Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout210:07:01 ALUC ANNUAL CLUP REVIEW & UPDATEe: OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date Submitted: Tuesday, 2-00 Department: Development Services ` From: rz Phone Number: 538-6821 Department Head Signature PLEASE INDICATE THE TYPE OF ASSISTANCE REQUESTED X Opinion Request , Briefly explain the issue: What is the effect of the 1999 CLUP amendments on processing,new land use projects?. . - (Attach additional documents as necessary) Request for Ordinance/Resolution,, Briefly explain the nature of requested. Ordinance/Resolution: Is there an existing Ordinance/Resolution: YES NO If yes, please attach or cite existing County Code provisions: _ Other Briefly explain the assistance requested: PRIORITIZATION Indicate the priority of this request, taking into consideration any prior pending requests. Requests receiving a "high" priority will automatically take precedence over existing pending department projects, unless otherwise indicated. High R Moderate f Low Comments: . Please see attached memorandum. 0 FOR COUNTY COUNSEL USE ONLY Date Received: _ • Attorney Assigned: Log Out Date: MEMORANDUM • DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Susan Minasian, Count Counsel From: T as A. Par rect '' Subject: EFFECT OF THE 1999 CLUP AMENDMENTS BY THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) Date: February 2, 2000 On December 29, 1999, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission adopted changes to.all four public airports in Butte County. In adopting these_ amendments, ALUC statedthat they were intended to be interim until the adoption of the comprehensive amendments scheduled for spring/summer 2000. In light of this action, the following questions arise: 1. Do project applications received prior to the 1999 CLUP amendment.have to be evaluated with the newly adopted CLUP or should the project be reviewed using the old CLUP that was in effect at the time the project was deemed "complete" for processing?, • 2. According to Government Code Section 65302.3.(b), the Butte County General Plan shall be amended within 180 days of the adoption of a new CLUP. a., When does the new CLUP become effective? Is the new interim CLUP in effect immediately or does it not become effective until the CLUP is amended, an override made or 180 days, whichever occurs first? b. Are new projects subject to the standards in the CLUP? 3. If the CLUP is effective immediately, are all discretionary projects required to be referred to ALUC for a consistency determination? 4. Recently ata public hearing, the City of Oroville told ALUC that it is their duty to show an affected agency where their General Plan was inconsistent with the new CLUP. Is this correct? Attached you will find an opinion dated May 13, 1999, from James A. Curtis of Shine, Compton & Nelder, special counsel to ALUC. Many of the above topics were addressed in his opinion. In particular, Mr. Curtis' response to Question No. 3 beginning on Page No. 10 should be reviewed: The 1999 CLUP revisions are available in our office should you need them for further background. • K:\PLAN'NING\ALUC\LEGA LOP\CC.CLU +BUT°I[°IE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ON + ' • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • 49 • Notice of Public Meeting Notice is hereby given that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will consider the following item at their regular meeting on December 29, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers (25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA): 1999 Annual Review- and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans: The ALUC will consider adoption of development criteria and a density matrix correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The amendments specify persons per acre, minimum lot size and other development regulations for the various safety zones that surround each of the public use airports in Butte County. This amendment is proposed in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675 which allows a once a year update to the comprehensive'land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. This is a planning project consisting of a legislative act to update of Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The proposed programs specify the manner in which the land will be permitted to be used so that development can proceed in a responsible manner. Planning programs consisting of a legislative act do not result in a physical change in the environment until a future project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to the proposed criteria of the regulatory program. At that time, the project shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project. An Initial Study and Negative 'Declaration have been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This document is available for review at the Butte'County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville California between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Members of the public are encouraged to attend the meeting and provide input to the Commission. Written comments will also be accepted up to the day of the hearing. Questions regarding this item should be directed to Dave Doody, Senior Planner, Butte County ALUC staff at (530) 538-7601. w " Please publish 1/8 page ad in the Chico Enterprise Record ori Monday, December 13, 1999: 10 K: W LUC\MEETINGS\12-29-99.MTG\PAP ER:NOT • Butte County": Airport Land Use Commission • s • STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse December 29, 1999 David Doody Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: 1999 Annual Review & Update of the Chico, Paradise, Oroville & Ranchaero CLUPs SCH#: 99112098 Dear David Doody: OF PUN �O �oF Lbretta Lynch DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on December 28, 1999, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse RECEIVED DEC 3.0 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 1400 TENTH STREET. P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018WWW.OPR.CA.GOV'CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML - Document Details Report Clearinghouse Data B* 'State ,k Yom. _ • SCH# 99112098 Project Title 1999 Annual Review .& Update of the Chico, Paradise, Oroville & Ranchaero CLUPs • Lead Agency Butte County Type neg Negative Declaration Description Adoption of development criteria and a density matrix which is correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans.,*The amendments specify new persons per acre, minimum lot size and other development regulations for the'various safety zones that surround each of the public use airports in Butte County. This amendment is'proposed in accordance with Public Utility, Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675 which allows an once a year update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. Lead Agency Contact Name David Doody Agency Butte County Airport Land Use Commission . Phone 530 538-7601 Fax email- Address 7 County Center Drive • City Oroville State CA Zip 95965 Project Location County Butte City Chico, Oroville, Paradise Region Cross Streets ' Parcel No. Township .Range Section Base Proximity to . . Highways 70, 99, 162, 32 _ Airports Chico, Oroville, Paradise Railways Waterways . Schools Land Use Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 2; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Office of Emergency Services; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 3; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Redding); Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 11/29/1999 Start of Review 11/29/1999 End of Review 12/28/1999 Note: Blanks in data fields result from, insufficient information provided by lead agency. •Gray Davis GOVERNOR U n U DATE STATE OF CALLFORNIA Governors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse STREET ADDRESS: 1400 TENTH STREET ROOM 222. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95514, MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 3044 SACRANIENTO, CA 95512-3044 916-445-o613 FAX 916-323-3M www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse.html ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT December 1, 1999 . 210.20 O m OF C►U� Loretta Lynch DIRECTOR TO: David Doody Butte County Airport.Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: 1999 Annual Review & Update of the Chico, Paradise, Oroville & Ranchaero CLUPs SCH#: 991"1209$2 This is to acknowledge -that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: November 29, 1999 Review End Date: December 28, 1999 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: -Air Resources Board'✓: California Highway Patrol. Caltrans, District 3 Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Department of Fish and Game, Region 2 Department of Parks and Recreation ✓ Native American Heritage Commission, Office of Emergency Services ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5(Redding) Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention ori the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. R,ECEIVEL DEC 0.2 1999 BUTTE' COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION . :.�.. • •• -- • _ f .. mil-e.'t,/9'9° C�vla_ COMMUNITY DL .ELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, PLANNING - ' 411 Main Street ' CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 x INC. 1872 Chico, CA 95927 ,` . .• ?,.~ (530)895-4851- FAX 95-4851-FAX (530) 895-4726 December 8, 1999 ATSS 459=4851 • - Dave Doody, Senior -Planner Dept. Of Development Services ' 7 County Center Drive , Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: ". Notice and Initial Study for the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico; ' Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) x dated November 23, 1999 Dear Dave, • We are in receipt of the above -referenced document; thank you for the,opportunity to comment. We understand that the time fame available•for completion of the Initial Study was quite limited. - However, -,the proposed Initial Study/Negative Declarationjfails: to�• disclose basic land'Use/ ramifications of,the•CLUP revisions and potential environmental effects. associated therewith such has traffic, roadwa ~noise; Jand,uselcom atibipublic servlcessand utilities;, We ask that action on thehp p sed-CL""UP.,;revisions•be;.delayed_until�adequate environmental review can be completed and the Initial Study recirculated for comment:. By preparing the Initial Study, The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has conceded that adoption of the CLUP amendments is a project subject to environmental 'review. 'Unfortunately, the analysis is so superficial as to be of.little use'to`ALUC itself; as the lead agency, or to affected t cities such -Ci the Cit of ChiWwhich•serve'as-:responsible agencies, in determining the potential environmental effects, of implementing the CLUP amendments. ; 7 We dinar gree vvl ahe fundamental premise of the Initial Study that'plans;such" as the-CLUP, do,not_/ w . ._ ,..,..�� have`.environmental=effects' until;; specific protects are=proposed:' The initial study states' "Legislative acts proposing programs that specify•project development criteria do not result in a ' physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to the proposed•criteria of the regulatory program. At that time�a specific project shall be fully subject"to CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project. Therefore no ' = environmental impacts will occur." `Projects�regwiring environmental.revlew:under:GEQA"are not'llrnited to ttiose'causingydirecf iphysical effects on�the environment; but also include those•causing "a rea onab_ly foreseeable +` in :physicahchange-,- PRC'21.065). The establishment of allowable` uses; densities, and lae elopment criteria•for future development near th'e'airport through the CLUP-revisions is the . type of indirect physical change referenced by this code section as requiring_environmental review. 'Additionally, implementation .of the, CLU P'revisions would require.'amendment of the City'General! Made From Recycled Paper Dave Doody' Senior Planner ' December 8, 1999 l y a, w • _ ::. y • Page 2 Plan and zoning diagram'which is explicitly subject to environmental review. ,t `,1. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) and (c) further refine the definition of a project as follows: f 'An, activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to'; ' public works construction and- related' activities , clearing • or grading of, land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and,amendment of of, -' ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of, local, General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 65100-65700. .: {• " The term,'project"refers to the activity which is being approved and whidf may bei = subject to several discretionary approvals by` governmental agencies. ;The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. = , The CLUP revisions will establish land use and development criteria which will,not be subject to ' change during the review. of individual projects implementing the CLUP: The Initial.Study should:.:^ provide decision -makers with the overall environmental consequences of implementing, the CLUP revisions prior to adoption; consistent with..Public Resources Code Section 21003:1-(b), which # states: - f • Information relevant to ,the, significant effects of a project, altematives,, and, mitigation measures which substantially reduce the'effects shall be made available • --as soon .as; possible by lead agencies, other public agencies,^ and.,interested persons and organizations (Emphasis added)...` q The CEQA Guidelines prohibit segmenting the project description• and approval process such that ' the effects of the overall project remain unaddressed. "The lead agency must consider the whole ' • ' " of an action,-�not simply. its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant ' effect." (CEQA Guidelines at Section', 1 5003(h), citing Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of-Bish,op Area v. Coun off-ln o 172 Cal App.,3d 151,:1985. Of articular concern are environmental'conse uences of land use limitations proposed for the = p q P P �. 1n a Safety Zon Inner_ Tuming Zone;�Mand:.Outer,Safety�Zone within existing • residential ' - ' ,• - 'neighborhoods.'''The p or po ed CLUP. visions would�effectively,preclude residential"developments * on=numerows vacant lotswithin these 'areas by requiring larger lot. sizes'than available:' Additionall public and quasi -public uses such as nursing,care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities, and.similar aggregations of f persons (non-residential uses which are compatible with residential neighborhoods) are prohibited. Because the City cannot leave property owners without economic use of their property,(the`CLUP amendments are effectively-promotirig commercial,, manufactudng;pand, industrial, uses within these;residential neighbortioods.{�These noon-reessidentia ses would;likely introduce^incompatible. noise' and traffic and may,be inadequately. served by public services -utilities. ,.The Initial Study, and Dave Doody, Senior Planner • December 8, 1999 Page3 should---analyze--the-effects-of-these land -u se`incompatibilities-and-propose-mitigation_such- asl allowing residential--development-on-legal-pare-61 ,_gagardless-of=size' Effects and potential mitigation should be considered by ALUC staff prior to action . on the proposed CLUP amendments. Additionally, it would be appropriate for the Initial Study to describe how the proposed CLUP amendments are consistent with the Cal Trans Handbook relative to airport safety, noise, and hazards. CEQA is intended not only to protect the environment, but also to demonstrate to the public that the environment is being protected (CEQA Guidelines at Section .15003(b), citing County of Inyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795). Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study. If you have any questions regarding these comments,' please feel free to contact me at 530-895-4852. Sincerely, Stacey Jolliffe Senior Planner jis xc: Tony Baptiste, City of Chico Community Development Director Kim Seidler, City of Chico Planning Director Bob Grierson, City of Chico Airport Manager, Paula Leasure, Butte County Principal Planner RECEIVED DEC 10 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans • COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 0 I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 2. Address: 7 County Center Drive Phone: 530-538-7601 Oroville, CA. 95065 3. Name of Proposal: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Corriprehensive Land Use Plans 4. Type of Project: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment 5. Project Description: Adoption of development criteria and a density matrix which is correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The amendments specify new persons per acre, minimum. lot size and other development regulations for the various safety zones that surround each of the public use airports in Butte County. This amendment is proposed in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675 which allows an once a year update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. 6. Location: Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports and environs 7. Setting: N/A 8. Assessor's Parcel Number: various 9. Date Checklist Submitted: November 23, 1999 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required '(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None H. 1 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 1 • • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL MdPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or. NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. /!/2299 Prepared by: Dave ISoody, Senior Planner Date Reviewed by: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Date M. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact`as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Public Services o Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 2 0 Project: 1999 A rival Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans • 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive, receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant. • Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). • 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In'this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation 'measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 3 Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant . Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information. sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the,discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. • ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 4 • 0 • • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage -scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing, visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact X X X X Response: The proposed CL UP amendment proposes no physical expansion of the runways or other airport facilities. No construction would occur to impact scenic resource. This is a planning project consisting of a legislative act to update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The project includes programs and development criteria and a matrix which is correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land. Use Plans. Adoption of the proposed amendments specify the manner in which the land will be permitted to be used so that development can proceed in a responsible manner. Legislative acts proposing programs that specify project development criteria do not result in a physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to the proposed criteria of the regulatory program. At that time a specific project shall be fully subject to ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services o Planning Division ❑ • 0 Project: 1999 .4imual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than . Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project Therefore, no environmental impacts will occur. Mitigation: None required. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland . Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural .use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing. environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Response X X X Since no new airport expansion is proposed, this project will not.result in loss of soils viable agricultural production. The proposed amendment is a regulatory program that contains development criteria and limitations. of density and parcel size. A significant environmental impact with not occur. (Please refer to Item I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 6 Project: 1999 Aimual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Mitigation: None required. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? _ Response: No Impact X X X X X The proposal CLUP amendment will not create objectionable odors, smoke or fumes. The project is a regulatory program to permit responsible growth surrounding the County's Public Use airports. A significant environmental impact with not occur. (Please refer to Item I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 7 .0 10 is Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, of special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish' and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological ; interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 8 No Impact x x x x Project: 1999.Annual Review and Update ofthe Chico. Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, of special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish' and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological ; interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 8 No Impact x x x x • • • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact such as a tree preservation policy ordinance. x f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? x Response. The proposed CL UP amendment will not impact rare, endangered or candidate species. The project is a regulatory program and will not result in additional growth surrounding the County's Public Use airports. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x x x x Response: The proposal CLUP amendment will not impact unique prehistoric or other cultural resources. No construction or earth moving is proposed as part of this planning project. The project is a regulatory program to permit responsible'growth surrounding the ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ �J Project: 1999 Amtual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact County's Public Use airports. A significant environmental impact with not occur. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving- X 1) Rupture of a known earth- quake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other sub- stantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to: Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X 2) Strong seismic ground Shaking? - X 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become • ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 10 .• n U • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less . Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated. Impact Impact unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or' collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks'to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? �t Response: All of Butte County is in a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The . project site is not located near any known earthquake faults (Butte County Constraints Map). The Seismic Safety Element indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII The closest mapped Fault -Rupture Zone is the Cleveland Hills Fault line. The proposed project will result in lower density development around the subject airports and will foster responsible growth compatible with airport operations. (Please refer to Item I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None requited. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport use, or disposal ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ • r1 U 1 • Project: 1999 Anmual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact of hazardous materials?. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X 0 For project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project areal g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 12 No Impact X X X X X • • • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans plan? Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x Response: The proposal will not involve the use of hazardous materials. The project will not create any health hazard and is not anticipated to expose people to health hazards. The project will not affect emergency services planning. The proposed project is .a. regulatory program to permit responsible growth surrounding the County's Public Use airports. A significant environmental impact with not occur. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 8. HYDROLOGY AND'WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 13 X Project: 1999 Aitnual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially . With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 • through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade• water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other.flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 14 No Impact x X X X x Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less. Potentially IWith Than 'Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • mudflow? x Response: The proposal CL UP amendment will not impact hydrological features or place structure or people within a flood zone. No construction or earth moving is proposed as part of this planning project. The project is a regulatory program to permit responsible growth . surrounding the County's Public Use airports. (Please refer to Item I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required., 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project? a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x x x Response: According to. the Public Utility Code (PUC), the AL UC is permitted to revise the CMAEP once a year. Following the revision, the Board of Supervisors and other City jurisdictions have 180 -days to evaluate the amendment and then take action to bring their General Plans into compliance with the revised CLUPs or make overriding findings. The proposed CL UP revisions may require consistency analysis for Chico, Oroville Ranchaero and Paradise CLUPs. Section .65302.3 states the following: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 15 E Project: 1999 .dmual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant . Less • Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation, Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (A) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or, amended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675. (B) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 1,80 days of any amendment to the plan required under Public Utilities Code Section 21675. (C) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Public Utilities Code Section 21675, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676. Individual analysis pursuant to CEQA will be required by the affected jurisdictions. Full CEOA analysis is not required at this time because the project under consideration is only a regulatory program. No construction of changes to the Butte County General Plan are included within this project. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: 'None required. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents or the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a' local general'. plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Response: The proposal will not affect any natural resources nor will it substantially deplete any natural resources. (Please refer to Item I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. • ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 16 • 0 0 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure -of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance; or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels: c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 17 No, Impact x X X X X Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure -of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance; or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels: c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Response: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 17 No, Impact x X X X X Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 'The proposal will not increase noise levels and will provide greater protection to individuals living within the airport environs. No signifcant noise impacts are anticipated. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the • construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people,, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Response: This project will not result in the loss of any existing dwellings and provides ample space for residential development. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 18 Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update ofthe Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b) Fire protection? c) Police Protection? d) Schools? e) Parks? e) Other public services? Response: x No Impact x x x x x The proposal will not cause an incremental increase in demand for public services. The • proposal will serve the existing population by preserving the.utility of the airports and will not result in the addition of infrastructure or population needing- additional public services. (Please refer to Item. I above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required 14. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing.neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? x b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on A the environment? x • ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services o Planning Division o 19 • • 0 Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact` ' Incorporated Impact Impact Response: The proposal will not result in an incremental increase in the demand for park and recreation facilities in Butte County. There will be no degradation of surrounding parks. or recreational facilities. Vo significant noise impacts are anticipated. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumula- tively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?— c), ighways?_ c). Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an increase. in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 20 X x X x Project: 1999 Amival Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than • Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Response: The proposal will not result in an incremental increase in the demand for new transportation facilities in Butte County. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation:. None required. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS., Would the project: • a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or.expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or 1 ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 21 r� u • Project: 1999 Alunial Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Potentially Significant Impact are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand .in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Less With Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X Response:. The project will not have an impact to any wastewater or sewage treatment .facilities.. The project is not anticipated to cause a significant increase in the amount of wasie being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill. (Please refer to Item 1 above for further discussion and analysis regarding this conclusion.) Mitigation: None required. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 22 Project-, 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Less Than Significant Less • Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? _ X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either • directly or indirectly? X Response: The proposed CL UP amendmentproposes no physical expansion of the runways or other airport facilities. No construction would occur toimpact scenic resource. • This is a planning project consisting of a legislative act to update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The project includes programs and development criteria and a matrix which is correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. Adoption of the proposed amendments specify the manner in which the land will be permitted to be used so that development can proceed in a responsible manner. Legislative acts proposing programs that specifiy project development criteria do not result in a physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to theproposed criteria of the regulatory program. At that time a specific project shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project Therefore, no environmental impacts will occur. Mitigation: None required. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 23 • Project: 1999 tVmual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: Annual Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan Update and Amendment. .2. Proposed Density of Development: N/A 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: N/A 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): N/A 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: N/A 6. Source of Water Supply: N/A 7. Proximity of Power Lines: N/A. 8. Potential for further land.divisions and development: None. B. Environmental Stine 1. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Level. . b. Slopes: Average of 0-2%. C. Elevation: 200 ft. above sea level. d.. Limiting Factors: None. 2.- Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Mostly adequate drainage. b. Limiting Factors: None. - 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Low. C. Landslide Potential: None. d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified - Urban area. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Low. 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: None. b. Ground Water: Unknown. C. Drainage Characteristics: Varied d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 24 to 26 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: None. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Good. N/A 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley • ❑ Butte County Department of Development. Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 24 Project: 1999 .4 umal Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans • 8. Vegetation: N/A 9. Wildlife Habitat: N/A 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: N/A 11. Butte County General Plan designation: N/A 12. Existing Zoning: N/A 13. Existing Land Use on-site: N/A 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: N/A b. Zoning: N/A c. Gen. Plan Designation: N/A d. Parcel Sizes: N/A 15. Character of Site and Area: Sub -urban residential and open space. 16'. Nearest Urban Area: City of Chico, Town of Paradise and City of Oroville.. 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: City of Chico, Town of Paradise and City of Oroville. City of Oroville 18. Improvement'Standards Urban Area: City of Chico, Town of Paradise and City of Oroville: 19. Fire Protection Service: Near Airports. a. Water Availability: Fire hydrants. 20. Schools: N/A • • ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 25 • Project: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL I . Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safe Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1. SafetX Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville; CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4- Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. a10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate . Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No: 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico(1925)/Oroville (1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 18. City of Oroville Planning Department. 1995 City of Oroville General Plan, Oroville Ca. 19. Transportation Planning Institute, 1997 Trip Generation Manual 20. State of California, Caltrans, 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. K:\.ALUC\PvIEETINGS\12-29-99.MTG\CLUP.IS ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ a' 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 411 Main Street CITY-CHIC0. `_ . P.O. -Box 3420 INC 187Z Chico, CA 95927 (530)'-895'-4726 ATSS 459-4851 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 December 3,-1999 Re: Proposed 1999 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Review and Update Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the opportunity you have provided to review the proposed 1999 update to the CLUP. I do have some general concerns about the update I'd like to share with you. In addition, we will also be providing further comments under separate cover on the initial study prepared by your staff. The City of Chico views the Chico Municipal' Airport as one of the City's paramount assets, and the long-term viability and development of the airport as one of the very most important • issues the City will face in the future. In this we obviously share the broader goals of the ALUC, and see the ALUC as an indispensable partner in working together to achieve those goals. To that end, we have very much been looking forward to fully participating in the process of updating the CLUP that has been underway for some time now, which we anticipate will culminate at some point around the middle of next year in an extensive public review of a carefully researched, thoroughly prepared draft plan that would ultimately provide decisionmakers of the County, the affected Cities, and the ALUC with a solid informational and policy foundation upon which future land use decisions can be made that will not adversely affect our airports. I can appreciate the concerns that have prompted your proposal of a stopgap 1999 update to the CLUP, but must express, significant reservations about both the update and the rapidity of its adoption process. With the information that we have been provided for review, it is difficult to ascertain just what is proposed. The maps, which include expanded airport protection zones, are barely legible, and there are no accompanying explanations of the reasons for the proposed changes or analyses of their implications to planning and land use issues in Chico. For these reasons, a detailed review of the proposed update, as well as substantive comments from us that we hope would assist you in your • deliberations on the matter, cannot be prepared, particularly in the brief time provided. gam& Made From Recycled Paper • Letter to Airport Land Use Commission December 3, 1999 • Page 2 r . Our cursory review, nonetheless, has identified several major concerns, such as the absence of any reference. to the status of nonconforming uses (which would apparently include much or most of the existing development. north of East Avenue and west of Highway 32), and potential takings issues associated with the greatly reduced development options proposed in several of the safety zones. Either of these concerns could have the effect of forcing the City into overrides it would much prefer to avoid, and which I cannot imagine to be consistent with the ALUC's intentions. C7 • Not only is there insufficient time for a detailed review and response to you, but I believe that the brevity of the process, which as I understand it would need to be completed before the end of the year, will ensure an inadequate opportunity for the public input that is so critical in the formulation of important policy issues. This is exacerbated by the fact that your consideration and possible adoption of the proposed update will fall on December 29, hardly an ideal date for public participation because of the holidays. For these reasons, which I find compelling, and for additional reasons related to the environmental review conducted for this proposal that will be explained in another letter from our staff, I respectfully request that you not adopt the proposed 1999 update.. I understand that you are making significant progress in the preparation of the planned 2000 CLUP update. We all stand to gain much more in careful preparation, clear analysis, a detailed discussion of issues, enhanced interagency cooperation, informed decisionmaking, and, perhaps most importantly, broad public participation and confidence in the process, than can be lost in taking a few months more to finish the extensive work of updating the CLUP already begun. The City would obviously much prefer not to have to override ALUC determinations, just as I expect the ALUC would greatly prefer not to be overridden. As I see it, we both have an incentive to work closely together to resolve as many of these land use --compatibility issues through the CLUP adoption process as possible, and I'm confident that with sufficient time and good will, we can make real progress in doing so. Thank you in advance for'considering this request. cc: City Council Planning Commission CM, CA, CDD, Airport Manager Resp tfully, • im Seidler Planning Director RECEIVED DEC 0 6 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ai0'f5 BUTTE. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICWY OF OROVILLE. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NOY 2 3 1999 • TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties PLANNING DEPT. FROM: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission RE: Request for Comments on the proposed 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). DATE: November 23, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Dave Doody On November 17, 1999, the Butte'County Airport Land Use Commission initiated the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The attached Public Hearing notice describes the project. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: f Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or required mitigation measures your office may want incorporated. • ' If a response cannot be'submitted within the time frame given; or if additional information is needed, t please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15, 1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your, agency has no comment. COMNMNTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): ►,l �P.1-td�'t'lae t �S 1 t 1 � aDt� E — �D 1 S V 1.1 CLEWF-� Map 1l,L6 l bLz- v CQ V—a0r rD iu,E — Cha Flo V-0 N w Aw L2���_gt�u>rlDa�u �1wa w.a� 1.Lcsr_��,�o-D� By: Date- I i zab9 h: ALL "A ECTI\G§I2-29-99ANIT&TRA.M.WPD RECEIVED NOV 3 01999 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 FAX 916-538 7785 RTTTTF COTTNTY Pte. N. 'fiION 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING • 411 Main Street 4 CITYorCHICO w P:O Boz 3420" :•' eF'e �. !'`j' , , »l a :r2 2;i 1;±j �C,c•=i�iLYr:i 'v1 -'i lat)llt,, , INC. 1872. •_,+�, �'! 