones: The 248 x 316 -foot size and conformation of the open space area exceeds the 2000 ALUCP's recommended dimensions of 75 x 300 -foot for a minimally adequate emergency aircraft landing area. h iv. The project site is located approximately 3,515, feet west from th_e ` extended runway centerline. - b. Noise i. 'Residents will be exposed to no more than. acceptable decibel (dB). Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) noise levels for the proposed use because the residential parcels -- lie outside of the • y w. 55 dB CNEL• contours according to.the 2000 ALUCP, even on peak fire'attack days, as shown on the: t - ° Noise Compatibility Criteria (`Residential land uses -50-55 CNEL-"++ clearly acceptable" ') (2000 -ALUCP, Table Noise Impacts - Future Average Fire Season Day (2000 - ALUCP, Exhibit 4E, p. 4-7.) - Noise Impacts •=; Peak Fire Attack` Day (2000 ALUCP, - - Ekhibit 4G)1' _ +Y - 'Noise Impacts - Expanded Forecast`(2000 ALUCP, Exhibit -_417"' . 4-8.) _ w ' u c. Airspace Protection _ E �---� -�-'.11 .*.■ •Airport -Land Use.Commission,.E-Minutes of Meeting -of October 19,'2005 0 Page.7: ■-- - - i. Proposed land uses on the project site are compatible with CMA operations because the subdivision design protects airspace by avoiding the creation of hazards to air navigation. Subdivision design provides that structures will not exceed 35 -feet in elevation, in conformance with Caltrans' guidelines and Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). Furthermore, the site is located approximately 1.27 miles north of the existing runway 13L & 31R, and the project site distance from the extended runway centerline is 3,515 feet from Runway 13L & 31R. d. Overflight i. Overflight impacts concern noise -related impacts outside of typical noise contours which are measured in terms of annoyance, and to a lesser extent concern safety issues. According to the 2002 CalTrans Handbook, the question here is whether any land use planning actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate the impacts or otherwise address the concerns. Effective means by which to address overflight issues are through buyer awareness measures, such as dedication of avigation or overflight easements, recorded deed notices, and/or real estate disclosure statements. ii. The applicants have agreed to accept conditions of approval to meet the 2000 ALUCP's overflight recommendations. 3. The project site is 100% surrounded on all four sides by existing, similar density residential development 4. The project proponent has met the burden for demonstrating that special conditions apply to this particular development proposal. 5. This grant of a special conditions exception shall be considered site specific to the Glidewell Trust Tentative Subdivision Map site and shall not be generalized to include other sites. SECTION 4: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot A is designated as a detention pond area and no residential dwelling, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), except for a six foot high chain link security fence, and overhead wires permitted on the lot as long as .the airport remains in operation." 2. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded ,concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Lot B is designated as a community septic area and no residential dwellings, large trees or.poles (greater than 4 ■'Airport Land Use -Commission ■.Minutes of Meeting of October 19; 2005 Page 8 ■ et inches in diameter), except ?for a 'six foot high° chain link security fence, and overhead . wires permitted on the lot as long`as the airport remains in operation."' 3. Provide a deed notice for the sale of all resulting lots notifying purchasers of the proximity of the , airport 'and the potential- for. possible noise related impacts in an ALUC-approved disclosure notice. �" a 4. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map record as a separate instrument an Avigation ` Easement granting the right of continued 7 useof the airspace' above the proposed parcels by the Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any and 'all existing or +, potential airport operational impacts. • �5. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "An Avigation Easement is .. recorded above the parcels for the• Chico Municipal Airport and acknowledging any, and'all'existing or potential airpo'rt.operational impacts." i6. " Place a note on'a separate,document whichfis to be recorded concurrently with the',' final map or on an additional map sheet that states: "Airspace review by the Airport Land Use Commission is required for all objects over 100*feet in height in the Cl' Compatibility Zone and 70 feet in height in the B2 Compatibility Zone." 7. Place a note on a separate document whichisto be recorded concurrently with the' . final map or on an additional map sheet that states:."As'a condition for the issuance of -" any Building Permit, a minimum interior noise level of 45 decibel (dB) is required for -. 