HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE CHICO MUN. AIRP. ENVIRONS PLAN741
Ps'
ow
tp 7J
741
Ps'
ow
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Chico Municipal Center - Main Street between East 4th and 5th Streets
City Council:
Steve Bertagna, Mayor
David Guzzetti
Dan Herbert
Coleen Jarvis
Richard Keene
Maureen Kirk
Sheryl Lange
City Staff:
Tom Lando, City Manager
Trish Dunlap, Asst. City Manager
David Frank, City Attorney
Barbara Evans, City Clerk
Robert Koch, Risk Manager
Robert Grierson, Airport Manager
Marsha Martin, Finance Director
Christine Erlandson, Personnel Director
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Lynn McEnespy, Information Systems Director
E.C. Ross, Director of Public Works
Antoine Baptiste, Community Dev. Director
Kim Seidler, Planning Director
Dennis Beardsley, Park Director
Michael Efford, Police Chief
Steve Brown, Fire Chief
WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE CHICO CITY COUNCIL: The City Council welcomes you to this meeting and invites you to
participate in matters before the Council.
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS: Agendas are available at the meeting, may be mailed on Thursday prior to a Tuesday meeting
(or similar time schedule for meetings on other days of the week) to an individual at an annual cost set forth in the City's Fee
Schedule, may be picked up in advance in the City Clerk's office without charge, or are available on the Internet at www.chico.ca.us.
COPIES OF AGENDA ITEMS: Agenda items are available for public inspection at each meeting or in the City Clerk's Office prior
to a meeting. Copies of agenda items may be secured from the City Clerk's Office after payment of applicable copy fees.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Set forth below in Section II are procedures for addressing the Council. You may stand or raise your
hand until recognized by the Mayor. Please step up to the podium microphone when addressing the Council.
HEARING IMPAIRED: Anyone who has difficulty hearing the proceedings of a meeting may be provided with a portable listening
device by requesting one from the City Clerk. The device works directly from the public address system, and the listener can hear
all speakers who are using a microphone.
Anyone who is hearing impaired and requires the services of an interpreter to participate in a meeting should contact the City
Clerk's office within 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting.
PARKING: While attending evening Council meetings, you may park in the Municipal Parking Lot located on Flume Street between
East 4th & 5th Streets, or in the green zones along East 5th and Main Streets.
II. PROCEDURES DURING MEETINGS
MICROPHONES: City Council meetings are videotaped or televised when held in the Council Chamber or Conference Room No.
1. In order for the audience to receive a clear audio signal, it is essential that the members of the Council and Staff attach the
microphones to their clothing as close to their mouths as practical and check the microphone for proper operation. Members of
the audience are requested to step to the podium microphone when addressing the Council.
TIME LIMIT: Each member of the audience speaking to the Council is requested to limit their presentation to no more than three
minutes, unless the time is waived by the Council on any specific item. A speaker may not defer his/her time to other speakers.
Groups or organizations are encouraged to select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf. Each subsequent speaker is
encouraged to submit new information, and rather than repeating comments made by prior speakers to simply indicate their
agreement with a prior speaker's comments. Council may ask questions following any presentation.
IDENTITY OF SPEAKERS: The Mayor will ask each speaker to state his/her name before speaking, and after speaking to voluntarily
write his/her name on a record to be maintained by the City Clerk.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Special presentations which include slides, films, etc. during the course of a meeting will only be
allowed with the prior approval of the Council.
WRITTEN MATERIAL: If any person intends to appear before the Council and provide with written material, it should be delivered
to the City Clerk's office 13 days in advance of the meeting (sooner if there are holidays prior to the meeting) in order that copies
may be included with the agenda and to give Council an opportunity to review the material in advance of the appearance.
If written material is provided to the Council at the meeting, it may affect the Council's consideration of the matter. Therefore, the
Council will determine whether or not to continue the matter to a later date in order that it will have time to consider the written
material.
s:lagendaslcouncil Info&procedures.wpd Revised: 11199
RECONSIDERATION OF AN AGENDA ITEM: The Council will not rehear or reconsider an issue within one year after a decision has
been made, and an ordinance, resolution or minute order has been adopted or denied. If a majority of the Council votes to
reconsider the matter, it will be scheduled for consideration at a subsequent meeting on the Regular Agenda.
ITEMS NOT APPEARING ON POSTED AGENDA. This agenda was posted on the Council Chamber Building Bulletin Board at least
72 hours in advance of this meeting. In order for the Council to take action on an item not appearing on the posted agenda, other
than merely acknowledging receipt of correspondence or other information, the Council must make one of the following
determinations:
(1) Determine by a majority vote that an emergency exists as defined in Government Code Sec. 54956.5.
(2) Determine by a two-thirds vote or by a unanimous vote if less than two-thirds of the Council is present, that there is a need
to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being
posted.
(3) Determine that the item appeared on a posted agenda for a meeting occurring not more than 5 calendar days prior to this
meeting, and the item was continued to this meeting.
EXPLANATION OF EACH PORTION OF THE AGENDA IN THE ORDER THAT IT IS CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL
CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion.
Resolutions and Ordinances will be read by title only in compliance with Sec. 611 of the City Charter. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless members of the Council or persons in the audience request specific items to be removed from
the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion prior to the time the Council votes on the motion to adopt the
Consent Agenda. If any item(s) are removed from the Consent Agenda, the item(s) will be considered at the beginning of the
Regular Agenda. Only underlined portions will be read by the Mayor.
HEARINGS: Any member of the audience may speak on items scheduled for hearing at the time the Mayor declares the hearing
open to the audience. The Mayor may first ask for a staff report and comments from the proponents of any matter scheduled for
hearing, so that Council has sufficient background information, before receiving public input.
Any person interested in a hearing involving a land use decision should be aware that in accordance with Government Code
Section 65009, if any person(s) challenges the action of the City Council in court, said person(s) may be limited to raising only those
issues that were raised at the public hearing(s), or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Councilmembers should disclose any ex parte communications in which they were involved prior to any hearing that is quasi-
judicial in nature.
REGULAR AGENDA: All items listed under the Regular Agenda are in the order which it is believed are of interest to the public
or which require Council action at this meeting. The items will be considered in the order listed unless the Mayor or
Councilmembers request a change. Any person may speak on items listed on the Regular Agenda except for those items that were
the subject of a prior public hearing and are specifically noted in the agenda item.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: See explanation provided under "CONSENT AGENDA."
ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA: See explanation provided under "ITEMS NOT APPEARING ON THE POSTED
AGENDA." In addition, a member of the Council, or the Council itself, may take action to direct staff to place a matter of business
on a future agenda.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR: A member of the general public may address the Council on any matter not appearing on the
agenda which is of interest to such person and which is within the jurisdiction of the Council. Where a member of the general
public seeks to address the Council under Business From The Floor, the Council may briefly respond to statements made or
questions posed. However, Councilmembers should not engage in inter -Council discussions. On its own initiative or in response
to questions posed by such person, Councilmembers may ask questions for clarification, provide a reference to staff or other
resources for factual information, or request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting.
REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: Staff reports and communication items are being provided to the Council primarily for its
information. Accordingly, these matters will not be discussed unless a member of the Council or general public requests such
discussion. However, no action shall be taken on these matters unless the matter is included as an action item at a subsequent
meeting and included on the posted agenda as such.
CLOSED SESSION: A description of the items, if any, to be discussed in closed session will be listed on the agenda. An
announcement may be made of action taken in closed session, when the Council reconvenes to open session.
Revised: 11199
sAagendaslcouncil info&procedures.wpd
I
ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING — DECEMBER 7, 1999
Chico Municipal Center, Conference Room #2, 421 Main Street — 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1. Roll Call
2. CLOSED SESSION
2.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: The City Council will review the City
Manager's and City Attorney's performance (Gov. Code Section 54957).
2.2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: The City's negotiator is Personnel Director Erlandson.
The name of the employee organization that represents employees is the International Association of
Firefighters (Gov. Code Sec. 54957.6).
2.3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR: The City's negotiator is Personnel Director Erlandson.
The name of the employee organization that represents employees is the Chico Police Officers
Association Unit A (Gov. Code Sec. 54957.6).
If the Council is unable to conclude its discussion of closed session items by 7:30 p.m., it will meet
again in closed session at the end of this evening's meeting
3. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a Redevelopment Agency meeting.
December 7, 1999 Closed Session Page 1
J REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING —DECEMBER 7, 1999
Chico Municipal Center, Council Chamber, 421 Main Street — 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1. Flag Salute
1.2. Invocation — Father Peter Hansen, St. Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal Church
1.3. Roll Call
1. 4. Introduction of City Staff Members
1.5. Closed Session Announcement
2. CONSENT AGENDA
3. NOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. REGULAR AGENDA
4.1. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CITY TO COMPLETE THE BIKE PATH BETWEEN EAST 20 1H
STREET AND LITTLE CHICO CREEK
By memorandum dated 11/19/99, the Community Development Director reports to the Redevelopment
Committee that the City has been requested to complete the bike path between East 20th Street and
Little Chico Creek to provide a safe route between the residential areas south of East 20th Street and
Chico Creek Elementary School and Hank Marsh Junior High School. Currently, bicyclists use the bike
lanes on Forest Avenue and East 200 Street. The City recently completed construction of the bike path
along the south bank of Little Chico Creek from Bruce Road westerly, connecting to the existing path
behind Chico Creek Elementary School and a bridge was constructed to provide access to the north
creek bank. With development of Hank Marsh Junior High School, Chico Unified School District built
a bike path from the bridge to Humboldt Road.
Right of way to construct the bike path from East 20th Street to Little Chico Creek was acquired at the
time of approvals for the Enloe properties. In conjunction with development of the United Health Care
offices (2080 East 20th Street), the portion of the bike path between East 20th Street and Springfield
Drive has been constructed. The section from Springfield Drive to the creek remains to be built. Even
though the City has the right of way for the path, State law prohibits the City from requiring the adjacent
subdivision to construct the path.
At its meeting to be held 12/03/99, the Redevelopment Committee will be requested to provide a
recommendation on allocation of Chico Merged Redevelopment Project Area Funds for the project.
A verbal report on the Committee's recommendation will be provided at tonight's meeting. The
Executive Director recommends adoption of the Resolution which makes the findings required
by Section 33445 of the California Health and Safety Code, and which allocates funds in the
amount of $55,000 from the Chico Merged Redevelopment Project Area Fund (351).
RESOLUTION OF THE CHICO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROPRIATING TAX INCREMENT
REVENUES FROM THE CHICO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO FUND
COMPLETION OF THE BICYCLE PATH BETWEEN LITTLE CHICO CREEK AND EAST 20TH
STREET.
December 7, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Page 2
4.2. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FINANCE COMMITTEE ON ITS
MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 3. 1999
By memorandum dated 11/18/99, the Finance Committee provides a report on its meeting held on
11/3/99, at which time the matters listed below were considered. All Committee members were present:
Councilmembers Guzzetti (absent during the consent agenda), Herbert and Keene, Chair.
Consent Agenda
1. (No Council action required)
APPROVAL OF ALLOCATION OF REHABILITATION FUNDS FOR CITY -OWNED PROPERTY
AT 1087 SARAH AVE. The Committee (2-0, Guzzetti absent) authorized staff to expend $15,000
of Community Development Block Grant funds for rehabilitation of the City -owned property at 1087
Sarah Avenue in order to bring the property to standard condition prior to sale.
Regular Agenda
2. (No Council action required)
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FEE REDUCTION OR WAIVER. The Committee (3-0) continued
this matter to its next meeting and directed staff to check with other communities regarding
provisions for waiver of appeal fees and bring back recommendations on criteria or guidelines
which might be established in order for appeal fee waiver requests to be handled administratively.
3. (Agency action required to approve minute order and supplemental appropriation)
REQUEST FROM THE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (ARC) OF BUTTE COUNTY
FOR ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT. The
Committee (3-0) recommended that the Agency provide additional financial assistance to ARC for
its special needs/low-income housing project at the Longfellow Apartments, 1350 Manzanita
Avenue, by (1) allocating an additional grant in the amount of $75,000 from the Low & Moderate
Income Housing Bond fund; (2) authorizing a loan of up to $250,000 at 5% interest for a term of 30
years, to be structured so that any funds in excess of ARC's needs would be returned to the
Agency; and (3) authorizing an increase in pre -development costs out of the loan funds of up to
$20,000 for the project; with the understanding that this recommendation was based upon staff
providing a report as to what extent the Agency's loan could be secured.
The Council is being provided with copies of a memorandum dated 11/22/99 from the Housing
Officer regarding to what extent the Agency's loan can be secured, as well as copies of the Minute
Order and Supplemental Appropriation listed below in the event the Council accepts the Committee
recommendation for approval.
Although the Finance Committee report includes a recommendation to allocate an additional grant
in the amount of $75,000 from the 1991 CPFA Low and Moderate Income Housing Bond Fund
(374), the balance of uncommitted funds is $73,000. Therefore, the Minute Order and
Supplemental Appropriation recommend an allocation of $73,000 from the 1991 CPFA L&MIH
Bond Fund (374), and an allocation of $250,000 from the Low and Moderate income Housing Fund
(371).
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTE ORDER — ALLOCATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $73.000
OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE AGENCY'S HOUSING BOND FUND AND AN ALLOCATION OF
$250,000 FROM THE AGENCY'S LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND (LMIHF)
TO THE ARC OF BUTTE COUNTY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE ADDITIONAL HOUSING BOND FUNDS AND A
LOAN AGREEMENT FOR LMIHF FUNDS.
December 7, 1999 1 Redevelopment Agency Page 3
APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO
THE ARC OF BUTTE COUNTY FOR ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF THE
LONGFELLOW APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 1350 MANZANITA AVENUE.
4. (No Council action required)
REVIEW OF THE CITY'S FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. The Committee took no action on this
matter.
5. (No Council action required.)
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEES. Staff
indicated it would respond to concerns raised by Jay Goldberg regarding being billed by the City
for additional development fees three years after his project had been completed.
6. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to a City Council meeting.
December 7, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Page 4
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING —DECEMBER 7,1999
Chico Municipal Center, Council Chamber, 421 Main Street
1. CALL TO ORDER
1.1. Roll Call
2. CONSENT AGENDA
2.1. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO LEVYING ASSESSMENT
INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FEES INCIDENT
TO THE CONNECTION OF PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM - 2670 CERES AVENUE
/ A.P. NO. 048-670-048
By memorandum dated 9/30/99, the Director of Public Works reports that in accordance with a petition
from the property. owners, Gary Houser & Terry Houser, this resolution will authorize sewer
assessments to be collected on the tax roll as set forth in the Director of Public Works' report dated
9/30/99 attached to the resolution. These assessments are in lieu of payment of the sewer system
connection. fees which would ordinarily be due and payable at the time of connecting the premises to
the City's sewer system. The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the resolution.
2.2. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO LEVYING ASSESSMENT
INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FEES INCIDENT
TO THE CONNECTION OF PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM - 731 W. 12TH AVENUE /
A.P. NO. 043-051-004
By memorandum dated 11/5/99, the Director of Public Works reports that in accordance with a petition
from the property owners, Daniel R. Arbuckle and Marilyn. V. Arbuckle, this resolution will authorize
sewer assessments to be collected on the tax roll as set forth in the Director of Public Works' report
dated 11/5/99 attached to the resolution. These assessments are in lieu of payment of the sewer
system connection fees which would ordinarily be due and payable at the time of connecting the
premises to the City's sewer system. The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the
resolution.
2.3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO LEVYING ASSESSMENT
INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FEES INCIDENT
TO THE CONNECTION OF PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM - 1251 WARNER STREET
/A. P. NO 043-150-013 .
By memorandum. dated 11/5/99, the Director of Public Works reports that in accordance with a petition
from the property owner, Christian Demarais, this resolution will authorize sewer assessments to be
collected on the tax roll as set forth in the Director of Public Works' report dated 11/5/99 attached to the
resolution. These assessments are in lieu of payment of the sewer system connection fees which
would ordinarily be due and payable at the time of connecting the premises to the City's sewer system.
The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the resolution.
2.4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO LEVYING ASSESSMENT
INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FEES INCIDENT
TO THE CONNECTION OF PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM - 480 E. 20TH STREET /
A.P. NO 005-441-005
By memorandum dated 10/5/99, the Director of Public Works reports that in accordance with a petition
from the property owner, Mark Smith, this resolution will authorize sewer assessments to be collected
on the tax roll as set forth in the Director of Public Works' report dated 10/5/99 attached to the
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 5
resolution. These assessments are in lieu of payment of the sewer system connection fees which
would ordinarily be due and payable at the time of connecting the premises to the City's sewer system.
The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the resolution.
2.5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO LEVYING ASSESSMENT
INSTALLMENTS IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM CONNECTION FEES INCIDENT
TO THE CONNECTION OF PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM - 1098 E. 9TH STREET /
A.P. NO. 004-320-020
By memorandum dated 9/30/99, the Director of Public Works reports that in accordance with a petition
from the property owners, Vincent Haynie & Kesha Haynie, this resolution will authorize sewer
assessments to be collected on the tax roll as set forth in the Director of Public Works' report dated
9/30/99 attached to the resolution. These assessments are in lieu of payment of the sewer system
connection fees which would ordinarily be due and payable at the time of connecting the premises to
the City's sewer system. The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the resolution.
2.6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO
ANNEX PROPERTY NOW LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY
OF BUTTE TO THE INCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF CHICO - ELM STREET
ANNEXATION DISTRICT NO. 8
By memorandum dated 11/10/99, the Community Development Assistant forwards a report on initiation
of the annexation of two parcels at the intersection of Elm Street and East 22nd Street. In accordance
with adopted LAFCo policy, the City must adopt a resolution to initiate the annexation of property to the
City. The resolution, upon adoption, will initiate the annexation of the properties to be developed with
two single family residences. The Community Development Assistant recommends Council
adoption of the resolution.
2.7. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO ABANDON
AND VACATE SEWER EASEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC STREETS. HIGHWAYS. AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW (GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION)
By memorandum dated 11/23/99, the Director of Public Works reports that the owner of the Greenfield
Subdivision, Webb Homes and 13 other property owners, have petitioned the City to abandon the sewer
easement located in the Greenfield Subdivision; between Sandy Cove Drive and Silver Lake Drive,
since the easement has been replaced by an access road along the County SUDAD (Shasta Union
Drainage Assessment District) right-of-way that serves the same purpose. The Director of Public
Works recommends adoption of the resolution which will schedule a public hearing on 114100.
2.8. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO ABANDON
AND VACATE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS.
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW (250 COHASSET ROAD)
By memorandum dated 11/5/99, the Director of Public Works reports that the owner of 250 Cohasset
Road, H.R. Van Triest, B.V., a Netherlands corporation, has petitioned the City to abandon the 15 -foot -
wide public utility easement on that property since the easement is no longer necessary for present or
prospective public utility purposes. The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the
resolution which will schedule the public hearing for 114100.
December 7, 1999 City Council rage o
2.9. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO ABANDON
AND VACATE A PORTION OF A STREET PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS,
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW (A PORTION OF EAST 9TH AVENUE AT LINDO
AVENUE)
By memorandum dated 11/23/99, the Director of Public Works reports that the owners of 684 East 9th
Avenue, Stephen A. White, Marvin E. Turner, Lynne L. Turner, and Virginia B. Barnett Trust, have
petitioned the City to abandon a portion of East 9th Avenue at Lindo Avenue for expansion of the
adjacent use. Since there are existing City storm drain facilities and other public utilities within this
portion of East 9th Avenue, a public utility easement will be retained over the entirety of the proposed
abandonment. Staff does not support this abandonment due to its proximity to Lindo Channel;
but nevertheless recommends the Council consider the property owner's request for
abandonment by adopting the resolution to set a public hearing on the proposed abandonment
for 114100.
2.10. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO ABANDON
AND VACATEA PORTION OF ABUTTERS' RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS, AND SERVICE EASEMENTS VACATION LAW (FOREST AVENUE. AP NO. 002 -370 -
By memorandum dated 11/23/99, the Director of Public Works reports that the owners of Assessor's
Parcel No. 002-370-049 on Forest Avenue, Edwin and Margaret Lial Revocable Trust, and Sheldon
Potter Family Partnership, have petitioned the City to abandon a portion of the abutters' rights on that
property to allow vehicle access and circulation for future development of the property. The property
is generally located on the east side of Forest Avenue between East 20`" Street & Parkway Village
Circle. The Director of Public Works recommends adoption of the resolution which will schedule
a public hearing on 114100.
2.11. MINUTE ORDER -1) AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT FOR SENATOR THEATRE TOWER
RESTORATION: AND 2) APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SENATOR TOWER RESTORATION
FUND WITHIN THE CITY'S FUND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
The United Artists Theatre Circuit (UATC) has previously agreed to allow the City to restore, reconstruct
and maintain the .Senator Theatre building Tower, subject to the execution of a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) which sets forth the terms and conditions relating to the project. The MOU will
formally grant to the City an easement for a right of entry to the building for such purposes, and will
require that the reconstruction be completed by September, 2000. In the alternative, the Minute Order
also authorizes City assumption of ownership of the Tower once it is restored, if this is acceptable to
UATC. While the MOU will provide that the cost of reconstruction and maintenance will be solely that
of the City, the UATC will commit to allowing three benefit film showings at the El Rey Theatre, along
with donated staff and film costs, in order to assist in raising funds for the Tower project. In addition,
in order to account for the revenues and expenditures for this project, this Minute Order will authorize
the establishment a new fund within the City's fund.accounting system for this project. The City
Manager recommends approval of this Minute Order.
2.12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 1999
The Council has been provided with copies of minutes for its meeting held on 11/2/99.
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 7
3. NOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1. HEARING ON FORMATION OF MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 95 - CARRIAGE PARK
SUBDIVISION, PHASE II
By memorandum dated 11/1/99, the Community Development Director reports that this resolution will
order the formation of Chico Maintenance Assessment District No. 95. As a condition of development
of this subdivision, located on the east side of Bruce Road at the end of E. 201" Street, the developer,
Zink -Timmons and Ashington Corporation, have consented to the formation of this district for the
operation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation within the public right of way. This
maintenance assessment district will provide that the City perform (or contract for) the operation and
maintenance services which will be paid for by property owners within this district. The Community
Development Director recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO ORDERING FORMATION OF A
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
ORDINANCE OF 1997 (MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 95 — CARRIAGE PARK
SUBDIVISION, PHASE II)
3.2. HEARING ON APPEAL BY THE CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY JUSTICE OF THE APPROVAL OF
USE PERMIT 99-28 (AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES) TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 ORANGE STREET
By memorandum dated 11/12/99, Planning Division Staff reports that at its 9/13/99 meeting, the
Planning Commission approved a use permit, with conditions, to allow a telecommunications facility
on an existing water tower located at 215 Orange Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 004-038-003, in an ML
Light Manufacturing/Industrial zoning district and designated on the General Plan Diagram as
Manufacturing and Warehousing. This decision has been appealed by the Citizens for Community
Justice.
Planning Division staff recommends that the City Council adopt the below resolution, or change
the resolution to make the necessary findings to approve the use permit with conditions.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS,
USE PERMIT 99-28 (AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES) TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT 215 ORANGE STREET
3.3. HEARING ON REZONE NO 99-6 (WELLS FARGO BANK) - PROPOSED- REZONE OF A 0.71 ACRE
PAD SITE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST AND MARIPOSA AVENUES FROM PD/CN
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
By memorandum dated 10/27/99, Associate Planner Sigona reports that this application represents a
proposed rezone of a 0.71 acre shopping center pad site, located at the northeast corner of East and
Mariposa Avenues, from PD/CN Planned Development Neighborhood Commercial to CC Community
Commercial, to provide for greater marketing flexibility and to facilitate development of the site with a
fast food use with a drive-through service lane. The Planning Commission recommended City Council
denial of the rezone. The application is being forwarded to Council without environmental review under
a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provision that the Act does not require environmental
review for projects which are recommended for disapproval.
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 8
.t- 3.4. HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB GYMNASIUM PROJECT
By memorandum dated 11/23/99, the City Manager recommends the allocation of $200,000 of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)•funds to assist the Boys and Girls Club for the
acquisition and construction of a new gymnasium. Attached to the City Manager's memorandum is a
memorandum from the Housing Officer which provides background on the use of CDBG funds for this
,project, a summary of the process, the effect on other CDBG projects and a list of additional CDBG
program requirements. In the event Council decides to a allocate CDBG funds to the Boys & Girls Club
project, the City Manager is recommending that the funding come from the Chico-Vecino Storm
Drainage project, and staff will process the appropriate budget modification. As indicated in the
Housing Officers memorandum, this public hearing is required to allow citizen review of any substantial
amendments to the CDBG Program. '
By memorandum dated 11/16/99, Senior Planner, Hayes reports that General Plan Amendment No. 99-
2 amends General Plan land use designations in order to conform the City General Plan land use with
the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), as recently amended by the Butte
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general
plans or any applicable specific plans must be consistent with a local CLUP adopted by an ALUC in
accordance with State Law: Council considered the subject amendment at its 5/4/99 meeting and
directed staff to modify the amendment to add certain development standards for Sites A and B, located
in the Overflight Protection Area, and to prepare specific findings overruling an ALUC determination of
inconsistency for Sites C and D, located in the Outer -Safety Zone. ;
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE CHICO URBAN AREA, COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-2 (INITIATED BY THE CITY OF CHICO)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO MAKING SPECIFIC FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65302.3 AND PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION
21676 REGARDING INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN AND
THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN ADOPTED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (INITIATED BY THE CITY OF CHICO)
4. REGULAR AGENDA = `
4.1. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
4.2. • INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL BY DAVID EBRIGHT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST TO RELOCATE A TRASH ENCLOSURE ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 465 E. 20T" STREET AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF E. 20T" AND
FAIR STREETS
By memorandum dated 11/9/99, Planning Division Staff reports that at its 10/6/99, meeting, the
Architectural Review Board denied a request of the owner of the Chico Sportmen's Den strip shopping
center to relocate the project's trash enclosure from its originally approved location.
The Council is being provided with several letters from residents of Ricky Court in support of relocating
the trash enclosure.
December 7, 1999 City Council' Page 9
At this meeting, the Council has the option of (a) taking no action, in which case the appeal is 1
denied, or (b) by at least 4 affirmative votes schedule the matter for a public hearing at a
subsequent meeting.
4.3. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM (A) SPECIAL EVENTS TASK FORCE CONCERNING
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT. (B) SPECIAL EVENTS TASK FORCE
CONCERNING EVENTS OCCURRING ON HALLOWEEN, 1999. AND (C) POLICE CHIEF
CONCERNING REMOVAL OF COUCHES
A. By memorandum dated 11/19/99, Lisa Michels, chair of the Special Events Task Force reports that
the Task Force is recommending that the City not implement Special Events Permits.
B. By memorandum dated 11/24/99, Lisa Michels, chair of the Special Events Task Force reports that
the Task Force held a public meeting, and then a second meeting to review the recently past
Halloween and developed recommendations concerning future events.
C. By memorandum dated 11/29/99, the Chief of Police provides a report on the "Couch Patrol"
Program that was conducted on October 13 and 14.
4.4. CONSIDERATION OF MEMORIAL TO FORMER COUNCILMEMBER BILL JOHNSTON
By memorandum dated 11/19/99, Councilmember Jarvis requests that the Council consider a memorial
to former Councilmember Johnston and his support of public art, in the form of a memorial plaque to
be placed on the outside of the Municipal Building, to coincide with the dedication of Elizabeth
Devereaux's stained glass artwork on 12/16/99. She requests Council endorsement of the memorial,
authorization to place the plaque at City Hall, and payment of associated costs.
4.5. CONSIDERATION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON ITS MEETING HELD ON 11/9/99
By memorandum dated 11/12/99, the Internal Affairs Committee provides a report on its meeting held
on 11 /9/99, at which time the matters listed below were considered. Committee members present were
Councilmembers Bertagna, Kirk, and Jarvis, Chair.
Consent Agenda
(No Council action required)
APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STOP SIGNS AND NO PARKING ZONES WITHIN
ASPEN GLEN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2. The Committee adopted (3-0)
the Resolution of the Internal Affairs Committee of the City Council of the City of Chico Adopting
Traffic Regulation Amendment No. 664 (establishment of stop signs and no parking zones within
Aspen Glen Planned Development Unit Nos. 1 and 2).
Regular Agenda
2. (No Council action required)
APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION OF PARKING SPACE DESIGNATIONS ON HUMBOLDT
AVENUE BETWEEN MAIN AND FLUME STREETS. The Committee (3-0): (1) adopted the
Resolution of the Internal Affairs Committee of the City Council of the City of Chico Adopting Traffic
Regulation Amendment No. 667 (revising time-limited parking regulations on Humboldt Avenue
between Main and Flume Streets); (2) directed staff to contact the owner of the radiator shop in the
area regarding these revisions; and (3) referred Councilmember Jarvis' request for the
establishment of 3 -minute drop-off and pick-up parking spaces adjacent to the skateboard park on
Humboldt Avenue to the Parking Place Commission for consideration.
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 10
4.5. INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT (Cont'd)
3. (No Council action required)
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE. The Committee
(3-0) continued consideration of revisions to the noise ordinance to its January meeting in order
to gather more information, and requested the Police Chief to provide an analysis of (a) a 72 -hour
vs. a 12 hour period for a noise violation warning to be in effect; (b) technical corroboration of noise
complaints (noise meters) by police officers vs. corroboration with the complainants or criteria listed
in the ordinance; and (c) an evaluation of the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP)
and recommendations on how the program could be improved.
4. (No Council action required)
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF STOP SIGNS ON EATON ROAD AT LEXINGTON DRIVE.
The Committee (3-0), continued this matter to its December meeting due to the requests from
residents that they did not receive sufficient notice to be able to attend today's meeting, and
directed staff to immediately notify them that this would be considered at the Committee's
December 1401 meeting, commencing at 8:00 a.m.
5. (No Council action required)..
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF THE STOP SIGNS ON MISSION RANCH BOULEVARD
AT MONTECITO AVENUE. The Committee (3-0) tabled consideration of removal of the stop signs
on Mission Ranch Boulevard at Montecito Avenue for six months, or until it was determined
whether Montecito Avenue was going to be closed north of Mission Ranch Boulevard.
6. (No Council action required)
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO REDUCE SPEEDING ON BAR
TRIANGLE STREET AND MANSFIELD COURT. The Committee (3-0) continued this matter to
its January meeting and directed staff to (1) investigate the options discussed today in order to
reduce speeding on Bar Triangle Street and Mansfield Court, including design elements such as
bulbing and intersection islands, as well as conversion to one-way streets, and to conduct a
neighborhood meeting regarding these options prior to bringing it back to the Committee; and (2)
schedule as a separate agenda item a general discussion of alternate street widths and designs.
Councilmember Jarvis left the Committee meeting.