7C T _ ♦ t r•r• 7 in- r ^(530)895`4851.1!? J L December.8;;1999•i11 ;'i ATSS_459-4851 Dave Doody, Senior Planner Dept. Of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Notice and Initial Study for the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) dated November 23, 1999 Dear Dave, We are in receipt of the above -referenced document; thank you for the opportunity to comment. We understand that the time fame available for completion of the Initial Study was quite limited. However, the proposed Initial Study/Negative-lDeclaration ,fails to disclose basic land use ramifications of the CLUP revisions and potential environmental effects associated therewith such • as traffic, roadway noise, land use compatibility, and availability of public services and utilities. We ask that action on the proposed CLUP revisions be delayed until adequate environmental review can be completed and the Initial Study recirculated for comment. By preparing the Initial Study, The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has conceded that adoption of the CLUP amendments is a project subject to environmental review. Unfortunately, the analysis is so superficial as to be of little use to ALUC itself, as the lead agency, or to affected cities such as the City of Chico, which serve as responsible agencies, in determining the potential environmental effects of implementing the CLUP amendments. We disagree with the fundamental premise of the Initial Study that plans such as the CLUP do not have environmental effects until specific projects are proposed. The initial study states: "Legislative acts proposing programs that specify project development criteria do not result in a physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to the proposed criteria of the regulatory program. At that time a specific project shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project. Therefore no environmental impacts will occur." "'Projects" requiring environmental review under CEQA are not limited to those causing direct physical effects on the environment, but also include those causing "a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change" (PRC 21065). The establishment of allowable uses, densities, and development criteria for future development near the airport through the CLUP revisions is the type of indirect physical change referenced by this code section as requiring environmental review. Additionally, implementation of the CLUP revisions would require amendment of the City General • GaMade From Recycled Paper Dave Doody, Senior Planner • December 8, 1999 Page 2 • 11 Plan and zoning diagram which is explicitly subject to environmental review. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) and (c) further refine the definition of a project as follows: An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof, pursuant to Government Code Section 65100-65700. The term "project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project' does not mean each separate governmental approval. The CLUP. revisions will establish land use and development criteria which will not be subject to change during the review of individual projects implementing the CLUP. The Initial Study should provide decision -makers with the overall environmental consequences of implementing the CLUP revisions prior to adoption, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21003.1 (b), which states: Information relevant .to the significant. effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made available as soon as possible by lead agencies, other public agencies, and interested persons and organizations (Emphasis added), The CEQA Guidelines prohibit segmenting the project description and approval process such that the effects of the overall project remain unaddressed. "The lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, .when determining whether it will have a significant effect." (CEQA Guidelines at Section 15003(h), citing Citizens Assoc. For Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of inyo, 172 Cal App. 3d 151; 1905.) Of particular concern are environmental consequences of land use limitations proposed for the Inner Safety Zone, Inner Turning Zone, and Outer Safety Zone within existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed CLUP revisions would effectively preclude residential development. on numerous vacant lots within these -areas by requiring larger lot sizes than available. Additionally, public and quasi -public uses such as nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities., and similar aggregations of persons (non-residential uses which are compatible with residential neighborhoods) are prohibited. Because the City cannot leave property owners without economic use of their property, the CLUP amendments are effectively promoting commercial, manufacturing, and industrial uses within these residential neighborhoods. These non-residential uses would likely introduce incompatible noise and traffic and may be inadequately served by public services and utilities. The Initial Study • .7 • Dave Doody, Senior Planner December 8, 1999 Page 3 should analyze the effects of these land use incompatibilities and propose mitigation such as allowing residential development on legal parcels, regardless of size. Effects and potential mitigation should be considered by ALUC staff prior, to action. on the proposed CLUP amendments. Additionally, it would be appropriate for the Initial Study to describe how the proposed CLUP amendments are consistent with the Cal Trans Handbook relative to airport safety, noise, and hazards.. CEQA is intended not only to protect the environment, but also to demonstrate to the public that the environment is being protected (CEQA Guidelines at Section 15003(b), citing County of Inyo v.. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d 795). Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study. If you have any questions regarding these comments,- please feel free to contact me at 530-895-4852. Sincerely, Stacey ffe s y Jolli Senior Planner Jls xc: Tony Baptiste, City of Chico Community Development Director' Kim Seidler, City of Chico Planning Director Bob Grierson, City.of Chico Airport Manager Paula Leasure; Butte County Principal Planner DEC 10 TS9 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission RE: Request for Comments on the proposed 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). DATE: November 23, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Dave Doody On November 17, 1999, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission initiated the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the.Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The attached•Public Hearing notice describes the project. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 04 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or'required mitigation measures your office may want incorporated. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. MMENTS; LF ANY, -ARE REQUES_TED-R)(4NO LATER--TI3AN DECEMBER_1.5,1999 If no comments or cor co m`unications are�eived by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMNMNTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): By: dl �kl2g/ &77 � �rria�"� Date: 11f . �• % 9 K::.al.UC',.,\IEETI\GS•.I 9-99.MTG\TR NSWVD ria L A'r-S ) I . I . RECEIVED 7 County_ Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 2 1 A4 S calk . fj,w ; n DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735.MONTGOMERY STREET • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 PLANNING DEPARTMENT \ 'O?PORATEO - �4 (530) 538-2430 December 14, 1999 ,Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ...�� � `.,�%•.�.Ouiit�c�r�ntPr:_Tlr! :� �, �--•.='-•'^-^-�•-�� ., �.G•,: .. a-a:�_.;»,r.,-. K. ---x-.,.,_ .r... �--r.� .-:-.J.r__-...-w..,.-..�<...,...•'..- --'... �, .... ., .. Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Commissioners: We, the Planning Commission of the'City of Oroville, have reviewed your request forcomments on the proposed 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Oroville Airport Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We agree with City staff and City Counsel that the information sent for our review is inadequate in its scope and content'for the following reasons ► The proposed Airport Environs Plan Safety Zones map is illegible and incomplete. ► 'The proposed Airport Environs Plan 'SafetyZ_ ones map does not accurately reflect. the OroviIle, Airport `runways and runway tlir`esholds` ► The Area of Influence Boundary Adopted by the ALUC in •1997 was not legally adopted as the ' planning boundaries for the airport as required by Public Utilities Code Section •21675(c) which states ."the planning boundaries shall be established by the commission [ALUC] after hearing and p consultation with involved agencies". The ALUC only,consulted with the airport manager at the time, and not with the elected officials of the City. ► The information submitted is not supported by any written justification or background information. We understand the ALUC's desire to see that airport environs and the public is protected; however, we also have a duty to provide the City'Council with an adequate recommendation on any proposed CLUP amendment that will effect the airport and surrounding areas.: At this time we believe that the information you have provided is insufficient and does not meet due process requirements. We respectfully request that the ALUC refrain from adopting any amendments, revisions, or update to the CLUP at this time. It is our suggestion that the ALUC ywait for a draft CLUP'that is being prepared by ShuttMoen an_d_that.you,provide adequate -time -for review and comment'by the -'City. ,.i........:= Sincerely, ^ } •+ c f i 7 r Tht TV000 CED il Wilc , tzt , • ,,, .!- . ' . Chair, City of Oroville Planning Commission" DEC'. 15 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION • B1 Approach/Departure Maximum Densities 30% Additional Criteria Locate structures maximum Other Uses (10 -acre Zone Locations Residen 2 (people/ac) Req'd Other Development tial (du/ac)' Aver- Single with Open Land' Prohibited Uses . Conditions age' Acre' Bonus' ► Highly noise -sensitive Minimum NLR of 25 dB in A Runway Protection 0 10 same same All All structures except ones Avigation easement dedica- Zone Remain- with location set by aero- tion and ings'� ing nautical function within Building ► Aboveground bulk storage Airspace review required ' Assemblages of people Restriction Line of hazardous materials Objects exceeding FAR Part 77 height limits Avigation easement dedica- ► Aboveground bulk storage tion B2 Extended of hazardous materials 20% ► Children's schools, day Minimum NLR of 20 dB in ► Hazards to flighte B1 Approach/Departure s0.1 25 50 65 30% ► Children's schools, day Locate structures maximum Zone (10 -acre care centers, libraries distance from extended parcel) ► Hospitals, nursing homes runway centerline ► Highly noise -sensitive Minimum NLR of 25 dB in uses (e.g. outdoor the- 7 residential and office build- aters) ings'� ► Aboveground bulk storage Airspace review required ' of hazardous materials for objects >35 feet tall" ► Hazards to flight$ Avigation easement dedica- tion B2 Extended s0.2 75 150 195 20% ► Children's schools, day Minimum NLR of 20 dB in Approach/Departure (5 -acre , care centers, libraries residences (including mo - Zone parcel) ► Hospitals, nursing homes bile homes) and office . ► Highly noise -sensitive buildings10 uses (e.g. outdoor the- Airspace review required aters) r for objects >70 feet tail ► Hazards to flight$ Deed notice required C Traffic Pattern s0.4 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools, day Deed notice required (2.5 -acre care centers, libraries Airspace review required parcel) ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >150 feet tail- or Hazards to flight$ z 5.0 D Other No No No Hazards to flight' Airspace review required Airport Environs Limit Limit Req't for objects > 150 feet tall * Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying Airspace review required Overlay Compatibility Zone Applica- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall ble Avigation easement dedica- tion required PRELIMINARY 'Primary Compatibility Criteria Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility I n,.►, U L� x.2'24 9y 7 71INq 4- • ;W% Source: Shutt Moen Associates (October 1999) PRELIMINARY Compatibility Map Ranchaero Airport -FILE No .145 12/17 '99 PM 03:47 I D : SHUTT & MOEN FAX : 5269721 PAGE 1 - SHUTT MOEN Ssocl._A.Z1 S Il� Services to the Aviation Industry: • planning • Engineering Management it 707 AVIATION BLVD. SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 "(707)526-5010 -AX: (:07)5/:6-9721 FAX MEMO Date: December 17, 1999 Number of Pages: 4 (including this page) - To: Dave Doody Butte County Dept. of Development Services Fox Number: (530) 538-7785 From: Ken Brody,.. Subject: Airport Noise Contours The Originul: Will not follow 1..1 Will follow Message: As discussed by phone earlier thisweek, attached are draft copies of updated noise contours which we have prepared for the Oruville, Paradise, and Ranchaero airports. These are the contours which we arc using in development of the Air- port Land Use Compatibility Plan. The contours are based upon projected activity levels for each of the airports. If you need data at this time regarding the input assumptions to the noise calcula- tion~, let me know. The draft Compatibility Plan will include a summary of this data. With regard to Chico airport, over the next couple of weeks we will be taking a closer look at the several sets of contours which Brown-Buntin Associates hats prepared for various activity scenarios. If we have any useful conclusions about those contours prior to the December 29'h ALUC meeting, I will let you know. n :1'7 l�lyk �ay 1_ it FILE No.145 12/17 '99 PM 03:48 IDIS'H''UT-T & MOEN FAX:52 -9721 PAGE 4 r 0 Soarra: SPiLdt Mowl Aaaoclaras (Jonomy 21X717) Background Data: Rjvnvh"roAlwW/Chapter 7 ty .60 CN91L. t 0,5 R J:.Ii j!i*"!'I:!"';i' r 0 Soarra: SPiLdt Mowl Aaaoclaras (Jonomy 21X717) Background Data: Rjvnvh"roAlwW/Chapter 7 FEET 4.0W v 2.DOO,;,' Exhibit ?E Nclse Impact Area Ranchaero Airport 65 CKEL 41 .60 CN91L. 0,5 R 4 FEET 4.0W v 2.DOO,;,' Exhibit ?E Nclse Impact Area Ranchaero Airport 1 F I LE. No .145 12/17 '99 PM 03:47 I D I SHUTT & MOEN FAX :5269721 PAGE 3 owkoround Dors: Pared/a a Skypark Afrpart /Chapter 6 JWHIM! i -55 CNEL i. 60 CNEL I I i• { I � 65 CNEL I I • ' A/ i IN 1 2.000` I i 0 AET 4.000' 1 " = 2.000' Sowrig: Shutt MoonA9eWfet99 (Jenuury2000) Exhibit 6E Noise Impact Area Paradise Skypark Airport 40 Aof� 4L AtO4-��� -/ A, J • 1 � Y F ���vv✓vV /l ���`�b/�(/ /_C./�w If _ r r V fMLIY/Y l�.s•�I.V * + � . " f i 7 W -7x-: 0— 0- UOICIA 11,10 . . . . . . . . . . 26, , a - I vu 'moi '541(18- ' � F [ �4�-C l� 5 Glc L 11 v r-�C- �--Xz �- !'.. A"V"���• •✓ /l� 'v ,. / -7Tali..+ *� .W' ✓a!�� 't • ' � y(`/{�/////���/f_/�Y..•V / L�� "- fVI ,1}`••�/e✓/�/!,{`•-�_' V/ /. Z !'4 'r « ~ 1. F.4 - ,�._ F R . ` Law ices av ><tv P.O. Box 429 San Carlos, CA 94070 *`-- Tel (650) 594-9300 FAX (650) 366-1915 r, jaywhite@california-airports.com LS JN6 November 23, 1999 Susan Minasian, Esq. / County Counsel, County of Butte 25 County Square Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Dear Ms. Minasian: Butte C�),jty rAun sW ,W00VIH®, CaNf(rnia I am writing about Agenda Item E-1 that came before the Butte County ALUC at a meeting November 10, 1999. Specifically, the staffs recommendation that the ALUC reject the adoption of proposed CLUP amendments is of great concern. At page four of the staff document under the heading Requirements of the California • Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there is unfortunately an erroneous statement of applicable law. Contrary to this statement, the proposed CLUP amendments are not subject to CEQA environmental review. An Environmental Impact Report is required when a public agency finds substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Natural Resources, Title 14' California Code of Regulations Section 15002(f)(1). A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the affected area by the proposed project. Id. (g). There are two reasons the proposed amendments are not subject to environmental review: First, the amendments would not have a potential for resulting in a direct physical change, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. To the contrary, adoption of the amendments would tend to maintain the land use status quo. No changes in land uses or vested interests would result from adoption of the amendments. The proposed amendments would establish a policy for future land development in the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Area only. A "project" does not include general policy and procedure making. Section 15378(3)(b)(2). The amendments would not be classified as a "project" as defined by CEQA Guidelines, Natural Resources, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(a). "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change Susan Minasian, Esq. November 23, 1999 Page 2 in the environment, or a reasonably, foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. A change that is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonable foreseeable: Section 15664(d)(3). Second, the ALUC has no express or implied power to change vested interests in land. Thus, -the amendments cannot result in an effect on the environment. Any. speculation as to future land, use changes would be irrelevant and of no avail. Should you wish to discuss this or other airport land use matters please let me know. Very truly yours, Jay C. White CC: Butte County ALUC • RECEIVED DEC 2 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 0 MEMORANDUM . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission From: Randy Wilson, Principal Planneflu Subject: Proposed 1999 Review and Update of the . Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans Date: December 22, 1999 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions of the Chico, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans and the proposed Negative Declaration for these revisions. The Department of Development Services, Planning Division has the following comments with regard to this effort: • 1) What is the basis for determining the boundaries of the various Safety Zones proposed? The information provided contains no information or specific criteria as to the factors used in identifying and mapping these zones. Please verify the criteria and have the boundaries drawn by a professional engineer to precisely determine their relationship to the underlying legal parcels, most of which are in private ownership. 2) The exhibits showing the proposed Safety Zones for the individual airports lack the detail necessary to properly evaluate the effects of the proposed Density Criteria on lands within the zones.' Adoption of revisions based upon and including these exhibits leaves open to future interpretation the exact location of properties in relationship to the boundaries and whether or not. the Density Criteria apply. Further, these exhibits are not useful for the effected governmental jurisdictions to embark on efforts to bring their General Plans into consistency with the CLUPs. 3) An analysis is necessary on the part of the Airport.Land Use Commission regarding the impacts and inconsistencies between the proposed revisions to the various CLUPs and the General Plan and Zoning for the lands affected. Without such an analysis the effects of the proposed revisions can not be analyzed properly by the Airport Land Use Commission, effected governmental jurisdictions including the County of Butte, the City of Chico, the City of Oroville, and the City of Paradise, and the public. In an opinion, dated May 13, 1999 from the law office of Shine, Comption and Nelder, James A. Curtis opined that, "Unless ALUC specifically identifies existing provisions of the general plan to the CLUP, the County could be left to guess as to whether ALUC has determined the existing general plan to be inconsistent with the new amendments. In such a case, it would seen inappropriate to view the County as having an obligation to take. action unless specific inconsistencies between the a two plans are identified by ALUC with direction given to the County to make appropriate • amendments to the general plan." Your current contract with Shutt -Moen Associates includes this task in their work program. 4) The proposed Density Criteria establishes a maximum 55 CNEL noise standard for residential land uses. The information provided does not contain a map of the 55 CNEL noise contours. Without such a map the lands covered by the 55 CNEL noise standard can not be identified. The proposed revisions will impact private lands effected by this criteria. Adoption of the proposed revisions without identifying those lands effected by this criteria should not be done until a full assessment of the impact is disclosed. The public has a right to know the meaning and effects of the proposed revisions on their property. It is also important for the various land use agencies in their evaluation of the possible land use implications. 