HomeMy WebLinkAboutALUC_JUNE_2001L
AIRPORT LAND.USE COMMISSION
CORRESPONDENCE — May 9, 2001— June 12, 2001
Date
Received/
Sent
Incoming To
Outgoing To
From
Subject
5/17/01
Copy to ALUC
Norm Rosene,
Chair, ALUC
Letter to Butte County Board
of Supervisors Re: Stephen
Schuster proposed override
5/18/01
Copy to ALUC
Norm Rosene,
Chair, ALUC
Letter to Bruce Alpert;
County Counsel Re: North
Chico Specific Plan
(mitigation. noncompliance)
5/18/01
ALUC
John Franklin
Letter of Resignation as
Alternate Commissioner
5/21/01
Mr. Curt Josiassen
Chairman
Butte Co. Board of
Supervisors
Caltrans Dept. of
Transportation
RE: Review of Schuster
project, Pheasant Landing
Phase III, TSM00-03
6/1/01.
ALUC
Commissioners
only
Greg Webb,
Chairman, BIA
(Building Industry
Assn.)
Copy of letter sent to Curt
Josiassen, Chairman
Butte Co. Board of
Supervisors
6/1/01
City of Chico
Planning
Commissioners
Norm Rosene,
Chair, ALUC
Re: General Plan Growth
Area Analysis
6/12/01
Planning Dept.
Kim Seidler
Planning Director
City of Chico
Letter commenting on Byrne
Tentative Parcel Map, TSM
01-03
•
1
•
•
April 23, 2001
Butte County Board of
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Supervisors
Dear Honorable Supervisors:
Irouat4f
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ,
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) respectfully requests that
the Butte County Board of Supervisors reconsider their proposed override of the
ALUC in regards to the Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision (Stephen Schuster
Application GPA/RZ 00-05; TSM 00-03; APL 01-06). 'After reviewing the letter from
Mr. George Kammerer (attorney for Mr. Schuster) to the Board of.Supervisors
(3/27/01), and the.Department of Development Services Staff report containing
the drafted override findings, it is clear that a general lack of aviation and
airport land use knowledge permeates the documents. Furthermore, the substan-
tial evidence required by state law and listed in the CalTrans Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook (1-7, 5-13 through 15) to support the specific findings lacks
accuracy and specificity. :.The author(s) of .the staff report attempt to com-
pensate for the lack of substantial evidence by providing volumes of text. Much
of their discussion is based upon single sentences, or fragments of paragraphs
taken from the CalTrans Handbook without reference (and out of context). Other
support for the staff report findings includes a project currently in litigation.
(and denied by the County Planning Commission), and several unadopted, flawed
studies. Even the proposed mitigation listed in the staff report comes from a
plan (North Chico Specific Plan - NCSP) for which the same mitigation has not
yet been accomplished.after six years of development. It -is unfortunate that
county staff were required to write such a report based on direction from the
Board of Supervisors, and utilizing the obvious bias of the developer's attorney.
Given the Board of Supervisor's unanimous stated support for the Chico Municipal
Airport, the ALUC wonders why the Board of Supervisors continually chooses to
ignore the experience and expertise of the ALUC members.
In order for the public record to be.accurate and complete, the ALUC respectfully
requests the opportunity to comment on the.staff report as presented for the 4/24/01
Board of Supervisors meeting. These written comments are not comprehensive in
nature, and the ALUC reserves the right to address issues not mentioned in this
letter at a future date (should the need arise).
For the purposes of discussion, this document shall follow the staff report com-
patibility issues in the order they are.presented.
A. Safety and Overflight
The "Override Findings" section of the staff report for 4/24/01 begins with
a discussion of safety and overflight. The author(s) suggest that CalTrans
• Handbook pages 3-8 and 3-9 hold the answer to overflight compatibility con-
cerns in that buyer awareness measures are suggested to educate people in
overflight areas. The ALUC agrees that avigation easements and real estate
disclosure documents are important. However, the CalTrans handbook also
states on Page 3-9:
"Empirical studies have documented that the absolute number of aircraft
overflights of a residential area is a factor in the perception of -an-
noyance. However, for the purposes of.airport land use compatibility
planning, it is better to simplify this measurement. 'The potential.
existence of overflight concerns can reasonably be.defI ed by t-1—el
catio
elcation of standard airport traffic patterns and other flight tracks
routinely used by aircraft in the airport vicinity, especially at or
below traffic pattern altitudes."
The Pheasant Landing Unit III project sits beneath five recorded flight tracks
(NCSP Flight Track Map presented at 3/27/01 Board of Supervisors meeting).
The project also sits beneath the turning area of the traffic pattern (re-
ference same flight track map). In the turning area of the traffic pattern,
aircraft are descending below traffic pattern altitude (TPA), or in the pro-
cess of climbing to TPA. As presented at the 3/27/01 meeting, this is a
very busy time for pilots as they reconfigure the aircraft's power settings,.
landing gear, flap settings, and relative position of the aircraft to the
airport. The Pheasant Landing Unit III project also lies beneath multiple
instrument approach paths.(GPS, ILS, VOR -DME). As presented to the Board .
of Supervisors at.the 3/27/01 meeting, the minimum allowed altitude of these
• approaches over the project vary, but several are at 392 feet and 402 feet
above the ground. These -approaches are -often accomplished in poor weather
with accompanying rain,-. gusty. winds,, and marginal visibility.
Substantive evidence does not exist in the staff report, nor has been pre
sented by the developer's attorney, that justifies the placement of signi-
ficant amounts of .housing beneath this very busy, low -altitude aircraft traffic.
