The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANCLERK OF THE BOARD Public Binder (Admin.) Butte County Airport Land Use Commission - Notice of Public Review Extension Period for the Airport Land. Use Compatibility Plan and Adoption of a Proposed Neeative Declaration Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and an environmental document, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, has been prepared for adoption. , SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION During the November 15, 2000 meeting, the Airport Land Use Commission extended the Comment Period for the referenced Plan to November 22, 2000. This would allow more time for any concerned entity to make comments. Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive -review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the_ County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport: • The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County. Airport Land., Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning .area. The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center- Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-6571 . (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). . BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR BTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY MEETING DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TRANSMITTAL - AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: REVIEW OF ALUC'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSES TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' NOVEMBER 21, 2000 COMMENT LETTER DEPARTMENT: Development Services DATE: 12-13-2000 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 12-19-2000 CONTACT: Thomas A. Parilo jap PHONE: 538-6821 REGULAR X CONSENT DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: On November 14, 2000, the Board reviewed the draft revisions to the Draft 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Addendum and draft Negative Declaration. Following discussion, the Board authorized the chair to submit comments to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). On December 8, 2000, Shutt Moen and Associates, consultant to ALUC, submitted their responses to the comments received. This packet along with the entire plan is scheduled for review by the ALUC on Wednesday, December 20, 2000. At that meeting ALUC could adopt the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, with or without revisions. In reviewing the preliminary responses from the consultant, staff has identified deficiencies and incomplete responses to the Board's comments. The purpose of this meeting is for the Board to determine if further comment is warranted. A draft letter suggesting additional comments is included in this packet. This letter (Attachment 1) is requesting a complete response to your previous comments. For the Board's information, the November 21, 2000 letter is attached (Attachment 2). Staff has also attached the consultant's response matrix dated December 4, 2000 (Attachment 3) and the updated revisions to the Addendum (Attachment 4) that reflect the consultant's recommendation. The packet presented to ALUC includes all letters received, as well as the initial study and other information. DEPARTMENT REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: 1. Accept this report. L 2. Authorize the Chair to submit the additional comments to ALUC. 4 Attachments 1. Draft Letter to ALUC dated December 19, 2000. 2. November 21, 2000 Board comment letter. 3. Preliminary response matrix dated December 4, 2000 prepared by ALUC's consultant. 4. Revised 2000 Airport Compatibility Addendum. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: iAuditor -Controller's Number (if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Date Received by Clerk of Board: Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help Previous Board Action Date: November 14, 2000 Additional Information Attached: Yes X No Describe: Listed Above SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK w r i Number of originals required to be returned to Department: "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk of,the Board,returns completed Auditor's copy ONLY. Requested Board Action: Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required For Information Only* BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET .1 Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source Estimated Cost $ Amount Budgeted - $ (Budget Unit Number:_ ) (Fund Name: ) (Fund Number: ) Additional Requested $ — Annualized cost $ if also planned for next year. �l Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office Board Action Required for B -Transfer? Yes. No Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET }` Transfer Request: 't a I AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer $ (No Cents) From To ;r Transfer $ (No Cents) From To I� Transfer $ (No Cents) From To {( Transfer $ (No Cents) From To C Source of Additional Funds Requested Contingencies i, $ (Fund Name: ) '� (Fund Number: )` s Unanticipated Revenue $ (Source:. ) (Rev. Code: ) fl Other Transfer(s)I $ 1. Complete worksheet below 2. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline i` I j Total Source of Funds j; $ f if also planned for next year. �l Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office Board Action Required for B -Transfer? Yes. No Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET }` Transfer Request: 't a I AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer $ (No Cents) From To ;r Transfer $ (No Cents) From To I� Transfer $ (No Cents) From To {( Transfer $ (No Cents) From To C ' �!' S t �. j II 7 � 1 �F �1 � i �{ i� � '�!' ` 4 • I Y 1 it 'i� � � �' 1I {� }. � 1 i1 �� i�' 1� � I i • ;� ' •i 'i' ,y �' li i � s � ii � � f . ; � . oo �} { ,t ' ; ',% w ( " �� r '. � � 1�1 � i t i :,;� � , �; � a s ,i � , r �� '11 y ,# y 1x t' � 1 . , � ,�1 .' 'r j I' .4� � '" Ih '� _ T f # i ~' I} �� ... �1� �" , . � .. .�,• i� '� �, $ !! i4 � I ,� � _ � i ## {`► 't � + ;r� ,i . �,�' �� .� � � iii • �� j ji � � � ,�� } it � �� + � � ' � i� i it December 19, 2000 Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Comments on the December 4, 2000 Responses to the Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum Dear Chairman Rosene and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission: This letter is written in reaction to the responses made by Shutt Moen Associates to the Board of Supervisors comments provided on November 21, 2000. We ask that you respond to all of or comments and not just a selection of your choice. We are strongly committed to achieving a cooperative plan. This, of course, means compromise and communication, which has not been achieved by the consultant's responses. We hope to avoid preparing and adopting overriding statements because our comments, for which we've offered factual support, are ignored at this step. The following issues have either not been addressed or the .significance has been overlooked in the December. 4, 2000, responses. I am asking for ALUC's consideration of the issues, as follows: A. A number of requests for information were made in my November 21, 2000 letter. The following issues were not addressed: 1. The impact of the non-residential intensity concentration standards in all compatibility zones on existing uses can not be readily assessed. There is concern that some existing retail businesses, industrial uses, and other non-residential uses may be constrained in the future as a result of the plan. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors are particularly concerned that a non-residential use that may be destroyed in the future may also be unable to rebuild, as a result of the non- conforming use provisions. Specifically, the county wants to know which current businesses and other non-residential uses would be considered non -conforming under the provisions of the ,draft Compatibility Plan. This information is needed to determine which, if any non-residential uses would be precluded from rebuilding in the event of a catastrophe' (flood, fire, --earthquake, etc.) that would Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission December 19, 2000 Page 2 result in destruction beyond 75 percent of its market value. If there are no businesses or other non-residential uses that would . be considered' non- conforming, then this concern can be dismissed. 2. In a legal opinion dated May 13, '1999, presented to ALUC, James A. Curtis, opined that it is ALUC's responsibility to identify areas of incompatibility raised by the amendments to the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. On behalf of the Board of Supervisor's, I am asking that ALUC identify those- non-residential uses that would be incompatible with the Compatibility Zones B-1, B-2, and C. The Board of Supervisors wants to know in advance of plan adoption so we may better assess the impact of the plan. In the absence of such information, the County can assume, based -on the above,referenced opinion, that all existing non- residential uses are in conformity with the Plan. 3. Please provide information documenting that the large aircraft and Air Attack Base flights use the traffic pattern on the east side of the Chico Municipal Airport and the rationale to justify the use and size of the C1 Compatibility Zone in this area. While your new exhibit shows the flight path for large aircraft and the Air Attack flights, there is no indication of the frequency and duration of those flights. I also notice that Zone C1 is recommended to be expanded to the southeast to reflect this flight path. Once again, what is -the justification for the original designation and the recommended adjustment? We do not agree that the presence of the flight path by itself warrants a more restrictive compatibility zone. B. The following specific comments have not been fully addressed: Shutt Moen Associates response (page 11 of the matrix) that airport compatibility concerns were either overlooked or greatly downplayed during the planning process for the North Chico specific Plan is incorrect. The SR -1 zone was found to be consistent with the one -acre minimum lot size recommendation in the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. -The urban densities within the town center of the North Chico Specific Plan resulted in the County's override of the 1978 Environs. Plan. The irony now is that the draft 2000 Airport Compatibility Plan has recognized the planned urban portion of the North Chico Specific Plan as being compatible and the SR -1 area is being incompatible. Efforts to impose land use constraints on these lands currently zoned SR -1 through a more restrictive airport compatibility zone may unnecessarily result in down zoning and/or overrides without a strong basis in the 1993 Airport Planning Handbook. The Handbook does not identify safety -based density restrictions for lands that are planned and zoned for one -acre development. These lands are also located outside the 55dB CNEL noise contour, which is considered compatible in both the County General Plan and the draft Airport Compatibility Plan for Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission December 19, 2000 Page 3 residential uses at the currently planned and zoned densities. In addition, approximately 65% of these lands designated in the C-1 Compatibility Zone are committed to development in reliance on the North Chico Specific Plan. The remaining 35% of land that has not developed are scattered throughout the plan area. Because of the County's long term commitment to the SR -1 densities, previous findings of consistency with the 1978 Chico Environs Plan, and the failure of the draft .Plan. to rely on standards in the 1993 Airport Planning Handbook, it is. apparent that without change to the draft 2000 Airport .Compatibility Plan, the Board of Supervisors anticipates that an override of the plan will be forthcoming. There are no responses contained in the matrix that addressed these comments. Please review these items with your commission and either provide the amendments as requested or provide a sound aeronautical explanation why they cannot be accommodated. 2. All infill lands of 20 acres or less should, be bound by the same development standard if open land standards have been accomplished within the respective Compatibility Zone. Modify the amended infill standards in the addendum ' io eliminate the second bullet'under (2) and modify.the first bullet to replace "10 acres or less" with "20 acres or less". From our. analysis, there are very few parcels that will qualify for infill. The response provided to this comment did not provide an explanation of the rationale to treat all infill sites equally. We pointed out that there are very few, parcels that would be potentially subject to infill. There appears to be very little rationale to justify a bifurcated program. Please see the exhibit attached to my November, 21, 2000 letter, which clearly identifies those parcels, which are candidates for infill. 3. The December 4, 2000 response matrix presents three options for Compatibility Zone "C" .around the Chico Municipal Airport. The Board of Supervisors reiterates its request to eliminate the split C Zone from the plan for the following reasons: a. ALUC's legal role is limited to creating and establishing appropriate airport compatibility zones that reflect both existing and future (20 year) airport operations. b. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the cities and county to establish land uses that recognize the airport compatibility zones. LiKAH Norm Rosene, Chairman' Butte County Airport Land Use Commission December 19, 2000 Page 4 C. There is only one airport (Chico Municipal Airport) that has the split zone applied. The C Zone in the other three airports recognize the role of the local jurisdiction to plan and zone lands in the future, recognizing that when General Plan Amendment's, Rezones and or Specific Plans are proposed, they will be reviewed by ALUC to determine compatibility against the applicable airport land use plan. In addition, the response matrix does not explain why the dual C zone standards only apply to the Chico Municipal Airport. The Board of Supervisors thanks the Airport Land Use Commission for another opportunity to comment on the 2000 Airport Compatibility Plan. Your efforts, to date, have resolved most of our concerns. The County respectfully requests that the Airport Land Use Commission fully respond to our comments that have not been addressed in the December 4, 2000 response matrix. With some additional effort in addressing and resolving our issues, the Board is confident that the County of Butte will be able to implement the major features of the plan. Sincerely, Jane Dolan, Chair Butte County Board of Supervisors JD:TAP.jb k: dds\letters\ALUC Addendum Board Comments BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADMINISTRATION CENTER 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7224 November 21, 2000 Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 JANE DOLAN, Chair Second District R.J. BEELER First District MARYANNE HOUX Third District CURT JOSIASSEN Fourth District FRED C. DAVIS Fifth District Subject: Comments on the September 2000 Addendum to the Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear Chairman Rosene and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission: On November 14, 2000, ,the Development Services Department presented to the Board of Supervisors a status report on the draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Addendum, and revised initial study/Negative Declaration. It is the County's goal to continue to work with ALUC in resolving the remaining conflicts to prevent Countyoverrides of the finally adopted Compatibility Plan. The Board acknowledges that the September 2000 Addendum has addressed many of the concerns previously presented. The Board appreciates the efforts to date and request the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) consideration of the following comments: A. General Observations 1. The County intends to -implement the Airport Compatibility Plan for the four public -use airports through amendments to the General Plan and rezoning, as appropriate, as well as the development of an overlay zone. The overlay zone will incorporate the applicable policies and standards in the Plan. 2. The County will identify candidate,infrll sites at the time when the General Plan is revised to implement the Compatibility Plan. 3. The County does not intend to amend the General Plan or rezone residential lands that qualify as "existing land uses", but the overlay zone would be utilized as a means to implement other applicable Compatibility Plan policies. 4. The County will reserve the option to adopt overriding findings to address specific implementation problems or disaCr greements with ALUC over our implementation program. Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission November 21, 2000 Page 2 5. Non -legislative projects referred to ALUC will only be for advisory purposes after the County amends the General Plan, zoning and/or overrides the Compatibility Plan. R Requests for Information L. Butte County has been unable to determine the impact of the Compatibility Plan J on existing retail businesses, industrial uses, and other non-residential uses. The impact of the intensity concentration standards in all zones can not be readily, assessed. There is concern that airport related businesses may be constrained in the future as a result of the plan and/or be impacted by being unable to rebuild. There has been a long time planning effort on the part of the County and the Cities of Chico and Oroville to attract and locate airport compatible businesses. There is currently a Foreign Trade Zone established at the Chico Municipal Airport with plans to establish one at the Oroville Municipal Airport. The Board is concerned that the concentration standards in Compatibility Zones B1, B2 and C (including Cl & C2) may constrain existing business expansion and attraction efforts. Please provide information. to address the concern regarding these concentration standards and what impact they would have on our common goals to expand existing businesses and attract new ones. Under the Public Utility Code it is ALUC's responsibility to identify. any areas of incompatibility. 2. Please provide information documenting that the large aircraft and Air Attack Base flights use the traffic pattern on the east side of the Chico.Municipal Airport and the rationale to justify the use and size of the Cl Compatibility Zone in this area. C. Specific Comments 1. Recognize planned and zoned land with major infrastructures (including, but. not limited to permanent storm drainage facilities, water, sewer, and roads) that have been installed, funded; or accepted by a public entity as an "existing land use". This comment particularly applies to the North Chico Specific Plan area north of Mud Creek, most of which is included in Compatibility Sub -zone Cl. This situation also applies in other locations, but to a lesser degree. The North Chico Specific Plan was adopted on March 28, 1995. The action to adopt the plan culminated a multi-year planning process. The plan was funded by landowners through property assessments levied throughout CSA 87. Consultants were hired, many studies (including an Environmental Impact Report) were prepared, and - numerous public meetings and public hearings were held. Landowners, public service entities, and the County have, all relied on the direction that this plan provides. Currently flood management and drainage Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission November 21, 2000 Page 3 improvement studies are being conducted by the Corps of Engineers. Funding for these studies have been derived from Federal, State, and local agency sources. The Board of Supervisors would like ALUC to recognize the commitment made to the multi-year planning process, the underlying land uses, and the well- established land use pattern that currently exists in this area. The current SR -1 zoning and land uses were, consistent with the one -acre minimum lot size recommendation in the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Unfortunately, the ; undeveloped lands . would not all qualify for "infill" or as "existing land use" under the. proposed plan. In this regard, the Compatibility Plan targets the reduction of airport -related impacts on a relatively limited number of landowners. The Development Services Department has ..completed a preliminary analysis illustrating this position (see the attached exhibit). Efforts to impose land use constraints through a more restrictive airport compatibility zone may unnecessarily result in down zoning and/or overrides without a strong basis in the 1993 Airport Planning Handbook. The Handbook does not identify safety -based density restrictions for lands that are planned and zoned for one -acre development. These lands are also located outside the 55dB CNEL noise contour, which is considered compatible in both the County General Plan and the draft Airport Compatibility Plan for residential uses at the currently planned and zoned densities. 2. All infill lands : of 20 acres or less should be bound by the same development standard if open land standards have been accomplished within the respective Compatibility Zone. Modify the amended infill standards in. the addendum to eliminate the second bullet under (2) and modify the first bullet to replace "10 acres or less" with "20 acres or less". From our analysis, there are very few parcels that will qualify for infill. 3. On June 8, 2000, I sent you a letter on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. The letter requested that instead of ALUC's intended direction to limit residential development in Compatibility Zone C to one unit.per five acres, the Commission consider splitting the C Zone into two zones; one which would reflect the one unit per five -acre standard and the other to reflect the five units per acre minimum density. The draft addendum has both retained the original concept of the dual standard for the C zone and created the split zone. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the split C Zone (C 1 and C2) be eliminated from the plan for the following reasons: a. ALUC's legal role is limited to creating and establishing appropriate airport compatibility zones that reflect both existing and future (20 year) airport operations. Norm Rosene, Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission November 21, 2000 Page 4 b. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the cities and county to establish land uses that recognize the airport compatibility zones. C. There is only one airport (Chico Municipal Airport) that has the split zone applied. The C Zone in the other three airports recognize the role of the local jurisdiction to, plan and zone lands in the future, recognizing that when General Plan Amendment's, Rezones and or Specific Plans are proposed, they will be .reviewed by ALUC to determine compatibility against the applicable airport land use plan: The Board of Supervisors thanks the Airport Land Use Commission for a second opportunity to comment on the 2000 Airport Compatibility Plan. With some additional effort in addressing and resolving our issues, the Board is confident that the County of Butte will be able to implement the major features of the plan.. Sincerely, TBe lanChairunty Board of Supervisors JD:TAP.jb k: dds\letters\ALUC Addendum Board Comments t7.\I x101:. E n BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN— PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) CONIDIENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN WRITING (prior to preparation of 11/7/00 matrix) ► Jon 11. Bechtel I) Chico Municipal Airport Compat- There are two interrelated components to this issue: (1) the zone boundary; and (2) the criteria to be applied within I0/13/00 ibility Map: 'Zone C, East Side of the zone. ► I lefner, Stark & Airport Marois (1) Zone C is 1,500' wider east of the Runway 13L -31R than it is west of Runway 1311-31L because of the differ - G. Kammerer Proposal I (Bechtel and Kammerer) ence in the types of aircraft using each runway. Larger aircraft primarily use the longer runway, 13L-31 R. Even .10/16/00 — Reduce the width of "Lone C on with the contemplated extension of both runways, this circumstance is expected to remain. Because Zone C is de- ► Citv of Chico the east side of the airport from fined as encompassing the principal traffic patterns, its eastern boundary should remain as currently proposed. Kim Seidler 7,500 to 6,000 feet in order to match . 10/9/00 the west side of Zone C. Apply C(2) (2) Within the context of the countywide compatibility criteria set forth in the draft plan, there are three options designation and criteria instead of worth considering with regard to the compatibility zone designation for east of the airport. These choices are: C(1) on the easi side of the airport (a) Keep the C(1) designation as currently proposed in the plan addendum. The residential density criterion for within the central portion of the this zone is s0.2 dwelling units per acre (average parcel size of z5.0 acres), the same as in Zone B2. A C(1) zone. designation provides the greatest long-term compatibility protection for the airport. - (b) Switch to a C(2) designation for all or part of the area as indicated in the comment. Residential develop - Note: Correspondence was also re- ment would then need to have a minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. ceived from the City of Chico Plan- (c) Designate the area as Zone C, thus leaving the density choice to the land use jurisdiction (currently Butte ning Department (10/9/00) noting County) and the landowners. This is the concept originally set forth for this location in the March 2000 draft that the City did not have any objec- plan. It also is the designation proposed to be applied in the area southeast of the Chico airport and universally tions to Mr. Bechtel's request for the at the other three airports. ' application of Compatibility Zone C(2) on the east side of the airport if Recommendation: From a compatibility standpoint, two factors affecting the area east of Chico Municipal Airport the ALUC determines that the modi- need to be considered with regard to determining the best response to this issue. These are: (a) the regular overflight fication is consistent with the pur- of the area by fire attack and other large aircraft; and (b) the rising terrain. Given these factors, maintaining the. poses of the CLUP. current undeveloped or very -low-density residential character is the ideal choice. If this option is not tenable, then a Zone C designation seems to be more logical than C(2). By leaving the density choice open, landowners theoreti- cally could divide a large parcel into 5 -acre lots rather than being required to create 0.2 -acre lots if they choose to develop their property. ALUC Direction (11/I5/00): Discussion focused on the location of fire attack aircraft flight tracks, particularly the overhead 270° circling departure. A decision on this issue was postponed until the next meeting pending further research into these flight tracks. See Issue # 14. BU -ITE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN — PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COnINIENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIs/RECOMMENDATION ► Webb Homes 2) . Chico Municipal Airport Compat- The center of this property is situated approximately 4,000 feet laterally (southwesterly) of the extended centerline of Greg Webb ibility Map: Zone C, West Side of Runway, 13R-31Land 3,000 feet beyond (southeasterly) of the existing runway end. The proposed southeastward 10/24/00 Airport extension of the runway would reduce the latter distance to about 1,500 feet. With the runway end in its present location, the property is roughly where small aircraft begin to tum from downwind to base when landing on Runway Proposal I ( Webb Homes) — Re- 31 L. Aircraft turning right after departing from Runway 13R also may overfly the property.. The proposed runway quest that 83 acres south of Syca- extension probably would move the traffic pattern base leg over existing development south of Eaton Road, although more Creek and north of Eaton Road the downwind leg would remain over the property in question. (AP# 007-020-123) and land at the southwest comer of Sycamore Drive The options with regard to this location are the same as with the issue concerning Zone C east of the airport — desig- and Hicks Lane be designated as nate the area C(1), C(2), or an either/or combination of the two. C(2) rather than C(1). Recommenda[ion: Leave the property designated as Zone C(I) pending city of Chico adoption of the airport master . This request is based upon the fol- plan and a determination as'to when a runway extension might be constructed. lowing factors: ► the areas have limited safety. ALUC Direction (11/15/00): Leave compatibility map boundaries as currently proposed for this area. See lssue # 16 risks for subsequent discussion. ' ► they are located outside identi- fied noise contour lines., ► direction from the ALUC has , been for boundaries to follow natural features and parcel lines - to the extent possible. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN— PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOIt(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION City of Chico 3) Chico Municipal Airport Compat- The intent of the 'Lone B2 shown southeast of the airport is to encompass the noise -abatement flight track utilized by Tom Lando ibility Map: 'Lone B2, Southeast . fire attack aircraft. If these aircraft generally fly well north of Sycamore Creek, then the creek alignment is a suitable 4/7/00 _ of Airport boundary for the zone. However, if aircraft tend to fly more directly over the creek, then Zone B2 should extend south of the creek in order to provide a suitable buffer. Given the large size of the parcels in that area, placement of The Compatibility Map for the air- the zone boundary on a distinct geographic feature may not be practical. In such case, the line could be drawn at a port appears to show the southern set distance from the creek or tied to an offset from nearby roads or other geographic features. boundary of Zone B2 on the south- , east side of the airport lying south of Recommendation: For purposes of clarity, some modification of the boundary line appears to be appropriate. The _ Sycamore Creek. ALUC should examine this issue and make a determination as to the most logical basis for positioning the line. Previous direction by the ALUC has ALUC Direction (11/15/00): Discussion focused on the location of fire attack aircraft flight tracks in this area and indicated that boundaries of the the manner in which the location would be affected by the proposed northward extension of the runway. A decision compatibility zones should follow on this issue was postponed until next meeting pending further research into these flight tracks. See Issue # 15. existing boundaries and natural features to the greatest extent possible. , In this case, however, the boundary appears neither to follow - the creek itself nor any existing parcel boundaries. • f The City requests that the map be adjusted to show Sycamore Creek as the southern boundary of Zone 132 at this location. 3 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN — PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► Town of Para- 4) Appendix H: Local Plans Consis- Two issues are identified in this comment: dice tency Review, Town of Paradise AI tvlcGreehan (1) With respect to the acceptability of the town's land use designation and the Compatibility Plan, the analysis 10/31/00 Comments in Appendix H regarding conducted in Appendix H is preliminary and was intended to assist local agencies in identifying areas of the consistency of the 1994 Paradise potential conflict between their existing plans and the ALUC plan. This section does not represent a General Plan relative to Compatibil- comprehensive analysis or a formal finding by the ALUC. ity Zones C and D only consider the Town's land use designations and Furthermore, during the 180 -day time frame that agencies are given (under state law) to make their plans do not take land use restrictions as- consistent with the Compatibility Plan, they can conduct analyses or provide information to demonstrate that sociated with corresponding con- their plans are in conformity with the ALUC's plan. straints diagrams into account. As a result, this section of the Plan finds (2) Regarding the noise criterion, Compatibility Plan policy 4A.3 states that "except for south of Chico Municipal that a conflict between the Town's Airport, the maximum CNEL considered normally acceptable for residential uses in the vicinity of the airports General Plan and the density criteria covered by this Plan is 55 dB." As indicated in Appendix H, the Paradise General Plan Noise Element policy of Compatibility Zone C exists. conflicts with this criterion and should be modified. As a practical matter, however, the focus of the Such a finding may not be accurate Compatibiliy Plan is on the compatibility criteria listed in Table 2A and the associated maps in Chapter 3. At after more analysis is conducted. Paradise Skypark Airport, the projected 55 dB CNEL contour is essentially encompassed within Compatibility Zone B 1. The maximum residential density criterion for this zone is a 0.1 dwelling units per acre. Thus, A preliminary finding of inconsis- provided that land use and zoning designations for Zone B 1 preclude future'subdivision of parcels to less than tency has also been made relative to 10 acres, the fundamental consistency test will be met. Also, note that, in accordance with Policy 2.4.4(d), a the Town's Noise Element. Again, single-family residence can be constructed on any legal lot of record which is already less than this size. all policies within the Town's Noise Element need to be examined before Recommendation: No changes to the Compatibility Plan are necessary. These issues will need to be examined as such a conclusion is reached. It is part of the ALUC's consistency review of the Paradise General Plan: the Town's feeling that the existing policy in the Noise Element which ALUCDirection (11/15/00): The ALUC concurred with the recommendation. states that, "Any residential develop- ment in locations exposed to more than 60 dB CNEL at Paradise Skypark Airport are not to be permitted," is consistent with criteria described in the Drag Compatibility Plan. 4 r BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN— PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMAIENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIs/RECOMMENDATION ISSUES RAISED AT OCTOBER 19, 2000, JOINT ALUC/AGENCIES MEETING ► City of Paradise 5) Advisory Reviews The proposed policy is intended to clarify the point that when an ALUC review is advisory, the local agency does not Alan White, need to use the override process in the event it disagrees with the ALUC advice. The policy is closely based upon Mayor The proposed addition of Sub -policy state law and could be argued to apply regardless of whether it is written into the plan. It should be noted, though, (3) to Policy 1.5.2(b) weakens the that advisory reviews only occur once the local jurisdiction has fully complied with the requirements for making its policy as a whole. general plan and implementing policies consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Recommendation: Leave policy as proposed in Addendum. ALUC Direction L11115100 - The ALUC concurred with the recommendation. ► Chico Airport 6) Nonaviation Development within Policy 1.5.3(b) includes as a major land use action "proposed nonaviation development of airport property if such Commission Airport Property development has not already been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed by the Steve Lucas Commission." The intent is that such development be treated in the same manner as comparable projects situated off Does the ALUC have authority to airport property. Thus, when examining an airport master plan submitted for review, the ALUC should evaluate review nonaviation development on whether any proposed nonaviation development complies with the applicable compatibility criteria. This latter point, airport property? - however, is not explicitly mentioned in Section 3.2 dealing with review criteria for airport master plans. E Recommendation: Modify Policy 3.2.2 as indicated by the following underlined text 'Consistency Determination — The Commission shall determine whether the proposed airport plan or develop- ment plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission shall base its determi- nation 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 proposed for within the airport boundary will be consis- tent with the Primary Compatibility Criteria set forth in Table 2A. ALUC Direction (11/15/00): The ALUC concurred with the recommendation. However, also see subsequent com- ment 1123 and the proposed response. 5 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN — PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► . Citv of Chico 7) Expansion of Existing Policy 2.4.4(b) prohibits expansion of any nonconforming nonresidential development. This policy is applicable to Kim Seidler Nonconforming Uses (i.e. Schools) schools. However, Policy 2.4.4(f) allows exceptions for special conditions. Any such exceptions will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. The character of the existing and proposed use, the nature of the uses which Would the Compatibility Plan surround it, the compatibility zone involved, and the specific relationship of the site to noise contours, flight tracks, preclude expansion of existing areas of risk, etc., are all factors to be considered in such reviews. The best time for these issues to be addressed schools? would be as part of the general plan consistency review, although it could also be done at a later date in conjunction with a specific development project. Recommendation: Leave policies as proposed; address issues on a case -specific basis at time of general plan consistency reviews. ALUC Direction (11/15/00): The ALUC recommended adding "unless otherwise prohibited by applicable statutes," or wording to that effect, to the policy language regarding prohibition on schools and day care centers. (Note: the appropriate place for this addition appears to be in Note 4 of the Primary Compatibility Criteria table; see Addendum.) ► Audience 8) Day Care Centers As the Compatibility Plan is currently drafted, day care centers are prohibited in Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, and Question C. An issue which this prohibition raises is that day care centers are often established as part of business or indus- Are day care centers allowed in trial parks, uses which are generally desirable near airports. On the basis of risk, having a large`number of children, Zone C? in an area near an airport is undesirable. This is the rationale forthe prohibition on schools as well as day care cen- ters. Nevertheless, at least with regard to Zone C, it may be reasonable to allow day care centers if the usage is lim- ited. Two choices are apparent: ► Delete the prohibition on day care centers from Zone C and allow the usage intensity criteria to control the size of the facility. ► Define a limit on the size of day care centers to be allowed in Zone C. ` With respect to the latter option, one possible cut-off size would be to match state criteria for.the maximum allowable size of family day care home. Currently, this limit is set at 14 children. (Note that state law precludes local jurisdic- tions from prohibiting use of a single-family dwelling for family day care homes having up to 14 children.) Recommendation: Add a note to Table 2A indicating that, within Zone C, "day care centers are permitted provided that they have no more than the number of children allowed for family day care homes in accordance with state law." ALUC Direction (11/15/00): The consensus of the Commission was to prohibit independent; commercial day care centers within Zone C, but to allow !'in-house" day care centers. The latter also are to be permitted in Zone B2: See Addendum for suggested modification of Table 2A. Also see subsequent Issue #20. Btrr rE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN -PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► Audience 9) Infill The revised infill policy 2.4.4(a) included in` the Addendum is intended to clearly spell out the conditions under Questions which infill development would be allowed. As indicated in Sub -policy (4), the intent is that these locations be Several questions were posed determined just once. This should be done at the time of the general plan consistency review. A case-by-case review regarding how and where infill of parcels to be included may be necessary and the ALUC could approve minor exceptions to the guidelines if policies would apply. deemed to be consistent with the overall intent of the policy. Recommendation: Leave policy as proposed in the Addendum. As part of general plan consistency review, encourage affected jurisdictions to submit maps indicating locations where application of infill is requested. ALUC Direction (11115/00): The ALUC concurred with the recommendation. However, also see subsequent comment #21 and the proposed response. COMMENTS FROM 11/15/00 ALUC MEETING ► Nina Lambert, '10) Ranchaero Airport Compatibility The zone boundary reflects the fact that aircraft departing toward the south sometimes begin a slight tum toward the Map east after passing the end of the runway. Why does the boundary for Compat- ALUC Direction (11/15100): Leave map as proposed in Addendum. ibility Zone Bl at the south end of the airport flare outward toward the east? ' ► Fred Gerst 11) Open Land Requirements, Revised Policy 4.2.5(c) (see Addendum) describes how open land criteria are to be applied. The checklist of general plan consistency requirements in Appendix H1 further describes local jurisdiction options for implementation of the ► Flow will open land requirements be open land criteria. implemented? Recommendation: Leave policy as currently proposed. ALUC Direction (12/20/00): ► ALUC 1 la.) Designation of ALUC Secretary In accordance with Section 21671.5.(c) of the Public Utilities Code, staff assistance to theALUC should be provided by the County. Nothing in the law indicates that the ALUC has any authority over the selection of ALUC staff. In any case, this is not an issue for the Compatibility Plan, but it should be addressed through the ALUC By -Laws or a separate MOU with the Director of Development Services. . Recommendation: Leave policy 1.2.5. as drafted. AL UC Direction (12/20/00): 7 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN —PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COAIAIENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN WRITING (subsequent to preparation of 11/7/00 matrix) ► Building Indus- 12) Relationship to Chico Municipal State law requires that a compatibility plan be based upon an airport master plan adopted by the airport sponsor. Iry Association Airport Master Plan With respect to Chico Municipal Airport, however, the city is in the midst of preparing a new master plan which had o1' Superior Cal- been expected to be adopted at about the same time as the Compatibility Plan. With the concurrence of the city, the ifornia ► The Chico Municipal Airport Master draft Compatibility Plan for Chico Municipal Airport takes into account the future runway configuration which the Jim Mann Plan currently being prepared city anticipates adopting. This configuration includes a northward extension of the primary (eastern) runway and 11/22/00 should be considered in the CLOP. extension of the secondary runway both northward and southward. ► Runway extensions should be to the north, not the south. The draft plan contains a policy (2.2.1 on page 3-5) indicating that ALUC modification of the compatibility map may be necessary if the city decides either not to pursue the extension projects or to otherwise modify the proposed runway configuration. Any decision as to what changes might be made to the proposed master plan is the city's responsibility and not within the authority of the ALUC to determine. It should be noted, however, that extension of the -west runway to the south as currently. contemplated in the city's draft master plan could result in a reduction of overflights of the property north of Eaton Road which is the subject of debate (see Issue # 16) and an increase in the overflights of existing residential areas farther south. Chico Municipal Airport Policy 2.2.1should be modified to indicate that the compatibility map considers not just the anticipated runway configuration, but also the existing one. The 1977 master plan currently in effect includes only the existing runway configuration. Moreover, even once a new master plan is adopted, the time required to complete the proposed construction is uncertain. In the meantime, land use compatibility associated with the existing configuration needs to be maintained. Recommendation: Modify Chico Municipal Airport Policy 2.2.1 (page 3-5) as indicated in the Addendum. ALUC Direction (12/20/00): ► City of Oroville 13) Relationship to Oroville Municipal The draft compatibility map for Oroville Municipal Airport is based upon the airport master plan adopted by the city Council Airport Master Plan of Oroville in 1990. Unlike with Chico Municipal Airport, no new master plan or policy update for Oroville Resolution Municipal Airport is currently under way. The city's comment notwithstanding, no details are available as to what 11/22/00 The Oroville City Council is proposed role changes or facility improvements might be contained in any such plan. Basing the Compatibility Plan considering updating the Airport on such a highly uncertain future airport plan would be premature. Even so, a policy statement should be added to Master Plan to include expanded the Compatibility Plan indicating the reliance upon the 1990 Airport Master Plan. airport services and more frequent use by larger aircraft. If the AMP is Similar statements indicating the basis for the Paradise Skypark Airport and Ranchaero Airport, compatibility maps modified, the city will request that also should be added. the ALUCP be modified accordingly. Recommendation: Add new Oroville Municipal Airport Policy 3.2.1 (page 3-6), Paradise Skypark Airport Policy 4.2.1 (page 3-9), and Ranchaero Airport Policy 5.2.1 (page 3-11) as listed in the Addendum. ALUCDirection (12/20/00): BU'r"I'E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN -PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRtx DATE: 12/4/00)' COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION - ► City of Chico 14) Chico Municipal Airport As shown on the accompanying "Compatibility Map Options" drawing, fire attack aircraft tracks and the noise Tom Lando, Compatibility Map: Zone C, East associated with them affect a large area east of the runway's south end. Factors to be considered include the City Manager Side of Airport frequency with which various tracks are utilized; the altitude of the aircraft, and the high terrain in portions of the (11/15/00) Continuation of Issue #l, above]' area. ► Flefner. Stark 8 Marois [Chico] Designation of area as C(2) As indicated in the Issue #1 discussion, continuing to designate the area east of the airport as Zone C(1) remains the G. Kammerer would allow for potential ideal response to this issue from a land use compatibility standpoint. However, in recognition of the comments 11/16/00 development and not be inconsistent -received, three'other options can be identified. (2 letters) with purposes of Compatibility Plan. ► As previously discussed, one is to return to a single Zone C designation either just on the east side or in the ►. North Vallev [F/SKM] Confirm that the straight entire airport influence area. This option would allow either high- or low-density development choices at the Pilots Zone C designation is equivalent to discretion of the land use jurisdiction. Association a Zone C(2) designation. ► A second option, as discussed at the'l 1/15/00 ALUC meeting, is to establish a Zone C(2) in the area lateral to N( V PA) ► [HS&MJ Reduce the Zone C width the runway between Mud Creek on the north and a line perpendicular to the south end of the runway. To better Rick Thompson, . east of the airport to 6,000 feet.- reflect the impacts of fire attack aircraft flight tracks, this option could be'efined by extending the remaining President [NVPAJ Areas west and east of southern portion of Zone C(t) eastward to the 230 kV transmission line. The accompanying drawing shows the 1,1/17/00 runways should be designated Zone resulting configuration. ' ► Quite County C(1) due to noise and -safety factors. ► A third option is a combination of the preceding two. Except for the southeastern C(1) piece, all C(1) and C(2) Board of [County] Document that fire attack areas could be combined into a Zone C allowing either choice. The southeastern C(1) area would then be added Supervisors and other large aircraft use the to the adjacent Zone'132 which has the same residential density criteria as C(1). Jane Dolan, traffic pattern east of the airport and Chair the rationale for Zone C(1) size and Recommendation: Keeping the area as Zone C(l) remains the preferred choice, but the other options are marginally 11/21/00 land use restrictions. acceptable. ' [County) Eliminate separate mapping of Zones C(1) and C(2) in ALUC Direction (12/20/00): favor of a Zone C allowing either C(1) or C(2) option. 9 Y . ma b� � •A� = m}��s et"��y }xr1� vtad ��f3 � +�� ems{^ ♦ �v �� L� ��.,� r ME VIA i mom Vl- /� ®}Id>� D��..1q�� ui��.t` .• 3t v MJF :" ,, � w xs >s �lla1TJliit VR ;`q .\ 3< r,..�� J "fJ}. • �- { c -*� :r �E��. � �, ; , ;- 4 -;� t� v �•..,; -...fit t� -III Y37 r5.g d" T � �t a`a 5 2 baa • ,� � �=�//. .,� , ea- �t �•��,: Yid\�f \\7 • •- • •- - •- III �•• BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN - PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRDC DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► City.of Chico 15) Chico Municipal Airport According to airport management, the typical current fire attack aircraft flight track toward the southeast closely Tom Lando, Compatibility Map: Zone 132, follows Sycamore Creek. However, the noise impacts of aircraft following this route extend well south of the creek. City Manager Southeast of Airport Accordingly, the Zone B2/C boundary thus should be positioned south of the creek.- At such time as the runway is (11/15/00) [Continuation of Issue #3, above] extended to the north, this flight track may shift northward from its present location, although noise impacts would ► Rural still extend south of the creek. Consultint [Chico] It is premature for city to Associates amend General Plan for Bidwell Recommendation: Given the above factors, an approximately 500 -foot buffer measured south of Sycamore Creek's Jim Mann Ranch in that no decision has been center line is proposed as shown on the accompanying . "Compatibility Map Options" drawing. (11/16/00) made on future use. ' ► Hefner, Stark & ► [Chico] The B2 zone boundary ALUC Direction (12/20100): Marois ' should follow Sycamore Creek or G. Kammerer the line designated by Army Corps 11/16/00 of Engineers as buffer south of the (2 letters) creek. ► Caltrans [Rural Consulting] There is no Aeronautics ascertainable evidence that Pro ram residential development south of _ Sandy Ilesnard, airport should be limited to the Environmental extent proposed: building design can Planner reduce interior noise to 45 dB 11/16/00 CNEL; aircraft (including fire ' attack) are getting quieter; accident potential is low. ► [11S&M] Shift the 62/C zone boundary southeast of the airport north to follow Sycamore Creek. ► [Caltrans] Zone B2 southeast of. the airport should be expanded to include the adjacent undeveloped area proposed for Zone C; for noise and safety reasons, fire attack aircraft need relatively uninhabited area beneath their departure track. ► City of Chico 16) Chico Municipal Airport The effect of a Zone C(1) on this property was included in the housing impacts analysis summarized in the revised Tom Lando, Compatibility Map: Zone C, West initial study dated September 1, 2000. City Manager Side of Airport (11/15/00) [Continuation of Issue #2, above] Recommendation: The previous consensus of the ALUC (see Issue #2) was to keep this property in Zone C(1). ► C(1) designation on property north AL UC Direction (12/20/00): of Eaton Road would reduce number of residences from 550-920 allowed under city zoning to I 1 under Compatibility Plan. This impact has not been addressed in the initial study. 10 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN- PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COINIMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► Butte County 17) Definition of Existing Land Use The opinion of both the ALUC legal counsel and another land use attorney contacted by the consultant is that the Board of ALUC has jurisdiction over vacant properties with infrastructure in place because these properties have not yet been Supervisors The planning or zoning for land devoted to any specific use. However, the ALUC also has the authority to treat such properties equitably by allowing Jane Dolan, where major infrastructure has been optimum use of that infrastructure, consistent with the constraints of airport protection. Chair installed, funded, or accepted by a 11/21/00 - public entity should be recognized The fact that the North Chico Specific Plan was the result of a long planning process is not relevant to this issue. as an existing land use. This Moreover, it would appear that airport compatibility concerns were either overlooked or greatly downplayed during particularly applies with regard to that planning process. the North Chico Specific Plan area - north of Mud Creek. Recommendation: Keep the policy defining existing land use (1.2.10) as previously written in the Addendum. A LUC Direction (12120/00): ► Butte County 18) Effects of Intensity Limitations on The Compatibility Plan has no affect on existing land uses, either residential or nonresidential, even if such uses are Board of Existing Businesses not conforming with the compatibility criteria. As indicated in Policy 2.4.4(b) a nonconforming nonresidential' , Supervisors development may be continued, modified, transferred, or sold provided that its usage intensity (the number of people Jane Dolan, The effect of proposed intensity " per acre) is not increased. A proposal to expand a nonconforming use would be evaluated by the ALUC in Chair limitations on existing accordance with Policy 2.4.4(f). I (/21/00 nonresidential uses cannot readily be assessed. The ALUCP could Recommendation: Keep policies as set forth in the March 2000 draft plan. constrain expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new ALUC Direction (12/20/00): development. ► City of Chico: 19) Intensity Criteria t As a measure of risk, usage intensity provides the best common denominator among most nonresidential uses. Tom Lando, ALUCS and affected communities sometimes consider higher intensities to represent an acceptable risk within City Manager ► People -per -acre criteria cannot be existing urban areas, but limitations are nevertheless appropriate. 'Even in urban areas, high-intensity uses present (11/15/00) calculated consistently and fairly. the prospect of a catastrophic outcome in the event of an aircraft accident and thus need to be avoided. ► There is no need for such limitations in much of urbanized area covered These factors notwithstanding, it is recognized that people -per -acre is not a common measure in land use planning by plan. and therefore may not be easy to implement. Consequently, the Compatibility Plan does not require that local jurisdiction adopt the identical criteria when modifying their general plans for consistency with the ALUC's plan. As long as a correlation between an alternative set of criteria and usage intensity can be identified at the time that a general plan is submitted for consistency review, the 'alternative can pass the consistency test. :For example, some jurisdictions in other counties have established nonresidential development limitations in which the number of required parking spaces is used as a surrogate for usage intensity. Recommendation: Keep people -per -acre compatibility criteria as currently proposed. Allow jurisdictions reasonable latitude in developing alternative methods of assuring that unacceptably high land usage intensities are avoided. ALUC Direction (12/20/00): BUTPE,COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN - PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION . ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► City of Chico 20) Prohibited Uses It is recognized that local jurisdictions do does not have full control over all such uses. Nevertheless, the fact Tom Lando, remains that these uses should not be located where they would be incompatible with airport activities. Thus, to the City Manager The city does not have control over extent practical, local policies should discourage such development. The Compatibility Plan allows the ALUC (11/15/00) some uses listed as prohibited (e.g. flexibility in evaluating such policies (see Policy 2.4.4.f). schools and day care); ALUC should allow some flexibility in Recommendation: Generally keep policy language as set forth in the draft plan; modify note in Table 2A with regard a case-by-case review. to day care centers (See Addendum, page 3). . A LUC Direction (12/20/00): ► City of Chico 21) Infill The objectives of the infill policy are twofold: (1) to be fair to owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped land Tom Lando, [Continuation of Issue #9, above] whose property lies in the midst of more highly developed parcels; and (2) to assure that a reasonable degree of City Manager ► (Chico);"Once an area is found to airport land use compatibility is maintained. The issue is where to strike the balance between these two objectives. (11/15/00). qualify for infill, the only limitations In this regard, it should be recognized that, by its very nature, the infill policy is permitting additional development ► . Butte County should be existing zoning and Table of a type which would otherwise be regarded as incompatible with airport activities. Both of the comments, though, Board of _ . 