5) Some of the Density Criteria will preclude residential development on properties presently planned and zoned for residential development. The lack of information on the 55 CNEL areas and the limitations on the details of the exhibits precludes a proper analysis of the exact areas covered by this particular Density Criteria. If residential development is precluded on properties which presently allow such development and there is no other use allowed on the properties because of the Density Criteria this could result in regulatory takings. Also, if there is a possible other use which is not residential (i.e. industrial) then there may be significant effects as a result of implementation of the Density Criteria which have not, been addressed in the proposed Negative Declaration. Such impacts could be traffic, noise, dust, • air quality, and other land use incompatibilities. With regard to the proposed Negative Declaration, which analyses the effects of the proposed revisions, the following comments are submitted: 1) Throughout the environmental checklist , it is stated that these changes to the CLUP are a regulatory program "...to permit responsible growth surrounding the County's Public Use Airports" and that a significant impact will not occur. This conclusion is not and can not be substantiated from the information contained in the project description and initial study. As a lead land use agency, the County of Butte will either have to condemn lands due to no financially viable use allowed or create land uses (i.e. industrial) that are compatible with airports, but are incompatible with the predominate land uses (residential) surrounding the airports. We believe that this outcome has been completely overlooked in the initial study. 2) In Section 1, and referenced to in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and repeated in Section 16. "This is a planning project consisting of a legislative act to update the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The project includes programs and development criteria and a matrix which is correlated to maps of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Plans. Adoption of the proposed amendments • specify the manner in which land will be permitted to be used so that development can proceed in a responsible manner. Legislative acts proposing programs that specify project development criteria do no result in a physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out pursuant to the proposed criteria of the regulatory program. At that time a specific project shall be fully subject -to CEQA and mitigation can be incorporated into the project (sic) Therefore, no environmental impact will occur." This proposal may lead to changes in land use from residential to other more intensive uses (industrial, commercial, and etc.) that will be located next to existing residential. uses as discussed above. Again, a more specific project description, information, and analysis of the impacts of this proposal is needed in order to determine if this proposal will have significant effects the environment. The adoption of the CLUP amendments will require the County General Plan and zoning code to be amended or make a statement of overriding findings. Amending the General Plan and zoning is subject to environmental review taking into account the whole of the- action. The proposed Negative Declaration is inadequate, as the document does not take into account the whole of the project and does not specifically identify and address the changes in land use which will result from the Density Criteria. The analysis in the checklist is inadequate because both possible and predictable specific changes that will result from the Density Criteria have not been identified, disclosed, or addressed. We concur with the comments submitted by the City of Chico, dated December 8, 1999, regarding the initial study for this project. We also find that "Projects" requiring g—_ .. environmental_ review under CEQA are not limited to those causing direct physical effects on the environment, but also. include those causing "a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change" (PRC 21065)." • From our analysis of this project, it is highly possible that the only compatible uses allowed would be industrial and possibly other non-residential land uses. These changes will create significant incompatibility with existing residences, neighborhood traffic patterns, lighting, noise, dust, air quality, etc.. In general, staff also believes that this proposal should be -referred to Shutt -Moen Associates, the consultant retained to revise and update the CLUPs around the four public use airports within Butte County. This action is precipitous in nature and ignores the comprehensive planning currently being undertaken by a consultant who is professionally qualified to undertake the preparation of new plans. To staffs knowledge the proposals have not been prepared by a qualified professional familiar with the many provisions of the Public Utilities Code and Caltrans Airport Planning Handbook. 0 ,I CHI] OQTTF � o c�UN'�y JOHN S. BLACKLOCK CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 elephone: (530)-538-7631 Fax: (530)-538-7120 R. J. BEELER JANE DOLAN MARY ANNE HOUX CURT JOSIASSEN r FRED'C. DAVIS 1JecemDer L 1, 1 yyy DEC 221999 Robert Hehnigan, Chairman PLAT N co Y Butte County Airport Land Use Commission G Dj 16101V 7 CountyCenter Drive " Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr. Hennigan: On Tuesday, December 14 the Board'of Supervisors directed that I plan and coordinate a time for a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the,Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to discuss issues of mutual concern. The Board wishes to discuss how to achieve mutually supported protection of the County's airports. Preliminary issues identified by the. Board for discussion include the following: • timeline and expectations regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUPS) updates • clarification of the status and plans of the annual update, process„ • staffing issues • the Commission has previously communicated its desire. to clarify and resolve issues relating to signage in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport • the Board also wishes to include discussion of issues related to a pending Use- Permit Appeal relating to a proposed mobile home park near the Oroviile Airport The -Board has requested that I plan a mutually convenient time, not on a currently scheduled Board meeting day, for.the Board and the Commission to meet. I suggest a date in February. Perhaps .Tuesday, February 15, which is one of the Tuesdays not currently scheduled for a Board meeting date would work. Is a 9:00 a.m. starting convenient for ALUC members? Please let me know ,your thoughts on this suggested date and time. Also, please advise me of • issues not identified above which ALUC would like included in the discussion. R MY, THOMAS and MOOSE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SWI_ MICHAEL H. REMY TINA A. THOMAS 455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210 BA GEORGANNA E. FOONDOS JAMES G. MOOSE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 LAND USE ANALYST �. WHITMAN.F. MANLEY LS JOHN H. MATrox ANDREA A. MATARAZZOTelephone: (916) 443-2745 J BRIAN J. PLANT ERIK K. SPIESS Facsimile: (916) 443-9017MARIAN �C' JENNIFER S. HOLMAN E-mail: mndt®cwo.com OF COUNSEL RENS$ F. HAWKINS http://www.cwo.com/-randt• December 16, 1999 fikft County. Counsel- DEC 17109 Mr. Jay C. White `�_ tiOViiie, caiifdmia P.O. Box 429. , San Carlos, CA 94070 . RECEP F Re: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission DEC-21 U. Dear Mr. White: PLANNING VIA ON Ms. Minasian referred your letter'of November 23, 1999 regarding Butte County ALUC Staffs conclusion that the proposed CLUP amendments' impact on the environment • r should be analyzed under CEQA to my office to prepare a response. As suggested by your letter, there is some debate as to whether CEQA applies.to CLUP amendments. According to the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, various ALUCs have-taken one of three possible approaches: '1) CLUPs are exempt from CEQA review because ALUCs do not have ultimate authority over local land use proposals so no CEQA review is necessary; 2) the ALUC should prepare an initial study and a negative declaration because ALUCs have no land use implementation or final approval powers; or 3) the ALUC should prepare an EIR, usually in conjunction with a local specific plan or airport master plan for which an EIR is necessary or to address -. _ concerns of local agencies and landowners over the implications of CLUP adoption. (Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, at p. 2-13.) • 'In the case of the Butte County ALUC's proposed CLUP amendments, the ALUC believes an initial study should be prepared. While your contention that a CLUP amendment is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA may be an arguable point, the question is unresolved. Thus, the prudent route is to perform environmental assessment and determine whether the amendments will significantly impact the environment. ALUCs are similarly situated as other local agencies affecting land use patterns (such as a Board, of Supervisors adoption of a general plan); those agencies' land use decisions Mr. Jay C. White December 16, 1999 Page 2 �•1 "are without question subject to CEQA review. It makes sense for ALUCs to also perform environmental assessment since their decisions, in this case, with regard to - allowable densities and land uses within the airports' areas of influence, will ultimately affect local land use patterns. The ALUC's CLUP amendments are also significant because other local government agencies do not have plenary authority to override them unless appropriate grounds exist. As a matter of efficiency, any information gathered in the environmental assessment phase can then be re -utilized by other local agencies in the course of further environmental assessment on larger, projects, such as the adoption or amendment of a general plan. Although we understand that your interest lies in the timely adoption of the CLUP amendments, we hope you will understand that by performing environmental review we will increase the likelihood that the amendments will successfully protect the interests of the airports of Butte County. Thank you for your comments on this important matter. Sincerely, �I Michael H. Remy cc: Ms. Susan Minasian County Counsel, County of Butte :VHITEITR 0 Comments made on item E-1 Butte County Airport Land Use Committee 12-29-99 by Commissioner Robert Grierson We lose an airport every week on a national scale. As a young student pilot in Chicago, I could fly into 35 public use -airports in 1974, today, there are 7. When Meigs field closes there will be 6 and that number will continue to shrink. In the bay area and in the basin, 52 public airports closed between 1947 and 1997. We must protect our airports from incompatible development, and proper land use planning is critical to achieving that goal. California is lucky to have a system that creates and empowers ALUCs to protect airports. We must use that power wisely. Having said that, it may sound odd to have an airport manager state that he is not going to - support a measure that limits incompatible development around an airport. It may seem even more odd when you consider that it was this airport manager who guided the meeting in November 1999 when the proposed changes were developed. Our approach needs to be one of cooperative planning and development, not land use by decree. Having spent the past month reflecting on the outcome of the November meeting and talking to numerous planners, I. have decided that I am not going to support E-1. I am withdrawing my support for the following reasons: 1. Consistently, the single largest complaint was the illegibility of the drawings. These drawings are critical to the determination of zones and their accompanying density limits. It is wrong to demand that communities support adoption of plans that may significantly impact land uses, transportation, utilities, and land values based on a unreadable map. Could staff have generated those drawings in a timely fashion? I don't know. 2. What do we do with non -conforming uses? How do we address the increase in avigation easements? Why are we debating if a change in land use is subject to CEQA? Of course it is. We have not adequately addressed the concerns of the communities, nor have we provided enough time for them to discuss them with us. This is not the forum for us to debate the merits of this proposal, but we need to listen to them now. 3. Timing of this proposal is very poor. Vacations, holidays, limited hours, and staff have made review a rushed and incomplete event. We are not the landowners, nor are we elected to serve the public. Yet we are endowed with a vital public trust "Protect the airports"' but at what cost? In six months we will have a completed CLUP..We can rush to implement this update and sperid the next 6 months watching communities override every portion. Or we can gather information today, establish a solid working. relationship with Chico, Oroville, and Butte County in the development of a CLUP that can be implemented and accepted. Our relationship with the surrounding communities is very poor. Between the lawsuits, overrides, poor land uses, and weak approach to airport protection, there is plenty of blame to go around to all parties. However, with the new CLUP, we have a choice of working with communities to establish a long-term land use plan that meets the needs of the communities and those of the • airports, or a planthat will last as long as an override takes to,process. Let there be no �L �Zti (yR tz ��`� -V7 • v � � misunderstanding, he communities of Oroville and Chico will override this update. It may be appropriate for the ALUC to request the communities of Oroville, Paradise, and Chico to enact an urgency ordinance to hold in abeyance and potential land use changes near the airport until the CLUP is updated. There are no guarantees that any community will implement such ordinances, but it is not unreasonable to request it. In focusing on today's meeting and public discussions on item E-1; let's not blow this opportunity to listen to the comments made by the planning professionals: We need to balance these concerns with the needs of landowners, and then balance those requirements with the long term survivability of an airport and the jobs it creates. / 2-z9- 9g ersor-) S r'e2d Cz m rY? e n4 S I4ery-� iq99 CLuP Up j,�e t FROM • FAX NO. t r. 09 1999 11: S8AM Pi D999 - TC Dave Doody Fr Bob gan Re: October agenda item is fax 2 pages Materials needed before October ALUC meeting CLUPs for all 4 airports new layout plans for Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero since they have all been changed since the CLUPs were written. Letters to airport owners and managers and affected agencies stating that reviews'will occw on 20 October,"' � and final. adopt on -of 1999 updatcs at the regular 17 November meeting. Get these out immediately and be sure to tell them that this is their opportunity to ask to have included anything of particular concern to them. Write and schedule public hearing notices for the newspapers, have the wording ready for October meeting. • As soon as you have each layout plan, fax a copy tome @ 898-0341 As soon as you get the Oroville and Paradise CLUPs let Barbara know and she will arrange to pick up 'a copy. Are the signs on the Supervisor's agenda yet? 0_t TM T planning ���� SEp 27 1999 7 r/hsL c,�rf�-4 4� �a nz- A-4 4Z2-.o-, 1 A 0 0 .� RZ k of C 6 T S 13,V X ,fs • rot �� --'. All m' ister and discretio sh I,b-'reviewed by AL C andF findings ust be made th no verse impacts wil a rested. Z Avigation Easements shall be signed be property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each public or special use -airport.. ' Ac sive- c I, r r, �� ... �,_ � 11 l l_ I,T I ►,J Li `� ... :� ' i' 12 V c' (r_( rk'. �� C3 Uses compatible only If they do not result In a targe aoncenuatlon of people. A large concentration of people Is defined as a Otlrennq at individuals in an site that would result In an average density of greater Ulan 25 person$ per.acre per hour during any 24 hour period Ind -ng at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acts, at ally Urns. C Caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, provided that they are ancillary to the primary use of a property, intended for the purpose of properly protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. . (� Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and conslruclion.of portions of buildings where We public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. Residential development shall not occur in a.noise level greater than 55 CNEL Use compatible only, H it does not result In a concentration of persons greater Uhsuh 25 person• per acre at any Unhe or the trorage or IlsunmaDlt or explosive nulerlal above ground. /} No building, structures, above-gwund Uallsilli ton lines, or slorawe of llartinhablir or explosive nhaterlal above ground, surd no uses resullu19 �7 in, a gathering of more titan 10 person$ per ase at siry Utile. ! / fi Commuiucatlon Towers. P a. Prohibit in all safety zones except Zone. Free Standing Towers: • 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the tip on the tower and shielded froth the striking the ground for a mile Towers with Guy Wires: 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: A. Blinking lights aloe; length of tower and guywires at 20 foot intervals. B. Tliree root in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals t_U 11 Prohibited Usesj Churclhes Mursing care lacilities Fiuspitals Colleges & universities Elementary & secondary schoolsQ Child care IMIlk-Q5 41"( 54t -n Id -r /f46P��,.(!_C�[L 1C-kS ! �" 'l-5 e J 5-o% opt�N K LD rz N5)ry 30N"!> 7,�j/1; jj,�e�. M AUNT 11101,11E u�i;� � j�PiG�1/ i—gip r.�� th .91.I'C, �Eo-�e w/ P�20 (X k QAJrPd1.� r (C41-d� r M(� tJu but p+uoleurn products ItLTunaDle or explosive e or Ghtnhical storage, abtve ground 4& • 111:�.xiuiuu� r\cccl►I:rl,lr - _ Ucusily (`j0 Sal, zunc ------�I•cul►Ic per Acre) (Diyelliiil; Unils r\crc) P1.0 — Itrirrway PIU(Ccliurr zmlri Ilrncr Sirlcly Zunc ry ApFO K0 0 � UP I o :r Iriucl-Tilluiu�, "Lurk 10 r Vulcr Salcly lunc 2.5 CDP Ff l�' 0 I E L P ,S Sideline SalclyLurrc — Z5 ��FNI o _ l rallic 1'allcrrr 'Lunt 100 C D,F.R190 I uh L �S /V-L of Irrlluerrc,e - _ : ::_...: - B.0 D H � 4 ELM P ' ►1a �1rr.�� • E6@"= 4 c7kjq7, 50? N. ::T r* • Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix C • S� � •roti.• � _ _. O 11 ._.4 1 1 , • ��\. •� 111 1• I, � 1 il� � 1 , 1 ,1 lEOF1�D � � _ ,� x.000' �� - _ �.-• .. - Ol O. A11 wNE O. APPMA�/WARTURE ZONE OOLFAFUIW ZONE O q ►RETRO AIR PARK � . 9PECLAL PLANNM MEA Source: Sacranionlo Nfe(ropolifen Airport Comprehensivo Land Use Plan (1883) 1 Uecornbor 1993 AirportZafety Zones Sacramento Metropolitan Alrpoft r C-33 I[] • SACRAMENTO METROPOUTAN AIRPORT LAND USE CONIPATIGIUTY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY FOOTNOTES: Use compatible only it directly (elated to agricultural use of tie property for We provision of dwellIn units for the land owner's immediate family, or for employees required for the protection of the property. All such dwellings shall be encouraged to locate outside of the Approacrh• Departure Zone If parcel lines permit. ' Use compatible only if It does not result In a concentration of persons greater than 25 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. ' No building, structures, above -ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive materlal above ground, and no uses resuttinq in a gathering of more than 10 persons per acre at any time. No bulk petroleum products or chemical storage. ' Tour operator passenger facilities not allowed. ' Uses compatible only If they do not result In a potivibility Uhat a water uea may cross ground log or result In a bird hoard. ' h►ousehold'hazardous waste facilities operated as pert of uh Integrated wastemanagement program and resulting in only temporary storage . ,of materials is allowed. ' Uses in buiWings must b,2 compatible. ' Use compatible only If requirements of California Education Code, Sections 39005.7, 81030 and 8103a ue fulfilled. ° No chapels or funeral homes. " No dub houses, bars, restaurants or banquet facilites. Ancillary uses such as pro shops, snack bars, and specialty food and beverage seroces We allowed. New couroe layouts 6 fevisions to exlsUng courses must be reviewed by ALUC for safety Impacts. This restriction does not apply to the [lietro Air Park Speclal Planning Area. " . No high intensity uses or fadlltes, such as structured playgrounds, ballnelda, or picnic pavilions. " Uses compatible only It they do not (@suit In a large concentration of people. A lupe concentration of people Is defined at a gathering of individuals in an area that would result In an average density of greater than 25 persons per.acrrr per hour during any 24 hour period ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. This restriction does not apply to non{eald-entia) uses in the,Metro Air Park Special PlAnning Area.14 /// • No users that would cause electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation of aircraft or aircraft instrumentation. 5ACMETF0,5AFETV /0 ''A • [7 0 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 Legal Basis for Regulation The legal basis for local government regulation of land use is well de - 3 -20 fined by both statutory and case law. Generally, such regulations are founded upon the basic power of the state to enact legislation protect- ing the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens. This authority is typically passed along to municipalities by state enabling legislation. The principal form of land use regulation in most municipali- ties is zoning. The constitutionality of zoning was upheld in a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 — Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company. In California, the ability of local governments to regulate land use is an exercise of the police power granted by Article XI of the California Con- stitution. The authority for airport land use commissions to establish land use regulations is provided by Section 21675(a) of the Public Utili- ties Code. This section states that "in formulating a land use plan,. the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing ..." .