The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutALUC - MISCELLANEOUS 2003-2-00063.-, Discussion of ALUC fees .. . M s Y • Vii. � ' Mr. Baker handed out a copy of the proposed fee study. He discussed the difference in what an application costs to process and what we are currently charging. He also discussed charging time and • material versus a flat fee. Commissioner Grierson suggested instead of charging the individuals to file' a map, charge the City 1 because the only reason they have to file with ALUC for our review, is because the communities and County have not brought their General Plan into compliance. Mr. Bakenwas not sure they had the authority to do that legislatively. Commissioner Grierson gave some background on why and how the Commission' came up with the ' fee. He discussed ALUC trying to be self sufficient..- Commissioner ufficient.Commissioner Harp said there are applications to ALUC because the City of Chico and the Town of Paradise have not done their job. a ? Chairman Wallrich said that time and materials seem to be the fair way to handle this. '.,He asked that this item regarding fees be kept on the agenda as an open item. r ` Commissioner Grierson liked the flat,fee approach. Commissioner Harp said the developers usually want a flat_fee. Commissioner Sherman said that a time and material fee was fairer. Mr. Baker said the feelisted listed comes from ,the consultant. There was � a brief discussion on. the application process. Chairman,Wallrich asked that this be kept on the agenda. Chairman,Wallrich took a poll of the Commissioners; Commissioner Grierson said he preferred a flat fee, Commissioner Rosene said he preferred a time'and material fee, Commissioner Hennigan,said he preferred a time and material fee, Chairman Wallrich said he would prefer hourly fees. It •was moved by Commissioner Sherman, seconded by Commissioner Hennigan, and unanimously carried to recommend that staff prepare documents for adoption of a fee based on time and materials. Mr. Baker said if the deposit is less than 25%, the work stops until the deposit is restored.' He said 'with the small deposit there is a'prolilem keeping the funds up. He, said he has suggested that the . deposit be set between $1,200 and $1,300. Budget. t Mr. Baker said he needs'to know what the Commission would like to see, in the budget, any training the Commission would like, etc. `Airport Land•Use.Commission Minutes of Meeting_of November,l9, 2003-■ Page 9-0— =—W - .,� .�-- .. � •-- " �^..a.--mss ,. r.w�.:•.�...�.. ..-.,.. - �� -;. - _......_...�... ,..-.-.... r-.fir-.'+•—v--"-.,�--`•r-,.�^..- :- ,.'. • a. - - .. '". 'Y• �..e 3. Discussion of ALUC fees' " Mr. Baker handed out a copy of the proposed; fee, study. ; He discussed -the difference in what an ' t application costs to process and what we are currently. charging.. He also discussed charging,time and • i, - 1 , material versus a flat fee: " Commissioner Grierson suggested instead of charging the individuals -40' file almap, charge the -City w• because the only reason they have t6'file with ALUC for.'our review, is because the communities and County have not brought their General Plan into compliance: Mr. Baker was not sure they had the authority to do that legislatively.' Commissioner (Grierson gave some background on why and how the Commission came up with the " fee. He discussed ALUC trying to be self sufficient. ` Commissioner Harp said there are applications to ALUC because the City of Chico and the Town of Paradise have not done their job. ° Chairman Wallrich said that time and materials seem to be the fair way to handle this. He asked that • this item regarding fees be kept on the agenda' as an open item. Commissioner Grierson liked the flat•fee approach." `• ! y. ; -; ; t Commissioner Harp said the developers usually want a flat fee. • Commissioner Sherman said that a time and material'fee was fairer.- Mr. airer. Mr. Baker said the fee listed comes from the consultant. There was a brief discussion -on the application process. - -. Chairman Wallrich asked that this be kept on the agenda: Chairman Wallrich took a poll of the Commissioners-, Commissioner Grierson said he preferred a flat fee, Commissioner Roserie said he preferred a time and material fee, Commissioner Hennigan said he preferred a time and material fee, Chairman Wallrich said he would prefer hourly fees. It was moved by Commissioner,. Sherman, seconded by Commissioner Hennig' and unanimously �. carried to recommend that staff prepare documents for adoption of a fee based on time and materials. t Mr. Baker said if the deposit is less than 25%,the work stops until the deposit is restored. He said with the small deposit there is a problem keeping the f inds:up. He said he has suggested that the deposit be set between $1,200 and $1'300.. . •. Y ., r - r 1 , r y' ,• + �`• ~�-. ry4��• ,y '�.` 0.Y , - •' . • � •� .. .. '� k. _ 1, _ _ Y < '' ■ Ai ort Land Use Commission-(■ Minutes�of Meetin of�November 1 -9 -_2003=■ -Pa e�10 y ��,. �• 'ice` A • +f � .. i'�,'1 '� Budget. Mr. Baker said he needs to know what the Commission would like to see'in the budget, any training the Commission would like, etc. Commissioner Grierson said they need funds to train new commissioners. He asked that the $35.00 a ; - ' year California Pilots Association member dues`be paid. r �- • Commissioner Sherman said she would like funding for staff to be pro-active with issues for research instead of just dealing with projects. 1 , � I ,}� ` , • � ` .. f + ".O •1 � it + .. - �. _ 1. • _ it [. - .Airport.Land=Use.C_ommission-.ElMinutes'of Meeting of November�l'9;�2003_r�YPage;l l IN r. w.ti_ sem•_. F - 1' y,=--�,.._,.- - r. c. � . '• ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING,—..'. l., ..CLUP Background Data. Accident Intensity Contour Mapping - Mr. Baker said he has talked with Ke'n Brody, the consultan't,.'regarding Exhibit 4H which is the accident risk intensive rap. He explained that the consultant said they, had applied the data to both ends of the runway, in other words the landing approach was applied, at both ends of the runway and the departure was applied at 'both ends. He explaified the process to produce the maps. He said the consultant told him that showing both ways on the runway on the map would be confusing. He said that the GIS section -of Development Services now has the data to produce the map. He-saidonce the* data is put into the computer, the maps can be produced, but it will take a little time. Chairman Wallrich said the priority for the map is in Chico where most of the issues are, although the maps need to be updated for all airports. Commissioner. Hennigan said the scatter has dimensions. He said it is not necessary to have Schutt - Moen register. them. He said staff just has to apply the dimensions. -Mr. Baker explained that,tiie pro'bl6m is that staff does not have the time, to digitize the data. He said it is easier to send it back to the consultant to update the map. Chairman Wallrich said the revised map was requested in December 2001, and again in -September 2003, and we are no nearer to our goal. He said he would like to have, the map by the December meeting. Mr. Baker said they have to recognize that the Airport Compatibility Maps that are the foundation for the Commission's decisions incorporate this data. He understood the desire to have the data reflected on the other maps, but he was not sure that it would functionally make i.difference in terms of-, decisions that are made since the data is incorporated in the Compatibility Map. Commissioner Hennigan said it will make a difference in the decisions because both planners employed by the County and private parties have brought the map as'it.exists to the hearing and claimed that the CLUP was too restrictive. Mr. Baker said that reflects someone not properly reading the Plan -where the maps are located in the CLUP. He said the Plan clearly states that the scatter data is reflected. on both ends of the 'runway. He said this is the policy and the map that staff is to follow. Commissioner Sherman said she has been -'attending the GIS users meeting. She -asked as an interim item, if they can not get a map right *ay, maybe staff can change the labelof the Scatter. Map to say "This is representative only and applies to -both ends." Chairman Wallrich commented that the revision is taking longer than the Commission expected. Mr. Baker said his target is to have the map, to -the Commission by the fiextmeetifig. There was a discussion on the, Schuster appeal -at the Board -of Supervisors. A Al i ort'Land Use Co mission.'M Minutesic 7=117:771. ofNovemberl9;2003�Page4t■ 1` u`' 0�7 -`�_`✓� �Y.. • ''� - . � 1 � r � / ... ori 7 i �{• i. � � r 1. • ..• '' .. Y � i Commissioner Hennigan said that the background data also, contains the raw data from which the accident scatter- is derived.. Mr. Baker disagreed stating that the raw data was created based on "data for 800 airports and, " seemingly a scatter gram of only those accidents that were accactutely in fact reported as locations. ` r Commissioner Hennigan said that the Commission has. received •a staff report in which it was stated that none of the 'Y's'were on this parcel, therefore, it was ok. Mr. Baker discussed the statistical data and technical data that went into the map. • r Commissioner-Rosene pointed,out that how_ someone gets into'a: approach pattern is one thing, but . once the plane is in the pattern it does riot vary that much. He said they are statistically trying to _ show where accidents occur.- He said all the Commission wants is an accurate map at both ends of .the runway, approach and departure, north and south. i Commissioner Grierson agreed with Commissioner Shermawabout having -an interim method to label the existing map, with a -label identifying that'it is representative of both ends of the runway. Brief , discussion. Mr. Baker said he could have a stamp made to say that this data is reflective of one direction only and needs to be considered for both runways in both directions.. - Commissioner Grierson said this needs to be a clarifying, stamp, nota modification of the map.' r Mr. Baker gave an -update on what was happening with the Sierra Moon project. _ 1 r .. � •�• '� � `- F♦ • " .t...d >ale ' r . I • .' , ♦ f ! -'+ a Z. w. iiti•Y •A 4 , Y F,. a* f- • / 7`L -,:1 2 - . 3. Discussion of ALUC fees Mr. Baker discussed the fee structure stating that they are trying to move to a flat fee as opposed to a deposit. He asked the Commission to adopt a fee. Chairman Wallrich pointed out that the Commission came to a consensus at the last meeting for a flat fee of 1,200-1,300 dollars, as reflected in the minutes of the last meeting. He said they should compromise and charge a flat fee of $1,250.00. ��-- -■ Airport Land Use Commission-■ Minutes of Meeting of December -1-7 2003,■Pag 9 i Jse Commission=M=Minutes>of Meeting of December '17i' 2003 �rPage;B �� •" ' } ` .f Budget for FY 2003/2004 -,-,Mr. Baker said there are State'issues that will affect the budget. He said that funds could be lost from the State,and he said there are problems that could affect his department. He said he would like to_ , delay this item until the January meeting so he will have more information on what is happening with _ F I ' the budget. ` This item was continued to January 21, 2004. , All Jse Commission=M=Minutes>of Meeting of December '17i' 2003 �rPage;B �� •" ' } ` 5. `" Work Program — Staff update ,; 'a. Clustering .. ' Mr. •Baker said that one of the issues .that is going on with the North Chico-Specific Plan area and the MOU that involves the Agreement to work together between the County and City, is that the City has interest in going toward urban densities. He said the issue is how'to administer something that is in ' the County that does not have sewer, etc. and at the same time have it structured in such a way so that when the property is annexed to the City, it's at an urban density_. b. Discussion of Open Space Areas around Chico,and Oroville Airports. Mr. Baker said that in the clustering concept is discussion -on open, space and how to structure the open space around the airport. Chairman Wallrich said ontheopen space,issue it appears that there is still plenty of open space. He said the question is how you calculate the open space"` Mr. Baker said this needs to be addressed in the General Plan. ' He said one solution is to have each individual ,project create its own open' space, but this couldbe a problem. He said they need something that allows for, the purchase of.a piece of land' of substance that makes sense, that is located in the right place, and then have the people as they develop'around it purchase a share of the open space. _ Commissioner Grierson said that the open space areas should also' be accessible areas should a plane go down. a _ - . , ' r _ •'ley ti ; .. - .--.. Mr. Baker said they will be doing an inventory as part of the GeneralPlan update process.. C. ' Anticipated modification of the CLUP for 2003 Commissioner Hennigan said the Commission had asked for a memo describing the,process and what t the legal requirements are for updating the CLUP next year, including-airport land use law, planning law,`time for noticing, etc. t. Mr: Baker said he discussed the process,with Counsel. He'said,any 2003 amendments'need to be adopted in 2003, and so forth. He said they will need to start 'the, adoption process in, September of , next year for amendments to the CLUP. Commissioner Hennigan said he would•likelo see the procedure in writing.'. •; Chairman Wallrich also said he.would likethe process-in place. Commissioner Harp said he would like to add a couple of items to the/ file for CLUP updates and one' is the application that was before the.Commission on July 16, 2003, on Pinkert: He discussed the concern over the split to a one acre parcel. He said an, issiie••was -how to. calculate development, do- you o you only calculate the portion of the land being developed, or all the land involved in' the split. He ' said -a portion was Mr. Pinker's house and another.portion was to be divided into two lots.and with :Airport LandUse Corrimission:�Mnutes'oftMeeting•ofDecember °17, 2003'■ Page311 ■+ 7 'F'�:,'^i ,.,.. .. . c , .. r. ` t i •. 7,d .a �� r '`j. w d z r. � � -!,, - k: b, s} the calculations it did not work. He said,in regards to the Ranchero Airport they talked about the practicality of the C Zone and the B2 zone on the north side of the -airport... - r Mr. Baker_ "said in` -his discussions with the consultant, part of the' reason the B and C 'zones were drawn the way they were is because it reflects the accident scatter diagram. Commissioner Rosene discussed the existing housing. He said :the', B2 and C zones are drawn differently because they had to modify it based ,on the existing residences and development in the , area. Commissioner Hennigan said that one they should recognize what is there and the other argument is to recognize that this document addresses the future and that there will be future land use changes. He said the plan should reflect what should be there and not only what is there so that when future changes are suggested, they can review the future change'against what should be there. Commissioner -Harp said there are issues with the Pinkert'project .arid they need to look at it, again with the Ranchero Airport update. He said another question was how to divide the project. He would like to put this into the file of things to think about." i Mr. -Baker said. he would give this information to the planner assigned to do..the -Ranchero airport update. Chairman Wallrich'again asked for the procedure in processing the changes in writing. f, • 1 . - ♦ [ .. _ _ Td' "� ■ ArrportLand Use`Comriirssron■Minute of�Meeting�of Decernber�l7, 2003■P ge 1 ■ y ` Y Commissionei Grierson announced that last night the Chico City Council set a date on when they are* , going to open the public hearing on the adoption of the Master Plan. He said the Plan passed the City Airport Commission and now has to go to the,. City Council to open the -.public hearing for final adoption. He said the hearing is targeted for February 10, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers where they will receive public comments on the final adoption of the Master Plan. . .. it �.. _ • • - .. ' ' .G ' t " .F ; f ._ ■ %Airport Land,Use_Commission- ■YMinutes`of Meeting of December 17;-x2003 ■"Page717*� ' i ''1. .�'`..,, ,..*. ' •%r.,.`""�' }1�,:z"►, _'t.b.`•.. ,,�, r, rrr'?:.' „.,.r3"+lppPr` -vr,,, sa._ •1 ..• ,t � ; v%k-�, a _' .- 2- p � ,....-:_�.d" . i ' a . i .'a ..!'1'WC � - - r y • r . • � r ' - .Ca r # � +l y:..t , � '�v,L 1 S .`� Ytj^r,�t ,S, r.r H '4� �� `�_...€ _..+ t � .^ r . ,s, :� ".!. Vii+ _ ell •;-F.7 ;, 2001, revisions to the CUT " Commissioner Hennigan said that two chairman's have asked staff to` set up; a pending file on . updates. He. submitted a list of items left hanging from 12-22-01, 8-2.1-2002,,10-16-2002, and 11-20- 2002: He noted that staff is to be, the memory for this Commission so items do not get lost. ; Commissioner Harp said,they are asking that these'iterris•be put in a file to`discuss. He asked staff to go through back minutes for items to be put in this file. He said there were actions taken by ALUC in . 2001 that should be added to the list. It was noted that'atrthe last meeting the items for the list were done 'in the 'form. of a motion. The Commission felt these motions should be bolded or in some way made to stand out in the minutes. F8 Action File i a See above .' F9 CLUP updates a. See above � � i i �a�,= orf 'i { ' .. • .. - �+L t - • 7 � f.. `+n..j •3(+. }r r� 4 .�,. .tom ., •- lk nd�U e Commission■ M nutes�of�Meeting�of-December�l�7 20Q3a■ P..age�r15�■ � '' �� „*°�`"""'�"■nArport•L ,,.,,� � _ ' r.a --11t,a �. •1.:7 ,� ne.,.'..t-. .rt, 1=e ,�w. fY: `J' (. � -7 ]. � . , - A � �� . .:-.`"Sr. 5i -•.. r . t4... � .i S- .. ,. ... .. iy..t r • ..)' qty .7I";c./� .e • {tY -iy -. ,. _ .. .. ... ...._ ._.,. �_._ el F6 AOPA Action in California Report Commissioner Henmgan said he'is a member of the aircraft owners and Airport Pilot Association `a'nd. in their:monthly.magazine'there is�one"o"r.two pages'on,tliings hatare happening'inlairport-land use _ around': Califorriiarairports=dnd.the.members of•the-Board"arid'City'Council members often do not i know that there are controversies in other•places. He' -thought it might be'useful to distribute.a copy of this page; each month, to the_Supervisors, Councilmembers, and anyone else. 4 Commissioner Grierson said -this -is a good -magazine with good articles on problems at other airports and not only in California.' Commissioner Hennigan discussed how and who should pass out the information. =' ' _ y r -r 9 ' 7 u •• JA t • oirport LandUseCmnissio■'Mg ofDeemb72■l4�00a "x.+.::.';s !• �w� . - �.: r '+.;-,... >,�, a -0} , . , a .mac • � a ;; ' M,a- « i - �" ,,� . , � ' a '"' : a F i [ -.+� ;,1=111,11'i h'- It Ci :,°t1 b f .: L G f ^.c _ t, � 1, � • a. r �' � ., ,,,� " y 1 ,. • .f r F r µ ; -i is +'` � 1 Yi •.iy. ': . , a, •7 .. • r r ,L v n 1r r 'r. :!'� •f f - f ` . F5 ' 'AB 3321�r� r. , Commissioner •Hennigan said this Bill was signed iri . September 2003 and the State' Assembly clarified, their intent with respect to the- Airport Land Use ,Law •and the Airport. Land Use Commissions. He said that some school districts claim they were exempt from ALUC law and this. , ,,rt.:" • legislature' made it clear that the school districts are not exempt from ALUC requirements. He said another thing that,the State, addressed ''was that'some agencies have,been- casual about overriding Airport Land .Use Commissions. He said the procedure for overriding • an Airport Land Use Commission has been has been changed, the•agency that intends to override now has to have a public hearing at which factual information-is presented, they then adopt findings, and those findings have to be addressed to the ALUC and CalTrans: He said they can not adopt the override findings for 45 days and they are fequired to keep as part of their findings the com_ ments from ALUC and CaMans. He said-he would like to see a more complete treatment of AB 332 then he has. Mr. Baker said he would investigate this bill: ti "� .. • • :� =Airport Land Use Commission■ Minutes,ofetingLof December;lw7*2003 PagexH a .. ... LY ..... i i� • . 4. -•t ,.; —. i�_ :.j r. S"{ • r'f. ' �rrt ,^!1� ..:.w- 's.: :. �-ski .7. J'�ii s c 1 u..;t� f t`' ..r• S -k, •,.e •... :.a 2.. Accident Scatter Map Update c �» "9 Chairman Wallrich expressed the Commission's frustration with this item.; He" said he expected this map-to,be done for this meeting. ` ' ,`,Mr. Baker explained that the GIS Manager felt that it would be easier for the Consultant that did the CLUP to do the revised map. The Consultant will not do the _map without additional payment and f there is no budget to pay them. Chairman Wallrich said the issue is that work for ALUC is not a priority in the Development Services ' Department. He felt that he should talk to Ms. Christopher, Development Services Director. Mr. Baker said that staff is working on the General Plan to get it consistent with the CLUP and that the General Plan update is a top priority. 1 - Chairman Wallrich discussed an overlay to be put ori the maps to clarify what the scatter map means. He said he would like this discussion kept on the agenda as an open item. He asked that the map be updated and some kind of overlay be done in the interim. He would like a copy of the overlay in next rJ month's packet. He asked Mr. Baker what,the,,consultant would charge the Commission to . do the map. Mr. Baker said he would set a meeting with Jim Aranguren, GIS Manager. r Commissioner Rosene said that Ms. Christopher should be At.ihe meeting with Mr. Baker, Chairman Wallrich, and Mr. Aranguren. - . Mr. Baker said he would set up the meeting.. Commissioner Hennigan dig scussed,the California Airport Land Use Handbook, Appendix F and G. He said that safety zones could change as a result of the new accident, scatter map so that when the Commission considers their possible amendments to the CLUP, they need to put Appendix G of the Handbook in play. _ r Commissioner Grierson said if the Commission can get a price from the Consultant on doing the scatter map, they may be able to ask CalTrans to assist in meeting the standards of their new book by giving the County a $5,000 grantor whatever it would cost. F Commissioner Harp asked if Commissioner Hennigan is asking that the updated scatter map for 2002'., be placed in the file of "things to do" when thinking about CLUP updates. a Mr. Baker said that Mark Michelena will be doing .the review for 'the Ranchaero Airport. He explained that Mr. Michelena will be off for a week or two and then off three days a week for awhile, but will be working on the next airport review. He said after that Mr. Betts.will be working on the Paradise Airport and the staff stortage should not be a problem. ,y x V � ` ' as �-At .{""? i ,y 51``♦ L _ . 