Regarding the suggested deed notices and enhanced real.estate disclosure:
these items are already required under NCSP mitigation requirements. Un-
fortunately, compliance with these requirements has been poor. County staff
indicated at the 3/27/01 meeting that no monitoring of these mitigation
factors has occurred, and no mechanism exists for current monitoring. Since
that meeting, in a preliminary review, ALUC staff has determined that much
of the required mitigation (enhanced disclosure, avigation easements, over-
flight signage and aviation -related street names) has not been accomplished.
This issue is discussed further under separate cover in a letter addressed
to Mr. Bruce Alpert, County Counsel (and distributed to the Board of Super-
visors).
The staff report, and Mr. Kammerer reference the CalTrans Handbook as allow-
ing a density of 4-6 dwelling units/acre in the traffic pattern zone: Their
argument for this.density does not explain that this density relates to
safety compatibility only, not overflight compatibility. Furthermore, they
do not explain that the CalTrans Handbook clearly and definitively states
• that "The Handbook does not (emphasis in Handbook) establish state standards . f
or policies for airport land use planning." The CalTrans Handbook is to
be used as a guide, but grants leeway to local ALUCs to adjust or modify
densities based on local factors. This.philosophy of using the CalTrans
Handbook as a general guide (not an absolute reference) was confirmed by
• the ALUC in two years of.communications with the firm that wrote the
CalTrans Handbook (Shutt -Moen Associates/Hodges &Shutt). For instance,
the CalTrans Handbook allows for the evaluation and combination of
multiple factors to determine residential density compatibility. These
factors might include busyness of airspace (flight tracks);'aircraft con
figuration and altitude.(turning area), instrument approach paths (flown
often in inclement weather), proximity to a CDF Air Tanker practice drop
area, proximity to a large aircraft maintenance facility (CDF/Aero Union)
and location near an airport with frequent military jet, touch and goes.
All of the above apply to the Pheasant Landing Unit III Project.'_In addition,_
the ALUC is allowed (and expected) to evaluate the general nature of the
community (i.e. rural, urban, etc.). Pheasant Landing Unit III sits in a
rural area of North Chico, where many people have horses, raise chickens,
pigs, steers, etc. The CalTrans. Handbook allows significant latitude for
the ALUC to consider all of the above factors and then modify its airport
land use plan to accommodate local aircraft activities, and also promote
compatibility. The local ALUC recently demonstrated.in the 2000 Butte County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that certain areas (i.e4 downwind cor-
ridors) of the traffic pattern are more appropriate for higher residential
density than other areas (i.e. the turning areas). This aviation -based logic,
utilizing local factors and knowledge, supports and confirms the ALUC position
regarding the Pheasant Landing III subdivision. Legally, the responsibility
rests upon the Board of Supervisors to demonstrate how the override of the
ALUC promotes the public's best interest. This has not been accomplished
in the override document being considered.
• Curiously missing from the staff report's safety and overflight evidence
are any flight track maps -9 -accident scatter maps for Chico Municipal Airport,
or the easily obtainable FAA list of accidents at Chico Municipal Airport.
This last item was reviewed with the Board of Supervisors at.their 3/27/01
meeting. At that meeting, it was demonstrated that three of the last four
fatalities occurring at Chico Municipal Airport in the last ten years were
the result of accidents in the traffic pattern turning areas. While statis-
tics are important .in making generalizations, specific local information
must also be considered when determining relative risk. For this reason,
and for the others reviewed previously, the specific findings regarding safety
are inadequate as written in the staff report.
If the Board of Supervisors wish to override the ALUC with regards to safety
and overflight around Chico Municipal Airport, the specific findings must
meet the CalTrans Handbook criteria which were summarized in the Topanga
case as
"...legally relevant conclusions that explain the decision-making agency's
method of analyzing facts,' regulations, and policies and the rationale
for making the decisions based on the facts involved. Findings are
used to show how local decision -makers arrived at their decision based
on facts and established policies (CalTrans Handbook 5-14)."
As responsible decision -makers, the Board of Supervisors will need to evaluate
all ofthe facts, even the aviation -related ones. Once understood and com
• prehended, it is obvious that substantive evidence does not support the over-
riding findings.in regards to overflight and safety.
•
B. Noise .
The staff report regarding noise begins ironically with a reference to the
1995 Part 150 Airport Noise Study. This is unfortunate because this study
was never.adopted by the ALUC due to its poor quality and inaccuracy: An
example of its ineptness is provided in the staff report as the authors)
quotes, 11... residential land uses are compatible in areas exposed to a CNEL
of up to 70dB." By,referencing the Sound Level Scale (Table 6A) in the CalTrans.
Handbook, it can be observed that 70dB is equivalent to a vacuum cleaner
at a distance of ten feet. Not many people living in a very quiet, rural
neighborhood (horses, chickens, pigs, etc.) are going to tolerate or desire
Community Noise Equivalent Levels of 70dB. Yet the staff report utilizes
such questionable arguments to support its findings. The staff report author(s)''
then refer to a report by P&D Aviation (a consulting firm). They attempt
to demonstrate that aircraft activity is actually less than previously pro-
jected, and thus noise will be less of a problem than previously thought.
This line of reasoning has very little to do with actual noise at the airport, "
but it does serve to confuse the issue and bulk up the staff report. Un-
fortunately, the P&D study was never adopted by the ALUC:as it was of poor
quality and inaccurate. The reality is that all phases of aviation-related t
activity are significantly trending upwards (aircraft orders, cargo transport, '
passenger miles,'student starts, etc.).- This was recently confirmed by the
Chico Municipal Airport Manager. Although many sources of information are
available to determine aviation activity (Chico Municipal Airport Master
Plan data, 2000 Airport.Land Use.Plan data., Chico Municipal Airport Manager,
Aviation Week Sourcebook, etc.) none:is referenced by the staff report.
