HomeMy WebLinkAboutADDENDUM 2 (USE FOR DISTRIBUTION) AS OF MARCH/01CLUP Document & Addendum Distribution only
Date Mailed to: Dnenments Maile.d[Dictrihnte.d-
3/28/01 FED EX'ed (Priority Overnight) Bound CLUP DRAFT DOCUMENT,#34
Duffy Ruffin & Addendum 2
Insite Environmental
2 f 55 W. March Lane, Ste. .1-C
Stockton, CA 95207 ,
209 -472-8652
t
h ,
K:\Planning\ALUC\Distribution\Distrib CLUP Docurhent & Addendum.doc
December 4, 2000
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Addendum 2
This document is the second addendum to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan dated March 2000. It contains all of the proposed revisions listed in the original addendum
dated September 26, 2000, plus additional changes in response to subsequent public input. All
newly proposed revisions are indicated by a vertical line in the'left margin.
A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective items where necessary to clarify the
intent or background.for the change. In most cases, reference is made to the analysis and recom-
mendations contained in two matrices prepared in response to public and agency comments on the
draft plan. The first of these matrices was dated July 12, 2000, and the current version of the second
matrix is dated December 4, 2000 (the original version is dated November 7, 2000).
Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also be made prior to
printing of the final document. After adoption by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission,
these revisions will be incorporated into the plan and a final document will be printed.
Back of Title Page: Names 'of commission members and staff will be listed.
Page 2-2, Policy 1.2. 10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows:
Existing Land Use — A land use which either physically exists or for which local government com-
mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are
necessary-teon *nvestrnent by the property owner make italong with substantial eamt. tie
. Local government com-
mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have
occurred
A tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved and the origina&'period (before aD
time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired;
A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved;
A development agreement has been a1212roved and remains in effect;
A final subdivision map has been recorded;
A use permit or other discretionary laurel use entitlement has been ap2roved and not yet ex -
Led; -or
A valid building. permit has been issued. .
Discussion This change is based upon the, recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. Note
that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installa-
tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditions which by themselves qualify a land use as
existing. It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for
which only those conditions — and none of the others listed above — occur. However, such a
policy should be stated elsewhere in the policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land
use definition. Shutt Moen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects
from review under these circumstances.
Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(b) = Modify as. follows:
The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property
within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in
Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(b)). Any proposed change or variance to an]r
such ordinance or regulation also mustbe submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise safety,
airspace protection, and overflight as addressed herein are involved.
Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. -It is intended to clarify that a
zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen-
eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts
could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds
the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) —Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows:
Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when reviewing projects under these
circumstances, local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if theX
elect to approve a project without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by
the Commission.
Discussion: This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un-
der item #1 in the matrix.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(a)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater."
Discussion: This is a,correction of a typographical omission.
Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(6) — Expand policy as follows:
For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an. aviation -related use is defined as any facility or
activity directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. Such uses
specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration,, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc.
Discussion: See matrix item #23
2
Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.3.3(b) — Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re-
quire."
Discussion: This change clarifies the original intent.
Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table .2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying.
revised table:
► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12.
► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B1 and B2, change "office buildings" to
"buildings with noise -sensitive uses."
► Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and
zones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly.
► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of open land requirements to private property.
Also make the following revisions, not yet included in the table:
► Revise first sentence in Note 4 to read: "The uses listed here are ones which -are explicitly
prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria, unless such prohibition is
precluded by applicable statutes."
Add note with reference to day care centers: "Family day care homes, as defined by state
law, are permitted in all Compatibility Zones except Zone A. Noncommercial day care cen-
ters ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zones B2 and C provided .
that the overall use of the property meets the indicated intensity criteria."
Discussion: The first change is necessary to make the table consistent with Policy 4.1.5(a). The
others respond to matrix items #8A and #8D and the further direction provided by the ALUC.
Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions:
(2) Local jurisdictions have the following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this
evaluation requirement:
► The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must con-
tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel-
opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan this re-
quires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review proce-
dures be described);
P
'-.The, Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference (additionally, the project review
procedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by the
ALUC); and/or
► The general plan ...
(3) The status of ALUC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the preceding
options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility
Plan. This status, in turn, affects whether a local agency. would be required to utilize the
override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action.
3
► If either of the first two options under Sub-policv (2) is selected. then referral of
sore and the local'agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to
approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments
_► If the third option is chosen, submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man-
datory and override procedures would apply.
Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1
in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language.
. 7
-Page 2=16, Policy 2.4.4(a) -. Replace infill policy with the following'
Infill —Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad-
ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses.
are to be prohibited elsewhere in" the zone. This exception applies.only within Compatibility
Zones 82 and C.
(1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteriaImus
the applicable provisions of either Sub -policy (2) or (3) below:.
► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres.
► The site'is at least 65% bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar to, or more
intensive than, those proposed.
►. The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined by the sur-
rounding, already developed, incompatible uses.
► Further increases in the density, intensity, and/or'other incompatible design or usage
characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on
the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited.
► The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land in accor-
dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com-
patibility zone. [9/26 revision]
(2) For residential development:
► If the size of the parcel .proposed for division is 10 acres or. less, the development density
shall be no greater.than the overall density represented by all existing lots which. lie fully
or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel -to be divided.
► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than
20 acres), then the development density shall be no greater than double the density per-
mitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A).
M For nonresidential development:: .
�. ► If the size of theparcel proposed for development is 10 acres or less, the'usage
(the number of_ e intensity
people per'acre) of the proposed use shall be no greater than the averag
intensity of all existing uses which lie fully or partially within a distance of 300 feet from .
the boundary of the proposed development.