2A prohibited uses. would, in effect, remove most restrictions from the residential densities and nonresidential intensities allowed'.in infill Supervisors ► ; [County) All lands of 20 acres or areas. Jane Dolan, less should be bound by same infill Chair criteria. As the policy currently stands (see Addendum -page 4), residential infill on less that 10 acres would be permitted to 11/21/00 have a higher density.than if the affected area is between.10 and 20'acres in size. Basically, the smaller area is allowed to develop to an intensity equal to the average of nearby parcels while the larger area is limited to no more than double the density set by the primary compatibility criteria table. For nonresidential uses, new development is limited to 50% above the intensity in the primary compatibility criteria table. " Any relaxation of the infill criteria currently proposed would be contrary to the direction provided by the ALUC at the 11/15/00 meeting. However, if any further compromise is to be made, it might be to establish two tiers of intensity criteria for nonresidential uses similar to the two tiers now provided for residential development. Recommendation: Modify Policy 2.4.4(a)(3) to allow nonresidential development infill of 10 acres or less to equal the average intensity of surrounding development (see Addendum). A LUC Direction (12/20/00): 12 M BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN —PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) COMMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► City of Chico 22) Nonconforming Uses By definition, if an existing use exceeds the density, intensity, or other compatibility criteria set forth in the Tom Lando, Compatibility Plan, it is a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use which is fully or partially destroyed may be City Manager Policies on nonconforming uses and rebuilt, subject to the limitations outlined in Policy 2.4.4(c): (I I/IS/fill) reconstruction remain unclear. For example, is an otherwise permitted Recommendation:. Leave policy as indicated in the Draft Plan unless a more specific need for clarification is and conforming use that exceeds the identified. maximum number of people per acre considered nonconforming for the ALUC Direction (12/20/00): purpose of reconstruction? ► City of Chico 23) ALUC Review of On -Airport For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is intended. to mean facilities and activities Tom Lando, Development directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft.' Such uses specifically include runways, City Manager taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft (11/15/00) A determination of whether an on- aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc. - airport use is aviation -related or not " is solely up to the city not the Recommendation: Policy 1.5.3(b) should be expanded with a definition to this effect (see Addendum, page 2). ALUC. . ALUC Direction (12120100)r - ► City of Chico 24) Adequacy of Environmental The ALUC legal counsel responds that there is some question as to whether CEQA is applicable at all to adoption of Tom Lando, Review a compatibility plan. The principal reason which has been given in support of a conclusion that such an action is not City Manager a project for the purposes of CEQA is that compatibility plans are primarily advisory documents subject to rejection (11/15/00) ► (Chico) The city still has some by the local government entity having land use jurisdiction. Also, compatibility plans can be considered as ► Building concerns about adequacy of functionally equivalent to an environmental document in that their sole purpose is to limit uses which would . Industry environmental review, although they adversely affect the airport environment. Association of are diminished to the extent that Superior changes to the draft have diminished This point of view notwithstanding, the Butte County ALUC has elected to prepare aninitial study. After so doing, California the potential for significant the ALUC determined that nothing in the Compatibility Plan could cause an adverse impact on the environment and Jim Mann environmental impacts. accordingly completed a draft negative declaration filed with the state's Office of Planning and Research. The 11/22/00 [B1A] Why is an EIR not required? Compatibility Plan neither authorizes any specific development nor totally precludes development. It merely sets in place density, intensity, height, and other limitation development. _Recommendation: Approve negative declaration as drafted. ALUC Direction (12/20/00): 13 BLn-rE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN — PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS (MATRIX DATE: 12/4/00) CONIMENTOR(S) ISSUE NUMBER/DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION ► Buildine 25) Adequacy of Public Notice 'rhe draft Compatibility Plan has been the subject of numerous publicly noticed meetings of the ALUC, as well as Industry formal public hearings. Many of these meetings have been attended by property owner representatives. The plan has Association of Property owners have not been been the subject of several newspaper articles and the public hearings were formally noticed:in these newspapers. Su erior properly noticed regarding proposed Additionally, the plan has been presented to and discussed by the elected bodies of the four affected jurisdictions. California changes to currently prescribed or lastly, the ALUC legal counsel notes that the commentor cites no statute that the ALUC may have violated with Jim Mann intended land uses. regard to public_ notice requirements. 11/22/00 Changes to land zoned or prezoned for residential development should Recommendation: No additional action appears to be necessary. not be made without discussion with property owners. ALUC Direction (12/20/00): 14 F ma 4t 9 ' , � ' ' 'y � I � � �' �� 1 ` r 4 1 'r - � g 1�� A / � ; r ) j ' ry ; 4 � 7 � i ^ � �'"' �, 1 �. ., i � j y ' �. q .. 1 �� t' .�5 � .. � , :, F ,' A � i i 1 y 1 . �. 'A" ' f ' - �. _ � Y �. f e . A •_ , 1 Ysr • �� - . ' � Y . i 1 ' 0 /, o ',� h � 1 � , ' '•f; � o r • � � � � t �o �� A �� 1 f - I f � ', f A j - - y �� • �1 ' + y , � t ' • ; A 'r � t' . 3 I • t. c f � t + 1 ! }' .ins s 1 • � A � ; ' � „� V . ` i; � . , ` d ' , � °IA ; r �i . � A f- .. i r -. 4 ... � � � .:SI ., � A y � , a A � .. Al . , `v . ,t 1 ` l 1 � 1� ',. ' • x , .. .. � �4 - ,t .Y � •� .y � �, ��, � 3, k i �r � T } t _ 5, ,• ! • _ . t; .i � 1 �� .. � s - �. <. � 1 � ' ,. } yy, December 4, 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Addendum 2 t 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 along with stibstantial eonsti tietion onvestrnenE by the property owne, make it infeasi . 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 original period (before any time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired; ► A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved; ► A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect; ► A final subdivision map has been recorded; _► A use lermit or other discretionary lamd,tise entitlement has been approved and not yet ex- ip red;. 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 any such ordinance or reeulation also must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight as addressed herein are involved. Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. It is intended to clarify that a zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be treated similarly to a gen- eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds the general plan and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) —Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows:. (3), Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when reviewing projects under these circumstances local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if they elect to approve a protect without incorporating design changes or conditions -suggested by the Commission. Discussion: This addition represents a slight restating of the first recommendation included un- der item #1 in the matrix. Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(a)(4).— Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater." Discussion: This is a correction of a typographical omission. Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(b) Expand policy as follows: For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is defined as any facility or activity directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Fed- eral Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc. Discussion: See matrix item #23. 2 Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.33(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 62 and C provided that the overall use of the propeU 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); 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 Z. (3) The status of ALUC review of maior 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 'r� ► If either of the first two options under Sub -policy (2) is selected, then referral of major land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case, the Commission's review is advi- sory and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to approve a pro-ect 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. Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) — Replace infill policy with the following: Infill — Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad- ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility Zones B2 and C. (1) A parcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteriaIAus 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). For nonresidential development;: ► If the size of the parcel proposed for development is 10 acres or less the usage intensity (the number of people per acre) of the proposed use shall be no greater than the average intensity of all existing uses which lie full or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the proposed development. 4 If the size of the parcel proposed for development is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than 20 acres) the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of people per acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the Primary Com- patibility Criteria (Table 2A). [For example whereas an average intensity of 50 people ler acre is normals 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 magi take place in conjunction with the process of amending aeg neral 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 aif port 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 ahy nonaviation development (see definition in Policy 1.5.3(b)) proposed for within the airport boundaa will be consistent with the Primary Compatibility i 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 are acceptable (d) ...providing contiguous land scaped.a i g areas is 5 a 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'resp_ect to an entire zone. Community general dans 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 polite 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. (1 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. 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. 0 (b) Clustering of new residential development ... Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C. Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C. (a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C. Although the zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities. (c) 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. 2.1.2(d) — Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determinants for Zone C as follows: (d) Zone C, including Sub -zones -C(1) and C(2), contains the normal traffic pattern for both runways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the southwest because of the wider pattern sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of. Zone C to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument (VOR DME) approach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated, Sub -zone CO) is applied to locations where noise risks and potential overflight annoyance are comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development neither exists or is planned Sub -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 Long -Range Airport DeveloRment 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 cid of Chico the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A) contained herein takes into account both the existing configuration of the runway system and the future configuration which the city expects to adopt. 7 (a) The existing configuration is represented by the 1977 master plan currently in effect. Also, after a new master plan is adopted• the current configuration will remain in use for an indeterminate period until such time as the proposed improvements can be constructed. In.the meantime land use compatibility associated with the existing configuration needs to be maintained. The future configuration is exl2ected to include a northward extension of the primary (eastern) runway and extension of the secondary (western) runway both northward and southward. If the city should decide either not to pursue these projects'or to change the length of the extensions, modification of the Compatibility Map 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 36) is based upon the airport role and facility improvements reflected in the airport master plan adopted by the city of Oroville in 1990 together with construction which has occurred subsequent to that date. Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Page 3-9, add new Paradise Skypark Airport Policy 4.2.1 as follows: Relationship to Long Range &port Development Plan — No master plan has been prepared for Paradise Skypark AirportThe Compatibility Map (Figure 30 is therefore based upon the airport configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 6B in Chapter 6 herein) as authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Page 3-11, add new Ranchaero Airport Policy 5.2.1 as follows: Relationshij2 to Long Range Airport Development Plan — No master plan has been prepared for Ranchaero AirportThe Compatibility Map (Figure 3D) is therefore based upon the airport configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Dia ram (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 M Municipal Airport map based upon the Commission's input. Additional modifications of the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map are proposed. See attached map. Appendix D — Replace with' the revised version attached. Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory paragraph and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally compatible" or "normally incompatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications. have also been made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into C(1) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions.offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally included in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various other policies.in Chapter -2. Appendix. F2, 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 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 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. This appendix contains two types of information intended to :Fa facilitate the general plan consistency process, L_Lll an initial'review of the current general plan and. applicable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Plan,- and lanand (2) a checklist of general plan consistency requirements. The emphasis in this theeg neral 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'seg neral plane and/or separate implementation documents which are necessary in order for the plan to be fully consistent with the Compatibility Plan Listed items are divided into two groups: compatibility criteria; and project review procedures. The comparison with [Note: this final paragraph will be modified as appropriate once the plan is adopted.] ' Discussion: The addition of the checklist is intended to'assist local jurisdictions and the ALUC in ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are implemented. Initial Study — Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining and strikeouts on the accompanying pages. Discussion: The modifications provide additional information regarding the effect of. the Compatibility Plan on.the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports. . 10 CounWde Polkles / Chapter 2 { Table 2A Primary Compatibility Criteria . Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 2-14 L Maximum Densities / intensities Additional Criteria Other Uses Zone, Locations Residential (people/ac) 2 Req'd Open Prohibited Uses , Other Development ° (du/ac)', Aver- Single with Land' Conditions age' Acre' Bonus ° A Runway Protection 0 10 Not Not All ► All structures except aero- ► Avigation easemerit dedica- Zone Appli- " Appli- Remain- nautical facilities with Io- tion and cable cable ing cation set by FAA criteria within Building , ► Assemblages of people Restriction Line ► Objects exceeding FAR Part 77 height limb ► Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials ► Hazards to flight' " Bl Approach/Departure s0.1 '25 _ 50 Not . • 30% ► Children's schools, 10 day ► Locate structures maxi - Zone (minimum Appli- -care centers, libraries mum distance from ex- . and :parcel sae cable ► Hospitals, nursing homes tended runway centerline' Sideline Zone 210.0 ► Highly noise -sensitive ► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in acres) uses (e.g. outdoor the- residences and buildings aters) with noise -sensitive uses t2 ► 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 Approach/Departure (average care centers, libraries residences (including mo - Zone parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes bile homes) and buildings 25.0 acres) Highly noise -sensitive with. noise -sensitive uses 12 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 30.0' 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 25.0 acres) Hazards to flight' Or 14 , (2) 24.0 (average parcel size 0.2 acres) D Other No No No Hazards to flight' ► Airspace review required " Airport Environs Limit Limit Req't for objects > 100 feet tall * Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying . " Airspace review required Overlay Compatibility Zone Appli- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall'Z cable ► Avigation easement dedica- tion required Table 2A Primary Compatibility Criteria . Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 2-14 L 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 indoorsand 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 loan 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 C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations. This two -option criterion is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities which tend to have comparatively high ambient noise levels. [Corrected 9126] Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000) I du1C GM, %'WIN I �uv� 2-15 �� 5 4�� ,4: :' _, .� { 4�.. 4 t� F s . r �.;. ' f , --�'�-^ .._.. ��,Y •. _—. \ I-.. •.� � � x,��,"�,,,,ft��`�kq 7 t, u�:°�'rv�'ggd� i i —_ � — ' / J ' ---Thermalit ��rtiay, i sy i s i , •� c... __.. ;>:-�.:_... _..: r _ , 1 � i. q, -t •`�. �, � 5000' lot 0 FEET .10,000' N J1 1" 5.000' i .., = i Source: -Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000) + Figure 3B �n CompatibilityfMap-2nd Revised Draft `` apOroviII& Municipal Airport �: i�� :V ,je _. .... . a 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 ButteCoun- ty and other affected jurisdictions as'guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibilitycr•ite- ria Fisted 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 annoyance and to the height of the structures. Atypical 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. D-1 Compatibility Zones Land Use A B1 B2 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 Farms; 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 t - 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 Compatibility Zones Land Use A 131 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 - - - - + * 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 - 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 Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses / Appenduc D Compatibility Zones Land Use A B1 B2 C D Commercial Uses Low -Intensity Retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales) - 0 + + + Retail Stores (1 floor) - 0 0 + + * Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors) _ _ 0 0 + Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.) - - - 0 + * Restaurants and Drinking. Establishments (no drive thru) - 0 0 0 + . * Fast Food Restaurants - - 0 0 + Auto and Marine Services - 0 + + + Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment - 0 + + + * Office Buildings (1 or 2 floors) - 0 + + + * Office Buildings (3 floors) .. a - - 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 (3floors) - - - 0 + Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls - - - 0 + Outdoor Theaters - - - 0 + Truck Terminals - + + + + * Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground - - - - 0 Transportation, Communications and Utilities Aircraft Storage 0' + + + + Automobile Parking 0 + + + + Highway and Street Right -of -Ways 0 + + + + Railroad and Public Transit Facilities 0 + + + + Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals - 0 + + + Reservoirs - 0 0 0 + Power Lines - - 0 0 0 + Water Treatment Facilities - 0 + + + Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities - 0 0 0 + Electrical Substations - 0 0 0 + Power Plants - - 0 0 + Sanitary Landfills r - - - - 0 - Normally incompatible 0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) + Normally compatible * Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan ME 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 perpetuaf.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 any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and (2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the 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 /Appendix F For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the Insert County or City name], 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 Citv 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 or on the ground at the airportincluding future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations Furthermore Grantor, itssuccessors and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical mod cation 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- this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to time have against any air carrier .or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec- utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant tenement. DATED: STATE OF } ss COUNTY OF } On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary.Public Appendix F2, Continued 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... If a separate policy document is adopted, modification of the general plan to achieve consistency.with the Compatibility Plan may not be required. Modifications would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to make reference to the separate policy document. > Secondary Dwellings — The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations. This factor needs to be reflected in local policies either by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting secondary dwellings where their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria. > Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre — indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Alternatively, local jurisdic- tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within each 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 r 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 noticeregarding 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 / Appendix 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 plan. consistency checklist or has taken the necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary. On the other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard. > Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions — If a jurisdiction chooses to sub- mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must establish a policy indicating the procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in- cludes reference to compatibility 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 4o 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 .1 B,UTT,E COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY OARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL - AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: ALUC RESPONSES TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' COMMENTS DEPARTMENT: Development Services DATE: 10-31-2000 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11-14-2000 REGULAR X CONSENT— ONSENT. ,DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Thomas A. Parilo PHONE: 538-6821 DEPARTMENTSUMMARY: During the first public review period for the March 2000 Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, a series of preliminary comments were forwarded to the Butte County ALUC by the Department of Development Services on behalf of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment 1). A second public comment period on the Draft, Plan, Addendum, and revised Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration is now underway. Comments are due on November 17, 2000. DEPARTMENT REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: 1. Accept this report for information.. 2. Authorize the chair to send the following comments to ALUC in response to the Draft Compatibility Plan, Addendum and revised Negative Declaration: a. The Butte County Board of Supervisors expects that the County will implement the four Airport Compatibility Plans through amendments to the General Plan and the development of an overlay/combining zone that will specifically include the policies and standards in the Plan. The Board will also reserve the option to adopt overriding findings once the county addresses the various methods to implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Once such County response is complete, any referral of a non -legislative discretionary project to the ALUC will be voluntary for advisory comments only. b. Recognize planned and zoned land with major infrastructure (to include, but not be limited to permanent storm drainage facilities, water, sewer, and roads) that has been installed and funded or accepted by a public entity as constituting an "existing land use". C. All infill lands of 20 acres or less should be bound by the same development standard if open land standards have been accomplished within the respective Compatibility Zone. Modify the amended infill standards in the addendum to eliminate the second bullet under (2) and modify the first bullet to replace "10 acres or less" with "20 acres or less". 3. Determine whether the Board should recommend the elimination of the split "C" Compatibility Zone into a "C1" (one unit per 5 acre lot size) or "C2" (four unit per acre or greater density). See discussion on page 12 of this report. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 415's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No bill Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No Date Received by Clerk of Board: Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help Previous Board Action Date: Additional Information Attached: Yes No Describe: 4. f4 - - » . SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK Number of originals required to be returned to Department:. .'. "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk ofthe Board returns ' completed Auditor's copy ONLY. • - _ ... Requested Board Action: _ , _ i:. Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required For Information Only +i BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source' Source of Additional Funds Requested _ Estimated Cost $. �� Contingencies $ k (Fund Name: i (Fund Number: ) �+ Amount Budgeted $ _ Unanticipated Revenue $ (Budget Unit Number:— ) (Source: (Fund Name: (Rev. Code: ) i `(Fund Number: ) „ Other Transfer(s) '$ ' 1. Complete worksheet below k 2. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline 01 Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds d! Annualized cost $ if also planned for next year. Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office i • Board Action Required for B -Transfer,? Yes' No , Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET, {} Transfer Request: - AMOUNT i LINE ITEM! LINE ITEM' Transfer $ (No Cents) From' ' To Transfer $ (No Cents) From * To - � is • Transfer $ (No Cents) From To !' - • Transfer $ (No Cents) From To ?r r • MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES .,Director's Office TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM:Th mas A. Parilo ector SUBJECT: UC RESPONSES TO BUTTE COUNTY'S APRIL 12, 2000 COMMENTS ON THE MARCH 2000 DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR: Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 14, 2000 DATE: October 31, 2000 A _ INTRODUCTION During thUrst public review period for the March 2000 'Draft Butte County Aiiport Land Use • Compatibility Plar@a series of �preliihinary comments were forwarded to the Butte County ALUC by the Department of Development Services on behalf of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment 1J.33 A second public comment period on the Draft Plan, Addendum, and revised Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration is now underwa}�omments are due on November 17, 2000. Thi"s'report includes four p ary heading'Gerieral ommenfs,�iport `Compatibility Maps, Revised Initial Study;\andecommendation., ThWGveneral Comment section provides a summary of ALUC's response to our comments and their direction on how to address them. Background information that was considered by the ALUC during its decision-making process relating to each item has also been presented. ThgAiiport Compatibility Maps section illustrates the changes made in the Addendum to the compatibility maps for each of the four public -use airports within the county,.,- This section also includes am identification of potential land use incompatibilities. The Recommendation_,section includes suggestions for additional comments to be forwarded to ALUC. For a complete list of proposed modifications to the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan resulting from the first series of public and agency comments, please refer to the ALUC package sent to the Board prior to the October 19, 2000, ALUC joint meeting. it • GENERAL COMMENTS - • The following comments addressing the Draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (See Attachment 1 & 2) were submitted .to ALUC on April 12, 2000. Each comment contains ALUC°s response and direction included in the Addendum as revised on September 26, 2000. . The underlined language identifies the additions and the strikeout indicates deleted language that respond to our comments. Staff has also included a further comment to ALUC's response., - The Draft. Compatibility .Plan.