7. (Council action required)
CONSIDERATION OF USE OF FUNDS DEPOSITED UPON ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT AND IN LIEU OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The Committee
recommended (2-0, Jarvis absent) that staff: (1) develop a tracking system to ensure that the
improvements for which in -lieu funds were collected were made; and (2) develop recommendations
for use of in -lieu funds for roadway improvements along high -pedestrian and bicycle travel routes,
for submission to the City Council for consideration at a budget session. `
4.6. FUTURE MEETINGS
The Council is requested to schedule a closed session to continue discussion of the toxic cases
considered at its 11/30/99 closed session meeting
4.7. ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF THE AGENDA
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 11
5. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
Members of the public may address the Council at this time on any matter not already listed on the
agenda, with comments being limited to three minutes. The Council cannot take any action at this
meeting on requests made under this section of the agenda.
6. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following reports and communication items are provided for the Council's information. No action
can be taken on any of the items unless the Council agrees to include them on a subsequent posted
agenda.
6.1. Memorandum dated 11/16/99 from the Assistant City Manager providing a report on contracts that have
been awarded for the purchase of materials, supplies, and/or services required by the City, within the
appropriations approved therefor in the current Annual Budget.
COPIES AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY CLERK:
6.2. California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Application for Alcoholic Beverage License dated
11/4/99 for Peeking Chinese Restaurant, 243 West Second Street.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to 12/21/99, at 7:00 p.m. for a closed session in Conference Room #2 if needed, followed by
an adjourned regular meeting in the Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m.
December 7, 1999 City Council Page 12
CITY OF CHICO MEMORANDUM
CITYWCHICO
INC. 1872
TO: City Council (Mtg 12/7/99) DATE: November 16, 1999
FROM: Senior Planner Hayes (x4853) FILE: GPA 99-2
RE: GPA -99-2 (City of Chico) To bring certain properties into conformance with
the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and to consider
overruling findings of an Airport Land Use Committee determination of
inconsistency
I. RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARY
In order to conform the City General Plan to the Chico Municipal Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), as amended by the Butte County Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC), the Planning Commission forwards a
recommendation to City Council to adopt a negative declaration and approve
General Plan Amendment 99-2, redesignating Sites A and B from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. This recommendation was considered
-by the Council at its May 4, 1999 meeting. Staff was directed to modify the
amendment to include development standards for those properties within the
Overflight Protection Zone (Sites A and B) and consideration of overruling findings
for those properties within the Outer Safety Zone (Sites C and D). Staff
recommends Council adoption of the attached resolutions which incorporate the
above noted amendments for Sites A and B and set out overruling findings for Sites
C and D.
II. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On May 4, 1999 the Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission and Airport Land Use Commission recommendations noted below.
Several persons residing near Site A spoke in opposition to the proposed
amendment due to concern about,increased traffic on Mariposa Avenue and
proximity of existing single-family residences to multiple -family residences. In light
of these concerns, the Council directed staff to bring back the proposed
amendments with the following added development standards:
♦ Development of Site A shall be limited to a maximum of 24 multiple -family
dwelling units located on the northeastern most 3 -acres retaining open
space buffers along Morseman Avenue and adjacent to the rear lot line of
existing residences fronting Netters Circle:
♦ Access for all future multiple -family development on Site A to Eaton Road
shall be restricted.
GPA 99-2
City Council Mtg. 12/7/99
Page 2
Site B also retains an existing condition limiting future development to a maximum
of 80 multiple -family dwelling units. clustered on no more than 50 percent of the
approximate 20 acre site.
In addition, standards for both Sites A and B will include the requirement to execute
avigation easements and provisions for disclosure of future tenants of aircraft
overflight.
It is proposed to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include the
above development standards within_ Section 3.11,, Special Development Areas.
After considering the proposed General Plan and zoning amendments for Sites C
and D, located. just within the terminal boundary of the Outer Safety Zone, the
Council concurred that the benefits of permitting residential use of the approximate
7 acres designated for single-family residential use outweighed any negative
impacts such development might have on airport operations. In directing the staff,
to prepare overruling findings to ALUC's determination of inconsistency, the Council
cited the presence of existing surrounding residential development and the fact that
the subject parcels remained as the .only undeveloped acreage within the Outer
Safety Zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A negative declaration is proposed for the project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).. No potentially significant .impacts were
identified in the initial study as ,a result of the GPA. The initial study, which has
been.revised to reflect the Council* modifications of May 4, is attached for reference.
W. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed amendments are consistent with the following General Plan policies:
LU -G-31 Protect the City's investment in the Municipal Airport and promote airport -
related development in the Airport Industrial Park and Airport Environs.
LU -G-32 Safeguard the Chico Municipal Airport. and its environs from intrusion by
uses that could limit expansion of air services to meet future aviation
needs.
LU -G-33 Prevent development in the Airport environs that will pose hazards to
aviation or interfere with or endanger the landing, taking off, or
maneuvering of aircraft.
LU -1-47 Ensure that the Airport Environs Plan and the General Plan are
consistent and adopt and implement an AirportNoise Compatibility
Program pursuant to Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
% GPA 99-2
City Council Mtg. 12/7/99
Page 3
LU -1-48 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and land use regulations designed
to promote compatible development of the Airport and its environs. Such
regulations prevent development that would pose an airport hazard by
establishing height limits and use restrictions and zoning districts that are
specifically intended to promote compatible airport -related development.
V. ANALYSIS
Both the General Plan and State law affirm the directive to strive for consistency
between the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the City General Plan. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the ALUC amendments to the CLUP.
Sites A and B would be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential. Medium Density Residential development would be consistent
with the location of the sites in proximity to neighborhood mixed use cores.
Because both sites would only be developed in conjunction with approval of
planned developments, conditions will be stipulated requiring multiple -family
residential development, execution of avigation easements, and requirements for
disclosure of aircraft overflight. Although it is anticipated that both sites will develop
in the City in order to extend sanitary sewers, both are now in the unincorported
area. As noted earlier, the North Chico Specific Plan adopted by Butte County
shows Site B designated for Medium Density Residential. Therefore, the proposed
amendment for Site B would be consistent with the specific plan as well as the
CLUP.
The ALUC preference for multiple -family residential housing over single-family
ownership housing is based on the more temporary nature of rental housing.
Renters who are uncomfortable with the noise or frequency of overflight can more
readily choose to reside elsewhere than, can homeowners. In addition, noise
attenuation and impacts can be more readily reduced in multiple -family residential
construction.
Sites C and D are developed with single-family residences and are within an area
exclusively developed with such housing. Sites C and'D (A.P.Nos. 048-600-055
and 056 and 048-670-048 and 054) comprise approximately 7 acres of land and are
the only remaining residential parcels within the Outer Safety Zone which have
additional development potential. Although only one parcel remains in the County,
all were originally developed in the County. The large parcel sizes characteristic of
the early development in this area accommodated septic systems and a semi -rural
lifestyle. In order to be consistent with the CLUP as amended by ALUC, Sites,C
and D would have to be designated and zoned to limit further development to one
dwelling unit per minimum 2 -acre parcel size. Such a change would essentially
eliminate further development. After considering all information, the Council
concurred that the impact resulting from the loss of residential infill property
outweighed any possible benefits to airport operations and directed staff to prepare
the required overruling findings.
GPA 99-2
City Council Mtg. 12/7/99
Page 4 - !
It is worth noting, that the ALUC made findings at its April 21, 1999 meeting
indicating that according to accident scatter maps based upon data generated by
Hodges and Shutt (1993) and adopted as part of the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) that Sites A through D do not have
an elevated likelihood of being impacted by aircraft accidents. This finding and
others supporting the proposed overruling findings for Sites C and D are contained
in the attached respective resolution.
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve
General Plan Amendment 99-2, finding that the proposed change is consistent with
the policies, standards, and land uses specified in the General Plan:,
Findings:
1. The recommended general plan amendments are consistent with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport as
amended October 22, 1998.
The proposed general plan designations and zone changes will encourage
development of certain properties with uses.that are consistent with the uses
recommended for specific safety areas in the CLUP.
2. The recommended general plan amendments are consistent with City of Chico .
General Plan policies, standards, and land uses specified in the General Plan
and any applicable specific plan.
The recommended general plan amendments will assist in protecting the future
operation of airport, promote compatible uses with the airport operations,.
prevent development which is hazardous to aviation, and assist to implement
the.Airport Noise Compatibility Program.
.3. " The overruling findings prepared for Sites C and D and specified in the .
accompanying resolution, provide substantial evidence. that the existing land
use designations for Sites C and D are consistent with the purposes of the
ALUC statutes, Public Utilities Code Section 21670(a).
4. The proposed Negative 'Declaration, the recommendation of the Planning
Director thereon, the initial study, comments received and other information
contained in the administrative record compiled to the date of the City Council
meeting, have been evaluated in considering this.project.
Proposed Motion
I move that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting a negative declaration
and approving General Plan Amendment 99=2 for Sites A and B and the resolution
-GPA 99-2
City Council Mtg. 12/7/99
Page 5
adopting overruling findings of the ALUC determination of inconsistency .for: Sites
C and D, subject to the findings as listed in Section VI of this staff reportdated
November 16, 1999.
o
Respectively submitted,
Tom Ha
Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS,
Overall Location Map
Site Location Maps °
Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment 99-2
Resolution Adopting Override Findings of ALUC Determination of Inconsistency
Initial Study
Staff Report dated April 21, 1999 -
City'Council Minutes from May 4, 1999
'Memorandum from Butte County Airport Land Use Committee dated°April 28, 1999
Memorandum from Risk Manager to Asst. City Attorney dated -September 30, 1997
cc: Butte County ALUC
Sergiovarid Maria Orestano, P.O. Box 6997, Chico, CA 95927
Stephens Charitable, c/o Douglas Gunn, 250 West Crest St., Escondido, CA 92025''
Kirkman Family Trust, 2674 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 95926
Gary and -Jerry Houser, 2670 Ceres Avenue; Chico, CA 95926
Lois C. Lee, P.O. Box 1604, Chico,, CA. 95927
•Layne Chapman, P.O. Box.71, Chico, CA. 95927 i
Rocky Campbell/Douglas Richardson, 794 Marcia Ct,. Chico, CA 95973
Bob Hope, 780 Marcia Ct., Chico, CA 95973
James R. Curtis, 3143 Morseman Ave., Chico, CA 95973'.
/10 �Affil
�g! %'V
kg
t8nma
AM%
M
Site A - -
APN 007-190-022 (Portion
GP: From Low Density Residential t
edium Density Residential
�' MIMUM
�i
Plat
t toAdcompany General Plan Amepdmiept. 99-2.'(Sitei A)
Site A (APN. 007 -1.90-022 (portion))
Development of Site A shall ;be limited to a maximum of 24 multiple family dwelling units located
on the northeastern most 3 acres, retaining open space buffers along Morseman Avinue 0
and adjacent to the rear lot lines of existing residences fro . nting Netters Circle and restricting 300 0 300 Feet
-access to all Site A future development to Eaton Road. All future development shall be subject
to existing avigation easement and disclosures to tenants of aircraft overflights.
C.M.A.
�„�a fir.
Site B +
APN 047-250-141 (portion)
t4 GP: From tow Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential
mom
i
Plat to Accompany General Plan Amendment 99-2 •(Site. B)
.Site B (APN 047-250-022 (portion)) --
Development of Site B shall be limited to a maximum of 80 multiple family dwelling units -
clustered on more than 50% of the approximately 20 acre site. All future development shall ' 500 0 500 1000 Feet
be subject to existing avigation easement and disclosures to tenants of aircraft overflights. -
1 RESOLUTION.NO. ,
2 ` ;. RESOLUTION 'OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY, OF CHICO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR PROPERTY
3 LOCATED IN THE 'CITY OF•.-CHICO AND. THE UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY, COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF'CALIFORNIA•
4 'f GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT 99-2
(INITIATED BY THE CITY OF CHICO)
5
6 WHEREAS, the:. Butte County Airport:Land Use Commission (ALUC)
7 adopted'amendments-to the •1978 - Chico. Municipal, Airport Environs Plan
8 (CMAEP),on October,2-1, 1998; and,.
9 WHEREAS, said, amendments ,incorporate, certain recommendations
10 contained 'in the FAR Part 150., Airport Noise Compatibility Program and
11 Environs ' Plan prepared by . P , and- D Aviation •for.,• the City of • Chico; and
12 ti WHEREAS, the CMAEP amendments place, certain limitations - on'
13 development�of-.property" to --:preserve compatibility between airport
-14 operations and surrounding land uses; and
4
15 'WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21676 of-the,Public Utilities Code,l
16 the City is required to.designate land uses.in its'General Plan that
17 are consistent with the CMAEP; and
18 WHEREAS, the -City of Chico,,in. order:•to ensure that its General
19 Plan and the amended.CMAEP-contain consistent land use policies, has
20 initiated proceedings.to redesignate -certain lands described herein
21 and as depicted�,on ;the 'attached plat 'entitled "Plat to Accompany
22' 'General -Plan Amendment No. 99-2 (City of .Chico),;" and
23 WHEREAS, the Planning -,Commission,, after having considered.
'24 proposed General .Plan Amendment No. 99-2 at,ra public hearing duly
4
25 -noticed and held in the manner required by law, has submitted to this
26 Council,its report -,and recommendation; and
27 -:WHEREAS, the City Council has considered fully the effect of the
28 proposed amendment upon adjacent properties .and has considered' the
S:\JS\HAYES\GPA99-2 Res-CC.wpd Page 1 of 4
9
10
" 11
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
'19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relationship of the proposed amendment to the Chico General Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Council, has also 'Considered the Initial Study and
all comments made in connection therewith.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Chico that:
'.1. The Council finds 'that . there- is no, substantial-- evidence
that the amendment will have any significant effects on the
environment and hereby: approves the.. negative declaration
prepared.for General Plan Amendment No.. 99-2; and
2. The Council hereby finds General.Plan,Amendment No. 99-2
was referred to the ALUC, pursuant to'Public.Utilities Code
21676(b); and
3. The ALUC'has determined that General Plan -Amendment No. 99-
2 is consistent with the CMAEP as amended -October 21, 1998;
4. The Chico General Plan is hereby amended as follows:
A. The land use designation, for a portion of Assessor
Parcel No. 007-190=-022,-' located on the east side of
Morsema'n Avenue, about 700 feet south of Eaton Road,
totaling approximate ly.•.6 acres, as depicted on the
attached plat entitled, "Plat to - Accompany General
Plan Amendment 99-2 (City of Chico)," is .amended from
Low Density residential to Medium Density'Residential;
and
B. The land use designation for a portion of .Assessor
Parcel No. 047-250-141, located along Mud Creek, about
1200.feet west of -Hicks Lane, totaling approximately
20 acres,- as depicted on the attached- "Plat to
Accompany General Plan `Amendment". No. -99-2 (City of
�j S:\JS\HAYES\GPA99-2 Res-CC.wpd
Page 2 of 4
C.
Chico)," is amended from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential; and
Section <3:Al.(Special Development Areas) of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan is amended as follows:
(1:) The.special development area referenced as
"CSA •87" on page -3-57 is redesignated.as the
"North, Chico Specific Plan (Village) and
Overflight Protection Zone."
(2) Policy Number LU -I-79 is added to read as
follows: "Development of the ".mixed-use
neighborhood center located at the:southeast
corner -of. Eaton .Road and Morseman Avenue
shall be restricted to, the.six acres located
at the southwest corner ofthe site to a
maximum of 24• multiple -family; residences,
clustered on the northeast portion of the
site retaining an open space buffer.adjacent
to -Morseman Avenue and the residences
fronting on Netters Circle. Further, access
to the multiple -family development shall be
limited "to Eaton Road:. ,Also, the
approximate 20 -acre medium= density
residential site, located north of the
future roadway linking Hicks Lane.and SHR 99
shall be restricted to a maximum of 80
multiple -family dwelling units clustered on
no more than 50'percent, or 10 acres of the
total site area.
S:\JS\RAYES\GPA99-2 Res-CC.wpd
Page 3 of 4
1
2
3
4
. � 5
6
7
8
9
{ 10
11
12
13
14
15
16!
17
..18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
�2 6
27
28
4n addition•, both sites shall require the
°execution of avigation easements and
ti disclosure of -aircraft overflight 'to future j
tenants."
(5)" The amendments to the General Plan enacted
A
by 'this resolution"are made in the public
interest.
(6) The Planning Director is authorized and
directed to revise the text and diagrams of
" the' -,General Plan as necessary to include the
amendments enacted by this resolution.
' The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the
City of Chico -at its meeting held on the day of 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
r
ABSENT:'
ABSTAINz'
ATTEST: APPR ED AS TO FORM:
'Barbara A. Evans
City Clerk
S:\JS\HAYES\GPA99-2 Res-CC.wpd
f
David R. Frank
City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
' °'z�.';LY';y �.•{i �l• �, �:, ,}tc'B' "•��':: 'q ItY i�s� test' 1 .. `�.`�,ri�.�>.'tti�a `n� � \:. �`Wµi'{'�rt'9 �1�'\k�\�'�n11�: =,� ty� :;t�`' ,1`:�!1yyy.����� �ti1.:�'t�vk��'^\8F'��1.1,�,�,.}. rFt���\� r
•>,tii .
c i' iso 0�; Is"��y�. �1,: S•ri ' � ��� C;`\�\�a l � �i :� • 1 Y§.; \� i�it, . h \` ,1�`�h a��`'`t'����ti1 `��r1�`� t � � r L
` a!`.vh,�f. t, it1 •l .A� ?t YQ �2yS, l l t 1 1 '\\� +�Ju�`;.�t' `'�� �� �`� } 1� `n �� '•i \ \ l\ 1 -` � -
r _ r1.�` i, \���, �` " �\ `�fi1,�1 �; ,�w'�� r� ` �,,, �'�\; ``\s, �., Vit•'' 1�� ; a y�# `�`�.? q��� � �.�., - . .
`�'< \ t'�f•:i t����' 1 l ���'r 1, b \ �� t�i�yu�� � 1 +��". C'"a.�
.,� � l � , r: : � 3 \��i �'� v�i.ti .. \\ lett!!, .�1, �a � `�,: � � � 1 �t � `1\�\�.M tz.'a ��.,. .lti:�`" ti l h��r9`::;.t l".;,:\•;
R
\
1
I
k
16
t • �� .\.`f=� �r �i '�}�� ��le� ��: ��a`. yt F�\W4 l"S`ttJ,� t T•
:iRc .1 .. 'r ✓ � .{r ��� h`. ryps'`�l � 11`' ', �t V �`��' \.; r1 \� <,� sv .�r,
? ? F til. n,r:. etj. ftp �, U `\ :��•" t�`��,5;;• t:y��t, 't
1 �i �•k 1 \ Z :4 ��k' . �l � ;1',� ��t' <y : �vt\,. �ti+l} '�'�%et \ �L?1,t Y �h�," •,a:..
���4 "t`, \ Y''•t;q,� q�\.,
l
l � 1` tt \�. •\ 1 t \'' 4.4\���\� 5��44,7i V v �,�c ,w �� �. A.. i �:lt, \ N \ .'�J � �!7.
•F hit.l c`'.
• Site A,
_ APN 007-190-022 (portion ti� .
•j GP: From Low Density Residential
f odium Density Residential
tin �•.
' f r
Plat to Accompany General Plan Amendment 9P�2 (Site A)
'Site A (APN 007190-022•(portion)) • '
Development :of. Site A shall'be-limited to a maximum of 24 multiple family dwelling.units located
on the northeastern most 3 acres, retaining.open space buffers along Morseman'Avenue , . Y =.
` t and adjacent to the rear, lot lines of existing'residences fronting Netters.Circle and restrictirig...,a�-300• 0 ' •- - 300 Feet,,.
.access to all Site }future development to Eaton Road. All _future development shall be subject - ;
to existing avigation easement and disclosures to tenants of aircraft overflights. : • �- ' '�_
EXHIBIT A
1 of 2.
i
NONE
Ll IiiHOME
11111 II1111111 ���1���� ,
i.
Plat to Accompany General Plan Amendment 99-2 (Site B)
Site B (APN: 047-200-022 (portion))
0
Development of Site B shall be limited to a maximum of 80 multiple family dwelling units
clustered on more than 500% of the approximately 20 acre site. All future development shall 500 0 500 1000 Feet
be subject to existing avigation easement and disclosures to tenants of aircraft overflights.
1
2-
3
4
5
6
'7.
8
a
101
11
12
13:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24:
25
26
27
28
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF .THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO. MAKING
SPECIFIC FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65302:3 AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21676 REGARDING INCONSISTENCIES
BETWEEN THECITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN AND THE CHICO'MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN ADOPTED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION
(INITIATED BY THE CITY OF CHICO)
WHEREAS, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (`.`ALUC") adopted the
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan ("CMAEP"),dated August 1978 in 1978; and
WHEREAS, ALUC subsequently adopted certain amendments to the CMAEP on
October 21, 1998; (the "Amendments") which were then forwarded to the City; and
1.
WHEREAS, if such Amendments have the effect of creating an inconsistency between
the CMAEP.and the City's General Plan, the City is required, pursuant to Government Code
section 65302.3, to amend its General Plan or, alternatively., to adopt overruling findings
.pursuant to section 21676. of the. Public Utilities Code that the City's action is consistent with the
purposes of Article 3.5 of ChapterA Part 1, Division 9 of the.Public Utilities Code, entitled
"Airport Land.Use Commission"; and }
WHEREAS, the City Council, having reviewed the Amendments and their effect on the
General Plan has determined that the, General Plan is inconsistent with the Amendments in regard
to four parcels identified as,assessor parcel numbers 048-670-048, 048-670-05.4, 048-600-055,
and 048-6007056, and depicted as Sites ,C and D on.the,plat attached as Exhibit "A" hereto; and
WHEREAS, the nature of the inconsistency is that, the City's current General Plan and
zoning designations for those properties is low density,residential and R-1, which allows
residential_. development of those parcels at a density range of 2.01 to 7 units per, acre whereas
the Amendments to the CMAEP call for residential development of those sites to be limited to a,,
maximum density of one unit per two acres (Letter.dated October 22, 1998, from Laura Webster,.
ALUC staff, to City Manager Tom Lando.); and . , ,
WHEREAS, the Council, based. on all of the facts and findings set forth below, has
determined that development of Sites C and D as permitted by their .current General Plan land
1
I
PA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
use and zoning designations is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4, Part 1,
Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code, entitled "Airport Land Use Commission":
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL'OF THE CITY
OF CHICO AS FOLLOWS:
A. Findings of Fact - The City Council hereby finds that:
1. The Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, which was adopted in 1978, based its
conclusions for noise contours and safety concerns on total airport operations for its base
year, 1977, of 91,327 and on projected airport usage in 1998 of between 269,600 and
371,000 total airport operations a year. `(CMAEP at -pages 2=1 and -3-12.) Those'forecasts
also assumed an increasing level of air carrier turbo jet operations. (CMAEP at pages 2-1
and 3-12.)
2. A much' more recent FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation) Part 156 Airport Noise and
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan of the Chico Municipal -Airport ("FAR Part
150 Study") which was completed in 1995; and records maintained by the City in regard
to airport activity, reveAthat'the projections contained in the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan have not materialized. In fact, the total airport operations in' 1990 were
only 76,938 and in 1996 were only 65,616. (FAR Part 150 Study at pages I-8 through I-
9; Memorandum from City of Chico Risk Manager to Assistant City Attorney dated
September 30, 1997) In addition, the increase'in turbo jet operations has not .
materialized and, pursuant to the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise and- Compatibility Program
and Environs Plan, is not anticipated to materialize at any time within the 2010 planning
horizon of that document. (FAR Part' 150 Study at pages 14 through I-9.) Although the
information regarding airport operations contained in the FAR, Part 150 Study is much
more current than that in the CMAEP and demonstrates that the projections for airport
operations contained in the CMAEP have turned 'out to be vastly inaccurate, ALUC has
not adopted the FAR Part 150 Study or updated the CMAEP to incorporate the updated
information regarding airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport.
3. The California Airport Noise Standards, located at Section 5000 et seq., of Title 21 of the
`2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
>20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California,Codeof Regulations, provide -that an acceptable level of aircraft noise for
persons living in the vicinity of airports is a level of 65 dB CNEL and sets that CNEL
level as the one within which residential uses shall be deemed incompatible., (2 11 CCR
section 5012.) -
4. Site C is. located outside the 55 CNEL and Site D is located on the border of the 55 CNEL
noise contour line as depicted on the noise contours set forth in.the CMAEP.
(CMAEP at CIC -3; Memorandum from the Butte. County Airport Land. Use Commission
to City. of Chico Planning Department dated April 28, 1999.)
5. The -Amendments included.the designation of an area referred to as the "Outer. Safety
Zone." (CMAEP at CIC114,) Prior to the amendments, no Outer Safety Zone was
designated within the CMAEP. Both sites C and D are located at least partially within
the OuterSafety Zone. -The Amendments state that land use compatiblity and;density
recommendations presented at pages 9-22 and 9-23 of,the 1993. Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook will apply within the Outer Safety Zone..,(Letter from Laure
Webster, ALUC staff to City Manager Tom Lando, .dated October 22,' 1998.) ,
6. The total area of the four parcels located within *sites C and D is approximately 75 acres
and they are currently developed with a total of five single-family homes. These parcels.
have been, designated for low-density residential`use by .the.. Chico General Plan since at
least 1976. (City. of Chico .1976 General PlanLand-Use Map.);.
7: Site C is partially located under, one of the flight tracks depicted: on Drawing CIC -2 of the
CMAEP which extends straight out.from runway 13L/31R. The CMAEP does not.
contain any land use recommendations based on location to this flight track. The
CMAEP notes that it is important to recognize _that aircraft. do not follow a precise path
.through space which corresponds with those flight tracks' Furthermore, the CMAEP
documents that the heavy aircraft departure, and-VFR arrival routes follow a different
flight path which is. north of both Sites C and D. (CMAEP at p. 4-12. and CIC -2:) The
CMAEP, at -Drawing CIC716, as adopted:by the Amendments, depicts. the, departure path
for CDF air tanker traffic, which flight path is also located at a distance from both Sites'C
3
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26'
27
28
'and D. - Additionally, the CMAEP defines a flight corridor which also is not located
directly overvither of sites C or D. (CMAEP at CIC -6 and CIC -13.)
8. The properties surrounding Site C are also designated for lowdensity residential use and
are already developed with and devoted to single-family residential development 4,500
feet to the north, 1,300 feet to the east, 3900 feet to Lindo Channel and beyond in the
south and 3,000 feet to Cohasset road and'beyond in the west.
9. The properties surrounding Site Dare also designated for low density residential'use and
are already developed with and devoted to single-family residential development 4,100
-feet to the north, 1,000 feet to the east, 4,000 feet to Lindo Channel and beyond in the
south, and 3;300 feet to Cohasset Road and beyond to the west.
10:' Based on the extent of existing single-family residential development at R-1 density
surrounding Sites C -and D; and the long standing designation of Sites C and D for
development of the same type and density, Sites C and Dare already dedicated for low
density residential uses: i
11. The Amendents included the adoption -of Drawings CIC47 and CIC -18. CIC -17 depicts
an overlay of accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by the
University of Berkeley, Institute'of Transportation Studies (1993) on the Chico Municipal
Airport and surrounding areas. CIC -18 depicts an overlay of accident scatter
characteristics generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) onto a map of the Chico Municipal
Airport. Subsequent to the adoption -of those Amendments, and prior to consideration of
-this issue by the City Council, City staff submitted a proposal to ALUC which
contemplated the rezoning of Sites C and D to call for two acre minimum lot sizes. At
the time ALUC considered that: proposal, it adopted findings specifically stating that,
based on CMAEP Drawings CIC -17 and CIC=18, Sites C and'D do not have an elevated
likelihood of being impacted by aircraft accidents: (CMAEP at CIC -17 and CIC -18;
Memorandum from the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission to City of Chico -
Planning Department dated April 28, 1999.)
4
r
I B. Overrulin2 findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676 '
2 Pursuant to Government Code section 653 02.3, when ALUC amends the CMAEP in a
3- manner that creates an inconsistency between the -City's General. Plan and the CMAEP the City
4' is required to either amend the General Plan or, alternatively, to adopt findings pursuant to Public
5 Utilities -Code. section 216.76 that the City'sproposed action in overruling the amendment is
6 consistent with-ahe,purposes stated in Public Utilities section 21670. The purposes set forth in
7 section 21670 are the protection, of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly
8 'expansion of airports and the adoption of land use, measures that minimize the public's exposure
9 to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas surrounding public airports to. the extent that
10 these areas are not already devoted to incompatible;uses. Based on -all of the facts set forth
11 throughout this,Resolution; this City. Council hereby finds that the retention of the current
12 General Plan land use and zoning designations for Site&C acid D, and the development of those
13 Sites consistent with those designations, will minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise
14 and safety hazards and.is compatible with.the current and future use.of the Chico Municipal
15 Airport for aircraft operations:
16 Public Utilities Code section 21674:5- directs the California Department of Transportation
17 to develop and implement programs to assist in the training and development of airport land use
18 commissions, cities, counties and other public agencies. One result of that direction is the 1993
19 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, prepared=by the CalTrans Division.of Aeronautics, (the
20 "CalTrans Handbook"). The CalTrans Handbook' identifies four.functional categories for
21 determining airport land.use compatibility- Noise, safety, airspace.protection, and. overflight.
22 (CalTrans Handbook at pp. 3-1 and 3-2.) The following ffindings address each of those
23 categories.
24 1. Noise
25 The City Council hereby finds.that the, retention of the. current General Plan and
26 zoning designations of Sites C and D, andjhe development of those Sites
27 consistent with such designations, will not result in the exposure of the public to
28 excessive noise hazards based upon the following. facts:
J
lid
5
I .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. The California Airport Noise Standards set forth in:21 CCR 5012 provide
that the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the- vicinity of
airports is established to.- be a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of 65
decibels:
b. Site C is located outside the 55 CNEL noise contour as shown on both the
1977and future CNEL noise contour Drawings of the CMAEP (CMAEP at
CIC -2 and CIC -3; Memorandum from the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission to City of Chico Planning Department dated- April- 28, 1999.).
c: Single-family residential development outside the 55 CNEL noise contourr,
is designated as acceptable by. the CMAEP (CMAEP at p. 4-33) and is well
within the acceptable level of aircraft noise as established by the California
Airport Noise Standards.
d. Site D is located on -the borderof the 55 CNEL noise contour as shown on
both the 1977 and future CNEL noise- contour Drawings of the CMAEP
(CMAEP at CIC -2 and CIC -3; Memorandum from the Butte County Airport
Land Use'Commission'to City'of Chico Planning Department dated April 28,
1999.):
e. The CMAEP provides that low-density; single-family residential
development located between the 55/60 CNEL noise, contour has an
overlapping designation of "normally acceptable" to "conditionally
acceptable."=(CMAEP at p. 4-33) Conditionally acceptable is defined as
meaning. that new construction should be undertaken after an analysis of noise
reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features are included in
the design. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air
supply or air conditioning systems will is considered to normally suffice.
(CMAEP at p. 4=33):
f. Single-family residential development at the 55/60 CNEL noise contour is
well within the acceptable level of aircraft noise as established by the
6
1'.
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California Airport Noise Standards.
g., The departure routes for heavy aircraft and CDF air tankers, and the
. VFR arrival, route are all located to the north of sites C and D, thereby
minimizing heavyflight traffic directly over those sites.
