HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIRPORT NOISE CONTOURSFILE No -.145 12/17,'99 PM 03:47 I D : SHUTT & MOEN
SHUTT MOEN
C. I_.A. I _€ s
SamiCes to the
Aviation Industry:
- Planning
Engineering
- Management
707 AVIATION BLVD.
SANTA ROSA. CA 95403
TEL: 1701)526-5010
FAX: (701)526-9721
FAX MEMO
To:
Fax Number:
From:
Subject:'
The Originul:
Message:
FAX:5269721 PAGE 1
f
Date: December 17,1999
Number of Pages: 4
(including this page)
Dave Doody
Butte County Dept. of Development Services
(530)538-7785
Ken Brody �..
Airport Noise Contours
Will not follow n Will follow
As discussed by phone earlier this week, attached are draft copies of, updated
noise contours which we have prepared for the Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero
airports. These are the contours which we are using in development of the Air-
port Land Use Compatibility Plan.
The contours are based upon projected activity levels for each of the airports. If
you teed data at this time regarding the input assumptions to the noise calcula-
tions, let me know. The draft Compatibility Plan will include a summary.of this
data.
With regard to Chico airport, over the next couple of weeks we will be taking a
closer look at the several sets of contours which Brown-Buntin Associates,hits
prepared for various activity scenarios. If we have any useful conclusions about
those contours prior to the December 2911 ALUC meeting, I will let you know.
i
17 1-9.99
ij
D: q
Noise Impact Area
Orovllie Mur lclpel Airport
FILE No.145 12/17 '99 PM 03:48 ID:SHUTT & MOEN FAX:52a9721 PAGE 4
Background Date., Renchaero AkW / Chapter 7
Sotjrra:.qhL4' Moen A89O&GISS (J8nvafY 2(=)
;1"'•6
CN'EL
:iso CN9L
0,5 CNS L!
!y
I 1p
-
Exhibit ?E
Noise Impact Area
I Rancheero Airport
I LE No .145 12/17
'99 PM 03:47 I D : SHUTT & . MOEN FAX : 5269721
PAGE 3
Background Dew: Pared/aa SkyparkAkpori/Chapter6
I
�y
.55 CNEL
i
I j
i
60 CNEL
I i
65 CNEL
I i
'I
i
N
VAR CIIMPAI
Source: Shutt Moan Asaoclatea (January 21000)
2.000' '
i 0 /FEET 4,000'
1" = 2.000'
j
Exhibit 6E
Noise Impact Area
-Paradise Skypark Airport
Maximum Densities
Other Uses
Additional Criteria
Zone Locations
Residen-
(people/ac) Z
Req'd
Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
Other Development
(5 -acre
tial
(du/ac)
Aver- Single with
Open
Land'
Prohibited Uses
Conditions
► Hospitals, nursing homes
ages Acre' Bonus'
A Runway Protection
0
10 same same
All
All structures except ones
Avigation easement dedica-
Zone
Remain-
with location set by aero-
tion
and
ing
nautical function
C Traffic Pattern
within Building
10%
► Children's schools, day
Deed notice required
Assemblages of people
(2.5 -acre
Restriction Line.
care centers, libraries
Airspace review required
Objects exceeding FAR
► Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects > 150 feet tall
or
Part 77 height limits
Hazards to flight8
i 5.0
► Aboveground bulk storage
-D Other
No No
No
Hazards to flight8
of hazardous materials
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects > 150 feet tall
► Hazards to flight8
Same as Underlying
B1 Approach/Departure
s0.1
25 50 65
30%
Children's schools, day
Locate structures maximum
Zone
(10 acre
care centers, libraries
distance from extended
Avigation easement dedica-
parcel)
Hospitals, nursing homes
runway centerline
► Highly noise -sensitive
Minimum NLR of 25 dB in
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
residential and office build-
aters)
ings 10
► Aboveground bulk storage
Airspace review required
of hazardous materials'
for objects >35 feet tall"
► Hazards to flight8
Avigation easement dedica-
tion
B2 Extended
50.2 75 150 195
20%
► Children's schools, day
Minimum NLR of 20 dB in
Approach/Departure
(5 -acre
care centers, libraries
residences (including mo -
Zone
parcel)
► Hospitals, nursing homes
bile homes) and office
► Highly noise -sensitive
buildings 10
uses (e.g. outdoor the-
Airspace review required
aters)
for objects >70 feet tall
► Hazards to flight8
Deed notice required
C Traffic Pattern
s0.4 100 300 390
10%
► Children's schools, day
Deed notice required
(2.5 -acre
care centers, libraries
Airspace review required
parcel)
► Hospitals, nursing homes
for objects > 150 feet tall
or
Hazards to flight8
i 5.0
-D Other
No No
No
Hazards to flight8
Airspace review required
Airport Environs
Limit Limit
Req't
for objects > 150 feet tall
* Height Review
Same as Underlying
Not
Same as Underlying
Airspace review required
Overlay
Compatibility Zone
Applica-
Compatibility Zone
for objects >35 feet tall
ble
Avigation easement dedica-
tion required
Primary Compatibility Criteria
PRELI MI NARY Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
pre Se�4eO - by ro, cL� 10=2.0 -Rq l�i� �C mee`i��
y .9
NOTES:
1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and
secondary) per gross acre (including a portion of adjacent roads). Clustering of units is encouraged [subject to
limits to be determined].
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 use
3 Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone. This is typically accomplished as
part of a community general plan or a specific plan.
4 Airport proximity and the existence of 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.
5 The total number of people permitted on a project site must not exceed the indicated usage intensity times the gross
acreage of the site (including a portion of adjacent roads).
6 Clustering of development is permitted. However, no single acre of a project site shall exceed the indicated number
of people per acre.
7 An intensity bonus may be allowed if the building design includes features intended to reduce risks to occupants in
the event of an aircraft collision with the building.
8 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.
9 Storage of aviation fuel, other aviation -related flammable materials, and up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable
materials are exempted from this criterion.
10 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides.
11 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and
lighting of certain objects.
r
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (October 1999)
'� PRELIMINARY
OVE-COMPAT
Source: Shutt Moen Associates (October 1999
PRELIMINARY
1" = 5,000'
Compatibility Map
Oroville Municipal Airport
• � t
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986
Those in attendance:
Larry Thelen, CalTrans Attorney
Ken Payne, CalTrans Staff
Carroll Ragland, County Counsel's Office
Dan Montgomery, County Counsel's Office
Steve Stone, ALUC Commissioner
Nina Lambert, ALUC Commissioner
Tom Lando, ALUC Commissioner
Pat Stevens, ALUC Commissioner
Susan Sears, Oroville:City Council
Dave Hironimus, ALUC Staff
Lando: The Commission has talked on a number of occasions about wanting
'a briefing on what our powers and duties are, both with respect to
public airports and private airports. There are a.few private airports
in Butte County, and a.lot of concern about where our responsibilities
are and what our authority is in that area. And also, ',specifically here
in Oroville, we have a situation where there is somebody•who wants to
subdivide in a.clear zone, and we seem to be in the middle of this.
Neither the County nor the City of Oroville is interested, because of
the financial constraints, in purchasing the property, at least at the
present time. I know one of our concerns is, where does that leave us
as Commissioners? I think we'd just like a general briefing of our
responsibilities.
Thelen= I'd like to explain how we view the circumstances under which
we're here. This is a workshop, and I.think that's great -- a workshop
means:, to me, that we're thinking together. Nothing •I say here this
morning is expounding from Sacramento, and also I reserve the right to
have somebody correct me and point out that that's not the way things
are Conversely,,we welcome opportunities like this., because it's only
when�you get down in the trenches, so to speak, and.see'how things are
actually being done, where the conflicts are, that we get a reale feel•,
on a statewide basis., for how things are going.
Whether the subject is dealing with mass transit matters or local road
regulation signs, or whether it's this -- we have generally the same
policy in dealing with local officials, which is that we're not your
attorneys; your attorneys are right.over there. We engage in continuing
conversations with any local` government attorneys who wish to call us,
and, when the occasion arises,'we do write legal opinions on subjects
where it's presumed we have the expertise because we've been given the
administrative responsibility for dealing with that law. So, in your
particular case, we can talk these things over; if there is any one.
,partiacular question where you feel there's some doubt about'it, or you
would like an opinion from Sacramento, then we wou'ld ask that your
attorney ask us for the State Division of Aeronautics' legal opinion on
the subject. With that in mind, we can discuss any subjects you want..
`+1 i!� fitilt s 'iR
s
.JA.
-- •
{ '.�. �.
� _ • '{ . !
� r r r
� r F , 1,
• �' 1 1 .
1
-if
.
• •• j.
F} i" _ '1 .9- . c
P . • .
# 3 ! rr, iC• 1. "�
.
.*C]
.1
• - #_ 1
t � ._
, r'•t
�.. It
- •
+. it
;
I sill
t r,
4
, r -�
• -f 1 ; � [
., .. , r.? . .'t. !
.. i
: 11 s _ t r j4
i 1 • i
� � 1 1
ALUC WORKSHOP
October l,'1986 f• • Page 2
Lando: I,'d like to know, first of all, what our responsibilities are
relative to private airports: We have one in'Paradise and one in Chico.
We have prepared a plan for the Paradise Airport and are in the process
of preparing one for Chico Ranchaero Airport.' Do we have any authority
or responsibility at al,l relative to private airports?
Thelen: My preliminary view, unless and until corrected, is that you
have three sets of airports: you have publicly owned and therefore
publicly operated airports; you have privately owned airports that are
available to the public; and you have private/private airports. I
believe the ALUC has jurisdiction over any publicly used airport,
regardless of whether it's publicly or privately owned.