4
If the size of the parcel pioposed for development is greater than 10 acres (but no lamer
than 20 acres), the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of people per
acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the Primary Com-
patibility Criteria (Table 2A). [For example, whereas an average intensity of 50 people
per acre is normally permitted in Zone B2 the infill -policy would allow a total of 75 peo-
ple per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).]
(4) To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels
subsequently, to qualify for infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for,infill be deter- .
mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under
these infill criteria, the entity having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must
first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted planning document
approved by the ALUC. This action may take place in conjunction with the process of
amending a general plan for consistency with the ALUC plan or may be submitted by the
local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Compatibility Plan
In either case, the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill
rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction.
Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item #4, as modified by ALUC suggestions.
Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's'full cash value" with "market
value."
Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix.' '
Page 2-21, Policy 3.2.2 — Revise as follows:
Consistency Determination — The Commission shall determine whether the proposed airport
plan or development plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
Commission shall base its determination' of consistency on:
(a) Findings that the forecasts and aviation -related development identified in the airport plan
would not result in greater noise, overflight, and safety impacts or height restrictions on
surrounding land uses than are assumed in.the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
A determination that any nonaviation development (see definition in Policy 1.5.3(b))
proposed -for within the airport boundary will be consistent with the Primary Compatibility
Criteria set forth in Table 2A.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references'to automobile parking lots as
acceptable forms of open land.
(b) Roads and atiterri6bile paking I are acceptable ....
(d) ...providing contiguous landscaped and parkin areas is
5
Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #8D, the ALUC concludes that automobile
parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectives for providing open land.
Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — Replace Sub -policy (c) with the following:
Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone Community
general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will.
be met. Application of open land requirements to individual development proposals is at the
discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some
Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement)
and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property Measures must be
established to assure that property designated as open land will continue to meet the open land
criteria for as long as the airport remains in operation.
Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3.
Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 — Modify introductory paragraph; insert new. Sub -policy (a); and
renumber subsequent sub -policies. ,
Criteria for Clustering — The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing
safety compatibility in the airport vicinity and accomplishing other development objectives This
policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use.
(a) Clustering occurs when development on, a site or within an overall compatibility zone is
concentrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open
land (see preceding_ policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering may
apply to either residential. or nonresidential development.
M In terms of airport land use compatibility planning, the primary purpose of clustering is to
provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing_
Clustering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if open land is
not provided, by shifting habitable areas away from principal aircraft flight tracks,
especially tracks close to the runway ends.
(2) From a development perspective, clustering may be desirable or necessary because of
various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility.
(3) Examples of clustering include:
► Residential development where the building envelopes on large"lots are all close
together, such as adjacent to a street.
Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can
be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use or preservation of an
environmentally sensitive habitat.
Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas of
low -intensity uses such as landscaping_
(b) Clustering of new residential development ...
Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C.
Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to
the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C.
(a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although
the zone lies mostly outside the 55-d6 CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to
frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as
schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities
LcJ In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport influence area Zone C is divided into two
sub -zones designated CO) and CO. See Paragraph 2 1 2(d) for a description of the basis for
delineation of these zone boundaries.
Page'3-4, Paragraph 2.1.20Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary
determinants for Zone C as follows:
(d) Zone C, including Sub -zones CO) and C(2), contains the normal traffic pattern for both
runways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider
pattern sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of
Zone C to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument (VOR DME)
approach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated,
Sub -zone CO) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overfli htg annoyance
are comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development
neither exists or is planned. Sub -zone C(2) is generally intended for the comparatively less
impacted' locations lateral to the runways or for areas'.where extensive urban residential
development already exists. Locations where future residential development may adhere to
the criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone C on the map
Discussion: This change responds to the Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #10D.
Page 3-5, Policy 2.2.1 — Revise as follows:
Relationship to LonR-Ranize Airport Development Plan As of the adoption date of this
Compatibility Plan, the city of Chico is nearing_ completion of a new master plan for the Chico
Municipal AirportIn anticipation of the near-term adoption of the new master plan and with
the concurrence of the city of Chico the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Fi ure 3A)
contained herein takes into account both the existing configuration of the runway system and the
future configuration which the city expects to adopt.
(a) The existing configuration is represented by the 1977 master plan currently in effect Also
after a new master plan is adopted, the current configuration will remain in use for an
indeterminate period until such time as the proposed improvements can be constructed In the
meantime, land use compatibility associated with the existing configuration needs to be
maintained.
The future configuration is expected to include a northward extension of the prima
(eastern) runway and extension of the secondary (western) runway both northward and
southward. If the city should decide either not to pursue these projects or to change the
length of the extensions, modification of the Compatibility Map may be appropriate.
Discussion: See Issue #12 in 12/4/00 comment/response-matrix.
Page 3-6, add new Oroville Municipal Airport Policy 3.2.1 as follows:
Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan — The Oroville Municipal Airport
Compatibility Map (Figure 3B) is based uRon the airport role and facility improvements reflected
in the airport master plan adopted by the city of Oroville in 1990 together with construction
which has occurred subsequent to that date.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Page 3-9, add new Paradise Skypark Airport Policy 4.2.1 as follows:
Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan — No'master plan has been prepared for
Paradise Skypark Airport The Compatibility Map (Figure 3C) is therefore based upon the airport
configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 6B in Chapter 6 herein) as
authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Page 3-11, add new Ranchadro Airport Policy 5.2.1 as follows
Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan --No master plan has been prepared for
Ranchaero Airport. The Compatibility Map (Figure 3D) is therefore based upon the airport
configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 7B in Chapter 7 herein) as
authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program.
Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix.
Chapter 3, figures 3A, 38, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal Airport,
Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions.
Discussion: These revisions correspond to 7/12/00 matrix item #10 and the comments provided
by the Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on the Chico
Municipal Airport map based upon the Commission's. input. Additional modifications of the
Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map are proposed. See attached map.
Appendix D — Replace with the revised version attached
Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory
paragraph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally
incompatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been
made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into
CO) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and
several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally
included in the draft plan'were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various
other policies in Chapter 2.
Appendix F2, 2nd Page, 3'd Paragraph — Add language as follows to recommended avigation easement
document concerning property owner. waiver of right to sue the airport.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts
as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement associated with aircraft
operations in the air or on the ground at the airportincluding future increases in the volume or
changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors and assigns shall .
'have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through .physical modification of airport facilities
or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions However, this
waiver shall not apply if the -airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted
airport master plan, for example) changes in a fundamental manner which could not reasonably
have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a
substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also this grant of
easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which
may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is
recommended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is
required as a condition for development approval.
Appendix H — Expand introductory section as noted below and add attached Appendix H1 table.
As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses
within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be
consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of
when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC
by a two-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making findings that the agency's
plans are consistent with the intent of state law.
9
This appendix contains two types of information intended to To facilitate the general plan
consistency process, this appemclix eentains..1) an initial review of the current general plan and
applicable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Planl
and (2) a checklist of general plan consistency requirements.
The emphasis in this the general plan consistency review is on comparing the adopted local land
use. designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other
elements of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with
the Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether
the designation is for future development or merely reflects existing uses. Where a local plan's
land use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation is not required for the
purposes of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. The existing development could remain as
a nonconforming use as indicated in the plan policies. Any future redevelopment of the
property, however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria..
The checklist sets'forth the types of modifications or additions to a community's general plan
and/or separate implementation documents which are necessary in order for the plan to be fully
consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Listed items are divided into two roues: compatibility
criteria; and project review procedures.
The comparison with ....[Note: this final paragraph will be modified as appropriate once the plan
is adopted.]
Discussion: The addition of the checklist is intended to assist local jurisdictions and the ALUC in
ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are implemented.
Initial Study — Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining
and strikeouts on the accompanying pages.
Discussion: The modifications provide additional information regarding the effect of the.
Compatibility Plan on the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of
the Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports.
10
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
B1 Approach/Departure
Maximum Densities / Intensities
50 Not 30%
Additional Criteria
► Locate structures maxi -
Other Uses
(minimum
Appli-
Zone Locations
Residential (people/ac) _
Req'd
Open
Other Development
Prohibited Use
cable
(du/ac) Aver- Single with
Land'
Conditions
110.0
age° Aare' Bonus'
Highly noise -sensitive
Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
A Runway Protection
0 10 Not Not
All
► All structures except" aero- Avigation easement dedica-
Zone
Appli- Appli-.
Remain-
nautical facilities with Io- tion
and
cable ` cable
ing
cation set by FAA criteria
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
ton
B2 Extended.
of hazardous materials
100 130 20%
Children's schools,10 day
Minimum NLR of 20 dB in.
► Hazards to flight9
B1 Approach/Departure
s0.1 25
50 Not 30%
► Children's schools, t0 day '
► Locate structures maxi -
Zone
(minimum
Appli-
-care centers, libraries:
mum distance rfrom ex -
and
parcel size
cable
Hospitals, nursing homes
tended runway centertine
Sideline Zone
110.0
Highly noise -sensitive
Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
acres)
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residences -and buildings
aters) "
with noise -sensitive uses 12
► Aboveground bulk storage
► Airspace review required
of hazardous materials"
for objects >35 feet tall"
► Hazards to flight9
► Avigation easement dedica-
ton
B2 Extended.
s0.2 50
100 130 20%
Children's schools,10 day
Minimum NLR of 20 dB in.
ApproactVDeparture
(average
care centers, libraries
residences (including mo -
Zone
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
'bile homes) and buildings
2t5.0 acres)
► Highly noise -sensitive
with noise -sensitive uses'
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
Airspace review required
aters)
for objects >70 feet tall
► Hazards to flight'
Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern
(1) s0.2 100
300 390 10%
Children's schools,10 day
Deed notice required
(average
care centers, libraries
► Airspace review required
parcel size
Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects > 100 feet tall
x5.0 acres)
Hazards to flight'
or 14
(2) x4.0
(average
parcel size
s0.2 acnes)
D Other
No
No No
Hazards to flight'
► Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit
Limit Req't
for objects >100 feet tall
* Height Review
Same as Underlying Not
Same as Underlying
Airspace review required
Overlay
Compatibility Zone Appli-
Compatibility Zone
for objects>35 feet tall12
cable
► Avigation easement dedica=
tion required
Table 2A
Primary Compatibility Criteria
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
2-14 '
Countywide Policies / Chapter 2
NOTES:
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and
secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the
maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded: Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones B2 and
C — see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations.
2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.)
both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the
acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C.
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or .
implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require-
ments to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local' jurisdiction and is dependent upon the
size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area
requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility
policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land.
4 The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In
addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility
zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria.
5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in-
volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements
apply only to new development.
6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at any time, except rare special events, must not exceed the
indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at .
an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be .
taken as appropriate.
7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site
shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details.