2. Safety
The City Council; finds that although the subject properties' are within the area
designated as•theouter safety zone of CMA as defined by CIC -14 of the CMAEP,
adopted pursuant to ;the Amendments, retention of the existing General Plan and
zoning designations for Sites C and.D will not result in the creation of new safety
problems, based.. on the°following.
a. The Cal I rans Handbook states that the,objective of compatibility for safety is>
to minimize risks associated with potential aircraft accidents. The degree of
these risks are based on two variables: Accident frequency and accident
severity. The two.components to this objective are to provide for the safety of .
people on the ground and to enhance the chance of survival of occupants of an
aircraft. in the event of an aircraft accident. (CalTrans Handbook at pp. 3-5
and 9-18.)
b. Sites C and,D are both located at least partially within the Outer Safety Zone,
as depicted in Drawing.CIC-14 and adopted by the Amendments. (CMAEP at
CIC -14.)
c. ( While the CalTrans Handbook contains Land Use compatibility and density
recommendations for the Outer Safety Zone which include .recommendations
that typical subdivision -density residential development should be avoided in ,
..- the Outer Safety Zone, it recognizes that the recommendations are not always.,
attainable and are guidelines. (CalTrans Handbook at pp. 9-21 through 9-23.)
d. There is a significant amount of vacant land easterly of the subject properties,.
including approximately 292 acres of permanent open space which was
requiredaas a condition of a 404 Permit issued by the Army Corp of Engineers
7
s
1 in connection with the Foothill Park East subdivision.
2 e. The CMAEP concludes that there is an extremely lo, v probability of an
3 aircraft accident occurring at any locatioifin the community surrounding the
4 Chico Municipal Airport and that existing safety restrictions imposed by the
5 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for extended approach areas,
6 obstruction criteria andnoise zone criteria will adequately protect the safety of
7 the general public without the need, fo • additional safety restrictions.
8 (CMAEP at -pp.- 2-2, 5-9 through 5-13 and 8-4.)
9 ' ' f.' ` As specifically stated in the findings adopted'by ALUC, the accident scatter
10 characteristics contained in the CMAEP°eve'al that Sites C and D do not have
dri elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents. (CMAEP at CIC -17 and
12 CIC -18; and Memoranduni from the Butte County Airport Land Use
13 Commission to City of Chico Planning Department dated April 28, 1999.)
14 g. Because of the'extremely low probability for an aircraft accident to occur at
15 `t airy location in the area surrounding the airport; and because Sites C and D are
16 riot considered to have an elevated potential for aircraft related accidents, the
17 restriction of residential development in those areas is not necessary to further
18 the purposes of the outer safety zone, which are -to protect against accident
19' `related injury; and the development of the subjectproper ies at densities
20: consistent with the existing land use designations will not create any safety
21 ;. hazards.
22 ; =3: r ° 4' Airspace Protection'. The City`Council finds that the maintenance of the existing
23 .-land use and zoning designations for the subject'properties-will neither encroach
24 into the airspace in the airport vicinity nor pose any other potential hazards to
25 flight in that air space based,on the following.
26 a.• The'CalTrans Handbook provides that airspace protection is achieved by
27 limits on the height of structures and other objects in the airport vicinity and `
28 restrictions on other uses which potentially pose hazards to flight. It further
,8
5
5
6
7
8.
9
10
11
12
11
14.
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
states that particular hazards of concern: are airspace obstructions and,land use
characteristics which.pose other hazards to flight,by attracting birds or
creating visual'or electronic interference with air navigation. (CalTrans
Handbook pp. 3-1 and 3-7.)
b. Sites C and D are located within the transition area between the 50:1 and 40:1
Approach Surfaces for runway 13L/3IR. (CMAEP CIC -5; Memorandum
_from the .Butte.County:Airport Land Use Commission to City of Chico
Planning De
artment dat-ed.A ri-
1.28- 1999:) The Approach roach
Surface e at this
location is. approximately 200 feet above the runway threshold elevation of
205: feet MSL; or 405 MSL: : (CMAEP at p. 5-3.): .
c. The maximum height at.which structures .within the subject properties can be
developed is 35 feet. Mature landscaping could be expected to reach a
maximum height of approximately 60 feet. Based on the.existing height
limitations'for development, the expected height of landscaping, and the
• distance from.the subject properties to the Airport; there would be no
obstruction to:aircraft resulting from development of Sites C and D pursuant
to their current land use designations. Residential uses consistent with the
_;. current land use designations. will not generate.any.other,visual or electronic
type of interference -with -.aircraft operations.:
'd.: As stated in the:CMAEP; the Federal Aviation Administration sets forth
restrictions for extended approach areas, obstruction criteria and noise zone
criteria,and thoserestrictionsmill.adequately. protect the. safety of flight
operations without the need for,additional safety, restrictions. (CMAEP at
pages 2-2, 5-9 through 5.-13and 8-4.)
4. Overflight Protection ,
The City Council finds that the maintenance of the existing General Plan land
use and zoning designations .of Sites -C. and D, and development. of those sites consistent
with those designations,,will not present an. overflight hazard or an overflight nuisance for
9
1-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13"
14
15
16i
17
18
19'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the subject properties or the Chico Municipal Airport based on the following.
a: The CalTrans Handbook defines -"overflight" as "the loosely defined impacts
of routine aircraft flight over.a community." The compatability objective in
this area is to help people with above-average sensitivity,to aircraft overflights I'I
to avoid living in locations where frequent overflights occur. (CalTrans
Handbook at.pp. 3-1, 3-8 and 3-9.) Strategies for achieving this objective
include avigation easements, recorded deed notices and real estate disclosure
statements. (CalTrans Handbook at p. 3-9). _ -
b. Sites C and D are not within the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) defined by
ALUC for the Chico Municipal- Airport, as depicted on Drawing CIC -14 of
the CMAEP. Furthermore, both sites .are located outside of the Departure
z ,
Clear Area shown in the CMAEP. at. CIC -16 and` the Flight Corridor shown at
CIC -4 and CIC -6.
c. While'part of Site C is located underneath one of the Flight Tracks depicted in
the CMAEP at CIC -2, no CalTrans or CMAERpolicylirrmits development
based solely on a property's location in relation to a Flight Track. Site D is
not located beneath the Flight tracks.
d. The departure route for heavy aircraft and CDF air tankers, and the VFR
arrival route are located to the north of both Sites C and D and aircraft
following these routes do not fly directly over Sites G and D. These location
of these routes to the north- of Sites C and D: will minimize overflight and
single. -event, noise occurrences from heavy aircraft.
e. Pursuant to City of Chico Policy and Procedure 90-10 an avigation easement
will be required to be recorded upon the subdivision, issuance of a use permit
or variance or issuance of a building permit for any property within the City
' and within the 55 CNEL noise contour. Such easements will disclose to all
buyers that an airport is located nearby and that noise from the airport'will be
'
present and will provide home buyers notice of potential aircraft noise and
10
1
2
3
4
16
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
safety issues and the opportunity to. choose not to purchase property within
that location.
C. General Plan Consistency
This Council hereby finds that the maintenance of the current General Plan land use and
zoning designations for Sites C and D are, consistent with -the General Plan and that the
amendment of those land use designations to reduce residential density to one unit per two acres
would cause inconsistencies with the General Plan. This finding is based on the following:
1. Sites C and D have been; designated by, the City of.Chico General Plan for low
density residential development since at least 1976. (City of Chico 1976 General
Plan Land Use Map.) Currently Sites C and D are surrounded by low density
residential development generally at a density of three to seven units per acre, for
a:distance of atleast one thousand feet, and generally much further, in all
directions. Maintenance of the existing General Plan and zoning designations for
Site C and D and development of those Sites as permitted by those designations
would constitute infill:development of an'already urbanized area.
2. Specific General Plan policies that support development of Sites C and D for low
density residential uses include:
a.. .LU -G-2 " Promote infill development
Sites C and Dare located mithin the Chico urban boundary and are already,
developed withfive single-family homes on lots approximately one to two
and a half acres in size. Sites.0 and D are surrounded by .single family homes.
Future development of Sites C and D consistent with the existing General
Plan. and zoning designations will constitute infill development.
Redesignation of Sites C and D for,two acre minimum lot sizes would conflict
with this General -Plan policy.
b. LU -G-3 Ensure that new development is at an intensity to ensure a long
term compact urban. form.
The existing land use, designations permit future residential development
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.. Redesignation of the
properties for two acre minimum lot sizes would effectively preclude further
development of the subject sites and would conflict with this General Plan
policy. A
,c. LU -I-4 As part of the project approval process, -strive to ensure that new
residential development in the Planning Area maintain an average
overall density of 7. units/gross acre (excluding Rural. and Very .
Low Density Residential development).- .
The existing land use designations of Sites C and D permit future residential
development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and LU44.
,. "Redesignation 'of the properties for consistency with CMAEP. as amended would
effectively prohibit such development and would be inconsistent with this General
Plan policy. .
d. LU-G-32Safeguard the Chico Municipal Airport and its environs from
intrusion by uses that could limit expansion of air services to meet
future aviation needs.
As set forth in the findings contained in the earlier sections of this Resolution,
maintaining the existing land use designations -for Sites C and D is compatible
with the current and future use of the Chico Municipal Airport in regard to noise,,
safety, airspace and overflight and would not subject the public to any -noise or
safety hazards. The maintenance of the current land use designations and the
development of Sites C and D" consistent with those designations would, therefore,
not.limit the airport's ability to meet future aviation needs.
e. LU -G-33 Prevent development in the Airport Environs that will pose hazards
to aviation or interfere with or endanger the landing, take off, or
maneuvering of aircraft.
As set forth in the findings contained in the, previous sections of this Resolution, .
future residential development of Sites C and D consistent with current land use
12 :
1�
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
designations'and zoning would not pose any hazards to aviation or interfere with
or endanger the landing, take off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
I LU -I=47 Ensure that the Airport Environs Plan and the General Plan are
consistent and adopt and implement an Airport Noise
Compatibility Program pursuant to Part 150 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations.'
The General Plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the -CMAEP and
with'the land use recommendation's 'set forth therein.- o s s n. While the Amendments
incorporated the CalTrans Handbook recommendations for land use density in the
Outer Safety Area, those recommendations are' guidelines, not mandates.: As
demonstrated by the fmdings set forth in previous sections of the Resolution, the `
restrictions on residential development recommended by those guidelines are not
necessary in regard to Sites C and D because residential development on those ;
Sites at the density currently permitted does not pose any noise or safety hazards
and is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code section 21670:
g. LU -I-48 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and land use regulations
designed to promote compatible development of the Airport and its
environs: -
As shown by the fmdings contained in the Resolution, future residential
development of Sites C and D consistent with their current land use and. zoning
designations is consistent with airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport.
h. LU -1-50 Require recorded notice of aircraft overflight for any development
or subdivision within the Airport Environs in order to ensure that
future propertyowners are aware of the Airport Environs Plan,
current and anticipated. aircraft flight paths and restrictions that
may result from ALUC's or the City's plans.
City of Chico Policy and Procedure 90-10 requires a recorded avigation easement
as a condition of approval of any subdivision, use permit, variance or building
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
permit on property located within the City limits and within the 55 CNEL noise .
contour.
i. T -I-65 Ensure that compatible land use policies are followed in areas
adjacent to the airports.
As -shown by all of the findings contained in this Resolution, maintenance of the
current General Plan land use and zoning -designations of Sites C and D and future
residential development of those sites consistent with those designations will.
result in the use of those sites which are compatible with airport operations.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED at.a meeting of the City Council
of the City of Chico held on the . day of , 1999, by the
following vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ,
I ATTEST:
Barabara Evans
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David R. Frank, City Attorney
,.
By: Lo ker
Assist` t Attorney.
NUUMINEWMIA
A
Plat to Accompany General Plan Amendment 99-2 (Sites, C and D)
Site C (APNs 0.48-670-048 and 054; 2670 and 2674 Ceres Avenue) and
Site D (APNs 048-600-055 and 056; 2705 and 2747 Floral Avenue) 0
Retain GP Designation of Low Density Residential/Prezoning of
R1 Low Density Residental, adopting overruling findings of an 200 . 0 200 400 Feet
Airport Land Use Commission determination of inconsistency.
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY
City of Chico
Environmental Coordination and Review
'ROUTE TO:
[ X ] City of Chico - City Council
[ X ] City of Chico. - Planning Commission
[ X J Butte County Airport Land Use Commission c/o David' Dooty
[ X ] City of Chico Airport Commission c/o Bob Grierson
1. Project Description
A. Project Name: Land Use Changes for Consistency with
Amendments to the. Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan.(CMAEP)
B. Project Location:
Site A Approximately 6 acres located ,easterly of the intersection of'Wrseman Avenue
and Eaton Road (portion of AR -007-190-022).,.
Site B Approximately 20 acres.located southerly of Mud Creek and westerly of Hicks
Lane (portion of A.P. 047-250-141):
Site C Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area located on the east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of East Avenue (A.P.N.s 048-670-048 and
054; 2670, 2772, and 2674 Ceres Avenue):
Site D Two parcels ranging in size from 2 to 2.5 acres and both developed with a single
family residence located on the west side of Floral Avenue approximately 100
feet south of Glenshire Lane (A.P.,N.s 048-600-055 and 056; 2705 and 2747
Floral Avenue)
C. Type of Applications)/Actions:
Site A General Plan Amendment (GPA �99-2A), would change .the General Plan
designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to
comply, with development, restrictions for Area B of ,the Overflight Area.
Additionally, General Plan text amendments would 'establish development
standards for this site, as described further in the project description below.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments -
Page 2
Site B General Plan Amendment (GPA` 99=213), would change the General Plan
designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential,
consistent with the' County. adopted North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP).
Additionally, General Plan text amendments, would establish development
standards for this site, as described*further in the project description below.
Note: Changes in the project description reflect City Council action at its May 4, 1.990
meeting. The text of this initial study was modified to evaluate the new ' project
description on October 29, 1999.
D. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): See project location, above.
E. Current Zoning:
Site A City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU)
County: Suburban Residential (SR)
Site, B'City: Prezoned Planned Mixed Use (PMU)
County: Medium Density Residential (R-2)
Site C City: 2672 and 2674 Ceres are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential
2670 Ceres is prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential
County: 2670 is zoned Suburban Residential (SR)
Site D City: R-1 Single Family Residential
General -Plan Designation:.
Site Low Density Residential
Site B Low Density Residential
Site C Low Density Residential
Site D Low Density Residential `
F. Environmental Setting::
Site A Site -A contains non-native grass6vand forbes, six oak tree's with a diameter of
6" or greater, at least two oak. saplings less than 6" in diameter,- and several
other mature landscaping/or6 iafrds trees. The site is Identified. -as containing
uruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory performed by Michael
Brandman Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment. Trees
_are located generally on the western and southern periphery of the site and
would be well located to accommodate preservation with -future development.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 3
Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a
wetland signature (150' diameter) on the central portion of the site. -During visual
field review of the site in March of 1999 by city staff, wetlands were not observed
due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle which
obscured ground visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 aerial, .,and/or the:
-possibility that the wetlands had been filled. w
Site B Site B contains, non-native grassland. It contains no visible trees, and. appears
to be previously graded'or cleared. Mud Creek is located adjacent to the site to
the north and is leveed at this location:-.
Site C is currently developed with three single family residential homes.
Site D is currently developed with two single family, residential homes. .
-G. Project Description: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) adopted amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan (CMAEP). These amendments adopted portions of the City of Chico 1993 FAR
Part 150 Study, Overflight Safety.Zones A and B and the Outer Safety Zone (refer to
attached map, Exhibit A) along with -text regulating appropriate land uses in these
zones. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable
specific plans.must be consistent with a local..environs plan, adopted or amended
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675. :The specific amendments adopted by
ALUC restrict further development of single family residential housing in Zone B and
residential development on lots under two acres, in size within the Outer Safety Zone.
In consideration of the amended CMAEP, the General Plan and zoning amendments
noted below are proposed:
Site A is an approximately six (6) acre vacant site (portion ofA.P. 007-190-022) which
is designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned
Mixed Use. This site is a portion of a site planned for a Mixed Use Neighborhood
Center. The proposed GPA 99-2A would amend the General Plan designation from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to comply with development
restrictions for Area B of the Overflight Area. 16 addition, GPA 99-2A would amend the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to add,development standards for the subject
site, limiting development to no more than 24 multiple -family dwellings on three acres
located at,the northeast corner of the site and requiring site access from Eaton Road
exclusively. The undeveloped portion of the site would remain as open space along the
western and southern edges of the site.- Avigation easements and provisions for
overflight disclosure will also be required. -
The initial study presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico -Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 4
Site B - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and is located.
within Area B of the Overflight Area. It is designated Low Density Residential in the City
General Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site 2 is a portion of A.P. 047-250-141. The site
is also a part of the °Villages° portion of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The
County adopted Specific Plan designates the site for Medium Density Residential. The
proposed GPA 99-26 would amend this site to Medium Density Residential consistent
with the NCSP. Prezoning is proposed to remain unchanged at this time, since both the
site requires that future development occur as planned developments, at which time
zoning would be specified. In addition, GPA 99-213 would amend the text of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan, limiting development of the subject site to a maximum
of 80 multiple -family units to be located on no more than 50 percent of the site.
Avigation easements and provisions for overflight disclosure will also be required.
The initial study presumes the property, though currently within County jurisdiction, will
develop under City standards. Compliance with City standards is necessary for the site
to receive sewer service, which is in turn required for the project to comply with the
State -mandated Nitrate Action Plan.
Sites C and D - No change to the General Plan designation or zoning is proposed.
Rather, the City Council has directed staff to prepare findings overruling inconsistency
with the CMAEP relative to sites C and D. The absence of action on C and D is not a
project subject to CEQA and therefore is not evaluated by thin Initial Study. However,
to overrule inconsistency with the CMAEP, findings must be adopted which demonstrate
that the existing General Plan and zoning designations for sites C and D are consistent
with the purposes of section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code, including that the
existing designations provide for the public interest and orderly development of the
airport and that they do not expose the public to excessive noise and safety hazards
around the airport to the extent these areas are not already devoted to incompatible
uses. The full findings are on file at the City of Chico Planning Division Office, Second
Floor, 411 Main Street, Chico (file GPA 99-2).
H. Surrounding Land Uses:
Site A Single family residential is located to the south and west of the site. Vacant land
is located to the north and east.
Site B Young orchards are located to the south and west of the site. Vacant land is
located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses the northern border of the
site and is leveed at this location.
I. Public Agency Approvals: The City of Chico Planning Commission will
make a recommendation prior to City Council
action on the GPA applications.
Project - Chico Municipal Airport E -`ons Plan Amendments
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: -
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this. project, involving at least
one impact that is a °Potentially Significant Impact"` as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Geophysical Factors (] Cultural Resources [ ] Energy and Natural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Open Space/Recreation [. ] Economic Factors
[ ] Hydrological Factors [ ]" Hazards [ ] Trans portation/Circulation
[ J Air Quality [ ] Noise/Light and Glare [ J Public Services
(] Land Use and Planning
PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION:
t
On the basis of this.initial evaluation:
[ X ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOThave a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, thele
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measuresdescribed herein have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ j 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effecton the environment, but -at least ore
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable. legal
standards. Any such effect(s) has been addressed by mitigation measuresbased on the earlier
analysis as described herein.. An ENNARONMENTAL-IMPACT REPORT is required, but. it must..
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[ j I find that although the proposed projectcould have a significant effect on the environment, these
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have bees
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project,
f�acc111 1v//,22
Printed N me
3-2y- ci q
Date
,KIM SEi Dt.E2 i nt g I4 L,
For 01 Uc.To,Z
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments "
Page 7 .
2.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Responses to the following questions and related discussion indicate if the
:.. proposed project will have or potentially; ave a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
A brief explanation is required for'all answers'except "No Impact". answers that are
adequately supported by the information, sources cite"d in the pa`renthe'ses following
each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to'projects like the
one involved (e.g. the project falls outside, a fault rupture zone).. A "No Impact"'
answer should bie 'explained where- it 'is based on .project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
based on established threshold inertia). '
• All answers must take .into account all -phases. of project planning, implementation
and operation; including. off-site as well as on-site; cumulative as well asproject-
level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operation impacts.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
t when the determination is made an EIR is required.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"' applies. when 'the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an -effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The initial study will describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant. level (mitigation measures from Section 4,. "Earlier Analysis," may be
cross-referenced). „
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a'program EIR,
or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequatelyanalyzed in an earlier EIR or'negative
declaration [Section 155063(c)(3)(D)]. Earlier analyses are discussed in, Section. 4
at the end of the checklist.
• Initial studies may incorporate references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. the general plan orzoning ordinances,'etc.). Reference to a previously
prepared`or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated. _A source- list attached,, and
other sources used or individuals contacted, are cited in the discussion. •'_
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
A. Geophysical Factors: Will the projector its Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Substantial change in topography or unstable soil X
conditions due to excavating, grading or filing?
2. The destruction, covering; or modification of any X
Unusual or unique geologic or physical features?
3. Any changes in wind or water erosion of soils or X
sands or any erosion which may modify the
channel of a waterway or other body of water?
(Water Quality is discussed in Section C.)
4. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards X
such as earthquakes, expansive- soils, volcanic
hazards, liquefaction hazards, land subsidence,
slope instability, or similar hazards?
DISCUSSION: All subject sites are relatively flat and contain no unique geologic features. Mud Creek is
located on the northerly boundary of site B; therefore, future development would be required to provide a 100'
setback from the top of bank.
DISCUSSION: Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater,
at least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and'several other mature landscaping/orchards trees. The
site is identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory performed by Michael
Brandman Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment. Trees are located generally on the
western and southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future
development. Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature
(150' diameter) on the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city
staff, wetlands were not observed due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle
which obscured ground visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 arerial, and/or the possibility that the wetlands
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
B.
Biological Resources: Will the project or Significant
Mitigation Significant No
its related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1.
Removal or degradation of critical habitat of a plant
X
or animal officially. listed as threatened or
endangered?
2.
Substantial loss or degradation . of any habitat
X
identified as sensitive in the MEA?
3.
Substantial interference with the movement of any
X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species?
4.
Substantial reduction or degradation of habitat for.
X
a fish, wildlife, or plant species?
5.
Substantial fragmentation of large areas of
X
contiguous wildlife habitat?
6.
Increase in the danger of fire hazard in areas with
X
flammable grass, brush, or trees?
DISCUSSION: Site A contains non-native grasses and forbes, six oak trees with a diameter of 6" or greater,
at least two oak saplings less than 6" in diameter, and'several other mature landscaping/orchards trees. The
site is identified as containing "ruderal weeds" by the City's biological inventory performed by Michael
Brandman Associates for the 1992 Master Environmental Assessment. Trees are located generally on the
western and southern periphery of the site and would be well located to accommodate preservation with future
development. Aerial photographs from 1991 (1"= 300' scale) show what appears to be a wetland signature
(150' diameter) on the central portion of the site. During visual field review of the site in March of 1999 by city
staff, wetlands were not observed due perhaps to the extensive presence of medusa head and star thistle
which obscured ground visibility, misinterpretation of the 1991 arerial, and/or the possibility that the wetlands
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 9
had been filled. In any case, prior to site development and in conjunction with future subdivision map
application, a wetlands investigations should be performed by a qualified wetlands specialist to determine
whether jurisdictional wetland occur on the project site.
Site B, also contains non-native grassland. It contains no visible trees and appears to be previously graded or
cleared. Mud Creek is located adjacent to the site to the -north and is leveed at this location. Future
development will be required to set back 100' from the top of bank for compliance with the City's General
Plan, which could influence the site to develop at the lower end of density range for medium density
residential development.
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and B are zoned planned mixed use and require a use permit for future
development. The use permit will trigger environmental review which, for site A, will require wetland
investigation to determine to what extent, if any, wetlands are present on the site. The Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) requires permits for the fill of wetlands over one-third of an acre. If wetlands are identified,
permits and mitigation are required in compliance. with existing Corps standards.
On site A, if wetlands are identified, then the project applicant is required to meet the City's no net loss of
Wetlands policy OS -1-28 through the construction of wetlands or the payment of in lieu fees at a ratio of 1:1
(wetlands destroyed: wetlands constructed) prior to the issuance of grading permits or other construction
activity on site A.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
C. Hydrological Factors: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities result in: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Changes in the course or direction of water X
movements?
2. Generation of runoff from new development. that X
exceeds the capacity of Planning Area storm drains
or substantial obstruction to groundwater recharge?
3. Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? X
4. Generation of pollutants or sedimentation which X
would affect surface or subsurface water quality?
5. Development of five acres or more as defined by X
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Permitting Process (NPDES)?
DISCUSSION: The project will not redirect a waterway or stream channel. Development of sites A and B as
medium density residential sites could generate additional runoff as compared to the existing
single family residential designation. However, adequate capacity exists in Mud Creek and
Sycamore Creek to receive this runoff. The rezone of sites A and B to medium density
residential would not substantially change the water quality or flood protection provisions
required for single. family residential , especially given the lower densities mandated by the
proposed development standards for the site.
EXISTING REGULATION: Sites A and B are larger than 5 acres in size and therefore are required to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permitting Processes during development.
All future development will be required to provide Best Management Practices (BMPs)for the protection of
water quality.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless"' Less Than
D. Air Quality f=actors: Will the, project or its Significant Mitigation Significant. No .
related activities result in: Impact- Incorporated I!nipact Impact
1. Generating pollutants (hydrocarbon, "thermal, odor, X
smoke,. radiation, etc.) -which. would deteriorate
ambient air quality?,
2. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial X
pollutant' concentrations?
3. Alteration. :.of. air.: movement,. , moisture,. or X
- temperature, or any change in climate locally or
regionally? .
4. Inconsistency with air .quality related plans (e.g., X
NorthernSacramento Valley Air'Basin 1994 -Air.
Quality Attainment Plan, and Chico Urban' Area CO
Attainment Plan)?
DISCUSSION: Additional traffic and air quality analysis will be required for subdivision or development of
sites A and B to determine how best to mitigate air quality impacts associated with a specific development
proposal.
k
Potentialdecrease in vehicle trips as described in section K, Transportation, would result in marginal
decreases in,air quality emissions. Indirect_ Source Review Guidelines administered locally by the Butte
County Air Quality Management District indicate that multi -family housing projects become "significant"
polluters, after site specific provisions to control construction -dust, only when the development contains over
700 units.
F•
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments }
Page 11
DISCUSSION: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)-adopted
amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The CMAEP is intended, in the
most,general terms, to protect the.airport.from land use intrusions which would hinder?or displace airport ,.
operations. The proposed amendments adopted portions of the City of Chico 1993 FAR,Part 150 Study.
Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer Safety Zone (refer to attached map, Exhibit A) along with text
regulating appropriate'land uses'in these zones. Pursuant to Govemment'Code Section 65450, general plans
or any applicable specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended pursuant
to'Pu.blic'Utilities Code Section 21675. , The specific amendments adopted by ALUC restrict further
development of single. family residential housing in Zone B and residential development on lots under two
acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The General Plan and zoning amendments discussed herein are
proposed in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan and zoning to the amended CMAEP for sites A
and B.
Pursuant to City Council direction at its May 4, 1999 meeting, no change to the General Plan designation,
zoning or prezoning is proposed for sites C and D.. The City proposes instead to prepare findings overruling
amendments to the CMAEP as adopted by ALUC. The findings are on file at the City of Chico Planning
Division Office, 411 Main Street, Second_ Floor, Chico (file GPA 99-2).
As the project sites are vacant and without agricultural operations, no displacement of existing uses will occur.
All land is currently designated for urban development.
Development standards for Sites A and B are set forth in the project description to aid land use compatibility
between proposed multiple family housing and existing single family residences.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
E.
Land Use Planning: Will the- project or its
Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities be inconsistent with:
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1.
General Plan or Specific Plan policies, or zoning
X
regulations?.:. '
2.
General ' Plan population growth rates for its
' X
planning areas in conjunction with other recently
approve development?
3.
Result in substantial conflict with the established
X
character; aesthetics or functioning of 'the
surrounding community?
4.
Be a part of a larger project involving a series of
X
cumulative actions?
,
5.
Result in displacement of people or business
- °X
activity?
6.
Conversion of viable prime agricultural land to non-
X
agricultural use, ..or substantial conflicts with
existing agricultural operations? (Viable agricultural
f
land is defined as land on Class I or Class II
•" .
{
agricultural soils of 5 acres or greater, adjacent on
�
•than
,
no more one side to' existing urban...
development.)
DISCUSSION: On October 22, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)-adopted
amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). The CMAEP is intended, in the
most,general terms, to protect the.airport.from land use intrusions which would hinder?or displace airport ,.
operations. The proposed amendments adopted portions of the City of Chico 1993 FAR,Part 150 Study.
Overflight Safety Zones A and B and the Outer Safety Zone (refer to attached map, Exhibit A) along with text
regulating appropriate'land uses'in these zones. Pursuant to Govemment'Code Section 65450, general plans
or any applicable specific plans must be consistent with a local environs plan, adopted or amended pursuant
to'Pu.blic'Utilities Code Section 21675. , The specific amendments adopted by ALUC restrict further
development of single. family residential housing in Zone B and residential development on lots under two
acres in size within the Outer Safety Zone. The General Plan and zoning amendments discussed herein are
proposed in order to conform the City of Chico General Plan and zoning to the amended CMAEP for sites A
and B.
Pursuant to City Council direction at its May 4, 1999 meeting, no change to the General Plan designation,
zoning or prezoning is proposed for sites C and D.. The City proposes instead to prepare findings overruling
amendments to the CMAEP as adopted by ALUC. The findings are on file at the City of Chico Planning
Division Office, 411 Main Street, Second_ Floor, Chico (file GPA 99-2).
As the project sites are vacant and without agricultural operations, no displacement of existing uses will occur.
All land is currently designated for urban development.
Development standards for Sites A and B are set forth in the project description to aid land use compatibility
between proposed multiple family housing and existing single family residences.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 12
.
Potentially
Significant.
Potentially
It. .,Cultural Factors: Will theproject or its related Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant
No . .
activities: • Impact
Incorporated .. Impact
Impact
1. Disrvpt'or adversely affect historical buildings or
; .
X
sites?
2. Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic
:.
X
Archaeological site or a property or historical or
R
cultural significance to.a community or ethnic or
social group? " ,
3. Disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site
X
except as part of a scientific study?
DISCUSSION: The project sites contain no buildings or"other readily -apparent evidence of previous historic
occupation. The sites would require records searches with the Northeast Information Center prior to
subdivision or development. I . :
A •
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless, , - Less Than
G. Open SpaceiRecreation: Will the projector its ' Significant Mitigation Significant No
related activities: Impact • Incorporated - : Impact. Impact . .
1. Affect an officially designated scenic vista:point, X
scenic highway or condor or other. unique aesthetic
value?
2. Affect an important existing or potential community X
recreation area. • ;,
3. Affect' lands preserved under "an agricultural; :. ' X
scenic, or open space contract or easement? �.
DISCUSSION: The project sites are, not designated as opemspace, a scenic vista:point, a community
recreation area or agricultural land:' None of the sites contain unique resources which would lead to such
designations. - r t
J.