Lando: How does that, then, relate to the land.use around that private,
airport with public use? We have the Town of Paradise and County of,
Butte which control land use around that airport, and that land use is
not necessarily compatible. In addition, with the public airports we
talk about requiring avigation easements, and I guess the preliminary
indication is that we cannot require those on a private airport, because
we're requiring an easement for a private interest.
Thelen: Okay, let me rattle on about that for a minute. First of all,
if it'reaches the point where you have to get an interest in land,
whether it's an.avigation easement or an actual fee or something like
that, it would be up to the airport proprietor to go out and buy it. On
the other hand, you have.authority to regulate land around airports and
to regulate it compatibly with the airport. In .fact, I think you have a
duty to do that. And you do that by adopting an ALUP that calls for
that.
In the event that you get overridden by a 4/5 vote or a 2/3 vote, the
local agency does not have the authority to merely override you on a
whim. It can do so only if it finds, based on substantial evidence,
that its decision is nevertheless consistent with our regulations for
the compatibility of uses around the airport. So, to give you a
specific example, if.you decided that the land around a private airport
should be agricultural and the County overrode you and decided that it
would be apartments instead, the duty would be on the County to
demonstrate that those apartments would be nevertheless consistent with
the noise regulations which the Division of Aeronautics has established,
which are, in essence, 65 dB outdoors, 45 dB indoors. So they would
have to show', by.some combination of circumstances, that they're meeting
that standard.
In the event they're not, or in the event that they are successful, or
litigation were brought, I believe that the airport proprietor would
have himself.a very.nice way of getting out from under attack, because
the law says that when local government overrides the ALUC it takes on
the responsibility for any inverse condemnation liability.
Lando: Does the Airport Land Use Commission assume any liability if, in
'fact, they try and assist the County or a particular City by allowing a
use to go through that, for instance, might be in the clear zone? 'Do we
open ourselves up to--
'Al f 'i'% C` � � .>Y `+ .{ + r
J". "f I .. F, ! f+/, r } 1. + 1 � •'. _ .{•.. :j } IC.r,7 !'' � I E•.1 • •
' 'r •" , r'iC' avi_,. .. i-�'"{CJ VI i•H t -.'t. .`1- 7 • .r - "�.t r-,tf'i� ','i, . } i�r
,�. 1 - 1 . + '•' } I J tl + L'I' 1 - _ t;t . ti a s +. i + 1 't,. v '1 : 1l•..a i 9Ci {
• tr . to}�{ 7 , ,Ti= t' �i r: 7 � } .....� 1 -. a •LN'7 t .r 't � • ? �r-e
f �..1 . .� y r t -I � r•,y•t yj 1 4f +E. 1 •-ic< - - - ti � t r' • i l:rr.7�r �• Ia' �SJCt
. - + +t, - I^+� rte- ♦ T ► .'l,.i !�L rhi• . 1 } '1 �) t%� „r � i`a `l.
1 _ f _ .`7 . ' _ } . +. � r,. I_ _ 1.� r t � r -,�; i 11, � fir, ,SrI i :j r 1 ��•�
.. I i + =; i -t Z+tli t.. w'=R.• r,rtG j •f - 'r a r (t ;�', s, t _ ..) W. :f Ibi1F.�.1
'• � ' .. _ a' 14- •1 t ` 11Stt � - ♦' T� _�Q `, i r} I;7 •- It�t i'7t raj f .n
L •1'!rJ'fCi iC^c $r.
.. H1 -. I ,',^i r �Ci1�C{ r } It �'. _L t-. d: :. t rfr f ta• :-''?"1 _ '}
?Ls
IT 1 Its 11 f?^.+ , i ft ?� 1 ! < ft l U. , + I'
_ + "t .. •� r .. [-y t r . . , : 1 • '_ 1 ' . � �1 t + s - • t : u'! I 1 -.. i �, � C t
+ t +.tl, t ._ •t +c,,� 1 , + r A{ 11 r u' VL IL 'c1t3I'ifI►
' tl, 'r+ rl '•.•'. "f t tS'�?I, t tP;./.n = � Yi ♦f�„-„ ,. li'- • ► -.•'y. ,
! . 'i t, }, t•. _ . t_ t -t t 7• 1•'t Irk t . f !, �.+ _ ..,.�.. ' � ?
'. ' '+ t• ..;-t • t .. t- 1 - ,, t- - w,+ t' 31 l6 'V[.1' .: .': rt 'T a.'+i�. -t .
} 'r1 1 +t+' f •. .t� r �yrE
f I J
•r { . ";.i •' ` ty •I., r`• � f ���•i L) �{ t- .. ' L'+ ;.^C+ 6 ^I + f7'j • .17
a
{` ' 7 I (. '( .•t: '1 ,F. \ ' 7 ter r • • �)/•!'I t°' 'i] ,, -i .f (.Y .�. s— fJ _ it
' i r • �f,� I {�..... 1L-- rl p 1. +I(++ t` +! , `'?{i 1.- 7 ;r- 1: - t} "t � �
` !. ri1 •1 .7 •"i i"' t .T,t' rf• r _ .--+' l j Il. i. r { i ' .a t t'J . C:t.
1
tut •• I j t tJt.-- } . �� 1 _ .� rt. 7 -. St J t R. ..
1 t- , +� r:� , t t • + L +1 t ..T• + AIb ':aI-
/: : r.. •C � t.+nl � t .. 'J t' r + r� ! , /s . r+ r t ! . /.�� + _ 1 7 '
. a}•.. _ I t C ' •►i• . . •(_rL
. rf! - F� .i ^ } . 2 � �,'7.• :t " '} t r' � t Cir,t.- 't C I a • r..,+. 1'c v': _ ., � ,
IF i
t }`. _ .) _ f 7r- I P}i _ .y. c.(- 3 r^t ,.• , t, C '= •' li .t,t: O "* Itl�
:-} . _ * i``•,. `s4 i1' '' a jl! _ } ' .L _ `+' n. �":1I t r _ ..•r I, ,[.r r^i
s kk. 1"4 7 F ►y � 1 rt
.r 1 I • Jf4 t I ,-;,- .f _ } ILs.-:( r l ..1 • �}.,3 v +l r �. r}c� t' i r . ' rj .'..r •' J IIs r
' t .. r � i t ,fRt • , rr r i !� f � r + • _ : tii?C1E;�
4 g•- I ILI
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • Page 3
Thelen: I don't think 'it-- in a way, analogizing to people who buy home
computers that say "no matter what you do on the keyboard you can't
wreck the computer" -- I think you're in a similar position as a
regulatory body with no authority to acquire -- I don't think that you
could get liability no matter what you did'.
Lando: That sort of leads to the next question, which has been an'
ongoing one for this Commission, and that is, in-Orov_ille. Public
airport, and there's a property owner that in fact is right at the end
of the runway -- I'm not even sure of the location of the property -
but clearly in the clear zone. Has property which, I guess the City or
County can't really afford to acquire. When it comes before us, every
time we indicate that we don't think the development is appropriate. At
what point do we cross that line and take away the property rights of
the person and have.to purchase the property? Because then you're
talking about the findings that either the City or County.would have to
make to override that decision....
Thelen: See, I don't think that you can -- I'm not sure I fully
understood.your question, but let me start to answer it and then you can
correct me. I don't think you have the power to inadvertently inversely
condemn property. If you were to too severely restrict the use of that
property by your zoning, the effect would not be to trigger inverse
condemnation, but.instead would be to have your decision declared void.
And the property owner would be right back to being able to 'go for
appropriate zoning.
Lando: In your opinion -- and this may be 'way too broad a question,
but I'll start with it -- can you give us some type of guidance, some
type of dividing line, in terms of use, where we might have to watch out
for taking?
Thelen: The question is if you did -too severely zone the property, who
would be liable? I think that's the real question. My guess is --
based on the cases I've memorized, learned -- the remedy for the
landowner would not be inverse condemnation but would instead be a
voiding of your decision. So, no matter how severe you got, the result
would be a voiding. But, on the other handy can property be so severely
zoned that it triggers inverse condemnation? and at least two cases have
said yes. In both cases, on the one hand the County had done much else
besides: for example, it had put in its General Plan an intent'to
acquire an easement or the property in fee for expansion'of the airport;
it had prevented any plans at all for the use of the property including
even as a golf course in one case; and, in the court cases, in -both of
them, they never defended asking for a voiding of the ordinance. They
instead said, hey, if it costs us money it costs us money; we'll pay.
So you can't really cite those cases as precedent that it's possible to
zone too severely. If you're willing the accept the courts declaring
the,ordinance void, then that's the risk you take as opposed to
triggering liability.
Hironimus= Is there a statute of.'limitations on time from which the
County would, say, zone it, before a property owner could claim that
there was a taking and ask for a voiding?
•
• x'11 1,12,NgUW .IU A
Y' C•r1µ: f+ L i « n 11 :or t
!ry t •(tom, r7' r t 1 • r : r t6 .7 ,.• t . + ; ", 1 t L)
/rfrt 4,t + " -+ I t(a1 1
- ?.. •�17.r ? I "." x'7111+ .t i+ -t. (,"I i -t -'IZ 41? J •r..i:T ..,,.lr, .irui-' i
..1 1 �• t.t_, 3 y -! � ., t jn - 1 v -* i t f .��. t � �+.. • ' +, •O�
f': r��`,.�� - ,r 11. +'! ,.+1 . I• atljr •y:t .,r i•+ + ( ,► .. Try 7'1 t , - :pt)u7fi 1
' tji r f t, ' 1 (•-�" (` t ( f r t :I + .� .! L .-gyp , . ' .. '� `Jf7C) : ' (1 1 lF ('1. .
i?t is i.L +� 't 1t.; rt�l.i f1 rtl* �l:).r.r7 Y� } ,. • _ 1 dl't
t 1
t'4 1-1* S �'- \�faaftl J"1 ♦,':_ ? 7
in I i it,: ( `g'j� " C� . '.7- +:)` •'rtF.' (; '�ti r Y f� i + •:t l,•C�
JTILAI . Ea i t,r. 7Fa .a i +. 3 i r, v r 4_ r'1 1 v 3:'14.