(An earlier reference for ALUCs "to achieve by zoning" the purposes of the statutes were deleted from the law in 1982.) Responsibilities of Local Agencies / Chapter 5 For additional discussion of in-' verse condemnation, see Chapter 3. r • r4 documents will "not provide very adequate long-term compatibility as- surance. In terms of airport land use compatibility, all have limitations which need to be recognized. • Ease of Change'— Nothing permanendy locks in a land use desig- nation. when pressured by landowners to allow less restricted Bevel- opment, future local legislative bodies can change the established designations — by overriding the ALUC, if necessary. Such changes especially can occur if the land changes jurisdiction (e.g., as a result .of annexation). • Restrictiveness Land use designations are limited as to how restric- tive they can .be. If they are deemed to eliminate all reasonable eco- nomic use of private property, they can be considered an unfair tak- ing and result in inverse condemnation.. Especially' in areas near ends of runways, the restrictions may need to be more severe than can be accomplished by land use designations. • • Lack of Retroactiveness— Designating an area for a different use 'than the one already existing may encourage change over the long run, but it does not directly eliminate existing incompatible uses. Other devices, such as fee simple acquisition, may be necessary to bring about_ the changes. • Nonaviation Orientation — Standard land 'use plan and zoning desig- nations are developed for community -wide planning purposes. Sel- dom do they have an aviation orientation or address the specific , issues of compatibility, with aviation activities (i.e., noise and safety). The Chapter 4 discussion of factors'to be considered in a consistency review of a local general plan or specific plan highlights many of the reasons why consistency between local plans and a compatibility plan is seldom achieved without explicit consideration of aviation . issues. Overlay Zones or Combining Districts One way local governments can overcome the lack of aviation orien- tation of basic land use designations is adoption of an overlay zone or combining district. A combining district supplements local land use designations by adding specific noise and, often more importantly, safety criteria (e.g., maximum number of people permitted on the site, site design and open space criteria, height restrictions, etc.) applicable to future development in the airport vicinity. Geographically, the com- bining district should extend at least a mile from the runway ends and encompass lands regularly overflown by aircraft at or below'traffic pat- tern altitudes. r •21 a , December 1993 C] L� Excerpts from FAR Part 77 and a copy of Form 7460-1 are included in Appendix E. December 1993 • Responsibilltles of Local Agencies / Chapter 5 An airport overlay lone has several important benefits. Most important- ly, it permits the continued utilization of the majority of the design and use guidelines contained in the existing general plan and zoning ordi- nance. At the same time, it provides a mechanism for implementation of restrictions and conditions that may apply to only a few types of land uses within a given land use category or -zoning district. This avoids the need for a large number of discrete zoning districts. It also.enables general plans and specific plans to attain consistency with a compatibil- ity plan through reference to basic compatibility criteria rather than through redefinition of existing land use designations. An airport overlay zoning ordinance might include some or all of the following elements: , I • Airspace Protection — A combining district can establish restrictions 1. on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects as nec- essary to protect the airspace needed for operation of the airport. These restrictions, should be based upon the current version of Fed- eral Aviation Regulations'(FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, Subpart C. Provisions prohibiting smoke, glare, bird attrac- tions, and other hazards to Flight should also be included. FAA Notification Requirements — Combining districts also can be used to ensure that project developers are informed about the need for compliance with the notification requirements of FAR Part 77. Subpart. B of the regulations require that the proponent of any project which exceeds a specified set of height criteria submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration prior to commencement of construction. The height criteria associated with this notification requirement are lower than those spelled out in Part 77, Subpart C, which define airspace obstructions. The purpose of the notification is to determine if the proposed construction would constitute a potential hazard or ob- struction to flight. Notification is not required for proposed structures that would be -shielded by existing structures or by natural,terrain of equal or greater height, where it is obvious that the proposal would not adversely affect air safety. Maximum Densities - Airport noise and safety compatibility criteria are frequently expressed in terms of dwelling units per acre for resi- dential uses and people per acre for other land uses. These,stan- dards can either be directly included in a combining zone or used to modify the underlying land use designations. For residential land uses, the correlation between the compatibility criteria and land use designations is direct. For other land uses, the implications of the density limitations are not as clear. One step that can be taken by local governments is establish a matrix indicating whether each specific type of land use is compatible with 1 � A 5-_ • Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 • Compatibility Compatibility Zone Suggested Concern Delineation Compatibility Criteria Noise • Calculated noise oontours;I or • No residential within 65 dB CNEL contour. • Generalized area encompassing Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as maximum_ for residential land Individual contours. uses in quiet communities (or even 55 dB at rural airports). Safety • Up to 6 zones based upon role- • Runway Protection Zones: tive risk of aircraft accidents in — No structures. each area.2 — No assemblages of people. • Take into account typical flight - Encourage airport to own the property. tracks and areas overflown by • Inner Safety Zones: aircraft at low ahhude. — Preferably no residential uses or, at.most, very low density. • Consider instrument arrival and —' Limit other uses to ones which attract relatively few people departure routes. and leave substantial areas without structures. — Prohibit bulk storage of flammable or hazardous materials. — Prohibit schools, hospitals, nursing homes. — Maintain as much open land as possible by clustering of development. • Inner Turning Zones: — Residential uses only at very. low density. — Restrictions on other uses similar to Inner Safety Zone. • Outer Safety Zones: — No urban density residential subdivisions. — Other uses limited to ones with moderate concentrations of people. — Avoid schools, hospitals, nursing homes. — Maintain as much open land as possible by clustering of development. i Sideline Zones (Areas Ac#acent to Runways): — All oomrnon aviatiorrrelated uses acceptable. — Limit non -aviation uses, on-, or off -airport, to low -Intensity activities. — Prohibit schools, hospitals, nursing homes. • Traffic Pattern Zone: — Avoid high-density residential unless clustered to leave open areas in between. — Avoid activities with very high concentrations of people. — Avoid schools, hospitals, nursing homes. Airspace • Zones defined by Part 77 of • limit heights of objects In accordance with Part 77 criteria. Protection Federal Aviation Regulations. . Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere In airport vicinity. Overflight • Easiest to define in terms of Part • Establish some form of buyer awareness program. 77 horizontal zone, modified as necessary to exclude areas not routinely overflown by aircraft flying to and from airport. See Chapters 7 and 8 for a discussion of factors to be considered In calculation of noise contours. . 2 See Chapter 9 (specifically Figure 9G) for suggestions re ardinp safe tyzone shapes and dimensions. NOTE: These criteria should be treated as general suggestions for consideration by individual ALUCs, not as state - mandated standards. Economic and technical feasibility may need to be taken into account when setting criteria for individual airports. ' Source:, Hodges b Shutt (December 1893) 'Table 3A • Summary of Suggested Compatibility Criteria December 1993 3-3 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM E - 3. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: October 11, 1999 ITEM: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP): This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chair Hennigan. The Chair requested a 1999 amendment to include ten (10) changes to the Chico, Paradise, Oroville and Ranchaero CLUPs. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 20, 1999 STAFF COMMENT: Chair Hennigan has requested the introduction of a 1999 CLUP amendment for all public use airports located within Butte County. Proposed amendments include: • 1 a. Clustering b. Avi ation Easement requirement,, � g q ,. , 0 ' C. Information on density, safety and hazards, J 1�' d: - Creation and maintenance of a disclosure file for each airport, e. Requirement for ALUC review of all communication towers and facilities within an Airport Area of Influence, f. Terminal procedures, g. Adoption of Area of Influence Maps, h. Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones, i. Establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety zones, and; j. Establishing density limits iri safety zones at the Chico Airport. Attached you will find the proposed changes as submitted by Chair Hennigan to introduce the 1999 CLUP amendment. The introduction materials comprise a letter.to affected agencies and draft CLUP amendment proposals "A" and "B." The Chair requests ALUC to exercise its authority under Section 21675 (a) to update the CLUPs as described above. The Chair directed that the above described changes are to be introduced by staff in draft form at the October meeting so that ALUC may take testimony and discuss the update materials. The Chair proposes that following October's meeting, final action would be taken at the November 17, 1999, ALUC hearing. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 Staff consulted with Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates and determined that he strongly advises • against introducing these changes and undertaking this extensive CLUP amendment. Mr. Brody indicated that the proposed amendments would complicate the comprehensive CLUP update currently under way. He also indicated that the proposed 1999 CLUP amendments will make the planning process more difficult and confusing to the general public and other affected agencies. Mr. Brody 5s concern was that the proposed 1999 CLUP amendment is to close to the completion date of the draft comprehensive update that he is under contract to prepare. Mr. Brody explained that a draft of the comprehensive CLUP update is expected to be presented in January 2000. Additionally, Mr. Brody is going to take the opportunity to present Draft Issue Paper #2 at October's meeting. This presentation is an important step in the planning process for the comprehensive CLUP update. Introducing the proposed 1999 CLUP amendments now would significantly complicate the planning process. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Chair's proposed CLUP amendments for informational purposes only and refer them to Shutt Moen for review and possible incorporation into the draft CLUP. - K:\ALUC\MEtTfNGS\10-20-99.MTG\E3.FLPT • • Butte County • Airport Lana Use Commission • ° 2 Date: September 30, 1999 To: Airport Owners, Operators, and Planning Agencies From: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • California Law states that Airport Land Use Commissions may to the CLUPS rP Y u I� once in a calendar year, however several of the CLUPs for Butte. County Public Use Airports have not been brought up to date for many years. "The comprehensive Land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once .in any calendar year." PUC 21675 (a) State Law also states that ... "An Airport Land Use Commission that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Sections 21675, referred to in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook; published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation. " PUC 21674.7 The ALUC is exercising its authority to update the CLUPs in order to make them coordinate with: 1) changes in airport layouts, runway use, new FAR part 77 configurations, etc., .2) information regarding safety and noise available since the last updates, 3) the "state of the art' in assessing risks to the public, 4) the position of the Commission regarding acceptable noise and safety risks for the citizens and pilots served by Butte county's public use airports, and • 5) the position of the Commission regarding the protection of the utility and growth potential of those airport The Butte County ALUC is holding an extended public hearing over two meetings to consider and adopt the 1999 updates for the Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) for Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. The first meeting (on October 20, 1999 at 9:00 am, Supervisors chambers) is to take testimony and discuss proposed update materials that have been brought to the commission and to direct staff to put the updates in a draft form. That draft is to be finalized and voted on at the November 17, 1999 meeting. The Commission wants you to be informed in sufficient time to attend the October meeting and have a copy of the draft proposals (Sections A & B) included with this letter. Airport Owners and Operators and affected Planning Departments are encouraged to bring their concerns to this first meeting to be considered for inclusion in the CLUP. Written comments will also be considered and we appreciate your participation. October 20 1999 draft up -dates Section A (applies to all public use airports) • __ ,,�,uc -� 1) Clustering within Areas of Influence Clustering may either enhance or de rg_ade safety depending on the design and location. There appear to be no definitive studies to guide the Commission (such as the UC Berkeley ITS might produce). Therefore: 44-Nodto ' or flexr ots i as Or lb) No clustering unless a developer presents a specific and final plan and can make a case as to why that specific arrangements enhances safetyo persons on the ground and survivability for passengers in aircraft. 2) No density bonuses or second units within the Area of Influence. 3) Changes subsequent to ALUC approval: • When is a project no longer the project that was submitted or found to be consistent with the CL UP? What recourse is there if a project has been chan d? 2 Adding an Avigation Easement to the CLUP. 3� Adding a section of definitions 0e. density, safety hazards, etc.) Each commissioner to bring a list of words to be , defined in this section 0 4) Creating and maintaining a permanent disclosure file for each airport Documentation including, but not limited to, accident scatter maps, NTSB accident reports, copies of noise or safety complaints and any other information the Commission determines is relevant for disclosure to prospective purchasers of property within the Areas of Influence. County and City boards of Realtors are to be informed by letter of the existence of this file. ��N 0 CJ • 5) Communication Towers and Facilities in Areas of Influence The rational for ALUC to review ALL applications re: location and design in the Area of Influence is: 1) aircraft are descending to land and are consequently lower in altitude than in general flight. 2) Pilots range in ability from extremely knowledgeable and qualified to beginning student pilots. 3) The weather may vary from extreme VFR to extreme IFR conditions. 4) The aircraft may be descending lower than the stated glide slopes, esp. if the aircraft is having mechanical difficulties and the pilot is attempting an emergency landing. 5) The area around an airport is where aircraft are converging and may be in closer proximity to one another than during general flight and the pilot's attention may be diverted by other aircraft. And 6) the location of noise abatement procedures and approaches may vary. Location: no towers within the zones. Marking: high visibility is the criteria . 1) Strobe lighting is most visible in bad weather and can be shielded from the ground if the tower has been engineered correctly. 2) Alternating red and white paint starting at feet above the ground. 3) Blinking lights along the length of the tower and on any guy wires, feet apart. Changes subsequent to ALUC approval: When is a project no longer the project that was submitted to AL UC? 'October 20, 1999 draft up -dates Section B (applies to specific. airports as noted) 1) Add Terminal Procedures to map sets for Chico and Oroville Airports. The file copy is a sample only, current issues must be obtained and submitted with the staff report when any project is proposed within the Areas of Influence.n -u M '� -- - Z 2) Replace out -of date Area of Influence Map`s for Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports with the maps adopted on date 3) Add Caltrans Safety, Turning and Overflight Zones to map sets for Oro-Mle, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. • Current maps will have to reflect changes in airport layout plans at Oroville and Paradise. R 4) Establishing density limits in Caltrans safety zones for Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero airports. Safety zones Non-residential Residential %. coverage for people/acre units/acre non-residential Runway Protection 0 0 Inner Safety 0 0 Inner Turning 25 ` 0.1 Outer Safety 25 0.2 Sideline Safety 25 0 Traffic Pattern 25 4 Area of Influence • • 5) Establishing density limits in safety zones at Chico Airport. Safety zones people/acre units/acre % coverage Zone A non residential 25 / acre -- 15%(1) residential -- no new residential -- Zone B non residential 25 / acre -- 15% residential 25 / acre 4 per acre -- Outer Safety 25 /acre 1 per 5 acres ` 25 / acre -- 15% Area of Influence (other) (1) Under roof/ gross acres • 0 Agenda Item - E - 3. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use, Commission FROM: Volunteer Staff DATE: October 16. 