8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce
risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. -See Policy 4.2.7 for details.
9 Hazards to flight include physical. (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of
aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the. attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited.
See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details.
10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12.
11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion.
Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted.
12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the
supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details.
13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details.
14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel
size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2),requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average
parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable,
the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed,
the map is marked with just the letter G. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the
discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations.
This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant
compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized
either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have
comparatively high ambient noise levels. (Corrected 9/26)
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000)
Table 2A, Continued
2-15
' N r
I. .`��• ,- moi• �, � ,� /��� Y �l
1—I�—I�elsonAve (, t
aampID
- I
U `�R •vpj Y�� s 2rL � S I L— i J
I�1p
I_=��— I r + t +.�, r-i 2�L 'a` d •��y�� � l�n � q 8 ! � �y � I . \ '1 �' 111 �.-r
' _ I ' t ,� .65 ^6" m '� ? ash •f' � Y � ` `' � � •--�
• � t I rl r :II �y� .E. a ��z� ��� -.� � � 9 4� ,' �. ! 1 I � �� I�— s.
W. ! I_
FF
H
2. ,per t
O(OJ\\\g
Thermaa ` � rbaY
✓ e .0 s' t�
ro9�� s• 70
—V.
dl i
Will
'QVE CUMP.T-REJ2'� .r,
5;000,
:0 FEET r 10,000' N
Sources Shutt Moen Associates fSeptember'2000) ,r a 1" = 5,000'
t.
j Ajil
Figure 3B
Compatibility Map-2nd ,Revised Draft
Oroville Municipal Airport
Appendix D
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte Coun-
ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility crite-
ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of compatibility versus incompatibility are based
upon assumptions as to the typical characteristics of the respective land uses, particularly with regard
to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with regard to the
sensitivity of each use to noise and overflight anng.)gnce and to the height of the structures. AMical
cases of a particular land use may be more or less compatible with airport activities than an evalua-
tion indicates. These evaluations are therefore not regarded as adopted ALUC policies or criteria.'In
case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific land uses and the policies and criteria in
Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail.
Compatibility Zones
Land Use
A
131
62
C
D
Agricultural Uses
Truck and Specialty Crops .
0
+
+
+
+
Field Crops
0
+
+
+
+
Pasture and Rangeland
0
+
+
+
+
Vineyards
0
+
+
+
+
Orchards
-
0
+
+
+
Dry Farm and Grain
0
+
+
+
+
Tree Fames; Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses
-
0
+
+
+
Fish Farms
-.
0
+
+
+
Feed Lots and Stockyards
-
0
+
+
+
Poultry Farms
-
0
0
+'
+
Dairy Farms
-
0
+
+
+
Natural Uses
Fish and Game Preserves
0
. 0
.0
0
0
Land Preserves and Open Space
0
+
+
+
+
Flood and Geological Hazard Areas
0
+
+
+
+
Waterways:, Rivers, Creeks, Canals,
0
0
0
0
+
Wetlands, Bays, Lakes
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
• Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
D-1
Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses /Appendix D
Compatlbiltt Zones
Land UseA 61 B2 .(1)/(2) D
Residential
# 25.0 acre average parcel size
- 0
+
+/-
+ '
# 1.0-4.9 acre average ,parcel size
- -
-
/-
+ .
# 1.1-3.9 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/-
+
# 4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
# 28.0 dwelling units / acre average density
- -
-
-/+
+
Mobile Home Parks
- -
-
-/+
+
Institutional
* Children's Schools
= -
-
-
+
* Colleges and Universities,
- -
-
0
+
Day Care Centers
- -
-
0
+
Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities
- -
a
-
+
* Churches
- -
-
0
+
Memorial Parks / Cemeteries
- +
+
+
+
Recreational
Golf Courses (except clubhouse)
0 0
+
+
+
Golf Course Clubhouses
- 0
0
0
+.
Parks (low intensity; no group activities)
0 +
+
+
+
Playgrounds and Picnic Areas
- 0
0
+
+
* Athletic Fields (with small.or no bleachers)..:..
- 0
0
+
+
* Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes, or;Stadiums�:. -
- -
-
-
+
Riding Stables
- 0
+
+
+
Marinas and Water Recreation
- 0
+
+
+
Health Clubs and Spas
- -
0
0
+
Tennis Courts
- 0
+
+
+
Swimming Pools
- 0
0
0
+
Fairgrounds and Race Tracks
- -
-
-
+
Resorts and Group Camps
- -
0
0
+
Shooting Ranges
- 0
0
0
+
Industrial
Research and Development Laboratories
- 0'
0
+
+
Warehouses and Distribution Facilities
- 0
+
+
+
Manufacturing and Assembly
- 0
0
+
+
Cooperage and Bottling Plants
- 0
+
+
+
Printing, Publishing and Allied Services y -
- 0
+
+
+
Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products
- -
0
0
+
Food Processing
- -
0
0
+
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
# Addendum Revisions (9126100)
D-2
Compadblllty Guidelines for SpecMc Land Uses / Append« D
Compatlbtllty Zones
Land Use A B1 62 C D
Commercial Uses
Low -Intensity Retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales)
- 0
+
+i
+
Retail Stores (1 floor)
- 0 "
0
+
+
* Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors)
- -
0
0
+
Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.)
- _ - '
-
0
+
* Restaurants and Drinking. Establishments (no drive thru)
- 0.
0
0
-+
* Fast Food Restaurants
- -
0
0
+
Auto and Marine Services
- 0
+
+
+
Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment
- 0
+
+.