.� lcv)_. ::n ' :n:'rn-a-1i i♦i r t :rT,., ;c.. ri? _ .17r
l,� +. . -) f Y rftt a _ i.+ •... .1 ilk. ? tt -la t
1� r :., JrL1 + j `31nj :E.7 L l+r+ i ! ; fc l�J'_ -'Ad
.: 7:n 1 -it i. ) 1.7 Y t , 1 ..(:+) I : 1 rj �L If, 1;:1
j{ .tr 1, ,or' fit' 3 41li 17 ! .5:?c• :flhf, IfI
• ,N f a.fl',' � t +r•a-:._. 11--. 't.' .�". - ...• 1 71. �, t .T .! " �l.l!� 'a 7 .J O� �p.i.` p,.r)r,+_.
AI
+ Y � 7n�.}i•- 't'•a r J I- ...� � tr, ( .^ •� 1 � �tTtr t ` �fJ 1 .'7.(r ;t:+y t'*C_ 1
' • ' •• �• +t rim ( � .� r., � � � , i ! _ _ '' +. i
• ,� +. •. r „I`y ya'G:.. ) r rT J• !.t ! +•• ' .J(% _ i)�r. �•)ril
y� , ! •' r1 1 i .'- 4t 1. _.. t Y .(r 'y
-+ 1 :} .r-'= �<tI t •i. - 1' t. ' ( e . - -1, •ni '•1 , ' ► ' n -•r 1:► ._ 0
r '7 f i.') l+r - t } .. ....•.,t' - T=A ri
t j• ^ +
It r i',.. + .. ( ,' "T :1 •'�f'• t r �� t:- ) .i•r " t.., f
•J._ , ''' .• , + 1 . t ..-1 it .+7 . 't.l,• .. 'r' L f r')v
rj—
'l'1" 1 i"f + 'i t•1 - •'N,et i. .t i . •. 1 _ .� _ 4q,... - tit 1. rir
- _1 ..t7 `'� ', I E r , e 'i' � - . � + ' �+ � `a l t _ 11 t.' ( � rl :3 ' 'i i . -. . 1 • _
tiLl y4.• f•'r �.v .'!i n r i�'I �ttr !,`t �"1f•�}
• .. t � y (. r 1 � -� r ' T �, � r -- ? . +�. , • V : , r: • iJ / ! Iv • o r t .
141)
' I'(-11-,'1 .•til �j.
+ ( 1 ... r.r _ .- )F. .•'tc.r I ::'LY,p i tu�•t i t•1
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • • Page 4
Thelen: 'If there is any at all, the property owner would want to go
into inverse condemnation. My recollection is that that's a four-year
statute of limitations, and also that you don't have to file a claim, a
board -of -control or local -type claim. So my guess, especially since
it's a Constitutional right, is that you would have the maximum period,
which would be four'years.
Sears: What if the zoning --'in this particular case that we're talking
about -- is M-2? And so that zoning would permit industrial
development; however, because the property is in the clear zone, ALUC
says no -development should take place in the clear zone. If the City
upholds ALUC and finds that, based on the Land Use Plan, no development
should occur, but the man has appropriate zoning,. what can he do.then?
Thelen: First of all, I'm not sure what our regulations. call for, but
our regulations may say .that that zoning is compatible with the airport.
So, if you got overridden on that one, it may be that the override could
be defended by the County, because the County could cite..our•regulations.
and say hey, that zoning is compatible with the use -at theend of the
airport. If you downzoned it so that the property owner had no
beneficial use,of his property, no economical use whate,ver;.then that's
when it's likely thatthe court would declare .your attempt at zoning the
property to be null and void.
At that point a decision would have to be made as to whether or not you
really want that to be a clear zone. To me there's two meanings to the
words •"clear zone." Clear" zone, on the one hand, means clear of any use
whatever of the property, and on the other hand refers to.areas where
you want some kind of restrictions on the'zoning in order to•.keep it
compatible with the airport. So if you're talking about clear clear,
.then I think in good conscience you owe it to the property owner to talk
about buying his property. But if, on the other hand you're talking
about clear in the sense of "compatible with -the airport," then you may
have a more severe test •than the County does, and if the County were to
choose to override you they would have to demonstrate that they were
nevertheless compatible with our regulations.
Lando:3 Are there any State or Federal funds available .to assist in the
acquisition of clear .zone areas?
Thelen: I -am only hazily aware that the ten major airports i,n
California get help from the Federal.Government•on that.
Lando: Do we have a responsibility to prepare -plans for private
airports that are publicly used?
Thelen: In my opinion, yes, you do.
s
Lambert: I was concerned about that. taking. We did discuss at ALUC
about a clear zone being absolutely clear, but I think when it went
before the Board they finally decided that that might constitute a
taking, and they decided to go for one dwelling allowed on 40 acres.
a
_
"t' ' I-. t .f r`ft ;} 1 i l r .'C. t-- `.f ' i
: f"!{, (rdrf I
":OLl'i_ a
:+i.I ,F
'-i 111 r` 1 1'4 i + t 1'-. rl 1# 11-
•+i'1
o f .. _•• t tt _=E i �E r+1'
1 tt>+. 1i 1 1 i ,ti
.i"1F�:7i
u •'+ F_
' ) - 1,T -t ti e• i { /� I
- ; .� 1 . .. .�,•r . � : t_ ..: • # . •'t`a S ,• + : '� - -
vr�... i +a,-.
. i•i 'Ta i . Art.1:' - .. f ,
,r•+' It ' r.; ''3 `•IE• l r. . �fh{.. .-... �n to
-r1r-.� (»v!.•
{ 1'I>.^ '•'_j1.1 ' -) i{" j! � f}r. ' -1 .+ t.
1 if � �~ ~ 1 ' i. f 1 t - 1 = f. '' t 1 il( '1, ?.r .
Lr r '...' (. -t '
Iii. + .. -.. atcl -� {
tti '1+ ' t ,-, +�. ..,: r }first 5.1.'i r .t•_r,� . 1:I'", r,, � ;�ly`•-
_+F
-I t
:fleI vii
tr .f.eli i. , \ .rl -+1>.�i to?f 1J} •y"1 '.,Q.
t a - .% Y r ./ ' t '
•4. 1 y It fC.. ' , r r Hl ` ""1 . . r {�1.
• l 1 -
i r in i r I _I+ '::
f rt n-' _1 + t • •.1 i
. +. #
r�ri t=,,•t:f t� a: t.! +'
f 1 ��+ r m : ! ? 'r }•: i , t
r.
V j +
, i'` {. t rJ'if , _.nsN _rA
-•r +,-tt ' i +. ;+'•,>_ IJ 'f 'fe•r y :'
1 ", ,l ... _ �L, +L •-� '� � + t .c;lJ . �
1 '�-+r'+'.+
., + f fl 1 .'t-• a` �-�{.. '.t i/•:. +1' _
1`� ' .1�ai � Ji. 1't` li. . it � � +
( 1 tjG
+. 'Y�." t. .� ..
.. •rr� +., r( 1w I1, ,1 . i `ti Ii1C;
t Jr>,
r r} � .:�., •.I t,+.t . + 4. t:
► r _ 'it' r1 4- t t 1.-r=
: r . �, '
@ J �(litr +,• ; rt'- 3M }t ++
tftl_ ..I t rira IC •F + r a r 1
t,• s1
4 1 rlr, •L a t. ,.1
.. r -!1.'. �+-, +..c+ �f'�. 1 �
, { �I', r .. +4 !- r' c/l
1.rr`•'1
r '- Fl; �: /'r••1( '�` /';+ . +It-1-
r.tLf,
r r . l tirr'r` 1 1 ir' f
,* ! . ; S a 1 t Ufa 07+ y . ° ,. • f*
rJ '{ * . •+{ '! t * 1:
,• Y u � rll ICi I �!'+ + •C., � � -• •, .,•
_ h tet. 1
.. - ,. _ '�f .+ > I •
lb .+ + �i ~ 1 4_r.}i f Of 1J + t� f. :�1 .• VE'' _
t .' r -
thrIF '
c 1 d tf 91 " l
1 J - I , •• ^t j r
i'1F_i .
fie -)1 e,ri f
i off 4 4\ 1}
µt[
.. r 1[ t`�' n 'I iJ fit D
,t4
=cabt7E:.1
S' �c:i.+ �• { ^. t CSt_I : it, tt.
�"i� cr"'t t _
t t.
I [. ' f t} ,.ter• rr:..t `-t,.,
= j vr+1-n". i
• .. it _
�� gull. I.f' F 11 -3 :'n}t. 1_
+_ +lt>rf,:'
� > r {: ti•
._ i I 1 ' t Y T J"• i + �
I. +t•Y r"i
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • Page 5
Hironimus: The Airport'Land Use Plan talks about clear clear zones, no
structures -or what have you within those areas. The recommendation from
ALUC to the County Planning Commission was to adopt a zone that did not'
allow any permanent structures. The Board of Supervisors overrode.that
recommendation and adopted the A-40 zone which allows ag buildings and
one single-family dwelling per parcel, and made the findings to override
the Airport Land.Use Plan.
Lambert: Primarily based on the,opinion that it would constitute a
taking.
Thelen: See, there again, if A-40 means that the property is available
for farming, that's an economic use, so I would think you were not
taking. But if, on the other hand, the farmer could demonstrate that
the property was not appropriate for farming and was therefore fallow,
then I think you've got a taking problem.