1999 ITEM: 1999 Annual Review and Updated of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 20, 1999 COMMENT: On items from the "1999 update" staff report. Item a. "Adoption of Area of Influence Maps" is no longer an issue. Staff has located the public hearing notice and data that confirm that the City of Oroville was properly informed of the hearing and had received a copy of the map of the Area of Influence in advance of the hearing. Alan Campbell (Oroville's Public Works Director and Airport Manager) was a member of ALUC at that time: `It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried unanimously for approval of the boundaries for the Oroville Airport Area of Influence as recommended by sta,,�`.' "-5/ 21/97 ALUC Mnutes Item f. concerns maps to be added to the map package for Chico and Oroville airports. The FAA establishes the Terminal Procedures and publishes the maps with expiration dates. ALUC staff will obtain a current copy of the map when any project is proposed within the Areas of Influence of these two airports. It is to be expected that both Airport Operators have current valid maps on hand so the County will not have the expense of maintaining a set of charts Item h. "Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones". The Commission and Staff have long been hindered by the fact that while the Caltrans Handbook identifies specific safety zones based on the nature of flight.operations that occur in the air above them, these zones have never been formally adopted. While these have been used to accurately assess the safety of any particular site, relative to the airports and runway configurations, other planning staffs have not .1 q� had a specific document to use when informing members of the public about what jo 1,0 will be required and considered at an ALUC hearing. This action formalizes a e somewhat informal activity. r!' 1, 1 / AT .T Tr _0r.tnhP.r ?.n 1040 Vnh mtF-Ar ctsaff rP.nnrt map 1 i Items c., i., & i. These items all relate to the establishment of density standards . around the four airports. In keeping with our Consultant's suggestion that the CLUP become a single text document with separate maps for each airport, Commissioner Gerst has prepared two charts that will be discussed at this meeting. The first chart displays the Maximum Acceptable Density in the 10 Zones found on the maps. The second chart gives the Compatibility Guidelines for Safety. These will be discussed in detail at the meeting, but are to be applied to designated areas on each map. Not every map has all 10 Zones. As in most land use applications, where zones overlap, the more restrictive standards apply. Item d. It is important that the existence of a specific disclosure file being maintained for each airport be given some prominence in the CLUP, as well as a one-time letter to various Planning Departments, Boards of Realtors, BIA, Press release to media, etc. Individuals conducting due diligence surveys of property may not have contacted someone who knows about the existence of this file. Having the file identified in the CLUP and maintained by staff means that disclosure information will not be "lost". Suggested text: "The AL UC maintains a permanent file of disclosure documents for each public use airport. This documentation includes, but is not limited to: (1) U. C. Berkeley Institute of Transportation Accident Scatter maps appropriate to the runway configurations and adjusted to the scale of each airport. (2) NTSB accident reports and news clippings about accidents at a particular airport. (3) Copies of noise or safety complaints and correspondence about noise and safety concerns., and (4) Any other information the Commission determines is relevant for disclosure to prospective purchasers of property within the Areas of Influence. "The Disclosure File may be augmented at any time by a vote of the commission. For example, when the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies completes the up -date of their accident scatter. Additional information might include a different accident study done by an accredited organization, the NTSB report on a recent accident, any written material that will clar6 the aviation literature or maps, or any other information the Commissioners feel would be useful for a prospective purchaser of property to know. "The Disclosure File is available to the public. No information may be purged from this file after having been voted on by any Commission. It is inappropriate for a public agency to participate in suppression of disclosure documents." AT .T T! -Mini er m 1 QQQ VnhintPrr staffvennrt nacre?. FROM : • • FAX NO. • Mar. e9 1999 11:58AM P2 ALUC October 1999 agenda 1) Review of 1999 amendments to Butte County CLUPs 2) Final action at public hearing for the Nov. 1999 meeting 3) All airport operators and affected public agencies are to be notified by letter, as well as, the published public notices. From PUC 21674.7 "An Airport Land Use Commission that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Sections 21675, referred to in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of.4eronautics of the Department of Transportation. " From CPUC 21675 (a) "The comprehensive Land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary fie order to accomplish its purposes; but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year." The ALUC is exercising its authority to update the CLUPs once in any calendar year in order to make them coordinate with 1) changes in airport layouts and runway use, FAA part 77 configurations, etc., 2) new information regarding safety and noise that has become available since the last updates, .3) to reflect the "state of the art" in assessing risks to the public, 4) to state the position of the Commission regarding acceptable noise and safety risks for the citizens and pilots served by Butte_ county's public use airports, and _ S) to state the position of the Commission regarding the protection of the utility and growth potential of those airport ?hcre are four CLUPS (Chico Municipal, Oroville Municipal, Ranchaero and Paradise Airports) to be reviewed. Because it is thought that the year 2000 update will consist of a single text document with airport specific maps, this update will begin to, coordinate the material currently found in separate documents. 0 0 • 40 TO: FROM: DATE: • Agenda Item - E - 2 Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission Volunteer Staff October 18, 1999 ITEM: Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning lnh�tr�i�tsn» nr�lil»nssrol; " FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 20, 1999 Sections 244, 24-7, & 24-9 Non -conforming uses and variances, There are currently (as of Oct. 18, 1999) no non -conforming uses because there are currently no restrictions on any of Butte County's four public use aimports. 'T'h,g ordu*:ance .S :::teLded t^ bl�'e ks- CNy^er` icnre the po:='er rp event or remove any non -conforming uses. There is* no mechanism in this ordinance to allow variances because no part of County government has the authority to grant a variance to a Federal 1?ebNl5ihLL. Att.L:pt'. t, t� �� t w . ?.Lee ;rill WreNte the :'e:;' eLLA2tLL this ordinance was designed to prevent --the establishment of any condition or obstacle that would cause the FAA or Caltrans DIV. of Aeronautics_to restrict operations at the public use airports. p BUTTE COUAVfY AIRPORT LAND USS COMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ • REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: October 20, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 3. 1999 Annual Review and Uadate of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) This item was placed on the agenda,at the request of Chair Hennigan. Chair Hennigan has requested the introduction of a 1999 CLUP amendment for all public use airports located. within Butte County. Proposed amendments include: ,a. Clustering, b. Avigation Easement requirement, C. Information on density, safety and hazards, • d. Creation and maintenance of a disclosure file for each airport, e. Requirement for ALUC review of all communication towers and facilities within an Airport Area of Influence, f. Terminal procedures, - g. Adoption of Area of Influence Maps, h. Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones, i. Establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety zones, and j. Establishing density limits in safety zones at the Chico Airport. Recommendation: Accept the Chair's proposed CL UP amendments for information purposes only and refer them to Shutt Moen for review and possible incorporation into the draft CL UP. i t • • a F INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION To: Thomas Parilo, Director From: David Doody, Senior Planner ALUC,`_�'� Subject: 1999 CLUP Amendment as Proposed by Commissioner Gerst Date: October 25, 1999 Comment and Update on ALUC Matters The 1999 Update of the Chico, Oroville. Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans appears to be still on track. Laura Webster and Ken Brody went to lunch with the Hennigans after the hearing. Upon returning, Laura called me and reported that Bob seemed to be seeing the light, but Barbra was obstinately wishing to push ahead. Last Friday, I met with Fred Gerst. There are two amendments that are being proposed. One that was agendized by Bob Hennigan and was discussed at the 10/20 hearing and one that was introduced by Fred Gerst at the hearing (attached). Fred demands that his proposal goes forward and he asked my nicely if Development Services will put it on the agenda. I said the By -Laws allow any Commissioner to place an item of the agenda, so Fred told me to take this as a formal request to agendas his proposal. Also, you should know that there is considerable dissension among the members, but Fred wouldn't go into details. I'don't know, but our conversation leads me to believe that it has to do with Bob's proposal not being ok with the rest of the Commission. This is really interesting. Technically, I should be circulating Fred's proposal now with, the affected agencies. Fred told me he wants it adopted at November's meeting. Regarding Bob Hennigan's proposal: 'I really don't know where to begin. He wants it agendized too. At the 10/20 hearing Bob posted large display maps of his amendments. Following the meeting, they took their maps down and did not give staff a small reproducible. The only support material we have are those vague handouts. There was 2 additional handouts at the meeting that were from the Hennigans. M Paula Leasure h:1ALU0C0RRES POD9.AIME The following revision, as presented by Fred Gerst, is an annual update to clarify a number Sof issues that tend to be unclear and inconsistent. It is also recognized that all concerns are not addressed due to lack of information. It is the intent that the major revisions and update due early next year will address the remaining requirements. Presented at the October 20, 1999 ALUC meeting. l -AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION POLICY PLAN AIRPORT LAND USE POLICY. PLAN -LAND. USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY,' COM Al IBILITY WI Ill LAND USE CATEGORY ZONE ZOVZ 1 Runway lilt or Inner Outer Sideline Traffic Area of A I 'rotecliott Safety f urning Safety Safety Pattern Influence • No 8 9 o 2� 3 4- 5 1 7 Simile -family detached No Qv NO No Yes Yes Yes... No Yes res Tv;o-family dwelling No Nu Yes Hu No No No 140 Yes Yes hlulli-family dwelling (J+ families) No No' Yes Nu No No No •No Yes' - Yes •. hluoile hom? uaiks or cowls . No .No No 11v No No No No -No Yes r1U�t�ur�Ciuitluc� 2-3 41 4s N� AlJ� Yes .QQhll'dUNICAT10145-&- 1TILITIES wit-cless CU1lll1111nica11011 I 'floci I1lles towers Ifo No I lm I lu flu If() t lm flu , Nu Yes 3 ALLQLFSAL F TRAUE 2-3 Ido Nu Nv. Yes .� Yes _. _..._ EtC:[AILIBAUE 3 No No Nu No No No Yes , 4— Yes uUSIUES.s-&-PERS-QUAL z,3 Nv No No .No flu - No Yes 4' Yes ItOPE'1t��i21SIQlCIS—� No No No No No No . No No No Yes P_U.©LLI_AW Q . L-euELicc-3 - . . Churches I•lu Nu (to flu I lu • No flu .� No No ' Elementary 3 secondary.scfrools No No No No FJo No No, No No Colleges & universities No No No No 14u No No . No No Hospitals No No No No (,to No No No No Nursing care facilities l4o No Child care programs �— 3 . ' No No No No No No ' I•lu Hu No No flu No No _ _ NuNo Nu No. 1 1 I lu No JZECLZEA1llQN 3 No Yes 4 lila�iu►,iri►i Accel►(al►le ' Density N _ Safely 'Lu►►e (l'cul le- per Acre) (Divclliul; units mere) i Rtulway Prutcctiuu Zuuc Q 0 itutcr Satcty`Zune t 0 Q inner Turning Zone - S I l U Outer Salety Zone 2.S I Jr Sidclinc Sal'cty Zuue (p' 0 6 TrallicPattertt'Zutic Area of Influence, Overflight Protection Zcne --r Al I O B 2 5 f ®R- :4 .f„ :4 1.\ c,, .. w n: • • LC ' c Nc c ?. c N c c c C co c n Oor �- - I �_------------- i C)-- - cn n.�•r N... C, C C C C C O N N C1 C C O O C C .1 (11 C71 C CI W N L Li -• -- m .. C C 1-- --4 L'1 C C n. C N ac c o O C C C (� N N P'S, C L9 L1 C C C O C C'1' C C O C C O C -4 O- C O C C O .0 (J1 ; • n lJ 0 1. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL 2. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of all sensitive areas including, but not limited to, rooms designed for the purposes of sleep, libraries, churches, areas intended for indoor entertainment events and of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas and other areas where people work or congregate. 3. All ministerial and discretionary residential uses shall be reviewed by ALUC and findings must be made that no adverse impacts will be created. 4. Uses compatible only 'if they do not result in a large concentration_ of people. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals that would result in 25 persons. per acre. at any onetime. 5. Uses in buildings must be compatible as determined by ALUC 6. not permitted unless the Airport Land Use Commission can make findings that no adverse impacts will be created. 7. Avigation. Easements shall be signed be property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each. public or special use airport. 8. Infill of residential uses shall be allowed in Zone A-1: Division of property shall be prohibited. Lot line adjustments to create an additional lot shall be prohibited. 9. Communication Towers: a. Prohibit in all safety zones except Zone 7. Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the tip on the tower and shielded from the striking the ground for a mile , Towers with Guy Wires: 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: A. Blinking lights along length of tower and out wires at 20 foot intervals. B. Three foot in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. • • Sar ! Crlterle and. Maps /Appendix C r I \x d mQ • 1 .— - I I t.0W - `- t,rww lEOEND 'I l 4,000' 1� CLEM DONE OAPPROACH/DEPAMURE ZONE ONINIXW(T Z" ®IAETRO AIR PARK f \ SPECIAL PLW" MEA , Source: Saciamonto MetropolAsn Airport Contpreltensivo Lend Use Plan (1883) .4 4 n December- 1993 QAIHYI\ tra II Lj } Airport Safety Zones Sacramento Metropolitan Alrport C-33 • • SACRAMENTO METROPOUTAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIMUTY'GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY FOOTNOTES: Use compatible only if directly related to agricultural use, of the property for We provision of dwelling units for the land owner's immediate family, or for employees required for the protection of the roperty, All such dwellings shall be encouraged to locate outside of the Approach - Departure Zen@ If parcel lines permit. ' U$e eompaUble only if It does not result In a concentration of persons greater than 23 persons per acre at any Ume or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. ' No building, structures, above -ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive malarial above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons per acre at any time. No bulk petroleum products or chemical storage. ' Tour operator passenger facilities not allowed. ' Uses compatible only If they do not result In a possibility that a water area may cause ground fog or result In a bird hazard. ' Household hazardous waste facilities operated as pert of an Integratad waste management program and resulting in only temporary stogy age of materials is allowed. ' Uses in buildings must De compatible. ' Use compatible only I1 requirements of Califo(61& Education Code, Sections 39005.7. 81036 and 81036 are fulfilled. ° No chapels or funeral homes. No club houses, bars, netaurants or banquet facilities. Ancillary uses such as pro shops, snack ban, and specialty food and beverage strokes are allowed. New course Layouts & revislons to existing courses must be reviewed by ALUC for safety impacts. This restriction does not acpty to -the Metro Nr Park Special Planning Area. fJo high intensity uses Or fadlitles, such as structured playgrounds, ballfields, or picnic pavilions. Uses compatible only If they do not (@suit In a large concentration of people. A large concentration of people Is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would rewtt In an average density of greater than 25 persons pevacte per hour during any 24 hour period snd'ng at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per`scre at any time. This restriction does not apply to non-rssidentlaluses in ths,Metro Air Parr Special Planning Area. Pio usea that would causq electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation of aircraft or aircraft instrumentation. $ACMETpgSAFI:^r lD A • Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 Infill 3-18 By definition, infill areas are locations where development does not al- ready exist. Tile areas thus are subject to ALUC review authority. The chief issue with regard to infill is whether it is realistic for ALUCs to at- tempt to prevent development of a small area surrounded by similar development even when that development is incompatible with airport activities. ALUCs clearly can determine such infill uses to be inconsis- tent with their adopted compatibility plan. From a practical standpoint, however, such determinations are often overridden by the local govern- ment agency. As an alternative, ALUCs should consider establishment of policies which indicate where and under what circumstances infill can be found con- sistent with the compatibility plan. • Infill Locations — in locations where substantial airport impacts occur especially locations within the 65 dB CNEL contour or a runway protection zone — any incompatible development is considered un- desirable. However, in more distant locations where the impacts are less, inrill of otherwise incompatible development might be deemed acceptable. • Infill Conditions — For infill to be permitted, specific conditions should be met to assure that a substantial, increase in the overall compatibil- ity status of die airport does not occur. For example: 3-19 . — The infill area should be hounded by uses similar to those pro- posed. — The proposed development should not extend the perimeter of the area already developed with incompatible uses. — Increases in the intensity and/or, incompatibility of use through use permits, density transfers or other strategies should not be per- mitted. — Other applicable development conditions (such as easement deli - cation requirements and special structural noise level attenuation criteria) must be met. • Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 Legal Basis for Regulation The legal basis for local government regulation of land use is well de - 3 -20 fined by both statutory and case law. Generally, such regulations are founded upon the basic power of the state to enact legislation protect- ing the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens. This authority is typically passed along to municipalities by state enabling legislation. The principal form of land use regulation in most municipals - ties is zoning. The constitutionality of zoning was, upheld in a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 — Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company. In California, the ability of local governments to regulate land use is an exercise of the police power granted by Article XI of the California Cori- stitution. The authority for airport land use commissions to establish land use regulations is provided by Section 21675(a) of the Public Utili- ties Code. This section states .that "in formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify ,use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing ..." (An earlier reference for ALUCs "to achieve by zoning" the purposes of the statutes were deleted from the law in 1982.) • 11 • -BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E - 1. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: November 10, 1999 ITEM: 1999 Annual Review and Update of,the Chico. Oroville. Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP).- This item was originally placed on the agenda at the request of Chair Hennigan for consideration at the October 20, 1999, ALUC hearing. At that time, the Chair introduced and -requested a 1999 amendment to include ten (10) changes to the Chico, Paradise, Oroville and Ranchaero CLUPs. Commissioners Gerst and Grierson have also submitted CLUP amendment proposals and have requested that they be placed on the agenda. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 17, 1999 History On October 20, 1999, Chair Hennigan presented a proposed amendment to the 1999 Comprehensive Land • Use Plan for the Chico, Paradise, Oroville and Ranchaero airports. The Commission addressed some of the issues presented, but did not complete the review due to lack of time. Commissioner Gerst handed out an alternative proposed amendment to the 1999 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Commissioner Gerst's proposal was not presented due to lack of time. The Commission continued discussion of these items to the regularly scheduled November meeting. Mr. Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, subsequently discussed the Comprehensive Land Use Plan his firm is in the process of developing of which a draft is scheduled for presentation to the Commission in January 2000. Mr. Brody strongly urged the Commission to not take action on the 1999 proposed CLUP amendments. Mr. Brody felt that the information in the proposed 1999 CLUP amendments would be helpful to his firm in preparing the comprehensive update but would cause confusion to affected agencies if adopted at this time and suggested that the Commission take no action on the 1999 proposed CLUP amendment unless there is a problem that needs to be resolved immediately. Project Description: Staff has received three (3) proposed 1999 CLOP amendments. The proposal received from Chair Hennigan was partially _reviewed by the Commission at the October 20, 1999 ALUC meeting. Commissioner Gerst distributed his proposal at the October 20, 1999 ALUC meeting, but it was not reviewed by the Commission. Subsequently, Commissioner Gerst has amended his proposal which was provided to staff on November 8, 1999. Commissioner Grierson faxed his proposal to staff for discussion at the November 17, 1999 ALUC meeting. The following is a summary of the three proposals. i Proposal Submitted by Chair Hennigan U This proposed amendment was received by staff on September 30, 1999, and was introduced at the October 20, 1999, ALUC meeting. The proposed amendment addresses adoption of a new Airport Land Use Policy text for the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. a. Clustering = No clustering unless a developer presents a specific and final plan and can make a case as to why that specific arrangement enhances safety to persons on the ground and survivability for passengers in aircraft.. b. Avigation Easement requirement - Add text to each CLUP requiring an avigation easement. c: Information on density, ' safety and, hazards - Add text to each CLUP information establishing density limits in Caltrans safety zones'for Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. These density standards differ from the ones proposed by Commissioners Gerst and Grierson. d. Creation of a disclosure file for each airport - Establish and maintain a disclosure file and in its existence by reference in each CLUP. Establish a file for each public use airport, = which discloses information, such as: FAA terminal procedures, accident scatter data, NTSB accident reports, and noise and safety complaints. e. Requirement for ALUC review of all communication towers and facilities within an airport area of influence - Add text regarding review authority, marking and other related criteria. f Terminal procedures -Develop airspace review process. g., Adoption of Area of Influence Maps - Commissioner Hennigan stated that workshops would be held prior to amending the area of influence maps. K Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones - Item- to be discussed at the November 17, 1999 meeting. i. Establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety zones - Item to be discussed at the November 17, 1999 meeting. j. Establishing density limits in safety zones at the Chico airport - Item to be discussed at the November 17, 1999 meeting. Proposed Amendment #2: Commissioner Gerst • Butte County •Airport Land Use Commission • 2 This proposed amendment was handed out to the Commission at the October 20, 1999, ALUC meeting, • but was not discussed due to time constraints. Subsequently, Commissioner Gerst revised his proposed amendment which was provided to ALUC staff on November 8, 1999. Commissioner Gerst requests the Commission adopt an amendment to the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The proposed amendments include the following: I a. Adoption of a new Airport Land Use Policy Plan Matrix and Compatibility Guidelines for the Chico, Oroville, Paradise.and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. b. Adoption of permitted uses and general requirements. Adoption of eight (8) new Safety Zones for the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. Each safety zone includes several exclusions that are listed in Commissioner Gerst's report. The eight (8) Safety Zones address: 1. Runway Protection Safety Zone 1 - No dwelling units and zero people per acre. 2. Inner Safety Zone 2 - Allows 10 people per acre or one dwelling unit per acre. Minimum parcel size is 10 acres. 