+
* Office Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
- 0
+
+
+ .
* Office Buildings (3 floors)
- -
0
0
+
* Banks and Financial institutions (1 or 2 floors) '
- 0
0
+
+
Repair Services
- ..: 0
0 .
+
+
Gas Stations
- 0
0
+
+
* Government Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors)
- .0,
0
+
+
* Motels (1 or 2 floors)
- -
0
0,
+
* Hotels and Motels (3 floors)
- -
-
0
+
Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls
- -
-
0
+
Outdoor Theaters
- -
-
0
+
Truck Terminals
- +
+
+
+
* Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground,
- -
-
-
0
Transportatlon, Communication's and Ut11Hles .- r
Aircraft Storage
0 +
+ .
+,
+
Automobile Parking`,
0 +
+
+ .
+
Highway and Street Right -of -Ways
0 + "
+
+'
+
Railroad and Public Transit Facilities
0 +
+
+
+
Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals
- 0
+
+
+
Reservoirs
- 0
'D
0
+
Power Lines
- 0
0
0
+
Water Treatment Facilities
- 0
+
+
+
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities
- 0
0
O.
+
Electrical Substations
- 0
0
0
+
Power Plants
- -
0
0
+
Sanitary Landfills
- -
f
-
-
0
- Normally incompatible
0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A)
+ Normally compatible
* Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan
t
Sample Implementation Documents /Appendix F
This indenture made this day,of 19_, between hereinafter
referred to as Grantor, and the [Insert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor-
nia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee.
The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac-
knowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable
easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The
property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on °Exhibit X
attached and is more particularly described as follows:
[Insert legal description of real property]
The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is
described as follows:
The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part
77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hori-
zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport official runway
end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSC), as determined by [Insert name and Date of
Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said
plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to:
(1) . For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit
the flight by any and all persons; or. any aircraft,. of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in,
through, across, or about anyportion of.the Airspace hereinabove described; and
(2) The easement and right to cause or create; or permit or allow to be caused or created within all
space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Air-
space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air,
illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the
operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight
in air; and
(3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or
improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish
those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into
or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend
into or above the Airspace; and
(4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi-
gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which
extend into or above the Airspace; and
(5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property,
for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after rea-
sonable notice.
Appendix F2
Typical Avigation Easement
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
F-5
Sample Implementation Documents'l Appendix F
For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Insert
County or City namel, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport
hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct,
install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to
allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace,
or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the
easement and rights-of-way herein granted.
The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct
benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the (Insert County or City
namel, State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the
benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or
right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport,
or in otherwise flying through said Airspace.
Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action
against Grantee, its successors, or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts, as
described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air
or on the ground at the airport, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said
operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate
such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air-
craft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or.
character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a funda-
mental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this ease-
ment and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations: Also,
this grant of easement shall not operate .to deprive the Grantor-, its successors or assigns, of any rights
which may from time to timel have against°any aincarrieror.private-operator for negligent or unlawful
operation of aircraft.
These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec-
utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property
firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant
tenement.
DATED:
STATE OF }
ss
COUNTY OF }
On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose
names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Appendix F2, Continued
F-6
Local Plans Consistency Review /Appendix H
Compatibility Criteria
General Plan Document
The following items typically appear directly in a general plan document. Amendment of the general.
plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)).
> Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general
plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi-
nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable
densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility
Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria
provided that limitations can be set on the intensity of usage (see below).
> Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum
noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must be made
consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). Note, how-
ever, that a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than
for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged
to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises).
Zoning or Other Policy Documents
The following items need to be reflected either in.the.general. plan or in a separate policy document
such as a combining zone ordinance::..lf.a separate: policy. document is adopted, modification of the
general plan to achieve consistency.with the Compatibility.Plan may not be required. Modifications
would normally be needed only -to -eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to
make reference to the separate policy document.
> Secondary Dwellings — The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the
same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations. This factor needs to .. .
be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting
secondary dwellings where -their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria.
> Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the
usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done
by duplication. of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre
= indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Alternatively, local jurisdic-
tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within eagh
compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of this type). For certain land
uses, such a list may need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors,
and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria.
Appendix H1
Checklist of General Plan Consistency Requirements
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
H-11
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appendix H
> Identification of Prohibited Uses — The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals,
and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often
are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig-
nations. Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com-
patibility criteria.
> Open Land Requirements —the Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring
that a minimum amount of open land is preserved in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local
policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be iden-
tified on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area
included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the
open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac-
teristics of eligible open land also must be established.
> Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes to take advantage of the infill development provisions
of the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be
shown on a map..
> Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight — To protect the airport airspace, limitations
must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be
based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but may include exceptions for objects on
high terrain as provided for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also must be -
established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically, visual
or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic-
tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up
to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement.-:
> Noise Insulation Requirements The compatibility criteria (see Policy 4.1.5) call for certain
buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zones B1 and B2 to demonstrate that-
they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level.
These criteria apply to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise -
sensitive uses. Local policies must include. parallel criteria. .
> Buyer Awareness Measures — As a condition for approval of development within certain com-
patibility zones, the Compatibility Plan requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the
airport proprietor or placement on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A,
Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The
plan also encourages, but does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a policy stating that air-
port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac-
tions regarding property in the airport influence area.
> Nonconforming Uses and Reconstruction — Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform-
ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati-
bility Plan (see Policies 2.4.4(b) and (c)).
Appendix H1, Continued
H-12
Local Plans Consistency Review / Appends H
Review Procedures
In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents
must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the
compatibility criteria.
> Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC Review — State law specifies which types
of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy
1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's
intent to comply with the state statute.
> Other Land Use Actions Potentially Subject to ALUC Review In addition to the above ac-
tions, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to the
ALUC is dependent upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction
fully complies with all of the items in this general planconsistencychecklist or has taken the
necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary. On the
other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria
and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the
ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard.
> Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions —If a jurisdiction chooses to sub-
mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the
procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during
review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in-
cludes reference tacompatibility.criteria;-use•.of a geographic information system to identify all
parcels within the airport. influence area; etc:....
> Variance Procedures - Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance
must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility crite-
ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com-
patibility as addressed in the Compatibility Plan must be referred to the ALUC for review.
> Enforcement — Policies must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria
during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with
regard to limitations on usage intensities and the heights of trees.
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000)
Appendix H1, Continued . .
H-13
r
Revised September 1, 2000
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft)
2.' Lead Agency Name and Address:
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mr. M. A. Meleka
530/538-6572
4. Project Proponent's Name.and Address: .
Same as #2 above.
5. Project Location:
The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within
the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville
Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport.. The plan defines the
affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed
boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport
influence areas -range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to
5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan
applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2)
any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero-
nautics Program.
6. General Plan Designation:
Various.
7. Zoning:
Various.
8. Description of Project:
The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
in evaluating the compatibilitybetween future proposals for land use development in the vi-
cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen-
IS-1
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
cies that have jurisdictionover land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte
County, the cities of Chico*and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes
policies by which the Commission will. review master plans for the four existing airports and
development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor-
dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
> Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing
residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east.
> Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of
Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref-
uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area.
> Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity..:
Town of Paradise a mile to the north.
> Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of
Chico nearby to the north and northeast.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
The Butte County Airport Land Use .Commission can adopt the plan without approval from
any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, 'the Commis-
sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub- -
lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state, law (Public Utilities Code Sec-
tion 21674.7). Furthermore; implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be
accomplished by the general purpose local. governments which have authority. over land use
within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the
town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent
with the Compatibility Plan within.180 days, unless they go through an override procedure.
The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow-
ing pages.
Aesthetics _ Agricultural 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
Utilities / Service Systems
IS -2
Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ — I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in, the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN-
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially .
significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at-
tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but, it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed...:
I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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.
Prepared by:
Signature Date
Printed Name Representing
IS -3
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant, Unless Mitigation] ' ncorporated,"
"Less Than Significant Impact," and ." No Impact" answers are provided on the attachd sheets.
General Comment
'The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the
Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land
use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in
Butte Countywould be influenced by the Compatibility Plan,.it is speculative to anticipate the spe-
cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which Would be asso-
ciated with it: One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un-
changed. from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new
development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely. .
limits the density, aft4 intensity, and height of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety,
compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af-
fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan.
Given these considerations,.-.-it-is concluded.that:ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues:
1. Aesthetics
2. Agricultural Resources
3.' Air Quality
4.. Biological Resources
S. Cultural Resources
6. Geology and Soils
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8. Hydrology and Water Quality.
9. Land Use and Planning
10. Mineral Resources
11. Noise
12. Population and Housing
13. Public Services
14. Recreation
15. Transportation / Traffic
16. Utilities and Service Systems
17. Mandatory Findings of. Significance
All
All
All
Al
All
All
Issues a), b) c), d), g), h)
All
Issue a)
All
Issues a), b), c), d)
Issues b), c)
Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv)
.All
3
Issues a), b), d), e), 0, g)
All .
Issues a), c)*'
For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the
above General Comment.
IS -4
1. Aesthetics .
Issues
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
''-E
��
CC
caa
CE
CLCO
X
a 0
E
E
ern 2�W
E
z
aov)
Jin 32
�v� E z
X
X
2. Agricultural Resources �.
x
E
m
n o o
X
C�Gi
�F IO
2. Agricultural Resources �.
E
m
n o o
m m
C�Gi
�F IO
�L� (.i a
E
Issues os a
m i« e
E
: a
aov)
Jin 32
�v� E z
In determining whether impacts`to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land.Evaluation and Site Assess*
ment Model (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 Farm-
land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non_agricultural use? }
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
X
IS -5
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their'location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? x
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil-
ity PlanJavor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports.
Mitigation:
None required. '
I Air Quality
Issues
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied -upon to make the -following determina-
tion. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation:'of the applica-
ble air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex-
isting 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 emis-
sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con-
centrations? '
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num-
ber of people? 4
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -6
X
C E CC
C C
V
U :o.
= V
W
a 0, CL
m w�«'
m °►a
o
z
X
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required.
4. • Biological Resources
�.
a mo m
c�i'i «�, °'
E
Issues
o. �, r �' m o.
91 E
32 E
CLW .J zo
.mim
Would the project:
,
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or .
through habitat.modifications, on any species identified
as,a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
�.
.
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
x
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial:'adverse effect on: federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other mean's?
x
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- .
tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife.nursery sites?
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance? -
x
fl Conflict with the.provisions of an adopted Habitat Con-
servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan;
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con-
servation plan?
x
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
IS -7
Inftlal Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
.. -
..
None required.
c C°
atr
°° ma
CLW E
5. Cultural Resources
E
o
a
Issues
:: oa
a E
°° o, m
a
E.
aOCO,E
�rn1i:�
E
z0
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 resources 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?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.,
Mitigation:
None required.