Lambert: It's still not a solution, to zone it to something that allows
one dwelling on that parcel, it does not solve the problem of a taking.
Thelen: .That's right., If a property is obviously not good for
agriculture, and you -nevertheless zone. it -agriculture, then two things
are going to happen. Number one is that the zoning is going to be
declared null and void, and the owner is going to be able to try and get
some good use out of the property. And, at that point, if you go that
whole route, then at that point you're going to have to either decide to
zone the property something that he can make good use of, or buy it from
him.
Hironimus: This county uses its agricultural zones, in cases, as
open -space zones that restrict densities, primarily. The General Plan
designation on this area is Grazing and Open Land, as such allowing one
dwelling unit per parcel. Even though the zoning talks about 40 -acre
minimums, -the parcel sizes out there are about 10 acres. What we're
looking at is a suburban residential zone that allows animals and
livestock and what have you, and the one single-family dwelling.
Historically, that land has not been used for much of anything except
occasional grazing. Even if everything jwere back in raw land, without
any division of the properties on it, it probably would still not be
economical for that. So, our feeling would be that it would not
constitute a taking, as we are allowing the suburban residential type of
development. A big problem is that it's going to allow houses in that
clear zone. I'v,e suggested that one solution to that would be to
require plan approval for site locations of these dwellings so we can at
least shove 'em off to the side of the clear zone, get them off the
runway centerline. Now, how does that sound to you?
Thelen: I may be aiming these remarks more at the County Counsel folks.
There's one case in Arizona which I.particularly like .called Spur
Industries vs. Del Webb. What happened there was that Del Webb bought
property out in an agricultural area, an open -space type area, and there
was a slaughterhouse out there. Del Webb insisted that the
slaughterhouse should get the heck out, because "you don't have a right,
in Western states, to perpetuate a nuisance merely because you were
there first." The slaughterhouse said, "Well, gee, we've been here for
forty years, and it's awfully expensive to move." The court in that
• +lF•ir.)1`i40w .111-i
�+. 1 t t'a,jv 1''yf!
, a'• (' t=, :1 ,: •• _ tt � 'S' $ i {� `.. i. ! • � •i � !r 'Tr _ tJL+�, t c
, .r '4• r + .fh•: .. -•{ -, , _ 1L,,,. ,) •, `I. 'i '' 1 _.Ilj :�* 111 i
T '.�+• 't - _ ' '+•i -f • i +'7G rt'_j =+ . � J Jr_l'� ; ti 'A .l' ,IT li• •1 Y r rC. '
. i' (. -1 I h +, ,. - ., •� . _ r}•— .1 .1 .� a.7Y�Fa 1?r:x, � i-tr•f-• _ - ,
...yl- , F � i f .t,. , t ' l `4, _ t, .C;S !`rll 1 LJ-' ,.1, '! r .•
, 1 r' c4,. C. r' , y i rl f . } in : `l: 1
�. 1 i- i 1.4 ". f
.'it rr I 1 t 1 . I I _C I . t : ,1! I .•ti��
'j ;be
. z ti _+ 1 11tf r1 t' rl ' i f : + rn•1_
.. E. ,x �1 , Iyu:n`:Y �, E .. �;,
jl : I o-, y1 :. I ••1 I ' L', ; 1 •,, , �. 1 .. E,,, IL r
,,• ' E i + - .`, ..
vt1 c_..[ I ,.y4
, it. _ It • t 1. ,.•I i ,. a
1 :[` 1.- r,rl t 1r y J� �r'f_•. ' ( .. 'f l C' t
f _. 1 x , + r+ ♦ q,
• . + v r 1 :
� � . I � r,,; 1 . , . i :t .�,� 1 I f .: � ' ' = :}'l�Citi1{:1-�
i, •� ,
I .._"}
t {�.
�r :, ; .a f� }� J, -, , yc ! �1?(�F
- •rl S " ,-,; I„ 1 +
-., !• : - t :- x
.. :.. f_, ! .•f� i 1,a\'ii
�+ I t2E
1 i I to !
i' . ' r I r1 Ll ^t. •,J. ft -it + C , . ,s 1 1 ,! • _+I `
r ( t [ , + 3 E .
I•� Cl•• _
rll•1L) r r i tr ri13 . }J _ ✓ Y, i - Jcr'J
- .I+�z. � -
.. ,.; 'r.,.� -fr
.?,, ... , ,�, .l a,-1,� ,rif e.-. jf., •� x, ;��1 •m ,
r•) 3,
t ,t , rt �:+ ti�I
a '1•t, {.11 ,.J �;',,` - 7 , i t3-
i , i.-.
CI =, c1 ,f
i- t �, t rt ,-,n ; ,- • ,3'm. ! I ', 74L
r =i. F .3= i.
, ,r �-1,r'
, , ^1L:�- d� } _,'., ,.' }r'lc.f�_ I .nI.a.I Iloll IkI
. .- I-. �i-t Imo:+ I}
�' •rPr-is-f1� .
*' e1 t "r_ - �`�+-- cG,i-. r-.,.- ��E.j.•-'"r,y, '
.. i .. { y ,x t•
F. . � 1'. f.'�"I,
.+ �Iil�a 'trJ :r''. �.i - .•S.' Irt, f t Sti.-�.
,Ixlj t,ril ,1'•t !3 to„} •y. rr� ni E 1 ,
, t1. ic ,!'.n:
, ,'.rar:
Q l �„ .:L' �• t •; . ' -'� ',.'t -• .. rT . ii
hf'. c',Gul
' S. 'f7-Sf
) 1 ,F td} 7 T..i j -f
_l,:.l i ! ). Jig
f f r 1r• !•' - It,et
i-) ,•F IL L
•, }' +-, ,.i7V+
''�r t '1o:
./_•it , tf r
ax . F ta- 1
1 1 +�^
�,' . t- t:+� t r{ ,.rr 1 .r-"tC .
..') '.- '7 , i � �
S r„ i 1 .f .• + . `1�
t j , •t i ;, o r t "1• S , I.t tC. r•„ I - { r rtE'
rr.i !ail.
T �. 4• '!
rl tf�r
i'rr
t`t•f J•li j
x'f, If' , ' =1 ,..n sfr . :1'f {i -I'
tC ; �y L+[. .
,' + ° ,;r, t r
tx rI 1 fr.> 1 , 1 �'i.- '� i y
,,y ,., � �b'ti+vw
l .,-+ ► ,.t +lC'• ti
Irl_ `-1' :� ..�...f 1+�'' �cr•�., �l ! ._ ':� I -•i +
f:f C �F •7'
i l•rt --,_ -{~ +q
^er:lr,'fr's:,.1{ a ..1 + SEI.+"'i[•'x fl'. Ir.E
• 'f 3 . , mL.te '{
tZ:,,� 9f:. +" ,
_ .+ t f +Sf j W1 ..' i t ff1- . •r1 +Rj
” it+j` b!'•:,
.., •t, ,•I r Jr, yy-,-1 .'•[fit+ •^ I ,'",1 +� v'.t.i.f,^l
{ + ;a.,• .,} tlit
.t ' u,uT,
,"ILm3"t Gd ;1_'' r-.11,I,� Cal :r1cs x_r1t
11•+ F.+ IS E
,
.. •} .iL'1, ,i"If=�}
{. .iii.•. i.
• ,' !• '
'f,..,++ _ ,- 'H,
,`3 rl'�..;•a+.fi 7rj i'•1 !i��4- rr'_! -_ -.V �� - t�•1.. .:.J ri ty
+i= rij, rrl�r?rG,
'
' t r, �
r< ,, T til'-' '+, t� ,`.I r-Tg trl• �. r � .. -r
' V,. t 1 ,_
tf:
!� , , 9' i 3,1 t.[ i « _ is 6 ice• , 't ? , �r"+1 I '
f"i"T:4 t r1 r
ALUC WORKSHOP • •
October 1, 1986
Page 6
,.case, the Supreme.Court of Arizona, ruled that when Del Webb bought the
property, it was unprotected by zoning. And`then it went on to say that
when a local government'zones property for residential, it is
representing to the public at large that°that property is appropriate,
protected, for residential use. So,_'if Del°Webb first got residential
zoning and then went out there, °they they would have a right,to demand
that the slaughterhouse move. But, because they bought the property
.naked, they did not have this right, nor did Spur Industries°have a
right to keep its slaughterhouse there. So the court ordered the
slaughterhouse to move, but Del Webb to pay the cost
By analogy, it seems to me that local government does.represent to the
public, when it sets aside areas for residential zoning, that it's fit.,
for.residential zoning. I think our ALUC law,and our regulations
support that proposition.
Cando: Dave., what are some of the areas that we've discussed in the
past, around this issue of clear zones?
Hironimus: Well, the main questions have been what's,a taking, and how
far,can we go? And, of course, - the question of what can we do to get
the funds to buy it.' I think everybody agrees that the Oroville Airport
should eventually acquire the areas within the clear zones to protect
them, the problem being how do you afford it? The other question that,
we've run into.is the question on privately owned private access
airports: how does.a private owner get funding to acquire lands off the
ends of his.runway in order to. -protect it? Are funds available for that
sort of thing?
Thelen: How he gets the money, is'his problem; he elected to go into
that business, of putting in an airport there. To me, the harder
question is: since he does not have the power to condemn,..how does he
acquire avigation easement`s if he does not have willing people out
there? That, to me, increases the need for compatible regulation, -
because you guys can'do, by regulation, what the private property -owner
could not do.
Hironimus: What we've been doing on privately owned airports, the
question of noise and the approach hazards and what have you, is we've
pointed out the possible conflict at the environmental review stage. We
try to massage the developer into proposing as a mitigation measure that
he'grant these easements.