09 TV_ T7 • i \ 'All Vll LRlll �r hlsi n 77 7N,770 F. Monthly Status Report. -The report Was accepted. G. Committee Appointments. I . Alternate for Commissioner H6nnigan It was noted that Tony St. Amant was,appointed as Alternate'to Commissioner Hennigan. L 77 7N,770 3. Work Program 'j, a. Review ALUC Annual Work Program' Mr. Baker explained that the Work Program is covered under ALUC By-wLaws. There was a discussion on reviewing the four CLUPs by doing one a quarter. Commissioner Grierson thought it was ambitious to review each airport in one year. Mr. Baker said they need to decide the order to take which airpoirt first, etc. He suggested sending 4_letter to the identified managers to see what changes have occurred. Mr. Baker discussed being able to change the SOP if this is too ambitious. Chair Wallrich said the Commission might want to take a look at the SOP first. Commissioner Grierson said they should establish a sub -committee to meet with the airports. - 'Mr. Baker agreed with Chair Wallrich that ALUC's'review of the CLUPs would entail having a meeting at each airport and then a meeting at ALUC on their regular day. Comiiiissioner'Baldridge said there have been a lot of changes at the -Ranchero Airport and the airport needs to be looked af. Mr. Baker suggested, September to November for review of the Ranchero Airport, December _ through February for the Oroville Airport, March through.May for the Chico Airport, and June through August for the Paradise Airport: - He said he would discuss budget and cost along with the process at the next meeting. 4. Anticipated modification of the CLUP for 2003 This item was made a part of the Work Program section. 5. Brown Act as it relates to E -Mail correspondence. - Mr. Baker said he is reviewing the. Brov,/n*Act issue and will bring back information. from Counsel. �f '2. CLUP Document Amendments - - a. Clustering. b. Discussion of Open Space Areas Around Chico and Oroville Airports. , Mr. Baker suggested that Clustering and the' discussion of Open Space Area -Around Chico and Oroville Airports should be handled under the Work Program section - below. He said these items, should be discussed when doing the review of the individual CLUPs. • - .. • '`�a, .. - •" ,' ' u .}. _ �. to _. ti .. . is `;i,., '- ti r ....j: .f• ,. .. ., ■ Airp rt Land',IJse Commission-■'M""M' •of Meeting of July'A16; 20032■ -Page 7 ■.. �.. t. " - ' r 10.1'?".. f-_�'•�?.�u9_�.. r,� �4 �C.�i; .'f`��d��:. r7y �' a_ w �u. .,-_,. ,. H. Public Comments Barbara Hennigan said on the individual airports, since the other airports are in jurisdictions that have not=adopted the CLUP and it is possible to make the maps; she thought one of the things that would be nice to have on the maps is identifying any development that has occurred involving an override and show any development that has ,not come to . ALUC such as ;the ones on West Sacramento ' Avenue. Commissioner,Hennigan suggested showing subdivision that occurs with an override as one color'dot and subdivisions that did not come to ALUC as another color on the map. t tr. • - ^i - i' k • .F � '� ' � r ' `. Y r i .tel , �' ...- ;. r Airpoit Land}UserCommission-� Minutes of Meeting of November 19; 20Q3�L■ Page 14 e' .a �.r '.a , _. ..,...o n. �;_ ri` c, �.-.�.. •TF . �-�F 'i,i %s'4•r• 5- -Rs; � fir'' �-. ti , ��.- i ':..: r � '.,�.. 2. Work Program Al, a. Clustering b. Discussion of Open Space Areas around Chico and Oroville Airports. d. Anticipated modification of the CLUP for 2003 y` s I Brown Act as it relates to E -Mail correspondence. Mr. Baker gave a brief summary of his memo that was submitted for discussion. Chairman Wallrich said the Commission formed a sub -committee at the last meeting to assist in the development of an accident scatter map. Mr. Baker said he has made contact with the consultant and the. GIS person, and they are working to get the revised map into the system. Chairman Wallrich said this should be done soon. Mr. Baker said he will talk to the GIS people and find out what and how long the process will take. Commissioner Grierson said they need to keep in mind if they are talking about modifying,the CLUP in December, is that there is a public notice period, and this will need to be moved on quickly. Mr. Baker said if the map is applied to one airport, it should be applied to all, and talked about the amendment happening in December 2004. Chairman Wallrich pointed out that this revision was approved in December 2001. Commissioner Hennigan discussed the liability issue because people plan a. project on mis- information where the data is technically complete, but graphically is not. He submitted a map depicting in orange the area that is inside the accident scatter, but is not illustrated in the CLUP as being inside the accident scatter area. Chairman Wallrich asked staff to let him know by email, with a cc to the sub -committee, hopefully by the next meeting. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 15, 2003 0 Page 13 ■ eY ?H. Public Comments Barbara Hennigan said on the individual airports, since the other airports are in jurisdictions that have , not I adopted the CLUP and it is possible to make the maps, she thought one of the things that would be nice to have on the maps is identifying any development that`has occurred involving an override and Vshow any development that+has not come to,ALUC such as the ones`on West Saciamento Avenue. + Commissioner Hennigan suggested showing subdivision that occurs with an override as 'one color dot and subdivisions that did not come to ALUC as another color'on the map... • • _ ` ` J_ ,. .r* .rTr i�.r,_. �/ �f f� is � • �� •t - L:- Fs,Airport,L-and�Use-Commission-M-Minutes,ofMeeting of�November 19, 2003�M•Paget12 0.., 7. - , -- r•••-�, �.;....a....d-rt•^"----'-^ - T 3-•T'.. :"'"'"""^.-..t•.-•-,-•.-i-'+-^^- ..'."•..�..+;r.... �"�'�=gpis y ,s.n�'r-..�.+..J aii.�. Ni w�.+_•�1+Ww+w�+�+-rr..•.•nr.. Lr �• W' - r _. •4 h .•v �'� .. • i.u! • 4 W 5 Work Program .Chairman Wallrich said this item was handled_ earlier: He said they need to know if,they can, time. . wise, make any changes to the CLUP this year. Mr. Baker said he would check. ' .. . .. - ... _ ... +�•' !`4 "moi '3L yi�t• 4; ��}• �„" .. � 4 v • - �� Aon ..�.�e - -j-.�M Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes . -. . ' of Meeting`of November 19,.2003 ■,Page 11•■ �- �•. 4.rr y /+.:. .��..W..}..r .. � .-.•;-�.4�+w..... - .��-�-:i:..�..+..� Al '.6�.u�r•,w....�..r�+..+w"_R - ,t �t,�...� r.. 'x+ ._..v... � -..-. m�."""`...�a�......',r...-+.r-..-�.. `�� "�'.�.+..`-`�.�.... x.. -.: �....«.+�..-r-a ..,-'�.+..�.-� .,,.z-,T�..� -•--• '..�.'�•r-.""." ..i . i `'�' : •.�".•` �•°�i 1 _..» CLUP Background Data — Accident Intensity Contour Mapping • ,Mr. Baker said' he has talked with Ken Brody, the consultant,~ regarding, Exhibit 4H which is the accident risk intensive map. He explained that the consultant said they had applied the data to both ' ends of the runway, in other words the landing approach was applied at both ends of the runway and the departure was applied at both ends. He explained the process to produce the maps. He said the consultant told him that showing both ways on the runway on the map would be confusing. He said . that the GIS section of Development Services now has the data to produce the map. He said once the ` data is put into the computer, the maps can be produced, but it will take a little time. Chairman Wallrich said -the priority for the map is in Chico where most of the issues are, although the, maps need to be updated for all airports, Commissioner Hennigan said the scatter has dimensions. :He said it is not necessary to have Schutt - Moen register them. He said staff just has to apply the dimensions. r Mr. Baker explained that the problem is that staff does not have the time to digitize the data.. He said ., • it is easier to send it back to the consultant to update the map. Chairman Wallrich said the revised map was requested in December 2001, and'again in September - 2003, and we are nearer to our goal. He said he would like •to -have the map by the December meeting. Mr. Baker said they have to recognize that the Airport Compatibility Maps that are the foundation for the Commission's decisions incorporate this data. He understood the desire to have the data reflected on the other maps, but he was not sure , that it would functionally, make a difference in terms , of decisions that are made since the data is incorporated in the Compatibility Map. Commissioner, Hennigan said it will � make a difference in' the decisions because both planners employed by the County and private parties have brought the map as it exists to the hearing and claimed that the CLUP was too restrictive. Mr. Baker said that reflects someone -not'properly reading the Plan where the maps are located in the CLUP. He said the Plan clearly states that the scatter data is reflected' on both ends of the runway. He said this is the policy and the map that staff is to follow. Commissioner Sherman said she has been attending the GIS users meeting:, She asked' as an interim ' item, if they can not get a map right away, maybe staff can change the label of the Scatter Map to say t "This is representative only and applies to both ends." . Chairman Wallrich commented that,the revision is taking longer than the Commission expected." Mr. Baker said his target is to have the map to the Commission by the next meeting. ' i There was a discussion on the Schuster appeal at the Board of Supervisors.. Commissioner Hennigan said that the backgroiul_d data also contains 'the raw data from which the accident scatter is derived. "■-Airport•LandUse ommissioAi.-M-nutes` Y ng o N 03 ■ 7 C,of Meeti f;�ovember •19, 20 Page 3 .� -, ''Mr Bakery disagreed' stating that' the raw 'data' was created -based on data for 800 airports and d r' seemingly a scatter gram of only those accidents that were accactutely in fact reported as locations. Commissioner Hennigan said that the Commission has, received a staff report in which it was stated r ' that none of the 'Y's were on this parcel, therefore, it was.ok. Mr.'Baker discussed the statistical data and technical data that went into the map.' Commissioner Rosene pointed out that how someone gets into a approach patternis one "thing, but ` . , once the plane is in the pattern it does not'vary that much. He said they are statistically trying to t ' show where accidents occur. 'He said all the Commission wants is an accurate map at both ends of the runway, approach and departure, north and south. Commissioner Grierson agreed'with Commissioner Sherman about having an interim method to label the existing map, with a label identifying that it is representative of both ends of the runway. ;Brief discussion. , Mr: Baker said he could have a stamp made to say that this data is reflective of one direction only and needs to be considered for both runways in both directions. ' Commissioner Grierson said this needs to be -a clarifying stamp, not a modification of the map. Mr. Baker gave an update on what was happening with the Sierra Moon project. _ et r _.: -- �,Airport=Land Use Commission`■ `1Vlinutes'of M_eetingof November 19;-2003 �■ :Page'4l■ 2000 ALUCP DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST CLUP # Distributed to: Date: By Whom: 1 Norman Rosene 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 2 Nina Lambert 4/27/01 hand- out Lynn Richardson 3 Jim Cause 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 4 Art Hatle 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 5 John Franklin 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 6 Robert Grierson 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 7 Robert Har 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 8 Donald Wallrich 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 9 Terry Hodges 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 10 HenryRobertson 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 11 Duane Greenwood 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 12 John Pa adakis 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 13 Robert Henni an 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 14 Brian Baldrid a 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 15 Meleka A. Meleka 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 16 Randy Wilson 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 17 Craig Sanders 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 18 Jane Dolan 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 19 R. J. Beeler 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 20 Mary Anne Houx 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 21 Kim Yamaguchi 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 22 Marion Reeves 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 23 Steve Berta na 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 24 Coleen Jarvis 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 25 Dan Nguyen -Tan 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 26 Rick Keene 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 27 Dan Herbert 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 28 Maureen Kirk 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 29 Larry Wahl 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 30 Tom Lando 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 31 Kim Seidler 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 32 Gordon Andoe 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 33 Gary Alt 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 34 Steve Jernigan 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 35 Dan Pillus 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 36 Joe Spada 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 37 Al Koslin 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 38 Jo Sherman 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 39 Ruben Duran 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 40 Alan White 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 41 Dan Wentland 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 42 Steve Lambert 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor I;; 1, M PMW 2000 ALUCP DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST 43 C.L. Lew Hubb 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 44 Ray Dalton 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 45 Al McGreehan 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 46 Chuck Rough 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 47 Oroville Branch Library 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor -2 48 Chico Branch Library 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 49 City of Chico Airport Commission 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 50 Fred Gerst 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 51 Larr Thelen 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 52 North Valley Pilot Assn. 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 53 Matt Walterscheidt, Chico E -R 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 54 Oroville Mercury 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 55 Gridley Herald 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 56 Michael Mooney 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 57 Chuck Nelson 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 58 Richard Leland, Jr. 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor ' 59 Fernando Marin 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 60 Gary Griggs 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 61 Curt Josiassen 4/25/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 62 Cheryl Spoor 5/2/01 Cheryl Spoor 63 Dan Breedon 5/2/01 Cheryl Spoor 64 Steve Betts 5/2/01 Cheryl Spoor 65 Steve Hackney 5/2/01 Cheryl Spoor 66 STAPLES 5/10/01 Meleka 67 KINKOS 5/10/01 Meleka 68 B.C.A.G./Ivan Garcia 5/24/01 Cheryl Spoor 69 Agency 6/8/01 Kim Yamaguchi (request of M. A. Meleka 70 Glen Dilley, new ALUC Alternate 12/11/01 mailed Cheryl Spoor 71 Carl Durlin , permanent employee 11/20/01 Cheryl Spoor 72 ESA ALUC Consistency Contractor 1/7/02 Dan Breedon 73 ? Not in file on 1/7/02 C Spoor 74 Dennis Rothe, New ALUC Alternate 1/22/02 mailed Cheryl Spoor 75 NOTE: Copy sent to Caltrans by Ken Brody, Shutt Moen. K:\P1anning\ALUC\ALUCP Distrib\2000 CLUP Distrib List Ldoc 2 1 • , •. T `Paradise Post f S Declaration of Publication - • 5 State of California County of Butte' ` Declarant Says: -.. w, .. «-.w-...:yn•.n 1'.tv-1.:;r r,. :: [;1v .•: ii:.R j-. �-- - .1 _ _ _ I declare under penalty of ped ury•that the foregoing is true and correct. , `Executed on March 23, 2004 Paradise, California. Declarant c r 1 -.. w, .. «-.w-...:yn•.n 1'.tv-1.:;r r,. :: [;1v .•: ii:.R j-. �-- - .1 _ _ _ I declare under penalty of ped ury•that the foregoing is true and correct. , `Executed on March 23, 2004 Paradise, California. Declarant 08/18/2004 WED 15:41 FAX' 10001/003 t Y Transmittal Cover Sheet { UTYmCHICU City of Chico luc iN 1! . P.O. Box 3420, Chico, California, 95927 Date: August 18, 2004 Time: 3:45 PM To: Joe Baker Phone: (530) 538-7601 Butte County Planning Fax: ' (530) 538-7785 From: Kim Seidler . Phone: (530) 895-4888 Planning Division Fax: (530) 895-4726 E-mail: kseidler@ci.chico.ca.us RE: Request for scheduling on ALUC September agenda Number of pages including cover sheet: 3` Message, u\ • 08/18/2004 WED 15:41 FAX i r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFN ' DEPART NT PLANNING A 11 Mam Street CITYWCHICO P.O. Boz 3420 'Nt'arr C'Mco, CA 95927 (530) 895-11851 Fax (530) 896-4720 http://Hnnwcr.chiu�.r:a.iS August 18, 2004 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re- Infill Provisions of 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Dear Commissioners: Z002/003 As you are very well aware, bringing the City's General Plan and zoning into confonnince with the ALUCP has been a longer process than initially anticipated by the Commission or by the City, and it may realistically be some time yet before that process is completed. In the meantime, . growth pressure in the Chico Urban Area has reached historic levels (particularly for new . . residential development). While the City remains dedicated to the long-term viability of the Chico Municipal Airport, a substantial amount of land designated for new development in the City's Gcneral Plan lies within the B2 and C Compatibility Zones of the CMA's Influence Area. Much of this land can be defined as infill, in. which the predominant existing surrounding character is urban, and which if developed would not result in expansion of the urban edge of the City toward the airport itself. The purpose of the California ALUC law is expressed as follows (PUC Section 21670(a)): It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in the state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to .Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safely problems. It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare: by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures shat minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. (my emphasis) Historical development within the Chico urban area, both City and County, has resulted in urban uses that we all understand may lie closer to the CMA than is desirable for the future viability of the airport. Consistent with the purpose of the law as cited above, however, and particularly �•` Madr Trwn ReeYClod PnPe:r •r. 08/18/2004 WED 15:41 FAX e 003/003 ar Letter to ALUC August 18, 2004 Page 2 regarding areas that are already devoted to incompatible uses, the ALUC included provisions within the ALUCP that may enable infill development to proceed, subject to specified criteria. Unfortunately, our practice since adoption of the ALUCP has led us to conclude that the current provisions are difficult to administer and may not yield the desired result. As currently written, the infill provisions tend to mandate patterns of development that are inconsistent with the City's General Plan and existing surrounding development, and substantially limit the reasonable use of property while doing little, in my opinion, to protect the long-term interests of the CMA., In our process of bringing the City of Chico General Plan into conformance with the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, currently ongoing, it appears that one of the major unresolved issues has to do with infill development. I would like to discuss the infill provisions with the Commission at your September meeting, and intend to present for your consideration a proposal for amending these provisions that I hope will address the needs of both ALUC and the City. Please reserve time for this discussion on your September meeting agenda; I do expect to provide you with this proposal well in advance of the meeting so that you have adequate time to review it. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Resp tfully Kim Seidler Planning Director cc: AM, AP. Redeker, PP, CDD 4. Work Program — Staff update: Mr. Streeter suggested taking field trips in the future to look at the different airports. Commissioner Harp asked what year the General Plan was last updated. Mr. Streeter said most of the General Plan is from 1979. He said the Housing Element of the General Plan was updated last year. Commissioner Harp asked how long before the'County gets,a new General Plan, if everything goes right: Mr. Streeter'said two years would not be out of line. He said that Phase II of the update will be costly and take time.. Commissioner Rosene commented that in the time :it is taking to get a new General Plan, this Commission can write ,a revised updated CLUP. He said he hoped to keep the present staff for awhile. There was a brief discussion on the change of staff over'the years. -, :,_ ■ AuporfLandUse Cornmrssion ■:Minutes of 1VleetingFof July 20, 2005. Pages7�■ � ` j-_-.-g!:�:-�_.... ' _.. .,`'y-_ "`;.;��s�+.:.,.``_`—' `�.-�'t �r^�Y�ypF7R��±'. ��.�..�--*--`^�-a-•-- =--i� -�.--;.ss.. �-. y k� {_"y`�`".- �i!'�v� 3. General Plan Technical Update — scheduled for discussion at August 17 meeting Mr. Streeter suggested the Commission read at a minimum Chapter 17 of the draft General Plan update addressing,noise. He told the Commission the consultant will be at the August 171h meeting to talk to them and answer questions. Commissioner Lundy asked if this was their chance to make a strong statement to the City of Chico not bringing their General Plan into conformity with the CLUP. Commissioner Hennigan said it would be more of an opportunity to make a strong statement to the Board of Supervisors on not bringing their General Plan into conformity with the CLUP. Chairperson Sherman said they should look at. the County lands around the City of Chico and the City of Chico Airport. Commissioner Baldridge noted that they have had problems with the Specific Plan by the Chico Airport. .Commissioner Hennigan said State laws are restrictive about building schools 3 miles from the airport and the North Chico Specific Plan is proposing a school 1 mile from the airport. Mr. Streeter introduced Shari McCracken from Administration and Joe Hunter, Special Assistant to the CAO. He said Paul McIntosh is the Interim Director of Development Services. He informed the Commission that Peter Calarco will start in August as the Assistant Director of Development Services. 