•
Regarding single event.noise: the authors) of the staff report specifically
mention that it was discussed before the-.-Board-of Supervisors at their
3/27/01 meeting. They dismiss single event noise as a problem, utilizing
one obscure United Kingdom study mentioned in the CalTrans Handbook (6-27).
This study suggests that the "average person has only a one in 75 chance
of being awakened by an aircraft noise in the outdoor range of 90dB to 100dB"
(this noise would be greater than a power mower at three feet - CalTrans
Handbook Table 6A). They continue their argument with "this indicates that
single-event sound levels of 70dB to 80dB (garbage disposal at three.feet
CalTrans Handbook Table 6A) will cause less than a 2% chance of sleep dis-
turbance." These are preposterous statements. No detailed information is
given regarding the study so no conclusions can be drawn as to its veracity.
Fortunately, the CalTrans Handbook also cites more believable studies. An
Environmental Protection Agency Study (U.S. E.P.A.) "found that 60% of people
are awakened by outdoor cumulative noise levels (DNL) of 65dB (CalTrans Hand-
book 6-27). Late night engine run-ups most likely exceed this range and
suggest a potential noise compatibility problem. It was for this exact reason
that Mr. Vic Alvistar of the Aero Union Corporation wrote the letter (presented
at the 3/27/01 Supervisors meeting) strongly requesting the Board of Super-
visors todeny the Stephens' Project. The Stephens' Project (according to
Mr. Kammerer's letter of 3/27/01) is located just one-quarter mile immediately
east of the Schuster property in question.
Later in the noise section of staff report, the author(s) incredibly state:
•
... the Board of Supervisors finds that.the likelihood of ambient and
single event noise, even at-extreme 90dB to 100dB SEL outdoor ranges
to which people might be exposed during the summer months with open
windows at nighttime, present no more than minimal public exposure to
• noise."
No evidence or sound reasoning confirms this statement. Common sense and
logic strongly oppose it. Yet this is purported as the substantial evidence
supporting overriding findings.
The staff report does leave out important information regarding noise. The.
CalTrans Handbook (3-4) states:
"The perspective of this Handbook is that..cumulative-noise -level--metrics
remain an essential tool for the purposes of airport land use compati-
bility planning. Other.character.istics of noise, whether measured on
a decibel scale or evaluated in a.more qualitative manner, may never-
theless also need to.be considered as discussed below with respect to
overflight issues.."
In other .words; noise is subjective. Combined:with overflight it can cause
great.annoyance in some individuals. Late night engine run-ups,are mandatory
for CDF and Aero Union during the fire season. These run -ups can be heard
miles away, and in a rural setting like North Chico, may cause great annoyance.
The ALUC rejects the specific noise findings made. in the staff report.. The
substantive evidence comes primarily from'unrecognized sources. Much better
information exists which was deliberately overlooked, or not reviewed.
C. Airspace Protection
The ALUC agrees with the staff.report .regarding airspace protection.
D. Consistency with other approved North Chico Specific Plan projects
The author(s) of the staff report.elect to use the Stephens Project as,
substantial evidence to support overriding findings. The ALUC is quite per-
plexed as to why staff would suggest that the Stephens'Project is a good
example of proper and correct airport.land use planning. The Stephens Project
is currently in litigation. It was denied by the Butte County Planning Com-
mission. It was strongly:opposed by the City of'Chico and major companies
at the Chico Municipal Airport (Aero Union). It is regarded as a disaster
in local planning circles. It generally violates all airport land use com-
patibility principles featured in the 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. The Stephens Project serves as an example of what not
to do around an airport. It does not provide support for any specific finding
related to noise,. safety, overflight, or airspace protection.
Additionally, in Section D of the. staff report, staff states that the Pheasant
Landing III project is "infill." The CalTrans Handbook suggests definitive
guidelines as to what is infill (3-18 and 19):
"The infill area should be bounded by uses similar to those proposed
" The proposed development should not extend the perimeter of the area
• already developed with incompatible uses."
The Pheasant Land III project does not meet the definition of infill,.nor
the infill requirements.
• E. North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP)
ALUC has stated its most recent concerns with -the NCSP mitigation noncompliance
in a letter to Mr. Bruce Alpert, Butte County Counsel (4/23/01). A copy of
this letter has been forwarded to all members of the.Board of Supervisors.
Significantly, the required.Chico Municipal Airport related mitigation has
not been accomplished in the NCSP area. Without the adopted mitigation,
the plan is no longer valid or legal. These facts were pointed out to the
Board of Supervisors'at the 3/27/01 -meeting.
The NCSP mitigation is continually referenced as supportingevidence for
the override in question. Because the actual airport -related mitigation,
has not been accomplished for the plan, it cannot be used to validate further
development. It would be illogical, and most likely illegal.to do so.:
Until this situation is resolved, and the airport related.mitigation accom-
plished, the ALUC has requested that County Counsel advise the Board of .Super-
visors to.refrain from overriding.the ALUC.
F. Conclusion by Staff
The ALUC strongly disagrees that the Board of Supervisors has provided evidence
that support overriding findings in this -matter.