Thelen': Let me pick up on that. One danger that we see going on around
the state a Tittle bit is, especially when it's the local government
that also owns the airport, is.that they think they can solve the
incompatibility problem by simply getting an avigation easement from the
developer, and then giving him an okay. That, to me, flies in the face., .
again,,of'.both the policy of the ALUC and of that Arizona case I cited.
Hironimus: Though in some cases it could be appropriate...
• 1011,I)1SiOW.-W )A
J
ej 1. :l! i_ i'•!1' 14
t J,
ir, q t f i
+
k 51 -1 1-119 V c, q" 4' 4
r 7 J'DW -f!-0 4d . ry I : C. t -)aLIC I •. ZI 'fMC-i-I
- , , # , , + 1�1-0 -1. i , -4 , . :,wL-fq,* -i rtl_ I I I .1 . , I 'Li.v C4 L ") �_) I 4 r- +
2 F ri
1(7.
A.1fi, •WF, f j4_1 1,4, In
I,- j -4 - ' 1-'•1L . aivo -nvr�; n- 1 -ti%,r. 'I I . r. c-_•4 -f . I I EJ W i2i till i I ic>-1 a
-W C, 4 -u ic riA I C,
tt t i 7 tl,f un i nui 4
1,j � ru I f,
7+t f %,,j
f jr• t I b !C, R, L) 1p n. -I
1474 -2 , + LOA f I t .;U- -f"
0
I ead I
00- j2 n 1 � ri t
, i , -. i, I L C,: +a 0 •E
Ur"t. I cam.. tJ4 1
Y^. Jt till.. I I
t, jo-,
ji,..a:p!!llt/'1111
fil
i't y1 V t
r -&#,I f•_ I I. f- o I 1 11, 1-) rt I ci
J r si;t t
j c4..j >f rj 71 1•-i 2 fin I f of I I
I ,_f1' i" -A r I- bC 4r + tC. 3 i11 y
E + uow
4U
w 4:-, nw 1.:. t rip r vqc, n
e,Um I r1c, I I
ALUC.WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • Page7
Thelen: That's right. But, to me--
Hironimus: Where noise is strictly the problem, or it's out i.n'the
approach area. But in terms of clear zones, no, that will not solve the
problem.
Thelen: My only suggestion is that the County should,gi,ve at least as
much wei'ght to the efficacy of their zoning for residential as they do
to their concern over liability as owner of the, airport.
Hironimus: It would seem that -at the environmental review stage on the
privately owned airport, or, for that matter, a publicly owned airport,
if somebody's proposing development withina clear zone where there
could -be a conflict, it would be the responsibility of the environmental
review process to point that problem out. And, under CEQA, if it's not
mitigated, that would be the point to require an EIR. And then you'd
have the public forum for the whole situation.
The Ien.: I agree strongly.
Stoner I'd like to ask a question: I'm a new Commissioner, as .of
today. What is our personal liability, and --how are we protected;,as
Commissioners?
Thelen:- 'Again, I think that's one I'm going to just --I don't see that'
you have, assuming you just do your job as,best you can,, I don't see
that there's any real risk of liability. But, I'm not your attorney,'
and, so I'm just sharing that remark with you as one human being to
another.
Lambert: Is'there any funding to.help ALUC in•preparing these plans?.
Payne: I''11 take that back with.me (to Sacramento), but there'is some
'other money available. Part of'it•is the small amount, the $5,000
annual grant that comes to the airport -is available.for that; but
there's additional money, and I justscan't recall right off hand what
that would be.
(Note: A later.phone call to Mr. Payne identified.the.source of :this
additional money:, the State 'Transportation Improvement Program.)
Ragland: What about forming an RDA for clear.zones?
Thelen: What you're asking, of course, is whether or not acquiring the
'clear zone would be a.public purpose when it's being done for the
benefit of a private airport which is open to the public, and that's a
question I have not researched. If you'd write something up on that,
-could you mail me a copy?
Sears: It's a real tough problem for Oroville, because the City has to.
look out for all the rest of its city. It can't save the airport and,
lose the City.
u
5r lHR)0,i9w .► JA '
it , .p ' ,,i„' ”' +;{ + t
_.` + „• ? .. ,'j�•: : of 1fr t (lo -i i f'{
r :t
rr it ,i;,r,G F. lei,
+ r f R ,,,� 1 •� r� s + •' , s 1 .( r ., _ _
. , I f • ;,., , . I r r+ .t .' (`t•; r „A_T.
• +i' _ %f, �i,t :f, l '1++t ,,r -It' 1, -
.. ; •j}r.{ - +. ? iE'' �t1 rt -.�ur,+t
s _'Cf t 1 R it 1 f ! . i'
r r i t �t ; V t . l..y, ,. . ; . rt • } n 7
. J rT., •f "f3 .�.1 '.•. Er:-,; 7;}'.+(iU t "S °.r# rt!o 7b i_ ..,.,t':. ++`,+',-1 ti %t.1.JtA1f7G'li{i
1 , -4 17.4 rt,, ' f -A 0q. a 1s , } 3,1 '' E., ' t
+r r � �- :-• +j r t' . # " i t• 1 r • {
�. � �� F' r1 t • i -#s... t { . ' �' f�, 7 d .'TT'', � t +
171 _ t7ri .ti•
t. I 1 „ 'i . ~ , } l ' 4 ;9.•# I wJ�1.1
1 t r� t,. !J3,,• .Frit• 1,,. .TI *J f I
jc t tt1+ ,t) t > 1. ✓ i•,f k•+ 1.
lr i + , . 1Ja ..', i J ,"i.' ra't i+ r, _,
Ei 't _ .J k", ._ .t• i, ( . r� f 71<i 1 ..
,t•1
y`4 ; -} •Tt ) ir:' l I t +J j w-_ i ,'-i •- -, rf
r, .. F • l+. . i `r' _ y.€... i rtt' t �
°J� +� -.L + : , j - i f tr ` J . • lrl(t la'
} 'i+t[i .-. ;`.•tj.t rF i)V ;t.
mm
rl
't ' .t .F , ! y - _ ..[,r-, `,.
r.. �. '( •i • •!'fit, t - i,d+# !
7t^, r'. ' t t. )r'i . i ' 1 �„ 1 (
2 -, -, r ,. •:.� ')• i • �..,1
�+�. n.>:r.J }t, ..� r, •, ,�t r+ 'tE.:�. +
! tri r._ri' W� r i^ i �- .
F 1't -+11 ,., r . t �` , tl t ..r
�,tr. ", - t t=;l•is-dwi. J
i• t �:. _ '► - E 7 �U * • r .. r i, �r:F i i ir. 1 t ' f : n(, Yr,ti!
rt - . �{ . , 'i 1 ,i . , . t -. 1 i {'1
• , " t 1 G r t 1 -, , E r ..1 , ' ♦ ,
t..t+.. •.+1� ",r,t +' 'i', +.r 7: tp={ 1+L•
+� L a(YY1_ al:l�s �'i l=.`1 (o�'!i
. fy , '., } _ (^ t i- . -}'. 1• - ;4 ; E'i t
, , fl.".+ f
Pdow
^ti•rt"i t* ,. ;n' 11f;jG.a o' f
�.. _ �,it :Y yrTr.ra Ir ,r�•F tir+�c
" .r•. ,'4'11_ ', i A rlrIs:
f„+reIm-it ++ .t r.,+-„ r .+ :()11E
. , i : f.1F JL t('+-' _ ,'t _ ryl i Y + "l: v . i',�
,. , 1 .J :,: 1' t ` r• ; . ,-I,.1 : (+ A { -(I f
. i•1 r1•) '•,t 6.+rt riI t1 f+ l� 1:.'1•
.1- .-:• i 't• 1 +✓t�,l T , I 11p.
f r '•;7.t . �, [ , I i^ f.•" i 'ir-,
-�4 ire[_ ," T,: + ��� 1 1 _ IJ; '1142
'.�• - .. - t - i
+ ig'+ 9it. r i ., F_ 7 ',r C r_'.r
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • Page 8
-.Ragland: -And Oroville has very.carefully annexed around the clear
zones.
Sears: There's some other problems, too,'there, whether or not it was
annexed, or whatever it was zoned. There's an underlying subdivision
that goes back to 1890 that is on the north.side of Oro Dam, and I don't
know how much weight those carry in 1986. I would imagine it could
cause quite a bit of a problem. The City should be protected by the
avigation easements, but things I hear you saying today fly in the face
of that. What about the idea that the airport, as a functioning
airport, has been there a lot longer than any proposed use of this
industrial land, which is just now blank land?
Thelen: First. of all, the term "avigation easement" is a very elastic
commodity, and it.turns on how carefully written the'actual avigation
easement is. For the narrowest written one, it just simply means the,,
right to fly an airplane through that airspace, and that's it; nothing
more. And so there has been liability found for the noise, even after
an avigation easement. Okay, other avigation easements have been so
thoroughly written that they cover everything, and the landowner
underneath has virtually no rights left whatever.
Sears: The particular one that I'm referring to says that the developer
will'not build anything that interferes with the operation of the
aircraft, and specifically addresses the approach slope, the glide
s`1 ope .
Thelen: But the question would be whether or not it also extends to'
noise, because --
Sears: Yes. Noise, dust, vibration, and actual aircraft operations.
Thelen: Then it may be well enough written that.it would withstand.
attack.
Sears: So our City may be adequately protected by this document?
Thelen: See, that's *my point: it may very well be, but what I see
happening is, when they make the simultaneous decision to allowan
avigation easement on the'one hand and to allow housing on the •other,
sooner or later, I think, some judge is going to be upset about that.
I'm talking about the case where the local agency both owns the airport-
and-has
irportand has land use jurisdiction and makes decisions which are inconsistent
with one another. In those circumstances, I believe sooner or later
that thing's going'to come to a head and be resolved by the courts.