- needs ' to distinguish between mandatory review for legislative actions vs: optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) -Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows: (3) Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when r ijects under these circumstances,'166al jurisdictions are not required to adhire to the override process if they elect to ap *ect without incorporating design ch ditions suggested byAhe Co;nmission` Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 - Insert the following revisions and additions: (2) Local jdi sdictions'have the following choices; or a combination thereof, for satisfying this evaluation requirement: ' • The general -plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must contain sufficient detail .to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a .proposed development fully meets the compatibility criteria .specified in the Compatibility Plan (this requires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that }eject review procedures be described); • The Compatibihiy Plan must be- adopted by reference (additionally, therp of ect review procedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and a1212roved by the ALUC); and/or • The gerieral`plan 'must indicate that all'main land use actions shall be referred to the Commission for review in accordance with the policies of Section 2.3. 1 O The status of AL.UC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the r� .., ding options the localAgencyselects form king 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 AL UC's action -2- A-. Section 1. 5.2. (b) states that after a local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan for consistency with the Compatibility Plan (as outlined in Policy 2.4.3) or completed an override, the AL UC cannot require that all actions, regulations, and permits be referred for review. However, an agreement can be made that the Commission should continue to review individual projects in an advisory capacity. Major land use action referrals to the ALUC would be voluntary and advisory if general plan/ordinance consistency has been achieved through the incorporation of sufficient detail in the general plan to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed development fully meets the compatibility criteria. or the Compatibility Plan has been adopted by reference. If the Plan is adopted by reference the method for internally conducting project reviews must be identified either in the general plan or a separate instrument. Major land use action referrals • would also be voluntary if an override has been completed for the general plan. When review is voluntary, an override would not be necessary if the Commission found the project "inconsistent" or "conditionally consistent" and the local agency chose not to apply the suggested conditions. A local agency would also have the option of declining to enter into a voluntary project referral arrangement with the AL UC Staff .omment: The draft" revisions �ihcluded in the addendum fully respond to this �conment. _ r In reviewing projects, the Commission's action choice of finding a project consistent with. the Compatibility Plan subject to conditions should only be applicable for the timeframe between the adoption of the Compatibility Plan and the cities' or the county's action to amend their respective General- Plans. and/or override (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). Retain the current action choices listed in the Draft Compatibility Plan. • -3- i i u!, 't L The purpose of clarifying 'the Commission's action choices is to provide some procedural flexibilityfor Plan and project reviews. Action choices identified in Policy 2.2.3. apply when the ALUC is conducting mandatory reviews of legislative items (General Plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building regulations). 7 The action choice noted as, item (b) in the policy allows the AL UC to find a plan, ordinance, or regulation as consistent with the. Compatibility Plan, subject to conditions and/or modifications which the ALUC may specify. This flexibility allows the Commission to provide input without requiring a local agency to re -submit revised versions of their documents, if the ALUC's suggestions are ultimately incorporated. Commission action choices identified in Policy 2.3.3. apply when the ALUC is conducting a' review of major land use actions as defined in Policy 1.5.3. The scope and character of what is defined as major land use actions is such that their compatibility is of potential concern. Text in the Draft Plan notes that even though the actions may be basically consistent with the local General Plan or specific plan, sufficient detail may not be known to enable a full airport compatibility evaluation at the time that the General Plan or specific plan is reviewed. Therefore, ALUC review of these actions may be, warranted. ALUC review may also be mandatory depending on how the local agency has approached the project evaluation component of the Plan. Staff Comment: ALUC's response to Comment No..1 is relevant to this comment, as well. It is also clear that ALUC review is required for all discretionary projects until such time that the General Plan is amended or that an override is made. Following the County's action to amend the General Plan and/or override portions of the Compatibility Plan, only legislative items must be referred to ALUC. Any other referral will be done on a voluntary basis. In such cases, ALUC's response is advisory. Staff expects that Butte County will implement the Compatibility Plan through specific amendments to the General Planand the development of an overlay zoning district. Once complete, ALUC review of major non -legislative projects will not be required. Comment #3 The Definition "Existing Land Use," included in the Draft Compatibility Plan, appears to be limited. A local government commitment becomes firm when the following decisions and actions occur, the Plan should be modified accordingly: A. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. B. Recordation of final subdivision maps. -4- • C. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary entitlements, until they expire. D. Approval of a Development Agreement'within the terms of the agreement. E. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). F. Actual extension and installation of infrastructure. ALUC Direction Policy 1.2. 10 - Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows: Existing Land Use - A land use which eithei physically exists or for which local government commitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretioinary'approvals are nes Local government commitment 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 orioriginalen riod(before any time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired-, . • A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been 6proved; • A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect; A final subdivision man has been recorded: z A use permit or other discretionary muse entitlement has been approved and not yet expired; or • A valid building permit has been issued. Background Information fibr AL UC Reponse to Comment #3 The issue of vested rights is discussed in the 1993.Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on page 3-23. The Handbook indicates that vested rights are typically considered to exist when the landowner has obtained: A valid building permit, coupled with construction having commenced (generally the laying of the structure's foundation) A vesting tentative map A development agreement with a local government. entity It is noted that vesting of rights to current zoning does not occur solely because a developer has constructed infrastructure (e.g, roads, and water lines). On page 4-9, the Handbook recommends that ALUCs follow land use planning laws and conventional practices to determine what constitutes an existing land use. It is suggested that a vacant property be considered devoted to a particular use once local government commitments along with substantial construction investment by the property owner make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than its proposed use. The extension and installation of infrastructure in and of itself is not typically recognized for purposes of determining existing land use status. Local government commitment to a proposal is usually considered firm once a - vesting tentative map has been approved or all discretionary approvals have been obtained. At the direction of the ALUC, Department of Development Services staff requested a legal opinion regarding the status that Assessment Districts should be given in terms of the land use commitment that is made by a local agency. The findings of that legalopinion are not conclusive, but have indicated that any land not already devoted to residential uses, though served by an assessment district, may continue to be used as it is now or as allowed by the CL UP. Therefore, the denial of all economically viable use of the land is unlikely. Whether any liability would result from the restriction of these areas by the CLUP would depend on a variety of facts which were not provided with the opinion request. Examples include, the chain of events leading to the formation of the assessment district, whether the land owners or the local agency initiated the formation, the adoption of any plans depicting residential development, and the extent to which such development has actually commenced would all be relevant. Unless a more definitive legal analysis supports the assertion that all areas subject to an assessment district should be considered "already devoted to incompatible uses, " or that such a finding applies to particular areas within a specific local agency, the inclusion of this circumstance is not recommended. After further analysis by Shutt Moen Associates (SMA), it is suggested that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installation of such infrastructure nDt be 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. SMA's recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects from review under these circumstances. Staff Comment: As noted in ALUC's response, the formation of an assessment district and/or the extension of infrastructure does not constitute an "existing land use". ALUC does have the authority to recognize such events as qualifying for existing land use status. This should be extended to situations where a public agency has paid for or has otherwise accepted extensions of water, sewer, drainage and road improvements to implement General Plan and zoning densities or intensities. There could be situations where the land use pattern is established, infrastructure has been installed and undeveloped parcels exist, but don't qualify for the infill policies. -6- Although the special conditions (Section 2.4.4. -page 2-16) for infill provide for a 50%o bonus for residential density over that allowed in the proposed Compatibility zones, the practical outcome would not allow feasible infill development to occur and appears to be,inconsistent with the infill definition (Section 1.2.1.4. -page 2 -3) -and criteria in Section 2.4.4.(a). ALUC Direction Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a)_- Replace original infill policy with the following (changes noted with underlining): Infill -Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, additional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility, Zones B2 and C. (1) Aan rcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteria plush applicable provisions of either Sub -policy (2) or (3) below: • The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres. % • The site is at least 65bounded (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 surrounding, 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 accordance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same compatibilitTzone. . [9/26 revision] (2) For residential development: • If the size of thean reel proposed for division is, 10 acres or less, the development . density shall be no greater than the overall density represented byal_l existing lots which lie fully oran rtially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided. If the size of theap reel imposed for division is g1 eater than 10 acres (b no larger than 20 acres), then the development density shall be no greater than double the density permitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A): -7- iili • 1 • 1 1 ' 1 / " • • 11 " 1 1 " • • / • 1 1 • 1 e 1 1 -1 , 1 " 17 1 111" • /'• • /' 11 • 1.1 �� i •• 1" 1 "1 , •" •11 "• 1 • t.l 1 "1 • /"•/ /" 1.111. "•11 • 1"• 1 •1" i 1" 11 /• •• • parcels subsequently to qualify for infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be determined 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 takelap ce 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. When. considering the issue of infill, the objective is to recognize and allow development on parcels which are predominantly surrounded by lands that have already been devoted to incompatible land uses, if the properties are nat located in critical areas (e.g., inside the 65 dB CNEL contour, off the runway ends, etc). The challenge is to strike a balance between allowing an entire area to develop at densities and intensities that would otherwise not be considered acceptable, and recognizing that opportunities for meaningful airport protection have already largely been eliminated based on previous land use actions. The proposed increase for infill projects that is presented in the Draft Plan (50% for both residential and nonresidential development) is considered to be a reasonable compromise. However, the point made .by the commentor regarding the practical aspects of facilitating infill development is a valid consideration. As currently written, infill policies only apply within Zones B2 and C. This - limitation automatically ensures that infill development can only occur outside of the most critical areas surrounding the airport from a safety perspective. The primary considerations, depending upon which zone is involved, consist of noise exposure and overflight annoyance. Several proposals suggesting modifications to the density and intensity criteria associated with Zones B2 and C have been received. The ALUC itself has also been analyzing the issue through sub -committee activities. Other factors to consider when making adjustments to the current infill policy are that nonresidential development may be eligible to receive an intensity bonus as indicated in Policy 4.2.7 if special building.design features are incorporated into the project to reduce the risks to building occupants in the event that the facility is struck by an aircraft. If a nonresidential 0 development project qualifies for higher levels of development through both increases in .the amount of infill development permitted and an intensity bonus, people per acre concentrations could theoretically exceed what would otherwise be "recommended. It is also difficult to recommend increases to the amount of infill development that could be permitted for nonresidential uses without knowing where the qualifying properties are actually •located. Ideally, each local jurisdiction would identify those parcels qualifying for infill development as part of the process of making their General Plan consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Staff Comment:' While it appears that the adjusted infill proposal contained in the addendum is a reasonable accommodation, the rationale to have a dual standard for 10 -acre and 20 -acre infill policies is not stated. Comment #5 Are all existing uses that are not compatible with the Plan considered nonconforming? The Plan should be clarified to exempt existing and infill uses from being considered nonconforming. Do not add.-text into the Planwhich would exempt existing and infill uses from the. nonconforming use provisions contained in the document. i iI VA111,80i ' ArIM&OVE i i fit h According to language within the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, "non -conforming uses" are structures and buildings, and lots and parcels which do not conform to the regulations of the zone in which they are located. Section 24-35 of the ordinance goes on to say that the purpose of the article is to establish procedures to permit the continued operation of such uses where such uses are appropriate, while eliminating nonconforming uses through abandonment, obsolescence or destruction. The purpose, of defining nonconforming uses in the Draft Compatibility Plan is similar 'to the objective outlined in the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, to identify those uses which do not comply with the Plan and encourage. their eventual elimination. The ALUC's concerns also extend to addressing the future reconstruction and/or redevelopment of properties or uses which become "nonconforming" at the time the final document is adopted. In some ways, policies relative to nonconforming uses in the Draft Plan are actually less restrictive than provisions contained within the Butte County Zoning Code in that there are no "abandonment" provisions which could eliminate the validity of a nonconforming use if the activity is discontinued for a specified period of time. If existing uses that do not conform to policies in nonconforming, the AL UC would have no means of intensification of those uses. Current draft policie s 17Jhe Compatibility Plan are not considered addressing -and limiting the expansion and designed to accommodate some degree of -9- • infill development mean that specific pr`o"perties are being given the opportunity to develop at densities or intensities that would otherwise be inconsistent with the Plan. Initial development of infill uses would not be addressed through nonconforming use policies. However, .it is appropriate that any subsequent redevelopment of . infill sites be considered under the nonconforming use provisions to ensure that development densities and intensities beyond those . already allowed by the infill provisions are not exceeded. • Staff Comment: The PUC clearly establishes that existing land uses are not subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This being the case, residential uses that meet the "existing land use" definition are practically exempt from all aspects of the plan since ministerial permits are all that is required to build on an existing legal lot. Staff expects that new zoning regulations will be adopted to apply the intensity standards for non-residential buildings/uses. Comment #6 Regarding reconstruction, the 75% damage level specified by the Draft Plan should be determined based on the market' value instead of the Assessor's value, as the latter is normally lower. Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) - In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market value." The portion of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance that addresses nonconforming uses does not set a damage threshold for., allowing reconstruction that is consistent with the size and extent of the prior use or building. The County's provisions allow reconstruction of a nonconforming use or building that is damaged or destroyed totally or in part by right as long as the floor area or extent does not exceed the original. Expansion, enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use is only permitted by use permit. In comparison, policies in the Draft Compatibility Plan do not include a use permit provision since the AL UC does not have direct land use control authority. A threshold for reconstruction has also been established. The commentor's suggestion to base the threshold for reconstruction on the market value rather than the Assessor's value is reasonable and leaves the objective of the policy intact. Staff Comment: An existing residential use on a legal lot can be expanded or rebuilt with a building, permit if the existing density is not exceeded. -10- __' • Comment #7 The Compatibility Plan should document the rationale behind applying stricter standards than that of the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook regarding the residential density and concentration (people/acre) standards in Compatibility Zone C. Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A - Make 'the following modifications as shown on the accompanying revised table: • Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12. • Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B 1 and B2, change "office buildings" to "buildings with noise -sensitive uses." • Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and 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. Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 - Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C. (a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the. major concern within Zone C. Although the zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly with r .spect to uses such as schools,, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities, nyies, Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.2(d) - Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determinants for Zone C as follows:' (d) Zone C, including.Sub-zones C(1` and .(21, 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 -31R. Where sub -zones are designated, Sub -zone C(l) .is applied to locations where noise, risks,_ anaotn ential overflight annoyance are com paratively 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 -11- r • "1 /.1 /"1 •" •111'1 ".1 • •1 • a Ent MIMEMITMI IMT 1 u1 . " / • 1 " • 1 1 " 11 . / As described in Chapter 3 of the Draft Compatibility Plan, Zone C typically equates to the traffic pattern zone for each airport. As written in the original draft, there is a split residential density option which consists of either S acre minimum parcel sizes or at least S dwelling units per acre. The residential land use density indicated for the traff c. pattern zone in the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook suggest that 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre is acceptable -from a sqtfa persi2ectiye. The higher .density option offered in the Draft Plan is consistent with the information presented in the Handbook. The description of Zone C in Chapter 3, Section 1.1.4., indicates that safety is less of an issue in this area. Most ofthe concern is related to ove;ajght annoyance created by aircraft that are within the traffic pattern at relatively low altitudes. A detailed discussion of density options and a recommendation was presented in the issue paper prepared by Shutt Moen Associates (SMA) and distributed at the April 19, 2000 ALUC meeting. SMA's recommendation was to retain the split density option within Zone C and allow the local agencies to determine which criteria should be applied in specific locations as part of the General Plan consistency process. .Nonresidential intensity standards proposed for Zone C (average of 100 people acre) may appear to be lower than the 150 people per acre figure identified in Chapter 9 of the Handbook. However, clustering of nonresidential development and nonresidential intensity bonuses are available which would allow higher numbers in specific circumstances. Another factor to consider when applying either density option for Zone C is the development of a land use pattern which will provide flexibility should the need for runway modifications or relocation become desirable beyond what is currently envisioned. If the higher density option (C2) is applied to all areas within Zone C, the ability of the airport to change its existing and currently anticipated layout could be eliminated. Although the Chico Airport Master Plan identifies anticipated improvements over the next 20 year period, the Compatibility Plan must balance between providing protection based on existing plans and incorporating strategies which may facilitate airport protection and expansion beyond that timeframe. Staff Comment: Our original comment was in response to a straw poll taken by ALUC on April 16, 2000, when the plan was presented to them. They concurred that the C zone would be designated for unit per five acres only. The adjustment to split the zone into either C1 or C2 provides additional flexibility. The. Board would retain greater land use discretion if the C1 and C2 options were eliminated, and all lands in the Traffic Pattern be designated C: As noted above, the split zone and use of the lower density C1 zone will preserve future airport expansion needs. -12- • Without further revision or adjustment to the Compatibility Zones, the lands located in the "C1" Compatibility Zone on -the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport will not benefit from a straight "C" Zone .(see Attachment 3, Exhibit 1). These lands are currently zoned SR -1 and are within the North Chico Specific Plan. These lands will need .to be redesignated and rezoned to conform with the C1 compatibility zone. ' If the Board is desirous of maintaining the SR -1 zoning on the west side of the airport in the C1 compatibility zone, an override will be required. See further discussion of this area of conflict under the heading "Airport Compatibility Maps", below. C The nonresidential concentration standards in Zone B-2 appear to be more restrictive than those in the State Handbook., Retain the current residential/nonresidential density and open space criteria for Zone B2 as presented in Table 2A of the Draft Plan. Background Infarmation for ALUC Reponse to Comment 8 As described in Chapter- 3, Section']. 1.3., of the March 2000 Draft Compatibility Plan, Zone B2 encompasses the extended approach/departure zone for each airport and may also include some land lateral to the runways. These areas are considered to be affected by moderate degrees of noise and risk. Noise levels may exceed SS dB CNEL in some portions of the Zone. Aircraft may overfly the area at altitudes of less than 600 feet above the runway elevation. Handbook data indicates that .10% to 15% of near -airport general aviation aircraft accidents occur within the area comparable to that encompassed by Zone B2. From the description listed above it is clear_ that the composite zones identified in the Plan are based on a broader number of factors than safety alone. Therefore, a direct transfer of density and intensity information which corresponds to the conceptual safety zone configurations identified in the Handbook is not entirely applicable. Nonetheless, residential land use densities identified in the Handbook for the Inner Turning Zone and Outer Safety Zone, portions of which would fall within Zone B2, consider a range of 2 to 10 or 2 to S acre minimums respectively, to be acceptable. Given the other compatibility issues dealt with in Zone B2, ' a density criteria that allows one unit per S acres is consistent with the more conservative end of the spectrum. The .above conclusion is also applicable to the proposed nonresidential development intensities. However, the Draft Plane does provide for clustering and intensity bonuses for nonresidential,. development. The open space requirement indicated in the Handbook for the Inner Turning Zone -13- • and Outer Safety Zone ranges from 15% to 30% depending upon location. For the composite Zone B2, a 20% open space requirement is considered a reasonable compromise. (41 Staff Comment: Residential density and nonresidential concentration standards that are applied to various zones presented in the State Handbook have been established solely on the basis of safety considerations. Zone B2 in the March 2000 Draft Compatibility Plan was developed based upon SMA's review of a variety of factors, including safety, noise, and overflight concerns. Because of the composite nature of all of the compatibility zones -within the Draft Plan, it is difficult to conduct a direct comparison of standards between the two approaches. Given the fact that nonresidential development within Zone B2 is also eligible for intensity bonuses and clustering, the overall standards that have been. applied in the Draft Plan do not differ substantially from what is recommended in the Handbook. AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY MAPS After ALUC had issued ' the March 2000 Draft Plan, staff conducted an analysis of the compatibility maps for the four public -use airports. This analysis resulted in identifying several conflict areas, the majority of which are concentrated around the Chico and Oroville airports. These areas include properties with current General Plan and/or zoning designations that would, result in conflicts with the proposed compatibility zones' standards of the Draft Plan. Attachments "A through D" in Attachment 2 (pp. 9 through 12) provides specific information regarding the location and details of the conflict areas. ALUC staff and the consultant analyzed all comments received from the County, as well as other affected jurisdictions/entities. Subsequently, ALUC provided direction to staff to circulate an addendum to the March 2000 Draft Plan that addresses these comments. Following circulation of the September 16, 2000 addendum, staff reviewed the revised airport compatibility maps. Staff concludes that the addendum has resulted in a significant reduction in the conflict areas, especially within Compatibility Zone C around the Chico and Oroville airports. This is due to the ALUC's modification of the boundaries of the compatibility zones and the creation of the split "C1" - "C2" compatibility zones. Attachment 3 demonstrates that with the exception of the Chico Airport, some conflict areas would continue to exist within the three airport compatibility maps, but they are largely associated with Compatibility Zones A, B1, and B2 . The primary conflicts within these zones involve safety issues, which will necessitate reconsideration of the County General Plan and/or zoning designations. Within the Chico Airport Compatibility Map (Exhibit 1 in Attachment 3), land use conflict areas remain in proposed compatibility zones B1, B2, and Cl. The majority of these conflict areas occur north'of Mud Creek on both sides of the airport and to the north of the runway. All of the conflict parcels in these areas are residentially planned and zoned either SR -1 or SR -3. Approximately half of these parcels will qualify as "Existing Land Use," over which 6[s • C MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT,OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 2000 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DATE: April 12, 2000 At its meeting yesterday, the Board of Supervisors considered staff's preliminary review and comments regarding the referenced Plan. Similar' -to the requests from the cities of Oroville and Chico, the Board requested your Commission for a 60 -day extension of the comments period. Staff's preliminary review of the Draft Compatibility Plan resulted in some issues and concerns that were presented to the Board. The Board" concluded its deliberations with the following • preliminary comments: • The Draft Compatibility Plan needs to distinguish between mandatory review for legislative actions vs. optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. • In reviewing projects, the Commission's action choice of finding a project consistent with the Compatibility Plan subject to conditions should only be applicable for the timeframe between the adoption of the Compatibility Plan and the cities', or the county's action to amend their respective General Plans and/or override (Chapter 2,.Section 2.2.3). • The Definition "Existingland Use," included in the Draft Compatibility Plan, appears;to be limited. A local government commitment becomes firm when the following decisions and actions occur, the Plan should be modified accordingly: a. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. b. Recordation of final subdivision maps. c.. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary entitlements, until they expire. d. Approval of a Development Agreement within the terms of the agreement. 1 Y e. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). f. Actual extension and installation of infrastructure. • Although the special conditions (Section 2.4.4. -page 2-16) for infill provide for a 50% bonus for residential density over that allowed in the proposed Compatibility zones, the practical outcome would not allow feasible infill development to occur -and appears to be inconsistent with the infill definition (Section 1.2.1.4. -page 2-3) and criteria in Section 2.4.4.(a). • Are all existing uses that are not compatible with the Plan considered nonconforming? The Plan should be clarified to exempt existing and infill uses from being considered nonconforming. • Regarding reconstruction, the 75% damage level specified by the Draft Plan should be determined based on the market value instead of the Assessor's value, as the latter is normally lower. • The Compatibility Plan should document the rationale'behind applying stricter standards than that of the State. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook regarding the residential density and concentration (people/acre) standards in Compatibility Zone C. • The nonresidential concentration standards in Zone B-2 appear to be more restrictive than those in • the State Handbook. For background information and more specifics about the mentioned issues, I have attached my memo to the Board outlining staff comments. The Board will forward its final comments to you as soon as its review of the Plan is complete. Attachment cc: Board of Supervisors Marion Reeves • 2 • MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICE_ S Director's Office TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director. SUBJECT: REVIEW OF MARCH 2000 DRAFT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DATE: April 6, 2000 I. Introduction The Planning Division staff of the' Department of Development Services has conducted a preliminary review of the draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This memo _ • and our presentation on April 13, 2000, attempt to highlight land use implications, changes, and inconsistencies with current land use planning in effect around the four public use airports in Butte County. Staff has formulated the following topical issues which are presented in details in Section III: A. Selected policy language and Standards in the ALUCP B. Comparison of Applicable. Criteria/Guidelines , for Compatibility Zone C: This is a comparison of the Zone's criteria with those of the California Department of Transportation's 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. " This handbook is intended to be a guide for Airport Land Use'Commissions iri carrying out their duties as set forth in the California State Aeronautics Act. It is also to be used by all parties involved in airport land use compatibility. C. Review of the draft compatibility plans for each. of the four public use airports. H. Analvsis e The following analysis is preliminary and has focussed on what appears to be the most obvious policy -related issues. Through further analysis and our discussion with the Board on April 11, 2000, other issues may surface, as well. • 1 A. Selected Policy Language and Standards in the ALUCP Review Process following ALUCP Adoption: The plan addresses and identifies various review procedures that are- not presented as clearly as they could be. It is staff's understanding that the plan contains a two tiered review process for the Airport Land Use Commission after the cities and the county make various amendments to their respective general plans and/or finds that .there are reasons to make overriding findings. During the time period after the Butte County Airport Land use Commission (ALUC) adopts the 2000 ALUCP and before the lead agency (cities and the county) brings their respective General Plans into conformity and/or overrides the ALUCP, all discretionary -projects must be reviewed by the Commission. , The lead agency will be required to submit said -projects for review. The Commission will review said projects against the adopted ALUCP. The Commission may take any of the following actions: Find the project to be consistent with the ALUCP. • Find the project consistent subject to conditions. This action choice should only be available to the Commission for the time frame between the adoption of the ALUCP an.the cities or the county's action to amend their respective General • Plans and/or override. Find the project inconsistent. If the lead agency disagrees with a finding of inconsistency, overriding findings must be made' for the project to be approved. An override must be done with a 2/3rds vote (4/5ths in reality for the Board of Supervisors) for the project to be approved. Based on discussions during the joint Board of Supervisors and ALUC meeting on April 3, 2000, the override decision must be made by the Board of Supervisors. During the time period after the ,lead agency (cites and the county) amend their respective general plans and/or override the ALUCP the only projects requiring review by ALUC are legislative actions. They include rezonings, amendments to the general plan, specific plans and other building or zoning regulations that may be applicable. inside the influence areas of a public use airport: All other discretionary land use applications are not required to be reviewed by ALUC, except that an agency or individual may voluntarily request a review.'. If a voluntary review is requested, ALUC may only submit comments to the lead agency and no override is required if ALUC determines the project to be inconsistent. This procedure needs to be clarified as there are several sections within the plan that implies that ALUC has jurisdiction to review a broader range of projects. Section 1.5.2. • (b) states that the Commission and the local agency could agree that the commission should continue to review individual projects in anadvisory capacity. This statement 2 appears to be the standard, but there are other references that suggest otherwise. They are: a.- Section 1.5.2 (c) concerning redevelopment. What is meant by redevelopment? Would it only apply if there were a general plan amendment or rezone? b. Section 1.5.2 (d) suggests that the ALUC Secretary (Director of Development Services) can make a determination which projects should be referred to ALUC. C. Section 1.5.3. Major Land Use Actions: Suggests that other major land. use projects not involving a legislative action may also be warranted to be reviewed by ALUC. Specifically; under subsection (a) it lists a number of non -legislative land uses that include, (3) land divisions of five or more residential units, (4) any discretionary development of 20;000 square feet or more, (5) a land acquisition by a governmental agency that could result in any facility accommodating a congregation of people (school or hospital), (6) any non -aviation use of land in Compatibility Zone A, (7) new antennas, buildings and other structures exceeding the height limits of the respective compatibility zone, (8) any obstruction that receives a determination of "other than "not a . hazard to air navigation", (9) any project that may create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, (10) projects that may attract birds and finally subsection (c) requires review of all communication towers anywhere in the county that are • taller, than 200 feet. d. Section 2.3.5 -Subsequent .Review also suggests that there_ can' be additional review at the project level. Section 2.4.4 (b) (3) requires that ALUC review expansions of legal nonconforming uses. Notwithstandingthese'suggestions for further review, most, if not all, of these matters should be addressed by the cities and the county amendments to their respective General Plan, which could include a new overlay -zoning district. Once ALUC has determined that those issues have been satisfactorily addressed or proper overrides have been enacted, no further" mandatory review of non -legislative projects is required. Voluntary review could occur, though. It is clear that the plan needs to distinguish between mandatory review for legislative actions vs. optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. 2. Section 1.2.10. Existing Land Use. This is'a definition that appears to be limited. A local government commitment becomes firm when the following decisions and actions occur: a. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. 3 b. Recordation of final subdivision maps. C. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary entitlements, until it expires. d. Approval of a Development Agreement within the terms of the agreement. e. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer etc.) f Actual extension and installation of infrastructure While the Airport Planning Handbook does not include all of these features, these commitments should be acknowledged elements that constitute existing land uses. Page 1-2 under Existing Land Uses states that "For airport land use planning purposes, a land use can generally be considered existing once the local agency has completed all discretionary actions on the project and only ministerial approvals remain." Minimally, this sentence should be added to the definition of "Existing Land Use" as provided in Section 1.2.10. In addition, the Airport Planning Handbook acknowledges that " . . . financial commitments or other factors can result in vesting occurring quite early in the process" (page 3-23). Furthermore, on page 3-24 under the heading of "Economic • Considerations" it states that " . . . ALUCs cannot totally ignore the economic implications of providing a high degree of compatibility, especially around airports in urban communities ... airport/land use compatibility has its costs as well as its benefits ... but also by the community as a whole (from underutilized infrastructure, lost taxes, etc.) 3. Section 2.4.4 Special Conditions (a) Infill: The criterion for infill needs_f irther refinement. The standard stated for infill projects is clear, but the fourth bullet under item 1 places limits on the infill program: Infill by necessity needs to be applied to the definition of existing lands uses. Page 172 "Limitations" states that ALUC has no authority over existing land uses. The infill policy gives authority to ALUC to restrict infill development: The fourth bullet is in conflict with the second bullet. It states that regardless of the surrounding land uses, the proposed use shall not have a density or intensity more than 50% above that permitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A). This may ignore the public investment -made in infrastructure improvements. The second bullet appears to allow development if the adjacent land uses are similar to or more intensive than that which is proposed on the infill parcel. A further general observation on the definition of infill is that the 65% threshold for bordering development may be difficult and impractical in some cases. This can be overcome if the definition of "Existing Land uses is broadened to reflect all of the items listed above. 4 • 4. Section 2.4.4 (b) Nonconforming uses: Subsection (2) provides that a nonresidential nonconforming use not be enlarged. The primary feature that would render a nonresidential use nonconforming appears to. be the intensity factors or people per acre. Buildings are classified based on their use. Occupancy limits are then determined based on the size (square footage). It. is not known how many buildings exceed the actual or the theoretical population standards for the zone. The theoretical standard is based on the size of the building. The building code would determine the maximum number of people that can safely occupy the building. Different uses would have different occupancy levels (i.e., fewer people can occupy warehouse space than office space). , Another question related to nonconforming uses: Is a use considered nonconforming if it'.s an existing or infill use? * Stated another way, are all existing uses that are not compatible with the plan considered nonconforming? Both existing and infill uses should not be considered nonconforming, as ALUC has no authority over existing uses. S. Section 2.4.4 (c) Reconstruction: If a building is destroyed by 75% or more of the Assessor's value, it may only be rebuilt if it conforms with the underlying use, density and intensity as provided for in Table 2A. The county zoning ordinance allows residential uses to be reconstructed irrespective of the amount of damage. All other nonconforming uses may be rebuilt, expanded, reconstructed, altered,: or enlarged with the approval of a Use Permit. It is apparent that the ALUCP will not allow reconstruction if the 75% damage threshold is met, but there may be a legal question as to what process should be made available and followed for an individual who has suffered a loss. Staff has also asked County Counsel to, review and comment on the Nonconforming and Reconstruction sections. B. Comparison of Applicable Criteria/Guidelines for Compatibility Zone C (Traffic Pattern) Introduction The purpose of this summary is to identify the Compatibility Zone "C" criteria used in both of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH). Item 2 displays the criteria that have been established in the ALUCP while Item 3 outlines those provided in the ALUPH.. A comparison of these criteria is provided in a summary table. 2. ALUCP Criteria The following criteria are quoted from the definition section of the document (Section 1.1.4., page 3-2). 5 • • The outer boundary is the area commonly flown by aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet or less above ground level (it can be lower or, especially for larger airplanes, higher). • Annoyance associated with aircraft overflight is .the major concern. To deal with this issue, a residential density level was set at < 0.2 DU/ac or >.5 DU/ac. Currently, however, the Commission's preference is to set the density at < 0.2 DU/ac. • For nonresidential uses, -the average intensity is 100 people/ac;.no single acre shall exceed 300 people/ac. • Prohibited uses include children's school, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase. • This zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour. • Land uses are subjected to aircraft frequent noise events. • Restrictions may be required on tall objects (ones greater than 70 feet high). • 3. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (AL(JPH) The ALUPH devises four functional categories to formulate airport land use compatibility policies/criteria. These categories are noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. Each of these includes guidelines/criteria, related to CZ "C", that are outlined below (ALUPH-Chapter 3, page 3-3 and Chapter 9, pages 9-21/9-23). It is worth noting that the intent section of the ALUPH includes a statement that reads, "...the views presented -herein should be considered only as suggestions and recommendations. .The Handbook does not establish state standards or policies for airport land use planning." a. Noise • No residential uses within 65 dB CNEL contour. • Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as a maximum for residential uses in quiet communities (or even 55 dB at rural airport).. b. Safety Acceptable Form of Development "Although perhaps not easily attainable, the following guidelines are suggested as a good starting point..." • 6 • 4 to 6 DU/ac in small communities; in urban areas, even higher densities may be reasonable, especially if development is clustered to provide open space. • Avoid high-density residential use unless clustered to leave open areas in between. • Avoid activities with very high concentrations of people (150 or more people/acre). • Avoid schools, hospitals, and.nursing homes. b. Airspace Protection • .Limit heights of objects in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation, part 77 criteria (these criteria are intended to protect navigable airspace by. creating the imaginary surfaces around airport runways). • Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere in the airport vicinity. C. Overflight • Under this category, the compatibility objective is not easily expressed in. land use planning terms. The objective, however, can be helping people with above average sensitivity to aircraft overflights to avoid locations where these overflights occur. • Drawing "the line around areas of significant aircraft overflights exposures can be difficult if an attempt is made to define the area in terms of measured sound level." "...the highly subjective individual reactions to overflights makes the value of measurement on a decibel scale questionable." . • "The ideal land use compatibility strategy with respect to overflight annoyance is to avoid development of residential areasin the affected locations. To the extent that this approach is not practical, the alternative is to make people better aware of the airport proximity before they move to the area. • Establish a buyer awareness program. • Use avigation overflight easements. • • Use real estate disclosure statements. 7 •Primary Compatibility Criteria -Zone C Comparison of Applicable Criteria/Guidelines • Category Zone C Applicable Criteria/Guidelines ALUCP ALUPH Noise • Annoyance is the major concern • No residential uses within 65 dB CNEL contour. • A residential density level was set at < • Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as a maximum for residential 0.2 du/ac or > 5 du/ac. uses. • Mostly lies outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour. • Land. uses are subjected to aircraft frequent noise events. - Safety • For nonresidential uses; the average • Suggested residential density is 4 to 6 du/ac in small intensity is 100 people/ac; no single acre communities; in urban areas, even higher densities may be shall exceed 300 people/ac. reasonable • Prohibited uses include children's • Avoid high-density residential hse unless clustered. school, day care centers, libraries, . Avoid activities with high concentrations of people (150 or hospitals, nursing homes, and more people/acre). development that may cause the • Avoid schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. attraction of birds to increase. Airspace • The outer boundary is the area • Limit heights of objects to conform to FAR part 77 criteria. commonly flown by aircraft at an • Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere in the airport vicinity. altitude of 1,000 feet or less above ground level. • Airspace review is required for objects > 100 feet. However, Chapter 3 -Section 1.1.4.b specifies that restrictions may be required on tall objects (ones greater than 70 feet high). Overflight • Deed notice is required. • The highly subjective individual reactions to overflights make the value of measurement on a decibel scale questionable. • Make people better aware of the airport proximity before they move to the area; establish a buyer awareness program. • Use avigation overflight easements. • Use real estate disclosure statements. C. Review of the Draft Compatibility Plans for Each of the Four Public Use Airports This item focuses on implementation -related issues only. Staff has prepared a preliminary analysis of the application of the proposed Compatibility Zones to county properties surrounding the four airports. This evaluation is attached to this memo, refer to Attachment A, B, C, and D. Each attachment consists of a table listing the areas where the ALUCP provisions will conflict with the County Zoning and/or General Plan designations. A brief explanation of each conflict area has also been provided. In addition, a map illustrating the conflict areas for each airport is included. An implementation issue that resulted from the mentioned analysis is the intensity standards in the proposed Compatibility Zones. This relates to the maximum number of people that can • exist in nonresidential structures. Although different approaches could be followed to address this issue, they require the imposition of new building permit process. 8 • CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County Properties • Conflict Area # Location Compatibility GP Designation County CLUP Limitation Zone Zoning 1 North of the B-1 Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/10 ac runway Residential 2 West of the B-1 Industrial M2/OS, LI 25 people/ac average airport 3 Eaton- B-2 LDR, MDR, HDR R-1, R73, R4, 1 DU/5 ac Cohasset SRI DU/5 ac. 4 Northwest B-2 Agricultural SR -1 1 DU/5 ac of the Residential airport 5 Northeast of B-2 Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac the airport Residential 6 Northeast of C Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac the airport Residential . 7 East Ave. C LDR SR -1 1 DU/5 ac 8 North Ave. C LDR SR 1 DU/5 ac 9 Eaton Rd. C LDR, MDR, PQ R-1, R-2, SR 1 DU/5 ac 10 NCSP C LDR, MDR, HDR R-1, R-2, R-3 1 DU/5 ac village core 11 PV High C City City 1 DU/5 ac School 12 East of the C Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac airport Residential 13 West of the C Agricultural ,. SR -1 1 DU/5 ac airport Residential 14 West of the C Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac a' ort Residential Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 1) 1. This area is located immediately off the northerly end of the runway. It is predominantly developed as 2-4 acre parcels., Approximately 40 acres of a 112 - acre parcel exist in this area and has the potential to be divided into four 10 -acre parcels. No other infill is available. Conflict: while SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses, the Compatibility Zone B-1 only allows a 10 -acre minimum parcel size. 2. Area 2 consists of three different areas along the westerly side of the airport. All three are in an Industrial designation. No land division issues are observed. The only issue is the limitation on intensity as proposed by the B-1 zone. This zone does not allow concentrations greater than 25 persons per acre. Potential conflict: many uses allowed by the current zoning districts will be restricted due to limitations on the concentration of people. • 3. This area lies completely within the Sphere of Influence of the city and consists of both city and county properties. The area is almost entirely developed. Very few 9 • vacant parcels exist and none are large enough to allow any land divisions at a 5 - acre minimum parcel size. -Conflict: the current zoning districts allow a variety of residential densities from 1 DU/ac to 20 DU/ac while Zone B-2 only allows a 5 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses. 4. Located on the northwest side of the airport, this area is entirely developed with parcels less than 5 acres; the only exception is a 42 -acre parcel with the potential of being divided into eight 5 -acre parcels. Surrounding parcels are mainly less than 2 acres in size. Conflict: while SR -1 zoning district allows a 1 -acre minimum parcel size, Zone B-2- only allows a 5 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses. 5. Most of this area is already developed at less than 5 -acre parcels. In the northerly part of the area, approximately 25 acres can potentially be split into 5 -acre parcels. The southerly portion of this zone also has 6 parcels, ranging from 10 to 25 acres, that may be similarly divided. Conflict: SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size while zone B-2 only allows a 5 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses. 6. This area is between Keefer Road and Rock Creek, east of the airport. It has mostly been divided to parcels less than 5 acres with the exception of approximately 50 acres. Therefore,. there is a potential for creating up to ten 5 - acre parcels. Conflict:. SR -3 district allows, a. 3 -acre minimum parcel size while a • 5 -acre minimum parcel- size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 7. Area 7 has a rural residential character. Parcels are generally over an acre in size. One 12 -acre parcel exists in this area and could potentially be divided into 2 parcels. Conflict: SR -1 district allows a 1 -acre minimum parcel size while a 5 - acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 8. This area is almost completely developed with low density residential uses. It is a mixture of city and county jurisdiction. No infill potential exists since there are no vacant parcels greater. than 10 acres in size. Conflict: SR district allows up to 6 DU/ac while a 5 -acre minimum'parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 9. This area has two vacant parcels with development potential. The size of these parcels is 19 acres and 79 acres, respectively. The 19 -acre parcel is eligible for infill status. - The 79 -acre parcel will be limited to 5 -acre minimum parcel sizes. Conflict: the current zoning districts allow densities up to 13 DU/ac while a 5 - acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 10. This is the Village Core area of the North Chico Specific Plan. It is not developed and all of the proposed residential uses are inconsistent with the proposed • compatibility zone. Conflict: the current zoning districts allow a variety of 10 • residential densities from 6 DU/acre to 13 ' DU/acre while a 5-acre minimum parcel size is' being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 11. PV High School. This site is in the city, but is important enough to consider as a conflict area. Conflict: under the proposed ALUCP, any expansion of school facilities would be prohibited. 12.. This area is primarily. undeveloped. - The ALUCP requires a 5-acre minimum parcel size instead of the 3-acre minimum allowed by' the zoning. No infill potential for these properties. ' Conflict: while SR-3 district allows a 3-acre minimum parcel size, a 5-acre minimum parcel size is being recommended.in the Compatibility Zone C. 13.. This. area is mostly developed with parcels less than 2 acres in size. A few parcels, with an average size of 10 acres, exist and can be split to either . 