6. Geology and Soils
Issues'
,, z
.. -
..
c C°
atr
°° ma
CLW E
ern g
din E
Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent 'Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 42.
�r
a
E
0
z
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
ii) Strong seismic.ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac-
tion? X
iv) 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 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
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Material
m0
10
m
r� s
«c
°.
Issues o
m�o
c.
IL U) E
Z
` Would the ro'ect
J
P 1
a). Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ-
ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- .
ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci-
dent conditions involving.the release of hazardous ma-
terials 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
school?
X
X
X
IS -9
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz-
ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern-
ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
0' If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result
in a'safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac-
uation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res-
idences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
39
X
X
Discussion:
7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safetyhazards referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport
aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near
the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re-
duced by.limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other objects which might pene-
trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations,. Part 77. The plan also seeks
to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of .
the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a
survivable emergency aircraft landing.
7.f) Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land .uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable.
7.a), 7.b),'7.c), 74, 7.g) and 7.h): See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
0
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater, recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc-
tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, .including through the alteration of course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including.through.the alteration of the.
course of a stream or•river; or substantially:.increase-the
rate or amount of surface -runoff in a manner which-."
would result in floodi4on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol-
luted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g). Place housing within -a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede'or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,.
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
( injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu-
nami, or mudflow?
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
x
X
x
C E C
CE
a
s�
a
_c
c E L
a=r
�a
c
n.rn E
�Hi
�� E
z
x
X
x
X
IS -11
X
X
X
X
IS -11
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None'required. -
9. land Use *and Planning
Issues
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 proj-
ect (including, but not limited to the general plan,`spe-
cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable -habitat.conservation: plan..:
or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion:
9.a) See preceding General Comment.
r'
2.«
a8
C C C
cs 1 .o
CE
m
a
mcg
«c
07E0
E
« �a
�a
N E
Z
X
9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over
land use within locations addressed b)i an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its
general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibilityplan (or to
go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). \Mth
.regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would
apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and .Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap-
pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis-•
tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications
to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse-
quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan.
For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of
the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it
must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ-
ated within an airport influence area.
IS -12
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which
are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. 'Elimination of these conflicts will require
reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air-
ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land
uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. The Compatibil-
ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc-
tion were to be proposed.
The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other
policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating'other compatibility factors such as lim-
its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The
project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil-
ity Plan.. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen-
eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati-
bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the
ALUC for compatibility review.
Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es-
tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not
have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris-
dictions through the general plan consistency process described above., Because the affected
jurisdictions have multiple options with regard. to how to implement the compatibility criteria,
as well as the option',to override the-ALUC,:the specific. -land use environmental impacts which
may result cannot be -determined: at this..time: , Only a eeneral evaluation of the impacts, pri-
marily with regard to housing, is presently_ possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing). .
Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the
CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in
response to the Compatibility Plan.
9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were
to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the
airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with'established Federal Aviation Administra-
tion policies.
Mitigation:
None required.
IS -13
Initial Study of Environmental impacts
10. Mineral Resources
a '
«��
°0a E
Issues. L
t a
o
H E
o
z
Would the project: -
" a) Resulti in the loss of availability of a known mineral re-
source that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
�t
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
w
' mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local '
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Discussion:
t
See preceding General. Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
11. Noise .
t
a r- cC C C
deo m� o 1
>;
m
Issues
_
a a
c m o, « m m
d.'NE JN�JtAE
C'
z
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?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
)t
c) A substantial permanent increase'in ambient, noise lev-
els in the project vicinity above levels existing without
' the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or -periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
r
IS -14
y ,
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
e) If located within an airportland use plan or, where such .
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? 39
f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo-
sure of people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? 39
Discussion:
11.a),11 -.b), 11.0, and.1 1.d): See preceding General Comment. .
1 l .e)' The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue
would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive
aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations
near the four public-use'airports in Butte County and by establishing noise'level reduction
requirements for'new structures in the,most highly impacted locations. The plan does not
regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au-
thority,over such matters.
11.0 Although the Compatibility:Plan -does=:notspecifically pertain to land uses around private air-
strips, the compatibility concepts:presented: in. the. plan :would be generally applicable.
Mitigation:
None required.
t
'12. Population and Housing
T <
C ii
o
�� m
a
a3
6=ii
a
Issues
c IM C
= �=
m= a
c
am E
3 r 2
3 r E
z
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population. growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructureR
b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne-
cessitating the construction,of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?.
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Discussion:
12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region-
ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential
and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and
safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently
adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu-
lation growth to be.shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the
data summarized in the following_ paragraphs any .such shifts would be small relative to the
overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be
less than significant.
Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan the two having_ potential for extensive
urban development in their environs are Chico MuniciRal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air-
port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility
Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinity of
these two airports.
Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati-.`:° .
bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning_
Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels .
designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan the minimum.
parcel sizes for this- designatiom.range: from --as°little as 1. 0 acre to as -much as 40.0 acres (Itis
recognized that theaand use zoning of these; parcels. can be changed without amending the
General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat-
ibility Plan criteria.)
The estimated percentage of each compatibility zone which is already developed is taken into
account in the calculations of future development potential For the purposes of these calcula-
tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning
criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists The Com-
patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par-
cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion.
The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelling units to be equiva-
lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions the two numbers are
identical. For multi -family developments the number of impacted parcels has been calculated
as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel thus the numbers are again equal Where
some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential
for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations but this
impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed.
Chico Municipal Airport
> Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned. for residential or agricultural resi-
dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use
IS -16
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres
maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with-
out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan.