Lando: It seems like this property is fairly unique, in that -- I'm.an
outside observer on this, being from Chico -- but, it seems as though
everybody agrees it ought to -be purchased, but nobody has the money, so
the designation has been changed two or three times. It does seem clear
that there hav6.been statements made all the way around that, "We don't
want to purchase that; we don't have the money, so what else can we do
to restrict the use?"
oiikl I t r 'v4(jrlj-tU
.a +.t - la • t r t.+ '- _ Y ` r: :s l 7� C 'LJ i7ry�4 :�' IShtgh_•f
• •r �_ "t. r • , r. ,I~ J t ' +a • r '� E r -, ' a .:^' • r 1 ;`�6`3t�
,I t I Lwit l t.4 1.. It -4'� . y Irl ) '•f't"I
f .-i t .}GIs _ E1 t'J ' 1 t.7 t. • F. r
r : +� i, a t .c. ••t t+ +. I'. t ! t . iS'`.: t t h fi;
' .. ' ar 1� i J r •f
It c 1 , ••J r 3 f 7 , .• (�! t , r
i 1tJ IY` 1{ , .t t.. '1't' •ti f ,ti•,t j vi JL' ri1.. .rT..l�i 'i7i
4",:1 -'� (i1F '+ r,L� ♦t,i .laic.} 1 "r`. L,sC't ri•'•ta li•
•`:tfr=.i n:-! a ri •'►J(, ' T!•tii+� rt. I'.l t.,r'fr:i,J'.
si t�t'1`! 7 ' �•;t `'.1 •.?f cF flcl :tLI' •• .t t+i1 j•17 t { {! +4 t� tt =t1Sil oril
•' E I . i:i'3 f=• _ry,.. ' �1,1V. ,.I _ t.�t� taVi' 'lr �,l�I+.Y I{ i.(ll, •'.-'}-tiJlt'irt14. .
,.f`
i 'r. +r t^ a f l �' k t'_ ,-r ;l^ /I. ' i{• t,r tti! y.rlt: i•C-IIc .If Y«
t.I 3i' 1. t ?'. y 'c 1 1 utJ E I "1L. L
t+i. a1 4--, - +' ' I- t V 4 Or-
r� 1'. .{ 1 �t 7 � c.' I�. • •'1 , _ t: —.i t a i f ':'t t i_U '! •f'j i
4.yt ij' i 't'r * ^4• •1 gni tt c., 1 - •"tt,iL�
'.tJ }� t P• t7cJO r.aS r"{:': + ikt 1 Flr �t t7i r7f1{t.� fi'' 1 1i .1 a•rl t 714
" S'+{ j t, ' r t +" , s 1 � ... • 't: _ , t . F. r -+ 1. f � f 1 (, 7 { i .J .. Y t` r • .� 7 C. "r:. '1 i
• � fir'+ f
t v�.,l ��. ' t+,,I i .�►. F ,1 t Lt.f I t2 ala; rjf -t1 i :f7E1I19(Ir
1 f _ l :yC� l i i •: ' 4. , j @ t += 61 T ilr 'G t e.}, t f . - l,i. r o, .j t c' ' T cr'lEi`•K:
h'tlF te,tf ':! 1,'i• ;V. 1 S, of ,iH I t it ;CJrI+ i i zt� ..y-{ St. !1} i 11 f,. :tl•)irJ+tl
,•..i( 1. 1_ �L ' t %d �r f °. t _.'�.'( + _! "iJ J;,7NlL, _ i t Irt * Is 1,- '�,� >•t..;E f"+
17� L J r r r_' t '1 j t r :•+ ,f -ti . (1 1 Q I f;t r
Ii Va+ • I 4 _} in : r+1�` .L+C' a tF i' i j..r 1 }a ,t3tF> ti-� +' a t r I t[ t r• r,
if.�f1 t.',• ar'1yrf tion .: il(- { "tK,.. t ' C
-fri {t! ..C. 07 rr l .. f}(y{.iJ� 'if'•It t .,t' • f'13
—1il:r. '{.#!7,_{ 1i', Itl+.''' ir7n .tr+�'/-li'+ Etc.._"1 •7. F ;t. a t ft•, -t, rr.t I
a t - i1. L,r1 . 4 1f1J 1 " I , aL' ?c3'If .. k f r'1. ' i ?' t t"t. tt f E' 'J t .. i :, rt a +irt
l •+ r{j i I , "l i tG' d,7i4 i .-i
•_4 t t� t3°w ' w ai{ fr,\ty w•, "j t L 4'A• _ii'a:'' .ttt 'fEt �'
I t t . t ` s. t I t /�, .. j ! �. j f•� t)1' nt.
"i?, .."Y T .1' '- .-'+,J,.1 �_ ,+ ?1 .f {:�r I•i,t ;rS� !• + _ - 3.7'-'tU.
t y' •a- i7 _ J'.7ric+;1 f..t� o J� ..t i t,f�t ,wt It t-•-,,;1;' +� ,
in -f 'f "Fr, a.1 (1.�`�r.,; .'t tJ eii r� ft•JII
, i �. � . •f rt 'J'l-1.'-, , 9•I � t ! /t' :a-1 `•-tp '(rl• it. � r !•� _ 4..i 1 in+l't }i. t
} ' t i . _ t t. '1 • 't.' j
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 Page 9
Hironimus: The Oroville General Plan shows that as clear zone area off
the end of the runway, yet it's zoned for industrial use.
Sears: Which was changed from a prior designation, which was open
space.
Hironimus: It would seem that we have a problem there, that either the*
M-2 zone does not conform to the General Plan, in which case you've got
a problem'with the Government Code; or, the M-2 would provide adequate
checks and balances through site plan review, use permits, whatever., to
control what uses go in there. 'It may still be compatible if you.have.
the public review,'to say no, a propane'dispensing operation' -is not
compatible but a parking lot for another,industrial use is, or something
to that effect. One of those two conditions' ,is going to'exist, and from
what I'm reading in the information that's been given us, I'm not so
sure that you've got those controls.
Sears: And, as Commissioner Lambert has pointed out, the clear zones at
the south end of.the Oroville runways are control.led, more or less,
under County ,jurisdiction. The ones at the north end are under City
,jurisdiction, more or less. Here's the airport in the middle= how to
come up with something that works for everybody is the problem, because
there's so many ,jurisdictions involved.
Thelen= My reaction is that that's why ALUCs were -created!
Hironimus: As ALUC,- we know what we need to do.
Lambert: And we can override them in the County, but we can't acquire
them either.
Hironimus: That's our problem as ALUC- we know that we want to''
Preserve these clear zones --
Lambert: No power.
Hironimus: --from the ALUC standpoint, we cannot get the City to .
acquire the lands, or, within the County, zone them appropriately, and
the County doesn't want to deal with it because.it's not their airport.
And we're sitting here with nobody doing anything, and we are
perpetuating a less than ideal,situati'on. It's a publicly owned .
airport; it's owned by the City of Oroville; the clear zones at -the
south end are within the County jurisdiction. The County doesn't want
to deal with it; the County isn't going to buy that land to benefit the
City, which seems logical; yet, we can't get 'the City to annex it and
acquire it, either. We can't even get 'em to annex it! '
Thelen:. First of all, I want to repeat myself, to be sure.of on`e thing,
so there's no misunderstanding. When I said that there's no real risk
of you triggering inverse condemnation liability, I meant you, the ALUC.
I did not mean the local government who is the owner/operator of the
airport; that ,jurisdiction runs a very real risk of triggering inverse
condemnation liability when dealing with clear -zones, depending,on what.
kind of long-term pattern of actions they've taken to try and preserve
this property. Now, turning to the clear zone problem, again, what you
can do is downzone it compatible with the airport. If you leave the
'�41K-AAUW JUJA
?r1 It
--I f- "1 - 't f ( , . v t' I , . - I '.
♦
F 4t 1
1
-wre ),I
-31 D
r E LIE I
a %f -,)r
jrii.ii r i eta
-4
J,
n E -i t,,j
I
I C n
rw Juw L4 LIO\
-lit 4
-16
t f Rl E- A-1 I
Or 1
11 mc
f j f vri I
A
Cx" jo1 -tri{
v Lot d -)dslyc, I
Jf
-E, J, A! 1 1 A at,1 1.-J-' -E N.O - t�' *11 1 1 1 *- Z-Lial I no" I
44c
� -! I — Zc im j, f I I C. 41-"t WN - 111 'A% # j , -i , – : - oijm i tiwi s H
ra, in f-2 41i'%ap t I I
oto, -t •C 1, IF; i, t t1J
.-t" P,, 4 I's 31 -1 to I " -..-I t11•
I f jjc IZA .[.I 1-f rz 'n $9 -1- o- I
%I -I to-) i c-*rtl'J'i n 1 t:. J_
it•c.
t.rr- j 1 1.1d LO I f11 jj;_ j i tttJO-itit -,b
3n, M j �t
fir
k
lot
rl n o, n
'El
Jr"` e
tt= nor 4 fi-j fi
ri rl - -r , 1-1 , j
I
q c
ALUC WORKSHOP.
October 11, 1986
• Page 10
owner with a good economic use of his property, then.you should not have
a Iproblem, nor should the airport owner have a problem with it. And the
fact that one jurisdiction owns the clear zone on one end of the runway
and the other owns it at,.the other end of the runway just bespeaks the
need for cooperation because the airport is there, benefitting all of
the people.regardless of where they happen to live.
Hiron-imus: Let ne shift gears for a.moment. At what point, in*terms of
clear zones and what have you -- I guess Bill Riesen is one of the
fellows that inspects them -- are they going to come in and say no, this
isn't.an adequate clear zone, and we're either going to have to shorten
the runway or close it. What kinds of densities are we looking at, what
kinds of land uses? Is one dwelling per 10 acres going to bother them?