5 or 3.3acre minimum parcel sizes depending on the surrounding parcel sizes. Conflict: 'SR-1 allows a 1-acre minimum parcel size while a 5-acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 14. In this area, the parcel size ranges from 3 to 10 acres. Some additional land divisions may be allowed at either 5 or 3.3 acres. Conflict: SR-3 district allows a 3-acre minimum parcel size while a 5-acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone.C. i• 11 • Ranchaero Airport Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County properties • Conflict Location Compatibility -6p County ALUCP Area # Zone Designation 'Zoning Limitation 1 'North of the A OFC SR -1 - No dwelling units are allowed Runaway - (1 acre minimum - All structures are prohibited Protection parcels) - No non FAA objects shall Zone (RPZ) be allowed above ground 2 South of the A OFC A-10 - No dwelling units are allowed RPZ (10 -acre minimum Z ll structures are prohibited/. parcels) - No non FAA objectsshall be allowed above ground 3 North of the A OFC A-10 • - No dwelling units RPZ (10 -acre minimum - All structures prohibited parcels) - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground 4 Northeast of B1 OFC SR -1 - 10 -acre minimum parcels the runway (1 acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed - Height limit is 35 ft. - Noise insulation 25db 5 North of the B2 LDR ASR - 5 -acre minimum parcels airport and (1 acre parcels or 6500 - No daycares are allowed Big Chico sq. ft. w/ sewer),: - Height limit is 70 ft. Creek - Noise insulation 20db Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 2) 1. One parcel exists in this zone at the north end of the runway in the runway protection zone. Currently, no structures are located in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned SR -1, but further development of the parcel would be restricted as it is considered a "clear area" for take -offs and landings. 2. This area includes three parcels located at the south end of the runway in the runway protection zone. A limited number of structures exists in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned A-10,- but further development of the parcel would be restricted as it is considered a "clear area" for, take -offs and landings. 3. This area affects an approximately 2 -acre portion of a 200 -acre parcel. The parcel is zoned' A40 and will not be significantly impacted by the restrictions imposed. This is because the potential land divisions would be limited to 40 acres and could easily be conditioned to avoid • the RPZ area. 12 4. This area includes three parcels located at the north end of the runway. There appears to be. no structures established in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned SR -1, but further development would be restricted as this area is limited to 10 - acre minimum parcel size. 5. This area includes six parcels that have limited development potential using due to on-site septic system limitations. These parcels are zoned ASR and currently contain dwellings. No further land divisions would be compatible with the ALUCP limitation of 5 -acre minimum parcel size. 13 L--' mjjr • OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County properties Conflict Location Compatibility GP County ALUCP Limitation Area # Zone Designation zoning 1 Northwest B-1, B-2 LDR, I, AR -5, A-40 B-1: IDU/10 ac and Of the GOL 25 people/ac average. runway B-2: 2DU/5 ac and 50 people/ac avers e. 2 Southwest B-1, B-2, C GOL, AR AR -5, AR, B-1: 1 DU/10 ac of the A-40 B-2: 2 DU/5 ac runway C: 1 DU/5 ac 3 Northeast, C LDR, MDR, AR, R-3, C- 1 DU/5 ac and 100 people/ac of - the C 1, C-2 average. runway 4 North of C LDR AR 1 DU/5 ac the runway Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 3) 1. Most of Area 1 falls within the B-2 Zone with a small portion within the B-1 zone. Properties within the B-2 Zone are designated Industrial and LDR (Low Density • Residential 6 du/ac) and are zoned AR -5 (5 -acre minimum parcels). Policies within the Draft ALUCP would preclude the density of the LDR property from exceeding 1 DU per 5 acres and limit the number of people per acre on the Industrial property to 50 per acre. The property within the B-1 Zone is primarily zoned A-40 with a small portion designated Industrial, which would be limited "to 25 people per acre. The current zoning district does not have any limitation on the number of people/acre. . 2. The B-1 portion of Area 2 should have little impact on properties because most of the property is zoned A-40. The B-2 portion of Area 2 will have some impact on properties designated AR (Agricultural Residential) and zoned AR as these properties could be developed to 1 acre parcels under the zoning, but will be limited to 5 acre parcels under the ALUCP. 3. The C Zone covers all of Area 3. The Airport Land Use Commission has indicated that the maximum residential density for the C Zone should be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. However, the ALUCP current version set a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or greater than 5 du/ac for this zone. This analysis is based on 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in accordance with the Commission's preference. Properties in Area 3 that are designated LDR (6 DU/ac) and MDR (13 DU/ac) could only be developed at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, a substantial reduction in density. The "In -Fill" policies of the ALUCP may allow for some of the properties to be developed at a higher density than 1 DU/5 acres should they qualify. Properties zoned for commercial use could have up to 100 people per acre average (including both employees and customers).. 14 • 4. Area 4 is a large area within the C Zone with LDR (6 DU/ac) designation and zoned . AR. With common sewer and water, lots as small as 6,500 sq. ft. could be developed. The proposed ALUCP density of this area is 1 DU/5 ac. This density could substantially reduce the development potential of the area. The proposed "In - Fill" policies, however, may allow for some properties to be developed at a higher density than 1 DU/5 acres should they qualify. • 15 n LJ • 4 "Paradise Airport. ' Analysis;of the Proposed Comgatii)iiility Zones Application to County Properties Conflict Location Compatibility County County ALUCP Area # Zone GP Zoning Limitation 1 Directly north B 1 FR -5 - 10 -acre minimum parcel size of the runway. (5 -acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed - Height limit is 35ft. Noise insulation 25db 2 South -of the 132 AR SH - 5 -acre minimum parcel size runway along (1 acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed SR191 - Height limit is 70ft. - Noise insulation 20db 3 South of the C AR SH - 5 -acre minimum parcel size runway along (I acre minimum) -No daycares are allowed SR191 - Height limit is 100 ft. 4 Immediately A AR I'M - No dwelling units are allowed North of the (5 -acre minimum). - All structures are prohibited Clear Zone - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground . 5 Immediately A AR FR -40 - No dwelling units are allowed South of the '(40 -acre minimum) - All structures are prohibited Clear Zone - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 4) 1. Parcels north of the runway are presently. 5 "acres. in size. The plan will not result in a potential loss for land divisions. Lands are presently occupied by residential dwellings. 2. There are three parcels affected of 80, 209, and 494 acres. Land divisions would be restricted to 5 -acre lots. The Scenic Highway zoning is not likely to be significantly impacted due to sewage disposal requirements and local. topography. - 3. This area includes three parcels of 20, 80 and 494 acres. Land divisions would be restricted to 5 -acre lots. The Scenic Highway zoning is not likely to be significantly impacted due to sewage disposal requirements and local topography' 4. Parcels north of the runway are presently 5 acres in size. The plan will not result in a potential for land divisions. Lands'are presently occupied by residential dwellings. 5.. The two parcels south of the runway are presently in large sizes of 160 and 210 acres. Approximately 20 acres are affected by a no structures restriction. The land is characterized by a steep topography and generally undevelopable and inaccessible. MUM WMITI 91 Rl :wAil I IN U01 �w ATTACHMENT 3 Addendum to the March 2000 Draft Airport Environs Plans - Conflict Areas Conflict Area #. ' . `Location Compatibility GP Designation. County: ; CLUP Limitation, t Zone Y Zonin , 1 North of the ,B-1 Agricultural SR=3 1 DU/10 ac " runway Residential> ` 2 West of the airport B-1 Industrial M2/OS, LI 25 eo le/ac avera e 3� �',', Eaton ohasset : B2� ARA1 R 3; R-4; . I I D.'T S a (Resolmed, mfiffinow 4 . ` Northwest of the B-2 Agricultural . ' SR-1" '-' ; 1 DU/5 ac a ort ,.* Residential , 5 ' Northeast, of the B-2 Agricultural SR-3 1fPU/S.ac airport Residential 6 Northeast of the:',.C1 ; Agricultural - ` SR73'- '.- 1 DU/5 ac airport Residential , , 7 East Ave. C C�� ; LDR II'D"" -SR-1 SR - 1 DU/5 ac or > 4 DU/ac 1ac ori y4 DU7ac 1 DU/5 ac 9 North of Eaton Rd PRO South of Eaton*Rd Cl, C2 LDR, MDR, PQ tIvIDRHDR a R 1, R-2, PQ FIR F r R� % T rR1�R 2R3>�4DU%ac r x +0,U5 �.. Sl 'NCSPI,villa"'e° oresC2��ALpR 11 -East of the, airpoit , C 1 ; Agricultural'.. . - . '.SR-3 Gir .L VwMi ri" 1 DU/5 ac Residential 12 West of the airport Cl Agricultural SR-1 1 DU/5 ac ' "Residential;, RANCHAERO AIRPORT I EXHIBIT 21 IC 1�Compatibility Zones _; Parcels (City parcels are excluded) UA Conflict Areas ity of Chico BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet -A e:\projects\aluc\revised compatibility small b&w.apr - --------- IC 1�Compatibility Zones _; Parcels (City parcels are excluded) UA Conflict Areas ity of Chico BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet -A e:\projects\aluc\revised compatibility small b&w.apr IBIT 3 OROVILLE AIRPORT FExF EXH 0010 000000 E -0000 Ile ,I Nelson AW City Oroville ----------- IL BUTTE COUNTY :9 F— DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Compatibility Zones DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 Parcels (City parcels are excluded) 4000 0 4000 Feet SA Conflict Areas - Remaining Conflict Areas - Resolved i7 e7projects%aluctreviselo COMPaUDIffty 5rnd1l D014W.70rJ PARADISE AIRPORT EXHIBIT -`sans Kn --- -i meAcen YW � — / N a \. ....... .. C - r BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 Compatibilityzones 4000 0 4000 Feetf L Parcels (Town parcels are excluded) Conflict Areas y e:\projects\aluc\revised compatibility small b&w.apr L Miscellaneous Distribution Date Mailed to: Documents Mailed: 10/2/00 Katy Shueti (916) 445-4831 w) Clearing House copies:Xbnd Office of Planning & Research FED EX: 1 Notice; 9 Ini 1400 Tenth St. 9 Addendum; 9 NumberSacramento, CA 95814 booklets (#19, #20, #21,8, #29, #30 10/2/00 Christa Engle (916) 654-4959 Caltrans ie CalTransDivision of Mpotsice- FED EX: Initial Study; Aeronautics 1 Addendum; umbered & bound CLUP 1120 N Street booklet (#3 Sacramento, CA 95814 10/6/00 Mike Mena 3, 2000 Status Report to Butte Co. P. O. Box 5057 :Feasibility Study for a Transfer of Vevelopment Chico, CA 95927 Credits Program for Butte Co. 2 -Sep. 14, 2000 Memo to Butte County Planning Commission from T. Parilo/Subj: Suggested Revision Topics and Other Issues For GPA/RZ 01-01. 10/6/00 Barbara Peterson 1-ALUC mailing pkt. for the Sept. 20, 2000 Dept. of Geograph & Planning meeting.—For Dr. Holtgreve Watershed Proje s -Requested copy of the CLUP Draft; has one California Sta Univ, Chico copy from another unidentified source—she Chico, CA 929-0425 may take to Kinko's to copy. 10/10/00 George Vinmerer 1 -Copies of Sept. 20, 2000 ALUC mtg. tapes Hefrier tark & Marois 1 & 2, both sides. Sent regular mail per 215 'ver Plaza Dr., Ste. 450 Meleka's request. ra S mento, CA 95833-3883 10/11/00 Karen Fowler (916) 445-4831 5 -Copies Proposed Addendum & Initial Study Office of Planning & Research - FED EX Overnight (A.M.) as requested/per 1400 Tenth St. Meleka. --�`- Sacramento, CA 95814 -� -- —. x - - y .- - -. __ - **New Requirement/15 copies// -(See 10/2/00 above - %1%00— Board of Supervisors - Taken'to= =12 — Comir`ients from Develop. Svcs./ALUC 1 Admin. for their distribution Admin - 1 set of originals history related to CLUP/Attachments 1-2-3 1- " l County Counsel - Taken to their 1- " d5 -office 00 Meleka, Tom, Craig_ Randy, 5 Total (one each) " ALUC Distribution files 11/3/00 Add'l for: Norm Rosene which 1-" Meleka will deliver 11/13/00 Bob Storre here/requested copy 1- " OK'ed by Meleka & Tom_Parilo -1=1/2/00 -'Brody, - _ Ken- " "-Faxed copy ofletter dated Oct. 31, 2000 from Laur WWebster Town of Paradise//Al McGreehan FAX file 11/9/00 1. Seidler's letter (in CLUP Faxed copy today at Meleka's request 2000 file) dated 10/9/00 K:\Planning\ALUC\Distribution\Miscellaneous Distribution.doc 1 BUTTE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY V80ARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE: ALUC RESPONSES TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' COMMENTS DEPARTMENT: Development Services DATE: 10-31-2000 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 11-14-2000 REGULAR X CONSENT CONTACT: Thomas A. Parilo PHONE: 538-6821 DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: During the first public review period for the March 2000 Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, a series of preliminary comments were forwarded to the Butte County ALUC by the Department of Development Services on behalf of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment 1). A second public comment period on the Draft Plan, Addendum, and revised Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration is now underway. Comments are due on November 17, 2000. DEPARTMENT REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: 1. Accept this report for information. 2. Authorize the chair to send the following comments to ALUC in response to the Draft Compatibility Plan, Addendum and revised Negative Declaration: a. The Butte County Board of Supervisors expects that the County will implement the four Airport Compatibility Plans through amendments to the General Plan and the development of an overlay/combining zone that will specifically include the policies and standards in the Plan. The Board will also reserve the option to adopt overriding findings once the county addresses the various methods to implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Once complete, any referral of a non -legislative discretionary project to the ALUC will be voluntary for advisory comments only. b. Recognize planned and zoned land with major infrastructure (to include, but not be limited to permanent storm drainage facilities, water, sewer, and roads) that has been installed and funded or accepted by a public entity as constituting an "existing land use". C. All infill lands of 20 acres or less should be bound by the same development standard if open land standards have been accomplished within the respective Compatibility Zone. Modify the amended infill standards in the addendum to eliminate the second bullet under (2) and modify the first bullet to replace "10 acres or less" with "20 acres or less". 3.. Determine whether the Board should recommend the elimination of the split "C" Compatibility Zone into a "C1" (one unit per 5 acre lot size) or "C2" (four unit per acre or greater density).. See discussion on page 12 of this report. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND TWELVE (12) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No Administrative Office Review If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor -Controller's Number (if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Date Received by Clerk of Board: Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help Previous Board Action Date: Additional Information Attached: Yes No Describe: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK Number of originals required to be returned to Department: "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. •Clerk of the Board returns completed Auditor's copy ONLY. Requested Board Action: _ Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required For Information Only BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source Source of Additional Funds Requested Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $ (Fund Name: " ) (Fund Number: ) Amount Budgeted $ Unanticipated Revenue $ (Budget, Unit Number: ) (Source: ) (Fund Name: ) (Rev. Code: ) (Fund Number: ) Other Transfer(s) $ 1. Complete worksheet below 2. Deadline is one business dayrn for to normal agenda deadline Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds $ Annualized cost $ if also planned for next year Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office No Authorized Signature Date • .i Board Action Required for B -Transfer? Yes_ j BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET Transfer Request: AMOUNT Transfer $ (No Cents) From Transfer (No Cents) From Transfer $ (No Cents) From Transfer $ (No Cents) From LINE ITEM i LINE ITEM To To To MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: 2m A. Parilo rector SUBJECT: UC RESPONSES TO BUTTE COUNTY'S APRIL 12, 2000 COMMENTS ON THE MARCH 2000 DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR: Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 14, 2000 DATE: October 31, 2000 INTRODUCTION During the first public review period -for the March 2000 Draft Butte, County Airport Land Use Compatibility. Plan, a series of preliminary comments were forwarded to the Butte County ALUC by the Department. of Development Services on behalf of the Board of Supervisors (Attachment 1). A second public comment period on the.Draft Plan, Addendum, and revised Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration is now underway. Comments are due on November 17, 2000. This report includes four primary headings, General Comments, Airport Compatibility Maps, Revised Initial Study, and Recommendation. The General Comment section provides a summary of ALUC's response to our comments and their direction on how to address them. Background information that. was considered by the ALUC during its decision-making process relating to each item has also been presented. The Airport Compatibility Maps section illustrates the changes made in the Addendum to the compatibility maps for each of the four public -use airports within the county. This section also includes an identification of potential land use incompatibilities. The Recommendation section includes suggestions for additional comments to be forwarded to ALUC. For a complete list of proposed modifications to the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan resulting from the first series of public and agency comments, please refer to the ALUC package sent to the Board prior to the October 19, 2000, ALUC joint meeting. GENERAL COMMENTS The following comments addressing the Draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (See Attachment 1 & 2) were submitted to ALUC on April 12, 2000. Each comment contains ALUC's response and direction included in the Addendum as revised on September 26, 2000. The underlined language identifies the additions and the shikeotzt indicates deleted language that respond to -our comments. Staff has also included a further comment to ALUC's response. - The Draft Compatibility Plan needs to distinguish between mandatory .review for legislative actions vs. optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. ALUC Direction Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) -Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows: u ,� • r • •� i• -4 - • • .•I- • • • a• • • •- "$I •� 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 contain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed development fully meets the' compatibility criteria. specified in the Compatibility Plan (hic requires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review procedures be describedl; • The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference Odditionally, the project review procedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved the ALUC); and/or • The general plan must indicate that all main land use actions shall be referred to the Commission for review in accordance with the policies of Section 2.3. r • If either of the first two, options under Sub -policy (2) is selected, then referral of +� mor land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary In .this case, the Commission's review is advisory 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 ALi TC review is mandatory and override procedures would apply: Bac ground Information far ALUC Response to Comment #1: Section 1.5.2. (b) states that after a local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan for consistency with the Compatibility Plan (as outlined in Policy 2.4.3:) or completed .an .override, the ALUC cannot require that all actions, regulations, and -permits be referred for review. However, an agreement can be made that the Commission should continue to review individual projects in an advisory capacity. Major land use action referrals to, the ALUC would' be .voluntary and advisory if general plan/ordinance consistency has been achieved through the incorporation of sufficient detail in the general plan to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed development fully meets the compatibility criteria or the Compatibility Plan has been adopted by reference. If the Plan is adopted by reference the method for internally- conducting project reviews must be identified either in the general plan or a separate instrument. Major land use action referrals would also be voluntary if an override has been completed for the general plan. When review is voluntary, an override would not be necessary if the Commission found the project "inconsistent" or "conditionally consistent'. `and the. local agency chose not to apply the suggested conditions. A local agency would 'also have the option of declining to enter, into a - voluntary project referral arrangement with the ALUC: Staff Comment: The draft revisions` included in the addendum fully respond to this comment: Comment #2 In reviewing projects, the Commission's action choice of finding a project consistent with the Compatibility Plan subject to conditions should only be. applicable for the timeframe between the adoption of the Compatibility Plan and the cities' or the county's action to amend their respective General Plans and/or override (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). AI.IJC Direction Retain the current action choices listed in the Draft Compatibility Plan. -3- The purpose of clarifying the Commission's action choices is to provide some procedural flexibility for Plan and project reviews. Action choices identified in Policy 2.2.3. apply when the ALUC is conducting mandatory reviews of legislative items (General Plans, specific plans, zoning ordinances, or building regulations). The action choice noted as item (b) -in the policy allows the ALUC to find a plan, ordinance,. or regulation as consistent with the Compatibility Plan, subject to conditions and/or modifications which the ALUC may specify. This flexibility allows the Commission to provide .input without requiring a local agency to re -submit revised versions of their documents, if the ALUC's suggestions are ultimately incorporated. Commission action choices identified in Policy 2.3.3. apply when the .AL UC is conducting a review of major land use actions as defined in Policy 1.5.3. The scope and character of what is defined as major land use actions is such that their compatibility is of potential concern. Text in the Draft Plan notes that. even though the actions may be basically consistent with the local General Plan or specific plan, sufficient detail may not be known to enable a full airport compatibility evaluation at the time that the General Plan or specific plan is reviewed. Therefore, ALUC review of these actions may be warranted. ALUC review may also be mandatory depending on ' how the local agency has approached the project evaluation component of the Plan. Staff Comment: ALUC's response to Comment No. 1 is relevant to this comment, as well. It is also clear that. ALUC review is required for all discretionary projects until such time that, the General Plan is amended or that an override is made. Following the County's action to amend. the General Plan and/or override portions of the Compatibility Plan, only legislative items must be referred to ALUC. Any other referral will be done on a voluntary basis. In such cases, ALUC's response is advisory. Staff expects that Butte County will implement the Compatibility ' Plan through specific amendments to the General Plan and the development of an overlay zoning district. Once complete, ALUC review 'of major non -legislative projects will not be required. The Definition "Existing Land Use," included in the Draft Compatibility Plan, appears to be limited. A local government commitment becomes firm when the following decisions and actions occur, the Plan should be modified accordingly: A. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. B. Recordation of final subdivision maps. KI C. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary entitlements, until they expire. D. Approval of a Development Agreement. within the terms' of the agreement. E. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). F. Actual extension and installation of infrastructure. AT.UC Direction , 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 commitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, further discretionaryapprovals are necessary inf�asible fbi the property to be used f6r wzythinj other thmi its propose Local government commitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have occurred: • A tentative parcel or subdivision man has been approved and the originalen riod(before any time extensions are submitted) within which the al2proval is valid has not expired; • A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved; • A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect;- • A final subdivision man has been recorded: • A use permit or other discretionary !miduseentitlement has been approved and not yet ;or • A valid building permit has been issued. , Bac ground Information for AL UC Reponse to Comment #3 The issue of vested rights is discussed in the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook on page 3-23. The Handbook indicates that vested rights are typically considered to exist when the landowner has obtained: - A valid building permit, coupled with construction having commenced (generally the laying of the structure's foundation) - A vesting tentative map - A development agreement with a local government entity It is noted that vesting of rights to current zoning does not occur solely because a developer has constructed infrastructure (e.g, roads, and wafer lines). -5- On page 4-9, the Handbook recommends that AL.UCs follow land use planning laws and conventional practices to determine what constitutes an existing land use. It is suggested that a vacant property be considered devoted to a particular use once local government commitments along with substantial construction investment by the property owner make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than, its proposed use. The extension and installation of infrastructure in and of itself is not typically recognized for purposes of determining existing land use status. Local government commitment to a proposal is usually considered firm once a vesting tentative map has been approved or all discretionary approvals have been obtained. At the direction of the ALUC, Department of Development Services staff requested a legal opinion regarding the status that Assessment Districts should be given in terms of the land use commitment that is made by a local agency. The findings of that legal opinion are not conclusive, but have indicated that any land not already devoted to residential uses, though served by an assessment district, may continue to. be used as it is now or as allowed by the CLUP. Therefore, the denial of all economically viable use of the land is unlikely. Whether any liability would result from the restriction of these areas by the CL UP would depend on a variety of facts which were not provided with the opinion request. Examples include, the chain of events leading to the formation of the assessment district, whether the land owners or the local agency initiated the formation, the adoption of any plans depicting residential development, and the extent to which such development has actually commenced would all be relevant. Unless a more definitive legal analysis supports the assertion that all areas subject to an assessment district should be .considered "already devoted to incompatible uses, or that such a finding applies to particular areas within a specific local agency, the inclusion of this circumstance is not recommended. After further analysis by Shutt Moen Associates (SMA), it is suggested that formation of an assessment district for the provision of infrastructure and the actual installation of such infrastructure aat be 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. SMA's recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects from review under these circumstances. Staff Comment: As noted in ALUC's response, the formation ' of an assessment district and/or the extension of infrastructure does not constitute an "existing land use". ALUC does have the authority to recognize such events as qualifying for existing land use status. This should be extended to situations where a public agency has paid for or has otherwise accepted extensions of water, sewer, drainage and road improvements to implement General Plan and zoning densities or intensities. There could be situations where the land use pattern is established, infrastructure has .been installed and undeveloped parcels exist, but don't qualify for the infill policies. -6- Although the special conditions (Section 2.4.4. -page 2-16) for infill provide for a 50% bonus for residential density over that allowed in the proposed Compatibility zones, -the practical outcome would not allow feasible infill development to occur and appears to be inconsistent with the infill definition (Section 1.2.1.4. -page 2-3) and criteria in Section 2.4.4.