• G. Documents
For the record,. the ALUC notes.that:the:following documents listed in support
of staff arguments were never -adopted by the ALUC:
- Aviation Activity Forecasts for the CMA, May 1, 1992 - McClintock,
Becker & Associates
- Aircraft Noise Exposure Map Report Including Aviation Activity Fore-
casts for the,CMA - December 7, 1992 - McClintock,..Becker & Associates
- 1995 FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs
Plan for the CMA - P&D Aviation
In summary, the ALUC respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors review
the factual record relating to the Pheasant Landing Unit III potential override,
And vote to not override the ALUC. The ALUC makes this request on the basis of
our original finding of inconsistancy for the project. We also note that the
.project was denied at the Planning Commission level. We further note that the
evidence in the staff report for the 4/24/01 meeting does not by itself, or in
combination with referenced material meet the requirements of Public, Utilities
Code Sections 21670 and 21676. Approval of this project does not promote the
orderly development of Chico Municipal Airport. Quite to the contrary, it facili-
tates conflict and incompatibility. The staff report and the referenced support
materials do not demonstrate that the project protects public health, safety,
or welfare. Furthermore, the ALUC notes that similar referenced mitigation measures
• in the same specific plan area have not been.accomplished, and notes that Butte.
County has no system in,place to monitor the required mitigation in the project
at hand. The ALUC also notes that significant noise, safety, and overflight con=
flicts exist as demonstrated in this document, and that no substantial evidence
• has been presented that supports the.Board of Supervisor's findings suggesting
protection of the public in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
Norm Rosene
'Chairman
- _.-Butte County -Airport, Land Use Commission
pc: Mr. Bruce Alpert, Butte County Counsel-
..Mr.
ounsel. Mr. Bob Grierson, Chico -Municipal Airport Manager
NR: j pr
•
-=
.�.�
utte Count
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
.April 23, 2001
Mr. Bruce Alpert
Butte County Counsel
Administration Center
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3381
Dear Bruce,
As per -our conversation of April 20, 2001, and for the record, I am documenting
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) concerns regarding non-compliance
with required mitigation measures for the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP)
which was adopted in 1994: As stated and.confirmed by county staff in the Board
of Supervisor's meeting of March 27, 2001., there has been no monitoring of mi-
tigation measures by the county in regards to Section 7.6 of the NCSP ("Protection
of Chico Municipal Airport Operations"). Please see attached document. Because
the adopted and certified EIR-for.the.NCSP. determined there would be a significant
impact to Chico Municipal ,Airport. requiring mitigation, it appears that Butte County
has violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards and laws by not
requiring compliance during development of the NCSP area.
In reviewing the required mitigation item by item in section 7.6 of the NCSP,
the following discrepancies appear to exist (please refer.to attached document):
Section 7.6-1 (Avigation Easements)
In a recent preliminary review by county staff, avigation easements were
not accomplished for at least one subdivision in the NCSP area. The exact
number, of residences has yet to be determined.
Section 7.6-2 (Noise Attenuation)
This component of required mitigation is accomplished by standard building
practices. For the purposes of this discussion, itis not an issue with
the ALUC.
Section 7.6-3 (Enhanced Disclosure Measures)
Again, based upon preliminary research by county staff, it was determined
that 3 out of 6 subdivisions which were investigated did.not accomplish
the enhanced disclosure mitigation measure. The exact number of residences
is unavailable.'
Section 7.6-4 (Overflight Signage)
• Contrary to the determination of the previous Butte County Counsel, the
overflight signage mitigation has never been successfully accomplished.
Section 7..6-4 (Overflight Signage) (continued)
The number and location of the required signs is clearly marked in .Figure
7-2 of the NCSP, and the requirement for a "design to be visible and.read-
able from a:moving vehicle".has not been met.
Section 7.6-5 (Street Names).
Thenew collector streets east of Garner Lane have not been designated with
aviation -related names as required.
Open Space Requirement
The discussion in -the EIR for the-NCSP--'cites' open space as a generalized
mitigation measure. Since adoption of the NCSP, open space has been de-
creased through additional land use actions contrary to written plan re-
quirements (Stephens' Property Amendment). More open space will be lost
because of the proposed Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision Amendment
And Rezone.
Other required mitigation may exist and therefore the above list is not deemed
to.be complete.
As Butte County Counsel, you understand that an adopted.plan with adopted mitigation
meets the basic requirements of a legal plan. However, an adopted plan without
required mitigation being accomplished is not a legal plan. The ALUC would
greatly appreciate and officially requests that Butte County Counsel further
research this matter. In our previously referenced.conversation, you indicated
that you would support this investigation, and that.discussions with the interim
is
Development Services Director would be beneficial once he or she was selected.
The Butte County Airport Land.Use.Commission:supports this approach and looks
forward to participating at that time.
Until the interim Development Services Director is selected and this situation
is resolved, the ALUC requests that any override proceedings by the Butte County
Board of Supervisors be put on hold. This request refers specifically to the
Pheasant Landing Unit III Subdivision (Stephen Schuster Application GPS/RZ 00-
05; TSM 00-03; APL 01-06). The proposed overriding.findings drafted by the
Supervisors' staff (and the developer's attorney) specifically reference and
utilize the EIR for the NCSP as support for the override, and support for their
Negative Environment Decla-ration.. Because the required mitigation'in the re
ferenced NCSP EIR has not been accomplished, the basis for their Negative
Declaration is invalid.' If the required mitigation has not been accomplished
six years and hundreds of houses into the plan development, then by all logical
and legal standards it cannot be used to support more development.
Besides the obvious legal questions, it would be unconscionable to override
the ALUC in a plan area (NCSP) where the specific airport -related mitigation'
has not been accomplished. Chico Municipal Airport is a multi-million dollar
facility paid for and improved with millions of taxpayer dollars. It serves
all of the residents of.Butte County, and the entire region in a multitude of
ways. It is essential for the protection of such an asset that the legally -
adopted NCSP airport -related mitigation be fully accomplished as required by
law and common sense.