2. CLUP review Ranchaero Airport — Issues meeting and public input Mr. Michelena gave a brief summary of the project: He recommended adopting the findings listed in the Agenda Report. Commissioner Harp asked about looking at the B2 dine. of the Ranchaero Airport. He said one assumption would be that there has not been a change in operations At -the airport so the B2 Line was adopted based on the operation of the Airport, and if the operations haven't change, why change the line. He said they did have the Shastan application and he asked if the Commission wants to take another look at the B-2 line. Commissioner Hennigan commented that there are the occasional twin engine planes going to Ranchaero airport. He said a twin engine plane will make a larger pattern, than a single engine plane. Chairperson Sherman said in order to amend the B2 line they would need studies from. the consultant. She said there is a financial burden associated with amending the regulations. Commissioner Harp said they would, not want to change the B2 line if there have been no changes at the airport. It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Wheeler; and unanimously carried to adopt the following: A. Find that the Ranchaero. Airport has not submitted any applications for development at the airport. B. Further find that only one discretionary application (Shastan TSM) was submitted to the County of Butte within the Ranchaero Airport Compatibility Zones from January 2004 to June 2005, presented to ALUC and found to be inconsistent. ■ Airport,LandtQse, Commission-.■ Minutes :ofiMeetin *of Jul: 20 2.00.-5x2_age;5.' Y Page 1 of 1 Richardson, Lynn From: Reeves, Marion Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:45 AM To: Richardson, Lynn Subject: Letter From Aluc Lynn I got the letter you dropped off. FYI - the original I have in blue ink has the date at the top of the letter marked through and March written in. This letter was forwarded to the Board, the CAO and Co Co on 4/15. To date this item has not come forward as an agenda item, nor has the Board directed or authorized a response. I am not aware of any Board member answering this on their own either. 7/12/2005 ' April 20, 2005 Kim K. Yamaguchi Chair of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Flexible Lot Ordinance Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH. AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 BUTTE "' TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571 COUNTY FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net/dds/ JUL 0:8 2005 DEVELOPMENT " SERVICES Dear Mr. Yamaguchi & Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) held a discussion about the Flexible Lot Ordinance of the Butte County Code at its February 16, 2005. meeting. Section 24-82 (b) (6) for Flexible'Lot Size Provisions states that there is a limitation on using flexible lot size .provisions "within any adopted airport . Comprehensive Land ..Use - Plan". We unanimously passed a motion that a letter.be drafted to the Board of Supervisors that ALUC is willing -to contemplate flexible lots in the airport zones provided that: . • The process the, -Board would adopt includes ALUC's review; and • The process would include comments from'the airport involved to be sure that there is a net benefit to safety and utility. If the Board concurs with our request and initiates the Zoning Code Amendment, the Commission will look forward to reviewing the draft ordinance at a future ALUC meeting once it is prepared by Planning Division staff of the Department of Development Services. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lo� 1) Robert -Harp Chair of the Butte County. Airport -Land Use Commission .c Yvonrie:Christopher, Director of.Development Services Sfephen Streeter, Interim Planning Manager Attachment? February 16, 2005 ALUC agenda report = Flexible Lot Ordinance., KAPIanning\ALUCVvteeting Ietters\ALUC0302051tr.doc Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Airport Land Use Commission February 16, 2005 ALUC Meeting AGENDA ITEM — F-3. a. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager DATE: February 16, 2005 ITEM: Flexible Lot Ordinance — Recommend amendment to the Flexible Lot Ordinance for use in airport areas SUMMARY: Section 24-82 of the Butte County Code is entitled Flexible Lot Size Provisions. Subsection (b) (6) states that there is a limitation on using flexible lot size provisions "within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan". In light of numerous ALUC discussions about developments near airports and the December 2004 amendment for clustering, it is fecommended that this subject be discussed. BACKGROUND: This topic was last discussed in great detail by. ALUC for the -Guernsey consistency review on February 19, 2003. The ALUC minutes of that meeting are attached. ANALYSIS: Amending the flexible lot size provisions for use near airports covered. by the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ALUCP) would be a helpful tool to ALUC, the County staff, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and applicants in creating appropriate land use plans. The ALUCP and the County Zoning Ordinance represent two different standards for creating parcels through the land division process. A summary of the two is as follows: • Clustering under the 2000 ALUCP is a function of applying the densities allocated by the -plan, e.g. for the B1, B2, C1 andD zones. • Flexible lot size provisions: Determination of allowable density. Residential density is solely a function of the zoning district applicable to the land at the time development is proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based on the zoning and acreage applicable to the land to be developed. (Section 24-82 (e) (1) of the Butte County Zoning Code) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None required for discussion item. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a letter from ALUC to the Board of Supervisors recommending an amendment to the Butte County Ordinance to remove the exclusion of flexible lot size provisions within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Attachments: Exhibit A: ALUC Minutes of February. 19, 2003 for the Guernsey consistency review (ALUC File No. A03-02) Exhibit B: Butte County Zoning Code Section 24-82 Flexible Lot Size Provisions Z.x 14 i e i ?" E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING stency review for 1, ALUC File No. A03-02 Pat Guerns APN 047-260-198 acres into150 parcels. The a proposed Tentative Sana the lot would be dvision Map to e eloped we 50-91 th single family residences. property is zoned SR 1 The site is located on the -east side of Highway 99,. approximately 3,500 feet south of Garden Brook Drive, north of Chico. ' resented the staff report to the Commission. He stated d0 becausethe projer on Mr. Sanders p Q before the Comma was a major land use action and was coming istency with the Airport Land Use County has not brought the General Plan into cons9500 Plan (ALUCP)• He.added that the site s located oa13L,p31R of proximthe Chico Compatibility feet west of and perpendicular to the. he north end of runway Municipal Airport and located .in Compatibility Zone "D." Mr. Sanders added that Zone "D" does not have limitations to restrictions on density but precludes uses at represent hazards to flight. e application was eing Mr. Sanders made the Commission aware of the fact a' he zoning is SR- (1 acre processed under the County's flexible lot size Ordinance. Parcel size). He added that the parcel had a sigrufithethomesnout of the minimum P applicant was attempting to keep a ll plain area on it, and the app flood plain. and the in size or Mr. Sanders stated the resulting lots would be a half-acreclustering for less, portion of applicant would use the flexible lot size ordinance to allow the property. ce the Mr. Sander ders stated that when ALUC first reviewed the flexible in any airport area of finding and recommendation made was that it not be permr influen ce for all zones. Mr. Sanders added that he was note e if it was fully thought through at the time, particularly with respect to the `D on Sanders stated that it was understandable that in certain�permissible. eas of s `He added Mr. Sana density was n there with clear hazards to flight, that a high Y e. Mr. Sanders suggested to the that in the "D" Zone, where there is not a de t i SyZ imitation, it was not clear why should be a restriction on the flexible l other than the - Commission that an amendment to the CLUP to ]unit flexible lot size "D" Zone) might be a consideration., uld be a need to amend the CLUP. Chair Wallrich asked Mr. Sanders why there wo a Airport Land Use Commission a Minutes of Meeting of reoruary LTJC would Mr. Sanders responded that it was not in the CLUP, but perhaps lot size in the Awairport amend the finding. He added that the zoning code luniant to ts flexr. ded that if ALUC could make a different finding, it would area of influence. He ad 4 pave the way for the County to amend their.zomng. Mr. Sanders concluded his comments by recommending that the. n find the Land Use project (ALUC File No. A03-02) consistent with the 20 rp Compatibility Plan based on the following findings: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS - A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT B.. The proposal to subdivide 50.91 acres into 50 single Tesrinlop nesdentispace, clustering the development on 28 acres and leaving 22 with an average density of 1 dwelling unit per acre is compatible with the 2000 Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport Airport Land Use SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS The project site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone "D'Chico1SMunicpsl ted in the C. P J 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (AI,UCP) for the Airport: D. The resulting residential density will be approximately nd`'`'e unit per acr1 which is consistent with the re ecommended allowable density for Zone Chair Wallrich opened the hearing to public comments. Bill Dinsmore from Rolls, Anderson, Rolls Engineers representing Guernsey Mr. that Family stated that the open space was created for re reason. that the project come before an application .could be made, the County q before ALUC to ensure it would be satisfactory. llrich asked the 'Comrnission if there were any issues to discuss with Mr. Chair W a Dinsmore. There were no issues. Chair W allrich closed the hearing to public comments. N Airport Land Use Commission Q Minutes of Meeting of February tY, LvvJ — • �s� Am I otion was made by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Vice Chair Harp and passed unanimously to find ALUC Application A03-02 (Pat Guernsey) consistent with the 2000 Airport Land use Compatibility Plan based on the staff report as presented. 2. ALUC File No. A03-03 Butte couiaty Board of Supervisors, Habitat Conversion ' Ordinance: Item determined to be categorically exempt. from environmental review. Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement of a Use Permit for the conversion or abandonment of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other conservation purpose, County -wide. Felix Wannemmacher from County Counsel was present in Rob MacKenzie's absence to explain the recent changes to the proposed Chapter 24 Amendment. Chair Wallrich requested that. the Commission have a few minutes to read the memo entitled, "Recent Changes to Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring Permits for Conversion or Restoration for Conservation Purposes" since they have not had an opportunity to do so. Mr. Wannenmacher proceeded to explain what the Habitat Conversion he attention of the would mean to the Commission. He stated that it was brought Board of Supervisors that certainper proties.in the County were being converted to habitat and impacting adjoining properties, particularly agricultural properties. He further stated that to find a solution, County Counsel was directed to write an ordinance that would provide a better understanding of what was being done on. the habitat property and to put in place some mitigation for adjoining properties. Mr. Wannenmacher stated that the goal is to implement a process for applicants attempting to engage in a particular use to ensure it would be compatible with adjoining properties and uses on adjoining properties. He added that the ordinance would attempt to set up a Use Permit process for individuals that were converting an existing use to conservation or restoration of habitat. Mr. Wannerunacher also. stated that one of the comments from the Planning Commission was that the Use Permit would be too high a level of review and perhaps it could become an Administrative Permit process. He added that he wanted_ to discuss the process with ALUC and detenmine if there were any particular concerns with it. Mr. Wannerimacher stated that having habitat or conservation in ameas ort and that ence around the airport might have an impact on the operation of theairport the reason it had come before ALUC. He added that the ordinance would provide the following: 1) Establish a process of what .would be done ir story ions; s ofand abitat restorations; 2) Mandate funds for the management of habitat Determine whether the uses might be incompatible with adjoining uses. ■ Airport Land Use commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of February 19, 2003 a Page 4 ■ EXHIBIT B Chapter 24 ZONING* 24-82 Flexible lot size provisions. (a) Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the flexible lot size provisions contained in this section is -to increase the retention of natural resources, open space, and wildlife habitat, avoid hazardous areas, and further implement the goals and policies of the Butte County General Plan. Following are specific goals of the flexible lot size provisions: . (1) Provide an incentive to create quality residential developments, particularly where special conditions exist that prevent the attainment of the maximum permitted density of a property that could otherwise be attained through conventional subdivision design. (2) Require the avoidance of hazardous areas (e.g., 100 -year flood zones) and. preservation of environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands and special -status species habitat), productive agricultural and timber lands, and important cultural and scenic resources. (3) Facilitate innovative development concepts that achieve greater consistency with the Butte County General Plan. (4) Provide permanent open space for a variety of natural resource purposes. (5) Preclude additional development that may conflict with neighborhood quality of life. (6) Provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation features that reduce demand for public park land. (7) Reduce infrastructure requirements by reducing the length of streets and water and sewer lines and by potentially reducing street width requirements. (b) Applicability. The provisions contained in this section are applicable, as described below: (1) Processing requirements. Allowed by right in all residential zoning districts that allow flexible lot size provisions, as specified in this section. A conditional use permit, planned unit development (PUD), or other rezoning application is not required. (2) Applicable parcel size. Parcels that could potentially be subdivided based on the minimum lot size specified in the applicable zoning district. (3) Land divisions. This process is applicable to all subdivisions, parcel maps, and parcel map waivers regardless of the number of lots proposed. (4) Optional use. Use of the flexible lot size provisions is optional. Persons wishing to subdivide and develop land may utilize this section or may proceed under other existing County Code requirements without use of these provisions. (5) Reference to flexible lot size provisions. Residential development applications submitted pursuant to this section shall be clearly identified as being so -designed on the tentative map. (6) Limitation on location The use of the flexible lot size provisions shall not be applicable in urban areas designated in the Improvements Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps and Site Improvements for Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code or within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (c) Application requirements. The following processing procedures apply to the flexible lot size provisions. These procedures must be followed once a decision has been made to _ utilize the flexible lot size provisions. Subsequent to completion of the steps described in this subsection, a formal application filed pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with standard provisions of the County Code governing tentative map and waiver applications, as specified in subsection (d). (1) Preliminary consultation. It is recommended that applicants proposing to utilize the flexible lot size provisions meet with development services staff prior to making an application. Once the decision has been made to proceed, the applicant must submit information specified in subsection (c)(2) below in order to begin the pre-development review process required in (c)(3) below. (2) Supplementary application materials. The following materials shall be submitted. ' a. Opportunities and constraints mapping. At a minimum, this mapping shall illustrate land not suitable for development, as described in subsection (g)(1) of this section. b. Conceptual development plan. The conceptual development plan shall identify building lots/sites (including a description of the maximum number of lots), roads, open space areas, and other features based on the opportunities and constraints mapping. In addition, the conceptual development plan shall address all items listed in subsections g (except (g)(3)), (h) and (i). Where appropriate, information may be provided in.narrative form. (3) Pre-development review meeting. Once a preliminary application has been submitted, development services department staff shall schedule a pre-development review meeting that includes the applicant and representatives from the development services department, environmental health division, public works department, county fire department,. and any other agency with applicable interest in the proposed development site. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the following preliminary direction to the applicant: 1) identify any potential inconsistencies with county ordinances and policies, 2) identify design components and filing requirements recommended for the formal tentative subdivision map application, 3) discuss the review process, 4) identify potential environmental impacts, and 5) identify special studies that may be required to accompany the formal application. Any direction given shall be preliminary and is subject to further refinement or change as the application progresses to and through the formal application process. Following the meeting, the development services department shall send a Fetter to the applicant describing recommended direction, additional filing requirements for the formal application, and other determinations reached at the meeting. (4) Fee. A fee may be charged to cover county staff time in the pre-development review meeting in accordance with Articles IV and IX of Chapter 3 of the Butte County Code. (d) Formal application requirements. Following.completion of the pre-development review processing steps set forth in subsection (c), development applications utilizing the flexible lot size provisions shall follow standard county code requirements governing tentative subdivision, parcel map and parcel map waiver applications. (e) Development standards. Development applications designed and submitted pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall adhere to the development standards for the zoning district applicable to the property; except as modified below: (1) Determination of allowable density. Residential density is solely a function of the zoning district applicable to the land at the time development is proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based on the zoning and acreage applicable to the land to be developed. (2) Minimum lot size requirement. Lot size is flexible and can be variable; however, the provisions of Butte County Code section 24-75 shall apply as a minimum lot size provided the county's building .code, sewage disposal, water supply, health and safety, fire safety, and other applicable regulations are met. (3) Subdivision map notation. Final subdivision and parcel maps shall include a notation that stipulates that the parcels created under the provisions of this section cannot be further divided except remainder parcels in phased developments, as provided in subsection (h) of this section. (4) Building setbacks/yard area and lot dimension requirements. Building setback and lot dimension requirements are flexible, but under no circumstance shall setbacks from. property lines be less than five (5) feet. Lots may be designed with building envelopes instead of conventional building setbacks. Building envelope areas must be delineated on the tentative and recorded subdivision maps. Lot areas outside of established building envelopes will not automatically require the establishment of open space easements. Depending upon the reason for the use of building envelopes, a conservation easement may be used or alternative management standards may be established. All site development shall be consistent with the county's fire safe requirements and Public Resources Code, Section 4290. (5) Street design. Street improvements shall be governed by the following factors: a. Deviation from conventional road and sidewalk requirements may be requested by the applicant. The decision making body may approve deviations depending upon project. design, site conditions, and other factors. b. Streets may be privately owned and maintained, or may be proposed for dedication to the county. - c. All street design standard shall be approved for safety by the Director of Public Works and the -County Fire Marshal. (6) Sewage disposal/potable water. a. Subdivisions creating less than twenty-five (25) parcels shall meet the following standards: 1. Sewage disposal shall be by an individual system located on the parcel it serves and approved by the Butte County Environmental Heath Division. 2. Domestic water shall be provided by individual wells, as defined by Chapter 23 of the Butte County Code. Individual wells shall not be located in the open space area or on a common area parcel unless the applicant can show that water is not available in other locations and that impacts to sensitive or protected lands can be avoided or mitigated. b. Subdivisions creating twenty-five (25) or more parcels may meet the following standards: 1. The project may use a community sewage disposal system and community well; provided there is a homeowners association as the responsible maintenance entity. 