R
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 13 f
r y •
. Potentially
Significant
Potentially. Unless Less Than
H, Hazards:. . Will the project or its related Significant Mitigation Significant No
activities: F ' t Impact-. Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Present a hazardto people or property from risk of _ _ X
explosion or release of hazardous substances ,
either on site or in transit, in the event of accident
or otherwise? -
2. Result in the creation of health hazards, or X.
potential health hazards, or in the increased "
exposure of people to existing or potential health
hazards?
3. Increase the danger of fire hazard in areas with X
flammable grass, brush or trees?
4.. Expose people or property to wind hazards? X
DISCUSSION: Nothing in the proposed GPA would. substantially change thwrisk of developing the project
sites. No hazards are known to exist on the project sites; additional environmental review will occur in '
conjunction with the development of sites A and B. Although the lackof action on sites C and D is not'a
project subject to. CEQA, findings to overrule inconsistency with the CMAEP are required pursuant. to Public
Utilities Code Section 21676. A copy of the findings, is on. file at the City of Chico Planning Division Office,
411 Main Street, Second Floor, Chico (fileTGPA 99-2).
Potentially °
Significant a "
-Potentially Uriless• Less Than `
1. Noise/Light and Glare: Will the project or its Significant Mitigation _ ,Significant ,,.No .
related activities result in: .Impact ,Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Exposure of residents in new hotels, motels, ' X
apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-'
V family dwellings) to interior noise levels (CNEL) '
- ..higher than 45 dBA,in any- habitable room with
windows closed?
2. Exposure of sensitive receptors (residential, parks, " ° - X
hospitals, schools) to exterior noise levels of 60
dBA L or higher?
` 3. Significant new light or glare impacts on the site or - - - X
surrounding area?
------------
DISCUSSION: Development of sites A and B at'projected densities will`generate no substantial differences in
noise, light; and glare, as compared to single-family residential. densities., Although the lack of.actionon sites
C and D is not a project subject to CEQA, findings to overrule inconsistency with the CMAEP are required -
pursuant to Public Utilities Code .Section 21676. A copy of the findings is on file at the City of Chico Planning
Division Office, 411 Main Street, Second Floor, Chico (file GPA 99-2).
Lighting; and associated glare,, is required to•meet City Municipal Code standards whereby light is not
permitted to spill onto adjacentproperty.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 14
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
J. Energy and Natural Resources; Will the project Significant Mitigation Significant No
or its related activities: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Affect the use, extraction or conservation of any X
natural resources?
2. Use an excessive amount of fuel or energy or X
reauire development of new sources of enercly?
DISCUSSION: The project is very minor as compared to overall development within the urban area.
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPAs will, relative to existing city plans, effectively lower potential density of
future development for sites A and B and reduce related vehicular trips. For site A, the proposed GPA text
change would provide development standards limiting development to 24 multiple -family units. This suggests
a future trip generation of not more than 168 vehicle trips per day for site A. (Multi -family development
typically generates, on average, seven vehicle trips per day.) Under the existing low density residential
designation for site A, 7 units per acre or 42 single-family units could potentially be constructed, resulting in an
Potentially
Significant .
Potentially
Unless Less Than
K.
Transportation/Circulation Factors: Will the Significant
Mitigation Significant No
project or its related activities result in: Impact
Incorporated . Impact Impact
1.
Traffic volumes which exceed established Level of
X
Service (LOS) standards on roadway segments or
at intersections, or which do not meet applicable
safety standards? Based on proposed General Plan
policies, significant impacts would generally result
if traffic exceeded LOS C on residential streets,
LOS D on arterial and collector
streets/intersections, and (under specific
circumstances) LOS E in built -out areas served by
transit.
2.
The absence of bikeway facilities in the general
X
locations identified in the General Plan, consistent
with guidelines in the Chico Urban Area Bicycle
Plan, or failure to meet applicable design
requirements and safety standards?
3.
Travel characteristics which are not consistent with
X
standards established in the Butte County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP), or other
General Plan policies related to Transportation
Systems Management (TSM?
4.
Substantial impact on existing or proposed public
X
transit systems including waterbome, rail and air
traffic?
5.
Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for
X
new parking not provided for by the project?
6.
Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles,
X _ -
pedestrian or other traffic?
DISCUSSION: The proposed GPAs will, relative to existing city plans, effectively lower potential density of
future development for sites A and B and reduce related vehicular trips. For site A, the proposed GPA text
change would provide development standards limiting development to 24 multiple -family units. This suggests
a future trip generation of not more than 168 vehicle trips per day for site A. (Multi -family development
typically generates, on average, seven vehicle trips per day.) Under the existing low density residential
designation for site A, 7 units per acre or 42 single-family units could potentially be constructed, resulting in an
City of Chico Initial Study -
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 15
estimated 420 vehicle trips per day. (Single -family development typically generates,-on average, ten vehicle
trips per day.) ,
Similady, the GPA text change will lower development potential and vehicle trip generation for site 13. While
the existing designation would allow up to 140 single -family units (20 acres x 7 units per acre) the
development standards proposed for site B. would limit future development to 80 multiple-family units, .
generating, 560 vehicle trips per day.
Subdivision and development on both sites A and B are subject to additional environmental review. Both sites
are within a planned mixed use (PMU) city zoning designation, therefore, a'use permit and accompanying
environmental review will be required for all subdivision.or development on these sites-The City's General
Plan requires a traffic analysis for projects generating over 75 peak hour trips, and both sites will likely exceed
this criterion when developed in conjunction with the overall parcel. Site A is a-portion of an 18 acre parcel,
Mand site B is a portion of a 300 acre parcel; both are anticipated to contain neighbortiood commercial cores
generating traffic above the 75 peak hour trip criterion. r ,
It should be noted that site B is currently zoned as R-2, medium density residential, 'unde'r. County. jurisdiction,
consistent with the Northeast Chico Specific Plan.' Therefore, the proposed GPA and prezone change for this
�. property represents no change from existing County plans.. a
Potential density changes associated with the proposed GPA would haYe'rio substantial effect on bike` way
plans, congestion management plans, or public transit as they are minor in scale. 'Any-additional parking
demand or transportation hazards that could bei generated by site specific development would be addressed
through compliance with the City's Municipal Code. '' r
EXISTING REGULATION: City of Chico General Plan, Table 5.6-1, requires traffic-analysis for projects'.
generating 75 peak hour vehicle trips or more. Chico Municipal Code, Title 19.28 specifies parking
regulations:- ry -
Potentially
L. Public Service Factors: Will.the project or its Significant
related: activities have an effect "upon or result Potentially Unless Less Than
in a need for altered governmental services in -Significant . Mitigation Significant No
any of the following areas: ` ` Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. Fire protection? X
2. Police protection? - X
3. Schools? X
4. Parks and recreation facilities? (See Section G.. F X .
Open Space/Recreation) F
5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads, X
canals, etc.?
6. Other government services? X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project lowers the development potential for sites'A and B as compared to existing conditions.
Therefore, the, project will have no adverse effect on public services. which are already anticipated for the
project site.
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 16
DISCUSSION: The proposed project lowers the development potential for sites A and B as compared to
existing conditions. Therefore, the project will have no adverse effect on public utility factors which are
already anticipated for the project sites.
3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the
environment if any of the following are true:
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
M. ,
. Public Utility Factors: Will the project or its
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
related activities have an effect upon or result Potentially
Unless
Less Than
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
in a need for new"systems or substantial Significant
Mitigation .
Significant No
population to drop below self sustaining levels,
alterations to the following utilities: Impact
Incorporated
. Impact Impact
1.
Sewer or septic systems?
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
X .
2.
Water for domestic use and fire protection?
or prehistory.
X
3.
Natural gas, electricity, or telephone?
which are individually limited but cumulatively
X
.
Storm water drainage? (See Section C.
that the incremental effects of an individual project
X
are considerable when viewed in connection with
Hydrological Factors)
the effects of past, current and probable future
5.
Solid waster disposal?
3. The environmental effects of a project will cause
X .
6.
Communication systems?
directly or indirectly.
X
7.
Plant facilities for any of the above (sewer plants,
X
microwave station, water, etc.)?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project lowers the development potential for sites A and B as compared to
existing conditions. Therefore, the project will have no adverse effect on public utility factors which are
already anticipated for the project sites.
3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pursuant to Section 15382 of the State EIR Guidelines, a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the
environment if any of the following are true:
DISCUSSION: As supported by the above discussion, the proposed GPAs will not have a substantial effect on
area resources. The GPA will reduce potential development density of sites A and B from existing conditions,
thereby lowering potential traffic generation and utility and public service demands. The subject sites require
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
1. The project has the potential to degrade the quality
X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory.
2. The project has possible environmental effects
X
which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. (Cumulatively considerable means
that the incremental effects of an individual project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past, current and probable future
projects.
-
3. The environmental effects of a project will cause
X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.
DISCUSSION: As supported by the above discussion, the proposed GPAs will not have a substantial effect on
area resources. The GPA will reduce potential development density of sites A and B from existing conditions,
thereby lowering potential traffic generation and utility and public service demands. The subject sites require
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 17
future environmental review prior to development. and do not contain sensitive environmental. resources which
could be harmeda by future development. Constructed to City standards, development,of sites A and B
should not cause adverse environmental consequences.
4.
5.
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other;CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration '[Section
15063(c)(3)(D)J. In this case a discussion should identify the following:
a: Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above' checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed•by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. Foreects that are °Less than'Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,
describe. the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.: .
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
All significant or potentially significant impacts indicated in Section 2 above have been
described and feasible mitigation measures recommended wherever possible. Any participant
of the Initial Study may also make a recommendation as to whether a Negative Declaration,
a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, more study in a particular area, or an EIR
should be prepared. Please indicate any source date relied upon and your name and date of .
comments in the space indicated. Use additional pages if necessary.
Reviewed by:
Department:
on (date)
Reviewed by: on (date)
Department:
6. PROJECT'S SPONSOR'S INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO THE PROPOSED
PROJECT:
I have reviewed the Initial Study for the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
project and any mitigation measures identified herein. I hereby will modify the project on file
with the City of Chico Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigation set forth
in this Initial Study.
Not Applicable --No mitigation recommended
City of Chico Initial Study
Project - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Amendments
Page 18
REFERENCES:.
• City of Chico General Plan, 1994.
• City of Chico Master Environmental Assessment, Blaney Dyett/Michael Brandman
Associates,. January, 1994.
• City of Chico Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell, December 1985.
• Final. EIR.for Adoption of the Chico Urban Area ;Draft Sanitary Sewer and Storni Drainage
:Vaster Plans, Northwest, annexation, and, General Plan Amendments North of Lindo
Channel, Jones & Stokes;' November 1992:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base Map, California Department of Fish and Game:
Note: The above, referenced information is available for public. review at the City of Chico Planning
Division, 411 Main Street, Chico, California.
r •
► BUTTE COUNiT.1 IRPORT LAND US
'n
• 7 courity Center Drive; OroWI% CA 96965 �. (530) 538.7601 FAX
ITTm*-3 MAY
TO: Ci of Chico Planning Department CInOF I�
City g P PLANNING DIVISION
FROM: - Butte. County Airport. Land -Use Commission rt
y 4,:
SUBJECT: NOTICE', OF PUBLIC, ._MEETING FINDINGS AND/OR'
COMMENTS:, C File No. A -04 (proposed City of Chico
General Plan Amendment. 99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone 99-1). In
" response to the amendments to the CMAEP made by the ALUC on -
October 21, 1998, the City of Chico is processing four General Plan
, Amendments/Zor ing: Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report,
.. ' initial study and a; letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to
•
PUC 21676 (b) the City requests that. the, AL. UC make ._ •a
determination of consistency regarding the proposed, amendments..
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 28,1999
This is your official notice•that the Airport Land Use Commission held a public meeting. on -April 2l,
1999 and approved the findings and/or materials attached as Exhibits A and Al.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the
ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. The_ project file, may. be. reviewed at the Department of
Development Services, 7. County Center DriveOroville, California-
- - •1 •
r r
s•
r
• Butte County • • Airport Carxi Use Commission
► BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION '+-
-7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530)53&7785 • ' -�
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone/Prezone Modifications
A99-04 (GPA99-02/RZ99-02/PZ99-01)
`Site'A (portion of APN 007-190-022)
Site B (portion of APN 047-250-141)
Si e: (APN's 048-670-048 and 054)
Site'D (APN's 048-600-055 and 056)
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared. the following findings based upon data contained
within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). This data, in turn is based upon
the findings of -a number of studies, documents and reports generated by individuals, firms and
agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning and land use
compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration
of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on the project.
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
A. Environmental documentation provided for the project: consists of an Initial Study
and Proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact The purpose of the
City's proposal is to apply land use designations and zoning recommended in the
1998 CMAEP to ensure the compatibility of future development with any airport
related impacts including overflight protection, noise, airspace protection, and
safety. The City's proposal, as conditioned below, has been found to accomplish
those objectives.
Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
A. Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Platnning Handbook identifies four
functional categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns.
These include: Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise,
and Airspace Protection. The applicant's proposal has been found to be
conditionally consistent with protection measures and policies contained in the
1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to addrtw
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise, and Airspace
Protection:
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
C4
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility
1: `Sites A and B are located within Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone
depicted in Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Compatible land uses in this
zone include Multiple Family Residential (7 and 35 dwelling units per
gross acre), .Commercial, Business Park and Industrial. The City's
proposal to redesignate Sites A and B from Low Density Residential (2.01
to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) to Medium Density Residential (4.01
to 14 dwelling unitsper gross acre), is consistent with the policies of the
CMAEP upon implementation of the following required conditions:
`
A. Residential development within 'Site A shall be limited to a total of 24
multiple family dwelling -units in clusters of 7 units per gross acre.
Residential development 'shall only occur on the eastern 3 acre portion
of the site. The western 3 acre portion of the project area shall remain
in "open space.
13. Residential development within Site B shall be limited to a total of 80
multiple family dwelling ,units, in- clusters of.7 units per gross acre.
Residential development shall only occur on 8 of the 20 acres
contained within project area. The `remaining 12 acres shall be kept
in open space. 'Flight pattern requirements and conditions associated
with Aerial. Applicators' operations�shall be. considered and addressed
as part of site plan'development.
Sites C and D are located within the Outer Safety Zone depicted in
Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. Rural residential land uses with lot
sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range are considered compatible within that
zone. Therefore, the City's proposal to redesignate Sites C and D
from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross
acre) to Very Low Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per
acre) and rezone the sites from -R-1 Single Family Residential to.RS-2
Suburban Residential '(2 acre minimum lot size) will effectively
preclude further residentialdevelopment at these locations and meet
the intention of Outer Safety -Zone policies.
Safety
2. Accident scatter maps based upon data generated by Hodges and
Shutt and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993) have been adopted as part of the
CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and -support the finding that
Sites A through D do not have an elevated likelihood of being
impacted by aircraft accidents.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
2
O1Se
3. According to Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 of the CMAEP, Sites A, B and
C are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour for the Chico
Municipal Airport and Site D is located on -the boundary of the projected
55 dB CNEL contour. Exhibit 44 of the CMAEP "Land Use
Compatibility for Noise Environments," indicates that single family
residential development is considered normally acceptable in areas
exposed to up to 55 dB CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in
areas exposed to between 55 dB and 70 dB CNEL. Multiple family
residential development is considered normally acceptable in areas
exposed to up to 60 dB CNEL and may be conditionally acceptable in
areas exposed to between 60 dB CNEL and 70 dB CNEL. The City's
proposal will preclude future single family residential development on
Sites C and D and direct multiple family residential development to Sites
A and B which are outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour.
Although the noise contours discussed above indicate that projected
exposure in the project areas will be at or below 55 dB CNEL, it
should be noted that residents may be exposed to single event noise
levels. and other episodes which exceed those levels. The location of
the projected noise contours may also change when the effect of the
proposed extension . of runway 13L/31R is more comprehensively
analyzed. Therefore, the following required conditions for multiple
family residential uses in Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone,
(e.g., Sites A. and B of the City's proposal), will inform future
residents of airport noise related impacts and protect future airport
operations:
A. Prior to development, the property owners of Sites A and B
shall dedicate avigation easements to the airport operator.
B. Potential tenants of multiple family residential developments
on Sites A and B shall be notified through written and graphic
depictions on rental and/or lease application forms of the
proximity of the development to the Chico Municipal Airport.
The written notice shall also disclose the potential for
overflight activity and associated noise related impacts
including single event noise levels in excess of 55 dB CNEL.
Airspace Protection
4. According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites A and B are located within -the
Horizontal Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport which has an elevation
of 388 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The elevation ranges for Sites
A and B are 183-186 feet MSL and 200-205 feet MSL, respectively.
The maximum allowable height for primary structures within the PMU
Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
3
zoning district is expected,tobe 35 feet. Based on that limitation the;
anticipated total project elevation in both cases will not penetrate the
Horizontal Surface. `
According to "Drawing CIC -5, Sites C and D are located within the
transition area between the 50:1 and 40:1 Approach Surfaces for runway
13L/3IR . Text on page 5-4 sof the CMAEP indicates that the Approach
Surface at this location is approximately 200 feet above the runway
threshold-. elevation, which is 205 feet MSL.: According to. USGS
topographic'infomiation, the elevation ianges for Sites C and D are 213.:
216 feet'MSL and -215 =•218 feet MSL;. respectively. Since the'proposed
General Plan Amendment and' Rezoning for these sites will preclude
additional residential development, only new accessory structures could
potentially be constructed The maximum allowable height for accessory
Y , structures within the proposed RS' -2 Residential Suburban. zoning district
is 20 feet. `Based on that limitation the anticipated total project elevation
: in both cases will, not penetrate the Approach Surface or result in:.an
obstruction to air navigation.
The ALUC has also considered the,location'of Sites~A through D with
regard to the revised location -of FAR Part 7.7 Surfaces resulting from
future extension ofrunway '13R/31L and determined that.the. City's
w ,proposal. will not. result-imthe penetration of any future FAR :Part77
surfaces:
• - Y
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
j
+BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
•,7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 96965 • (530).538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
EXHIBIT Al
List of References
Data supporting the ALUC';, findings have generated from studies and reports prepared by
recognized professionals and agencies. with expertise in;Aiiport Land Use Planning and land use
compatibility , These include, but are not limited .to:
k Dixon Speas Associates .Prepared 1978. Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics -1993 Airport Land .Use Planning Handbook.
University of California Berkeley, Institute of.Transportation Studies (1993) - Prepared accident.
scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the -1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This data
was used to develop Drawing CIC -17 of the CMAEP. ,
Hodges and Shutt - Prepared accident scatter data presented in Chapter 8 of the 1993 Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook. This data was used to develop Drawing CTC -18 of the CMAEP.
• Butte County *Airport, Land Use Commission • .
5
CITY OF CHICO MEMORANDUM
CITYo[CHICO
INC. 187: -
TO: .ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY DATE: September 30, 1997
FROM:_ RISK MANAGER FILE: D-91-8/Chrono
RE: TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS'- 1996 - CHICO MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT.
According to our file summary of the monthly'FAA Form 7230-1 prepared by FAA
Control Tower personnel at'the Chico Municipal Airport, during calendar year 1996
there were 65,616_ total operations at the Airport.
An "operation" consists of a landing or a take-off of an aircraft.
If you need additional information in this regard, please contact me.
CL -
B B KOCH
c: CM info
DocunwO
f
x
( I
Staff Report
General Plan Amendment 99-2 (City of Chico)
Prepared By: Senior. Planner Hayes
UTYoFCHICo <
INC. 1872
General Information
Applicant:
City of Chico
Property Owners:
B'te Sergio and Maria Orestano, P.O. Box 6997, Chico, CA 95927
Site B Stephens Charitable, Go Douglas Gunn, 250 West Crest St.,
Escondido, CA 92025
Site C Kirkman Family Trust, Warren and Janet Kirkman Trustees,
2674 Ceres Ave., Chico, CA ' 95973 and
Gary and Jerry Houser, 2670 Ceres Ave., Chico, CA 959.73 -
Site D Louis C, Lee, P.O. Box 1604, Chico, CA 95927 and
Layne Chapman, P.O. Box 71, Chico, CA 95927
Action Requested:
General Plan Amendment/Rezone and' Prezone
Purpose:
Amend the General. Plan land use designation to conforrh to recent
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) amendments to the Chico
Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP) and to
adopt override findings of an ALUC determination of inconsistency
Location:
Various Locations within the CLUP Overflight Protection Zone and
Outer Safety Zone
Assessor's Parcel Nos.:
Site A Portion of 007-190-022
Site B Portion of 047-250-141
Site C 048-670-048 and 054
Site D 048-600-055 and 056
Size:
aiLq_A 6t ac.
Site B 20t ac.
Site C 3t ac.
Site D 4.5t ac.
Existing Zoning:
Site A (P)PMU Prezoned Planned Multiple Use
Site B (P)PMU Prezoned Planned Multiple Use
Site C (P)R1 Prezoned and zoned Low Density Residential
Site D R1 Low Density Residential
General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential (all sites)
-
r
Environmental Review.
Negative declaration
CITY O.P. CHiCOMEMORAf4bUM,1.
crrnr«cl+ico
JW_ 081Z
TO: City Council (Mtg_5%4/99) DATE: April 21, 1999
FROM:.. �.Senior;;Planner,Hayes (x4853)'1 FILE: GPA .99-2/RZ 99-2/PRZ 99-1
RE '' GPA 99-2%RZ 99=2`and PRZ 99-1 (City' of Chico) To bring certain properties
into conformance. with the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan
L SUMMARY
In order to conform ttie City' General Plan and zoning to the Chico Municipal Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLOP), as amended by the Butte County Airport Land Use
Commission' (ALUC), the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation to City Cound
to adopt a'negative declaration and approve General Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2' _
and - Prezone 99-1: '
II. PLANNING COMMISSION AND AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONSIDERATI N
The Planning Commission•conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments at its
April 19 meeting: ,Public testimony -was received.from residents living in vicinityto Site A,
near Morseman Avenue and Eaton Road opposing the redesignation of this six. -(6) acre sit
from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Letters received from area
residents are attached to -this report. As of this date; no public testimony has been received
for Sites B, C or D. Following the close of its public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of these amendments to the Council
r
In accordance with state law,. the subject amendments were submitted to the Butte County
' Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the CLUP. ALUC
considered the proposed amendments at its 'April 21 meeting-finding'that,the proposed
changes were consistent °withthe CLUP, 'as ' amended, adding the following
recommendations: L
1) That development of Site A should be restricted to a maximum of twenty-four (24)
multiple -family dwelling units, clustered on the eastern -most three acres of. the site.
The remainder of the -site' to be maintained as open space. , .'
-2) That development of Site B should be restricted to a maximum, of eighty (80) multiple
family dwelling units, clustered on no more than 50` percent -of the site.. The
remainder of the site 10 be maintained as open space,. - -
- Staff concurs with these recommendations and has proposed atext amendment to the Land
. ' Use Element of the General Plan (Section 3.11, Special D_ evelopment Areas) in order to
ensure implementation of these restrictions. This additional amendment was included in the
City Council public hearing notice'and has been,incorporated within theresolution amending .
the General Plan.
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1 /RZ99-
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/1 _... _j9
Page 2
111. BACKGROUND
This project proposes to amend the General Plan Diagram land use designation and zonirg
of several properties affected by recent changes to the ChicoMunicipal Airport CLUP. Stale
law requires that a CLUP be adopted for each airport facility, withthe purpose of protecting
airport facilities and operations by surrounding land uses that are compatible with them.
Local airport land use commissions are charged with adopting such CLUPs. Pursuant to
Government Code Section65450, general pians or any applicable specific plans most be.
consistent with a local CLUP adopted by an ALUC in accordance with State law.
The Chico Municipal Airport CLUP was originally adopted in 1978 as the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan. ALUC is currently in the process of preparing a new CLUP.
" Thd`CLUP'serves�as-arguidelineforadopt'roWorthe revision`of'alt airport -compatible land:
use plans and contains land use compatibility guidelines for.height, noise, safety,, overflight,
and flight surface restrictions and considerations. The CLUP guidelinesare incorporated
into the city and county general plans and land use regulations to minimize the public's
exposure to safety hazards -and excessive levels of nose, and to ensure that no structures)
affect navigable airspace.
The CLUP provides guidelines as to the type of land use that should be permitted within an
airport "area of influence" (generally defined as the surrounding area within two miles of an
.airport). The proposed General Plan and zoning changes contained in this recommendation
. are consistent with the CLUP and the goals and policies of.the Chico General Plan.
On October 22, 1998 ALUC adopted certain amendments to the CLUP, incorporating
portions of the 1993 City of Chico Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan. The FAR Part 150 Plan assessed noise impacts
of existing and future airport operations and recommended compatibb land uses to reduce
noise impacts on surrounding land , uses. The specific amendments adopted by ALUC
restrict further development of single.. -family 'residentialt housing in Overflight Protection
Zones A and B and residential'development orrtots under two acres in size within the Outer
Safety Zone. The attached Exhibit A depicts these .various zones and the affected
properties. In order to conform the City d Chico General Plan and zoning to the amended.
CLUP, the General Plan and zoning amendments noted below are proposed:
Site An approximately 6 acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007=190-022) which is
designated Low Density.. Residential in the.General Plan and prezoned PMU.
Planned Multiple Use. This property is a portion of a site planned for a Mixed Lbe
Neighborhood Core development. The: proposal would amend the General.
Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density.
Residential to comply with development restrictions for Area B of the
Overflight Protection Zone. Development would also be limited to a
maximum of 24 multiple -family dwelling units, clustered on the eastern -most
three acres of the site. The PMU prezoning for Sites A and B are not proposed
to be changed, since any future development of these sites would be approved
through the planned development procedures.
UVA 9U-1/i'L 99-1/KZ0,u-Z
Planning Comm. Mtg 4 x/99
Page 3
Surrounding. land use: Single-family residential is located to the south and west
of the site. Vacant land is located to the east and north.
Site B Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size and is located
within Area B of the Overflight Protection Area. It is designated as Low Density
Residential in the City General Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site B is a portion of
A.P. 047-250-141. The site' -is also a part of the °Villages" portion of the North
Chico: Specific Plan (NCSP). The- County -adopted specific plan designates the
site for Medium Density Residential. The proposed GPA would amend the
general plan designation for this site to Medium Density Residential
consistent with the NCSP and Overflight Protection Zone restrictions
prohibiting single-family residential .housing. Developmentwould also be
limited to a maximum of 80 multiple -family dwelling units, clustered on no
.....:..� _.... , .. > . -. rnoretharrfi0>peFcent�ofthevsite:�•......:::.:....:...:...... ....,. ..... ......... ... .
Surrounding land use: Young orchards fire located to the south and west of the
site. Vacant land is located to the north and east. Mud Creek transverses the
northern border of the .site and is leveed at this location.
Site C Site C contains two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area (A.P.N.s 048-670-048
and 054, 2670 .through 2674 Ceres Avenue), located on the east side of Ceres
Avenue approximately 1000 feet north of. East Avenue. The site is currently
designated Low Density Residential and is prezoned' and zoned R-1 Single -Family
Residential. These parcels are located at the farthest extension of the Outer
Safety Zone (OSZ). The OSZ is a corridor 1000' by 5000' extending from both
ends of the Overflight Protection Zone A. The OSZ definesthe primary approach
.and departure corridor and therefore the area most impacted by airport operations
The proposed GPA and rezone and prezone would effectively restrict subdivisbn
of the properties to develop at greater density. The subject parcels are
proposed to be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Very Low
Density Residential and. .rezoned.;and,- rezoned .from. R-.1 Single -Family
Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential; Two Acre Minimum Lot Size:
Surrounding land use: Site C is surrounded by single-family residential
development.
Site D Site D contains two parcels (A.P.N.s 048-600-055 and 056, 2705 and 2747 Floral
Avenue) ranging in size from, 2. to 2.5 acres .and both developed with .a single-
family residence located on the west side of and
Avenue some 100 feet south
of Glenshire Lane. The:parcels are designated Low Density. Residential and
zoned -R-1 Single -Family Residential. The proposed General Plan amendment and
rezone would effectively restrict subdivision of the properties to develop at geater
density. Site D parcels are proposed to be redesignated from Low Density
Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoned from R-1 Single -
Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential, Two Acre Minimum Lot
Size.
Surrounding land use: Single-family residential development also surrounds Site
D.
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ99=1,
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/1,,-.,9
Page 4
Page 5 of the letter from ALUC (Attachment D) explains that v+hen a CLUP is amended, as
was done by ALUC last October, State law requires that Chico'sGeneral Plan be brought
into conformance with those amendments within 180 days. If the City does not concur with
the amendments, it has the option- of adopting overriding findings instead. Where ALUC
finds. -that the City has neither revised. its general plan nor adopted such findings, it may..
require that the City submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to ALUC for its
review until one of these options is -completed: On March 17, 1999;;ALUC adopteda motion
to require.such submittals.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A negative declaration is proposed for the project pursuant to the Cafiifomia Environmental .
Act fCEQA) -No-potentially=significantimpacts•werewidentifted intherinitial study'as-- a
a result of the GPA/Rezone/Prezone. The initial'study is attached for reference.
V. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed amendments are consistent with the following General Plan policies:
LU -G-31 Protect the CiVs'investment in the Municipal Airport and promote airport related
development in the Airport Industrial Park and Airport Environs.
LU -G-32 Safeguard the Chico Municipal Airport -.and its environs from intrusion by uses..
that could limit expansion of air services to meet future aviation needs.
LU -G-33 Prevent development in the Airport environs that will pose hazards to aviation cr
interfere with or endanger the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
LU -1-47 Ensure that the Airport Environs Plan and the General Plan are consistent and
adopt and implement an Airport Noise Compatibility Program pursuant to Part
150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations:
LU -I-48 Continue to apply and enforce zoning and land use regulations designed to
promote compatible development of the Airport and its environs. Such
regulations prevent development that would pose an airport hazard by
establishing. height limits and use restrictions and zoning districts that are
specifically intended to promote compatible airport -related development.
VI. ANALYSIS
Both the General Plan and State law affirm the directive to strive for consistency between
the Airport Comprehensive Land :Use Plan and the City General Plan. The proposed
amendments are consistent with the ALUC amendments to the CLUP. Sites A.and B woud
be redesignated from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Medium
Density. Residential development would be consistent with the location of. the sites in
proximity to neighborhood mixed use cores_ Because both sites would only be developed
in conjunction with approval of planned developments, conditions will be stipulated requiring
multiple -family residential development, execution of avigation easements, and
UVA VV-ZIVL VV- I/KL?4-L
Planning Comm. Mtg 4. x/99
Page 5 . I.
requirements for disclosure of aircraft overflight. Although it is anticipated that both sites wil
develop in the City_in order to extend sanitary sewers, both are now in the unincorported
area. As noted eadier,'the North Chico Specific Plan adopted by Butte County shows Site
B designated for Medium Density Residential.; Therefore, the proposed amendment for Sia
B would be consistent with the specific planus well as the CLUP.
.The ALUC preference for multiple family residential housing over -single family ownership
housing is based on the more temporary nature. of rental. housing.. Renters who are
Uncomfortable with the noise or frequency of overflight can more readily choose to reside
elsewhere than can homeowners. In addlion, noise attenuation and impacts can be more
readily reduced in multiple family residential construction.. ` '
Sites . C and D are _developed with single-family residences and are- within an area
exclusively.. developed,:with:such..h.ousing.- These...sites.would.,be,.redesignated fcom.Lovu..__,....