0
• Thank you for your efforts in'this matter.
Sincerely,
Norm Rosene
Chairman
Butte County Airport Land Use -Commission
pc: Mr. Bob Beeler, Supervisor District 1 .
Ms. Jane Dolan, Supervisor District 2
Ms. Mary Anne Houx, Supervior.District 3''
Mr: Curt Josiassen, Supervisor District 4 .
Mr. Kim Yamaguchi, Supervisor District 5
Mr. Bob Grierson,- Manager Chico Municipal Airport
NR: j pr
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN
This includes not only the sites of direct alteration (e.g. discharge of dredged or fill r
• material), but also all upstream and downstream wetland areag)"14
to hydrologic alterations resulting from fills, excavation, or drainage impovrrovementnts.
Figure 5-2 identifies those areas that would require a formal delineation for.development to
proceed.
7.5-2 Obtain Corps permits. Wetland delineations .shall be reviewed and approved by the
Corps, and the required processes completed resulting in the issuance of nationwide,',
,
regional or.individual permits. ;
7.5-3 Compensate for unavoidable wetland fills. Compensation will be in accordance with
Corps regulations. Compensation for fills or.alterations of wetland habitat shall ensure
that an equal or greater acreage of wetlands, of equal or greater functions and values, will
be created and shall include compensation for temporaryhabitat losses. These and other
considerations usually require that proposed compensation exceed the acreage of
wetland affected by a ratio of 2 to 1. Wetland creation or enhancement shall be
conducted according to compensation plans approved by the Corps. Each proposed
project will be responsible for adherence to Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, and for
providing compensation for wetland fills either independently or in conjunction with other
projects, subject to Corps approval.
7.5-4 If elements of project design or of a Plan amendment would eliminate or render unsuitable
any designated preservation/mitigation area, -the documentation for that project or
• amendment must include, designation..of=another
mitigation area of equal of greater size
and suitability.
Preserve and protect existing or created wetlands.. During nearby
construction, establish 50 -foot buffers around wetlands (as, measured from
the 'outer edge of the pool's zone of influence) by construction. of a barrier
to prevent damage. Prohibit alteration of drainage into or out of a wetland.
Prohibit artificial drainage or deposition into a wetland or its drainage
without proper engineering design and necessary permits. .. Prohibit
placement of materials or substances into a wetland or its drainage:
7.6 Protection of Chico Municipal Airport Operations
The proximity of the Plan _area to the Chico Municipal Airport raises compatibility issues for
development which are addressed with the following regulations -
7.6 -1 Avigation easements shall be required for all lands within the Plan area.
7.6-2 Noise attenuation features *shall be incorporated into new construction.
Development Regulations and Design.Guidelines 7-7
EXHMT—A—
NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN
7.6-3 !Enhanced disclosure measures shall be developed and im
• home buyers and rental tenants as to the proximi implemented to alert prospective
existence of avigation easements, the existing and p ojected futu a overMunicflight �e
levels, and such related issues as area 9ht and noise
y inform su
buyer or rental tenant. :Enhanced' disc Posupe'may be Imode ed on Buch tte
home.
Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land. a County Code,
7.6-4 "Overnight Zone" road signage shall be installed at key access points into
the including Eaton Road, Gamer Lane, Hicks Lane, New Arterial Road aKeefer
nd Kee area,
Such signage shall be of such materials, size and design to be visibl fer Lane.
a moving vehicle. Figure 7-2 illustrates the concept, a and readable from.
7.6-5 The New Arterial Road and
collector streets east of Gamer L
ane aviation -related names as set forth in Butte County Code Chaptear,32e designated with.
7.8 Principal Land Use Districts
The following section summarizes the principal underlying land
use
area. The existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance has been followed sclo is within the NCSP .
where necessary, to ensure that NCSP goals and policies are achieved
and modified,
administration by county staff. eved while. facilitating
• Definitions and Conditions:
Terms used in this document shall have the same definitions as provided for in the
Code, unless otherwise defined herein. All regulations, design criteria, requirements, Butte County
similar details not set forth herein shall be those as contained in appropriate sectio sof the
Butte County Code.the
Residential Development Regulations
Within the Plan area there are two basic residential categories: Suburban Residenti I and
Residential. The. standards contained herein are consistent with the County zoningstandards
although the dsignations are modified or "customized" ..for the NCSP. The Subu
Residential'designation results in two districts, SR -3 and SR -1. The Residential designation ban
three zone districts — R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), has
R-3 (High Density Residential). Table 7-2 summarizes basic development regulations of and
district. g each
7-8 Development Regulations and Design Guidelines
AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT ZONE
THIS AREA SUBJECT TO NOISE AND s: ® APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
OTHER OISTUABANCE RELATED TO THE 'OVERFLIGHT ZONE' SIGNS
OVEAFUGHT OF AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM
CH CO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, AND TO
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT.
OVERFLIGHT ZONE SIGNAGE
Figure 7-2 .
North Chico Specific Plan
May 17, 2001
Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3397
Dear Ms. Meleka,
With regret I am submitting my resignation as Alternate Commissioner for the _
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission—
In
In the past several months I have been doing a great deal of traveling and plan on
being out of the .area for some time. I am not able to give the ALUCP and its content
- :the attention it.. requires ..to be adequately :informed and efficiently perform my,
• obligation'as Alternate Commissioner:
Thank you for the opportunity to give my input and ideas.