Is 5 to the acre going to bother them? Four to the acre? What's'that
point? Maybe there's some different people we need to ask. Bill at one
time talked about inspecting airports, and said if somethin`g's
encroaching on the end of that runway he's going.to recommend -it either
be•moved or the threshold -be moved, or shut it downi What's that.point?.
What can you live with out there?-
Thelen If you're asking me how the FAA would react, all I can respond
is two things: Number one is that -it is the airport that's liable for
noise, n'ot the FAA. And number two, they have, in the last decade or
more, had all of.their policies aimed at getting compatibility of land
use zoning around airports.-"
Hironimus: Fortunately for the-Oroville Airport, noise isnot the
biggest problem 'they have, because it's manageable due to the nature of
the use of the airport. What we do worry about is power failure on
takeoff, and having no place to go'. We don't wan't to Put 'em in'the
middle of a factory. Our plan talks about having a clear zone area
there for just that.
Thelen: I.assume you all know that you can create an airport `district
as one way of resolving any tension you have between local agencies.
You could have not just Butte County,'but you could,even have adjo•inin.g
counties go in with you if you wanted, and create.an airport district
that would own.the ai.rport. That way, the costs would be dealt with
through the district.
'Lambert: Do you have a map of this Oroville Airport? Maybe that would
be helpful--
Thelen:. This is a proposal for single-family residences?
Sears: No, it's a proposal for a 14 -unit industrial subdivision.`
Thelen: Have they done an EIR on that?
Sears: No.
Thelen: Well, I'm right back to saying that this ought to trigger
appropriate comments .in the environmental review, and at that point,
included. among the commenters would'be the Division of Aeronautics, and
we would comment on whether or not the industrial uses that they're
proposing would be consistent with our regulations.
%k -,tAL"I )A
. . 11 *' "- -, - I G Lcp - 11
1�11t�1!+,11
r4.t j
or- o J c: rl L t
-1
4 r ai 4
`)oto ti Ci a.
I fl
"rl' il. TI k t.) ricel
Zo
FF, cl + erl
-411:) is '1_1 ot;
,_fl
0 1 C_4Z'7j L.W nkv i r%
-1 1 -41
4: 7 i. '-t t'
rl
0 J
1 'L4 I
'4C t f.1 4. :0 A I M J
4 -j
r. r -1 1. 't cl, I• Oct I
t
V ri JIA, -t -,n 1 rl -m, j
oql I 'rf I � I F'k .A-1 L 7.
1 1.
I'llo 4- 1 t rz,
Ir I -,t i
V 1 T.9 IJL� ICI
VC 311 Bf - I
I rit; y I -1 tt 1% C. 'r)cl"l
fuq
n-kfot-'iUzi
e I UI
JO 9M%,) 6
r. E
rL?.,* ort n i
.),
v ..'L o v SO 0
1-
-is J 'B �11 It -0 01i Y I'l 1 A I rut
r Jr
f -fn.t11
Oily L'
'n
r, - r ti(.11. 1 Y t oq n
n.jrti :sit)
. . 11 *' "- -, - I G Lcp - 11
1�11t�1!+,11
-1
4 r ai 4
n-:%frf t r -L I
}
ALUC WORKSHOP -
October 1, 1986 • • Page 11
Sears: What has happened so far.is, that went'to the City P1'anning
Commission, and at that time ALUC had not adopted the Oroville Airport
Land Use Plan yet, so the City Planning Commission said', "We will defer
a decision on this map until the ALUP is in-place." So then today, at
this Commission's meeting, this Commission (ALUC) took the position that
it's an inappropriate use, based on the Land Use Plan. So it will now
be kicked back to the City. So, what you're saying is that the City's
environmental review on this, project should include comments from the
Division of Aeronautics?
Thelen= Is the clear zone all inside the city limits of the City of
Oroville?
Sears: Yes, I think so, all but one corner of it.
H,ironimus: But all of the 'subject property is within the City.
Sears: The entire s'ubdivision.is within the City of Oroville.
The -len: There again, it may be that these buildings are low enough,,and
that this use is sufficiently low in having people around, that it would
be compatible with the airport -- I don't know.
Sears: At one time there was talk of having an Alaskan King Crab.
packing house.' Crabs would be flown in'from Alaska,; they would use the
runway; and then they would process them there.
Thelen: That sounds to me, right off the top'of my head, like,too many
people around for that kind of thing.
Sears: The City was concerned with the parking',''and with the'
accumulations of humans in the clear zone.
Hironimus: We also heard rumors that the developer had lined up a
propane distributor for,that area.
Thelen: It maybe that, in your ,judgment, that that" s inappropriate,
and is not consistent with State law and regulation for this area. In
this case, you would include in your. ALUP that this stays grazing land
only. And then it may be that the City of Oroville disagrees" with that
and would override you, but when they overrode you they would have to
demonstrate, based on substantial evidence, that they were nevertheless.
conforming'to State law and regulation for compatibility of land use'
around airports. If they did not do a good enough ;job'on that; it may.
be that someone would intervene and bring a lawsuit on it, to question
it, and, just to name two candidates for such a lawsuit right now,-the-
California
ow, theCalifornia Aviation Council is suing Amador County on exactly this kind
of'a problem; and the Attorney General's Office has, from time to`time,
stepped in and sued on the basis of this kind of a thing; they've.got
one -going in South Lake Tahoe right -now.
fart` f-10,"f0j')"..}
..1. t 1, gal f? ♦r r x'71>•7C'
.r r . t . -J .. , � .- , . •; '' '�1 t. t ,.I,t ., ,r t , , (' i rn r: J
t -i ! � •� aly'•' �S t. I = ' i11' 1 'Il' ri+l� � J .s^:� _ - r �.- ,r+ � •;.cr' � ft....
t t• r
('•�+L r �I 1 j : t r•'_ + n r'T I r ; , A , -1 ! a .� rr. 1 iCifll r r+.f rl : , 17 i a � af;7 ♦�
i t , C rt r 4r t/ L t (t r9• ' r 1 , i
` .1 r i i :♦ ! r'i C' :'ll t r. 1 1 f•. r._^•,t 93 •.= r1(J .1 w? rj r131.` ! a. '' +_�:, .�F`. '' 1 IZr a � �' .
�' =ari it-1'� i Grr` •'- :1` tFrty: r c t s,it v1 1_ 3d /.• -i' I d so
1. ;' Lrl•1} .�',1'✓ - i.t.., g..tjl.� ! + C. r,,Jl,•1.? 1 . .t {1 . I . j t .'tl �•. 11rA I F tr7�) Ir`' s'l l � ilie
j
eb 7 7e I rl( Z 1
:.. t f i ••� u
t 1 ?r. •r- ..� ••I I(^ tui I t, �� tni .; . . _ �c^•lEtrc'
. �r"7 1" rtf rt = i aj:''Jaa ,•, t i ]1' �, f Ld iris }•. !rte `:rte' :?t lip flo-1i1�
. ' 1 �'! a fti •Y+ "! � , 7 s %V i hr, _. i , + i.. l.ti M � '` t ' . t � - • 1 � : t:^T[�13c�.
. .t�+}•,t7H wf) . y ,.� .=4 ., i .. 1 f t Id a_ -4I fr'�. ,' a -J tt .n t r1 i t,} ) 'if: 'tl iof
rl n'. Y... f �( • 1 .7 t t. c i 1t .I
:)ri , In 1 -- y' • i 6 =r'. i 1' +' "i 1 r f 4 +1 r77 z8 y
+ `. ', t.J++•r �1-. 1 r 'f.�n$bt f'lc:' .r' ,11:V � t iJillQh: a.^!�^y.a .+. ,1 E,.11 i lE C
�. r.. y ! r.l :, t : ?.,'� -)�+ a .. t r ,.�,� ��•fi'' r'r•,'f t !• .1.. _ .:titJ^+
:1':,'4 .1 i a t 1 (1 ir'1 i t : (1' .j ^�'t'1 _l tt.,r: f r.= a f r)t'-f t
.c r .fit tv !'*-4ny Jrrtt a ..)r.tiOlt, `3+-{
5iif + �.. .t rr�t21 e'1C r+- r'.'ip1 Lys+ i 1 ifi, t'.-,:' E. J
:,mint '01'}i, 11. 1: i.J
)C{..7 r i.J .4 +"i.t .--! , -,v, 1 'J• .bnrt , c t r G14 ,.;Ltrn I f o -i i H
.- '''J'1`fCa'a>r a"fLi1i' .�,t... •+,1-_l'tf`i')tJ'� "'{1.1a ,I R.'['.rtj +C.i l�r.rtt i('�'•}frit
F ,^,£., - i +'+ } •r. � t I ,r, i -i ,'t fJrt .., ;' )I 4,L i .i I! -4!;W" y ,_. no's I I •
c i rfJ fr:r`tJ `i .r ��i n. r i 3r1 . L• f ,. Ia lJON.,
s'V'.1.1 f t Y ti _ -Irit t1 _t! rn 1E11'
:.a. �'1�,rOt-. •fes t+ l,.rr ••+f3t71 ,. J=r.;i-�.--v 'l.. . .1..,•r it�.t , ,r.) 1'1�•r.V rrt„
"4t •_)v irl J-0-1 f r ,.1•;I-, i ,!- 1 f. t , { .tti no , ;,`' E r_,?� tc•!'Ti?l,'i^1`J
:tECl„. _) I 1+. i 7 •J+
a,n t 1 i •. , •.iter r (iF=' + + C: r + F t ! 1 ' 1' r
1 ! r 1 J . .!..1Ltri. 1 .-� i-1�. ♦ � • r' • ri - �n1�, fl y ,
_ ' JItE, ^: � � cit r. � � „ 1 'i' _ ti .. t. .'.r- �' t 1 .:,t' _ • tc +
• .. j 1 t !-� � ryr, C J r1.. 7 'Ir'! f 1 . ` i' _ "t tlj + ', , n "� t f F
. i' -, 7 i �,^•�i E �r rt _ t +' 1 ', .=•is3 =' •7`' 1U } + - 1 � 'h `1. :, 1 � '� r E _i
t _ t t,. t ; i r r, , 1, ,. •71 1.. r,t v.