(a). Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) - Replace original infill policy with the following (changes noted with underlining): Infill -Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, additional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility Zones B2 and C. (1) A_parcel can be considered for infill -development if it meets all of the following criteria plus 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 surrounding, 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 accordance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com atibilit, zone. [9/26 revision] -7- W • ••• MIM Ire RV.1reNTUMIMI • . ••• -•1M MMIM MIM, - • • • 1 . •. . i••n, • n• • MGM •' Ms"IIIIIIII I IN. • •. • • • •• • 1 • •• 1'� . •• parcels subsequently to qualify for infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be determined 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 take1an ce . .conjunction with the process of amending a general plan for consistency with the ALI IC pl n 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. When considering the issue of infill, the objective is to recognize and allow development on parcels which are predominantly- surrounded by lands that have already been devoted to incompatible land uses, if the properties. are = located in critical areas (e.g., inside the 65 dB CNEL contour, off the runway ends, etc.). :The challenge is to strike a balance between allowing an entire area to develop at densities and intensities that would otherwise not be considered acceptable, and recognizing that opportunities for meaningful airport protection have already largely been eliminated based on previous land use actions. The proposed increase for infill projects that is presented in the Draft Plan (50% for both residential and nonresidential development) is considered to be a reasonable compromise. However, the point made by the commentor regarding the practical aspects of facilitating infill development is a valid consideration. As currently written, infill policies only apply within Zones' B2 and C. This limitation automatically ensures that infill development can only occur outside of the most critical areas surrounding the airport from a safety perspective. The primary considerations, depending upon which zone is involved, consist of noise exposure and overflight annoyance. Several proposals suggesting modifications to the density and intensity criteria associated with Zones B2 and C have been received. The ALUC itself has also been analyzing the issue through sub -committee activities. Other factors to consider when making adjustments to the current infill policy are that nonresidential development may be eligible to receive an intensity. bonus as indicated in Policy 4.2.7 if special building design features are incorporated into the project to reduce the risks to building occupants in the event that the facility. is struck by an aircraft. If a nonresidential development project qualifies for higher levels of development through both increases in the amount of infill development permitted and an intensity bonus, people per acre concentrations could theoretically exceed what would otherwise be recommended. It is also diff cult' to recommend increases to the amount of infill development that could be permitted for nonresidential uses without knowing where the qualifying properties are actually .located. Ideally, each local jurisdiction would identify those parcels qualifying for infill development as part of the process of making their General Plan consistent with the"Compatibility Plan.- Staff lana Staff Comment: While it appears that - the adjusted infill proposal contained in the addendum is a reasonable accommodation, the rationale to have a dual standard for 10 -acre and 20 -:acre infill policies is not stated. . Are all existing uses that are not compatible with the Plan considered nonconforming? The Plan should be clarified to exempt existing and infill uses from being considered'nonconforming. Do not add text into the Plan which would exempt existing" and 'infill uses from the nonconforming use provisions contained in the document. According to language within the Butte. County Zoning. Ordinance, "non -conforming uses" are structures and buildings, and lots and parcels which do not conform to the regulations of the zone in which they are located. Section 24-35 of the ordinance goes on to say that the purpose of the article is to establish procedures to permit the continued operation of such uses where such uses are appropriate, while eliminating nonconforming uses through abandonment, obsolescence or destruction. The purpose of defining nonconforming uses in the Draft Compatibility Plan is similar to the objective outlined in the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, to identify those uses which do not comply with the Plan and encourage their eventual elimination. The ALUC's concerns also extend to addressing the future reconstruction and/or redevelopment of properties or uses which become "nonconforming" at the time the final document is adopted. In some ways, policies relative to nonconforming uses in the Draft Plan are actually less restrictive than provisions contained within the Butte County Zoning Code in that there are no "abandonment" provisions which could eliminate the validity of a nonconforming use if the activity is discontinued for a specified period of time. If existing uses that do not conform to policies in the Compatibility Plan are not considered nonconforming, the ALUC would have no means of addressing and limiting the expansion and intensification of those uses. Current draft policies designed to accommodate some degree of -9- infill development mean that specific properties are being given the opportunity to develop at densities -or intensities that would otherwise be inconsistent with the Plan. Initial development of infill uses would not be addressed through nonconforming use policies.. However, it is appropriate that any subsequent redevelopment of infill sites be considered under the nonconforming use provisions to ensure that development densities and intensities beyond those already allowed by the infill provisions are not, exceeded. Staff Comment: The PUC clearly establishes that existing land uses are not subject to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This being the case, residential uses that meet the "existing land use" definition are ,practically exempt from all aspects of the plan since ministerial permits are all that is required to build on an existing legal lot. Staff expects that new zoning regulations will be ` adopted to apply the intensity standards for non-residential buildings/uses. Regarding reconstruction, the 75% damage level specified by the Draft Plan should be determined based on the market value instead of the Assessor's value, as the latter is normally lower. y Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) - In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market value." The portion of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance that addresses nonconforming uses does not set a damage threshold for allowing reconstruction that is consistent with the size and extent of the prior use or building. The County's provisions allow reconstruction of a nonconforming use or building that is damaged or destroyed totally or in part by right as long as the floor area or extent does not exceed the original. Expansion, enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use is only permitted by use permit. In comparison, policies in the Draft Compatibility Plan do not include a use permit provision since the ALUC does not have direct land use control authority. A threshold for reconstruction has also been established. The commentor's suggestion to base the threshold for reconstruction on the market value rather than the Assessor's value is reasonable and leaves the objective of the policy intact. Staff Comment: An existing residential use on a legal lot can be expanded or rebuilt'with a building permit if the existing density is not exceeded: -10- The Compatibility Plan should document the rationale'behind applying stricter standards than that of the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook regarding the residential density and concentration (people/acre) standards in Compatibility Zone C.-, ALUC Direction Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A - Make. the following modifications as shown on. the accompanying revised table: • Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12. • Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B 1 and B2, change "office buildings" to "buildings with noise -sensitive uses." ' • Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone ' C into two distinct criteria and 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. 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 overflightsis the major concern within Zone C. Although the zone lies mostly outside the - 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly with h re__spect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities. In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport i ifluenr_.e area, Zone C is divided into two sub -zones designated C(l) and..(2) See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for delineation of these zone boundaries Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1.2(d) - Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determinants for Zone C as follows:' (d) Zone C, including Sub -zones C(l) 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 -31R. Where sub -zones are designated, Sub -zone C(]) is applied to locations' where noise, risks, and _ potential overflight annoyance are comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2)' and urban density -residential development neither exists or i� planned. Sub -zone C(2) is generally intended for the comparatively less impacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas where -11- Bac ground Information for ALUC Reponse to Comment 7 As described in Chapter 3 of the Draft Compatibility Plan, Zone C typically, equates to the traffic pattern zone for each airport. As written in the original draft, there is a split residential density option which consists of either 5 acre minimum parcel sizes or at least 5 dwelling units per acre. The residential land use density indicated for the traffic pattern zone in the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook suggest that 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre is acceptable from a sa" perspective, The higher density option offered in the Draft Plan is consistent with the information presented in the Handbook. The description of Zone C in Chapter 3, Section 1.1.4., indicates that safety is less of an issue in this area.. Most of the concern is related to ove;fligt annoyance created by aircraft that are within the traffic pattern at relatively low altitudes: A detailed discussion of density options and a recommendation was presented in the issue paper prepared by Shutt Moen Associates (SMA) and distributed at the April '19, 2000 ALUC meeting. SMA's recommendation was to retain the split density option- within Zone C and allow the local agencies to determine which criteria should be applied in specific locations as part of the General Plan consistency process. Nonresidential intensity standards proposed for Zone C (average of 100 people acre) may appear to be lower than the 150 people per acre figure identified in Chapter 9 of the Handbook. • However, clustering of nonresidential development and nonresidential intensity bonuses are. available which would allow higher numbers in specific circumstances. Another factor to consider when applying either density option for Zone C is the development of a land use pattern which will provide flexibility. should the need for runway modifications or relocation become desirable beyond what is currently envisioned. If the higher density option (C2) is - applied to all areas within Zone C, the ability of the airport to change its existing and currently anticipated layout could be eliminated. Although the Chico Airport Master Plan identifies anticipated improvements over the next 20 year period, the Compatibility Plan must balance between providing protection based on existing plans and incorporating strategies which may facilitate airport protection and expansion beyond that timeframe. Staff Comment: Our original comment was in response to a straw poll taken by ALUC on April. 16, 2000, when the plan was presented to them. They concurred that the C zone would be designated for unit per five acres only. The adjustment to split the zone into. either C1 or C2 provides additional flexibility. The Board would retain greater land use discretion if the C1 and C2 options -were eliminated, and all lands in the Traffic Pattern be designated C. As noted above, the split zone and use of the lower density C1 zone will preserve future airport expansion needs. -12- Without further revision or adjustment to the Compatibility Zones, the lands located in the "C1" Compatibility Zone on the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport will not benefit from a straight "C" Zone (see Attachment 3, Exhibit 1). These lands are currently zoned SR -1 and are within the North Chico Specific Plan. These lands will need to "be redesignated and rezoned to.conform with the Cl compatibility zone. If the Board is desirous of maintaining the SR -1 zoning on the west side. of the airport in the Cl compatibility zone, an override will be required. See further discussion of this area of conflict under the heading `"`Airport Compatibility Maps", below. The nonresidential concentration standards in Zone B-2 appear to be more restrictive than those in the State Handbook. Retain the current residential/nonresidential density and open space criteria for Zone - B2 as presented in Table 2A of the Draft Plan. As described in Chapter 3, Section 1.1.1, of the March 2000 Draft Compatibility Plan, Zone B2 encompasses the extended approach/departure zone for each airport and may also include some land lateral to the runways. These areas are considered to be affected by moderate degrees of noise and risk. Noise levels may exceed 55 dB CNEL in some portions of the Zone. Aircraft may overfly the area at altitudes of less than 600 feet above the runway elevation. Handbook data indicates that 10% to 15% of near -airport general aviation aircraft accidents occur within the area comparable to that encompassed by Zone B2. From the description listed above it is clear that the composite zones identified in the Plan are based on a broader number of factors than safety alone. Therefore, a direct transfer of density and intensity information which corresponds to the conceptual safety zone configurations identified in the Handbook is not entirely applicable. Nonetheless, residential land use densities identified in the Handbook for the Inner Turning Zone and Outer Safety Zone, portions of which would fall within Zone B2, consider a range of 2 to 10 or 2 to 5 acre minimums respectively, to be acceptable. Given the other compatibility issues dealt with in Zone B2, a density criteria that allows one unit per 5 acres is consistent with the more conservative end of the spectrum. The above conclusion is also applicable to the proposed nonresidential development intensities. However, the Draft Plan does provide for clustering and intensity bonuses for nonresidential development. The open space requirement indicated in the Handbook for the Inner Turning Zone -13- and Outer Safety Zone ranges from 15% to 30% depending upon location. For the composite Zone B2, a 20% open space requirement is considered a reasonable compromise. Staff Comment: Residential density and nonresidential concentration standards that are applied to various zones presented in the State Handbook have been established solely on the basis of safety considerations: Zone B2 in the March .2000 Draft Compatibility Plan was developed based upon SMA's review of a variety of factors, including safety, noise, and overflight concerns. Because of the composite nature of all of the compatibility zones within the Draft Plan, it is difficult. to conduct a direct comparison of standards between the two approaches. Given the fact that nonresidential development within Zone B2 is also eligible for intensity bonuses and clustering, the overall standards that have been applied in the Draft Plan do not differ substantially from what is recommended in the Handbook. AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY MAPS After ALUC had issued the' March 2000 Draft Plan, staff conducted an analysis of the compatibility maps for the four public -use airports. This analysis resulted in identifying several conflict areas, the majority of which are concentrated around the Chico and Oroville airports. These areas include properties with current. General Plan and/or zoning designations that would result in conflicts with the. proposed,: compatibility zones' standards of the Draft Plan. Attachments "A through D" in Attachment 2 .(pp. 9 through 12) provides specific information regarding the location and details of the conflict areas. . ALUC staff and the consultant analyzed all comments received from the County, as well as other affected jurisdictions/entities. Subsequently, ALUC.provided direction to staff to circulate an. addendum to the March 2000 Draft Plan that addresses these comments. Following circulation of the September 16, 2000 addendum, staff reviewed the revised airport compatibility maps. Staff concludes that the addendum has resulted in a significant reduction in the conflict areas, especially within Compatibility Zone C around the Chico and Oroville airports. This is due to the ALUC's modification of the boundaries of the compatibility, zones and the creation of the split "C1" - "C2" compatibility zones. Attachment 3 demonstrates that with the exception of the Chico Airport, some conflict areas would continue to exist within the three airport compatibility, maps, but they are largely associated with Compatibility Zones A, B1, and B2 . The primary conflicts within these zones involve safety issues, which will necessitate reconsideration of the County General Plan and/or zoning designations. Within the Chico Airport Compatibility Map (Exhibit 1 in Attachment 3), land use conflict areas remain in proposed compatibility zones Bl, B2, and Cl. The majority of these conflict areas occur north of Mud Creek on both sides of the airport and to the north of the runway. All of the conflict parcels in these areas are residentially planned and zoned either SR -1 or SR -3. Approximately half of these parcels will qualify as "Existing Land Use," over which -14- the ALUC. has no authority; some parcels may also qualify as' infill;.. The balance will require redesignation and rezoning or an override if the, findings can be made:. See the revised matrix in Exhibit 1 of Attachment 3. This matrix`provides an updated analysis of conflict lands around the Chico Municipal Airport. REVISED INITIAL STUDY Staff has not identified any areas requiring further comment on the revised initial study. If the Board has identified areas of concern, they can be included in their comments to ALUC. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept this report for information. 2. Authorize the chair to send the following comments to ALUC in response to the Draft Compatibility Plan, Addendum and revised Negative Declaration: a. The Butte County Board of Supervisors expects that the County will implement the four Airport Compatibility Plans through amendments to the General Plan and the development of an overlay/combining zone that will specifically include the policies and standards in the Plan. The Board will also reserve the option to adopt overriding findings once the county addresses the various methods to implement the Airport Land Use. Compatibility Plan. Once complete, any referral of a non- legislative discretionary, project to the ALUC will be voluntary for advisory comments only. b. Recognize planned. and. zoned land with major infrastructure (to include, but not be limited to permanent.storm drainage facilities, water, sewer, and roads) that has been installed and funded or accepted by a public . entity as constituting an "existing land use". C. All infill lands of 20 acres or less should be bound by the same development standard if open land standards .have been accomplished within the respective Compatibility Zone. Modify the amended infill standards in the addendum to eliminate the second bullet under (2) and modify the first bullet to replace "10 acres or less" with "20 acres or less". 3. Determine whether the Board should recommend the elimination of the split "C" Compatibility Zone into a "C1" (one unit per 5 acre lot size) or "C2 (four unit per acre or greater density). See discussion on page .12 of this report.- Attachments Attachment 1: DDS Comments on the March 2000 Draft Airport Land use Compatibility Plan-Memo to ALUC. Attachment 2: Review of March 2000 Draft Airport Land use Compatibility Plan-DDS Memo to The Board of Supervisors. Attachment 3: Addendum to the March 2000 DraftAirport Environs Plans'-Conflict Areas. _I.- r MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director Office TO: Airport Land Use. Commission ` FROM: Thomas A. Parilo; Director SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 2000 AIRPORT. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DATE: April 12, 2000 At its meeting yesterday, the Board` of Supervisors considered staff's preliminary review and comments regarding the referenced Plan.. Similar to the requests from the cities of 'Oroville and Chico, the Board requested your Commission for a 60=day extension of the comments period. Staff's preliminary review of the Draft Compatibility Planresulted in some issues and concerns that were presented to the Board. The Board concluded. its deliberations with the following preliminary comments: • The Draft Compatibility Plan needs to distinguish. between mandatory review for legislative actions vs. optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. • In reviewing projects, the Commission's action choice of finding a-project consistent with the Compatibility Plan subject to conditions should only be applicable for the timeframe between the adoption of the Compatibility Plan. and the cities' or the county's action to amend their respective General Plans and/or override (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). • The Definition "Existing Land Use,'.' included in the Draft. Compatibility Plan, appears to be, limited. A local government commitment becomes firm when the following decisions and actions occur, the Plan should be modified accordingly: a. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. b. Recordation of final subdivision maps. c. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary,entitlements, until they .expire. d. Approval of a Development: Agreement within the terms of the agreement. . 1 r 4 e. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.). , f. Actual extension and installation of infrastructure. • Although the special conditions (Section 2.4.4. -page 2-16) for infill provide for a 50% bonus for residential density over that allowed in the proposed Compatibility zones, the practical' outcome would not allow feasible infill development to occur and appears to be inconsistent with the infill definition (Section 1.2.1.4. -page 2-3) and criteria in Section 2.4.4.(a). • Are all existing uses that are not compatible with the Plan considered nonconforming? The Plan should be clarified to exempt existing and infill uses from being considered nonconforming. • Regarding reconstruction, the 75% damage level specified by the Draft Plan should be determined based on the market value instead of the Assessor's value, as the latter is normally lower. • The Compatibility Plan should document the rationale behind applying stricter standards than that of the State Airport Land. Use Planning Handbook regarding- the residential density and ' concentration (people/acre) standards in Compatibility Zone C. • The nonresidential concentration standards in Zone B-2 appear to be more restrictive than those in the State Handbook. For background information -and more specifics about the mentioned issues, I have attached my memo to the Board outlining staff comments. The Board will forward its final comments to you as soon as its review of the Plan is complete. Attachment cc: Board of Supervisors Marion Reeves } i 2 J MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director's Office TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Thomas A. Parilo, Director SUBJECT: REVIEW OF MARCH 2000 DRAFT AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN DATE: April 6, 2000 I. Introduction The Planning Division staff of the, Department of Development Services has conducted a preliminary review of the draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This memo and our presentation on April 13, 2000, attempt to highlight land use implications, changes, and inconsistencies with current land use planning in effect around 'the four public use airports in Butte County. Staff has formulated the following topical issues which are presented in details in Section III: A. Selected policy language and Standards in the ALUCP B. Comparison of Applicable, Criteria/Guidelines for Compatibility. Zone C: This is a comparison of the Zone's criteria with those of the, California 'Department of Transportation's .1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This handbook is intended to be a guide for Airport Land Use Commissions in carrying out their duties as set forth in the California State Aeronautics Act. It is also to be used by all parties involved in airport land use compatibility. C. Review of the draft compatibility plans for each of the four public use airports. II. Analysis The following analysis is preliminaryand has focussed on what appears to be the most obvious policy -related issues. Through further'analysis and our discussion with the Board on April 11, 2000, other issues may surface, as well. 1 A. Selected Policy Language and Standards in the ALUCP Review Process following AL UCP Adoption: The plan addresses and identifies various review procedures that are not presented as clearly as they could be. It is staff's understanding that the plan contains a'two tiered review process for the Airport Land Use Commission after the cities and the county make various amendments to their respective general plans and/or finds that there are reasons to make overriding findings. During the time period after the Butte County Airport Land use Commission (ALUC) adopts the 2000 ALUCP and before the lead agency (cities and the county) brings their respective General Plans into conformity and/or overrides the ALUCP, all discretionary projects must be reviewed by the Commission. The lead agency will be required to submit said projects for review. The Commission will review said projects against the adopted ALUCP. The Commission may take any of the following actions: • Find the project to be consistent with the ALUCP. • Find the project consistent subject to conditions. This action choice should only be available to the Commission for the time frame between the adoption of the ALUCP and the cities or the county's action to amend their respective General Plans and/or override. • Find the project inconsistent. If the lead agency disagrees with a finding of inconsistency, overriding findings must be made for the project to be approved. An override must be done with a 2/3rds vote (4/5ths in reality for the Board of Supervisors) for the project to be approved. Based on discussions during the joint Board of Supervisors and ALUC meeting on April 3, 2000, the override'decision must be made by the Board of Supervisors. During the time period after the lead agency (cites and, the county) amend their respective general plans and/or override the ALUCP the only projects requiring review by ALUC are, legislative actions. They include rezonings, amendments to the general plan, specific plans and other building or zoning regulations that may be applicable inside the influence areas of a public use airport. All other discretionary land use applications are not required to be reviewed by ALUC, except that an agency or individual may voluntarily request a review. If a voluntary review is requested, ALUC may only submit comments to the lead agency and no override is required if ALUC determines the project to be inconsistent. This procedure needs to be clarified as there are several sections within the plan that implies that ALUC has jurisdiction to review a broader range of projects. Section 1.5.2. (b) states that the Commission and the local agency could agree that the commission should continue to review individual projects in an advisory capacity. This statement 2 appears to be the standard, but there are other references that suggest otherwise. They • - are: a. Section 1.5.2 (c) concerning redevelopment. What is meant by redevelopment? Would it only apply if there were a general plan amendment or rezone? b. Section 1.5.2 (d) suggests that the ALUC Secretary (Director of Development Services) can make a determination which projects should be referred to ALUC. C. Section 1.5.3. Major Land Use Actions: Suggests that other major land use projects not involving a legislative action may also be warranted to be reviewed by ALUC. Specifically, under subsection (a) -it lists a number of non -legislative land uses that include, (3) land divisions of five or more residential units, (4) any discretionary development of 20,000 square feet or more, (5) a land acquisition by a governmental agency that could result in any facility accommodating a congregation of people (school or hospital), (6) any non -aviation use of land in Compatibility Zone A, (7) new antennas, buildings and other. structures exceeding the height limits of the respective compatibility zone, (8) any obstruction that receives a determination of other than "not a hazard to air navigation", (9) any project that may create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in flight, (10) projects that may attract birds and finally subsection (c) requires review of all communication towers anywhere in the county that are taller than 200 feet. d. Section 2.3.5 Subsequent Review also suggests that there can be additional review at the project level. Section 2.4.4 (b) (3) requires that ALUC review expansions of legal nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding these suggestions for further review, most, if not all, of these matters should be addressed by the cities and the county amendments to their respective General Plan, which could include a new overlay -zoning district. Once ALUC has determined that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed or proper overrides have been enacted, no further mandatory review of non -legislative projects is required. Voluntary review could occur, though. It is clear that the plan needs to distinguish between mandatory review for legislative actions vs. optional or voluntary review and the different implications for both of these types of review. 