Sincerely,
John Franklin
p ECE0dE
IM Ay 1 8
BUTTE COUNTY
PLANNING DIVISION
217 FLUME STREET SUITE 200 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95928
PHONE: (530) 343-9600 • FAX: (530) 343-4245
MAY -21-2001 14=39 CALTRANS AERONAUTICS916 653 9531 P.01iO3 t
. �1
}
:State of Calitomia 1
De
parttrtent of rl'ransportation
D
Aeronautics Program -Patrick Tyne
M AY
Aviation Pl r 2
. Mail Station #40 •
Mail: P.O. Sox 942874 s
UTTE
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 f - LANOANO COUNTY
AIRPORT USE COMMISSION j
0
Past-ir Fax Note 7671
•
10 5
pages►
To
q
FCPltm lo/m`
Q � C'C
QQ
Woe
#S
noft�
May 21, 2001
Fax s,1;30 _ G-
Fex0TQ—F45j—j
53
1
.. 1
x
FACSIMILE COVER ' .
i
.Attention:
From:
Patrick Tyner, .
Marion peeves ;
Clerk of the Curt i
ware:
May 21, 2001
Butte County
Phone:.
(916) 654-7075
Far:
(916) 653-9531
Internet:
patrick.tynetUot.cagov
Fax: 530-538-7120
Marion:
I received your name from Maleeka, at the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission regarding
tomorrow's Butte County Board of Supervisors Meeting. Caltrans. Aeronautics would like to submit thii
letter concerning the review of development titled 1"Pheasant Landing, Phase III, TSM00-03".
Please call me if you have any questions. .
Patrick Tyner, CT Aeronautics.
916-654-7075
MAY -21-2001 1440 CALTRANS AERONAUTICS 916 653 9531 P.02iO3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAMS. Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION x.51 bI
N S OF AERONAUTICS M.S. #40
1120 eke �
„ 1120 NSTREET -ROOM 3300
P.O. BOX 942874 �� "`
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 A CYa� !/
• (916) 654-4959 �/ �Jp�
FAX (91e) 653-9531
May 21, 2001
Mr. Curt Josiassen
Chairman
Butte County Board of Supervisors
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
RE: Pheasant Landing phase III, TSM00-03
Mr. Josiassen:
D E C E 9 W E
�; M AY 2 1 2001
BUTTE COUNTY
" QDnRT LAND USE COMMISSION
The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is submitting our comments concerning the project
identified as Pheasant Landing Phase III, TSM00-03. This project has also been identified by
the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) as File No. A00-07, "Consistency
Finding for Steve Shuster — General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 0141, 015". Caltrans Aeronautics staff has reviewed the
summary of the project from the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Agenda
is
Item — E.1 dated September 13, 2000, and a review of the adopted Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) and amendments for Chico Municipal Airport.
As noted, the project is located northwest of Chico Municipal Airport runways 13R and 13L,
within Butte County's land use planning jurisdiction. New single family homes are proposed
within the Overflight Protection Zones and the Traffic Pattern Zone. Specifically, the site is
partially located in the Overflight Protection Zone A & B and within the Traffic Pattern Zone 6.
According to the amendments of.the Chico Airport CLUP, the development of new residential
uses shall be prohibited in Overflight Protection Zones A and B. Further, Safety Zone 6
(Traffic Pattern Zone) permits density of housing not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres.
The project indicates residential lots ranging from 1 to 1.3 acres within this zone. This is
incompatible with standards defined in the Chico Airport CLUP.
We understand that the Butte County Board of Supervisors is considering an override to the
ALUCs decision of non -compatibility of this development According to state law, the local
governing body has the right to override ALUC decisions by 2/3 vote, based upon specific
findings that the action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act (Section 21670).
After review of this project, and the consideration of policies outlined in the Chico Municipal
Airport CLUP, Caltrans Aeronautics supports the decision of the Butte ALUC which
determined that the project, as proposed, is incompatible. The essential purpose of ALUCs is to
recommend to local decision makers that non -compatible land uses within the referral zone of
an airport be prohibited, in part, to avoid mitigation of safety and noise impacts of non-
compatible developments. This type of "after the fact" planning in the vicinity of airports has
• proven to be costly for cities and counties in California, in both financial and legal terms and
put those who live and work in these areas at risk.
,MAY-21-2001 1440 CAL TRANS AERONAUTICS 916 653 9531 P.03iO3 F
Mr, Curt Josiassen
May 21, 2001
Page 2 i
• It must also be noted that local agencies that utilize federal funds forairport infrastructure
improvements 'risk losing .these funds based upon a federal determination that land use
compatibility around the airport has been compromised: -Clearly, the intent of state and federal
laws .in this area is to protect the. safety and welfare of those -persons on the ground by
preventing incompatible land uses in proximity of an airport.
The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics appreciates.your agency's efforts in working to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of those in Butte County, at the same time, ensuring the orderly.
growth of airports. {
If you have any questions, pleaie contact me at (916) 654-7075.
Sinc
PATRICK TYNER
Aviation Planner +
c: Norm Rosene, Chairman, Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
w y •
TOTAL-P.03
dO++i%C .J,.:'::,JPERVISORS h C E IVE
D
MAY 0 3 2001 MAY 1 2001
OROVILLF CALt;:GANIA BUTTE COUNTY
ApFil 30,200i ' A Building Industry Associati nofLE I N is
"Building Toward A Better Future"
Mr. Curt Josiassen, Chairman
Butte County Board of SupervisorsO N%
25 County Center Drive D
Oroville, CA 95965
END
N 1 2001
Re: BUTTE COUNTY ALUC COMPREHENS USE PLAN
BUTTE COUNTY
Dear Chairman Josiassen, 'AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
As you know the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the 2000.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan ((CLUP)) in December 2000. The county must bring their
General Plan and Zoning into compliance with the CLUP, within six months after
adoption of the document. Our primary concern is with land located near the Chico
Municipal Airport (CMA) that has been severely affected by this CLUP., Absent any
formal action by the Board of Supervisors, it is our understanding that the CLUP will
supersede your General Plan and Zoning documents.