2. Community facilities may be located on the open space parcel. provided it can be located on suitable land that is not subject to physical or environmental constraints. .Each request shall obtain tentative clearance from the Butte County Health Department, Environmental Health Division for the proposed lot sizes. Soil tests, drilling of test wells, or geologic reports may be required to provide evidence of sewage disposal capacity and domestic water availability. Minimum lot areas for septic systems must comply with section 20-120.1 of the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance and Appendix VII of the Improvement Standards for Subdivisions. (f) Permitted uses/accessory uses. Except as noted herein, all land uses permitted in the applicable zoning district shall be permitted under the flexible lot size provisions. Where modifications in lot design standards have occurred, as provided for in this section, there may be limitations on certain permitted and accessory uses due to lot coverage restrictions and/or setbacks prescribed in the applicable. zoning district. Uses allowed in dedicated open space shall be limited as described in subsection (g). Exceptions: (1) Second units. Second units are'allowed in projects submitted under the flexible lot size provisions, where allowed by the underlying zoning district; provided however, that the total density allowed for the project isnot exceeded. (g) Open space requirements. The following requirements apply specifically to areas identified as dedicated open space in flexible lot size developments: (1) Land not suitable for development. Dedicated open space areas shall be designated for all land not suitable for development. Primary areas must be avoided and reserved as permanent open space in all instances. In some instances, the decision making body may require that secondary areas or portions of secondary areas be avoided. In addition, other lands may be required to be in the designated open space to meet the minimum requirements of (g)(4) below or may be included at the request of the applicant. a. Primary areas. 1. 100 -year flood zones. 2. Wetlands, riparian areas and other sensitive biological habitats. 3. Unstable slopes. 4. Sensitive archaeological sites. b. Secondary areas. r 1. Timber areas. 2. Scenic areas. 3. Historic areas. 4. Deer migration, established fawning and winter range areas. 5. Areas with a slope of thirty. (30) percent or greater. 6. Viable/important grazing lands. (2) Open space/conservation easement required. Areas not designated for development shall be reserved as open space pursuant to this section. Open space shall be guaranteed in perpetuity using one or more of the following control mechanisms: a. Dedication of a conservation (or open space) easement to the county, other public agency or a public interest land trust.. b. Dedication of land in fee -title to the county or other public, agency. c. A development agreement with deed restrictions or -other appropriate mechanisms. The above mechanisms may be used separately or in combination with transfer of development credits, and density transfer covenants, as provided for in subsection (i). Remainder lots in phased developments identified as being reserved for potential future development are exempted from this requirement (see subsection (h)). (3) Open space management plan required. Public and private open space shall be maintained in accordance with an open space management plan acceptable to and approved by the county. Such plans shall, at a minimum, address the following: a: Grass and brush clearing for fire fuel management, as required by site conditions. b. Erosion control. c. Sewage disposal, water well, and stormwater drainage facilities, including ditches and r detention basins, if proposed for the development. , d. Other natural resource management activities and uses. Open space management plans shall include provisions for long-term maintenance of improvements and facilities that will not result in a fiscal impact on the county: . (4) Open space minimums. The amount of open space reserved in a project shall vary in accordance with the following provisions: a. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres or less, open space requirements shall be based solely on the constraining site features, as described in subsection (g)(1). 6. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of greater than five (5) and less than forty (40) acres, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space: The fifty (50) percent open space dedication requirement does not apply in instances where there are.no areas unsuitable for development (as described in subsection (g)(1) and the subdivision design merely proposes a variety of lot sizes. c. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of forty (40) to one hundred sixty (160) acres, a minimum of eighty (80) percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space. . (5) .Uses permitted in dedicated open space. Uses and activities within. dedicated open space shall be compatible with open space land. Unless limited or restricted by a t conservation easement, development agreement, conditions on the approved tentative ' map, or other restricting mechanism, the following uses are permitted: w . a. Agriculture, including grazing and timber management, are.permitted uses where - allowed by the underlying zoning district. b. Uses requiring a use permit in the zone in which the land lies, provided a use permit is obtained from the planning commission. c. Resource conservation. ' d. Wildlife management. e. Recreational activities compatible with the objectives of the open space management plan, as required by subsection (g)(3). f. Community wells, community septic systems, community.sewage disposal systems, and individual wells under certain circumstances. •, V, g. Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails. Public access is not required, but may be permitted subject to a public access easement being recorded. h. Other similar uses, as determined through the application review process. (6) Contiguity. To the maximum extent possible, on-site open space areas should be consolidated or linked, and not fragmented. This will facilitate wildlife movement, maintain functioning biological communities, and accommodate recreational opportunities. Open space connections to adjoining land beyond the project site should be anticipated and identified where practicable. r , (7) Access to open space. To the extent practicable, all residential lots shall have physical and/or visual contact with permanent open space. This is intended to facilitate surveillance, foster routine maintenance, and improve the quality of life of project residents through the integration of homesites into a permanent open space setting. (8) Trails. Where pedestrian, bicycle, and/or equestrian trails are constructed in dedicated open space areas, the following requirements shall apply: a. Environmentally sensitive areas shall not be impacted. b. Privacy of proposed on-site and existing off site residences shall not be intruded upon. c. Public access shall be permitted only where public access easements, consistent with an adopted trail master plan, have..been acquired. (h) Phased development. Projects may be proposed for development in two (2) or more - phases. Remainder portions may be proposed and set aside for further development. In , such instances; the following shall apply: (1) Land not proposed for immediate development shall be labeled "Remainder' on the subdivision map. (2) The acreage of the remainder may only be included in the calculation of residential density of the developed area if a transfer of density (as addressed in subsections (g)(7) and (i) has been:approved. (3) When development of the remainder portion is proposed, a subdivision application may be filed as a conventional development, planned unit development (PUD), or flexible lot size -development. v (4) Residential density transfers shall also include lands set aside as permanent open space. (5) Where phasing is proposed, open space proposed for the entire development area shall either be developed or guaranteed in proportion to the number of dwelling units proposed on a phase -by -phase basis. (6) Under no circumstances shall phased' development result in higher residential density than is otherwise permitted by the zoning district. (i) Development credit/density transfer. (1) Development credits or density may be transferred within parcels, across parcel lines of contiguous parcels, and from non-contiguous lands that are part of a single development proposal. (2) All development credit transfers shall be specified and governed by a development agreement or other suitable instrument between the developer, applicable sending site u e oun y LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE o OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571 FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net/dds/ April 20, 2005 Kim K. Yamaguchi Chair of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Flexible Lot Ordinance Dear Mr. Yamaguchi & Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) held a discussion about the Flexible Lot Ordinance of the Butte County Code at its February 16, 2005. meeting. Section 24-82 (b) (6) for Flexible Lot Size Provisions states that there is a limitation on using flexible lot size provisions "within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan". We unanimously pasged a mi 666ri' that -a' letter be"drafted'-to "the' Board 'of Supervisors that ALUC is willing to contemplate flexible lots in the airport zones provided that: • Th6process'the,Board'would`adopfiricludes ALUC's review; and • The process would include comments from the airport involved to be sure that there is a•net benefit to`safeiy and utility:` If the Board concurs with our request and initiates the Zoning Code Amendment, the Commission will look forward to reviewing the draft ordinance at a future ALUC meeting once it is prepared by Planning Division staff of the Department of Development Services. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �t ') Robert Harp Chair of the Butte County Airport•Larid Use Commission n • ... a ... 5. .. w1 . .... . . .... •- .. . .. .... c: Yvonne ,hristopher Director -of Dev616pment'Services Stephen Streeter, Interim Planning Manager Attachment: Febiudry genda report ='Fle •16;'2005 ALUC`a.xible Lot"Ordriance KAPIanning\ALUC\Meeting IetterSWLUC0302051tr.doc N Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division. Airport Land Use Commission February 16, 2005 ALUC Meeting AGENDA ITEM — F.3.a. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager DATE: February 16, 2005 ITEM: Flexible Lot Ordinance — Recommend amendment to the Flexible Lot Ordinance for use in airport areas SUMMARY: Section 24-82 of the Butte County Code is entitled Flexible Lot Size Provisions. Subsection (b) (6) states that there is a limitation on using flexible lot size provisions "within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan". In light of numerous-ALUC discussions about developments near airports and the December 2004 amendment for clustering, it is recommended that this subject be discussed. BACKGROUND: This topic was last discussed in great detail by ALUC for the Guernsey consistency review on February 19, 2003. The ALUC minutes of that meeting are attached. ANALYSIS: Amending the flexible lot size provisions for use near airports covered by the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ALUCP) would be a helpful tool to ALUC, the County staff, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and applicants in creating appropriate land use plans. The ALUCP and the County Zoning Ordinance represent two different standards for creating parcels through the land division process. A summary of the two is as follows: o Clustering under the 2000 ALUCP is a function of applying the densities allocated by the plan, e.g. for the B1, B2, C1 and D zones. Flexible lot size provisions: Determination of allowable density. Residential density is solely a function of the zoning district applicable to the land. at the time development is proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based on the zoning and acreage applicable to the land to be developed. (Section 24-82 (e) -(1) of the Butte County Zoning Code) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None required for a discussion item. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare 'a letter from ALUC to the' Board of Supervisors recommending an. amendment to the Butte County Ordinance to remove the exclusion of flexible lot size provisions within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. i Attachments: f Exhibit A: ALUC Minutes of February 19; 2003 for the Guernsey consistency review (ALUC File No. A03-02) _ Exhibit B: Butte County Zoning Code Section 24-82 Flexible Lot Size Provisions E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING 1, ALLJC Pile No. A03-02 Pat Gaeen n§e to ode 50 919acres into1stency 50 parcels.for The a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map family property is zoned SR-1 and the lots would be developed with sing telle3, 00feet so th of The site is located on the east side of Highway 99, app Y Garden Brook Drive, north of Chico. t the project Mr. Sanders presented the staff report to the Com forethe Co. Hemmi cion because the was a majorfore land use action and was coming be County has not brought the General Plan that theinto ss site located approximat cy with the Airport ly 9500 Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). He.added feet west of and perpendicular to the. he north end of runway 13L, 31R of the Chico Municipal Airport and located in Compatibility Zone "D." Mr. Sanders added that Zone "D" does not have limitations to restrictions on density but precludes uses that represent hazards to flight. Mr. Sanders made the Commission aware of the fact that the application was SR- (1 acre processed under the County's flexible lot size or ing dinance• The g minimum parcel size). He added that the pas�� had keesignificant lfi anthe hm amount s. o flood the plain area on it, and the applicant was attempting P flood plain. Mr. Sanders stated the resulting lots would be a half-ate c.in si ieQ forze or a portion of applicant would use the flexible lot size ordinans, and the ce to alio the property. the Mr. Sanders stated that when ALUC first reviewed the flexible lot e or dinance ort area of finding and recommendation made was that it not be permittedin any rP influence for all zones. Mr. Sanders added that he was not sure if it was fully thought through at the time, particularly with respect to the "D" Zone. Mr. Sanders stated that it was understandable that was not permissible.zones Heladded "B2", with clear hazards to flight, that a high density that in the "D" Zone, where there is not a density limitation, it was not calear ers d Cohere th should be a restriction on the le lot tozlimit flexible lot size (other than the Commission that an amendment to the "D" Zone) might be a consideration. Chair Wallrich asked Mr. Sanders why there would be a need to amend the CLUP. a Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of February 19, 2003 o Page 2 a Mr. Sanders responded that it was not in the CLUP, but perhaps ALUC would want to j . y amend the finding. He added that the zoning code limits flexible lot size in the airport area of influence. He added that if ALUC could make a different finding, it would pave the way for the County to amend their zoning. Mr. Sanders concluded his continents by recommending that the Commission find the project (ALUC File No. A03-02) consistent with the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan based on the following findings: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT B. The proposal to subdivide 50.91 acres into 50 single-family residential lots, clustering the development on 28 acres and leaving 22 acres in open space, with an average density of 1 dwelling unit per acre is compatible with the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS C. The project site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone "D" as listed in the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Chico Municipal Airport: D. The resulting residential density will be approximately 1 dwelling unit per acre which is consistent with the recommended allowable density for Compatibility Zone "D." Chair Wallrich opened the hearing to public comments. Mr. Bill Dinsmore from Rolls, Anderson, Rolls Engineers representing the Guernsey Family stated that the open space was created for another reason. He stated that before an application could be made, the County requested that the project come before ALUC to ensure it would be satisfactory. Chair Wallrich asked the Commission if there were any issues to discuss with 'Mr. Dinsmore. There were no issues. Chair Wallrich closed the hearing to public comments. ® Airport Land Use Commission 5 Minutes of Meeting of February 19, 2003 ® Page 3 u A motion was made by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Vice Chair Harp and passed unanimously to find ALUC Application A03-02 (Pat Guernsey) consistent with the 2000 Airport Land use Compatibility Plan based on the staff report as presented. 2. ALUC File No A03-03 Butte County Board of Supervisors, Habitat Conversion Ordinance: Item determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review. Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement of a Use Permit for the conversion or abandonment of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or other conservation purpose, County -wide. Felix Wannenmacher from County Counsel was present in Rob MacKenzie's absence to explain the recent changes to the proposed Chapter 24 Amendment. Chair Wallrich requested that the Commission have a few minutes to read the memo entitled, "Recent Changes to Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring Permits for Conversion or Restoration for Conservation Purposes" since they have not had an opportunity to do so. Mr. Wannenmacher proceeded to explain what the Habitat Conversion Ordinance would mean to the Commission. He stated that it was brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors that certain properties in the County were being converted to habitat and impacting adjoining properties, particularly agricultural properties. He further stated that to find a solution, County Counsel was directed to write an ordinance that would provide a better understanding of what was being done on the habitat property and to put in place some mitigation for adjoining properties. Mr. Wanner macher stated that the goal is to implement a process for applicants attempting to engage in a particular use to ensure it would be compatible with adjoining properties and uses on adjoining properties. He added that the ordinance would attempt to set.up a Use Permit process for individuals that were converting an existing use to conservation or restoration of habitat. Mr: Wannenmacher also stated that one of the comments from the Planning Commission was that the Use Permit would be too high a level of review and perhaps it could become an Administrative Permit process. He added that he wanted to discuss the process with ALUC and detenmine if there were any particular concerns with it. Mr. Wannerimacher stated that having habitat or conservation in areas of influence around the airport might have an impact on the operation of the airport and that was the reason it had come before ALUC. He added that the ordinance would provide the following: 1) Establish a process of what would be done in terms of habitat restorations; 2) Mandate funds for the management of habitat restorations; and 3) Determine whether the uses might be incompatible with adjoining uses. e Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of February 19, 2003 m Page 4 ■ EXHIBIT B Chapter 24 ZONING' 24-82 Flexible lot size provisions. (a) Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the flexible lot size provisions contained in this section is to increase the retention of natural resources, open space, and wildlife habitat, avoid hazardous areas, and further implement the goals and policies of the Butte County,General Plan. Following are specific goals of the flexible lot size provisions: (1) Provide an incentive to create quality residential developments, particularly where special conditions exist that 'prevent the attainment of the maximum permitted density of a property that could otherwise be attained through conventional subdivision design. (2)Require the avoidance of hazardous areas (e.g., 100 -year flood zones) and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands and special -status. species habitat), productive agricultural and timber lands, and important cultural and scenic resources. (3) Facilitate innovative development concepts that achieve greater consistency with the . Butte County General Plan. (4) Provide permanent open space for a variety.of natural resource purposes. (5) Preclude additional development that may conflict with neighborhood quality of life. (6) Provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation features that reduce demand for public park land. (7) Reduce infrastructure requirements by reducing the length of streets and water and sewer lines and by potentially reducing street width requirements. (b) Applicability. The provisions contained in this section are applicable, as described below: (1) Processing requirements. Allowed by right in all residential zoning districts that allow flexible lot size provisions, as specified in this section. A conditional use permit, planned unit development (PUD), or other rezoning application is not required. (2) Applicable parcel size. Parcels that could potentially be subdivided based on the minimum lot size specified in the applicable zoning district. (3)'Land divisions. This process is applicable to all subdivisions, parcel maps, and parcel map waivers regardless of the number of lots proposed. (4) Optional use. Use of the flexible lot size provisions is optional. Persons wishing to. subdivide and develop land may utilize this section or may proceed under other existing County Code requirements without use of these provisions. (5) Reference to flexible lot size provisions. Residential development applications , submitted pursuant to this section shall be clearly identified as being so -designed on the tentative map. (6) Limitation on location. The use of the flexible lot size provisions shall not be applicable in urban areas designated in the Improvements Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps and Site Improvements for Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code or within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (c) Application requirements. The following processing procedures apply to the flexible lot size provisions. These procedures must be followed once a decision has been made to utilize the flexible lot size provisions. Subsequent to completion of the steps described in this subsection, a formal application filed pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with standard provisions of the County Code governing tentative map and waiver applications, as specified in subsection (d). (1) Preliminary consultation. It is recommended that applicants proposing to utilize the flexible lot size provisions meet with development services staff prior to making an application. Once the decision has been made to proceed, the applicant must submit information specified in subsection (c)(2) below in order to begin the pre-development review process required in (c)(3) below. (2) Supplementary application materials. The following materials shall be submitted. a. Opportunities and constraints mapping. At a minimum, this mapping shall illustrate land not suitable for development, as described in subsection (g)(1) of this section. b. Conceptual development plan. The conceptual development plan shall identify building lots/sites (including a description of the maximum number of lots), roads, open space areas, and other features based on the opportunities and constraints mapping. In addition, the conceptual development plan shall address all items listed in subsections g (except (g)(3)), (h) and (i). Where appropriate, information may be provided in narrative form. (3) Pre-development review meeting. Once a preliminary application has been submitted, development services department staff shall schedule a pre-development review meeting that includes the applicant and representatives from the development services department, environmental health division, public works department, county fire department,. and any other agency with applicable interest in the proposed development site. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the following preliminary direction to the applicant: 1) identify any potential inconsistencies with county ordinances and policies, 2) identify design components and filing requirements recommended for the formal tentative subdivision map application, 3) discuss the review process, 4) identify potential environmental impacts, and 5) identify special studies that may be required to accompany the formal application. Any direction given shall be preliminary and,is subject to further refinement or change as the application progresses to and through the formal application process. Following the meeting, the development services department shall send a letter to the applicant describing recommended direction, additional filing requirements for the formal application, and other determinations reached at the meeting. (4) Fee. A fee may be charged to cover county staff time in the pre-development review meeting in accordance with Articles IV and IX of Chapter 3 of the Butte County Code. (d) Formal application requirements. Following completion of the pre-development review processing steps set forth in subsection (c), development applications utilizing the flexible lot size provisions shall follow standard county code requirements governing tentative subdivision, parcel map and parcel map waiver applications. (e) Development standards. Development applications designed and submitted pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall adhere to the development standards for the zoning district applicable to the property; except as modified below: (1) Determination of allowable density. Residential density is solely a function of the zoning district applicable to the land at the time development is proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based on the zoning and acreage applicable to the land to be developed. (2) Minimum lot size requirement. Lot size is flexible. and can be variable; however, the provisions of Butte County Code section 24-75 shall apply as a minimum lot size provided the county's building code, sewage disposal, water supply, health and safety, fire safety; and other applicable regulations are met. (3) Subdivision map notation. Final subdivision and parcel maps shall include a notation that stipulates that the parcels created under the provisions of this section cannot be further divided except remainder parcels in phased developments, as provided in subsection (h) of this section. (4) Building setbacks/yard area and lot dimension requirements. Building setback and lot dimension requirements are flexible, but under no circumstance shall setbacks from property lines be less than five (5) feet. Lots may be designed with building envelopes instead of conventional building setbacks. Building envelope areas must be delineated on the'tentative and recorded subdivision maps: Lot areas outside of established building envelopes will not automatically require the establishment of open space easements. Depending upon the reason for the use of building envelopes, a conservation easement may be used or alternative management standards may be established. All site development shall be consistent with the county's fire safe requirements and Public Resources Code, Section 4290. (5) Street design. Street improvements.shall be governed by the following factors: a. Deviation from conventional road and sidewalk requirements may be requested by the applicant. The decision making body may approve deviations depending upon project design, site conditions, and other factors. b. Streets may be privately owned and maintained, or may be proposed for dedication to the county. c. All street design standard shall be approved for safety by the Director of Public Works and the County Fire Marshal. (6) Sewage disposal/potable water. a. Subdivisions creating less than twenty-five (25) parcels shall meet the following standards: 1. Sewage disposal shall be by an individual system located ori the parcel it serves and approved by the Butte County Environmental Heath Division. 2. Domestic water shall be provided by individual wells, as defined by Chapter 23 of the Butte County Code. Individual wells shall not be located in the open space area or on a common area parcel unless the applicant can show that water is not available in other locations and that impacts to sensitive or protected lands can be avoided or mitigated. b. Subdivisions creating twenty-five (25) or more parcels may meet the following standards: 1. The project may use a community sewage disposal system and community well, provided there is a homeowners association as the responsible maintenance entity. 2. Community facilities may be located on the open space parcel provided it can be located on suitable land that is not subject to physical or environmental constraints. Each request shall obtain tentative clearance from the Butte County Health Department, Environmental Health Division for the proposed lot sizes. Soil tests, drilling of test wells, or geologic reports may be required to provide evidence of sewage disposal capacity and domestic water availability. Minimum lot areas for septic systems must comply with section 20-120.1 of the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance and Appendix VII of the Improvement Standards for Subdivisions. (f) Permitted uses/accessory uses. Except as'noted herein, all land uses permitted in the applicable zoning district shall be permitted under the flexible lot size provisions. Where modifications in lot design standards have occurred, as provided for in this section, there may be limitations on certain permitted and accessory uses due to lot coverage restrictions and/or setbacks prescribed in the applicable zoning district. Uses allowed in dedicated open space shall be limited as described in subsection (g). Exceptions: (1) Second units. Second units are allowed in projects submitted under the flexible lot size provisions, where allowed by the underlying zoning district; provided however, that the total density allowed for the project is not exceeded. (g) Open space requirements. The following requirements apply specifically to areas identified as dedicated open space in flexible lot size developments: (1) Land not suitable for development. Dedicated open space areas shall be designated for all land not suitable for development. Primary areas must be avoided and reserved as permanent open space in all instances. In some instances, the decision making body may require that secondary areas or portions of secondary areas be avoided. In addition, other lands may be required to be in the designated open space to meet the minimum requirements of (g)(4) below or may be included at the request of the applicant. a. Primary areas. 1. 100 -year flood zones. 2. Wetlands, riparian areas and other sensitive biological habitats. 3. Unstable slopes. 4. Sensitive archaeological sites. b. Secondary areas. 1. Timber areas. 2. Scenic areas. 3. Historic areas. 4. Deer migration, established fawning and winter range areas. 5. Areas with a slope of thirty (30) percent or greater. 6. Viable/important grazing lands. (2) Open space/conservation easement required. Areas not designated for development shall be reserved as open space pursuant to this section. Open space shall be guaranteed in perpetuity using one or more of the following control mechanisms: a. Dedication of a conservation (or open space) easement to the county, other public agency or a public interest land trust. b. Dedication of land in fee -title to the county or other public agency. c. A development agreement with deed restrictions or other appropriate mechanisms. The above mechanisms may be used separately or in combination with transfer of development credits, and density transfer covenants, as provided for in subsection (i). Remainder lots in phased developments identified as being reserved for potential future development are exempted from this requirement (see subsection (h)). (3) Open space management plan required. Public and private open space shall be maintained in accordance with an open space management plan acceptable to and - approved by the county. Such plans shall, at a minimum, address the following: a. Grass and brush clearing for fire fuel management, as required by site conditions. b. Erosion control. c. Sewage disposal, water well, and stormwater drainage facilities, including ditches and detention basins, if proposed for the development. d. Other natural resource management activities and uses. Open space management plans shall include provisions for long-term maintenance of . improvements and facilities that will not result in a fiscal impact on the county. (4) Open space minimums. The amount of open space reserved in a project shall vary in accordance with the following provisions: a. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres or less, open space requirements shall be based solely on the constraining site features, as described in subsection (g)(1). b. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of greater than five (5) and less than forty (40) acres, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total project site. shall be dedicated as permanent open space. The fifty (50) percent open space dedication requirement does not apply in instances where there are no areas unsuitable for development (as described in subsection (g)(1) and the subdivision design merely proposes a variety of lot sizes. c. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of forty (40) to one hundred sixty (160) acres, a minimum of eighty (80) percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space. (5) Uses permitted in dedicated open space. Uses and activities within dedicated open space shall be compatible with open space land. Unless limited or restricted by a conservation easement, development agreement, conditions on the approved tentative map, or other restricting mechanism, the following uses are permitted: a. Agriculture, including grazing and'timber management, are permitted uses where allowed by the underlying zoning district. b. Uses requiring a use permit in the zone in which the land lies, provided a use permit is obtained from the planning commission. c. Resource conservation. d. Wildlife management. e. Recreational activities compatible with the objectives of the open space management plan, as required by subsection (g)(3). f. Community wells, community septic systems, community sewage disposal systems, and individual wells under certain circumstances. I g. Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails. Public access is not required, but may be permitted subject to a public access,easement being recorded. . h. Other similar uses, as determined through the application review process. (6) Contiguity. To the maximum extent possible, on-site open space areas should be consolidated or linked, and not fragmented. This will facilitate wildlife movement, maintain functioning biological communities, and accommodate recreational opportunities. Open space connections to adjoining land beyond the project site should be anticipated and identified where practicable. (7) Access to open space. To the extent practicable, all residential lots shall have physical and/or visual contact with permanent open space. This is intended to facilitate surveillance, foster routine maintenance, and improve the quality of life of project residents through the integration of homesites into a permanent open space setting. (8) Trails. Where pedestrian, bicycle, and/or equestrian trails are constructed in dedicated open space areas, the following requirements shall apply: a. Environmentally sensitive areas shall not be impacted. b. Privacy of proposed on-site and existing off site residences shall not be intruded upon. c. Public access shall be permitted only where public access easements, consistent with an adopted trail master plan, have been acquired. (h) Phased development. Projects may be proposed for development in two (2) or more phases. Remainder portions may be proposed and set aside for further development. In such instances, the following shall apply: (1) Land not proposed for immediate development shall be labeled 'Remainder" on the. subdivision map. (2) The acreage of the remainder may only be included in the calculation of residential density of the developed area if a transfer of density (as addressed in subsections (g)(7) and (i) has been approved. (3) When development of the remainder portion is proposed, a subdivision application may . be filed as a conventional development, planned unit development (PUD), or flexible lot size development. (4) Residential density transfers shall also include lands set aside as permanent open space. (5) Where phasing is proposed, open space proposed for the entire development area shall either be developed or guaranteed in proportion to the number of dwelling units proposed on a phase -by -phase basis. (6) Under no circumstances shall phased development result in higher residential density than is otherwise permitted by the zoning district. (i) Development credit/density transfer. (1) Development credits or density may be transferred within parcels, across parcel lines of contiguous parcels, and from non-contiguous lands that are part of a single development proposal. (2) All development credit transfers shall be specified and governed by a development agreement or other suitable instrument between the developer, applicable sending site landowner, and the county. (Ord. No. 3560, § 1, 10-12-99) April 20, 2005 Kim K. Yamaguchi Chair of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Flexible Lot Ordinance ,SAY ' LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 Tr BUTTE -7 ' TELEPHONE: (530) 538-6571 COUNTY FAX: (530) 538-7785 www.buttecounty.net/dds/ JUL 0 8 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Dear Mr. Yamaguchi & Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) held a discussion about the Flexible Lot Ordinance of the Butte County. Code at its February 16, 2005. meeting. Section 24.82 (b) (6) for -Flexible Lot Size Provisions'states that there is a,limitation on using flexible lot' size .provisions "within any adopted airport Comprehensive- Land Use Plan". We e drafted to the Board of Supervisors that ALUC unanimously passed a motion that a letter.b is willing to contemplate flexible lots in the airport zones provided that: The process. the Board would adopt includes ALUC's review; and The process would include comments from the airport involved to be sure that there is a net benefit to safety and utility. If the Board concurs with our request and initiates the Zoning Code Amendment, the Commission will look forward to reviewing the draft ordinance at- a future ALUC meeting once it is prepared by Planning Division staff of the Department of Development Services. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, RobertHarp Chair of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission c: Yvonne Christopher, Director of Development Services Stephen Streeter, Interim Planning Manager Attachment: February 16, 2005 ALUC agenda report — Flexible Lot Ordinance K:\PIanning\ALUaNIeeting Ietters\ALUC030205Itr.doc Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Airport Land Use Commission February 16, 2005 ALUC Meeting AGENDA ITEM — F -.3-a. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Streeter, Planning Manager DATE: February 16, 2005 Ordinance - Recommend amendment to the Flexible Lot Ordinance. ITEM: Flexible Lot for use in airport areas SUMMARY: Section 24-82 of the Butte County Code.is entitled Flexible Lot Size Provisions. Subsection (b) (6) states that there is a limitation on using flexible lot size provisions "within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan". In light f numeroamendus ALUrC discussi ons abo lusterg) itis developments near airports and the December 004 recommended that this subject be discussed. BACKGROUND: This topic was last discussed in great detail by �%LUn for. are attached Bey i the review on February 19, 2003. The ALUC minutes of that meeting ANALYSIS: Amending the flexible lot size provisions for use near airport�sUoov theree Countd by y 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ALUCP) would be a helpful tool to staff, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and applicants in creating appropriate land use plans. The ALUCP and the County Zoning Ordinance represent two different standards for creating pareels'through the land division process. A summary of the two is as follows: Clustering under the 2000 ALUCP is a function of applying the densities allocated by the • for the B 1, B2, C 1 and D zones. plan, e.g. . ntiat density is • Flexible lot size provisions: Determination of all��wthe land at th le density. et meedevelopment is . solely a function of the zoning district applicable proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based en theof hn Bane Butte applicable to the land to be developed. (Section 24-82 () () t County Zoning Code) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None required for a discussion item. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a tte . Co nttter m ALUC O d nanceo to remove' the Supervisors recommending an amendment to the Bu Y exclusion of flexible lot size provisions within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Attachments: Exhibit A: ALUC Minutes of February .19, 2003 for the Guernsey consistency review. (ALUC File No. A03-02) Exhibit B: Butte County Zoning Code Section 24-82 Flexible Lot Size Provisions l E• BUSINESS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UC File No. A03-02 Pat Guernse APN 047-260-198, consistency into50parcels. The AL a proposed Tentative Subdivision Map to divide 5 ed with ale -family residences. property is zoned SR -1 and the lots would be dveloapproximately 3,500 feet south of The site is located on the east side of Highway99, pp Garden Brook Drive, north of Chico: ect Presented the staff report to the Commission. He statedthat becausetheMr. Sanders preset Q before the Commis was a major land use action and was coming ort Land Use . at the site is located approximately 9500 County has not brought the General Plan into consistency with the Alrp Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)• .He.added f runway 31R of the Chico feet west of and perpendicular to the. north end oMr. that ci al Airport and located in Compatibility Zone density but preludesduses that Muni p Zone "D" does not have limitationsto restrictions on represent hazards to flight. Mr. Sanders made the Commission aware, of the fact that the application is SR- (1 acre processed under the County's flexible lot size ordinance• a zoning cel size). He added that the parcel had a significant homers out ofothe minimum par ) to keep all plain area on it, and the: applicant was attempting p flood plain. and the allow. clustering for a portion of Mr. Sanders stated the resulting lots would be a half -acre in size or less, applicant would use the flexible lot size or to the property. e the Mr. Sanders stated that when ALUC first reviewed the flexible lot sizeorort area of finding and recommendation made was that that he was nRot be o sure i it was fully thought influence for all zones. Mr. Sanders add the'D" through at the time, particularly with respect to it understandable that in certain areas of zones He added ganders stated that it a density was not Penn' there �`B2", with clear hazards to flight, that a high limitation, it was not clear why that in the "D" Zone, where there is not a densitysuggested to the. should be a restriction on the flexibleloto limifl X banaot size (other than e Commission that an amendment to the C ccD" Zone). might be a consideration. why there would be a need to amend the CLUP Chair Wallrich asked Mr. Sanders I - _ .: ., t .and Use Commission a Minutes of Meeting of February would t to .. Sanders responded that it was not in the. CLUP, but perhaps ALU size in ti waiirport Mr. Sart P amend the finding. He added that ifeAzlo,U1C old make ae limits* ediffe different finding, it would area'of influence. He added that pave the way for the County to arnend their zoning. sson. find Mr. Sanders concluded his comments by recommending tha20 OCA ortr Land Use project (ALU File No. A03-02) consistent with the � 1 Compatibility Plan based on the following findings: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS documentation was submitted at the time of project review. A. No environmental SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINNDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT The proposal, to subdivide 50.91 acres into 50 single-familresidentialopen pace, B clustering the development on 28 acres and leaving 22 acresP with an average density of 1 dwelling unit per acrert impatblpio Airpothe 2000 rt Land Use Compatibility Plan for the ChiMunicipal SECTION 3: PROJECT FINDINGS The project site is located in Airport Compatibility Zone "D" as listed iii the C. Th p I for the Chico Municipal 2000 Airport Land Use CompatibilityPlan (ALUCP) Airport: nit Der acre ling un D The resulting.residential density will be approximate e densivelfor Compatibility which is consistent with the recommended allowabl Zone "D , Chair Wallrich opened the hearing to public comments. Guernsey Mr. Bill Dinsmore from Rolls, Anderson, Rolls Engineers representineestated that Family stated that the open space could be made, create, County requestd for ted thareast the project come before. an application cou before ALUC to ensure it would be satisfactory. Chair W allnch asked the Commission if there were any issues to discuss with Mr. . Dinsmore. There were no issues. Chair Wallrich closed the hearing to public comments. N Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of reoruary ►7, LVvl — • - i A motion was made by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Vice Chair Harp and l passed unanimously to find ALUC Application A03-02 (Pat Guernsey) consistent with the 2000 Airport Land use Compatibility Plan based on the staff report as presented. 