3. Inner Turning Safety Zone 3 - Allows 10 people per acre or one dwelling unit per parcel. Minimum parcel size is 10 acres. 4. Outer Safety Zone 4 —Prohibits uses that exceed 25 persons or one dwelling unit per parcel at any one time. Minimum parcel size is 5 acres. 5. Sideline Safety Zone 5 - Allows 25 people per acre and no dwelling units. No • minimum parcel size designated. 6. Traffic Pattern Safety Zone 6 - Allows 25 people per acre or one dwelling unit per parcel. Minimum parcel size is 2.5 acres. 7. Runway Environment Safety Zone 7 - Allows' 10 people.per acre and no dwelling units. No minimum parcel size designated. 8. Area of Influence Safety Zone 8 - Allows 25-50 people per acre or.4 dwelling units per acre. Minimum parcel size is one acre. Proposed Amendment #3: Commissioner Grierson This proposed amendment was received by staff on October 28, 1999. The proposed amendment includes density limits similar to those provided by Shutt Moen Associates. This proposal also includes prohibited uses and other development conditions. a. Zone A - Runway Protection Zone - No subdivision allowed. b. Zone B l - Approach/Departure Zone - Ten acre minimum parcel size. C. Zone 132- Extended Approach/Departure Zone - Five acre minimum parcel size. d. Zone C - Traffic Pattern Zone - Two to five acre minimum parcel size. e. Zone D - Other Airport Environs Zone - Unlimited minimum parcel size. Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • 3 • •. The proposed CLUP amendments are subject to environmental review and are defined as a "project" • pursuant to Section 15378 (a) of CEQA. Section 15378 (a) states that a "Project" means the whole of the action, which has potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. The proposed CLUP amendment is not exempt pursuant to Article 18 "Statutory Exemptions" or Article 19 "Categorical Exemptions" of CEQA Guidelines. Section 200 1. 1 of the Public Resources Code states that, `° .. it is the policy of the State that projects to be carried out by public agencies [AL UQ be subject to the same level of review and consideration under this division as that of private projects required to be approved by public agencies." Additionally, Public Resources Code is further supported by the General Responsibilities of CEQA, Article 2, Section 15020, which states that,"Each public agency [AL UQ is responsible for complying with CEOA and these Guidelines. A public agency must meet its own responsibilities under CEOA and shall not rely on comments from other public agencies or private citizens as a substitute, for work CEOA requires the lead agency to accomplish. " In order to accomplish the most basic environmental review, a project must first be defined with enough clarity to afford staff a specific project on which to base a review. The lead agency (ALUC) is required to provide local affected agencies a 30 -day review period and state agencies a 45 -day review period. Since a defined project has not been provided to staff, agencies have not been forwarded a project description for review. ' STAFF ANALYSIS • The proposed changes as submitted by Chair Hennigan, and Commissioner's Gerst and Grierson cannot be adequately evaluated by staff. A specific amendment must be formally initiated by the Commission and forwarded to staff for CEQA analysis. CEQA requires the project to be referred to affected agencies, such as the City's of Chico, Paradise, and Oroville as well as Butte County for their review and comments. The amendment must also be submitted to Caltrans for a 45 -day review period. At the conclusion of the review period, staff can return to the Commission with an Initial Study and a recommendation for either a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration without mitigations. Stas cursory review of the proposals finds that they are with merit and include well-intentioned programs to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Butte County. While the Commissioners have submitted their requests under the authority of Aeronautics Law, Section 21675 (a) to update the CLUPs, a fundamental obligation to review the proposals pursuant to CEQA has been overlooked. Staff cautions the Commission to not act on the amendments without CEQA review as it opens proposed amendments to the CLUP to legal challenge. At the October 20, 1999 Airport Land Use Commission meeting, Mr. Ken Brody of Shutt Moen Associates strongly advised against adopting these extensive CLUP amendments and stated that the proposed, amendments would significantly complicate the' comprehensive land use plan update currently being prepared by his firm. Mr. Brody further stated that adoption of the proposed amendments would be •Butte County •Airport Land Use Commission • 4 confusing to the general public and affected agencies. He explained that a draft of the comprehensive CLUP update is expected to be presented in January 2000. If Shutt Moen Associates has to expend additional time reviewing the Commission's proposal, it could T significantly impact the current contract between Butte County,, the Airport Land Use .Commission and Shutt Moen. If there are cost overruns, an amendment to the contract would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. With the fiscally conservative position of the Board, extra funding will more than likely be denied. This could jeopardize the completion of the work under contract with Shutt Moen and Associates. Y Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the proposals submitted by Chair Hennigan, and Commissioner's Gerst and Grierson. 2. Specifically define the densities desired by the majority of the Commission to assist Shutt'Moen in preparation of their Comprehensive Land Use Plan update. 3. Reject the adoption of a 1999 CLUP amendment for the following reasons: - a. The requirements of the California Environmental-Quality Act have not been met. • b. Significant concerns were raised by Mr. Ken Brody of Shutt Moen Associates at the October 20, 1999, ALUC meeting. C. Adoption of the proposed amendments could have a fiscal impact on the contract currently` negotiated with Shutt Moen* Associates. • d. Staff believes that the premature adoption of the proposed+amendments without following ,the legally required process could cause a significant• legal liability. Attachment No. 1 - Chair Hennigan Attachment No. 2 - Commissioner Gerst . Attachment'No. 3 - Commissioner Grierson K: l4LUC1MEETLVGS 111-17-99.MTGT 1.RPT - ` a Butte County 0 Airport Land Use Commission a 5 0 BUTTE COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission RE: Request for Comments on the proposed 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and'Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). - DATE: November 23, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Dave Doody On November 17, 1999, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission initiated the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The attached Public Hearing notice describes the project. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to -be addressed or required mitigation measures your office may want incorporated. • If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for.'your time and efforts. COMMENTS, ]IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15, 1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. T , COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): - By: Date: K:\ALUC\MEETINGS\12-29-99.MTG\TRANS.WPD 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 916-538-7601 - FAX 916-538-7785 • MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE DENSITY• No. Safety Zone People per Acre Dwelling Units per Acre 1 Runway Protection Zone 10 GH 0 C. .2 Inner Safety Zone 10 ADFHfM- 0 EKN - 3 Inner Turning Zone 10 ADFHIJM 1 EKN ., 10 4 Outer Safety Zone 25 CDFHIM 1 EKN 5 5 Sideline. Safety Zone 25 CDFHIM 0 - 6— Traffic Pattern Zone 100 CDFBIM 1 u it EKLN`- 2.5.8.. minimum parcel size 7 Area of Influence No Limit BCDHI 4 EKLN 1 A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures). B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people.,. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24-hour period " ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. C. Caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, provided that they are ancillary to the primary use of a property intended for the purpose of property protection or, maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must. be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. E. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL. F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration of persons greater than 2.5 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of 'November 17, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ F G. No buildings, structures, above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a'gathering of more than 10 persons at any time. H. Communication Towers (excluding airport related facilities): 1. Prohibited in all safety zones except Zone 8. -Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint startirig at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the top of the tower and shielded from striking the ground for a mile. Towers with Guy Wires: " 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: a. Blinking lights along length of tower and guy wires at 20 foot intervals. b. Three feet in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. , tti . 1. Public and Quasi-Public:` Prohibited Uses": Churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities and similar aggregations of persons. 1 50% Open Space. K. Density Bonus Prohibited. ' L. Aunt Minnie unitspermitted with ALUC review for'safety and noise protection. M. No bulk petroleum products (except airport related), flammable or explosives or chemical storage above ground. N. Second dwelling units are prohibited. r g ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ r . 11 October 20 1999 draft up -dates Section A (applies to alit public use airports) 1) Clustering within Areas of Influence Clustering may either enhance or degrade safety depending on the design and location. There appear to be no definitive studies to guide the Commission (such as the UC Berkeley ITS might produce). Therefore: I a) No clustering or flexible lots within the Areas of Influence. Or lb) No clustering unless a developer presents a Mecific and final plan and can make a case as to why that specific arrangements enhances safety to persons on the ground and survivability for passengers in aircraft. 2) No density bonuses or second units within the Area of Influence. 3) Changes subsequent to ALUC approval _ When is a project no longer the project that was submitted or found to be consistent with the CL UP? What recourse is there if a project has been "changed? • 2� Adding an Avigation Easement to the CLUP. 3) Adding a section of definitions 0e. density, safety hazards, etc.) Each commissioner to,bring a list of words to be defined in -this section r 4) Creating and maintaining a permanent disclosure file for each . airport Documentation including, but not limited to, accident scatter maps, NTSB accident reports, copies of noise or safety complaints and ' any other information the Commission determines is relevant for disclosure to prospective purchasers of property within the Areas of Influence. County and City boards of Realtors are to be informed by letter of the existence of this file. e K FA • 0 5) Communication Towers and Facilities in Areas. of Influence The rational for ALUC to review ALL applications re: location and design in the Area of f Influence is: 1) aircraft are descending to land and are consequently lower in altitude than in general flight. 2) Pilots range in ability from extremely knowledgeable and qualified to beginning student pilots. 3) The weather may vary from extreme VFR to extreme IFR, conditions. 4) The aircraft may be descending lower than the stated glide slopes, esp. if the aircraft is having mechanical difficulties and the pilot is attempting an emergency, landing. ` 5) The area around an airport is where aircraft are converging and may be in closer proximity to one another than during general flight and the pilot's attention may be diverted by other aircraft. And 6) the location of noise abatement procedures and approaches may vary. Location: no towers within the zones. Marking: high visibility is the criteria , 1) Strobe lighting is most visible in bad weather and can be shielded from the ground if the tower has been engineered correctly. 2) Alternating red and white paint starting at feet above the ground. 3) Blinking lights along the length of the tower'and on any guy wires; feet apart. Changes subsequent to ALUC approval: When is a project no longer the project that was submitted to AL UC? October 20, 1999 draft -up-dates Section B (applies to specific airports as noted) - 1) Add Terminal Procedures to map sets for Chico and Oroville Air6orts.. The file copy is a,sample only, current issues.must•be obtained and submitted with the staff report when any project is proposed within the Areas of Influence. 2) Replace out-of date Area of Influence Maus for Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports with .the maps adopted on (date) 3) Add Caltrans Safety, Turning and Overflight Zones to map sets for Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. . • = Current maps will have to reflect changes in airport'layout plans•at' Oroville and Paradise. - stablishing density limits in Caltrans safety zones , . Safety zones Non-residential Residential % coverage for people/acre units/acre non-residential Runway Protection 0 0 �• Inner Safety 0 0 • Inner in ter Safe 25 _ •. ' ' = T ane Safety 25 0 Traffic Pattern 25 4 Area of Influence S 5) Establishing density limits in safety zones at Chico Airport. Safety zones people/acre units/acre % coverage Zone A non residential 25 / acre -- 15%(1) residential -- no new residential -- Zone B non residential 25 / acre -- 15% residential 25 / acre 4 per acre -- Outer Safety 25 / acre l per 5 acres + 25 / acre -- 15% Area of Influence (other) (1) Under roof/ gross acres S Agenda Item - E - 3. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Volunteer Staff o DATE: October 16. 1999 ITEM: 1999 Annual Review and Updated of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October- 20, 1999 COMMENT: On items from the "1999 update" staff report. Item g. "Adoption of Area of Influence Maps" is no longer an issue: Staff has located the public hearing notice and data that confirm that the City of Oroville was properly informed of the hearing and had received a copy of the map of the Area of influence in advance of the hearing. Alan Campbell (Oroville's Public Works Director, and Airport Manager) was a member of ALUC at that time: `It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and .carried unanimously for approval of the boundaries for the Oroville Airport Area of Influence as recommended by staff."' -51 21/97 ALUC Minutes Item f. concerns maps to be added to the map package for Chico and Oroville airports. - The FAA establishes the Terminal Procedures and publishes the maps with expiration dates. ALUC staff will obtain a current copy of the map when any project is proposed within the Areas of Influence of these two airports. It is to be expected that both Airport Operators have cuffent valid maps on hand so the County'will not have the expense of maintaining a set of charts Item h. "Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and' overflight zones". The Commission and Staff have long been hindered by the fact that while the Caltrans Handbook identifies. specific safety zones based on the nature of flight operations _ that occur in the .air above them, these zones have never been formally adopted. . While these have,been used to accurately assess the safety of any particular site, relative to the airports and runway. configurations, other planning staffs have not had a specific document to use when informing members of the public about what to (� will be required and considered at an ALUC hearing. This action formalizes a somewhat informal activity. AT .T Tr -(i tnhrr )o l QQQ Vnhintr�r ctaf'f rP.nnrt naoP 1 V L' Items c., i.,& i. These items all relate to the establishment of density standards around the four airports. In keeping with our Consultant's suggestion that the CLUP become a single text document with separate maps for each airport, Commissioner Gerst has prepared two charts that will be discussed at this meeting. The first chart displays the Maximum Acceptable Density in the 10 Zones found on the maps. The second chart gives the Compatibility Guidelines for Safety. These will be discussed in detail at the meeting, but are to be applied to designated areas on each map. Not every map has all 10 Zones. As in most land use applications, where zones overlap, the more restrictive standards apply. Item d. It is important that the existence of a specific disclosure file being maintained for each airport be given some prominence in the CLUP, as well as a one-time letter to various Planning Departments, Boards of Realtors, BIA, Press release to media, etc. Individuals conducting due diligence surveys of property may not have contacted someone who knows about the existence of this file. Having the file identified in the CLUP and maintained by staff means that disclosure information will not be "lost". Suggested text: "The ALUC maintains a permanent file of disclosure documents for each public use airport. This documentation includes, but is not limited to: (1) U. C. Berkeley Institute of Transportation Accident Scatter maps. appropriate to the runway configurations and adjusted to the scale of each airport. (2) NTSB accident reports and news clippings about accidents at a particular airport. (3) Copies of noise or safety complaints and correspondence about noise and safety concerns., and (4) Any other information the Commission determines is relevant for disclosure to prospective purchasers of property within the Areas of In, f1'uence. "The Disclosure File may be augmented at any time by a vote of the commission. For example, when the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies completes the up -date of their accident scatter. Additional information might include a different accident study done by an accredited organization, the NTSB report on a recent accident, any written material that will clam the aviation literature or maps, or any other information the Commissioners feel would be useful for a prospective purchaser of property to know. . "The Disclosure File is available to the public. No information may be purged from this file after having been voted on by any Commission. It is inappropriate for a public agency to participate in suppression of disclosure documents." AT.TTr.n&nhP.r *7o 1440 VnhlntPPr ctaffrP.nnrt _ nsnor Date: September 30, 1999 To: Airport Owners, Operators, and Planning Agencies From: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission California Law states that Airport Land Use Commissions may update the CLUPS once in a calendar year, however several of the CLUPs for Butte County Public..Use Airports have not been brought up to date for many years. "The comprehensive Land use plan shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year." PUC 21675 (a) State Law also states that ... "An Airport Land Use Commission that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, shall be guided by information . prepared and updated pursuant to Sections 21675, referred to in the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation: " PUC 21674.7 The ALUC is exercising its authority to update the CLUPs in order to make them coordinate with 1) changes in airport layouts, runway use, new FAR part 77 configurations, etc., 2) information regarding safety and noise available since the last updates, 3) the "state of the art" in assessing risks to the public, 4) .the position of the Commission regarding acceptable noise and safety risks for the citizens and pilots served by Butte county's public use airports,. and " 5)' the position of the Commission regarding the protection of the utility and .growth potential of those airport The Butte County ALUC is holding an extended public hearing over two meetings to consider and adopt the 1999 updates for the Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) for Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. The first meeting (on October 20, 1999 at 9:00 am, Supervisors chambers) is to take testimony and discuss proposed update materials that have been brought to the commission and to direct staff to put the updates in a draft form. That draft is to be finalized and voted on at the November 17, 1999 meeting. The Commission wants you to be informed in sufficient time to attend the October meeting and have a copy of the draft proposals (Sections A & B) included with this letter. Airport Owners and Operators and affected Planning Departments are . encouraged to bring their concerns to this first meeting to be considered for inclusion in the CLUP. Written comments will also be considered and,we appreciate your participation. The following revision, as presented by Fred Gerst, is an annual update to clarify a number of issues that tend to be unclear and inconsistent. It is also recognized that all concerns are not addressed due to lack. of information. It is the intent that the major revisions and update due early next year will address the remaining requirements. i7 Presented at, the Oe+ebb ---M, 1999 ALUC meeting. i (}rr�e P_ €o . i.3 y /Pf T3 /%/ a sE C'6 V'ee Ems . qk/ bVilCi) u f�� r�� "f: 17iiaP4-7 T. C'LVP T/7C�_ 1:5 '11_110 All ministerial and discretionary residential uses shall be reviewed by ALUC and findings must be made that no adverse impacts will be created. 