We have also been told that the six month time period to bring planning documents into
• compliance or override the CLUP does not -begin until the printed document has been
distributed for review. We know that the document is now available in printed form for
review and might extend the date for compliance or override from mid-June 2001 until
mid-October 2001.
The BIA recently discussed this issue at our Board of Directors meeting and would like.. .
to recommend to the Butte County Board of Supervisors that they consider overriding thee.
CLUP on lands near the CMA. In properly and fairly revising or updating the CLUP we .
strongly support that land use near the CMA is considered with the. extension of the main .
runway by 1000' to the north. Additionally, input from the City of Chico needs to be
considered for inclusion in the plan.
We appreciate your consideration of this request and are ready to discuss it further at this .: .
time especially if mid-June is the target date for complying with a flawed CLUP.
SincyelGregb, Chairman
Cc: Butte County Board of Supervisors
• Butte County ALUC
.John Blacklock, CAO/Butte County
Tom Lando, City Manager/Chico
i •
North Valley Chapter
70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101, Chico, California 95973 530/899-1414 FAX 530/891-3690
—`a��. • . � `J? � �n Y ark/ �I , n "� �r _
ca
E111101
� o �
' s Y UJUN 1 2001
a�
:.R: a" BUTTE' COUNTY- .. -
U VAIRPORT LANG
USE COMMISSION'
L Y • • � 'r• . � O � 1mA � � ! 'i. 11i
lo o
. iii � -".yap,.-a. _ �'-"'+aLh�.. �. .. . y-w;9r�_ �.�% � M`"• �.M
-
CITY dF Ct}ICb
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Date Term
� Re ence sin ss Appointed Ex it
Name. N �� �ilin.9 Address_ @�
f
ctor Alvistur 100 Lockheed Avenue, 95973 343-0350 896-3009 12/98 1/03
ass Bradford 1031 Village Lane, 95926 898-1825 342-5853 12198 1/03
olene Francis 2025 Pillsbury Road, 95926 898-0111 891-5837 12/00 1/05
irk Monfort 614 W 4'" Avenue , 95926 343-9401 898-6663 12/00 1/05
raig Sanders7 County Center Drive, 95965 891-6174, 538-7603 12/00 1/03
haron A. Stone 4 Stratford. Way,. 95973891-8487 345-3494 12/00 1/05
ancy Wolfe 1265 Banning Park Drive, 95928 893-2090 899-5949- 12198 -1/03
1.
FuncUons. Prepares and recommends for. adoption by the Council a comprehensive, long-term general plan; or amendments
thereto, for the physical development of the. City and of any land outside its boundaries which, in the commission's judgment, bears
relation to the physical development of the City; and to include such elements in the general plan as recommended by the
commission or required by the planning law of the state. Prepares and recommends to Council precise plans for implementation
of the general plan.' Performs duties in reference to zoning and subdivision matters as authorized by the Code or state laws.
Performs other duties prescribed by the Council pertaining to planning. (CMC Sec. 2.52.020) .
2. Composition. Consists of seven members. The Community Development Director or his/her designee is an ex officionon-voting
member. (CMC Sec, 2.52.030)
Serve as alternate members of the Architectural Review Board when a member is absent. Alternate member appointed by Chair
of Planning Commission when needed. (CMC Sec. 2.56.030) 1 \
3. Meetings, Currently meets monthly on the first Thursday of each month at 6:30 p.m.. in the Council Chamber Building, 421 Main N
Street. If a regular meeting falls on a holiday, the meeting is held the follovring Thursday. Subsequent to the biennial appointment
of -new commission members, the commission sets a weekday and a time for regular monthly meetings to begin no earlier than
6:00 p.m. (CMC Sec. 2.52.050 and 2.52.060, and AP&P #10-36).. Due to the amount of business coming before the Commission,
meetings are also scheduled on the third Thursday of each month.at 6:30 p.m, v
4. Other. See Page 10 for general provisions.
9
�i
UTTE COUNTY
.AND USE COMMISSION
NTY CENTER DRIVE
JELE, CA 95965-3397
V SIVICE REQUESTED
;UTTE COUNTY
LAND USE COMMISSION
INTY CENTER DRIVE
✓ILLE, CA 95965-3397
N SERVICE REQUESTED
•
(0161
Na�'►vl IQossuce- -�, C�,*� .ate
j->(i-7� Gfyk VVU
Victor Alvistur
100 Lockheed Avenue
Chico, CA 95973
Ross Bradford
1031 Village Lane%/
Chico, CA 95926
Jolene Francis
2025 Pillsbury Road
Chico, CA 95926
Kirk. Monfort v
614 W. 41h Avenue
Chico, CA 95926
UTTE COUNTY
.AND USE COMMISSION
• 1T'Y CENTER DRIVE
[LLE, CA 95965-3397
SERVICE REQUESTED
Craig Sanders
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
1TTE COUNTY
AND USE COMMISSION
JTY CENTER DRIVE
`LLE, CA 95965-3397
i SERVICE REQUESTED
Sharon A. Stone
4 Stratford Way
Chico, CA 95973
tN'I"Y CENTKK llKIVE
ILLE, CA 95965-3397
I SERVICE REQUESTED
1
Nancy Wolfe.