_ .w•t- i 1- r-� '�, �, •-) rr 1 t*'1�•= t •ink'.+ -
ALUC WORKSHOP
October 1,'1986 • Page 12
Sears: Going the other -way, what if -the City upholds the Airport Land
Use Commission?
Thelen Well, then there's no problem,'is there?
Sears: Then what does the landowner do?
Thelen: Okay. Assuming the landowner decides that grazing isnot
appropriate, that he wants better use of his land than that, he can sue
in in condemnation. At that point, the City can defend, on a
two-pronged attack. On the one hand, they can say, "Hey, we didn't
intend this•ordinance'"to trigger inverse, and so therefore, if it did,
Your Honor, please declare the.ordinance null and void." In this case
the property owner gets nothing, except he gets the right to go back and
have the property upzoned. -Or, they can say, "Hey, we need this clear
zone, and so therefore we're not going to ask that the zoning ordinance
be declared null and vo-id; we're going to defend that•it's not a
violation of the Constitution, but even if it is, we'll pay for it,"'in.•
which case the ,judge would then have to decide whether or n'ot it
triggered condemnation. If it did, he would have to rule as to how much
compensation -would be involved.
Sears: I think the City views that asa little bit of a crapshoot,
because, as I understand it', if it goes into these condemnation
proceedings, the City" would then have to abide by the appraisal, and
that could really do some harm.
Thelen: Except, of course, the appraisal's going to be based in .large
part on the zoning, and the zoning -- as long as it's defensible as part
of an overall scheme instead of spot zoning -- 'would hold up.
Sears But i.f it's zoned M-2 and it's in a clear zone?
Thelen: You got it: that's my point about --it may be that certain M-2
uses are appropriate for a clear, compatible zone, and -I ,just don't
know. That's exactly why -it's the kind of question we answer when we
get an environmental review document.
Hironimus: It seems like a good place for a combining zone, for
restrictions on building heights.
Thelen: It took us 48 ininutes'for the term "height restriction" to come
up, which is'a new record, usually.it comes up in the first"five
minutes --
Sears:. We're out in thO'country!
Thelen: The courts seem to react to the term "height restriction," so.
the more prominent you make ,that in the ordinance, the more likely you
are to have it labeled inverse condemnation. If, on the•other.hand, you
have an overall zoning in which,�i'nherent in that zoning is a height
restriction, then you tend to not notice it.
71 �+ !. �'d '+ :. iJ ti. , ' 7 + 1 t ` l r. . .. frJ :f1 :y ��.7 „�. ��y'•�ir�f>
e•I`li3 �t ,r•Tf+. rr� +'i 's _'� r1� t~ i( -at, :n->Itri!
-rt n. 4. # t, 7 ' I I- wl T . V_-It3+;t_l,
tj 1 '.' It ::.t t yF a' r f i"+Cl[. r Nf' :17, '. Y 0 =f1..) I r1"I I•
,`1 Ir_,. c lI, ! t. r,r r i,l r= -,� ^i •Y + _ it t' rl f eri't .E•at'1•l Io t� 't-:
t•rI t.lIt_l'iI+ fr fl". f, -Ifll!:14 '-1•._T:) t.'_ .,_!Vf+ n
•bosi-4 -:� ti 9, J 4e t...,rJ '
r; r, t�. i:t ,� il!``� t -i' , . It t 1 j ! t i r_ frJ c."t tit 8 t fl +
r
l •'31 •1 r"l i . ) 1 Iti t ,., _ .'C: E t. i 1[ .`t .,, JOY
Ci ..,.: L1," i•, }G! i 9.-., f yJ l`. 4mC' '
'k ♦ . �r'I� �> -alf 4W t\1 t-•• t t_.7• f,.lr l,-!lti•: '10"; '�,-j;} •iv:�fi
;,. ('rl`�t', £, iµ r .c.. r.j L•t� t.,rS "9 t� 3ri, J'_ hnS rt3n
F il, 'ff_'•:� ar.T3,f`.a �`.� r.,'!G� �1 �:' :U7C+Y i.'I t ...fl : .f
YL 1 � � ,'Lv 1, 1 .V� t'.l i{1 , } n•r 1 r11 t is lo
f^i'i
ti,Ji 7r+ii�n;pat,t..• ,.r.r�Z^`'t7
0.. Ott fe4 n ?1 :! acl,d
f'r• s r+, IkJf1, _ ^'Aci + i.zt 1.1 . C. J i t c i bi i i;_ 1•;bm, I .tom - -*^
t t- 1 •e "-1 qt✓ E d ,-I'l 9ve f�. b t uot: `Y 7 t Cl i • + . 1 r;
1 f. t r-, :•A 1� L. I+C.iI r 6-.4 ^t f ,.c. f.. ♦ 7=f1!.It�Ctt
U i t rl- '•cih r -j r =f F,'O i �F _"' ;eft i `i•, tr,'�� !�� e1:,; t t nG� _ '1 '1 t ) ?' t .
. }l; �f••,y t>.).'+y.t .... ;',t+tn0� yr.� ..r +J f3•��{-'[,t tln,•-ti 1 t 't.•v•_ LSE^ 3•.
rio : ti til f 4" l
.t• t _ ,'i r.-+' , + lr•J C••1 L I : i1'3I ffti r
vt ;,.. a ' 'a• st . fett '� 1 i . !E,• }:}.... + t; •IR.'> - r`._ •..> 'tr'1 a � tq r . -:.a-1 ,.�T .}^ '-'-
e - CW fy. ' f.,. ? ', 'i i % L+tI, .I E7. f v 1 V, i7 �» , �.• �. tf .l r t..
ln•
i rt r , [. tr + } t' ,g { r Cr +r]t ' + f, ? ± . + rtl + f . -- .1.T1 i t lo -1 1 JA
t '^•D t +:iT+ 1 , '4 r . rl "IGf ,, `nLfn t', 81' .-r'+: i 11'.11L II
f } 1 ' i s.. + rt t ,t i'1•- - t 1 1 co ?tJ +(.J ! VI.9r7 r z 1 t t:l
• alt, t ..1
-, f! JCi t t. -,-7 :! 1tj,j a•+' r> t -,'3'l.. ps
i t t
it I, t t ,r1" • t t.•,; [- ;y. 'a _ . '! fl -j i Fits I
+l s, t4As t , •� r ;ntt. . y,. .+ ^111+
rl ft • l , t' , _ '1 _ t+ Ea • . �,
AL
UC WORKSHOP
October 1, 1986 • • Page 1.3
Payne:., Has the Commissiori adopted density standards for the different
1 zone`s?
Lando: Yes, we have. We've,adopted the land use restrictions for each
of the areas.
Hironimus: The clear zones, the approach zones, and the overflight
areas.
Payne: So in the clear zone in
i y question, you've already adopted
i
density?
Lando: Basically I think -it
.probably says grazing or open space in the .
Airport Land Use.Plan.
Sears: But if 'you're talking.about the numbers 1, 2 and 3'overlaid over
the circle around the airport, he couldn't -oven raise catfish there
because of the reflections from the water. He could raise cattle, or
sheep.
Thel.en: Even when you use the term "open space," you may think that the
term,"open space means no use, and therefore you've triggered inverse
condemnation.. But,there are a couple of cases, including a Marin County
case that's only about five years old, where the value.of the property
-was dropped from something like a million dollars down to $300,000. The
property was zoned open space but in fact was available for,-. I think,
one unit'per every eight acres, something like that,,and it was upheld.
So to me, if the property has historically been used for grazing; and
there's been nothing to mislead the property owner, and you want to
continue.it'grazing, my guess is that that would stand up. �•
Y
f
t ,>;.�• >
��. •.: _
rr i �., i� :
r' f t ! I ,
ti = cibnc: {
.g � c•j e F,f7
•, f -.rtc, 1 i 4
,rq 1 cod. 1 !E. N t
} 14 1lJC V f
t1J . i" 161*14'
.t, t 1 t 7 1 . ' t
4.`
. rr.. ! �
t � i N tlJ..r.l
•h-1 S' .JC!! `.)'!:i t'..
{- S" .! 4: t1 ,.t
_ �Gir�� �!
0"1 y + ,
1 lt0` . r1tN t
f199fiT
. .• �•
• i t f - -
_ ,, t . + k ri,
1 t �t 1 "-
rt_7gt.r.. ,� '!9�
. �-
Ear-• i Far + ' rt
i e a ' {:, � i {� •-r ' r�F,; t_ s t�
.^ter '. � +. .!
+ ff- { t rtc�t • . 1 . �,
• �a t.
� 4 •{� I ,Y �
',. s • ,;�'{+at tvi . 'i { G c`. `If . F. �
} t • :iE (.y..
'' 7C�ri f ,.i. 6:J
• t • ! •
. j a lt.-r
_ s { 1 ,,ry .i , 1 1 " t , r.r I .—' {
r't 1 mw. r{!, - f
U low ,. IQ
-
, } -fir-
"_+oto b"
," . 1 in A. n -a
-
twe .00
t _'i •13,.1 La 1
ior- . v.l_= +1,•+ i :o
h r,p. .E,1' 1c,{ _y.l(_
1(t' . rt, •_�} .
t [,1 110 _