> Compatibility_ Zone B2: Nearly 1,700 acres are planned for residential or agricultural resi-
dential uses.
The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan
would be on 400+ acres (a portion of the .Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico
for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the
Compatibility Plan Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross
acre some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated.
An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the
airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city
general plan) The Compatibility Plan has *no affect on continued residential use of this
ro e
Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre
suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan
would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller
than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated.
> Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of
land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has
been divided into -two sub -zones. - Sub -zone C(1) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling
unit per 5.0 acres the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least
4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi-
ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights).
Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone C(1), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini-
mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the
airportis consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3 -
acre suburban residential zoning_ Over half of this area is already subdivided into the
minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re-
maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than
100 acres) of Sub -zone C(1) is planned for urban low-density residential development
(up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre) The plan would preclude this density. In total
implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400
new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan-
ningand zoning.
Sub -zone C(2) together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low-
density option covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop-
ment The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future
residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is
estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to
4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in
some 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici-
ap ted.
IS -17
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
> Total Airoort Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in
higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to
the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above the net effect could
be a loss of between 250 and 1.050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6.000
acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area
This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone C)
For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would
reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether.
By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling
units within the future Chico city limits. The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on
potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant
Oroville Municipal Airport
> Comte atibility Zone B1: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently
require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Com atibility Plan thus would have no
effect on the number of potential new residential lots.
> Compatibility Zone B2: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi-
dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone Some 40 acres planned for low -
or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi-
ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels
> Compatibility Zone C: The Compatibility Plan, requires future residential development
within Zone C to be either very low density 0 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderatelx
high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre).
► Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at
Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini-
mum parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which
requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre These designations are consistent
with the compatibility criteria.
► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses About half of
this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re-
quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of
the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre)
Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the ComPatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu-
nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi-
cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations
12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com-
patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of
single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use
regulations. Also see preceding General Comment.
IS -18
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation:
None required.
13. Public Services
chi Cv« t0
«= . a «c ECL
-
Issues.c a a 0 0 O1 a°°o of CoQC
z
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi-
cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant impacts, in order to main- '
tain acceptable service ratios, response times, .or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire ,protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
}
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
V) Other public services? X
Discussion:
13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment.
13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much`of the influence area of each
airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed).
The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con-
flicts between aviation activity and school uses. In some cases, this restriction would necessi-
tate moving the location of future school sites identified in, local general plans and specific
plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept-
able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid-
ered to be less than significant.
13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of
county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen-
eral plans for consistency with. the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of,the inconsisten-
cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan.
Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to
simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and
the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions.
�. IS -19
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
Mitigation: .
borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili-
ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the
None required.
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re-
14. Recreation
a
c C
c C
r
•
c��
m� o
m�
o
E
Issues
o e, a
a 0 t«'
� is 2�
iA a
W E
c
z
IL W
QaQs o meo a
�0 «� «= E
Issues
-
c a ao « °' m a o
E E
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh-
borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili-
ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re-
quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa-
cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
,
the environment? "
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment.
Mitigation:
None required.
15. Transportation /Traffic
QaQs o meo a
�0 «� «= E
Issues
-
c a ao « °' m a o
E E
CL �N 3 3N z
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela-
tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
_roads, or congestion at intersections)? X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service,standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads and high-
ways? X
IS -20
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c) Result in a change in. air traffic patteFns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location. that
,
results in substantial safety risks? „
x
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom-
patible uses.(e.g., farm equipment)? :
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency, access?
X
f) " Result in inadequate parking capacity?
x
g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans; or programs -sup-
porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs ;
bicycle racks, etc:)?
�t
Discussion:
15.a), 15.b), 15.d), 15.e), 15.0, and •15.g): See preceding General Comment. ;
15.0 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air"traffic', although it
does include policies 4or" review of certain aspects of proposed
airport development which
could have off -airport compatibility implications..
Mitigation:
None required.
16. Utilities and Service Systems .
E
Issues
a a°$ °' a0°o 1°a
dV5 E JN 3� JN CM
E 2
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 'ap-
p-plicable
plicableRegional Water Quality Controf Board?
x
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
,
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the C'onstr'uction of which could cause signifi-
cant environmental effects?
x
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environ -'-
mental effects?-
X
tirt
'
IS -21
Initial Study of Environmental. Impacts
d) . ,Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are .
' new or expanded entitlements needed?
)t
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacityto serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commit-
ments?.
X
fl Be served by a'landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
'to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
x
g) Comply.with federal,'state, and local statutes and regu-
lations related to solid waste?
Discussion:
See preceding General Comment. .
Mitigation:
None required.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance'
TC C E C C C« "
+r Issues
• c �
«. m a ao .� we E a
a°v� ern 33:2� �W f z
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
j r
quality of the environment, substantially reduce'the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a,fish or wild-
life population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten.to eliminate a plant or animal community, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare ores=
'
dangered plant or animal,�or eliminate, important exam-
„
pies of the major periods of California history or prehis-
tory?
b) Does the project have impacts,that are individually lim-
'
ited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that*the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
,
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other,cur-
rentprojects, and the effects of probable future pro-.
jects.)
X
IS-22
Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
c). Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei-
ther directly or indirectly? x
Discussion:
17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment.
17.b) Because the Compatibility, Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any
physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ-
mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air-
port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other
public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With-
out. adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality and to commu-
nity livability— of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation
plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant.
Mitigation:
None required.
a