Density Residential (2:1 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to Very Low Density Residential (.2 to
2 dwelling units per acre). Zoning 'of these parcels, however, would further restrict
development consistent with the ALUC amendments, restricting new single-family residential
development to one dwelling unit per two acres. Sites C and D are the only remaining
residential parcels within the Outer Safety Zone not already developed or in'the process of
development. Although only one parcel remains in the County, all were originally developed
in the County. The large parcel sizes characteristic of the early development in this area
accommodated septic systems and a semi -rural lifestyle. The most significant effect of the
proposed amendments will be the.inability of the -property owners of.parcels Sites C and'D
to further subdivide and develop. their property..ALUC.believes: that the:ame'ndments will
result in reduced external impacts from that anticipated by. further development .of .the
parcels.
VII. 'RECOMMENDATION
On April 19,1999 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the
negative declaration and .approve, General Plan Amendment 99-2, Rezone 99-2 and
Prezone 99-1, finding that the proposed:change...is.consistent with..the.policies, standards,. .
and land uses specified in the General Plan.
Findings:
1. The. recommended general plan amendments and zone changes are consistent with
the Comprehensive Land UtePlan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airportas amended
October 22, 1998 '
The proposed general ,plan designations and. zone, changes
development of certain ,properties with uses that" are consistent
recommended for specific safety areas in the CLUP.
r
will 'encourage
with the uses
2. The recommended general plan amendments and zone changes Iare consistent with
City of Chico General Plan policies, standards, and land uses specified in the General
Plan and any applicable specific plan:---
GPA 99-2/PZ 99-1/RZ99='
Planning Comm. Mtg 4/1 ,9
Page 6 •
The recommended" general plan amendments and gone changes will assist in
protecting the future operation of airport,, promote compatible uses with `the airport
operations, prevent development which is hazardous to aviation, and assist to
implement the Airport Noise Compatibility Program.
3. The, City. Council,. after considering the proposed Negative .Declaration, the
recommendation of the Planning Director thereon, :the, initial study; comments rece'ned
another information contained in' -the administrative record compiled to the dateof City
Council meeting adopts a negative declaration for . the proposed general plan
amendments and zone changes:
Proposed Motion
I.. move that the City Council adopt the resolution and ordinances adopting a negative
declaratiorrand,approving-General-PlareAmendmenV99-2,,Prezone`99-1-ard Rezone 99-2 —
subject to the findings as listed in Section VII of this staff report.dated April 21, 1999.
Respectively submitted, _
Yoayes
n 'HSenior Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Overall Location Map
Site Location Maps
Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment 99-2
Ordinance Adopting Rezone 99-2
Ordinance Adopting_ Prezone 99-1
Initial Study
Letter from ALUC staff, dated- October22-,?199&----��--
Letters from property owners in vicinity of Site A (Morseman Ave. and Eaton Rd.)
cc: Butte County ALUC
Sergio and Maria Orestano, P.O. Box 6997, Chico, CA 95927
Stephens Charitable, c/o' Douglas Gunn, 250 West Crest St., Escondido,' CA 92025
Kirkman Family 'Trust,.. 2674 Ceres Avenue, Chico,.CA 95926
Gary and Jerry Houser; 2670 Ceres Avenue, Chico, CA 95925'
Lois C. Lee, P.O:-.Box 1604, Chico, CA. 95927
Layne Chapman,`P.O. Box 71, Chico,' CA. 95927
Rocky Campbell/Douglas Richardson, 794..Marcia Ct, Chico, CA 95973
Bob Hope, 780 Marcia Ct., Chico, CA 95973
James R. Curtis, 3143 Morseman Ave., Chico, CA 95973
EXCERPT FROM COUNCIL MINUTES OF 5/4/99
par�s due to CARD's success in working with neighborhood groups to develop local park facilities. The
BidweTPakand Playground Commission and Park Director recommend approval of the designation
of CARD as lea
Councilmember Jarvis moved adopp toh each resolution and approval of all other items on the
Consent Agenda, including a correction to ite nd excepting item 2.1 which was removed to a
subsequent meeting. The motion was seconded anrried by the following vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Guzzetti, Herbert, Jarvis, Johnston, Keene,A Bertagna. NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
3. NOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS
. .3.1. HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-2 REZONE 99-2 AND PREZONE 99-1
By memorandum dated 4/21/99, Senior Planner Hayes reported that General Plan Amendment No.
99-2, Rezone 99-2 and Prezone 99-1 provided General Plan and zoning amendments that would
conform the City General Plan land use with the Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP), as recently amended by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, general plans or any applicable specific plans must be
consistent with a local CLUP adopted by an ALUC in accordance with State Law. In accordance with
state law, the amendments were submitted to ALUC for a determination of consistency with the CLUP.
At its meeting of 4/21/99, ALUC- considered the amendments and -determined the proposed actions
consistent with the CLUP. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan and
zoning amendments.
Site A - Approximately 6 acres located easterly of the intersection of Morseman Avenue and Eaton
Road would be changed from Low Density Residential to Medium Density, Residential. General Plan
text would be amended to provide that density would be limited to a total of 24 multiple -family units
clustered on the eastern -most 3 acres of the site.
Site B - Approximately 20 acres located southerly of Mud Creek and westerly of Hicks Lane would be
changed from Low Density Residential to_Medium Density: Residential, General Plan text would be
amended to restrict development to a maximum of 80 multiple -family dwelling units, clustered on no
more than 50% of the site.
Site C - Two parcels consisting I of�approximately 3 acres located on the east side of Ceres Avenue,
approximately 1,000 feet north of East Avenue, would be changed from Low Density Residential to Very
Low Density Residential. Also proposed to prezone 2670 Ceres Avenue from R-1 Single Family
Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential (two acre minimum lot size) andrezone 2671 and 2674
Ceres Avenue from R-1 Single Family. Residential 'to RS -2 Suburban Residential (two acre minimum
lot size).
Site D - Two parcels ranging in size from 2 to 2:5 acres, and both .developed with a single family
residence, located on the west side of Floral Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of Glenshire Lane,
would be changed from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential. Also proposed to
change zoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban -Residential (two acre minimum
lot size). -
Councilmember Keene requested colored maps in the.future, where appropriate, for easier reference.
Dan Hays, 1041 Cherry St. #2, representing owners in Site D. disagreed :with the ALUC
recommendations and requested that Council allow greater density, as, on other sites.
Doug Richardson, 794 Marcia Ct., spoke against .denser development for Site A and recommended
1
May 4, 1999 Chico City Council Page 6
designating at least 3 acres as a•park/buffer zone, not allowing access to Morseman Avenue, and
instead going to Eaton Road. In response to Council questions, Senior Planner. Hayes added that it
could be made a requirement of site development in the General Plan.
Layne Nichols, 2721 Floral Ave., reported that she had connected 2 acres in Site D to the City sewer,
that the proposal would make her property worthless, and that all the property around her was already
developed.
In response to questions, the City Manager indicated that he would contact ALUC to determine their
notice requirements to property owners and adjacent residents when it was considering changes in the
CLUP.
No one else spoke, and the Mayor closed the hearing to the audience.
Councilmember Johnston moved approval of the proposals for Sites A and B except that access would
go to Eaton Road and open space would be provided adjacent to Morseman and Netters, single story
development would be determined by the` Planning Commission, and staff be directed to develop
findings for not making the proposed chan;;es in Sites C and D. The motion was seconded and carried
with Councilmembers Herbert, Jarvis, Johnston, Kirk and Bertagna voting aye, and Councilmembers
Guzzetti and Keene voting no.
3.2. HEARING ON FORMATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 12
3.3.
memorandum dated 4/6/99, Assistant Director of Public Works Hislop reported on a resolution to
for Underground District No. 12 on East Avenue and adjacent properties between the Esplanade and
State ute 99 and also to order the undergrounding of existing overhead utility facilities within the
district.undergrounding project would be financed with a portion of the City's allocation of.Utility
Company R e 20A funds. A request had been forwarded to Butte County to form a companion
underground di ict covering those properties on the south side of this segment of East Avenue that
were under County . risdiction. A neighborhood meeting to receive input from affected property owners
was held on 4/14/99. ll notices of .this hearing had been published and sent in conformance with
Chapter 14.44 of the Chi Municipal Code. He recommended adoption of the resolution.
No one spoke,, and the Mayor &,dared the hearing closed to the audience.
AND ORDERING REMOVAL OF SAME (UNDER OUND DISTRICT NO. 12). After reading the title,
Councilmember Kirk.moved adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded and carried by the
following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Guzzetti, Herbert, rvis, Johnston, Keene, Kirk and Bertagna.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
The Council recessed for 15 minutes and reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
SUBDIVISION
By memorandum dated 4/13/99, the Community Development Director reported that ' resolution
would order the formation of Chico Maintenance Assessment District No. 91. As a co ition of
development of this subdivision, generally located westerly of Cussick Avenue between Hensh and
May 4, 1999 Chico City Council Page 7
Memo
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Paula Leasure, Butte County DDS
Laura Webster, PMC
2►0, 03.' a7
Comments Regarding the July 19, 1999 Correspondence from. the City of Chico -
Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-2/RZ99-2/PRZ99-1
July 29, 1999
In response to your July 27, 1999 request, I have reviewed the referenced correspondence from the
City of Chico and compared their proposal with the findings which were approved by the ALUC for
the project on April 21, 1999. I have also reviewed the minutes and my notes for that meeting. The
Commission found the City's original proposal "conditionally consistent" with the 1998 CMAEP.
As noted in the following analysis, the City's current proposal does not incorporate all of the
Commission's conditions. If the City chooses to adopt their proposed. amendments without
incorporating all of the ALUC's conditions, Overriding Findings will be necessary.
Site A
As expressed in the City's July 19, 1999 correspondence, staff is proposing to amend the City of
Chico General Plan -land use designation applied to Site A from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential. The amendment will also limit the density to a maximum of 24 multiple family
dwelling units clustered in the northeast corner of the site: Text assigned to both Sites A and B would
include development standards requiring avigation easements and disclosure of aircraft overflight to
future tenants.
The City's language has incorporated the general intent of the required conditions stipulated by the
ALUC for consistency. However, the Commission also specified that the multiple family dwelling
units be constructed in clusters of at least 7 units per gross acre and that the western 3.0 acre portion
of the project area remain in open space. The City's proposal does not fully incorporate these details.
Site B
As noted in the City's July 19, 1999 correspondence, staff is proposing to amend the City of Chico
General Plan land use designation applied to Site B from, Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential. The amendment will also limit the density to a maximum of 80 multiple family dwellings
units clustered on the western half of the site.
Again, the City's language has incorporated the general intent of the required conditions stipulated
by the ALUC for consistency. However, the Commission also specified that the multiple family
dwelling units be constructed in clusters of at least 7 units per gross acre, and that residential
Paula Leasure, Butte County DDS
Page 2
July 29, 1999
development shall only occur on 8 of the 20 acres contained within the project area. The remaining
12 acres are to be kept in open space. The ALUC also specified that flight patternrequirements and
conditions associated with Aerial Applicator's operations shall be considered'and addressed as part
of site plan development for Site B. The City's proposal does incorporate these details.
Sites C and D
These properties are located within the Outer Safety Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14 of the
CMAEP. Rural residential land uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range are considered compatible
within that zone. The proposal reviewed by the ALUC in April indicated that the City would
redesignate sites C and D from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling.units per gross acre)
to Very Low Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre) and rezone and/or
prezone them from R-1 Single Family Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential - Two Acre
Minimum Lot Size. The City's July 19, 1999 correspondence indicates that no action is proposed
at this time and that the properties will be addressed during the update of the CLUP.
On April 21, 1999, the ALUC found the City's proposal to redesignate .the sites as described above
to be consistent with the 1998 CMAEP, because such action would effectively preclude further
residential development at these locations and meet the intention of the Outer Safety Zone. If these
actions are not undertaken by the City, the City's General Plan would not be considered consistent
with the 1998 CMAEP. Although the July 19, 1999 correspondence indicates that it is the City's
understanding that the ALUC concurred with the City that no, action should be taken on Sites C and
D at this time and that the sites should be addressed in conjunction with the update of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I can find no record of that discussion in my notes or the minutes
from the April 21, 1999 meeting. Since the 180 -day time period has passed from when the 1998
amendments to the CMAEP were adopted, if the City does not complete the proposed amendment
for Site C and D, the ALUC could theoretically require that all projects within those properties be
submitted to ALUC for review until such time as the Plan is made consistent or Overriding Findings
have been adopted.
Please give me a call at 533-1131 if you have any questions regarding this information.
Jul -27-99 03:01P but: county planning 56 538 7785 P.02
( � k�x
IJ Gt)k1MliNl''I'1' 1)FVFa.,OFM1;N,1,
NiVARTMENT
PLANNING
CITYcnCHIC.O I1 Maint,U(:r:+
mrc' +en F' i) E. r :14:.0
July 19, 1999
Airport Land Use Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA. 95965-3397
�" nfngDivision
J U L 2 6 1959
OrovIlla, Calftomia.
Subject: Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rz 99-2/Prz 99-1
Dear Commissioners:
At your meeting of May 19, 1999, City of Chico amendments to its General Plan Land Use Element
were discussed. These amendments were in response to amendments adopted by ALUC in October
1998. The City is proceeding with amendments to the sites noted below. It is our understanding that
ALUC concurred with the City that no action on Sites C and D should be taken at this time,. and that
the subject properties should be addressed in conjunction with the update of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan,
Site -AA - Approximate 6 acre vacant site located on the east side of Morseman Avenue approximately,
700 feet south of Eaton Road. Designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and prezoned
PMU Planned Mixed • Use. This site is a portion of a larger site proposed for a mixed use
neighborhood center. Area B of the Overflight Area restricts residential development to multiple
family residences with avigation easements and tenant disclosure. It is proposed to amend the
General Plan for this site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The
General Plan text would beyfurther amended to limit densitto a maximum of 24 multiple
family dwellings clustered in the northeast corner of the site, providing open space buffers
along Morseman Avenue and development to the south. Access to the subject development
would also be limited to Eaton Road. Sites A and B would also include development standards
requiring avigation easements and disclosure of aircraft overflight to future tenents. The
PMU Planned Unit Development zoning would remain since it continues to be consistent with
the new General Plan designation.
SALB-1 - Largest of the four sites, Site B is approximately 20 acres in size. It is located within Area
B of the Overflight Area and is designated Low Density Residential in the City General Plan and is
prezoned PMU. The site is also a part of the "Villages" portion of the North.Chico Specific Plan
(NCSP). The County adopted Specific Plan designates the site for Medium Density Residential.
'rhe City proposal would amend this site to Medium Density Residential consistent with the
Jul -27-99 03:01P buttt county planning 50 538 7785 P.03
NCSP. The General Plan text would be further amended to limit density to a maximum of 80
multiple -family dwelling units located on the western half of the site. Prezoning is proposed
to remain unchanged at this time, since both Sites A and R require that future development
occur as planned developments, at which time zoning would be specified consistent with
Mcdium Density Residential and other General Plan development standards.
Site C - Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area. Existing Plan designation is Low Tensity
Residential and are zoned and prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels appear to be located
within the Outer Safety Zone and are developed with existing single family residences. Under the
current zoning, the subject parcels could be further developed at a density of up to 6 dwelling units
per acre, inconsistent with the recent ALUC amendment. General Plan Amendment 99-2/Rezone
99-2 and Prezone 99-1, would redesignate these parcels from Low Density Residential to Very Low
Density Residential and amend the existing R-1 Single Family Residential zoning to RS -2 Suburban
Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size. This amendment precludes further residential
development of the subject parcels. No action is proposed at this time. To be addressed during
update of CLUP.
Site D - Consists of two parcels located on Floral Avenue at the farthest limit of the amended Outer
Safety Zone. As with Site C these parcels are developed with existing single family residences, but
are large enough in size (approximately 4.5 acres) to accommodate further residential development.
General Plan Amendment 99-2 and Rezone 99-2 proposes to redesignate these parcels from Low
Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezone the parcels from R -I Single Family
Residential to RS -2 Suburban Residential Two Acre Minimum Lot'Size. This amendment would
preclude further residential development of the parcels. No action is proposed at this time. To
be addressed during update of CLUP.
Again, it is our understanding that the above actions would meet our legal obligations for General
Plan cxnsistency at this time. Please let me know if you have a different understanding of these
proposed actions. Pending your response we will proceed with amending our General Plan.
Sincerely,
Tom Haves
.Iv
Senior Planner
CC: CM/CA/RM/CDD/PID/AM
RT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95966 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
TO: City of Chico Planning Department
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FINDINGS AND/OR
COMMENTS: ALUC File No A99-04 (Proposed City of Chico
General Plan Amendment 99-02/Rezone 99-02/Prezone99-1): In
response to the amendments to the CMAEP made by the ALUC on
October 21, 1998, the City of Chico is processing four General Plan
Amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report,
initial study and a letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to
PUC 21676 (b), the City requests that the ALUC make a
determination of consistency. regarding the proposed amendments.
DATE NOTICE MAILED: April 28, 1999
This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission held a public meeting on April 21,
1999 and approved the findings and/or materials attached as Exhibits A and Al.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of the
ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of
Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission,
1 •
• h•
"AYAIRP
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 959% • (530) 53&7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
EXIT A
BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR:
City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone/Prezone Modifications
A99-04 (GPA99-02=99-02/PZ99=01)
Site A (portion of APN 007-190-022)
Site B (portion of APN 047-250-141)
Site (APN's 048-670-048 and 054)
Site D (APN's 048-600-055 and 056)
The Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the following findings based upon data contained
within the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP). This data; in turn is based upon
the findings of a number of studies, documents and reportsgenerated by individuals, firms and
agencies recognized as having expertise in the field of Airport Land Use Planning. and land use
compatibility. (See Exhibit Al, List of References)
The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration
of the City of Chico (local agency) when making a decision on the project.
Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS `
A. Environmental documentation provided for the project consists of an Initial
Study and Proposed Negative .Declaration of Environmental Impact. The
purpose of the City's proposal is to apply land use designations and zoning
recommended in the 1998 CMAEP to ensure the compatibility of future
development with any airport related impacts including overflight protection,
noise, airspace protection, and safety. -The City's proposal, as conditioned
below, has been found to accomplish those objectives.
Section 2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY FINDINGS
A. Chapter 3 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook identifies four
functional categories that address airport land use compatibility concerns.
These include: Overflight Protection/Larid Use Compatibility, Safety, Noise,
and Airspace Protection. The applicant's proposal has been 'found,to be
conditionally consistent with protection measures and policies contained in the
1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which are designed to address
Overflight Protection/Land Use Compatibility, Safety; Noise, and Airspace
Protection:
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • ,
1
Overflight. Protection/Land Use Compatibility
1. Sites A and,B are located within Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone
depicted in Drawing CTC -14 of the CMAEP. Compatible land uses in this
zone include Multiple Family Residential (7 and 35 dwelling units per
gross acre), Commercial; Business Park and Industrial'.. The City's
proposal to redesignate Sites A and B from Low Density Residential (2.01
to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre) to Medium Density Residential (4.01
to 14 dwelling units per gross acre), is consistent with the policies of the
CMAEP upon implementation. of the following required conditions:
A. Residential development within Site A shall be limited to a total of 24
multiple• family, dwefling units in clusters of 7 units per gross acre.
Residential development shall only occur on the eastern 3 acre portion
of the site.. The western 3 acre portion of the project area shall remain
m open space.
B. Residential development within Site B shall be limited to a total of 80.
multiple family dwelling units in clusters of 7 units per gross acre.
Residential I development shall only occur on 8 of the 20 acres
contained within project area. The remaining 12 acres shall be kept
in open space. Flight pattern requirements and conditions associated
with Aerial Applicators' operations shall be considered and addressed
as part of site.plan development.
Sites C and D, are located within the Outer Safety Zone depicted in
Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.,'Rural residential land uses with lot
sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range are considered compatible within that
zone. Therefore, the City's proposal to redesignate Sites C and D
from Low Density Residential (2.01 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross
acre) to Very Low Density Residential (0.20 to 2.0 dwelling units per
acre) and rezone the sites from R-1 .Single Family Residential to RS -2
Suburban Residential (2 acre minimum lot size) will effectively
preclude further residential development at these locations and meet
the intention of Outer Safety Zone policies.
. Safety , • .
2. --Accident scatter maps based upon data generated by Hodges and
Shutt and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies .(1993) have been adopted as part' of the
CMAEP (Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18) and support the finding that
Sites A through D do not have an elevated likelihood of being
impacted by aircraft accidents. }
•Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
2
Noise. '
3. According to Drawings CIC -3 and CIC -15 of the CMAEP, Sites A, B
and C are located outside of the projected 55 dB CNEL contour for the
Chico Municipal Airport and Site D is located on the. boundary of the
projected 55 dB CNEL contour. Exhibit 4-4 of the CMAEP "Land
Use Compatibility for Noise Environments," indicates that single
family residential development is considered normally acceptable in
areas exposed to up to 55 dB CNEL and may be conditionally
acceptable in areas exposed to between 55 dB and 70 dB CNEL.
Multiple family residential development is considered normally
acceptable in areas exposed to up to 60 dB CNEL and may be
conditionally acceptable in areas exposed to between 60 dB CNEL and
70 dB CNEL. The City's proposal will preclude future single family
residential development on Sites C and D and direct multiple family
residential development to Sites A and B which are outside of the
projected 55 dB CNEL contour.
Although the noise contours discussed above indicate that projected
exposure in the project areas will beat or below 55 dB CNEL, it
should be noted that residents may be exposed to single event, noise
levels and other episodes which exceed those levels. The location of
the projected noise contours may also change when the effect of the
proposed extension of runway 13L/31R is more comprehensively.
analyzed. Therefore, 'the following required conditions for multiple
family residential uses in Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone,.
(e.g., Sites A and A of the City's proposal), will inform future
residents of airport noise related' impacts and protect future airport
operations:
A. Prior to development, the property owners of Sites A and B
shall dedicate avigation easements -to the airport operator.
B. Potential tenants of multiple family residential developments
on Sites A and B shall be notified through written and graphic
depictions. on rental and/or lease application forms of the
proximity of the development to the Chico Municipal Airport.
The written notice shall also disclose the potential for
overflight activity and associated noise related impacts
including single event noise levels in excess of 55 dB CNEL.
Airspace Protection
4. According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites A and B are located within the
Horizontal Surface of the Chico Municipal Airport which has an
elevation of 388 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The elevation
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission o
3
ranges for Sites A and B are 183-186 feet MSL and ,200-205 feet
MSL, respectively. The maximum allowable height for primary
structures within the PMU zoning district is expected to be 35 feet.
Based on that limitation the anticipated total project elevation in both
cases will not penetrate the Horizontal Surface.
According to Drawing CIC -5, Sites C,and D are located within the
transition area between- the 50:1 and 40:1 Approach Surfaces for
runway 13L/31R Text on page 5-3.of the CMAEP indicates that the
Approach Surface at this location is approximately 200 feet above the
runway threshold elevation, which is 205 feet MSL. According to
USGS topographic information, the elevation ranges for Sites C and D
are 213 - 216 feet MSL and 215 - 218 feet MSL, respectively. Since
the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for these sites
will preclude additional residential development, only new accessory
structures could potentially be constructed. The maximum allowable
height for accessory structures within the proposed RS -2 Residential
Suburban zoning district is 20 feet. Based on that limitation the .
anticipated total project elevation in both cases will not penetrate the.
Approach Surface or result in an obstruction to air navigation.
The ALUC has also considered the location of Sites. A through D with
regard to the revised location of FAR Part 77 Surfaces resulting from
.future extension of runway 13R/3 IL and determined that the. City's
proposal will not result in the penetration of any future FAR Part 77.
surfaces.
r
t•
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
4
- Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 3
;f
The hearing was open to the public. No one spoke. The hearing was closed to the public.
3
It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and
4
unanimously carried to find the proposed Butte County Rezone A99-03 (REZ99-05 - Feeney
5
Engineering/Wray) on APNO07-410-017 consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
6
Environs Plan, as revised October 21, 1998, and as noted in the consistency findings.
7
g
9
.3. ALUC File No A99-04 Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-02:
In response to the amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
l0
adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1998, the City is'processing four General Plan
11
amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report and a letter
12
describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676(b), the City requests that
13
ALUC evaluate the proposed amendments and find that they are consistent with the
14
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
15
16
Ms. Webster stated that the City of Chico is proposing four General Plan Amendments and
17
zoning changes for four sites in the "Airport Environs in response to the ALUCs amendments
18
to the Chico Municipal Airport Plan. She noted that since the staff report was delivered to
19
the Commission on the morning of the meeting and that the Commission did not have
20
appropriate time to review the report, she then gave a detailed summary.
21
22
Commissioner Lando said he felt there would need to be a discussion on Sites A and B, but
23
that Sites C and D seem routine.
24
25
It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and
26
unanimously carried to approve Sites C and D, as they are consistent and precludes further
27
residential development.
28
29
Commissioner Lando said that he felt there would be neighborhood compatibility issues with
30
Site A and that changing the site to multiple family residences would accomplish anything.
31
He said there may be more issues about appropriate uses, as.well, with Site B.
32
33
Vice -Chairman Lambert agreed with Commissioner Lando.
34
35
Commissioner Gerst had a concern with the amount of units per acre.
36
37
Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if being in the Low Density Residential designation was
38
inconsistent?
39
40
Ms. Webster is yes, because both parcels are located within Zone B of Overflight Protection
41
Zone. She said that the text that was adopted with that specifically precluded single family
42
residential development and for that reason, it is inconsistent if it stays at Low Density
43
Residential.
44
45
Commissioner Lando asked if it would allow for Multiple Family Residential.
46
- Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 3
Ms. Webster said that the text that was adopted specifically states Multiple F
Residential and at the densities of 7 to 35 units per acre.
Commissioner Lando asked if that was for the noise and clustering. Ms. Webster agreed.
Commissioner Gerst asked how Ms. Webster arrived at seven units per acre.
Ms. Webster stated that on November .18, 1998, which was the next meeting after the
Commission had adopted.the Overflight Protection Zone and Outer Safety Zone, staff had
a list of questions, that were presented for further clarification on actual density of
development that the Commission felt was acceptable. She stated that this information was
not included in the original adoption.. The Commissioner referred to the Residential densities
listed for medium density and high density on Page 613 of the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan.
Commissioner Lando asked Commissioner Gerst what he thought it should be?
Commissioner Gerst said it should be no greater than what the guidelines state, which is a
maximum of six.
Ms. Webster said she had the minutes of the meeting where questions were asked regarding
density. She said the Commission's response was that the density shown at the top of Page
613 of Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan undermedium and high density residential
categories would be consistent in Zone B. She said the minutes also reflected that medium
densities are from seven to 12 units and high densities is up to 35.
Commissioner Lando asked if they would be in conformance if they were to meet the density
standard of seven units per acre, but also state that the overall number of units could not
exceed the number of units that would have been in single family residential?
Ms. Webster said that single family development is prohibit in this area.
Vice -Chairman Lambert asked what the density is.
Ms. Webster said low, one to six units.
Commissioner Lando said he heard the plan envisions multiple structures, in which
clustering does make sense.
For Site A, it was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and
unanimously carried to approve a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential,
limiting the number of total units to 24, allowing clustered development to occur on the east
side in minimum clusters of seven units per acre minimum and that no more than one-half
of the site can be developed.
- Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 4
r • •
- Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 'Page 5
Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if the location of "The Villages" was a portion of the North
�f
Chico Specific Plan.
3
4
Ms. Webster said that staff's review compared the proposal with the CLUP and not the North
5
Chico Specific Plan, which is what ALUC is required to make its finding based on. Under
6
the review of the amendment that the Commission adopted, the new proposal ,would be
7
consistent with the Commission.
8
9
Commissioner Lando said that for the traffic pattern for general aviation did raise a concern.
'10
11 '
Commissioner Lando made a motion to approve a. General Plan Amendment to Medium
12-
Density Residential, limiting the number of 80 maximum multiple family units, requiring
13.
clustered development to occur with minimum clusters of seven units per acre, therefore, a ;
14.
total of eight acres to be developed with a remainder of 12 acres undeveloped.
15
16
Kim Siedler, City of Chico, Planning Director, said that if the Commission could, it might
17
be something they would want to leave open, because of other environmental constraints that
18
could occur. _ _...
19
r
20
Barbara Hennigan said that Chico Aerial departs perpendicularly to the runway and that they
21
are required to be below the traffic pattern height and be 500 feet above any persons, places,
22
buildings, etc. She said that depending on the location of the development, ALUC could
23
preclude Chico Aerial from being able to come in and out of the airport. Mrs. Hennigan said.
24
that this consideration should be added to the motion.
25
26
Commissioner Lando agreed with Mrs. Hennigan.
27
28
Ms. Webster clarified Mrs. Hennigan's concern of adding to the motion that the pattern.
29
required for Chico Aerial Applicators be considered as part of the site plan development.
30
31
It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, an
32
unanimously carried to approve a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential,
33
limiting the number of 80 maximum multiple family units, requiring clustered development
34
to occur with minimum clusters of seven units per acre, therefore, a total of eight acres to be
35
developed with a remainder of 12 acres undeveloped; and that the pattern required for Chico
36
Aerial Applications be considered as part of the site plan development.
37
38
Mr. Seidler expressed his appreciation the Commission's staff for its work of getting this
39
item on the agenda quickly.
40
41
4. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: The
42
Commission will review and discuss the letter prepared by the Butte County
43
Assistant County Counsel relative to the location'of the aircraft overflight Signage
44
required by the North Chico Specific Plan. Also to be discussed, is the proposed
45
design of the'sign itself. (Item continued from March 17, 1999)
46
- Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 'Page 5
BUTTE COUNTY AiftERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE:
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM:'
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Amendment to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan:
DEPARTMENT:
DATE:,
MEETING DATE REQUESTED:
Development Services
March 16, 1999
April 13, 1999
CONTACT:
PHONE:
REGULAR X - CONSENT
David Doody
7150
PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: -
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission amended the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (CMAEP). Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code, the Board of Supervisors is requested to take
action to bring the General Plan into compliance with the revised CMAEP or make overriding findings.
REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:
The Board of Supervisors is requested to direct that all discretionary permits located within the area effected by the
amendment be referred to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission for compatibility review.
AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACHEXPLANATORY
MEMORANDUMAND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATIONAS NECESSARY
Budgetary Impact: Yes No x
CAO OFFICE USE ONLY
If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back
Budget Transfer Requested: Yes_x No
Administrative Office Review
If yes, complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back.
Administrative Office Staff Contact -
(Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline)
Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No
4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No:
Auditor -Controller's Number (if
required):_Forthcoming Yes
Date Received by Clerk of Board:
County Counsel's Approval: Yes No
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No x
Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help
Previous Board Action Date: Additional Information Attached: Yes No
Describe: Staff Report
Rev. vyn
i
S]BIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO C1W
Number of originals required to be returned to Department: ,
"Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk of the Board returns completed
Auditor's copy ONLY.
Requested Board Action:
Ordinance Required Resolution Required_. Minute Order Required x For Information Only
BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET
Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source Source of Additional Funds Requested
Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $
(Fund Name: _Program Income)
(Fund Number: )
Amount Budgeted $ CDBG Program Income -
(Budget Unit Number:) (Source: )
(Fund Name:—General) r o `
(Fund Number: )
Other Transfer(s)
$ 1. Complete worksheet below
2. Deadline is one business day grior
to normal agenda deadline ,
Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds $
Annualized cost $ if also planned for next year.
Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office
Board Action Required for B -Transfer? -Yes No_
Authorized Signature Date
BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET
Transfer Request:
AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM
Transfer$
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer $
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer $
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer$
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer $
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer $
(No Cents) From
To
Transfer $
(No Cents) From
To
ti
•
•
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
To: Members of the Board of Supervisors
From: Thomas A. Parilo, Director
Subject: Report on Actions Necessary Resulting from the Butte County Airport Land
Use Commission's October 21, 1998, Amendments to the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan
For: Board Meeting of April 13, 1999
Date: March 31, 1999
BACKGROUND:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted
environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal AirportEnvirons. Plan
(CMAEP). ALUC amended the 1978 CMAEP in order to prevent incompatible land uses from
being developed in the Chico Municipal Airport environs and to preserve responsible airport
operations. The action of October 21, 1998, affected the extent of the Overflight Protection Zone
(OPZ) and added new text to the plan. The County has contracted with Shutt -Moen & Associates
to complete an update to the CMAEP. A draft CMAEP should be completed before the end of 1999.
The following is a summary of ALUC's actions.
According to the Public Utility Code (PUC), the ALUC is permitted to revise the CMAEP once a
year. Following the revision,the Board of Supervisors has 180 -days to evaluate the amendment and
then take action to bring the General Plan into compliance with the revised CMAEP or make
overriding findings. The 180 day period ends on April 20, 1999. Government Code Section
65302.3 states the following:
Section 65302.3 - Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(A) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to* Article 8
(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended
pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675.
(B) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within
180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Public Utilities Code Section 21675.
r
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 2
(C) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Public
Utilities Code Section 21675, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting
findings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.
The<revision to the CMAEP will require consistency analysis for both the City of Chico and the
Butte County General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan. The City of Chico is processing two
(2) zoning changes and two (2) General Plan amendments in response to the revisions adopted by
ALUC. However, the City is not expected to finish before the expiration of the 180 day period. As
provided by City Planning staff, attached is a brief description of the changes being undertaken by
the City of Chico.
Changes to the Overflight Protection Zone Map:
ALUC adopted a new Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ) which now surrounds the Chico airport (see
attached map). The OPZ is divided into subzones which are identified as "A", "A1" and `B." The
restrictions of these zones are described below. In adopting the new OPZ, ALUC used Airport Map
III -1 contained within the Federal Aviation Regulations,- Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
Program. The new OPZ is also based upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook and the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (see attached reference
materials).
Text Amendments:
Text was added to the CMAEP specifying that new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area
defined as Zone "A." The Airport Land Use Commission does not want single family dwellings to
be permitted on existing legally created parcels in Zones "A" even though they are currently zoned'
R-1, R-2, R-3, S -R, SR -1, and SR -3. Staff disagrees and a legal opinion has been requested
regarding this restriction within zone "A."
It appears to be the intent of zone "A1 "'to allow limited residential development on existing lots.
This is termed as permitting "infill" of the existing residential parcels. However, further subdivision
within zone "A1" would be inconsistent with the new plan.
Text was added specifying that no new single family residential uses shall be permitted in Zone `B."
However, approval of multiple family residential uses within Zone `B" appears to be consistent
subject to conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to' the airport operator and
notification of potential tenants regarding overflight activity. Therefore, Medium (6 to 12 units per
acre) and High (12 to 20 units•per acre) density would be consistent with Zone "B."
ALUC also amended the CMAEP to find that Commercial, Business Park and Industrial
development is appropriate in Zones "A", "A1" and `B" of the OPZ: This type of development is
considered compatible upon not exceeding specified people per acre concentrations.
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 3
Language adopted by the Commission indicates that small neighborhood shopping centers and two-
story offices are reasonable within the Outer Safety Zone. Concentrations of people within this area
should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. The Outer Safety Zone is area 4 on the
amended map...
ANALYSIS:
Because of the amount of property involved and due to limited staff resources, a thorough
evaluation of the implication of the new Overflight Protection Zone.(OPZ) has not yet been
completed. On the east side of the'Airport, land within the County is designated by the General
Plan for Industrial or Agricultural Residential use and the effect of the new OPZ may be relatively
minor. However, on the west side of the airport, the new OPZ overlays portions of the North Chico
Specific Plan. Most of these properties are zoned Industrial (M1 and M2), Public Service (PS); Open
Space (OS) and Commercial (C2) and are not affected by the new OPZ. However, there are many
parcels zoned SR -1, R-1 and R-2 which are affected by the new OPZ.
Therefore, staff is providing two options for consideration:
1. The Board may wish to direct staff to initiate a consistency review of the Butte County
General Plan and the North Chico Specific Plan, and either:
a) Amend said plans to be made consistent with the Chico Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or
b) Where planning factors determine that consistency cannot be made, prepare
overriding findings determining that the current general plan and specific
plan designations are consistent and do not compromise airport safety and
noise problems. (Note: This requires specific findings and approval -by four
fifths vote of the Board.) Or,
2. Direct Staff to submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and discretionary permits located
within the area effected by the amendment to ALUC until the fully revised Comprehensive
Plan is completed, deferring the detailed compatibility review until after adoption of the final.
plan. ,
Option No. One will require a detailed consistency review of the.Butte'County General Plan and
the North Chico Specific Plan. General Plan amendments and possible rezones may be necessary
for parcels found to be inconsistent. This option will require a significant amount of staff and
consultant time. �.
Option No. Two will allow ALUC to review projects occurring within the amended overflight
protection zone until such time that the comprehensive CLUP revision occurs. Since the number
of projects occurring within this area is anticipated to be minimal during the next year, the use of
staff and consultant resources would be less than option one. .
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Page 4
The Airport Land Use Commission's comprehensive land use. plan update is expected to be
completed in 1999. Staff recommends that a consistency review of the General Plan and the North
Chico Specific Plan occur at that time.
RECOMMENDATION: .
Staff requests the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
1. Select Option No. Two, and
2. Direct staff to submit projects located within the affected area to ALUC for consistency
findings.
3. Direct staff to prepare a letter advising ALUC of the Board's decision to submit individual
projects for review and that staff will conduct a complete compatibility review after the
comprehensive land use plan is complete.
Attachments:
1. Memo from Tom Hayes, City of Chico regarding Proposed City General Plan Amendments
2. Minutes of the October 21, 1998, ALUC Meeting
3. Letter of October 22, 1999, to Director of Development Services from Laura Webster,
ALUC Contract Planner - Pacific Municipal Consultants .
4. Overflight Protection Zone, adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1999
5. Overflight Protection Zone, adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1999, with Existing Zoning
0
KAPLANN[NG\ALUC\BOS.M EM\ALUC. PLEV
M Attachment No. 1
Fax Cover Sheet
DATE: 2/27. 1 q Q TIME:
PHONE:
"TO:
7601
'T0: VGwC VoO� �'j
✓. FAX: S�8 " 771S-
FROM
715FROM: PHONE:
FAX: VS - y % 2(-
RE: G :P. Awl&nd
CC:
'Number of pages Including cover sheet: [ 3 j
Message:
Uve, s
P%t,�t c� re r •{z, a'1;Ta c, �a �► Yt e-4 S
•
Dave,
Here are the changes we are contemplating. Amendments 1 and 2 are proposed as zone changes
only, since our General Plan allows existing uses on 2 acres or less to have different Plan and
zoning designations. Sites 3 and 4 would be General Plan amendments.
Simi - Two parcels, approximately 3 acres in area. Existing Plan designation is Low Density
Residential and are prezoned R-1 Single Family Residential. Parcels appear to be located within
the Outer Safety Zone and aro developed with an existing single family residence. Proposed to
amend prezoning to RS -2, Suburban Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot Size.
2 - Two or three parcels ranging in size from 1 to 2 acres and all are developed with a single
family residence located near Ceres Avenue. Designated Low Density Residential and prezoned
R-1. Proposed to amend prezoning to RS -2 Suburban Residential - Two Acre Minimum Lot
Size.
Site 3 - Approximate 6 acre vacant site (portion of A.P. 007-190-022). Designated Low Density
Residential in the General Plan and prezoned PMU Planned Mixed Use. This site is portion of
site planned for Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. Proposed to amend General Plan designation
from LDR to Medium Density Residential to comply with development restrictions for Area B of
the Overflight Area.
Site 4 - Largest of the four sites, Site 4 is approximately 20 acres in size. It is located within
Area B of the Overflight Area and is designated Low Density Residential in the City General
Plan and is prezoned PMU. Site 4 is a portion of A.P. 047-250-141. The site is also a partof the
"Villages" portion of the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). The County adopted Specific Plan
designates the site for Medium Density Residential, The City proposal would amend this site to
Medium Density Residential consistent with the NCSP. Prezoning is proposed to remain
unchanged at this time, since both Sites 3 and 4 require that future development occur as planned
developments, at which time zoning would be specified.
I hope the accompanying map is legible. If not we can review locations when the GIS map is
completed. Thank you for your assistance. You can contact me at 895-4853, fax 895-4726 for
further information.
�Io+e: Map wG�S Nod le5�b�� (here-�ore� twas noc),jPd n
Attachment No. 2
COUNTY OF BUTTE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Minutes of October 21, 1998
Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., October 21, 1998, in the Butte County Board of
Supervisor's Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B., ROLL CALL Present: _ Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate
Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
Absent: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
` Alternates Present: Chester Ward` a ,
Brian Baldridge -
C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: September 16, 1998
The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes: On page 1, line 14, "Commissioner
Lambert asked Alternate Papadakis to take her place as'a regular member at this meeting because the
agenda items were a continuation of items that the Commission had taken action on at the August 19,
1998 meeting,, and that Alternate Papadakis could follow through with these items." And page 8,
Business Item E.5., line 26, it should read the North Valley Pilot's Association not the California
Pilot's Association.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to approve the minutes
of September 16, 1998, as corrected.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternate Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes
_ a
in the Agenda order)
Having no changes, the consensus of the Commission was to accept the'Agenda as presented.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS: '
Items with Public Hearings"
• f.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • Minutes of October 2l .1998 ■ Page 1 ■
1. ALUC File No. 98-10 (Butte County Use Permit UP99-02 - Pacific Bell Mobile Services)
on APN 048-061-052
Ms. Webster summarized the proposal to construct a 104 foot monopole communications tower located
in the Chico Municipal Airport Area of Influence. She recommended that safety painting not be
required, but that a safety light be installed at the top of the tower, preferably a strobe type light. Ms.
Webster also recommended that the Commission find the project consistent with the Chico Municipal
Airport Environs Plan.
Alternate Koch asked if the FAA has certain criterion for strobe lighting or painting?
Ms. Webster said that the FAA did not recommend painting,or strobe lighting for this particular project
because they did not consider it to be an obstruction. However, the FAA did recommend that the
temporary crane located at the project site be painted because of the overall height.
Commissioner Lambert said she thought that the FAA recommended. safety painting for structures 300
feet- in height or above, and questioned if the FAA has standard requirements for the painting and
lighting of communication towers?
Ms. Webster was not sure if the FAA has a consistent set of standards, but said she could research that.
Commissioner Gerst commented that he felt safety painting and lighting should be required
consistently by the ALUC.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Sandy Rugroden, representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, stated that safety painting and lighting are
required by the FAA on structures above 200 feet. Pacific Bell Mobile Services is further requesting
L
that a red light be placed on top of the tower instead of a strobe light, and that the tower not be painted
because the FAA is not requiring it.
Commissioner Lambert discussed the need for the ALUC to come up with standard recommended
conditions for the painting and lighting of towers, and that various agencies such as crop dusters, Enloe
Flight, Oroville Flight, Butte County Search and Rescue, and the Sheriffs Department should be
notified when towers are constructed.
Chairman Hennigan said that he would like to see the towers painted above 75 feet in alternating
orange and white stripes, and lighting at approximately 100 feet. Commissioner Gerst stated that
reflectors or shielding could be installed to reduce the impact of the strobe lighting at ground level.
Keith Bray, representing Nextel Communications, stated to the Commission that when choosing a site
for a communication tower, Nextel conducts a radio frequency analysis, and looks at the local zoning
codes. He said that this particular tower is located in more of an agricultural residential area on
property that is already developed with a nursery. However, Nextel's primary concern is the neighbors,
-and that is why Pacific Bell and Nextel are requesting that strobe lighting not be required. He said that
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 2 ■ .
they will work with ALUC staff to address the lighting issue. Mr. Bray pointed out to the Commission
that if there is a recommendation to paint the tower, Pacific Bell and Nextel will try to blend in with
the skyscape as opposed to the trees in the area. Pacific Bell and Nextel will support the County's
recommendations, and will do what ever it takes to meet the necessary safety concerns.
Ms. Rugroden said that if the Commission recommends that the tower be painted, Pacific Bell and
Nextel fall under the FAA's maintenance agreement. This means that they are required to use the
FAA's paint samples, and adhere to the strict maintenance requirements for lighting fixtures. She
mentioned that the FAA has several paint samples that can be used, and strict guidelines that address
fading and chipping.
Alternate Koch said that he thought a steady red light would be abetter choice for this project site than
a strobe light with a reflector or shield. He suggested that the Planning Commission.dictate the
aesthetics, and the ALUC recommend the- required lighting and painting ,of the tower.
Alternate Ward suggested that a steady red light be installed on top. Chairman Hennigan suggested that
safety painting be applied to the portion of the tower that was above 75 feet.
Commissioner Gerst stated that he felt safety painting should be applied to the entire tower, not just
the portion above 75 feet. Chairman Hennigan noted that in urban areas, anything below 75, feet is just
obscured by trees and buildings anyway.
Barbara Hennigan suggested that agencies which utilize low flying aircraft, such as, the Butte County
Sheriffs Department, Butte County Mosquito Abatement, and the Civil Air Patrol be notified of the
tower's location. During the flooding there were National Guard helicopters flying low, and evacuating
people from the area. She mentioned that all companies constructing towers should be required to give
the precise Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their facilities to the Butte County
Planning Department, to be entered into the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), so when
an,emergency arises the County will be able to supply a map which identifies the air hazards.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to create such a hazard map for
emergency purposes.
Ms. Rugroden submitted a picture of the project site located at Box Brothers Nursery to the
Commission for its review.
Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public.
It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, to find the project consistent
with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and that the project is compatible with the viable,
responsible operation of the Chico Municipal Airport, subject to the following:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 Page 3 ■
L
A. The temporary crane shall be marked with safety painting (orange and white alternating paint)
and lighted with strobe type fixtures.
B. The temporary crane shall be lowered to a level equal to or below the height of the 104 foot
tower at night (between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.).
C. The 104 foot permanent tower shall be lighted with a steady red light fixture at the top of the
structure. The portion of the tower which exceeds 75 feet in height (i.e. top 29 feet) shall be
marked with safety painting (orange and white alternating paint).
D. - At the start of construction, the applicants shall notify all known flight operators and agencies
who utilize low-flying aircraft of the tower's height and specific location including GPS
coordinates. -
Specific agencies that are notified should include, but not be limited to: the Butte County
Sheriff's Department /Search and Rescue, the California Highway Patrol, the C.D.F. Air
Tanker Base, Chico Aerial Applicators, the North Valley Pilots Association, Pacific Flight
Services, Kenyon Aero Center, Enloe Flight Care, Mercy Medical Center of Redding (provides
back-up for Enloe), U.C. Davis Medical Center, the Chico office of the Mosquito and Vector
Control District, the Civil Air Patrol and the National Guard.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, Alternates Koch, and Chairman Hennigan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
ABSTAIN: None
2. Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
Chairman Hennigansaid while.he was before the Board of Supervisors trying to explain the ALUC's
position on the Stephens project he realized that it was the ALUC's fault that the annual update,of the
1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) had never been done. However, the Commission could
adopt issues that they have discussed in the past as part of the AirportLand Use Commission's 1998
update of the CLUP and that was his reason for placing this item on the agenda.
Ms. Webster summarized the staff report including text language and map exhibits designed to update
the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan as an interim measure before the end of the
1998 calendar year to avoid delays in the adoption of the updated CLUP prepared by Shutt Moen
Associates.
Chairman Hennigan also discussed the Exhibits presented in the staff report to the Commission at this
time.
Alternate Koch said he found it to be inconsistent that the Commission is willing to accept the boxes
associated with the Overflight Protection Zone from the City's FAR Part 150 Study depicted in Exhibit
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 4 ■
C_i
A, drawing CIC -14, which he said were not drawn based on the "Inner Turning Zone", but, the
Commission is not willing to accept the Noise Contours from the same study which are more consistent
and current then the 1978 contours. He believes that if the annual update process is going to be
performed then the Commission should update and adopt the noise contours presented in the City's
FAR Part 150 Study as the new noise contours for the airport until such time as they are replaced, and
not just overlay land use controls. He also feels that therewas not adequate public notice for this item,
which involves the County's North Chico Specific Plan Area. He asked if the County was formally
notified, and given an opportunity to comment? He added that the City of Chico supports the Noise
Compatibility Plan, and the Overflight Protection Zone and would like to see them adopted, but there
are significant additions to the Outer Safety Zone shown in Exhibit A that need to have extensive
public comment from both the County and the City. Because of the limited notice given for this item
he is not prepared to approve the proposed modifications today.
Chairman Hennigan opened the hearing to the public.
Barbara Hennigan provided documents to the Commission and staff which presented a comparison
between station log information from the C.D.F. tanker base and monitoringdata that was used as the
data source for the City's FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Ms. Hennigan pointed out that only one tanker
was captured in the data used by McClintock Becker, and that two C.D.F. flights that occurred during
the monitoring period for the study, were not captured at all. Numerous C.D.F. flights were conducted
in the time frame when McClintock Becker was doing their study. However, the timing of the
monitoring did not coincide with the heaviest tanker activity, so the noise impacts associated with these
operations is not reflected. She said that on Thursday, October 17, 1998, McClintock Becker only
collected seventeen minutes of data when the tankers were not flying, and therefore, feels that the data
is severely faulted.
Alternate. Koch said that may be correct, and that it should be looked in to. However, he questioned
how it was any better than the twenty year old data that the ALUC has of aircraft that are no longer here,
and of flight track activity that no longer exists.
Barbara Hennigan responded to Commissioner Koch by pointing out that when Michael
McClintock was asked why the noise foot print was smaller, he responded that certain aircraft
no longer used the airport. However the aircraft he cited were commercial aircraft that had
never taken the left turn at low altitude to fly into the foothills with passengers. Only the
airtankers took that VFR track and that many of those were exactly the same plane that were
counted in the 1978 study. Since there were still airtankers located at CMA, the track that they
created should not have disappeared from the noise study.
Paula Leasure, Principal Planner with the Butte County Department of Development Services,
requested a copy of the station log and monitoring information for the ALUC project file.
Chairman Hennigan asked how today's meeting of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
was noticed in regards to this item?
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 5 ■
In response to Chairman Hennigan's question, Ms. Leasure said the Public Notice was in the Chico
Enterprise Record on October 14, 1998, and was sent to the City of Chico on October 9, 1998.
Barbara Hennigan displayed a map of the 1961 Chico General Plan and pointed out that it
incorporated the recommendations of the Dolittle Commission, a lh mile long Clear Zone with
no development and 2 mile extension beyond that, 6000 feet wide, at the end of which was to
have restricted'development. That General Plan had five major policies, one of which was to
protect the airport.
Ms. Webster read pages 9-22 and 9-23 from the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, which
would define land use compatibility (uses and densities) within the Outei Safety Zone should it be
adopted today. Ms. Webster questioned if it had been the intention of the Commission that
there be no residential uses built in the outer safety zone. _
Chairman Hennigan said, "yes, we are bound by and follow recommendations from the.
Caltrans Handbook." '
Chairman Hennigan felt that the Commission should adopt the Outer Safety Zone even though the area
is largely developed, to provide future guidelines. Chairman Hennigan said that there will be
changes as buildings are replaced. There was a time when we did good planning, that reflected
what was our understanding and is our understanding again of airport safety. The fact that
there was a window in time when we did inappropriate land use, doesn't mean that we have
to do inappropriate planning forever. Infill doesn't mean "another church, another school."
He said that there are many compatible uses identified within the text that Ms. Webster had read from
the Caltrans Handbook, including very low density residential development, two-story office buildings,
and small neighborhood commercial development. Chairman Hennigan said that the City of
Chico, in response to the NCSP had argued that the residential development on the north end
of the runway be limited to not less than one unit/five acres.
Alternate Koch questioned if the Butte County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors, and Planning
Commission have all been notified about this meeting. He brought up that if this item is adopted today
it will make them all have to revise their existing General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance
or make overriding findings.
Ms. Webster mentioned that there was short notice to have the item placed on the agenda, and that
those agencies were not notified.
Alternate Koch'said that there is a Chico Airport Commission meeting next week, and he would like
that Commission to have the chance to comment on this issue. He would like to see this item
continued to the November 18, 1998 meeting so that the above mentioned agencies can be notified and
be given an opportunity to comment. He also mentioned that the City of Chico has. been using display
ads to provide notice because no one reads the small legal ads.
Ms. Webster read the legal ad per Commissioner Rosene's request.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 6 ■
4
Commissioner Rosene said that was the best description that he has ever heard, more complete
than he had expected.' He pointed out that the City did an override of ALUC with no public
notice at all.
Ms. Leasure suggested to the Commission that including display ads in the ALUC's budget next year
would be a good idea.
Alternate Koch said the average property owner in the area that will be affected by the proposed actions
has no idea what a FAR Part 150 Noise Study is, or could tell from the legal notice that was placed in
the newspaper that their property will be adversely affected.
Ms. Leasure pointed out that the Caltrans Handbook states that a public hearing is not required for this
item, and that staff was not provided with a copy of the proposed amendments in time to do a more
detailed notice further in advance. So a general notice was placed in the,Chico Enterprise Record
because of the importance of the issue. ,
Commissioner Rosene asked Commissioner Lambert how the Butte County Planning Commission
would deal with this item? ,
Commissioner Koch replied that they probably have no idea that it is being proposed.4
Commissioner Lambert replied that the Planning Commission had not yet been notified. However, this
is in interim measure that will only be in place until the new,CLUP is completed. She also questioned
how the C.D.F. Air Tanker Departure Zone Exhibit C, Drawing CIC -16 would be applied.
In response to Commissioner Lambert's question Chairman Herinigan discussed both the Exhibit and
amendment with her. Chairman Hennigan said that Steve Iverson (CDF Battalion Chief at Chico
Air Attack Base) was asked by the Chico Planning Department for information on airtankers.
This map shows what is physically possible for the airtankers.to fly.
Ms. Webster said that Exhibit C depicts the path that the tankers take. However; her main concern is
that there are currently no -policies associated with it. To adopt the diagram without any specific
policies could be confusing.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that the same restrictions that apply in the Outer Safety Zone should
apply in the "Departure Clear Area" depicted in Exhibit C,,Drawing CIC -16. .
Ms. Webster reminded the Commission that this would be an interim measure while the new CLUP
is being prepared: However, there is' a requirement that agencies will have to bring their plans into
conformance with what ever CLUP is adopted or make overriding findings within 180 days from the
date of the ALUC's action. She agreed with Alternate Koch that this will, have an impact on the
agencies. Ms. Webster said that this action would have an impact whether it was taken today
or next month.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission a Minutes of October 21, 1.998 ■ Page 7 ■
P
•
Commissioner Gerst said, that the impact is not a big deal. The ALUC should protect what
should have been protected. Beside the tanker. information, everything has already been
adopted by Chico.
Alternate Koch said that there should have been more than eleven or twelve days notice of today's
hearing to get response from any public agency.
Commissioner Lambert said the zoning in place should be consistent if this isTrom the 1978 FAR Part
150 Noise Study, and would not require zoning changes.
Chairman Hennigan mentioned the three components that are being amended by the adoption of this
item:
■ The Overflight Protection Zone established in the City of Chico's 1995 FAR Part 150
Noise Compatibility Program
■ The Outer Safety Zonejrom the 1993 Caltrans Handbook
The Departure Clear Area that reflects flight tracks for tanker departures.
Alternate Koch said that the City of Chico generally supports the idea of establishing these zones, but
would want further study of the impacts of adopting the Outer Safety Zone.
Commissioner Gerst read a note he had written regarding the need for the update of the CMA Environs
Plan. "The 1978 CMA Environs Plan standards are not compatible with the current Airport Public
Utilities Code, and the Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The amendment
of the present Environs Plan will prevent incompatible uses and preserve the airport viability." He'also
asked when would the item be effective if adopted today?
Commissioner Lambert asked the Commission and ALUC Staff that since this is an interim measure
could the 180 day requirement to be consistent be deferred?
Ms. Webster said she had not found a mechanism in the handbook that addresses that issue. The.
Commission might be able to make some type of declaration with the resolution to adopt the
amendments that would relieve agencies from the 180 day requirement, butshe advised the Commission
to talk to County Counsel about the legality of doing that.
Commissioner Lambert suggested a motion of intent. She said that this would allow for change at the
next meeting if ALUC Staff and County Counsel find that there is a problem.
Commissioner Gerst stated that if the Commission is going to do it, let's just do it, and not stretch it out
any longer.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission m Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 8 ■
Alternate Koch stated that he felt the Commission is making a big mistake if this action is adopted,
because of inadequate notice. He suggested continuing the item for one month to properly notice
affected agencies.
Ms. Leasure said that from a staff perspective, there are a lot of unanswered legal questions. She said
that if the Commission chooses to do this she would prefer a motion of intent, so the ALUC can try to
resolve these issues; prior to .adoption.
Chairman Hennigan closed the hearing to the public..
Ms. Webster asked the Commission if they wanted to adopt any specific policies to accompany Exhibits
D and E or if the intent was to adopt the accident scatter maps to simply highlight areas with particular
safety concerns.
No additional policy language was proposed by the Commission
It was moved by Commissioner Gerst and seconded by Commissioner Rosene, to adopt the proposed
amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan as outlined in the staff report, including the
application of the outer safety zone criteria from the handbook within the airport tanker
departure area on Exhibit C, and subject to the following:
Justification - Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an Airport Land Use Commission .
that formulates, adopts or amends a Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall be guided by information
prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (also
known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its
purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year."
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs
Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4,
Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land
Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the development of new
incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico
Municipal Airport.
Environmental Findings - Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect
on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the
proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption
because:
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • Minutes of October 21, 1998 a Page 9 ■
The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area
including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or
aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes
proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected
area.
Adopted Amendments:
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the
FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal
Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner
Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the Overflight Protection
Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate
is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the
Outer Safety Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
Overflight Protection Zone - In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the
development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A within the
Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This is the area that is subject to most
low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone
A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as Zone
Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B no
new single family residential uses shall be permitted. Any approval of multiple family
residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation
easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity.
Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone". (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the
Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied
to insure long-term protection for the airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been assigned
Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the 1978 CMAEP. Some of those
areas are located outside of the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ
would supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories
depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of the OPZ.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 m Page 10 ■
0
Outer Safety Zone - Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the
1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will apply within the Outer
Safety Zone. These recommendations include:
Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent "concerns within outer safety
zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use
can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story
office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood
shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant zone.
Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should
continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5
acre range can be considered acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and
so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone.
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto
the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's
utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are
developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The
Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the.CMAEP.
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to the
departure tracks for C.D.F. Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and
the C.D.F. Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for C.D.F. Air Tanker
flights and was adopted by the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately
reflect current traffic patterns. The same land 'use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will
apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains'maps depicting
accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and
the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D
depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and
surrounding -environment. Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map
of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within
the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns.
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Gerst, Lambert, and Chairman. Hennigan
NOES: Alternate Koch
ABSENT: Commissioners Hatley and Causey
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission's Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 11 m
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Lambert requested staff to review if the zoning would need to be brought into conformity
within the 180 days, and report back to the Commission.
Chairman Hennigan suggested that the County's GIS staff be requested to generate an accurate map of
the adopted zones on a larger scale.
Commissioner Gerst suggested that ALUC Staff notify City of Chico, and the Board of Supervisors
immediately.
Alternate Koch requested that the agencies get the maps as soon as possible.
Ms. Leasure said that this action would be effective today.
Items without Public Hearings
3. Continued Discussion of Standard Operating Procedures for the Airport Land Use
Commission
The Commission made the following changes to the draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's):
1. Section 1 METHOD FOR ADOPTING AND UPDATING SOPS, Page 1, Item 1.2.
"Adoption or revisions of SOP's may be done at any regular meeting, by a majority of
the full Commission after proper notice in the agenda of the change, which is proposed."
(07/15/98)
2. Section 1 METHOD FOR ADOPTING AND UPDATING SOPs, Page 1, Item 1.1. Ms.
Leasure suggested that deleted procedures be archived in an appendix, rather than
staying in the text of the book.
3. Section 2 SUBMISSIONS, Page 2, Item 2.1 Adoption or Amendment of General Plans
and Specific Plans. "Prior to any local agency approval of a new or amended general
plan or specific plan affecting an airport vicinity area of influence, the plan must be
submitted to the ALUC for review."
4. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page S, Item 4.1 No. 3. "Any citizen or agency of government
may direct a letter to the Commission requesting an item be placed on the agenda. The
Efiainnan Chair shall place the item on the agenda.if it is within the competence of the
Commission to address the topic or is relevant to the Commission's charge."
5. Section .4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 3, letter G. CORRESPONDENCE &
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 12 ■
6. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 3, letter L CLOSED SESSION -N AS
REQUIRED.
7. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 6, Item 4.1 No. 8. "The tentative agenda will be transmitted
to the reran Chair for his/her approval in sufficient time that the agenda, and .
supporting_ materials, can be mailed at least seven days prior to the scheduled meeting
date."
8. Section 4 AGENDAS, Page 5, Item 4.1 No. 10. , By majority vote of
the full Commission, the agenda maybe amended as to order or content subject to the
California Open Meeting Law."
9. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 2: "At least one copy of each _
item addressed to the Commission, or sent by or for the Commission shall be maintained
in the correspondence files for not less than three two calendar years."
There was a discussion regarding exactly what correspondence should be brought to the monthly ALUC
meetings.
Ms. Leasure recommended that staff bring the correspondence log only, and if there is any
correspondence the Commissioners wants' to view they could .come. in to the Department of
Development Services to see it or request a copy in advance.
10. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 4. "The correspondence log for
the period, between regular meetings shall be included with each commissioners
meeting agenda and the correspondence file (for the period since the previous regular
meeting) shall be available at the regular ineetin . Correspondence may be made
available to Commissioners upon request.
11. Section 5 CORRESPONDENCE, Page 7, Item 5.1 No. 5. "The staff may reproduce that
portion of the correspondence to which they wish to -call requires special attention as
appropriate.
The ALUC Recording Secretary was asked to review the discussion on the Keeping of Records in the
past ALUC minutes, and to add the correct language to Section 9 of the SOP's.
Chairman Hennigan suggested dating the bottom of the draft SOP pages to correspond with revisions
that have been made, and to also use a three hole punch instead of stapling.'
A discussion ensued regarding the development of a fee schedule for ALUC project reviews.
The Commission made changes to Section 6, FEE SCHEDULE, and Section 7, PROGRAM OF WORK,
and requested that they be switched around within the SOP document.