1265 Banning Park Drive
• Chico, CA 95928
City of Chico Planning Commission
420 Main Street
Chico, CA 95926
Re: General Plan Growth Area Analysis
Honorable Chair and Commissioners:
—12e -Ssuti Crs -ham- FILE
COPY
n uta ®un
LAND 0f 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/
The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) commends the City and Planning
Commission for initiating the discussion on the City's land use needs to accommodate future
growth. The City is taking a proactive. stance by having this important public dialogue before a
critical land use shortage occurs which would require decisions to be made .under pressured
• circumstances.
As you are aware, the purpose of the adopted 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
is to guide decision makers in -r aking sound land use decisions to ensure that development is
compatible and consistent with' long term .protection of Chico's Airport. When formulating a
recommendation on growth areas,'I strongly urge the Planning Commission to incorporate the
policies and standards of the 2000 `Plan and make such recommendation consistent with these
policies.
The 2000 ALUCP utilizes the best available data regarding present and future operations at the
airport, as well as existing and proposed land uses within the airport environs. The Plan takes into
consideration air traffic volumes, airspace protection, flight patterns, noise, and safety considerations
for pilots and persons on the ground. The Plan also utilizes the most current information from the
City's Airport Master Plan, including the potential for runway expansion.
The ALUC spent considerable time arriving at the final document. Public hearings/meetings
spanned a 9 -month period. Throughout the public hearing process the ALUC made sure that all
affected jurisdictions were notified of the process and had opportunity for input. The ALUC made
several changes to the plan to accommodate concerns raised by the City of Chico. For example, the
ALUC responded to the City's request to lower the compatibility threshold in the C zones from 5
dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling units per. acre. The ALUC recognizes the City's desire to have
a compact urban form and to provide for higher densities in, the urban area. In support of these
® desires, the C and C-2 zones provide that densities of 4 dwelling units or more are consistent with
airport safety and operations: It should also be noted that after all of the public hearings,
• deliberations, and compromises, the Plan was unanimously adopted in a vote that included the
Airport Manager of the Chico Municipal Airport.
On behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission- I urge the Planning Commission to use the
provisions of the 2000 ALUCP, as written, when recommending land use policy for'those areas
within the airport area of influence. I would ,also like- to extend an' offer *to meet with,the
Commission on an agendizeditem to , discuss theprovisions of the ALUCP and, the aeronautic
principles that guided the land use recommendations'contained therein,
Sincerely,,
Norm Rosene
Chair, Butte County ALUC.
K:\P1anning\ALUC\C0RRESPO\2001 Corresp\chi4copc.wpd
•
1 i •
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT°
p LC'E 0MC
PLANNING
411 Main ain Street
AN 5 2001
INC 1872 P.O. Box 3420 .
Chico, CA 95927 June 1, 2001
(530) 895-4851 `
FAX (530) 895-4726 BUTTE COUNTY
ATSS 459-4851 PLANNING DIVISION
Mr. Dan Breedon, Senior Planner .
Butte County Department of Development Servicesp E E Q W E
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
JUN 12 2001
Re: Request for Comments; Byrne Tentative Parcel Map, . SM 1-03
BUTTE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Breedon: AIRPORT.LAND USE COMMISSION
appreciate the opportunity you have provided to comment on this tentative map. As you
know, Mr. Byrne's tentative map proposes four parcels of about an acre in. size each, and
a 5+ -acre remainder parcel. As proposed, this map is inconsistent with the City's Low
Density Residential General Plan designation and the R1 Low Density Residential
prezoning of the property, which provides for residential densities of 2.01 to 6 units per
acre (up to 7 units per acre through the planned .development process). This -is an
urbanizing area, and the prevailing lot size nearby south of Eaton Road tends to be half
• an acre. Once divided as proposed, this property would be virtually impossible to further
subdivide in the future to increase densities consistent with the City's General Plan and I
prezoning. In my opinion, one -acre lots are generally inappropriate in an urban setting,
and this proposed map represents a waste of a diminishing supply of readily developable
land within the urban area.
In addition, the map proposes access from most of the lots directly to Eaton Road, which
is identified in the City's General Plan -as a major four -lane arterial. The General Plan
describes such arterials as follows (p. 4-21): I
Major and Minor Arterials. The primary function of major arterials is to
move large volumes of traffic between freeways and other arterials within
Chico and to adjacent jurisdictions. Major arterials should provide four travel
lanes, a raised or planted median, and bike lanes. On -street parking should
not be provided.... Driveway access should be minimized. consistent with the
primary function of arterials to move through traffic. Bike lanes, landscaped '
parkstrips, sidewalks, and transit facilities are also accommodated within, the
right-of-way. (My emphasis.)
Both the. City and Butte County have made significant efforts over the years to ensure that
Eaton Road is developed as planned by limiting direct access, and this map would clearly
not advance that important and. long-term goal. .
'2�� Mede From Recycled Paper
Y
z x ' �r�tr to Dan Breedon (TSM 01-03)
112001
'page 2
4
In addition, we anticipate that an intersection for a new roadway north to serve the CSA
-_87 North Chico Specific Plan area, as indicated in the Chico General Plan's Circulation
System diagram (Figure 4-3), will be constructed in close proximity to the project site. The'
presence of access driveways. to. Eaton Road here may significantly constrain the location .
and design of that intersection.
Because of its inconsistency with the City's General Plan, we do not support approval of
this tentative parcel map. Again, thank you for the chance to comment. If I can provide
you with further comments or clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know.
'Resp ctfully,
Kim Seidler
Planning Director
cc: CM, DPW, ADPW, CDD