2. ALUC File No. A03-03 Butte County Board of Su ervisors Habitat Conversion Ordinance: Item detennined to be categorically exempt. from environmental review. Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of. the Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement of a Useeyes ry o or e conversion . o r abandonment of any existing use to a fishery, wildlifep . purpose, County -wide. Felix Wannemnacher from County Counsel was present in RobdmMancKenzie's absence to explain the recent changes to the proposed Chapter 2 t. Chair Wallrich requested that the Commission have a few minutes to read the memo entitled, "Recent Changes to Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring Permits for Conversion or.Restoration for Conservation_ Purposes" since they have not had an opportunity to do'so. Mr. Wannenmacher proceeded to explain what the Habitat enterattention Conversion Ordinance of the would mean to the Commission. He stated that it was brought Board of Supervisors that certain properties in. the County. were being converted to habitat and impacting adjoining properties, particularly agricultural properties. He further stated that to find a solution, County Counsel was directed to write an understanding of what was being done.on the ordinance that would provide a better habitat property and to put in place some mitigation for adjoining properties. Mr. Wannenmacher stated that the goal is to implement a process for applicants atible with attempting to engage in a particular use to ensure it W0 ordinanceadjoining properties and uses on adjoining properties. He added that the o would attempt r set n a Use Permit process for individuals that were converting an existing use to conservation or restoration of habitat. Mr. Wannenmacher also stated that one of the comments fievie the 1 e haps Commission was that the Use Permit would be too high a level o P it could become an Administrative Permit process. He added that he wanted to discuss the process with ALUC and determine if there were any particular concerns with it. Mr. Wannerunacher stated that having habitat or conservation a areand �eWcaes around the airport might have an impact on the operation of the uPort the reason it had come before ALUC. He added✓that dth ordinance d nin woulderms provide habitat the following: 1) Establish a process of what . restorations; 2) Mandate funds for the management of habitat restorations; and 3) Determine whether the uses might be incompatible with adjoining uses. 19.2003 a Page 4 ■ EXHIBIT B Chapter 24 ZONING" 24-82 Flexible lot size provisions. (a) Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent -of the flexible lot size provisions contained in this section is to increase the retention of natural resources, open space, and wildlife habitat, avoid hazardous areas, and further implement the goals and policies of the Butte County General Plan. Following are specific goals of the flexible lot size provisions: (1) Provide an incentive to create quality residential developments, particularly where special conditions exist that prevent the attainment of the maximum permitted density of a property that could otherwise be attained through conventional subdivision design. (2) Require the avoidance of hazardous areas (e.g., 100 -year flood zones) and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands and special -status species habitat), productive agricultural and timber lands, and important cultural and scenic resources. (3) Facilitate innovative development concepts that achieve greater consistency with the Butte County General Plan. (4) Provide permanent open space for a variety of natural resource purposes. (5) Preclude additional development that may conflict with neighborhood quality of life. (6) Provide increased open space which may include active and passive recreation features that reduce demand for public park land. (7) Reduce infrastructure requirements by reducing the length of streets and water and sewer lines and by potentially reducing street'width requirements. (b) Applicability. The provisions contained in this section are applicable, as described below: (1) Processing requirements. Allowed by right in all residential zoning districts that allow flexible lot size provisions, as specified in this section. A conditional use per planned unit development (PUD), or other rezoning,application is not required. (2) Applicable parcel size. Parcels that could potentially be subdivided based on the minimum lot size specified in the applicable zoning district. (3) Land divisions. This process is applicable to all subdivisions, parcel maps, and parcel map waivers regardless of the number of lots proposed. .(4) Optional use. Use of the flexible lot size provisions is optional. Person s.wishing to subdivide and develop land may utilize this section or may proceed under other existing. County Code requirements without use of these provisions. (5) Reference to flexible lot size provisions. Residential development applications submitted pursuant to this section shall be clearly identified as being so -designed on the tentative map. (6) Limitation on location The use of the flexible lot size provisions shall not be applicable in urban areas designated in the Improvements Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps and Site Improvements for Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code or within any adopted airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (c) Application requirements. The following processing procedures apply to the flexible lot size provisions. These procedures must be followed once a decision has been made to utilize the flexible lot size provisions. Subsequent to completion of the steps described in this subsection, a formal application filed pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall be processed and acted upon in accordance with standard provisions of the County Code governing tentative map and waiver applications, as specified in subsection (d). (1) Preliminary consultation. It is recommended that applicants proposing to utilize the flexible lot size provisions meet with development services staff prior to making an application. Once the decision has been made to proceed, the applicant must submit information specified in subsection (c)(2) below in order to begin the pre-development review process required in (c)(3) below. (2) Supplementary application materials. The following materials shall be submitted. a. Opportunities and constraints mapping. At a minimum, this mapping shall illustrate land not suitable for development, as described in subsection (g)(1) of this section. b. Conceptual development plan. The conceptual development plan shall identify building lots/sites (including a description of the maximum number of lots), roads, open space areas, and other features based on the opportunities and constraints mapping. In addition, the conceptual development plan shall address all items listed in subsections g (except (g)(3)), (h) and (i). Where appropriate, information may be provided in narrative form. (3) Pre-development review meeting. Once a preliminary application has been submitted, development services department staff shall schedule a pre-development review meeting that includes the applicant and representatives from the development services department, environmental health division, public works department, county fire department,. and any other agency with applicable interest in the proposed development site. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the following preliminary direction to the applicant: 1) identify any potential inconsistencies with county ordinances and policies, 2) identify design . components and filing requirements recommended for the formal tentative subdivision map application, 3) discuss the review. process, 4) identify potential environmental impacts, and 5) identify special studies that may be required to accompany the formal application. Any direction given shall be preliminary and is subject to further refinement or change as the application progresses to and through the formal application process. Following the meeting, the development services department shall send a letter to the applicant describing recommended direction, additional filing requirements for the formal application, and other determinations reached at the meeting. (4) Fee. A fee may be charged to cover county staff time in the pre-development review meeting in accordance with Articles IV and IX of Chapter 3 of the Butte County Code. (d) Formal application requirements. Following completion of-the pre-development review processing steps set forth in subsection (c), development applications utilizing the flexible lot size provisions shall follow standard county code requirements governing tentative subdivision, parcel map and parcel map waiver applications. (e) Development standards. Development applications designed and submitted pursuant to the flexible lot size provisions shall adhere to the development standards for the zoning district applicable to the property; except as modified below: (1) Determination of allowable density. Residential density is solely a function of the zoning district applicable to the land at the time development is proposed. The maximum number of residential lots or units of a development submitted under the Flexible Lot Size Provisions shall be calculated based on the zoning and acreage applicable to the land to be developed. (2) Minimum lot size requirement. Lot size is flexible and can be variable; however, the provisions of Butte County Code section 24-75 shall apply as a minimum lot size provided the county's building code; sewage disposal, water supply, health and safety, fire safety, and other applicable regulations are met. (3) Subdivision map notation. Final subdivision and parcel maps shall include a notation that stipulates that the parcels created under the provisions of this, section cannot be further divided except remainder parcels in phased developments, as provided in subsection (h) of this section. (4) Building setbacks/yard area and lot dimension requirements. Building setback and lot dimension requirements are flexible, but under no circumstance shall setbacks from property lines be less than five (5) feet. Lots may be designed with building envelopes instead of conventional building setbacks. Building ,envelope areas must be delineated on the tentative and recorded subdivision maps: Lot areas outside of established building envelopes will not automatically require the establishment of open space easements. Depending upon the reason for the use of building envelopes, a conservation easement may be used or alternative management standards may be established. All site development shall be consistent with the county's fire safe requirements and Public Resources Code, Section 4290. (5) Street design. Street improvements shall be governed by the following factors: a. Deviation from conventional road and sidewalk requirements may be requested by the . applicant. The decision making body may approve deviations depending upon project design, site conditions, and other factors. b. Streets may be privately owned and maintained, or may be proposed for dedication to the county. - c. All street design standard shall be approved for safety by the Director of Public Works and the County Fire Marshal: (6) Sewage disposal/potable water. a. Subdivisions creating less than twenty-five (25) parcels shall meet the following standards: 1. Sewage disposal shall be by an individual system located on the parcel it serves and approved by the Butte County Environmental Heath Division. 2. Domestic water shall be provided by individual wells, as defined by Chapter 23 of the Butte'County Code. Individual wells shall notbe located in the open space area or on a common area parcel. unless the applicant can show that water is not available in other locations and that impacts to sensitive or protected lands can be avoided or mitigated. b. Subdivisions creating twenty-five (25) or more parcels may meet the following standards: 1. The project may use a community sewage disposal system and community well, provided there is a homeowners association as the responsible maintenance entity. 2. Community facilities may be located on the open space parcel provided it can be located on suitable land that is not subject to physical or environmental constraints. Each request shall obtain tentative clearance from the Butte County Health Department, Environmental Health Division for the proposed lot sizes. Soil tests, drilling of test wells, or geologic reports may be required to provide evidence of sewage disposal capacity and domestic water availability. Minimum lot areas for septic systems must comply with section. 20-120.1 of the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance and Appendix VII of the Improvement Standards for Subdivisions. (f) Permitted uses/accessory uses. Except as noted.herein, all land uses permitted in the applicable zoning district shall be permitted under the flexible lot size provisions. Where modifications in -lot design standards have occurred, as provided for in this section, there may be limitations on certain permitted and accessory uses due to lot coverage restrictions and/or setbacks' prescribed in the applicable. zoning district. Uses allowed in dedicated open space shall be limited as described in subsection (g). Exceptions: (1) Second units. Second units are'allowed in projects submitted under the flexible lot size provisions, where allowed by the underlying zoning district; provided however, that the total density allowed for the project isnot exceeded. (g) Open space requirements. The following requirements apply specifically to areas identified as dedicated open space in flexible lot size developments: . (1) Land not suitable for development. Dedicated open space areas shall be designated for all land not suitable for development. Primary areas must be avoided and reserved as permanent open space in all instances. In some instances, the decision making body may require that secondary areas or portions of secondary areas be avoided. In addition, other . lands may be required to be in the designated open space to meet the minimum requirements of (g)(4) below or may be included at the request of the applicant. a. Primary areas. 1. 100 -year flood zones. 2. Wetlands, riparian areas and other sensitive biological habitats. 3: Unstable slopes. 4. Sensitive archaeological sites. b'. Secondary areas. 1 Timber areas. 2. Scenic areas. 3. Historic areas. 4. Deer migration, established fawning and winter range areas. 5. Areas with a slope of thirty (30) percent or greater: -6. Viable/important grazing lands. (2) Open space/conservation easement required. Areas not designated for development shall be reserved as open space pursuant to this section. Open space shall be guaranteed in perpetuity using one or more of the following control mechanisms: a. Dedication of a conservation (or open space) easement to the county, other public agency or a public interest land trust. b. Dedication of land in fee -title to the county. or other public agency. c. A development agreement with deed restrictions or other appropriate mechanisms: The above mechanisms may be used separately or in combination with transfer of development credits, and density transfer covenants, as provided for in subsection (i). Remainder lots in phased developments identified as being reserved for potential future development are exempted from this requirement (see subsection .(h)). '(3) Open space management plan required. Public and private open space shall be maintained in accordance with an open space management plan acceptable to and approved by the county. Such plans shall, at a minimum, address the following: a. Grass and brush clearing for fire fuel management, as required by site conditions. b. Erosion control. c. Sewage disposal, water well, and stormwater drainage facilities, including ditches and, detention basins, if proposed for the development. d. Other natural resource management activities and uses. Open space management plans shall include provisions for long-term maintenance of " improvements and facilities that will not result in a fiscal impact on the county:. (4) Open space minimums. The amount of open space reserved in a project shall vary in accordance with the following provisions: a. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres or less, open space requirements shall be based solely on the constraining site features, as described in subsection (g)(1). b. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of greater than five (5) and less than forty (40) acres, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space. The fifty (50) percent open space dedication requirement does not apply in instances where there are no areas unsuitable for -development (as described in subsection (g)(1) and the subdivision design merely proposes a variety of lot sizes. c. For projects in zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of forty (40) to one hundred sixty (160) acres, a minimum of eighty (80) percent of the total project site shall be dedicated as permanent open space. . (5) Uses permitted in dedicated open space. Uses and activities within. dedicated open space shall be compatible with open space land. Unless limited or restricted by a conservation easement, development agreement, conditions on the.approved tentative map, or other restricting mechanism, the following uses are permitted: a: Agriculture, including grazing and timber management, are permitted uses where allowed by the underlying zoning district. b. Uses requiring a use permit in the zone in which the land lies, provided a use permit is obtained from the planning commission. c. Resource conservation. d. Wildlife management. e. Recreational activities compatible with the objectives of the open space management plan, as required by subsection (g)(3). f. Community wells, community septic systems, community sewage disposal systems, and individual wells under certain circumstances. g. Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails. Public access is not required, but may be permitted subject to a public access easement being recorded: h. Other similar uses, as determined through the application review process. (6) Contiguity. To the maximum extent possible, on-site open space areas should be consolidated or linked, and not fragmented. This will facilitate wildlife movement, maintain functioning biological communities, and accommodate recreational opportunities. Open space connections to adjoining land beyond the project site should be anticipated and identified where practicable. (7) Access to open space: To the extent practicable, all residential lots shall have physical and/or visual contact with permanent open space. This is intended to facilitate surveillance, foster routine maintenance, and improve the quality of life of project residents through the integration of homesites into a permanent open space setting. (8) Trails. Where pedestrian, bicycle, and/or equestrian trails'are constructed in dedicated . open space areas, the following requirements shall apply: a. Environmentally sensitive areas shall not be impacted. b. Privacy of proposed on-site and existing off site residences shall not be intruded upon. . c. Public access shall be permitted only where public access easements, consistent with an adopted trail master plan, have been acquired. (h) Phased development. Projects may be proposed for development in two (2) or more phases. Remainder portions may be proposed and set aside for'further development. In such instances, the following shall apply: (1) Land not proposed for immediate development shall be labeled "Remainder' on the subdivision map. (2) The acreage of the remainder may only be included in the calculation of residential density of the developed area if a transfer of density (as addressed in subsections (g)(7) and (i) has been approved. '(3) When development of the remainder portion is proposed, a subdivision application may be filed as a conventional development, planned unit development (PUD), or flexible lot size development. (4) Residential density transfers shall also include lands set aside as permanent open space. (5) Where phasing is proposed, open space proposed for the entire development area shall either be developed or guaranteed in proportion to the number of dwelling units proposed on a phase -by -phase basis. (6) Under no circumstances shall phased development result in higher residential density than is otherwise permitted by the zoning district. (i) Development credit/density transfer. (1) Development credits or density may be transferred`within parcels,.across parcel lines of contiguous parcels, and from non-contiguous lands that are part of a single development proposal. (2) All development credit transfers shall be specified and governed by a development agreement or other suitable instrument between the developer, applicable sending site landowner, and the county. (Ord. No. 3560, § 1, 10-12-99) K. Public Comments on items not already on the agenda. .. , . - t Craig. Sanders said he -was here to ask the Commission to consider putting an item on their next ;agenda for discussion regarding flexable lot size ordinance adopted by the County. He said it is a ' •provision whereby property owners could' average the density of their project over their land_. He said ALUC asked that this provision not be allowed within any bf the airport -areas of influence including the D zones which do not have a density issue.: 'Commissioner Hennigan said that ALUC discussed this and decided that if the applicant could •� convince us that it was in the public's -best interest we would allow it:. Chairman Sherman'said she -thought they had amended the regulations to say you could cluster down to quarter acre lots as long as you don't exceed the density that is allowed bythe underlying zoning. Mr. Streetef said what Mr. Sanders is asking about is that right now the flezable,lot size provisions are not allowed in the Airport Compatibility Zones, but ALUC. did take an action in February and Commissioner Harp sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking that they initiate changes to the , + 4 Flexable Lot Size ordinance that would allow for this in the Airport Compatibility Zones: ' Commissioner Hennigan said that the criteria that ALUC wants -.is that'the .applicant needs to make the case thatwhat he is doing is safer and in*ihe airports interest. f Mr. Sanders said'that finding would not_be•applicable in all of`the'_zones, especially the'D zone, because there is not a safety issue..' _ Commissioner Hennigan said ALUC made this very finding on a project on Rock Creek for Schuster. Chairman Sherman thought that there was'not'going to be any review by ALUC at all, but would be reviewed'by the Airport Manager. Commissioner Rosene agreed that in the D zone this is a moot point. - Comm_ issioner Harp said there are'no limits in the D zone. �. ' Mr. Sanders said except in the zoning code -which states that you can' not, use the flex lots in the airport zones. Commissioner 'Hennigan said' during the writing of the CLUP, flex lots. came up and ALUC said no! He said latenthe Commission found flex lots,could be considered as long as people move away from the airport. r y t Chairman Sherman said that Commission review would not be required unless the airport manager ` did not agree with.the applicant. a - Mr. Streeter said he would give Mr. Sanders a document on what is in the process' He said he would, -track what is, being done about -the letter from ALUC`to the Board of `Supervisors for amendment to the Flexable Lot Size provisions. T :. _, �•-.,f=•,.. •' `� A':.