■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 13 ■
12. Section 6, Page 8, will become PROGRAM OF WORK, and Section 7, Page 9, will
become FEE SCHEDULE.
4.' Initiation of Discussions with the Chico Airport Commission to Determine Appropriate
Protection Measures for Aerial Applicator Flight Operations
Chairman Hennigan suggested sending a letter to the Chico Airport Commission inquiring about their
intentions and expectations with regard to the protection of Chico Aerial Applicator's flight,operations,
with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicators.
Alternate Koch clarified to the Commission that Chico Aerial Applicators originally had a fifteen year
lease with the City of 'Chico, which expired. They would like to continue operations at the Chico
Municipal Airport, and have indicated that there will be no operational changes. They are currently in
the process of renewing their lease with the City -of Chico.
Chairman Hennigan mentioned that Chico Aerial Applicator's flight operations are depicted on one of
the old flight track maps in the 1978 CMA Environs Plan, but that there was no specific protection for
that flight track, it was just noted. He is also concerned that before the North Chico'Specific Plan gets
built out both Chico Aerial Applicators and the City of Chico need to consider their intentions.
Alternate Koch said that once the west side of the airport is developed,'it will adversely affect their
ability to fly directly over that area. The City of Chico will be looking into this issue as it arises.
Chairman Hennigan said that a minor flight. track might have to be included in the 1999 CLUP to
accommodate Chico. Aerial Applicator's.
Ms. Leasure recommended that a copy of the letter going to Chico Airport Commission be sent to Shutt
Moen Associates.
There was a consensus of the Commission to send a letter to the Chico -Airport Commission requesting
input regarding the level of protection desired to accommodate Chico Aerial Applicator's continued
operations, with copies going to Chico Aerial Applicator's and Shutt Moen Associates.
F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
Item No. 2 Status of the CLUP Update
Ms. Leasure updated the Commission on the status of the contract and grant agreement with
Caltrans. She told the Commission that the contract 'has been signed by the County
Administrative Officer, and sent back to the State for the appropriate signatures. It will also need
to be signed by the County Auditor, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors when it is
returned to the ALUC.
Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 14 ■
Ms. Webster said she is currently in the process of collecting data, reports, and materials for
Shutt Moen Associates. As soon as the contract has been signed, the documents necessary to
start the CLUP update will be given to Shutt Moen Associates.
Item No. 4 Status of C.S.A. 87 Sign Re -installation
Chairman Hennigan asked ALUC Staff if the request and letter to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the signage was discussed at the Board of Supervisors meeting 'on October 13, 1998.
Ms. Leasure said she did not attend the meeting, but she does not believe that it was discussed.
However, she believes that the Board directed it to the County Administrative Officer, the
Department of Development Services, the Department of Public Works, and County Counsel
to try and resolve the issue.
Ms. Webster said that her discussions with the Board Clerk are reflected in the Monthly Status
Report. It was her understanding that the above mentioned departments. were asked to develop
a course of action and present it to the Board at a future meeting. .
Commissioner Rosene asked if the Chico Airport Commission has'written a letter to the Board
of Supervisors urging the Supervisors to direct re -installation of the Aircraft Overflight
Notification Signs for the North Chico Specific Plan. He asked if a letter could be written
requesting that they do so, because it is their. airport, that the ALUC is trying to protect.
Chairman Hennigan agreed that a letter should be written. to the Chico Airport Commission.
Commissioner Rosene asked if staff had any ideas for expediting this?
Ms. Leasure suggested a letter to each of the departments it was referred to, noting that ALUC
would like a response by its November 18, 1998 meeting.
Alternate Baldridge asked what departments this item was directed to?
Ms. Leasure said the Butte County Department of Public Works, the Department of
Development Services, the County Administrative Officer, and County Counsel.
Alternate Koch suggested requesting that the head of each of the above listed departments attend
the ALUC's November 18, 1998 meeting, and ask them to present their plan of action to the
Commission.
Chairman Hennigan agreed that they should be asked to attend the meeting.
Alternate Koch suggested that the request be written in a positive manner:
• Butte County Airport Land Use. Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 15 ■
Alternate Baldridge,'asked for a follow-up report on'the status of the County Ordinance update with
regards to Ranchaero Airport and the clear zones.
Chairman Hennigan responded to Alternate Baldridge's question, clarifying that there are two
ordinances that are supposed to be in progress.
■ The obstruction clearance at all airports being maintained
■ Towers
Ms. Leasure mentioned to the Commission that the draft report on the Tower Ordinance has been
prepared and was submitted to Mr. Thomas Parilo, the Director of Development Services, for his review _
approximately one week ago.
Ms. Webster responded that the clear zone ordinance is in the process of being analyzed by County
Counsel. '
Chairman Hennigan suggested that staff ask County Counsel how they are coming along with proposed
modifications to the ordinance.
Chairman Hennigan also questioned how much of Mr. Parilo's 19.25 hours staff time was spent on the
C.S.A. 87 sign re -installation item. He does believe that the ALUC should be billed for his work on that
item, but that it should be billed to the people who are creating the problem.
G. CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.)#
Commissioner Lambert mentioned that there was a workshop on Thursday November 5, 1998, at 6:00
p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, regarding the Flexible Lot Size ordinance and Clustering '
development. She also said that she had a conflict with the November 18, 1998 meeting, because of a
Farm City Tour that she wants to attend.
I. CLOSED SESSION
NONE r
J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
• Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 21, 1998 ■ Page 1'6 ■
Chairman Bob Hennigan
Minutes prepared by Paula Atterberry, Office Assistant III
LADOCUMENrWLANNqNG�ALUCWWaAES1ALUC9WOCr-21.98
t
October 22, 1998
Attachment No.:3
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
Y '
Thomas A. Parilo, Director
Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive 4
'Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
Dear Mr. Parilo:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALOC) adopted the
following environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport,
Environs Plan (CMAEP) as an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is
completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption: This,
notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps .and tekt
language adopted by the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions
required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code.
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that
formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by
information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5'and referred to as the
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the.
Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the comprehensive• land use.
plan (also known as'the compatibility plan). shall be reviewed as often as necessary in
order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar
year."
u
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 2
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the ,1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public
Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the 'Commission will prevent the
development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible
airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:.'
Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA.- The ALUC has
found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because:
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial
or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the
project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect
objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical
changes proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for
the affected area
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS:
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1
of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The
Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are
all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone
Mr. Thomas Parilo -
October 22, 1998
Page 3
which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone
(4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety
Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14: ,
Overflight Protection Zone
In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of...
new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined -as Zone 'A
within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14:' This
ris the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing
residential uses shall be permitted to r'emain.in Zone A, and infill'of the
existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as.'
Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive
overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall
be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B
shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight
activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight
Protection Zone" (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for. compliance with the
restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative4
that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have.
been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in .the
1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight
Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the, CLUZ
categories in areas where it is applied, `the CLUZ categories depicted on
Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of the OPZ.
Outer Safety Zone
Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within
the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will
apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include:
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 4
Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within
outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but
somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For
example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are
unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping
centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant
zone., Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to
100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential
development should continue, to be avoided - in this zone. Rural
residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered
acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools,
hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone.
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans'Safety
Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map
confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP
until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update
prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as
Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP.
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East,
modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually
agreed to by the City of Chico and the CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed
upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the
Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current
traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer.
Safety Zone will apply to.lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this
drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps
depicting accident scatter characteristics based 'on information generated by
Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley.
Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment.
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 5
Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto°a map of the Chico
Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission.as Drawings CIC -17 and,.
CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related. concerns:'
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES:
Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the
Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans with airport land use plans.
65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(a) The general plan, -and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8
(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or
amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code:
(b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as
.necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section
21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under
Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this
section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans
(a) If the commission finds that a• local agency has not revised its general plan or
specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body .
after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the
local agency to submit all subsequenfi actions, regulations and permits to the
commission for review until its general plan or speck plan is revised or the specific
findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the --commission plan, the local -
agency shall be noted and that local agency shall hold a�hearing to reconsider its`
plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a -two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670.
` 1
4
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
.Page 6 .
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has
overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the
local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the
commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be
reviewed by the commission.
Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a
City or County's general plan or specific plan that are made in response to the amendment
of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission:.for its
review and consistency findings.
If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described
within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code,
please call me at 533-1131.
Sincerely,
yauiLGc.
Laura Webster.
ALUC Staff
cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning Division
WTO 3P7
AV I
<7
., 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
October 22, 1998
Thomas A. Parilo, Director
Butte County'Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport. Environs Plan
Dear Mr. Parilo:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the
following environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (CMAEP) as an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is
completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption. This
notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps and te5'ct
language adopted by the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions
required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code.
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that
formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by
information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and* referred to as -the
Airport- Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the
Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the comprehensive land use
plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in
order to accomplish its purpose,: but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar
year."
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 2
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public
Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines '
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission, will prevent the
development of new incompatible ,land uses and preserve the viability of responsible
airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that. the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has
found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption. because: 4
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial
or: potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the
project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect
,objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical
changes proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase'the development potential for
the affected area.
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS:
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1
-of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise.Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport. Thefour safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The
Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are
all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone
{
which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone
(4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety
Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
Overflight Protection Zone
In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the. development of
new residential uses shall be prohibited. in the area defined as Zone A'
within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This
is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight'activity.. Existing
residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the
existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as
Zone A1. The .area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive
overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall
be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B
shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight
activity. Zone A and Zone.B together represent.the defined "Overflight
Protection Zone" (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for . compliance with the.
restrictions proposed for. the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative
that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have
been assigned Compatible .Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the'
1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight
Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ.
categories in areas where it is applied,, the. CLUZ categories. depicted on'
Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of the OPZ.
Outer Safety Zone
Land use compatibility and density recommendations.presented within
the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning .Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will
apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include:
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 4
y Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within
outer safety zones are similar, to.those in the inner safety zones, but
somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For
example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are
unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping
centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant
zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to
" 100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical. subdivision -density residential
-development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural
I
esidential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered
acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools,
hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone.
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and.Caltrans Safety
Zones onto the future`noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map
confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP
until new contours are developed and adopted ,as part of the CLUP update
prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as
Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP. .
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East,
modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually
agreed to by the City of'Chico and the CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed
upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the
Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current,
traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer
.Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this
drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps
depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by
Hodges and Shutt'(1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley
Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport land surrounding environment.
Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico
Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and
CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns..,
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES:
Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the
Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans with airport land use plans.,
65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8
(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or
amended pursuant to Section 21.675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(b) The general plan, and. any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as
necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under.Section
21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
f
,(c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan. required under
Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this .
,section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans
(a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan for
specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body
after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the
local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations 'and permits to the -
commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific
findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local
agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing,to reconsider its
plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the'proposed action is
consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670.
Mr. Thomas.Parilo '
October 22, 1998
Page 6
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has
overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a); the proposed action of the
I ocal agency shall not be. subject to further commission review, unless the
commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be
' reviewed by the commission.
Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics.Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a
City or County's general plan or specific plan that are, made in response to the amendment
__. of an Airport Land Use Plan must be -submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for its
review and consistency findings.
If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described
within. Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code, .
' please call me at 533-1131.
Sincerely, '
Laura Webster
ALUC Staff
cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning Division " .
mot
Exhibit A
• r
1,37
7
d
4. C Iv�/ — r - , c� yr ► '� 1 i-�: l:/ �I
-
V
j oFf Infirp
V
—V—r. l::� t �• _ [x•41 ' _ \- ��• •1 1 `t� ��� . /• '•y f Y
7
J
Te
. J\
r
-- - ------------ At
on
.7
..........
N
LA
&
T,
7—
-Z CO-MUMICIRA A
IPA:
'A
14
V
R
Safety Zone Names L A W,
Zone A
I Rurrwa-" � _ � fi:
y Protectionction
0
2 Inner Safety Zone
3
Inner Turning Zone
0
7
4 Outer Safety Zone j/ -B - . . e
•
.111.1 X.0
L
0. _V
Zone A and Zone B together represent
V*
/y�::: - �� _,�`, _ . ti = - - _ .:�_' �';�'.i �. l.._; .
"Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ)
J: il*
X_
Till,
so
&
21
SCALE
FE
ET tV]
0 1000 2000 3600 ,,,.14000
LEGEND
Akvwt Boundary
CMC0 Sphere of Inthience
OverfOght Protection Zone
MMM� Airport Whience Area
Drawing CIC -14
I
Exhibit B
-7_
4:
-A
J� ow..
A—
i 2.
t
.��,_ .. 1 �.� .Il. .. �,1. r,,,.fll' -v.,.� t 'tq -�•:~ ' '<: � •' C ,'�Y i• t' � „`'yi' •�_ L
'iia
yw
v
's
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
7
A 1 '. :
--Ni- n -
IN
Mm
T A R
r
Vs
'7
pis
- -
AIRPORT
BOUNDARY
5 I
,500t
CLOSURE POINT o a
AV FIM IM
A
?3
W
N,
GNUL
A* :.1
L AlrRT... BOWAR'
i.ti IT
sty i. If
c
Y - V,
-A .-I
4p
s 'r•71f.
0 jc-
AV
40,
J,
jo
Y,
Cot
2
J
Safety Zone Names .4
N.,
1 Runway Protection Zone
2 Inner Safety Zone
3 Inner Turning Zone
4 Outer Safety Zone'
Jr,
99
10
-Zone A and Zone B together represe6t the definetJ -
S-Tp,TE
too, -0 1000
verflight Protection Zone (01"Z). KnO 20m
31�4. Lo
Approved.
By
nevis-on By I Apcf Dore DoreI .
Designed Drawn
pr -c JEP TMS
It. DIXON @PEA@ AS SOCIATI19. INC. Checked Date
JEP AmIL1979
AIRPORT_ ENVIRONS' PLAN
CHICO -MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS
Drawing CIC -15
QDEPARTURE CLEAR AREA'
EDGE OF DEPARTURE
CLEAR AREA
om-
A M%Mm
le
��`
�1eq —1k
�� zzftrins
_
��,a � ,�1■'•at� • 1 1 • � 1 11 1
`�� � /1 1�•Iht. �� IIIIII III IIIIIIItugl►t '•1 /'n Ita .Ips �
11 IIIIIIU.u` Iltlhl Ilt III Illlul
�` IV- ; t�� iilh ltlnllllui''t htthh- ile
wl... 1� t I 1 hnu 1 ti t•t) 1 ry II thltl4 t h _
tt '�Itrul 1 II 11 ll ......II Iu111 II Iliiiii4l II I1hrin I to nl ua•tYg1,
'•.!'•. r II Ill Inn11t II I1, j"MN"...11 It ��WSIQ
�
'tl ut!1.!Iuu.111�tljltliiiiiittt"O� 41►'`' `
'••1:h��11u111i1ti11iiiiiiii1j11tA�hihi:,•=i Ii.......
1ll11iiiii tl4 1�w ����91IS
is 1 IIu1�ll'tl1lllll,lt1j11tl 1 "I'll Ilttttll1111���1r�'1 •I I>�/ ��� \
III lluua� 1 Ito Ill 11 '111111 II III 41 ll lltong QI o •t n•r1..
II!ibulb III 111iMuI Itol II 't g��, IIR11 • 1
'_ JNe:::.:lli lllltnmgm. 1i'uut�:!lnnu�ljl�Ihiiii111thunttn
at>•���� 1 1
1111111 j�tllu�"1 �•��,�1' IN; ,•,:Vs` �Ol� 1 q'i�r., t.
T Illlltt• -�-.�1 1 IIIII 1 II 1 O
�� "} 1Jii iii11N;' } ►1• �!11:!!t��' '•h 1 � 1���' -•
X�111�
�� ♦♦,,�i� �'1e � i����.�.�-A.�., � �, � �.tll��llll il�""'!t'�• I I•
I
V.���II��,�
�• ' fir►► � � ..� �-
' 1 1
hnlnulll/unil�l •• ISI
�� '''' � ��� •tj�IIIII 1
� `''jam � ��`'•i _ _
\ ♦I
Pit
.� • v •�• �•• /I Pei:
C� ter• f ; .. j' �)l•� •�'!� � ]6C
r— 114
er
i' ' �T • '``♦ // iet„ ' ,�r•��-\:;,:.. �;��-', , C. lel % ��
46
• ` /, .- :\ 111' I / 1 :� L.. ';��'�., •��� ; ..... •�j ` � ��\- 4 1
ol
10
_340-
04
1 ,,400cr
.7
4.4
10
/ / c•
110.
If
lw
If -
IN
•t\ � — � \00 � .�/I,"^'i f %' '^ 'Fig `�
1 , '-r-•r�' 1 •'�' \ `•\..rte/'�Vim:•- -ol
-� -
;'. , • Soo o�9� I a X600 ot1 d 1'r 1-
` r •r_• ;. 1. .: } :j •. ~• /• :f'��.
'� • t 1' '�� •' -. ^ -- �• 666/J)t ♦ r , .� t ��///-"�'.•-00
00
r IJ• ' I i, �, ,,,,J, j�1.n\ ,f I • 'Y •: % / \, ••. '•�� ♦ 1� ' i-;7 S
17
I--�,t'/..+•� •� ,• I � ` •.'I• 1' � Nf
�... .�• .-t ,' _ IIS :�.. ...1 �"�A %'• •'���`.. � •.� \_
IL
jr
i • 6/rMfir' a .` ( :. •' �/ o >ELL
1
I , •Ola � • • .:. � t• \ �' •�`��- / I/ �f.. i • • � � 1 •'
n
October 22, 1998
0-7
th 61112
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTHAND BEAUTY
3 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVIL'LE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
Thomas A. Parilo, Director
Butte County Department of Development Services
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
Dear Mr. Parilo:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the
following environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (CMAEP) as an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is
completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption. Thisr
notice includes the �ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps and text
language. adopted by�the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions
required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code.
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that
formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by
information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the
Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the comprehensive land use
plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in
order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar
year."
•
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 2
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public
Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the
development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible
airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has
found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because:
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial
or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the
project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect
objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical
changes proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for
the affected area.
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS:
1) Exhibit A -This map depicts theL verflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1
of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The
Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are
all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 3
which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone
(4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety
Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
C_OverflighfProtection Zone
in response to -concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of
new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A
within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This
is the area that is subject to most_low altitude overflight^ activitC_Existing
_
residential uses shall -be permitted 16-_r emain in Zone A, and iflfill',o the
texisting residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as
Zone- A1� The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive
overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall
be permitted. Any approval of multiple�familyresidential-useg-in-Zone B
shall -contain. conditions'requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to -the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight
activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight
Protection Zone (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the
restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative
that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have
been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the
1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight
Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ
categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on
Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of the OPZ.
Outer Safety Zone
Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within
the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will
apply within the Outer Safety. Zone. These recommendations include:
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 4
Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within
outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but
somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For
example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are
unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping
centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant
zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to
100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential
development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural
residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered
acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools,
hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone.
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety
Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map
confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP
until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update
prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as
Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP.
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East,
modifications to the departure "tracks for CDFAiryTanker flights were mutually
tagreed"to by the -City of -Chico and_6e_ CDF Base._This figure depicts the agreed
upon jdeparture--path-for-CDF Air"Tanker-flighis and-was-adopted--by-the
Commission as-Drawing-CIC=16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current
_ _ L _-
traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer
Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this
drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps
depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by
Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley
Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment.
Mr. Thomas Parilo
October 22, 1998
Page 5
Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico
Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and
CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns.
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES:
Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the
Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local. plans with airport land use plans.
65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8
,(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or
amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(b) The general plan, 'and. any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as
necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section
21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under
Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this
section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans
(a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or
specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body
after making specific findings that the proposed .action is consistent with the
purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the
local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permits to the
commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific
findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local
agency shall be'notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its
plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is
consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670.
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has
overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the
local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the
commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be
reviewed by the commission.
Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a
City or County's general plan or specific plan that are made in response to the amendment
of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted,to the Airport Land Use Commission for its
review and consistency findings.
If you have, any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described
within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code,
please call me at 533-1131.
Sincerely,
Laura Webster
ALUC Staff
cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Butte County Planning Commission
Butte County Planning Division
U
. .
Exhibit-`` `
�
17-e 4
ku
446 -if ln"Uefic�\
i Ir
VW
04N Qwl�
—CHI CO-MUNICIP-AL-AIRPOR L*
-41
SCALE
FEET
iOOO 2000 3000 4000
Safety Zone Names
Zone A
L LEGEND
Runway Protection Zone
Airport Boundary
A.
on Chico SPhere of Influence
2 Inner Safety Zone J,
211- -A Overflight Protection Zone
3 Inner
`
�
�
!
Zone
-� -- �� � -'- '-__' '_ _ -- ' . -- ' ' -�.� '-- -- _� _ Influence _-rea
_ �4 Outer Safety Zone -,;3OFeseZone A and Zone B together repr '"n t V"!"Overfli W:ction Zone" (OPZ) 14 J1.
*'U
`
\
_
Drawing CIC -1 4
- — -•' -' - _ „ .. Exhibit -
7
' . • :1b' .s -SV. �t '.t,�' if.� ;1_ - - - i•i: 1��a•.af., ! 'vw l>-•t�''' •'•
_ F
Y
..J.
y(K�
t• t. �{
Kr: • • o:l• n
•M_
3
a .y
7
%X.,
.i' Y : 6 y =
�n
n•• r' _
s
'.c. •i . moi:•};. .11j tia' .q *r.:• � .,,T ..r..T ..t a 'i I 7�,t c. :r��: -'!k7
'� . i' -.c .'r... �r S ',:£. '.1 ''1 ` - 3 _ It '1-"_ "/F ,_ z+.r�•' �yjj���•���
- :a.'1).•�aV',:r•,R�'::. 1.•- --..1+:::.,. _ .' - r+.::.•.\- C... .9•: �,r iF • �.iQf_-
\ ' _ �`1r, t 'r•� '^ - .> ,Trf' - 7.1.`. `y3i I••t« .A ; .,}r.,)r"��`..5, i t ,t.� •. : `o`�• - %�T ..i r`Y'
' ", ..a :r.' •'�- iy, .\C�i"-K 1�i"; ,��� _.l i+�..% ':%' i.�s .lrJ'(•.c ':C7•.{1'''�7�•.p ♦ .a =� �- t
:.r "tt:: '/. • . i`` _ . J•.��{j! c /. .r•'� S ^}r. : •fit•
•�, — it '.♦ -! +#�,e, 4 .'1.J. •�ki . •.
i.1;�S .� �'!:. :•c1 - ':`.-R•.13,.� �' / y !' hh...�....-�f' r 's•Yp _fir , - � �
i'
it t'
MA
77r
st•
,i•i I
..N
d
3
'y t
- S
1 is r.
-
!
±t •'i+' W
Y •V '7'
>
i' ' •J
' •A f �
r i � •r -
_
.. .�i .J.
•i. _r
:i
i - 1
i
`fir
.,k.
M
-
y iy
t
e ,
- •r
�' t•r
r•.
,y
r•f•
Vii?.. _ : -.: '::-+:% vt-"- :•r•. _ .,,. r:
•�G.. mss•-. - u.. =.� t c..•
�:� • - •
i
i
S�'. t�.Glrir
- qr
A
J
i• �T S�
%'(' , j� `w .>:a�i• •r ,i - ia';'r'; ,.�.. s.' 3„��• A'4.;-:s`b i•
1
} •e?•1
t•
• fir. :�. �„ -
ti t
a
.. ��ti -.iF c..,_, -:fir-.. •i:!'i: :'Y•''-7'
tf
II1` yS�'°"s• .BOUNDARY/AIRPORT• `:J -•'i.:-'• :'l' .
CLOSURE POINT 15,500( ft,7: -
_ _ 1�'
mss• �i r -
.t }
:3
l9
:
..:
-r
S r,
• 1.
ar -
a
I..
,
>, 1
-;.
•a�
k..
_-G.•.-
gip.. . # `
^R
•
77
.h :,_ . r Q .. _ . .. � .. .. ...••..... .'+' 1: L.., t... la_ �: - jr\! _ - _rte ` - t y.
VDARY.
e
t''
t -
••rig; : _
..1
-1
��r': J �f�•i - llr
L ,
l fl
- •2
_ r
�Y_
1
r• . !
a- 4
R
'r
EL:-� ' _ , +
�a
..z.- - . • r.. 'C
is%''''•i
. •t • r= Y'
L
• r:jr,- , c C '
•`rtr .tI-
3 r
>• r
t»
j rif--
.1V. -
rT-S.
�. .. ..� x. .• ECS :�' _ �:-
�S
�..
it
y -
- Safety Zone Names
F: 1 Runway Protection Zone;
ca. 2 Inner Safety Zone 4Sy:`
3 Inner Turning Zone
r 4 Outer Safety Zone
' a , pry LO 9
Zdne : A and Zotie B together .represent the defined - \ J ; �� e♦{G�r'rAY
"Overflight Protection Zone" (OP4. 0 1000 ^
Approved. - Designed ' [)town -
prc Jer TMS AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN
By i FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS',
0. DIXON RPCAR ARrOOIAT[R, INC. a11•.Crled 'Date C1 1•IGO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT-
. No.1 Revis,on By Apra -Date
Dote .lEr nrp�L1979
Drawing CIC -15 --..
MAMISCLUMSTATES
PARK
--SLSCN%ION
7-
X N
\ \ SM
VIA:
N..
DEPARTURE CLEAR AREA
EDGE OF DEPARTURE'
CLEAR AREA
0 low 2000 Fast
a
Exhibit C
This map was
p . repared by the
City of Chico
-PlAnning Department
using . aircraft
performance data
supplied'by.CDF
Battalion Chief
Steve Iverson which
consisted. of the
turning radius and.
eai,rspeeds required
for ,:the S -2F Tracker
and
racker-
and the P-3* Orion
aircraft:- These ;two
• aircraft"A
X representative ofthe
requirements of the.'
IllI
airtanker fleet.-
1:2
V -c
PREPARED BY THE CITY OF CHICO PLANNING DIVISION
Drawing CIC -16
• ► '�• � 1'.— �_. -�,- / ��•..,:.t•k;' •• .rte
—1 •• .-.� .. / `�l iso •'} '/`�+P � '``_� 1 `\' 1 �7 �/�' 3i�...••:. .':. /• :.���f�.�': :'� f�
1<�
�� ••, �\ �- ..\ "� — � .may � � r: •��t` � '• •• ✓• '�� ' �~' 'r_.....\� \'yll-- ` '.
,1 �1 •• � •/ ,�✓ .''�,. • l \ /! - •�� /.: � it .;5: 1 (` /. •\4� � � �` \
\ '�� •�+. •-t� ''w� - •moi,' r•\ • `. moi. J � �. l `, '�j e'/�\' ... � i
At
It
All
Ix
01
It
10
110
- -�-
�y31�_I •T \ \/, /'�l • 90 �R��: ;^ J��.� ': :/•'l-/�-I', !F j?, ```moi \ ; t
1 s�. nom•" ,,. , P r'�, ri�< ``'f � + , r__-+
-77
,.r *DO
ol
'� '1 lf/• �1•`• �. � !0 •� Ir ,'� •.•/i• � •�'--ate
.. ---;j -It
i J bra .1 .1 ,,� ,: _ _ 1--- , j : •\ • `•� •• , ��\.
1. ` 1 :� 1; 11 � [ i ,• N/�o a :•.:' �' . '',•��� . �. .,� � _
�_ 1 ��L.i t • ��i �; i ci ri...��'J�V•/ o t,pF�; �.;L�� . :' r� .��•
rr-
A "Fir
. �• � '• /� -,..^,jam\ • � •' � /,, (�\�I � ,% /
• , � �• 1 0 c :. , f� V + .•��A '' ,: a �( � ••• ... ��
/�M r ll
1 �^fovw% ►• 10MSAN Itam dbh%* A` I�AIN..�AI. :�wlriialAl. Iw4boualw. ,.i T�w••w.+w•�AII•... C�1•..JIw.►
p W -
�Oml •�
• •�
`e'♦��`�
IMMIN"Mil.
AN
DEPARTURE CLEAR AREA
" Ift— I Immol—MON,
EDGE DEPARTUR%,
CLEAR AREA
on
1000 10M 2060 Fea--mail 1
��" - • _�`I=�_� \
ow
21Sm
� 11 I,ttn,., y �•.• �"•.
..�� � 4� � nut 11 11j 11111gj ,' ���Mf 1 . '•r��� � �
tt 4tt. 111111 11 (It 1 h 1n• �< d
``� .Il,ll�lh nq`� lilt tll ttl I,UIIItq,,4,h,,• `�I
h,huln, t „ I1iiltnnntlt,l11 uuy, p tltt, 1 1 1
p; t111 trtiiiltlllliiiiiil�lljll''j�111111i11;;111111'jll. 1iiiiiill,iint, •� t7i ��R
''•''•; toll 1, Ilhuu 1 (1 ,111 1 1 _ 1 ( 1
't � qnq 11 11, tl ( IlUntl,l , , ItUut,a•3'ur" ,1 1 1 hiiiil 1 1�� �
11�.,„�I,Il,,luutl,ll,lllhnn 11 � '''�-' •_ '1 11 1,1 tj 1�-.q �tw �r•1'�•@�
,,! nuu 1 1 ry , loon: .+tl-..ttclh h, Itnry,, h q,q�.� �y�i •nyi � 1 1 1 1
�It !hn�!!tlhllii :::.'i. i� iiiiin i �, 1°nt4 ij iiiiiiU 4 Unn ��
,,,,, 1 1 1, 1,'It�ntt 1 1, 1, 1, Illttt� ► ,�.1-'•e► \
tt'II!e:aet�ll� h lllir,iiij�,j�tj ii ii11t1111t111111 Illlllltltttll; t ,Kum II�pO• w l : ,..r• r .: !
!!!!IIID. Inn 1 1 t I Iqp, ► , a•ry
*III IIIt4, 11 hluu 1,, ,, IIUNr .•�s •a` .�� "•rlrvw
Ilt�;i-1--�Il.�l,tpt 11. h,:!t�' u.i• ..�► V o,R•��
�� - � •kU�liiitlp�`� ' .:'.�ijl�i�tru��r,,tr►1is
\I h
.d►.moi' .� ��tillltl :., - a� +,y, •:, . `` �''"--���`` `�R`',,
No
Emp
�/� �'�,' �`` ��• , ... � �'aii�� �� •` r ` �` •�_"�'�a7!'7slt. \ .dill!!!! � 111 �� 1
♦ �i _ � - �IIIIIIIt11t11111111H,'P'''•I+.e• „t1!!1 � 1 1 1
• ','•• �1�IIII�
.r—
1
a `
Data Comparison: McClintock, Becker Noise Study (1992) &
CDF Flight Log for Oct. 17-20,1991
• r
time THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
17 -Oct -91 18 -Oct -91 19 -Oct -91 20 -Oct -91 "
8:57 `CDF.T-251
8:57
9:21
+ SEP, Y b +
9:39
10:50
9:45
9:50
SE
9:51
r
9:57
SEP
10:02
Metroliner t
10:04
10:15
11:27 f
10:23
y
10:37
SEP '
10:40
10:49
+ SEP, Y b +
CDF.'AA-210"�
10:50
-TEP-Duke. L
10:51
SE
10:56
1'.