4� all residences.,, v 1. - `'- 8. The subdivision cul-de=sac shall be designated with an aviation -related name as set forth in Butte county Code Chapter 32. AYES: Commissioners Harp, Baldridge, Lundy, Wheeler, and Chairman Sherman , Y' r . NOES: Commissioners Rosene and Hennigan , ;f ABSTENT: No one ! ; 4" ABSTAINED: 'No one ,,:._ ■ Airport-Land-Use.Commission-■-Minutes.of.Meeting'of.October 19,2005 ■ Page 9.7 .' Jan 31 06 11:34a Dev Svcs 6 Env Health 530 538-7785 p.2 BUTTE COUNTY AIR PQR'T LAND USE COMMISSION--- �ALUC - . 7.C:OUNTXGrN7�sIZ;DRLV};, OROVI.LLE, CA -95965 Indcntificatiou No. ::.�:. _ . -09 APPLICATION FOR C.QNSISTENCY FINDINGS; D 1''12()3'ECT P.ROPON.ENT ('r0 RE COMPLETED RY.AP)'1.1(^ANTt Date of Application 1/31/06 NropcnyOwncr Glidewell Revocable -Trust _ Phonc Number 58 566-6824 Mailing Address: -- 10630 Chaparral Valley Court San Diego. CA 92131-3226 ArnjpCt abAlicant: MARCON Inc. 1385 EfFr - - _ Chico, CA 95928 Agent (ifnny) NorthStar Engineering y Phone Number ( 530) 893-1600 Mailing Address: ( Nicole Ledford) — -' 111_Mis ion Ranch Blvd., Suite 100 Chico, CA 95926 I'ItUJECT 1.U(:ATYON (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLJCAiVT) Attach 24 accuratel. scaled malysshowLng the reladonslri o the rv'cc1 site to the ui rt hnctndury a runways Strutt Address 047-350-062 Off Garner Lane Chico, CA A ssas%or's Parccl No. 047-350-062 - Parcel Si,,e 13.77 a c Suhdivision Name: Rare Earth Estates Zoning: SR -1 BUTTE COUNTY FEB .. 12008 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Jan 3106 11:34a Dev Svcs & Env Health 530 538-7785 P.3 0 'CTVDESCRI PTION (TO Bl�'COMPLETVM BY APPJACANr) J -h Il applivab1c, attach a de laded plan showing lvak'r INxfies, and h� ground vievations, the 1().V(IIi0jI q'8IIUCtIIr(V, OPen Spaces, and and trecv: incllgdc j1difitionalprqp("I deyeription existing Land Use dato (u necded ,describe) _Vacant_.,. Proposed Land [Jse - (describe) !Llp,.916 family lot subdivision with 12 lots. There will be --remaining lands of about 1.5 -ac -for storm drain and 6 werr----- disposal areas. For Residential Uses: Number of Parcels of Units on Site (including secondary units) -12 Fur Other Land Uses: (lours of Use; MaxiIIIUM number of people on site: 1111diclIte the method Used to determine this number (i.e. Church membership, number of parking spaces, etc.) Height Data: height above Ground of Tallest Object (including antennas & trees) 50 ft fl. Highest Elevation (above sea level) Of Any Object or Terrain on Site Ffight1lazards: Dom the project involve any characteristics which could create Electrical interference, confusing lights, glare, smoke, or other Electrical or visual hazards to aircraft . flight? IJ Yes . U No Does the project have the potential for attracting birds? LJ Yes 1) No If Yes to either, explain below: I"' ]BUTTE 77,CCIUNTY FEB - 1 2005 MIMMIENT U SWRICES Y Jan 31 06 11:34a Dev,Sves 6 Env Health 530 538-7785 p,4 ZEF14,'tRIN(: A(;ENCV TO UBr: ' , -, l ( (: OM 1 1 E fEl) .RY A(. r,Nc,Y S�rA )•'_ 'type of project: lgency Name w ' _ _ 1.1 General Plan Amendment LJ 'Zoning Amend,Variancc,Rezone n Subdivision Approval taff Contact �I���c� f1 Use Permit 1.1 Public Facility hone Number Other _ &-Q c, -- Igency's Project No. Signature-?rl. /Vtl•h�S�� E� 1 Date 037 �A licant or Agent _ KWl:wning%ALM, r01W1J1APPPORM.W1'D' —' ]BUTTE COUNTS'' FEB 12005 DEVELOP1:41]ENT . SERVICES i 9 NorthStar ENGINEERING Civil Engineers. Planners Surveyors TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Mark Michelena Nicole Ledford, PE COMPANY: DATE: Butte County Department of Development Servic 1/31/06 1:25 PM ADDRESS: JOB MILER: 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 9026 PROJECT: TRANSMITTING TffE FOLLOW WG: Rare Earth Estates ALUC Application [:)URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY El PLEASE RECYCLE ❑ FOR APPROVAL [-]FOR CHECKING FOR YOUR FILES ❑� AS REQUESTED NOTES/COMMENTS: Mark, Attached you will find the ALUC application you requested. Please let me know if you need any thing else for this site. The package includes: 1. Application for ALUC 2. 24 maps 3. Check for $1,531.00 payable to Butte County (#6003) Thanks,' Nicole *** PLEASE COPY TO YOUR FILES 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CH_ICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX -893-2113 ~ C ]BUTTE COUNTY FAD Z�}� DE VELOp. 4ENT SERVICES ~w $0.00 I $1,5 .00 x z ALUC Air ort Land Use DDS Planning $0.00`; I �Tammie $0.00 (General Fund) _ ` Payment Date 02/0172006 - Public Works _ $0.00 - _ (Land Development) + _ Receipt Number, 443698T Environmental Health }• $0.001• Received From : :Macron CDF (Fire Department) $0.00 } F Applicant ;same NOD / NOE i $0.00 r, ' 1 (Recording Fee) _ __. Aunt Minnie ` $0.00 +. + z Application Number '•A-06-09 ' . $1, 500 or $2,000 r + or -In Reference To , _ Planning Review / EIR $0.00 ` _ Parcel Number ;047-350-062 Y • Fish/Ga"me ' $0.00 I ALUC Air ort Land Use Non Sufficient Funds ($25.00 Fee). $0.00`; I 1Cell.Tower ($2500.00) $0.00