2. Section 1.2.10. Existing Land Use This is a definition that appears to be limited. A local government commitment becomes. firm when the following decisions and actions occur: a. Approval of tentative subdivision maps. 3 b. Recordation of final subdivision maps. Approval of Use Permits and other discretionary entitlements, until it expires. d. Approval of a Development Agreement within the terms of the agreement. e. Formation of assessment districts for provision of infrastructure (roads, water, sewer etc.) f. Actual extension and installation of infrastructure While the Airport Planning Handbook does not include all of these features, these commitments should be acknowledged elements that constitute existing land uses. Page 1-2 under Existing Land Uses states that "For airport land use planning purposes, a land use can generally, be considered existing once the local agency has completed all discretionary actions on the project and only ministerial approvals remain." Minimally, this sentence should be added to the definition of "Existing Land Use" as provided in Section 1.2.10. In addition, the Airport Planning Handbook acknowledges that financial commitments or other factors can result in vesting occurring quite early in the process" (page 3-23). Furthermore, .on page 3-24 under the heading of "Economic Considerations" it states that " ALUCs cannot totally ignore the economic implications of providing a high degree of compatibility, especially around airports in urban communities airport/land use compatibility has its costs as well as its benefits ... but also by the community as a whole (from underutilized infrastructure, lost taxes, etc.) 3. Section 2.4.4 Special Conditions (a) Infill: The criterion for infill needs further refinement: The standard stated for infill projects is clear, but the fourth bullet under item 1 places limits on the infill program. Infill by necessity needs to be applied to the definition of existing lands uses. Page 172 "Limitations" states that ALUC has no authority over existing land uses. The infill policy gives authority to ALUC to restrict infill development. The fourth bullet is in conflict with the second bullet. It states that regardless -of the surrounding land uses, the proposed use shall not have a density or intensity more than 50% above that permitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A). This may ignore the public investment made in infrastructure improvements. The second bullet appears to allow development if the adjacent land uses are similar to or more intensive than that which is proposed on the infill parcel. A further general observation on the definition of infill is that the 65% threshold for bordering development may be difficult and impractical in some cases. This can be overcome if the definition of "Existing Land uses" is broadened to reflect all of the items listed above. 4 4. Section 2.4.4 (b) Nonconforming uses: Subsection (2) provides that a nonresidential nonconforming use not be enlarged. The primary feature that would render a nonresidential use nonconforming appears to be the intensity factors or people per acre. Buildings are classified based on their use. Occupancy limits are then. determined based on the size (square footage). It is not known how many buildings exceed the actual or the theoretical population standards for the zone. The theoretical standard is based on, the size of the building. The building code. would determine the maximum number of people that can safely occupy the building. Different uses would have different occupancy levels (i.e., fewer people can occupy warehouse space than office space). , Another question related to nonconforming uses: Is a use considered nonconforming if it's an existing or infill use? Stated another way, are all existing uses that are not compatible with the plan considered nonconforming? Both existing' and infill uses should not be considered nonconforming, as ALUC has no authority over existing uses. S. Section 2.4.4 (c) Reconstruction: If a building is destroyed by 75% or more of the Assessor's value, it may only be rebuilt if it conforms with the underlying use, density and intensity as provided for in Table 2A. The county zoning ordinance allows residential uses to be reconstructed irrespective of the amount of damage. All other- nonconforming uses may -be rebuilt, expanded, reconstructed,altered;'or-enlarged -with the approval of a Use Permit. It is' apparent that the ALUCP will not allow reconstruction if the 75% damage threshold is met, but there may be a legal question as to what process should be made available and followed for an individual who has suffered a. loss. Staff has also asked County Counsel to review and. comment on the Nonconforming and Reconstruction sections. B. Comparison of Applicable Criteria/Guidelines for Compatibility Zone C (Traffic Pattern) 1. Introduction The purpose of this summary is to identify the Compatibility Zone "C" criteria used in both of the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH). Item 2 displays the criteria that have been established in the ALUCP while Item 3 outlines those provided in the ALUPH. A ,comparison of these criteria is provided in a summary table. 2. ALUCP Criteria The following criteria are quoted from the definition section of the document (Section 1.1.4., page 3-2). 5 r • The outer boundary is the -area commonly flown. by aircraft at an' altitude of 1,000 feet or less above ground level (it can be lower or, especially for larger airplanes, higher). - • Annoyance associated with aircraft overflight is the major concern. To ;deal .with this issue, a residential density level was set at < 0.2 DU/ac or > 5 DU/ac. Currently, however, 'the Commission's preference is to set the density at < 0.2 DU/ac. • For nonresidential uses, the average intensity is 100 people/ac; no single acre shall exceed 300 people/ac. • Prohibited � uses, include children's school, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and development that. may cause the attraction of birds to increase. • This zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour. • Land uses are subjected to aircraft frequent noise events. • Restrictions may be required on tall objects (ones greater than 70 feet high). 3. Airport Land Use.Planning.Handbook (ALUPH) y The ALUPH devises. four functional categories to formulate airport land use compatibility policies/criteria. These categories are noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. Each of these. includes guidelines/criteria, related to CZ "C", that are outlined below (ALUPH-Chapter 3, page 3=3 and Chapter 9, pages 9-21/9-23). Itis worth noting that the intent section of .the ALUPH includes a statement that reads, "...the views presented herein. should be considered only as suggestions and recommendations. The Handbook does not establish state standards or policies for airport land use planning." a. Noise • No residential uses within 65 dB CNEL contour. • Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as a maximum for residential uses in quiet communities (or even 55 dB at mural airport). b. Safety Acceptable Form of Development "Although perhaps not easily attainable, the following guidelines are suggested as a good starting point..." T • 4 to 6 DU/ac in small communities; in urban areas, even higher densities may be reasonable, especially if development is clustered to provide open space. • Avoid high-density residential use unless clustered to leave open areas in between. • Avoid activities with very high concentrations of people (150 or more people/acre). • Avoid schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. b. Airspace Protection • Limit heights of objects in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation, part 77 criteria (these criteria are intended to protect navigable airspace by creating the imaginary surfaces around airport runways). • Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere in the airport vicinity. C. Overflight • Under this category, the compatibility objective is not easily expressed in land use.planning terms. The objective, however, can,be helping people with above average sensitivity to aircraft overflights to avoid locations where these overflights occur. • Drawing "the line around areas of significant aircraft overflights exposures can be difficult if an attempt is made to define the area in terms of measured sound level." "...the highly subjective individual reactions to overflights makes the value of measurement on a decibel scale questionable." • "The ideal land use compatibility strategy with respect to overflight annoyance is to avoid development of residential areas in the affected locations. To the extent that this approach is not practical, the alternative is to make people better aware of the airport proximity before they move to the area." • Establish a buyer awareness program. • Use avigation overflight easements. • Use real estate disclosure statements. 7 Primary Compatibility Criteria -Zone C Comparison of Applicable Criteria/Guidelines Category Zone C Applicable Criteria/Guidelines ALUCP ALUPH. Noise • Annoyance is the major concern • No residential uses within 65 dB CNEL contour. • A residential density level was set at < • Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as a maximum for residential 0.2 du/ac or > 5 du/ac. uses. • Mostly lies outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour. •- Land uses are subjected to aircraft frequent noise events. Safety • For nonresidential uses, the average • Suggested residential density is 4 to 6 du/ac in small intensity is 100 people/ac; no single acre communities; in urban areas, even higher densities may be shall exceed 300 people/ac. reasonable • Prohibited uses include children's • Avoid high-density residential use unless clustered. school, day care centers, libraries, • Avoid activities with high concentrations of people (150 or hospitals, nursing homes, and more people/acre). development that may cause . the . Avoid schools, hospitals-, and nursing homes. attraction of birds to increase. Airspace • The outer boundary is the area • Limit heights of objects to conform to FAR part 77 criteria. commonly flown by aircraft at an . Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere in the airport vicinity. altitude of 1,000 feet or less above ground level. • Airspace review is required for objects > 100 feet. However, Chapter 3 -Section 1.1.4.b specifies that restrictions may be required on tall objects (ones greater than 70 feet high). Overflight • Deed notice is required. • The highly subjective individual reactions to overflights make the value of measurement on a decibel scale questionable. • Make people better aware of the airport proximity before they move to the area;'establish a buyer awareness program. • Use avigation overflight easements. • Use real estate disclosure statements. C. Review of the Draft Compatibility Plans for Each of the Four Public Use Airports This item focuses on implementation -related issues only. Staff has prepared a preliminary analysis of the application of the proposed Compatibility Zones to county properties surrounding the four airports. This evaluation is attached to this memo, refer to Attachment A, B, C, and D. Each attachment consists of a table listing the areas where the ALUCP provisions will conflict with the County Zoning and/or General Plan designations. A brief explanation of each conflict area has also been provided. In addition, a map illustrating the conflict areas for each airport is included. An implementation issue that resulted from the mentioned analysis is the intensity. standards in the proposed Compatibility Zones. This relates to the maximum number of people that can exist in nonresidential structures. Although different approaches could be followed to address this issue, they require the imposition of new building permit process. CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County Properties Conflict Area # Location Compatibility GP Designation County CLUP Limitation Zone Zoning 1 North of the B-1 Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/10 ac runway Residential 2 West of the B-1 Industrial M2/OS, LI 25 people/ac average airport 3 Eaton- B-2 LDR, MDR, HDR R-1, R-3, R-4, 1 DU/5 ac Cohasset SRI DU/5 ac. 4 Northwest B-2 Agricultural SR -1 1 DU/5 ac of the Residential airport 5 Northeast of B-2 Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac the airport Residential 6 Northeast of C Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac the airport Residential 7 East Ave. C LDR SR -1 1 DU/5 ac 8 North Ave. C LDR SR 1 DU/5 ac 9 Eaton Rd. C LDR, MDR, P R-1, R-2, SR 1 DU/5 ac 10 NCSP C LDR, MDR, HDR R-1, R-2, R-3 1 DU/5 ac village core 11 PV High C City City 1 DU/5 ac School 12 East of the C Agricultural SR -3 1 DU/5 ac airport Residential 13 West of the C Agricultural SR -1 1 DU/5 ac aort Residential 14 West of the C Agricultural SR -3 I DU/5 ac a' ort Residential Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 1) 1. This area is located immediately off the northerly end of the runway. It is predominantly developed as 2-4 acre parcels. Approximately 40 acres of a 112 - acre parcel exist in this area and has the potential to be divided into four 10 -acre parcels. No other infill is available. Conflict: while SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses, the Compatibility Zone B-1 only allows a 10 -acre minimum parcel size. 2. Area 2 consists of three different areas along the westerly side of the airport. All three are in an Industrial designation. No land division issues are observed. The only issue is the limitation on intensity as proposed by the B-1 zone. This zone does not allow concentrations greater than 25 persons per acre. Potential' conflict: many uses allowed by the current zoning districts will be restricted due to limitations on the concentration of people. 3. This area lies completely within the Sphere of Influence of the city and consists of both city and county properties. The area is almost entirely developed. Very few �j vacant parcels exist and none are large enough to allow any land divisions at a 5 - acre minimum parcel size. Conflict: the current zoning districts allow a variety of residential densities from.1 DU/ac to 20 DU/ac while Zone B-2 only allows a 5 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses. 4. Located on the northwest side of the airport, this area is entirely developed with parcels less than 5 acres; the only exception is a 42 -acre parcel with the potential of being divided into eight 5 -acre parcels. Surrounding parcels are mainly less than 2 acres in size. Conflict: while SR -1 zoning district allows a 1 -acre minimum parcel size, Zone B-2 only allows a 5 -acre minimum. parcel size for residential uses. 5. Most of this area is already developed at less than 5 -acre parcels. In the northerly part of the area, approximately 25 acres can potentially be split into 5 -acre parcels. The southerly portion of this zone also has 6 parcels, ranging from 10 to 25 acres, that may be similarly divided. Conflict: SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size while zone B-2 only allows a 5 -acre minimum parcel size for residential uses. 6. This area is between Keefer Road and Rock Creek, east of the airport. It has mostly been divided to parcels lessthan .5 acres with the exception of approximately 50 acres. Therefore, there is a potential. for creating up to ten 5 - acre parcels. Conflict: SR -3 district.allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size while a 5 -acre minimum parcel: size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 7. Area 7 has a rural residential character. Parcels are generally over an acre in size. One 12 -acre parcel exists in this area and could potentially be divided into 2 parcels. Conflict: SR -1 district allows a 1 -acre minimum parcel size while a 5 - acre minimum parcel. size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 8. This area is almost completely developed with low density residential uses. It is a mixture of city and county jurisdiction. No infill potential exists since there are no vacant parcels greater than 10 acres in size. Conflict: SR district allows up to 6 DU/ac while a 5 -acre minimum ..parcel 'size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 9. This area has two vacant parcels with development potential. The size of these parcels is 19 acres and 79 acres, respectively. The 19 -acre parcel is eligible for infill status. The 79 -acre parcel will be limited to 5 -acre minimum parcel sizes. Conflict: the current zoning districts allow densities up to 13 DU/ac while a 5 - acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 10. This is the Village Core area of the North Chico Specific Plan. It is not developed and all of the proposed residential uses are inconsistent with the proposed compatibility zone. Conflict: the current zoning districts allow a variety of 10 residential densities from 6 DU/acre to 13 DU/acre while a 5 -acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 11. PV High School. This site is in the city, but is important enough to consider as a conflict area. Conflict: under the proposed ALUCP, any expansion of school facilities would be prohibited. 12. This area is primarily undeveloped. The ALUCP requires. a 5 -acre minimum parcel size instead of the 3 -acre minimum allowed by the zoning. No infill potential- for these properties. Conflict: while SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel size, a 5 -acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 13.. This area is mostly developed with parcels less than 2 acres in size. A few parcels, with an average size of 10 acres, exist. and can be split to either 5 or 3.3acre minimum parcel sizes depending on the surrounding- parcel sizes. Conflict: SR -1 allows a 1 -acre minimum parcel size while a 5 -acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. 14. In this area, the parcel size ranges from 3 to 10 acres. Some additional land divisions may be allowed at either 5 or 3.3 acres. Conflict: SR -3 district allows a 3 -acre minimum parcel. size while a 5 -acre minimum parcel size is being recommended in the Compatibility Zone C. Ranchaero Airport Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County properties Conflict Location Compatibility GP .County ALUCP Area # Zone Designation Zoning Limitation 1 North of the 'A OFC SR -I - No dwelling units are allowed Runaway (1 acre minimum - All structures are prohibited Protection parcels) - No non FAA objects shall Zone (RPZ) be allowed above ground 2 South of the A OFC A-10 - No dwelling units are allowed RPZ. (10 -acre minimum - - All structures are prohibited parcels) - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground 3 North of the A OFC A-10 - No dwelling units RPZ (10 -acre minimum - All structures prohibited parcels) - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground 4 Northeast of B 1 OFC SR -F - 10 -acre minimum parcels the runway (1 acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed - Height limit is 35 ft. - Noise insulation 25db 5 North of the B2 LDR ASR - 5 -acre minimum parcels airport and (I acre parcels or 6500 - No daycares are allowed Big Chico sq. ft. w/ sewer)-. - Height limit is 70 ft. Creek - Noise insulation 20db Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 2) 1. One parcel exists in this zone at the north end of the runway in the runway protection zone. Currently, no structures are located in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned SR -1, but further development of the parcel would be restricted as it is considered a "clear area'.' for take -offs and landings. 2. This area includes three parcels located at the south end of the runway in the runway protection zone. A limited number of structures exists in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned A-10, but further development of the parcel would . be restricted as it is considered a "clear area" for take -offs and landings. 3. This area affects an approximately 2 -acre portion of a 200 -acre parcel. The parcel is zoned A-40 and will not be significaritly impacted by the restrictions imposed. This is because the potential land divisions would be limited to 40 acres and could easily be conditioned to avoid the RPZ area. 12 4. This area includes three parcels located at the north end of the runway. There appears to be no structures established in the affected area which is used for agricultural purposes. The land is zoned SR -1, but further development would be restricted as this area is limited to 10 - acre minimum parcel size. 5. This area includes six parcels that have limited development potential using due to on-site septic system limitations. These parcels are zoned ASR and currently contain dwellings. No further land divisions would be compatible with the ALUCP limitation of 5 -acre minimum . parcel size. - 13 a ftjj� OROVILLE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County properties Conflict Location Compatibility GP County 7 ALUCP Limitation Area # Zone Designation Zoning 1 Northwest B-1, B-2 LDR, I, AR -5, A-40' B-1: IDU/10 ac and of the GOL 25 people/ac average. runway B-2: 2DU/5 ac and 50 people/ac average. 2 Southwest B-1, B-2, C GOL, AR AR -5, AR, B-1: 1 DU/10 ac of the A-40 B-2: 2 DU/5 ac . runway C: 1 DU/5 ac 3 Northeast C LDR, MDR, AR, R-3,. C- 1 DU/5 ac and 100 people/ac of the C 1, C4 average. runway 4 North - of C LDR AR 1 DU/5 ac the runway Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 3) Most of Area 1 falls within the B-2 Zone with a small portion within the B-1 zone. Properties within the B-2 Zone are . designated Industrial and LDR (Low Density Residential •6 du/ac) and are zoned ,AR -5 (5 -acre minimum parcels). Policies within the Draft ALUCP would preclude thedensity of the LDR property from exceeding 1 DU per 5 acres and limit the number of people per acre on the Industrial property to 50 per acre. The property within the B-1 Zone is primarily zoned A-40 with a small portion designated Industrial, which would be. limited *to 25 people per acre. The current zoning district does not have any limitation on the number of people/acre. . 2. The B-1 portion of Area 2 should have little impact on properties because most of the property is zoned A-40. The B-2 portion of Area -2 will have some impact on properties designated AR (Agricultural Residential) and zoned AR as these properties could be developed to 1 acre parcels under the zoning, but will be limited to 5 acre parcels under the ALUCP. The C Zone covers all of Area 3. The Airport Land. Use Commission has indicated that the maximum residential density for the C Zone should be 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. However, the ALUCP current version set a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or greater than 5 du/ac for this zone. This analysis is based on 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in accordance with the Commission's preference. Properties in Area 3 that are designated LDR (6 DU/ac) and MDR (13 DU/ac) could only be developed at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, a substantial reduction in density. The "In -Fill" policies of the ALUCP may allow for some. of the properties to be developed at a higher density than 1 DU/5 acres should they qualify. Properties zoned for commercial use could have up to 100 people per acre average (including both employees and customers). 14 4. Area 4 is a large area within the C Zone with LDR (6 DU/ac) designation and zoned AR. With common sewer and water, lots as small as 6,500 sq. ft. could be developed. The proposed ALUCP density of this area is 1 DU/5 ac. This density could substantially reduce the development potential of the area. The proposed "In - Fill" policies, however, may allow for some properties to be developed at a higher density than I DU/5 acres should they qualify. 15 i :A ir Paradise Airport Analysis of the Proposed Compatibility Zones Application to County Properties Conflict Location Compatibility County County ALUCP Area # Zone GP Zoning Limitation 1 Directly north BI FR -5 - 10 -acre minimum parcel size of the runway. , (5 -acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed - Height limit is 35ft. - Noise insulation 25db 2 South of the B2 AR SH - 5 -acre minimum parcel size runway along (1 acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed SR191 - Height limit is 70ft. - Noise insulation 20db 3 South of the C AR SH - 5-acre.minimum parcel size runway along (I acre minimum) - No daycares are allowed SR191 - Height limit is 100 ft. 4 Immediately A AR FR -5 - No dwelling units are allowed North of the (5 -acre minimum) - All structures are prohibited Clear Zone = No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground 5 Immediately A AR FR -40 - - No dwelling units are allowed South of the . (40 -acre minimum) - All structures are prohibited Clear Zone - No non FAA objects shall be allowed above ground Conflict Area Details (refer to Exhibit 4) 1. Parcels north of the runway are presently 5 acres in size. The plan will not result in a potential loss for land divisions. Lands are presently occupied by residential dwellings. 2. There are three parcels affected of 80, 209, and 494 acres. Land divisions would be restricted to 5 -acre lots. The Scenic Highway zoning is not likely to be significantly impacted due to sewage disposal requirements and local topography. 3. This area includes three parcels of 20, 80 and 494 acres. Land divisions would be restricted to 5 -acre lots. The Scenic Highway zoning is not likely to be significantly impacted due to sewage disposal requirements and local topography. ' - 4. Parcels north of the runway are presently 5 acres in size. The plan will not result in a potential for land divisions. Lands are presently occupied by residential dwellings. 5. The two parcels south of the runway are presently in large sizes of 160 and 210 acres. Approximately .20 acres are affected by a no structures restriction. The land is characterized by a steep topography and generally undevelopable and inaccessible. `i 0:11MI11 INTI 1lti`17G\I SMA l0l: .• 0 ATTACHMENT 3 Addendum to the March 2000 Draft Airport Environs Plans- Conflict Areas .. 1191 �l�l: Conflict Area # - Location "` yCompaNbifiry GP Designation County CLUP Limitation' ` Zone i. ~ ' � Zoning 1 'North of the t� ,- - `'B-1 Agricultural..., SR-3 1 DU/10 ac runway 4 ,: - - - Residential-, " - 2 2 West of the ort 3 { ? �`� EatOIl ohassetB=2� Cn.'k'+'ix.�.°�.ut+._s..'F"�v8,.' B-1 Industrial 1� 3LD IvID13DR. �2�`�'''Yfi„„;' M2/OS, LI is 25 eo le/ac avers e 1DU/S$a (Resolved Tf. 6�°"k5t,.idNvg =€+45�. ,., ...•n.<:�� . .'.`:'. �d SR£'?',.'5'"!,�-i ..rx a.... yinfill 4 _' Northwest of the B-2 ,' : 'Agricultural "' SR-1 1 DU/5 ".' " airport = Residential ' ` 5 ._ Northeast of the,, B-2 Agricultural ;:, SM. 1 DU/5 'ac airport : ,' Residential 6 Northeast of the _' ' C 1 s Agricultural .. $R=3 1 DU/5 ac airport 4 Residential 7 3 East Ave CN LDR SR-1 1 DU/5' ac or > 4 DU/ac, 9 North'of Eaton Rd 9 South ofvEaton Rd Cl,.,LDR, RMVER 3 MDR, PQ R 1, R-2, PQ �1 1 DU/5 ac 11 East of the airport ' ClI 'Agricultural SR 3. .' . 1:DU/5 ac Residential 12 West of the airport, . C1 Agricultural ;+: SR-1 1 DU/5 ac . `~ Residential RAN C HAE R Ali �ti N "Compatibility Zones I j Parcels (City parcels are excluded) ZA Conflict Areas 0 AIRPORT I EXHIBIT 21 ,,...sCity of Chico _4 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet e:\prqjects\aluc\revised compatibility small b&w.a OROVILLE AIRPORT an ooq w EXHIBIT 3 city of Oroville 7qS4 01 1 - ----------- 1L r7 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 Compatibility Zones Parcels (City parcels are excluded) IF 4000 0 4000 Fee, Conflict Areas - Remaining Conflict Areas - Resolved V 77 e 1UGWeV15UU GUMPatIORILY WT1411 uckw.apr A EXHIBIT 4 I:_ PARADISE AIRPORT ------ rn 0 ------ A;mrfcan-WY;i ..... ...... (D I / i C .; �� i { -T rZ "Compatibility zones " Parcels (Town parcels are excluded) MA Conflict Areas BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED PRINTED: OCTOBER, 2000 i. 4000 0 4000 Feet i. —77 e:\projects\aluc\revised compatibility small b&w.al