2Avigation Easements shall be signed be property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each public or special use airport. Jy, 5 _ Ucusily S:iCc()• 'Lune ---- — (I'cul►Ie Ifer Acre) (11►veiliuj; Uj,ils i\crc) i lturr��ay 1'rulcctiuuI_uiiu- - — p-- Ilurcr S.rlcly Lunc - /0 PHI IUP 10_ fill rcr •1'uruirng Zuirc 10 — _q --KD A' p F19I 0 ,�_ t L -- Vutcr Safely Zurrc2_S C D I -f l p S Sideline Safi (y lune 25 ®F H f, D.. r''o r _ 'I'r,rflic l'allcrrr Lunc _ C DFKL�p' r�`f ELMP n �t1 .'� _ Frmr� Envlrorrr►ent r D GNI KOC vf_Iriliuericc _. 25-50. 6.0 D H TJ 14 ELMP . Jy, 5 13 Uses compatible only 11 Utey do not maul, In a taupe ovncenuaUon of people. A large coneenU&Uon of people Is defined as a garhenrrg or individuals in an arta that would result In an average density of greatsr Uwt 25 persons per.scre per hour during any 24 hour period arid-og at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acr— any little. C Caretaker residences are a compatible use wiUtin all C14EL ranges, provided that they are ancillary to lite primary use of a property, intended for the purpose of property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. L) Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where Ute public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL Use compatible only If It does not result In a cuncenuatlun of persona gleam Ulan 25 persona per acre at any urtre or the atoraye or Ilunmable or expiotive material above ground. GNo building, structures, above -ground Uutunlsalon lines, or storage of flarnntnble or explosive material aboveground, utd no uses rssulbog in a gaUtering of more Ulan 10 persons per acts at uty time. H :7 Communication Towers: a Prohibit in all safety zones except Zone 7. Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the tip on the tower and shielded frons the striking the ground for a utile Towers with Guy Wires'. 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: A. Blinking lights along length of tower and guywires at 20 foot intervals. B. Three foot in diameter orange safety starkers attached at 20 foot inteitials on tov,-er and �,uy wires. [ UULlC1�ClLLS1Ut1SLel1[l1(C Prohibiled Uses' j Uirurches Elenienlary secondary scliouls Child care Inuyrams FciCrHr-SC140OLS PPr r1rTriI) I'lursiny care Iacililies Huspitals Colleyes & universities sow D>zN51ry 3oivNs �,w/i,�►fe� AUNT uAl&iG�1� fc/Z S#—ildt *�Y tj N D i s F p 20 'r tee— T "viii • All common aviation -related uses acceptable, 0- Na bulk peuoleurn products Ilunrnable or explosive r or Gternical storage, above ground. � 1 A S �C' v /v r D c L'e , N �� a ti �J';Pc k 1 b �Fci , I1l:�.ciu�uu� \ccc11(a ilc _ Uciisily NO _ _ .S:iCc()• zu►ic ---- — (I;cul►lc lice• Acre) (Diyelliul; Uilils Avue) i Itu�i�r'ay 1'culccliuuI_uiiu- G H 0 _ — 6/< 9110 ` lluicr Salcly ZU11C -- — — — — } �� A_DWKo f E� P r o N nA� :1 [IUtCf I UfUlll�;Luiic 10 A D FIJI ,'o, r 6{�^d Uulcr Salcly Tuiic 25 c D F ��I d'0 Sidcliuc Salcly Zuiie Z5_ D F H I N -D t (ra[lic 11a11criiLu11cIOU C D,F Kjd'0 1 I:LM 2•S_ MfTt- of_Inlluci�cu 6C DH 13Y I 4 EL,MP PAl,:�-�� -bo - ��, n �:�,�,�;,` [1!•E .I>-��Ull,.PSr•2v�fs,k/r: •;�t'f�� ._f�tr,,LT Q Us9e campauble only If ul*y do not result In a largo concenttatlon ofpevple. Margo concentration of people Is defined as a gaUt9"ng or individuals in an area that would rssult In an 'average density of gloater Ulul 25 persons per.octe per hour during any 24 hour period end -n7 at midnight• not to exceed 50 persons per iicle at arly tirn*. CCprovided that they are ancillary to the primary use of a properly, caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, intended for the purpose of property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. L) Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45CNEL must be incorporated into the design arid construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. Residentialdevelopment shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL Use compsuble only If It does not result In a cuncentlatlon ul poisons greater than 25 poisons per act* at any Urne or 1119 110127e or IlarnmaDlt Of exploaido 111alUltl above ground. GNo building, swcturee, above -ground trarlunlasion lines, or eloisue of Ilrunnleble or explosive nlatsrial above ground, and no uses I9lulun9 in a gaUletin7 of more Ulan 10 persons per acts at any Grlle. H CoI11111UnICatlon Towers: Y C �U � AC 11 (Jles es �. a Prohibit in all safety zones except Zone. Free Standing Towers: • 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the tip on the tower and shielded from the strikilig the ground fora mile Towers with Guy Wires: 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: A. 1311llktllg lights along length or tower and guywires at 20 foot intervals. B. Tliree root in diameter orange sarety starkers attached at 20 foot intervals oil tov�er and guy wires. p� . ✓� V-UULLC_AU _QUA5L-J_1l1ULLC Prollibiled USCS' j CI'c'clles Nursin care lacililies Flusuil Colleges 8 umversilies Elemenlary u seconJary sellouts i - ��- drites►ry 30A1ti5 �ittjAIb fed 11 AUNT 11101-11EU�I�7`� psi' -/,-r% i� l n r.r �cyZ :5,q -fee ` *,/v rj N d is F /� �2a 7 PF _r� viV . 0 No bulk peuoloum products IlunrnaDle or explosive I or chemical storage, above ground. N 0 01 ti C l/ NC/ CC M l 7�S R �C lL o <v� s 4V Ip,e c :T A, k I�Pof C,cT-S Firep_€o ✓/� �,v �c s E 66 t-ee E -.o bUb%C� u 7- CLUP u_S tfs /Lifer S`r'i �rst_eri di tionary' use all be view AL ning5 must be made tha no adverse imp will reale . 2 Avigation Easements shall be signed be property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each public or special use -airport. UC. to . J 0 The following revision, as presented by Fred Gerst, is an annual update to clarify a number • of issues.that tend to be unclear and inconsistent. It is also.recognized that all concerns are not addressed due to lack of information. It is the intent that the major revisions and update due early next year will address the remaining requirements. Presented at the October 20, 1999 ALUC meeting. r ,-•-., 666 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION POLICY PLAN <'# AIRPORT LAND USE POLICY PLAN LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDE=LINES FOR SAFETY,, COM All ILITY Wlfll LAND USE CATEG011Y ZON,C rO` Z ' Runway Inner. ' Inner Ouler Sidelim Traffic Area of A J 1 B 'rotectior, Safety _ ruffling Safety Safety Pattern Influence NO 8 9 0 1 2 .3 4 5 G' 7 ftESIRF_tiIlE1L 1— Sinyle-family detached . No No No ties Yes Yes. No fes fes Two-lamily dwelling Ilu No, Yes No No No No flu Yes Yes Alulli-family dVielliny (J+ families) flu No- Yes Hu No No No No Yes Yeq Mobile homy uarks or courts No No No flu flu No No No No Yes Mt1R UEAC1ULZ, C, . 2- 3 Vie ; y4- 4- Ito Ho Yes Yes _ QLiG1UNICATIONSs°�l)TILITIES WlfCleSS Communication " lacllll{ES t01VCCS 9' Ilu flu IIn Ito Ilu Ilu Ilu flu Flu Yes 9 MQLFSAL E TRAU 2-3 Flo Nu I JOYes Yes Nu flu flu No Nu No . Yes 4 RElAIL TRAUE 2-3 Yes Z-3 No IJv' Flu No No No Yes 4- Yes (OtUSICJES.S_&P_ERS_Q[{f1L oeelrl_c�..Qj5MICIS --' No No flu Nu Nu NotNNo tJo Yes 3LlC ✓ Churches Ido i o ' flu No f o. No' No No Elementary 3 secondary schools No No No No Wo. • NuNo No Colleges J3, universities No No No No Nu No No Nu No Hospitals No No No No No No NoNo . No Nursing care facilities Nu No Child care programs �- 3 . No No Nu' No No Ru Flu Hu IJvNa IJu. No _ No No No IJu [ZECREAMN 3 No Ito No flu Yes 0 • f�Tu-l►►►►►►►< Accctltablc Dellsity N'O' safety "Lune (l'cui►le per Acre) (Divelliul; Units Acre) Riumay Prutcctiuu Zuuc Ituicr Salcty Zunc / 0 — Inncr Turning Zune -- � 5 I I O Outer Safety Zune 25 5 Sidclinc Safety Zuuc 10 0 G— Traffic Pattern Zunc 7 Area of lnlluence --- Overflight Protection Zcne - t► A D T Al 2 5 to B 25 4 I 1 0 IRV ;4 0- V U I,1., ,:0 Sntoty Zono U1111onolono (Feel) 1,006 1,000 Safety ZunO 14011100 - _ 5,000 Ll 22,004.500 - -_ 5,000 . J 1,000 Bunway 1000 4,000 6,000 1 Runway Protoctiorl Zone LenUt(t than to or 2 Innor Saloly Zunu Group q,000 5898 111010 3 Innor Turrliny Zune _(L) 4 Outer SafetyZone A I ZU 250 000 07S I1 5 Sideline Safety Zone a 225 - JUS T II•rc Pauvr n Zune c ' • 2 UU ra p 117 , I,1., ,:0 F 500 1,006 1,000 I" 4,000 5,060 5,000 Ll 22,004.500 5,000 . J 1,000 1,7? 2,5U0 1,5UU 2,0 6 2,5UU U 2,500 3,000 5,000 Safety Zotle Configurallon Example • LJ 1. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL • 2. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of all sensitive areas including, but not limited to, rooms designed for the purposes of sleep, libraries, churches, areas intended for indoor entertainment events and of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas and other areas where people work or congregate. 3. All ministerial and discretionary residential uses shall be reviewed by ALUC and findings must be made that no adverse impacts will be created. 4. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals that would result in 25 persons per acre at any one time. 5.. Uses in buildings must be compatible as determined by ALUC. 6. not permitted unless the Airport Land Use Commission can make findings that no adverse impacts will be created. 7. Avigation Easements shall be signed be property owners for all uses located within the planning, boundaries of each public or special use airport. • 8. Infill of residential uses shall be allowed in Zone A-1. Division of property shall be prohibited. Lot line adjustments to create an additional lot shall be prohibited. 9. Communication Towers: a. Prohibit in all safety zones except Zone 7. Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the tip on the tower and shielded from the striking the ground for a mile Towers with Guy Wires 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: A. Blinking lights along length of tower and gut wires at 20 foot intervals. B. Three foot in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. • Sample Compatibility Areiria and Maps /Appendix C • d � _mow . �---•--•---—•--..—.._ 71 x m r i • ` � � AA 4.000• ,� - �� �_�I . LEGEND 0 CLEAR ZONF ; \� O APPf1OACN/DEPARTURE LONE • •\\ �ji-''- - • , + OOVEWLKWT ZONE _ 1� t; METRO AIR PARK SPECIAL PLANNNG AF1EA Source: Saaomonto Metropolitan Airport Comprehensivo Land Use Plan (1993) r-Milull X110 Airport Safety Zones Sacramento Metropolitan Airport C-33 Uecombor 1993 • • 0 E� SACRAMENTO METROPOUTAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY FOOTNOTES: Use compntible only if directly related to agricultural use of tit@ property for Ute pfovlelon of dwelling units for Ute land owner's immediate family, or for employs** required for the protection of the property. All such dwellings shall be encouraged to louts outside of the Approacn- Departure Zone If parcel lines permit. ' . Use compatible only if It does not result In a concentration of persons greater than 25 persona per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. ' No building, structures, aboveground tranunisslon lines, or storage of flammable or explosive matetlal above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons per acre at any time. No bulk pstroleum products or chemical storage. ' Tour operator passenger facilities not allowed. ' Uses compatible only If They do not result In a poasibility that a water area may cause ground fog or result In a bird hazard. ' Household hazardous waste facilities operated as part of cat Int*gratsd waste management program and resulUng in only temporary storage Of materials is allowed. ' Uses in buildings must b,9 oompaUble. ' Use compatible only If requirements o1 Calllornia Education Cod*, SecUorts 317M.7, 81038 and 81038 are fulfilled. ° No chapels or funeral homes. No club houses, bars, restaurants or banquet fadllUes: Ancillary uses such as pro shops, snack bars, and specialtyfood and beverage services are allowed. New course layouts & revisions to existing courses must be reviewed by ALUC for safety Impacts. This restriction does not apply to the Metro Nr Park Sp*cW Planning Area. No high intensity uses or fadllties. Such as structured playgrounds, ballfields', or picnic pavilions. " Uses compatible only I1 they do not result In a tarps concentration of people. A large oonanttatlon of people, Is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would result In an average density of greater than 25 persona per.acn per hour during any 24 hour period ending at midnight, not to exceed SO persona per act@ at any Ume. This restriction does not apply to non-residential uses in the,Metro A,r,Park Special Planning Area. • No uses that would cause electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation or aircraft or aircraft instrumentation. 5ACMETRONSAFETY Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies l Chapter 3 Infill 3-iS By definition; infill areas are locations where development does not al- ready exist. The areas thus are subject to ALUC review authority. the chief issue with regard to infill is whether it is realistic for ALUCs to at- tempt to prevent development of a small area surrounded by similar development even when that development is incompatible with airport activities. ALUCs clearly can determine such infill uses to be inconsis- tent with their adopted compatibility plan. From a practical standpoint, however, such determinations are often overridden by the local govern- ment agency. As an alternative, ALUCs should consider establishment of policies which indicate where and under what circumstances infill can -be found con- sistent with the compatibility plan. • Infill Locations - In locations where substantial airport impacts occur - especially locations within the 65 dB CNEL contour or a runway protection zone - any incompatible development is considered un- desirable. However, in more distant locations where the impacts are less, infill of otherwise incompatible development might be deemed acceptable. Infill Conditions For infill to be permitted, specific conditions should be met to assure that a substantial increase in the overall compatibil- ity status of the airport does not occur. For example: 3_19 . - The infill area should be bounded by uses similar to those pro- posed. - The proposed development should riot extend the perimeter of the area already developed with incompatible uses. - Increases in the intensity and/or incompatibility of use through use permits, density transfers or other strategies should not be per- mitted. - Other applicable development conditions (such as easement dedi- cation requirements and special structural noise level attenuation criteria)must be met . • • Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 Legal Basis for Regulation 0 The legal basis for local government regulation of land use is well de - 3 -20 fined by both statutory and case law. Generally, such regulations are founded upon the basic power of the state to enact legislation protect- ing the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens. This authority is typically passed along to municipalities by state enabling legislation. The principal form of land use regulation in most municipali- ties is zoning. The constitutionality of zoning was upheld in a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 — Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company. In California, the ability of local governments to regulate land use is an exercise of the police power granted by Article XI of the California Con- stitution. The authority for airport land use commissions to establish land use regulations is provided by Section 21675(a) of the Public Utili- ties Code. This section states that "in formulating a land use plan, die commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing ..." .(All earlier reference for ALUCs "to achieve by zoning" the purposes of the statutes were deleted from the law in 1982.) • 0 L� OCT. 28 99 (THU) 15:10//II A �— CITY OF-CHICO .5308954825 PACE. 1/1 92 Extended ApproactvDeparture (5 -acre Zone parcel) J 150 195 2 J, ► Children's schools, day ,care centers; libraries ► Hospitals, nursing homes • Highly noise-sensluve uses (e,g. outdoor the- aters) ►. Hazards to, flight` ► Minimum NLA Of ZD a9 in residences pnciuding mo- blie homes) and office , buildings 10 • Airspace review required for objects >70 feet tall • Deed notice required 4Y 0 C Traffic Pattem 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools, day ► Deed notice required (2.5 -acre sxlmum Densities care centers, libraries Additional Criteria M r r4r -V— Other Uses ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >150 feet tall . Zone looallons sedtssiden- (People/ar.) "Od • Other Development tial Open Prohibited Uses No No No Lits Aver.Single with land' NO .Condiflons4 for objects >150 feet Ian * Height Review age Acre Bonus r Not Same as Underlying Airspace review required A Runway Protection 0 10 same same All ► All structures except ones ► Avig#on easement dedica- Zone big Remain- with location set by aero- tion and tion required Ing nautical function _ within Building ► Assemblages of people Restriction Line ► Objects exceeding FAR Part 77 height limits ► Aboveground bulk storage ` of hazardous materials • Hazards to night" 01 Approach/Departure 25 50. 65 30% ► Cillldren's•schools, day locate structures ma)dmum Zone _ (10 -acre care centers, libraries distance from extended parcel • Hospitals, nursing homes runway canter lne ► Mighty noise-senaltive ► Minimum NLFt of 25 dB In uses (e.g. outdoor the- residential and oftice build- aters) Ings 10 ► Aboveground bulk storage ► Alrspace review required of hazardous materials for objects >35 feet tall" ► Hazards tonight, ► Avtgation easement dedlca- Dan 92 Extended ApproactvDeparture (5 -acre Zone parcel) J 150 195 2 J, ► Children's schools, day ,care centers; libraries ► Hospitals, nursing homes • Highly noise-sensluve uses (e,g. outdoor the- aters) ►. Hazards to, flight` ► Minimum NLA Of ZD a9 in residences pnciuding mo- blie homes) and office , buildings 10 • Airspace review required for objects >70 feet tall • Deed notice required 4Y 0 C Traffic Pattem 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools, day ► Deed notice required (2.5 -acre care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required parcel) ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects >150 feet tall . • Hazards.to fllght' • Airspace review required D Oiher No No No Hazards to flight' Airport Environs Umlt limit NO for objects >150 feet Ian * Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying Airspace review required Overlay Compatibility Zone Applica- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall big ► Avlpation easement dedica- tion required Date P.Post-it► Fax Note 7871 vee* TO y/L From CoJDept. CO. • Phone a Phone M car • IFax a - N C Primary Compatibility Criteria ` PRG L I M I .NARY Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan +BUTTE COUN AIRPORT LAND US COMMISSION + . • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965.0- (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785,.p * AGENDA ITEM - F. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff SUBJECT: Monthly Status Report , DATE: November 10, 1999 FOR:' Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 17, 1999 1. RuddX Creek Use. Permit Revised Site Plan: On October 28, 1999, the Planning Commission denied this project. The applicant has filed an appeal with the Board of Supervisors. 2. North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs: The revised Airport Overflight sign was referred to the Board's office for requested action in October. However, due to.a heavy schedule, .this item was not scheduled in October. The Clerk of the Board had not yet re-- scheduled e-scheduled this item. 2 ,t 3. Request for County Counsel Opinion: The County Counsel's Office has sent the Commission's request for the legal opinions to Mike Remy of the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose. Staff believes the opinion may be ready in December or January,, 4. ALUC Staff Time Accounting: Staff time for pay periods 21 and 22.(10/02/`99.- 10/29/99) are as follows: Pay Period 21 22 Tom Parilo 1.00. 1.00' Paula Leasure 6.75 13.25 David Doody 32.50 28.75 Barbra Duncan 12.00 _14.00 Teri Bridenhagen 7.50 18.50- 59.75 75.50 Total hours dedicated to work on ALUC issues by individual staffmembers-for pay periods 21 and 22 = 135.25 Hours '. K:%.AL.UC\N1EE,r1NGS\11-17-99.MT01 I-17SR. W PD • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • ' J w