�:.ii.-! T o... 11 iT"To ca'"f.`. n`mm:cc.nn•-�::T/iint.rta e�7nf l�g/T'aatrrn�n f�T '�.��.r 3i: '�r�.:r-.r.:l- _•_i.�.. �-..�... .�T' y'�'C �'`� �13"',':•f .. 1-e s;._ ... •fir J._ ° Commission Concerns IJ 1.' Discussion - AL-UC may ^choose to hold the June meeting on, Wednesday, June 15'x', •_ .,,,the; normal scheduled week for ALUC at*the Oroville City Council Chambers or on -Wednesday, June'22nd in the •Board of Supervisors'Conference Room;(which was voted on two meetings ago,-but can be changed). s Commissioner Wheeler said he would like to stay 'with -the .15 ,. of June'for the meeting and meet in " the City of Oroville Council Chambers. 'Commissioner Harp agreed with Commissioner Wheeler. It was moved by:, Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Hennigan, and unanimously' .,carried to have the June meeting" -on their, regular date of the 15`h-in the City of Oroville Council 'i• Chambers. n r•, lk • • it r • Y ` � ,,. • ,.. .. .` �, , - •, 1.-i`. ,':" :,rr', . ' �. .�: ^`- '� � � `''�■�Airport+Lyanl1.de Use�Gom,�m,•i•,�s�ion ■+Minutes"oflVleehng'ofrMayal8 2005 �°Pa17�•0�'�- .. . �'" ? ?.�'t � _� `� y.' i i :.)�' J' �",�t i ' a �r' ; � _% .y Ott• � �1 i. �j N iit' :� A: (�.k � .• t�t l �., ' f � J ��.. i. 4. JR :ii�$�a'hvs� � s{I .Fil •`' 1'i t �. �, •F y�a + Jl. � }, av, i}i•• rK • S . i^ ..: ft'!, ;'; i K -'r 1TY 4 -"� '�Y 1, : 4 k. W A •1N a►K!.. `- .i1. 1." .. } ..} i -, K 1F • psi �, ''.,�e. .. .. •{ 't ' .i -• ,: .y� , �. F., ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING ` 1. Status 'of -incorporating December 15, 2004 'clustering amendment, and. February 16, 2005 infill amendment to,, the 2000 Butte. County Airport Land Use 'Compatibility Plan. (SB) - _ Mr. Betts handed out the new pages to the.CLUP-.and gave a brief summary of the handout and changes. Commissioner Hennigan asked when the 2001 changes could be added4o the CLUP: ' Mr: Betts said it is going slow, but he is working on'it:' , f r 2. Corrections to Table 2A, Primary Compatibility Criteria of the Airport: Land Use ... Compatibility Plan dealing with Maximum Residential Densities (SB) Mr. -Streeter said they need to amend the table on the portion for B-2 to,add`avigation easements for, the B-1 and B-2 zones. . Chairman Harp said this change might -need to=goon the to,do,list for next year's amendments. j Mr. Streeter said he would keep track,of this change. C - Commissioner Hennigan said he did not see a problem with fixing the math error in the table:: ` • , ..�W - .. 241. •, • Mr. Betts discussed the figures and other CLUPs from other counties. ; Commissioner Rosene-said the consultant that did.'the CLUP suggested 5 dwelling units per acre and,.,,, the city came in and asked for 4. He said it was parcels per acre and not acres•per. parcel. -He asked Mr. .Betts if the .other CL•UPs were using A, B, C; D zones, like ours.Mr. Betts 'said "yes.':,`, Commissioner Rosene. said that Butte County was.the first to use the letters for the zones:.' '•" Mr. Betts said the table needs to reflex .25 or less. ,. • 'tit ..' ' Commissioner Hennigan said that the Commission did not think this area was a safety issue, but there was a noise and overflight issue. T � - .. - •a - _ it . Commissioner Rosene said'the C-1 zone is-1,unit per S acres which'is the minimum density. Mr. Streeter. said'that staff will treat:' it as .25 until they are able to officially correct the CLUP. , . Commissioner Hennigan said that. since we will allow a' smaller- density "h&* did not seen the _ - significance of .2 or .25. He said they were not concerned with the;size of,any-given parcel as long as the density is met. Mil . Streeter noted that this was just•a math change and not an amendment to the CLUP. He said he would correct the typo to read .25: b' }' l ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of April 20, 2005L Page 26 ■ Y ',Chairman Harp said it was so directed. u 3.1 Discussion of Open Space around Chico and Oroville Municipal Airports. Chairman Harp.said this was a sub -committee issue and he would contact Kim Seidler, City of Chico. 4. Work Program— Staff update. , a. Anticipated modification of the CLUP for 2005 ` 'Commissioner Harp said this should not say,CLUP f6r•2006. Mr. Streeter.noted some changes to the to do list.. Chairman Harp said•that #12 can come off the list for Tinker: Commissioner Hennigan said the Standard Operating Procedures were last`updated.in October 1999 and he believed that some of the present Commissioners have not even seem them: Mr. Streeter said that items 7, 8, 10; and 12 could be deleted from the list. 1. Chairman Harp discussed having a pool for'standard provisions someplace%and it would be great if the new-avigation condition was added to that pool so everyone would Have the same conditions to- " work from. A Chairman Harp signed the letter to the City of Chico and the Board of Supervisors for 'staff to mail..' Mr. Streeter said that they. will be interviewing for Planning Managers next month' and hope to have'- someone onboard by June. Mr. Streeter announced that Mr. Betts has accepted a job with the City of Chico. Chairman Harp thanked Commissioner Dilly and Commissioner Nielsen for being here today.'- r• Commissioner Hennigan -felt that changing the date'of the June meeting was a, bad' idea. He said instead they should have changed the place and kept the meeting on June 15th ' • Staff said they can call the City of Oroville and try to keep the meeting on June,15`n 41 :.. 1'■ `Airport Land Use Commrssion"M, Minutes of Meeting of April 20, 2005 M Page'27 ■' • _ :.� a .t.�' �' •fir ' �• L v . - - .' ' wA ,. J. ' Commission Concerns ' L Discussion— ALUC may choose'to.hold the -June meeting on Wednesday, June 15`", - the normal scheduled week'for ALUC at the Oroville City Council Chambers dr on t Wednesday, June 22nd -in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room (which was voted on two meetings ago, but can be changed). -.',Comm 1 ssi onerWheeler 'Said he would like to stay; with.the 15`" of June for. the meeting and meet in �•'• the City of OrovilleCouncil Chambers. - Commissioner Harp agreed with Commissioner Wheeler.' It was '-moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded 6y$ Commissioner Hennigan, and unanimously carried to have the June meeting on their. regular date of the 15`"- in the City of Oroville Council Chambers. Y s l . • ,` • i • d .: - .. - `.t s „�... a ,.x4 ■ Airport Land Use Commission•■ Minutes of Meeting of May 18, 2005 E,PageT:Pq.m - .._ n H., ITEMS WITHOUT'PUBLIC-,HEARING . 1. CLUP Review Paradise SkyparkAirport — Issues meeting and public input Mr. Michelena said due to the amount,of applications he will have to schedule this discussion for the ti June meeting. He said he was going to combine this-with Ranchaero. He said with the discussion . today, the Commission might want to discussion' Ranchaero more closely and schedule it for the July ' or August meeting. - 2. Work Program — Staff update.. Mr. Streeter said that the County was interviewing tomorrow for a Planning Manager. Commissioner Rosene asked if; this Commission was going to get to talk to the General Plan" consultant. - Chairman Sherman, said the General Plan was just a data collection for background at this time. - Commissioner Hennigan said the CLUP is part of the technical information in the General Plan. -Commissioner Rosene' said he wants to know'thaf the CLUP is' considered with the General Plan update. He said the Commission has been promised for five years that the General Plan update would address ALUC's concerns and would consider the CLUP. - - • Wit. r , - . - - ' \ L .......,..mow+w- .. . - , ■Airport Land'Use`Commission ^Minutes of Meeting ofMay '18„2005 0 Page IT■ Id r BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ' , 5,'� Minutes of Ma 189 2005•' 3 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL The meeting was convened at 9:00 a.m., ` Present: ti . Commissioners Rosene,` Hennigan,.- Sherman, Lundy, •• Wheeler, ' t Baldridge, and Chairman.Ha'rp Others Present: • Dan Breedon, Principal Planner,-. Mark Michelena, Associate Planner Carl Durling; Associate Planner Steve Streeter, Interim Planning Manager . • . Lynn Richardson; Secretary, ` ,C; Selection — Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2005' Commissioner Sherman moved to keep the current Chairman and Vice Chairman for another,year. Chairman Harp said he appreciated the thought, but.felt the Chairman should rotate every year for the experience. • , It was moved, by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and, unanimously carried to nominate and elect Commissioner Sherman as the Chairman for 2005: •4 •. .. Commissioner Rosene thanked Mr. Hays for a job well done. ' t' Chairman Sherman took over the remainder,of the meeting. • 4 ' t: �: _ Commissioner Harp nominated Commissioner Hennigan as Vice Chairman for -another year. , Commissioner Hennigan said the Vice,Chairman should also rotate among the members. f It was 'moved `by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Harp,' and' unanimously carried to nominated and elect Commissioner Wheeler as Vice Chairman for 2005.Mor r Y •?. b S . , f. .. - ' .. %'.. r ,1b..t', •; "'' .` ,._ - �Y ,, l':k: ' . moi, CITY OF CHICO'MEMORANDUM CITYorCHICO INC.1872 • 1 - TO: Airport Land Use Commission DATE: March 8, .2005 FROM: Kim Seidler, Planning Director (879-6801) FILE: A -BC -131 Greg Redeker, Assistant Planner (879-6810) . SUBJECT: Infill Parcel List For Sites South of the Chico Municipal Airport Summary At its February 16,2005 meeting, the Airport Land Use Commission adopted an amendment to the 2000 ALUCP regarding infill development. At the end of that meeting, it was decided that the list of parcels proposed for infill development in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport would be formally recognized and approved, at the next meeting'of the ALUC. This memo hereby, transmits the list and map, which show the same _parcels that have been discussed for the last several months, with one addition (explained further below). City of Chico Planning staff respectfully requests that the ALUC adopt the list and map as the qualifying location's for -infill in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport. Supplemental Request Subsequent to the Commission's action on February 16, the City of Chico received a request that . two additional parcels be added to the list of infill sites. These parcels, APNs 007-170-071 and 007-170-072, comprise the Burnap Gardens apartment complex. This 4.2 acre development was, originally constructed with septic tanks, but has recently connected to City sewer.. The owner would like to construct 24 additional units on that portion of the site formerly occupied by the septic tanks and leach fields (approximately 35% of the total site area, or 1.4 acres). Total ` apartment count would be 76, and the resultant density (18 units/acre) would be less than other properties within a 500 -foot radius of the site. The site has been added to the end of the parcel list, and added to the map as Area 20. Planning staff requests that these parcels be approved for infill development as part of the list adoption. Attachments: ; 1. Infill parcel list for the Chico Municipal Airport 2. Map of infill parcels - 3. Letter requesting addition of Bumap Gardens site to the infill parcel list SAgcrWLUCIFinal infill mmo.wpd - Infill Parcel List for the Chico Municipal Airport Map Area APN Acreage Zoning Maximum allowed density GP assumed or proposed project density Proposed project name/ notes 1 007-250-074 0.98 RI dna Second unit 1 007-250-075 0.98 Rl dna Second unit 1 007-250-078 1.16 RI dna Second unit 1 007-250-079 1.04 R1 dna Second unit 1 007-250-081 1.00 R1 dna Second unit 1 007-250-082 0.91 Rl dna Second unit 1 007-250-085 0.63. R1 dna Second unit 1 007-250-086 0.66 R1 dna Second unit 1 007-250-087 0.69 R1 dna Second unit 2 007-150-032 0.90 R1 5.40 3.42 2 007-150-029 1.14 R1 6.84 4.33 2 007-150-028 0.46 R1 2.76 1.75 2 007-150-027 0.46 R1 2.76 1.75 2 007-150-024 0.50 R1 3.00 1.90 3 007-150-081 0.41 R2 5.74 3.28 3 007-150-045 0.63 R2 8.82 5.04 3 007-150-053 2.42 R2 33.88 19.36 3' 007-150-017 2.95 R2 41.30 23.60 3 007-150-012 0.92 R2 12.88 7.36 4 007-150-108 2.28 R2 dna 8.00 2/3 developed 5 007-570-002 0.21 R2 dna 3.00 Platt triplexes 5 007-570-003 0.27 R2 dna 3.00 Platt triplexes 5 007-570-008 1.23 R2 dna 15.00 Platt triplexes S:\gcr\ALUC\final parcel list.wpd Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4 E t r Map Area APN Acreage Zoning Maximum allowed density GP assumed or proposed project density . Proposed project name/ notes .. 5 007-570-012 0.52 R2' 7.28 4.16 6 007-170-020 0.35 R2 4.90 2.80- 6 007-170-044 0.54 R2 .7.56 4.32 6 007-170-060 1.25 R3 27.50 21.25 r7- 007-290-031 1.39 R3 dna 10.00 K 1/2 developed - gone to DRC 015-070-007 1.75 R2 dna 10.00 1/2 developed - gone to DRC 8 015-120-032 . 0.67 OR dna 1.00 3/4 developed .8 015-120-031 1°.55 R1 dna 2.00 1/2 developed 8 015-120-034 2.22 OR/R1 13.32 8.44 8 015-120-033 2.22 OR/R1 13.32 8.44 8 - 015=120-037 0.50 OR 11.00 _ dna could be offices. 9 007-290-040 1.93 R2 dna dna 2/3 developed with church 9 007-290-024 0.87 R2 12.18 4.00 1/2 developed 10 007-560-009 0.51, R1 3.06 1.94 owner interested. in developing 10 007-560-010 0.71 R1 4.26 2.70 10 007-560-011 1.49 R1 8.94 5.66 10 007-560-012 1.89 R2 26.46 15.12 10 007-560-013 1.59 R2 22.26 12.72 10 007-120-053 1.29 R2 18.06 10.32 11 007-072-001 through -015 various R1 dna 15 second. units one second unit per lot 11 007-073-001 through -015 various R1 ` dna 15 second units one second unit per lot . SAgcr\ALUC\final parcel list.wpd Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4 Map Area APN Acreage Zoning Maximum allowed density GP assumed or proposed project density Proposed project name/ notes 12 015-220-029 1.44 OR/Rl 8.64 5.47 a portion could be offices - gone to DRC 12 015-220-033 0.68 R1 4.08 2.58 12 015-220-034 0.63 R1 3.78 2.39 12 015-150-022 0.58 OR 12.76 dna under-developed site 13 015-220-028 2.06 OR/R1 12.36 7.83 auto dealership - large vacant area 13 015-230-034 2.00 CC dna dna parking for auto dealership -13 015-230-024 1.07 CG dna dna existing business w/ add'1 potential 13 015-230-025 1.04 CC dna dna existing business w/ add'l potential 13 015-230-026 1.04 CC dna dna existing business w/ add'1 potential 14 015-120-042 0.30 R1 1.8 1.14 14 015-120-049 0.39 R1 dna second unit 14 015-140-024 0.41 R1 dna second unit 14 015-140-025 0.41 R1 dna second unit 14 015-160-031 1.08 R1 dna 3.00 1/2 developed 15 015-160-026, -027,-028 0.46 R1 2.76 1.75 second unit or two-lot split for each parcel 15 015-160-029 0.46 R1 dna 2.00 Hughes PM 15 015-150-073 0.52 R1 dna second unit 15 015-150-074 0.32 R1 dna second unit 16 015-220-022 0.43 Rl 2.58 T 1.63 S:\gcr\ALUC\final parcel list.wpd Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4 Map APN Acreage Zoning "Maximum GP assumed Proposed Area allowed or proposed project name/ density project notes density 16 015-220-023 1.60 RI 9.60 6.08 16 015-220-035 0.58 R1 3.48 2.20 17 015-240-013, various R1 dna second unit potential for 4 -015,-016, second units -017 18 015-200-055 3.06 R1 6.00 3.80 1.00 acre developable 18 015-200-056 0.39 R1 dna second unit 18 015-200-049 1.20 R1 4.80 3.04 .80 acre developable 18 015-200-057 1.86 R1 8.40 5.32 1.40 acres developable 18 015-200-058 0.59 R1 dna second unit 18 015-200-052 1.20 R1 4.80 3.04 :80 acre developable 18 015-200-053 1.20 R1 3.60 2.28 .60 acre developable 19 015-250-049 4.31 OR/R1 7.50 4.75 church - 1.25 acres developable 19 015-250-044 1.25• R1 dna 8.00 Floral Arrangement Subd. 19 015-250-043 1.25 R1 7.50 4.75 Redevelopment potential 19 015-250-050 0.86 OR dna offices Stornetta offices 19 015-250-051 0.91 OR dna offices Stornetta offices 20 007-170-071/ 4.20- R3 92.40 76.00 Burnap Gardens 007-170-072 S:\gcr\ALUC\final parcel list.wpd Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4 GREGORY A. PEITZ ARCHITECT 383 RIO LINDO AVE., STE. 100, CHICO, CA 95926 (530) 8941-5719 February 23, 2005 . Mf. Kim Seidler City of Chico Planning Division 411 Main St. Chico, Ca, 95926 Dear Mr. Seidler, I am writing on behalf of my clients Preston & Caroline Minto. They are two of the owners of the Burnap Gardens Apartments at the comer of E. Lassen Ave. & Burnap. (APN 007-170-071 & 007-170-072). This complex is located on a 3.73 acre.parcel zoned R3. It was originally developed under Butte County jurisdiction with septic tanks & leach fields. There currently exist 52 one -bedroom units on the property. This parcel is adjacent to other R3 parcels with existing apartment complexes..This parcel currently is in the B2 zone of the ALUC compatibility map for Chico Municipal Airport. We would like to request that, the city planning dept. amend its list of parcels being submitted as in-fill.sites to include this parcel. In my conversation with Steve Betts of the Butte County Planning Department; he commented that they would not oppose our being included on the list even though we were not included on the preliminary list, submitted at a prior ALUC meeting. Our parcel has large open spaces which had been used prior as leach field areas. We feel that development of this vacant area is consistent with the city's desire to see in- fill growth in underdeveloped lands. The current density is approximately 12 units per acre, short of the city's recommended minimum of 14. _.. Sin erely, Fr FEB 23 2005 f Greg Peitz ATTACHMENT - - r a � }• I'.. N L • • ,. V V r. � � tt` Y. y yi J . W I , t ' ~ Oa1 Y ,,� � .SIR., w. ,1f`� •rr .' q„ «� ^ r •�}J 1 f � . G. Committee Appointments. None • ,` ' ' 1. Notice of Public Hearin — Oroville ' 'Commissioner Sherman explained .the 'notice, and briefly summarized proposed changes to the r r` Oroville Airport.. She said one of the items will have to come before ALUC. She explained the City process they have to, go.through before bringing map amendments to ALUC: 2. Announcement regarding staff. *Mr. Baker announced that this'will be his' last ineetirig, stating that he had accepted a. job' in San Diego. He said Steve Streeter will°'be acting as 1xiterim Planning Manager.- Mr. anager:Mr. Streeter introduced himself to the Commission. ' ' The Commission,wished Joe well and thanked him for his work with the Commission. ` Ir ` , t ; .. - .. ... rt• t.• I ',t + ice. "s ' v, „�. � ■`Airport:Larid.Use Commission,■-Mm`utes-of IVleehng�of October 20.;,2004T■ Page 8 � '*-.�,��-� �', �' L ^ ti 'i _..1- ,w._...,y„yp?�ve6..� 1'ril,..,%�'....X^•'"rSd•ta33++'6r10-1.'Y *1+Wa-.•r:,'+-w�` f M•w+.F2�...�•..-. .71u�« �iMA-+w�-- ..- � #y :.r, w j ' h�' ... .�M +ii.N ,.r uit �++r.a..--..�'y„•�"`��tS".`�t..�Y°Mm�•,�}R'4�"` .'��'i4."� "'...'., r" 3� �; "' � �,.�..'�-.,;�•Yti�:. •� i::... t a .. 3.' Work Program— Staff update. °. a. Clustering. b. Discussion of Open Space Areas around Chico and Oroville Airports. Vice -Chairman Hennigan asked .whatever happened with the +Webb"property on Eaton Avenue, Chico. Mr. Seidler said the project is on -the back burner.' He said"they are not ready to go,forward'to City Counsel. He said the property owner is not willing to compromise. ` Vice Chairman Hennigan'asked Mr. Seidler'about the contour line in blue on the map he submitted. Mr. Seidler answered that it was from Figure 4 in the 2000 CLUP. .t ti+, y �',•,!, � AirportVLand-Use-Co m s n ■ 1Vlmutes of Meeting of October 20, 200.4..E Page- 6 ��.�, ;: '` '.r ` . ' �w....+•�..w -..., "•�.a"r'P� :.. �. "�'� "`r` w '`.�� .. � .rte..+-i-�-wt�wr�''�'^ �'� c , �:'. L - '' ,`�i.r' ..�� - •-+F•P?i JrC`K�aw+..M'..•••• `•?�'�..•r'n� ., i;. a...,1 +�+J�. 'r•r.- '� d�-Wryr+r► � w, r.:-...w.,,,a' i`. xrL fi� 4 r ` 2. Chico infill maps'— Kim Seidler.' , )-Vice-Chairman pointed out that this is a one-time opportunity to define infill parcels. :�i Mr. Seidler introduced Greg Redeker, who is helping on this project. He posted several maps on,the wall showing the infill parcels. • He said the Chico Airport is unique. He handed out. a proposed ' } CLUP amendment. ' He briefly summarized the proposed changes to the CLUP -and briefly went over ' the maps and handout. Commissioner. Sherman asked about the, density of the R-2, R-3, and Office Residential zones. ' ` Mr. Seidler said the R-2 was 14 units per acre, Office Residential is a higher density and would allow r 22 units per act, and the R-3 allows 14-22 units per acre. - Mr. Grierson said, that aircraft goes where it needs to go unlike traffic on the ground. He discussed' the altitudes on landing, as low as 300 feet to the left and it could be a little,lower to the right °. Mr. Baker asked if it is the intent of the City of Chico and ALUC for the proposed infill map to be the one chance to identify infill parcels, andso, it would be,appropriate for.the Commission to. make this an amendment to the-CLUP: Mr. Baker said his staff would work with the City of•Chico to bring forward the final amendment for approval. r T Mr. Seidler said he can identify densities on the proposed infill parcels on themap nand will 'provide a zoning map as well. He said they are all,aiming for the December meeting 'for a final action. He said ' . he would be back to'this Commission in November. Commissioner Lundy said there is no infill in the B-1 zone. • Mr. Seidler said that is correct. He discussed dealing with applicants in.the C zone and said he would like to be able to provide day care inJthe �C zone. The discussion was opened to,the public. Mr. Grierson pointed 'out that the.other airports that Mr. Betts referred to were more like the Oroville Airport and not the Chico Airport. He said 'the', Fox Airport,is desolate, there is not much around the Paso Robles Airport, . and the - Truckee Airporthas, noise problems with daily complaints... He suggested that the Commission'look at "why the B-1 and,B-2 zones were established the way they, were before'the Commission makes any changes. ... Commissioner Sherman said there is a difference between infill and clustering. Vice -Chairman Hennigan said both subjects were: discussed while doing the 2,000 CLUP update. He. ' s noted that 80% of the complaints around the Chico Airport are for noise and come from the B-2 zone area. '... Commissioner Rosene questioned how many other airports in Californiaare having. encroachment " x problems: s F 41 4 , y "�-..�.--�---■ Airportrland Use Commission ■Minutes-of.'Meeiing•of October.20•2004x�Page 4, �;.: - r.,,� ..-�••�°'--...� �.,.,.t "". '+�+•.•'.;.-.: rw ._,�u. .•'•ex.}.:;,c.`..a.�.•�i'aR 'ki!S—�......«.sr. ,r '-rr. f .., �.r^a;w r / •`•• ..i' 4s,...il�r.�� a c �{ r - 'S �"�a'!�.'.:Z " \„_,y;...,• ".F,.`•a,�t _� ."!v—�'v` � o.'7i' ,:. ' ,. , y # "�•`.r...,._..,,...Y.� .Sl., fit. 4i •. .. . .. - /,. •' • ti� 4 Mr—Grierson said that all:airports have problems., •' _ ; , . e � Commissioner Rosene said they shouldset higher standards to protect the airport:" Y ! r ,.� Airport Land Use.Commission ■rMinutes of-Meeting=of October'20; 2004 �fiPage;S ° ; � e t :`� " .. k`^►^"-'� � r r.- ;� . -�— � � r. �^t«-,tom,..•.- � v- r.« ,� -";.-, �e ..:, q{, K .. �, ri .3v,• ��.+.-.••= r� +ems 'i^ ,•r++* .w;. 'r -Y �' !. �•.,Y,,,�,. 71"''��^^--,'R-..rr.....,,.�,r....-..y�..•y«�.6.4't x 2. Work Program — Staff update. Mr. Baker updated the Commission on the department hiring and AssistantPlanner, Lana Alder, and r an extra help Assistant Planner, Chris Tolley, and he explained how this would affect the present workload. f. Commissioner Sherman asked the Commission -about the open space around the airport and does_ it , matter what the location of the open space is from a pilot's point of view.' ` Mr. Baker said the CUT talks about_ an area 75 feet x 300 feet as the minimum size required'for open space. He noted that streets can sometimes fill the open space requirement. He said they need to4hink about criteria for using streets, such aspsomething to cause utilities to go underground, and look at the type of trees planted along the* streets. ,,,He said they should, also; limit parking on streets that are being used for open space..'x ' 'Commission'er Rosen. said problems are usually just after take off or justbefore landing. • . . . • • y , I - Chairman Harp felt that open space on a global area such as -parks and wide streets is more efficierit than by a project by project requirement. Commissioner Sherman agreed that a project,by project requirement for open space was not the best' `. . way. ,• r -, Commissioner Nielsen discussed problems with taking off from an impacted airport. He said the ` f main issue is to protect the airport and put the open space where it makes the most sense., a • CommissionerLundy said a hot spot for development is the Thermalito area. He said that now is the time to look at his area and the subdivisions that are being developed. He, asked if staff had talked.to R Parks & Recreation to find out what is going on in the Thermalito area. Mr. Baker said after the Chico Airport, review is done, staff will start work on the Oroville Airport 4 review that begins in January and the Thermalito area will be looked at. ` Commissioner Sherman said that the area 12`.h west to 201h Street.will develop.:. " Mr. Baker discussed the restrictions in the B71 and B-2 compatibility zones around the Oroville, Airport and how difficult development will be. . i Commissioner,, Sherman said. the, question is whether parks are appropriate open space.. She said parks usually have trees and facilities for groups of people to use. k • "' " Commissioner Lundy felt they should look into the infill areas and find out what is designated as open space. s , Mr. Betts said that is one of the items he has listed to look into. • - ' � ,• M f ` a �,' • ` �- =-.�.:� ,■ Airport Land Use Commission ■.Minutes of Meehng'of-August 1.8 2004 _.Page 7IN r 1 1 + :�.:. •; a �,. ,ak .�. �..�„�+..,,,+.r —+•�„� .� .$ i"�1K°i +-•'� .•.�,•�wvnr •ar: �^�.jt•-^r• �ay.•'"•�'F'�'_;.'.�: _ ,� r J4' Mr. Baker said the next airport review is'for the Para.adise Airport and Mr. Michelena will be handling that one also. . Mr: Michelena said he has already talked to the Town of Paradise. „ :4 Commissioner Hennigan noted that,the Chico Airport will be handled after the Paradise Airport—He' ' said he understood the vote approving the Chico Master Plan wasn't the final vote. , Commissioner Grierson said the City of Chico did'a motion of intent: He said April 6, 2004,. is the expected date for the City Council to`take a final action on the Master Plan. ' Commissioner Harp asked 'what the, schedule for the CLUP update is. He said there are certain. postings and scheduling, and asked staffwhen the Commission needs to final the reviews,'schedule the changes and vote on them. Mr. Baker said -they will-be'reviewing the'Chico Aiiport in July, August, and September. He said they would be processing any CLUP amendments in October, November, and December. Chairman Wallrich said he does not want to run out of time to make the changes.to the.CLUP._� _- -- _ Mr. Baker said he.will give the Commission,time to make`the changes:. Commissioner-Hennigan said'they need'to start the process an& have, clear time lines. _ S Commissioner Sherman said they need^to think about the topics on the list now. Commissioner Harp said one item they need to look at is review of the B-2 zone. He said they need information on how the area is developed; zoning, flight patterns, etc. r - - - Mr. Baker explained that the zones were created by the consultant based upon what the ideal land use should be given the operational constraints of the airport. He said there may be pre-existing land uses on the ground that are not.compatible. He -said what they need to think about is if the zones are modified, what is the legal defensibility, of doing so without having the technical information that was produced by the consultant when the consultant created the zones. Brief discussion. Chairman Wallrich agreed that they need to be careful. Commissioner Grierson said there is a grey area. '-He compared Chico Municipal and Ranchaero - Airport, that when they were putting together the CLUP, they took, two things, into consideration for both airports, one of which was noise: -He said the Chico Municipal Airport has: a Part 150 study which was -.completed and they looked at the impact of noise'on development, and established'limits stating that they did not want to see anything'beyond 55 CNEL intruding into.individual homes. He said the City standards are 60 CNEL and the FAA standard is 65 CNEL. He said they also looked at the accident scatter maps and used them 'to determine the probably of accidents, what kinds of densities they should have in those zones and also noise. He said with Ranchaero, on the other hand; all they have is the probability of accidents. He said they looked at the existing traffic patterns at Ranchaero that is basically a neighborly program..' r• Commissioner Hennigan said the. aircraft at Ranchaero are slightly, different then the aircraft that Y ■=Airport;L-arid UseCommissrori�■-Phinutes*oflVleetmg of 1GI ch 17;,2Q04'�YPage,8�■ ' " O were cited by the consultant: He said there were three twin. engine, planes at the airport the other day. Commissioner Sherman asked_ if there is a Master Plan for Ranchaero Airport. - Commissioner Hennigan said Ranchaero is a smaller, private airport and does. not require a Master Plan. Commissioner Grierson said the Commission should go back to the consultant if they want to cover , themselves from future litigation. He said the Ranchaero Airport is protected by the Greenline and he did not think there would be much more development encroaching on the airport. He did not think at " "this time they needed to do much more than possibly fly the pattern and measure it themselves. Mr. Baker said planners think in long terms, 10-15 years or more, and while_ the Greenline is there today, it could,be moved in the future: , Commissioner Grierson suggested taking the Paradise Airport template and lay it over the Ranchaero Airport and standardizing the two. Commissioner Harp said he just wanted to allow enough time to deal with the CLUP changes at the end of the year. , Chairman Wallrich said they need to start thinking about the time lines now. He discussed the list of possible changes, i.e., infill, : possible. amendments • consistent, with .the' City's General • Plan, modification, procedures for processing changes to the CLUP, avigation easements, etc. Mr. Baker said as part of the review process.to approve building permits, staff in their review process of how they pprove�permits, identified mitigations and that all applications pending.would be t reviewed. He said they are telling the applicants that until the conditions a`re met including avigation easements, the building permits will not be issued.. { Commissioner Hennigan said that the Commission has identified mitigations .in the past that were adopted and never applied. He said avigation easements not being recorded is another problem. - Chairman Wallrich reiterated that the amendments will be collected from the'airport reviews, and we should start the final process in October with September as'a cut off date for changes to the CLUP. Commissioner Hennigan asked if staff had a form for the avigation easement. Mr. Baker said he has a legal form for avigation easements. Commissioner Grierson said he,would like a copy in the next agenda packet: f r ` .• Commissioner Hennigan felt that everjbther year should be adequate to review the airports. He said they could review two airports a year. Mr. Baker said the advantage of doing all four every year is to keep the CLUP update at the forefront of other agencies. Chairman Wallrich asked that this be put on the agenda next month for discussion. - a ■ :Areort-Land,Use:Commissi n ■'Minutes�of�lVleehng of 1Vlarch 1,7�2004'�rPag 9-� .sit rri - -� � i'� �• '", 1 ti'r r ,y r�• _ ..FJ' — ..., n,. •.. ...3t >,.� ,.fre .. a.a _ .1Fs .,1 '.w . � +...F,r•. . ro.Q• ..� .. ,- ,.. t'. y 3`7 .. 4,isy*. t'a. ..,reu' ..-.. k i$,.. - - - -. . Mr. Baker gave an update on the increase of staff. He said there -will be a Senior Planner working on projects as extra help, and the County is recruiting for an Assistant Planner. He noted that Mr. , Durling should be back to work on June 1". He said staff is working on making sure conditions are being met before issuing building permits. Commissioner Hennigan'discussed the open space left of Lindo Channel. He said the gravel quarry makes a bulge on'Lindo Channel. He said he would like to encourage the City of Chico to keep this area as open space. Mr. Baker said the Commission could draft a letter tb the City of Chico for the Chairman to sign to the City of Chico stating that the Commission would like to see this area kept open space. It was moved by Commissioner Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Sherman, and unanimously carried to write a letter .to the City of Chico to encourage them to identify open space around the airport, areas that they intend to preserve as open space for safety reasons and point out Lindo Channel and the old quarry area to the south of Lindo Channel. Commissioner Baldridge asked that the letter include having the City of Chico identify land that could be considered as potential infill. r Mr. Baker said there is a requirement under Section 2.44 (a)(4) under infill that states "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 determined just one. Thus, in • order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under these infill criteria, the entity having ' land use authority mustfirst identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted planning document approved by. the ALUC." Commissioner Rosene asked if the Board of Supervisors has addressed the issue of the.U.S. Forest Service, Department of Interior, termination of the air tanker contract regarding "forest fire coverage in Butte County and are they formally working to try to reverse'that' decision. Mr. Baker said he has discussed this with the Director and Butte County Fire.''' y Commissioner Rosene said they need to do all that can be done to get the tankers back even if it is just a letter to our Senators and representatives. He said they have spent a lot o_ f time trying to protect the tanker corridors and allow Air Union to function. Commissioner Hennigan said they should call to the attention of the Supervisors that the citizens are - being put at considerable danger. Commissioner Rosene requested a letter to go to the Board from ALUC.« ^� Commissioner Sherman said the'letter should emphasize that the Chico'airpoft has'special protections that allow for the presence and, the flight patterns required for the equipment -and that it is very important that negotiations assure that whatever arrangements are made; those cbrridors exist. �..r..�- M., • x, , . - ■Airport Land;•Use Commission ■ Miiiutes'�of Meeting of May 19,F2004 ■Page 8 ■ =y z ` •_ , t. ;K.. tri 1 F•' - f+ X� .. yy..Si.., - 'S� n, •j - - '�'". '},,.r. ..:,y.47 w -'xE^ -r: �`t' 'p" ... •�A-.. �t•-•�'li....- .- _ � �^u'...%'., sa 'S ^7 J'...�',' +'9+`e� ;,'bc-. '�I �r':>��•'`�c r. �: �' ee. .�.'"#•��3. Commissioner Rosene said the Chico Municipal Airport resource will be underutilized if they don't base the planes that are typically based there. He said the,Chico Airport is established for•these planes. He said without the planes the County will be under-protected. • , _ It was moved by. Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Hennigan, and unanimously carried to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors that updates ,them to the situation and encourages them to do everything within their power and domain to work towards maintaining the large air tanker contract as it now exist with the U.S. Forest Service, Department of the Interior. ji i .}fir '.. .a •'IF,' •. a - ... ....... w _ a .. _ •. •.. - .... ._yam. tiY' .r[.'�C ._.L. 1.a-.��r•.. •F' >: . • • r �. �, V BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of May 19, 2004 C. Selection — Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2004. Commissioner Hennigan nominated Vice Chairman Harp for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Sherman. Commissioner Baldridge nominated Commissioner Hennigan for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Rosene. Vice Chairman Harp was elected Chairman for 2004 by the following vote: AYES:- Commissioners Rosene, Hennigan, and Sherman. Commissioners Harp and Baldridge voted for Commissioner Hennigan. Commissioner Lundy abstained. Chairman Harp nominated Commissioner Hennigan for Vice -Chairman for 2004, seconded by Commissioner Sherman, and passed unanimously. D. Appointments to the commission — (selected by the City Selection Committee) Chairman Harp introduced Hollis Lundy as the new Commissioner from Paradise. ' .ab UTT !1111 0 o . COUNTY OF BUTTE o= `o OUR BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION , Invites Applications for the Position of AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONER An opportunity to provide valuable assistance to the County of Butte and its communities through service to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports; coordinating planning to provide for orderly development of air transportation while protecting the public health, safety, and welfare; preparing and adopting Airport Land Use Plans; and reviewing plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies relative to the Airport Plans. N - f R6sum6s will be accepted through April 15, 2004. r For more information, contact the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California 95965, Phone (530) 538-7602.' t. ti S ' ' � •S. ..— a y ,�� y. tit � 1`A r ., - 2. Work Program — Staff update a. Clustering t. There was a brief discussion on clustering and how it is being used in the area northwest of Chico. ' Commissioner Hennigan said that staff had indicated they had some sources from other areas for standards that other jurisdictions had', i.e., berms, vegetation, concrete, doubling up on snow loads on roofs, etc.. He said they need standards. He discussed the area across from the Oroville Airport and the possibility of future development. „ Commissioner Sherman said that when she thinks of clustering,,she thinks of taking a 107acre parcel where you would allow 4 units to the acre, which' would allow 40 units, and you put them on 4-5 acres instead of 10 acres. She said in their CLUP they have a way of measuring density that is not, -necessarily consistent with clustering. She said this needs to be reviewed. She wanted review,and definition of density. , Discussion of Avigation Easement forms. Commissioner Rothe said the avigation easement form he has is out of the California Handbook. r Mr. Baker informed -the ,Commission that the request ,for funds for the scatter map update has been submitted to go forward with the budget. �1 'Commissioner Grierson commented that his term is up the first of May. He said staff needs to go to. the airport managers and -advertise for dreplacement. Commissioner Hennigan said there needs to be a pubic notice published for interested candidates. ' Commissioner Harp said publicly that he appreciated Chairman Wallrich and a job well done. , '- , • ; �� " ' ■Airporttand Use CommissioTr. lVlinutes of Meeting -of March 17; 2004 ■xPage 10TH r UT t 2- Work -��af[update -' \,ozmTeoog b. Discussion of Op i0000uionoflneuSpaue.Areuonzound{bioo� nod' O, rmvilloAirports. . ' C., ^ modification ofthe CIlP for 2003 ` .''Mr. Baker said there io activity bothe northwest Chico area-and staff is keeping alook u1it. . , . . �skedb[tbe� activity thevoro an eye ooincludes Bidwell Ranch. � . . 2K1r. Baker said yes, the City of Chico is doing some planning outside of their sphere.. He said thev vv�]look a1the Master I,lanf�rC%�onvvheot6endo�b��3�co��nm�zcv��vv.' ' . � .' ' . . . ^ . . + ,~ 3. .- Discussion = Whether to review two airports a year or all, four airports. Commissioner Hennigan said bringing these'reviews of the airports up-to-date has been good staff work. He said he was not sure they needed to put this much effort into the review every,_year once , the up date is done. He suggested maybe having a major review and 2 minor reviews. Mr. Baker agreed that they were doing catch-up: He said once they are caught up it should not „. 'require a lot of staff time to keep the processaup. He said he`would like to keep all 4 reviews on the ` work program annually. He will let the Commission know if the work load is too much to keep this up _ • Commissioner Heiuugan commented that theChicoMaster Plan will trigger'significant changes. •b 5 r ♦ i , .^ ' } +sir . f' ♦..N t . - }'i i.. • ` • - 4• ?a `i . Y• i •. - ,. Vit.•!.._, ' ♦ - • '/''" i M •t. • a � • it r 2. Work Program a. Review ALUC Annual ,Work'Program • = Chairman Wallrich said ALUC is only able to amend a CLUP once a, year arid their practice in the past has been to accumulate amendments and pass them at the December meeting. Mr. Baker submitted an amended Work Program to shoVNovember. There was -a discussion on the CLUP only being amended once a year as compared to the General Plan, which can be amended four ' times a year., He discussed the General Plan update and how it works with the update of the CLUPs. Chairman Wallrich . said at the last meeting they discussed the Commission going to Chico and Paradise airports. He: asked if staff had any feedback as to who to contact at the Paradise Airport. Mr. Baker said he is still"trying to identify the person to contact"for Paradise. He said the Oroville Airport meeting will be field in the`Board-room, but flyers will be posted at the airport to notice the meeting. Chairman Wallrich said staff needs to get in touch with the City of Chico and he said Kim.Seidler s needs to be at the meeting. He asked staff to request Kim`Seidler's presence at the October meeting Jo talk about where they are ori the Chico Airport. He wanted this as an agenda item. He also asked staff to contact Mr.`Franklin for -the Paradise Airport. y•, Mr. Baker discussed, how to structure the October agenda by putting the miscellaneous items and -the ~ _ inconsistency projects on first and the Oroville Airport last. t Chairman Wallrich said that Kim Seidler; -City of Chico; should be first,. the consistency findings , next, and the Oroville issues on the airport last. Mr. Baker explained that Carl "Durling►has been assigned to the Oroville Airport review and is working on a power point presentation for the October meeting'�with -pictures of the area surrounding the airport. He went -over the procedures he plans to follow 'as shown on the Work Program submitted. Chairman Wallrich said the Commission wants to be sure to deal with any amendments. r 41 ■ Airport_ Land Use Commission ■'Minutes of Meeting of September 17, 2003 ■ Page'S"■'- 191 3: - Brown Act as it relates to Email correspondence: •" , > Mr. Baker _apologized that he did not have this item done. 'He promised to have it for them at the next meeting. The Clerk was directed to obtain the Email addresses for the alternates. r 4 17 IA ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 17,2003 ■ Page 6 N --_ •F10 Avigation Easements _ -„Commissioner Hennigan said he is aware of avigation easement's that have been signed, but have not been recorded. He asked Mr. -Baker to look into -the easement .or deed note process and if they are recorded. ., Chairman Wallrich noted that the easement is still binding even if it is not recorded. Commissioner Grierson said the problem is with property. . owned. near-the _airport no avigation .easements are on file. ,,Additionally. he ,said he _signed, an avigation easement that has not .been recorded. Mr. Baker discussed the avigation easement being a part of the environmental review process. Chairman Wallrich said they need to amend the CLUP to further clarify avigation easements. H Mr. Baker said there are other means to accomplish this through CEQA. ” Chairman Wallrich asked that this item be put in the folder on easements. N a n . ■ Airport.Land,�Use Commission■Minutes of Meeting'of-December�l7; 2003Page� ry.. ...., _ - w. '1 5. Work Program w, ; ` Chairman Wallrich said .this item was handled -earlier. He said they need to know if they can, time wise, make any changes to the CLUP this year. ' A Mr.•Baker said he would check. r r �1 •• '. '�Jµ�**�'' ^, . tee, fi'� �, f° i+.�f r - �' , t: - �.•� , 7S jY 1 ,`y A ? i r r 6 r a. » F I, 4v lyi '' - ., ♦ a .fiV K - 1�' ■TAirport Land Use;Commissiori��■ 1Vlinut estof-Meetingrof-kNovember I- ;�2903�■ Pae 12'■ �. »J. , t'• •"'` � ' ^ _ .-y• .i .�F y of F.`r sr r ''�_ . iSi- y.,...wg,,,. a+V r r _ ,,,�•,� .. .... . ,.. 'Y .. :* _y..r . �. ...v �.. "?•t ! ..t�7y 1 -.. �' .�'r..wr rn'i'�i r a sr. �S""'�: a. ..... �+.'L-lN