SEP
11:02
Metroliner t
11:27 f
',Jetstream
y
11:29 f
SEP '.j
11:31 I
i' SEP
11:37r
I'
11:59, i T
f
-�
j 'SEP , . ,
"''-W ' _Q _QF AA. 1210 s
'cc
/Br eported '
time monitored
data recorded
�j SEP =single engine
TEP =twin engind',
SEP -Cherokee
12:19 ISEP-Cherokee-
1227 - TEP-TwinCessna'
} 12:30 4TEP-Baron.-„:�+-�,•,;,,� — __ �
12:31 SEP,..
12:34 I - { sEP .; _ CDF Log=
12:41 }t,. I SEP _ ,-
12:43 Metroliner-
12:48 TEP- Cessnaz
12:51 $EP F flights NOT -1
13:00 CDF T 72' _�--� .
13:10. ! ' Fes;:, �, �. ry ; CDF�T -25” • `recorded in McC%B
13:12 {SEP -Cherokee kd'' . r I CDF•T-72;-
13:16 SEP -Cessna,
13:19..r'�• Metroliner
13:25 SEP
^moi:Z;-7_.]CDF aircraft.
CDE :T=25 -T
13:29 SEP -Cherokee
_ -
13:33 Metroliner CDF AA -210 _
13:36� s - CDFT=90' AA -210 Air Attack
13:41 SEP" _ twin engine Cessna
13:43.r -
I CDF T-72
13:46 CDF,T-90
13:54 Tanker 14 = C54E
i..A, ; � �. 1, i� " .� I CDF T'00 -
13:56 � � i ► �,: _
CDF7-72 72- Tanker 25 = P3A
14:14:108 �,1 1 ri SEP CDF T 0:0'"*�.�M
. CDET-9.0' Tanker 64 — C130A
14:20 Metroliner Tanker 72 = SH
14:26 t,,('...' 3
r CDF T=72
14:28 'SEP } a: `- Tanker 90 = SH
14:30 reistrea7,MA : , ` Tanker 00 = P3A
14:38 TEP_ -a
14:43 `"- CDF AA=210 "
14.44CDF
14,51 FMetrolinerl_
14:53 �o. CDF=T-90
14:55 Metroiner y I
14:56 CDF T-25°
14:56 CDF AA -210-
15:01 __ - __ �-- �, ��...-�-.� CDF T 00. -.,ti �_ ff
15:11. CDFrT=72"'�`
4 15:17 SEP-Tomahaw_ 3.
15:18 -•
:15:21 SEP
z : 15:24 _ T P -'King Air
,= 15:26 ,. _ — -
-- , ; DF AA 210
4 t 15:29 _,,.. TEP -King Ajr _ -'. _,L -.:� •
15:30 a 7
STEP=King -'� �"
15:32-
A
5:32 f
Air.
.
:15:34 �. I�
pTEP-King Ai q r
• 15:35 �' TEP -King Air t_ r
15:41 TEP -King Air _T109:1
00,., • •
, (.
15:43 - PTEP-King Air - -
15:44 'CDF`•:-25q,: _
15:48 TEP - King Air • - 'r. -
15:56 TEP -King Ai
' 15:58 ti`''�
CDF:T=25= ,
16:03 EP=Kiri
g Air1
16:19 TEP -Bonanza
16:21 r" CD _F5 `
16:22 * WE,=210
16:25 _ _ S,E�
16:34 CD.F=T_1_4..
,
16:38 TEP-Bonannzza�
16:40
.16:44 SEP J _ -
16:45
16:48 • SEP , • ! r .
16:54
Jetstream,-
16:56
etstream` i r
16:56 CiSFFT=2J
' 17:05 TEP -Cessna
17:09
V-
17:19 CDF`-T=64 ,
17:27 -
17:36 CDF:T-64 - ( t CDF.�T�00.;:' r, r
17:36 CDF-'T=14.x-`
17:37 CDF'=T=2' .,
17:59-----.,_ -
18:02 LCD AA=21`0' "
18:02
�y 18:05 DC4
18:15 TEP -
18:16 '
Fl
8
AIRPO OVERFLIGHT PROTEC ON ZONE
CITY/COUNTY GENERAL PLAN & ZONING
COMPATIBILITY
OVERFLIGHT
PROTECTION
ZONE
•A
Al
B
CHICO
CHICO
COUNTY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
GP
ZONE
ZONE
GP
AR
A-160
A
CC
C
I A-20
A -C
lCG
GOL
I A-40
A -M
LDR
HDR
B -P
A -P
M&W
1
C-1
C-1
MUNC
LDR
L-1
M-1
OFF
P
M-1
MI -P
OSEC/S
M-2
OS -1
PF&S
OS
OS -2
RR
P -Q
OUTSIDE
VLDR
S -R
PMU
SR -1
R-1
SR -3
R -P
RR
RSA
■�■®tea■mr�
iep
r •• � � • � 210:o,3,.07
'facsimile
'TR ANSMITTA.L
to: Paula Leasure, Butte County DDS
fax #: 538-7785
re: Draft Public Hearing Notices for 10-21-98 ALUC Meeti>alg `
date: October 7, 1998
09e3: 3, including this cover sheet.
Attached for your review and approval are copies of the proposed notices for the agenda item
dealing with the annual review and update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
The first notice would be published in the "Public Notice" section of the Chico Enterprise Record.
The second notice would be mailed to the City of Chico.
Please let me know if these look okay so that I can bring final versions °to Paula Atterberry.today
for distribution.
Thanks!
From the desk of...
Laura Webster
SenW Planner
Pacific Municipal Consuttants
1486 L+jem 6Neat
OmMe, CA 95M
• - (530) 53'}1131
Fax (530) 533.7089
planning ion
0CT 071999
'SBU= COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USlIe1 COMMISSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • ($A) 5313.7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
Please publish the following notice in the Chico Enterprise Record on or before Monday,
October 12, 1998:
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will
consider the following item at their regular meeting on October 21, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the
Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers (25 County Center Drive, Oroviile, CA):
Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan The ALUC will
consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D
Aviation, dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been
prepared based upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook. The Commission will consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections
21674.7 and 21675.
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the hearing and provide input to the
Commission. Questions regarding this item should be directed to Laura Webster, Butte
County ALUC staff at (530) 533-1131. '
BUlte County •AlMolf Land Use Commission •
,
'#'BU= COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, OroWle, CA 95985 • (530) 938-7801 FAX (930) 538-7785 •
TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Annual Review and
Update of the CbimMun6C*p1I1 AlrAnd Environs Plan.
DATE NOTICE MAILED: October 7, 1998
This is your official .notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on the
following matter at the time and place listed below:
HEARING DATE: October 21, 1998
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room
Butte County Administration Center
25 County Center. Drive
Oroville, CA 95965 -
Annual Review and Update of the Chico MunIcIRal AirgQrt Envlrong plan. The ALUC will
consider adoption'of a portion of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation,
dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been prepared based upon
information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Commission will
consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of
the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and written
testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The project file may
be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville,
California.
AA10.21-N.WGICHICO.NOT -
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
October 22, 1998
Mr. Tom Lando, City Manager
City of Chico
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927"
Butte Count,
L AIN D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan
Dear Mr. Lando:
On October 21, 1998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the
following environmental findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (CMAEP) as an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is
completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption. This
notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps and text
language adopted by the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions
required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code.
JUSTIFICATION:
Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that
formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by
information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published .by the Aeronautics Program of the
Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, °the comprehensive land use
plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in
order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar
year."
Mr. Tom Lando
.October 22, 1998
Page 2
It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public
Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics.
Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the
development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible
airport operations'at the Chico Municipal Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that 'the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has
found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport-'
Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because:
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial
or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the
project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect
objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical
changes proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for
the affected area.
ADOPTED AMENDMENTS: '
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1
of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the
Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of -the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The
Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Tuming'Zone (3) are
all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone
•
Mr. Tom Lando
October 22, 1998
Page 3
which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone
(4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety
Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP.
2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
Overflight Protection Zone
In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of
new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A
within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This
is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing
residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the
existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as
Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive
overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall
be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B
shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight
activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight
Protection Zone" (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the
restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative
that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents.
Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have
been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the
1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight
Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ
categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on
Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those
areas outside of the OPZ.
Outer Safety Zone
Land use, compatibility and density recommendations presented within
the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will
apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include:
Mr. Tom Lando
October 22, 1998
Page 4
•
Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns. within
outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but
somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For
example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are .
unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping
centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant
zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to
100 per acre.
Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential
development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural
residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered
acceptable, however.
Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools,
hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone.
3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety
Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map
confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP
until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update
prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as
Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP.
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East,
modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually
agreed to by the City of Chico and the CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed
upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the
Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current
traffic patterns'. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations
presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer
Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this
drawing.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps
depicting accident scatter characteristics, based on information generated by
Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of
Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley
Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment.
Mr. Tom Lando
October 22, 1998
Page 5
Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico
Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific
Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and
CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns.
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES:
Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the
Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans with airport land use plans.
65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans
(a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8
(commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or
amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as
necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section
21675 of the Public Utilities Code.
(c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under
Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this
section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans
(a) If the commission finds that a local agency has .not revised its general plan or
specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body
after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the
local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permits to the
commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific
findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation,
or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local
agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its
plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds
vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the. proposed action is
consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670.
Mr.- Tom Lando
October 22, 1998
Page 6
(b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific -plan or has
overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the
local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the
commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be,
reviewed by the commission.
Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a
City or County's general plan or specific plan that -are made in response to the amendment
of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for its
review and consistency findings.
If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described
within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code,
please call me at 533-1131.
Sincerely,
Laura Webster
ALUC Staff
cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics. Program
City of Chico Airport Commission
City of Chico Planning Commission
(SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ON LY)
IN THE E SU_ PERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,:
_ IN;AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
In the Matter of `
Notice of Public Meetingr ...................:.... No.-..--.:...............:....:..:..:..:
i
.....................................:.........NOTICE OF,
x-
......................
PUBLIC MEETING
Notice.is hereby given that
Butte County Airportland_Use _
..................................
................................................. Commission—. (ALUC)
will lconm
seder the following item at their .
regular, meeting on October. 21
98 a 9 Oa
t :0 .m:'in the Butte
- AFFIDAVIT,OF,P,UBLICATION. �,. County:Board 'Of `Supervisors
- Chambers • (25' County Center '
h M Drive.,Oroville;'CA) s •-; �+,r e.
i jrAnnual Review and Update
State of California of the Chico Municipal Air.'
port-Environs Plan The ALUC t
County of Butte SS' `' will consideriadoption ;of'a por;�°
tion'of, , the recommendations
fourid in the'.FAR Part!150 Air'
The undersigned resident of the coup •of portr•'Noise;]Compatibility. Pro
gn county-of . gam' and Environs Plan for,'the
Butte State of California sa s: Chico�MumcipalyAlrport''.pre�
Y_- pared;by� P&D, Aviation -dated .
February10, `1,995 and'othertt "
maps'J and' technical:' data I1 hatf
That I am, and at all time herein mentioned"' have been 'prepared .jbased�
;upon #„ information aT contained
was a citizen of the United States and not a party within the 1993 Airport,Liiizdl
to nor interested in the above entitled matter; Use P1&i?zi?zg,'Ha?idbook., Thef
Commission will'tconsiderttheJ F
•
that I am the principal clerk of the printer and' 'at! - `x -_""' °s- adoption'of'these amendments
P P P ` . to I,the.ill, 978 ,Chico . Municipal
ublisher of x , Airport Environs. Plan in accord;
P 6Z.4a4 '') + k; ance with Public Utility Code
Sections 21674.7 and 21675.
Members of the public are en-
The Chico Enterprise -Record — ,Courage d to attend the meeting
Oroville Mercury Register.- and provide input to the Com=
mission. , 0uestions - regarding.
That said newspaper is one of general circula- this'ite"— should be directed to
g t'aura ! Webster, •- Butte County
tion as defined by Section 6000.Covernment NLUC staff,'at (g�4633-1131.
Code of the State of California, Case No.. 26796 Pubnsh ,10(14, 1998,
by the Superior Court of the State of California, y
in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa-
per at all times herein mentioned was printed '
and published daily in the City of Chico andrr,�ti.
'County of Butte; that the notice of which the'
annexed is a true printed copy, was published in
said newspaper on the following days:
Oct. 14, 1998.-
I certify (or declare), under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing.is true and correct;•at'
Chico, California..
Oct. 14, 1998.
Dated.............................................................
at Chico, California. ,
.....1.. ..... ................. .
(Si ure) e
+BU7[ T E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 e
AGENDA ITEM - E.2.
TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: Laura Webster, ALUC Staff
DATE: I October 6, 1998
ITEM: Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan:
The Commission will consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations
found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs
Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation, dated February
10, 1995, -and other maps and technical data that have been prepared based
upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman
Hennigan.
FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of October 21, 1998
SUMMARY: Chairman Hennigan has requested that the Commission consider adoption of
specific text language and the "Overflight Protection Zone" identified on map III -1 from the FAR
Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport
and other documents that have been prepared based upon information contained within the
1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (see attached materials) as an update to the 1978
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
BACKGROUND: The FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan
for the Chico Municipal Airport was prepared for the City of Chico by P & D Aviation and
adopted on December 21, 1994. The document was published in February 1995. A revision
of Chapter III was also adopted by the City after the original document was published and
mailed to the FAA in August 1995.
On February 15, 1996 Commissioner Smail of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
moved that Chico's Far Part 150 Study be adopted as the new CLUP for the Chico Municipal
Airport. This motion died for lack of a second. During a subsequent meeting, Alternate
Commissioner Koch also moved that the study be adopted as the'new CLUP. Again this
motion died for lack of a second.
Primary concerns leading to the failure of previous motions revolved around'the fact that a
CLUP is required to address four elements: Noise, Safety, Overflight, and Obstructions.
Chico's FAR Part 150 Study contained only one of these required items. There have also been
ongoing differences of opinion regarding the accuracy of the noise study in terms of its
e Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission e
reflection of the noise related impacts associated with CDF Air Tanker and Aerial Applicator
activities.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Although the ALUC has previously chosen not to adopt the
FAR Part 150 Study as the CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport, there are specific aspects of
the Plan which could be adopted as amendments to the existing 1978 Chico Municipal Airport
Environs Plan (CMAEP). Specific items proposed for the Commission's consideration include:
1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of
the FAR Part 150 Study. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The
Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all
contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone which
the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The
proposal would be to adopt the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety Zone
as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. The Commission would not be adopting the Airport
Influence Area currently noted on the diagram.
2) The following text would be adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14:
In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of
new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A
within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This
is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing
residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the
existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as
Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive
overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall
be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B
shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements
to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight
activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight
Protection Zone" (OPZ).
When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the
restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative
that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term
protection for the airport and area residents.
Staff Comment: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been
assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the current CMAEP. Some
of those areas are located outside of the proposed Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ).
Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it was applied,
the CLUZ categories depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies would
continue to apply to those areas outside of the OPZ.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
2
3) Exhibit B - This. map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones
onto the future noise contours shown within the current CMAEP. This map would
confirm the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until
new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by
Shutt Moen Associates. If adopted by the Commission, this exhibit would be
incorporated as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP.
4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to
the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of
Chico and the CDF Base. The departure path was modified to generally follow the
Sycamore Creek Diversion Channel. If adopted by the Commission, this exhibit would
be incorporated as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current traffic
patterns.
5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps
depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges
and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation
Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of
the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Exhibit E depicts an overlay
of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used
during the adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. If adopted by the Commission,
these exhibits would be incorporated as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within the
CMAEP.
AMENDMENT PROCESS: Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport
land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall
be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to
as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the
Department of Transportation.
Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the comprehensive land use plan
(also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as'often as necessary in order to
accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year."
According to information contained on page 2-13 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, the ALUC is not required to conduct a public hearing in order to adopt a
compatibility plan or amendments to an existing plan. However, a notice for this item was
published in the Chico Enterprise Record and mailed to the City of Chico as a courtesy. Public
and local agency input is encouraged and will be accepted by the Commission.
Because the ALUC is subject to being overridden by the local jurisdiction, the ALUC is not the
ultimate authority regarding any local land use proposal. Therefore the Commission has the
option of finding that a compatibility plan or amendments to an existing plan is not arp oject
within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This issue is also
discussed on page 2-13 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
3
i
Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which have
the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC may find that the adoption of
an amended Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport meets this CEQA exemption
because:
1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area
including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic t.
or aesthetic significance.
2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes
proposed within the project area.
3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the
affected area.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Since the ALUC is in the process of initiating an update to the
comprehensive land use plans for all four public use airports in the County, it is suggested that
any update to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan be considered an interim
measure and that such adoption occur before the end'of this calendar year to avoid any delays
in the adoption of the updated CLUP prepared by Shutt Moen Associates.
The environmental finding listed in the analysis should be adopted in conjunction with any text
and map figures that are approved by the Commission.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission v
4
Exhibit A \
_ -- <„ - • ,�_\ _.__. -_ \.r 1� I ::•� — •€.: _ _ r / .c 1 � � 'mai �
l i
7.
Vf
'Akih
.... � .. .,. a-..'
V.
-- C)``
\
n
w •h
i
,
•
3
w
- • � r r .-. �� r ••� � �,6 �`� r � - i� . - ---' _ ;•meq--- _ '��, .; �:
-• _ 1 s --� +y�� one rL,
.i
y j:^M1�•:
,
�� `.' � � � ' � ...^. � �' -ted,. � ��.. '�F _ •n•� `�A� L: Z l�'\ 4 . .. j /�, �•` _
jft
-,f1 _
1: ;fii. mak.`: n 'V pa •.�. ���t:.»;I•;,:�,'� r'\ a • • 1
t� 7. r•1^ :1 •j1 - 'f. •1.
CHICO-11AUNMIRAL-AIRPORT--
- \-1 •'- .\A - ,`I` r�4 __ /^.=- _ ` - 1. \[
R. • ,4 :-- �: �: Wit: ;` -' - °'A� �_�:, t� SCALE
_ - _ • _ _ 'r, tt /�b:'xf' - - - T + ', by ' /• �i!`.\•�' FEET
-tet
:.un��-,.r-r, _ .-� �� ✓' ''_���,��- :� S ne :f '++! �..'p7:_✓ • _ . _._o. ne' d ri 1�F.SL" _:—:�'..SrYT�=��. .\_.,�< ��y`: \: I�,: j', ?...f '- 1 . .,t1•,,fi•::�' ;��. 1r:%-iI ��iP . ; �y�.. ��•., c„�r • _'ifi' i-: Y i
�.
' �0 .�.�1
0
00 2000 3000
0 4000 g`�Safety Zone NaZone A N -L -
Airport
LEGEND Boundary
..4,rChico Sphere of Influence
{` verlllOht Protection Zone2 Inner Safety Zone ORunwa Protection Zoe
, 3 InnerTurnngZone zz�:,d, . _, - - 1 -. •r, ___-- I ,.i �m�� Airport Influence Area�' s : ikl
Ie
• , ! � ,
4 Outer Safe Zone � i t> . ;1,, ��� M6 pr ;
• 1 4" % — sera ����� 1` — _
_
F � 1
.. '. -( .; .\, �' , _•v.••' -.._ . i' I rk...
rr
Zone P� ° J
-' A d Zone B together and re resent ... _ !
•. /,
_
'. n O..\� ,. _ .•�/. ��i' �iSTi� � - r'\ _ ♦'. Oit ►nf�Ue ... "�%.�.��.-i.tr [R _ �i' •.I � �.��/ �� _ _ — _ _O�
cOl Overflt ht Protection Zoned � OPZ) • - - �,�� .;/ ;' c AVA `I ►.: ,: �:..�, -
_ .- ; ;' _J JI �.T�: �~ .. 1, 11 1 L" •r— �• L _ ,iJ _,_•-l�M "�, •o;�` � � ,11••� �!
•
4
Drawing CIC -14 I
. .! Exhibit B
'Si"''moi >s• ',:�. :�:�� ?:1.'��.^' ,�,. kl :� 'N`'y
j". e.;yS:, . it ,/�.� .iii - 1. { •' �. i
a
`b
s
E: ..�. .� '� •L "c... i'!i'.' c'Aa=� ', r• .rl .•.fi'• . �=ft.'•i {'
t.
-'S �9• •Iva ..
•y
1'
n S
v ,
'Y
.a .
-i- t
�'ti• a
rZ
i G•X
' I^J
•C
` :rt
7 . . aL,•
•�'', .� .,,tin,'+(•''
�-
%t � %rv:' :�.v'" .-�.� t.: i. ..�... JG .� R�sr 'r �• i �e s� ..c ,.I '� \ �i ...<,°• B�yq'1!i
1 ..�:it^' ` •:�..1, �it,':,••�'''.�J.... Sytt .�i� 6C M,'4: �,•6:Y
mss' •1- - !e •<'. •t ,ti ;'p 1. °v /_'_`2'1t ?t. :'1 "•_•S. . . .
l:• \< „•'�? •'
D{:r^.
aa
i�•`
-:itt F Y ir K flc 'a. 4• a • r
•$
_ 'rts L • 1
r'w `Y f
c w3 2• y P•
k t: • T
J.
• X
N
i • � Y.'
r.
J
,r1 1. NI
:i
•4
F
,r
.1
•t
,
v �"C
' r.z,.w•
I � , ,tr. '♦
:i
C d A•:
,. .t. :�r<' a;�- :I�ei:•. ':t'�' !>.-.i:.�. •ri ar ..?i• .sh: f,,
.. t, .. . . S•, . _ . �.. ., - - -iia i
1
0 ♦Tn
:. 'jib'' • 'c �1•
f• ty7t� ✓:r•'�. �
i.
_ 1
r.i' 'Y t •Y
`2
� � +lit �':4v +.+v} � �• t t r.
•, 9.4}'. _(•S,',. j' •x^.• ri::,;[i. t!a `q• s.•.�S.p•:•` a. -a
.. .. .... -.-,. .. ..c •. ....._'.:I. '�... �.' </: �t `'Tri -RIM
a -
t
..•r ... J. �. .. ... •r... +.. .. ,. �•..... ..:. ..'•.`:•� +�•. ;ty.a- - ,i.y }
-
v,, c .. , - ..%�. .. �. ,i. , , ;.•,wS!�r.. :L•2'.r:'b`n�'r.'0. ';b:. :N:
< `
4.1
` x� F` ♦��
• it '�, :-,, •
_ Tt per'
4
L _
i.
r.
r: r
..I
•.. ... _ 7. .: J.,.. ...Y '.::, '•A. ��... ... .. :: T. �,,tr7 Y4�! N. V.s''� .^4>lid ..I{ -w:..' aka'•
A•
a
J`
f Q
J•1 '
J r rte. .'.���' ,i •.,
v
r
:
,
• X' a
a
r
C..
77
_70
Llc.
��� ^n•
.YN.."-" � Yom'-• ,i'�.
,r� ,, .... r • t r..._ .. .'� -: "�'.,�::.' 1--[ - Irk:. max:: f. '_'''
r•
h
I
.•:, .. ... ,-.. � •. '� . �. .:.. s - may_.:
,
.1 .
,{� } •r
'R r�
..
.aT -
'i Y `i
R
R 0
R 'BOUNDARY/ r r..
-
AIRP
:M1
•r
:
-
..
'
CLOS POINT 15.500 r URE :...: :.... ': a.: •. .. r .d :' g''!r (. "�'a _ . va � ": a
ODS . s�°"•'s .. •��`''= �.ii:: ;;��.;•
:- ..r.i
•a
nu glINUM
_ yCA-y -
•+d to . ..�.• , .
-
-._
L- . .. .. .... .. � ... .. .. _ :.. <. .. . I�• aft J" i�.rJ , � \:: c
r � . / a • �^ . _ {%'• - - .` %f ! :tip l - `T •`C)
y,:"4,. - ..'Asa •:iii:! s'd• •J�, •h r.. a . • r4 '.f'. �4 ,
.. , . , ..... - 1 t%. x .. • gra... -h! -.-,... .'''1''7 ..:�. .:i}: r f .
.,_.. „-. ,:.:,.- .. �' FY}ra:.,t•.., ...... .. ..:..... :.• ,n.Jy;,. e.. ,a1' •LV.% 4V• - � - (` '�`. l.' l / , •a,6• .e.:.
CN
`.. :
�5
•-... ,. .. �� � ':.. •• .'.Y ,/• 'r.�: ..\�' tai •q
AIRPORT. BOXNDARY.
v .. t: ;.r • ,y..r •
4,
7. ''r Iv•: 'sr'r
w:
t..
9.
u
1 -
R
:L may'
f'
7
A•
•
X1I
:r-,... ...,.
.,. tc .t f•. r I: a•>,. .}..-`Llrlr?S{rs� c•.':
^r_
- a•J•
1_.
::r ,:I' lid, •
•yt4C -'C•' Wil• '• 7::':.'>Ir
Mft
•1.` 4' il.
t. a L:
- <rf n1 •.
I 0
f a;.
s.
t
,
'i � • r:r f t•: Y
„
. _.... �. -.. .. �. -. :.... .... 1. � �.:• '��- � `�_.
Ilk.. ! ., .... ,. h. ...... �' ., r, . • .. Q' Y: is ;:'..�� (: _- :% ��
.7 0 • �:,i. .a. . rr . �-a. "'�{. 's 7• ' !{I S'> i v � t':'t: r;:
1.. qtr • i - 'f,.
i. .. .. :. .... ...:.. ,�. ��.. •r. ._ ...: _ , ;,:� •iii..- ( ..�
(( C
7
L' • Z
Y
'til' .': i�!•'•'-•'1 `••�{•
T
•:j %r.:.•
r.
it.
:f
t.J+,
Ali '♦
Safety Zone Names ► '� {'r• �, i'
t r�:. 1 G ti' r••
13 G•
1 Runway Protection Zone t
2 Inner Safety'Zone
3 Inner Turning Zone ! ��
4 Outer Safety Zone. Is� 1 ,
IA• t '�O'C `99
Zone A' and Zone B together represent the define]
"Overflight Protection Zone' (OI)Z). 1000 0 1000 2000 i _ '
SCALE w fEr., •. t r
Approved. Drawn AIRPORT ?ENVIRONS PLAN
Designed
prc JEh TMS FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS
BY • R. DIXON SVEAS ASSOCIATES. Inc. Checked Date CHIC�O MUNICIPl1L AIRPORT
N9. Revision By 1Appr (Dale Date Ar APfiIL 1978 _
Drawing CIC -15
Ad Q—I
MOM
DEPARTURE CLEAR AREA
OWN
EDGE OF DEPARTURE
CLEAR AREA
Now
104, 1 0 1000 2OW Fem
"PEI
ml .� \ .mg A
1 1 1 1
am; NZ
Its 11111-W
11 1,1jA.�y�y_n;. 1 .e_ .
PI la''tl'Iwrl 'V��"w'e a. jti"u@��ts t
•� . wil'1j�111111111w�Iw��
=11 1�hh1.` tjllll'II111I�llluwljll hlw�
.nUl 11 burn' I'thunit11111Wiii'tlltll�• �ttl
� IV-, h UI 11 111tlllt_•1 •q =j IIIUn, II 11 11 1 IpM14 �� � 1
al. {�\.Iq 1) Iltnul 11 ( Iniiiii'h =Ilonl 11111j4ulnllhlllln > �®.m�
.,,�L�I,�u7Uglltltluml'=Itlhiwrnrg111hIn1111'tt'Ittliiiii'gllll�hnrryt� �wl�� lu�' \ 1
ruhl 11 lhu„1 11 ql qu1h114111nul,lh;4u,,, 4 11 4ugt ►•p•
•q vrrrU 11 1j4uh I1 O 11111U1 ( ^:..., 1. .1q II hluq i ��
u411 Illlllnl'11I1l�IUrn4tlll�lltitt►. wtj_:HGgI=Illltllr.ltllllhI ,w :
I t '•1� .1 1 1 111.111 I tl / ., 1111111 11 11111111 11 Ilt .. .- ,�0 � .1�_ \\ 1 1 • 1 1
ll.ii 11111h11Ii111I11 '111111 �1I�II ln1^tt u�
1 1 I lun . la _' Ili1•'r�ru� 1 '
i�'��`� �>\���
RM
. jilllttttw. .►
`.-y .. !It 111111) I It11r111 II ltidr�•��\�•1�
Itt�inllllnutto•hIh,r�v-�•t�4:,!i1'Ri�
♦ Ifl•-� 1 ��:. `wl4 I"'4��711j op'G9•�•-"t
-�� ��,�j ; � �S � �� �Q�i//�� •,. �v�♦ J� ter.. `dln\mss-�1► \ \ .I��IIIIII , � � • 1
•jam � •i��11.� ���i O •. s �
•,,tom_ _ ....
.; - tlhnnnlllluulll'1=• �U�I
`[[i[4/`�� / \`/ 1 l'i J�.'' .•..' o3'i; .- /' .` .'FE` i'^ fes\.
'' •• 1 - .=e,� � ,` , ` � \• l 2I ... ry'�� fes;. �- V1�--„
`` .� /.J/11/ • Vit. V .'\, �`\� (\ ,` � :�..c=
yam` r
LA
Oil LO
_ ♦ . •a_ '�• y .( i - .._ 1. Jt. / � � � '` r\ . I• (
moo
110 pig
1 F',yw'•\,-\ \ /�! • - � ■TIS ��,r�,' • � I .-, I+ /� �- /_
Lis
XX
--- -___JSQQO�9F0 7 dill� PI -
.. �.- 1. _ .... `: \,P„ •'
it
is
JAL
�_1 X11 J '••.. .. �-b � '�'�'< � 1
C°
0
^NIM\�•
0 /If&/MIM.+• w� !10% ONO%I..1.. 15A PI&A�w.• ••Iwo&k1 'S T-w•.•w w — —Jt—
+IBUTT E COUNTY AI RPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Annual Review and
Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan.
DATE NOTICE MAILED: October 9,'! 998
This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use. Commission will hold a public meeting on the
following matter at the time and place listed below:
HEARING DATE: October 21, 1998
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room
Butte County Administration Center
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The ALUC will
consider adoption of a' portion -of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation,
dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been prepared based upon
information contained within the 1993,Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Commission will
consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport'Environs Plan
in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675.
If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster, of
the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At the meeting, the Commission will consider oral and written
testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The project file may
be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville,
California.
A:\10-21-98.MTG\C H ICO. NOT
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •
+BU"]CT E COUNTY AIRPORT lied USE COMIAUS ION +
• 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 •
Please publish the following notice in the Chico Enterprise Record on or before
Wednesday, October 14, 1998:
Notice of Public Meeting
Notice is hereby given that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will
consider the following item at their regular meeting on October 21, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the
Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers (25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA):
Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The ALUC will
consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D
Aviation, dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been
prepared based upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook. The Commission will consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978 .
Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections
21674.7 and 21675.
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the meeting and provide input to the
Commission. Questions regarding this item should be directed to Laura Webster, Butte
County ALUC staff at (530) 533-1131.
• Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission •