Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONr BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AGENDA December 8, 1993 TEVIE: 9:00 am. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 L Pledge of Allegiance H. Roll Call IIL Approval of Minutes of August 11, 1993. IV. Business 1. CSA 87 Specific Plan (North Chico) - Review for Conformity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. 2. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to three minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking Action on any item presented if it is not- listed otlisted on the agenda.) V. Correspondence VI. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees VII. Announcements 1. Next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 1993. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - December 8, 1993 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission. (ALUC) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on December 8,1993 in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Franklin, Gerst, Koch, Stevens and Chairperson Crotts Absent: Commissioners Lambert and Rossas Also Present: David Hironimus and Sherry Elgan, ALUC Staff and Steve Honeycutt - Heritage Partners III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of August 11, 1993 Commissioner Koch asked for clarification of paragraph 5, page 4, last sentence. Commissioner Gerst said it - should read "Once a denial was made by the ALUC Commission it could be overridden by 2/3rds vote by the next step up, and they declare it was not a safety problem." Chairperson Crotts moved to continue the approval of the minutes of August 11, 1993 to the January 12, 1994 meeting, due to the Pack of a quorum. IV. BUSINESS CSA 87 Specific Plan (North Chico) - Review for Conformity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Handouts of the Draft - North Chico Specific Plan were provided. Commissioner Gerst asked for additional information on the safety aspect of the North Chico Specific Plan. Staff noted that the Draft of the North Chico Specific Plan had just been received, and subsequently not enough time had been allowed to review the Draft at this time. Mr. Honeycutt stated that today's meeting was for the introduction of the Draft of the North Chico Specific Plan, and explained there was a 45 day CEQA comment period. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -December 8, 1993 After the Commissioners and Staff have read the Draft, he would be glad to come back at a later time to discuss it further. Mr. Honeycutt said he would like to point out the Airport Protection Measures and the Land Use Map at this time. Mr. Honeycutt also stated that the Environmental impact Report should be ready in the next few days, and copies will be provided to the ALUC Commission. Commissioner Gerst said he had questions on the noise sensitive zone. Commissioner Koch noted that the new Environs Plan will include the finalized reports, which will include the noise sensitive zone. Mr. Honeycutt noted again this Draft of the North Chico Specific Plan is just an introduction, and that the Draft will be put before this Commission, as well as the Planning Commission several times in the coming months. At this time Mr. Honeycutt passed among the Commissioners the Land Use Map, in color, dealing with the 65dB as well as the 55dB attenuation noise factors. Mr. Honeycutt said he thought the only issue to deal with was the developed area at the north end of the runway. The proposal is to downsize that zone from an SR -1 (Suburban - Residential 1 Acre Parcel) to an SR -3 (Suburban -Residential 3 Acre. Parcel). Mr. Honeycutt gave a brief introduction of the Draft - North Chico Specific Plan at this time, and noted he would be available for questions. ********************************* IV. BUSINESS (Cont.) Business from the floor None. 2 t i _ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -December 8, 1993 V. CORRESPONDENCE Staff handed out Appendix D - Sample Compatibility Criteria. and Maps, Appendix E - Sample Implementation Documents; Appendix F - Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, and Appendix G - Glossary of Terms which the Division of Aeronautics,is considering putting into their new Airport Land Use Handbook. VI. REFERRALS TO STAFF AND FORMATION OF COMMITTEES ` None 1 VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting will be held January 12, 1994. Staff noted he would not be attending the January meeting,' however Paula_ Leasure, Principal Planner for the County will attend for Staff. .7k*7k*]r*7k 7k 7k 7k*****7t*�C 7k.71C 71C ]r 7k**7k*1k 1k 1k l�**** • - . • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the, meeting was 'adjourned at 9:45 A.M. Signed: BRENDA CROTTS, Chairperson BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 3 Azr���X � Sample. Compatibility Criteria and Maps Appendix D Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps -DRAFT- D-1 CONCEPT ILLUSTRATED Tables Maps U ¢ ca ` H N J O td C 8 C -63 EXHIBIT $ E iO m E '° CS a z U) 8 a 1 - Lindbergh Field Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix X X 2 - Sacramento Metro Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidelines . X X 3 - Sonoma County Airport Land Use Safety X X Compatibility Criteria 4 - San Luis Obispo County Land Use Compatability Listing X X 5 - Lake County Compatibility Criteria X X _ 6 - Nut Tree (Vacaville) Density Standards Implementation X X 7 - Imperial County Airport Noise Impact Area X 8 - . Franklin Field Safety Zones X 9 - Hemet Ryan Airport Safety Area II X 10 - Brawley Municipal Airport Compatibility Map X 11 - San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Areas X 12 - Mammoth -June Lake Airport Land Use Plan T-1 X -DRAFT- D-1 • Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D Exhibit D-2 Continued D-4 SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USE CATEGORY CSAR APPROACH - DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT and (Standard Industrial ClasslflcaUon Code) ZONE ZONE ZONE WHOLESALE TRADE Paints, varnishes & supplies (5198) No No Yes' Chemicals 8 allied products No No Yes" Petrdeum truck terminals No No Yest3 Miscellaneous wholesale trade No No Yes" RETAIL TRADE Department & variety stores (single) (53) No No Yes' Lumber, building materiels 8 nurseries (521, 526) No No Yes' Grocery stores & drug stores (54) No No Yes" Paint, glass, wallpaper 8 hardware (523, 525) No No Yes" Auto, truck, boat 8 RV dealers (55) No No Yes" Mobile home dealers (527) No No Yes" Auto &truck service stations (554) No No Yes" Fuel dealers (598) No No Yes" Apparel &shoes (56) No No Yes' Home furnishings (57) Eating 8 drinking (58) No No No No Yes " Yes' Miscellaneous retailtrade (59) No No Yes" BUSINESS b PERSONAL SERVICES Auto, truck, boat, RV &miscellaneous repair (75, 76) No No Yes" Mobile home repair (1521) No No Yes" Commercial laundries 8 cleaning (721) No No Yes' - Coln -operated laundries (7215) No No Yes" Photographers, beauty &barber, shoe repair (722-725) Funeral services (726) No No No No Yes" Yes" Business services (73) No No Yes" Computer programming &data processing (737) No No Yes" Travel Agencies (4724) No No Yes' Legal 8 engineering (81, 87) No No Yes" Banks, credit unions financial (63, 64, 65) No No Yes" _8 Hotels, motels, Inns, bad &breakfast (701) No No Yes'' Business parks & Industrial dusters No No Yea" Office buildings (offices for rent or lease) No No Yes" Business & vocational schools (824, 829) No No Yes" Construction businesses (15, 16, 17) No No Yea" Miscellaneous personal services (729) No No Yes" SHOPPING DISTRICTS NeighborhoodNelghb000d shopping centers No No Yes" Community Community shopping ceers No No Yes" Regional shopping centers No No No Exhibit D-2 Continued D-4 Exhibit D-2 Continued D-4 0 Sample CompatlbMty Criteria and Maps /Appendix D SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY COMPATIBILITY WITH LAND USE CATEGORY APPROACH - and (Standard Industrial Classification Coda) CLEAR DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT ' _ ZONE ZONE ZONE PUBLIC AND QUASI -PUBLIC SERVICES Post offices (53) No No Yes" Govemment offices (91-96) No No Yes" Government social services (83) No No Yes" Elementary & secondary schools (821) No No No Colleges & universities (822) No No No Hospitals (806) No No No Medical & dental laboratories (807) No No Yes" Doctor & dentist offices (801-804) No No Yes" Museums & art galleries (84) No No 7 ` Yes" Ubraries (823) No No Yes" Churches (866) No No Yes" Cemeteries (6553) No Yes2.t0 Yes" Jails & detention centers (9223) No No No Child care programs (6 or more children) (835) No No Yes" Nursing care facilities (805) No No Yes" RECREATION Neighborhood parks No No Ye972.13 Community -wide & regional parks No No No Riding stables (7999) No No Yes" Golf courses (7992) No Yee. 11 Yes11•17 Open space & natural area Yes3.6 Yesz8.12 Yess.12.13 Natural water areas Yes3.6 Yes2.6.12 Yes6.12.13 Recreation & amusement centers (793, 799) No -No Yes73 Physicaffitrwm & gyms (7991) No No Ye8t3 Camps, campgrounds & RV parks (703) No No No Dance halls, studios & schools (791) No No.. Yest3 Theaters - live performance (7922) No No No Motion picture theater - single or double (783) No No No Motion picture theater complex - 3 or more (783) No No No Professional sports (7941) No No No Stadiums and arenas No No No Auditoriums, concert halK amphitheater No No No Fairgrounds and expositions (1999) No No No Racetracks (7948) No No No Theme parks No No No Exhibit D-2 Continued nf. D-5 • 0 Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps / Appendix D SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY LAND USE CATEGORY COMPATIBILITY WITH AND (Standard Industrial Classification Code) APPROACH - CLEAR DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT ZONE ZONE ZONE AGRICULTURE AND MINING Row &field crops (011, 013, 016) Yesa.6 Yes2.6 Yes"' Tree crops (012) No Yes''° Yes6'" Intensive livestock (021, 024, 027) No Yes2.6 Yes6'" Nursery products (018) No Yes2-5 Yes6'" Poultry (025) No Yes2.6 Yes'-" Pasture & grazing Yes -1.6 Yes' -6 YesS'" Agricultural services (7) No Ye32 Yes" Mining & quarrying (10, 12, 14) No Yes'-' Yee" Oil & gas extraction (13) No No Yes" FOOTNOTES: Use compatible only if directly related to agricultural use of the property for the provision of dwelling units for the land owner's immediate family, or tar employees requited for the protection of the property. All such dwellings shall be encouraged to locate outside of the Approacn- Depanure Zone if parcel lines permit ' Use compatible only if it does not result In a concentration of persons greater than 25 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. No building, structures, aboveground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons per acre at any time. No bulk petroleum products or chemical storage. Tour operator passenger facilities not allowed. Uses compatible only if they do not result In a possibility that a water area may cause ground fog or result in a bird hazard. Household hazardous waste facilities operated as part of an integrated waste management program and resulting in only temporary storage of materials is allowed. Uses in buildings must be compatible. Use compatible only If requirements of California Education Code, Sections 39005.7, 81038 and 81038 are fulfilled. 10 No chapels or funeral homes. . No club houses, bars, restaurants or banquet facilities. Ancillary uses such as pro shape. snack bars. and specialty food and beverage SoN cies tee allowed. New course layouts 6 revisions to existing courses must be reviewed by ALUC tot aahty impacts. This restriction does not apply to the Metro Air Park Special Planning Area. No high intensity uses or facilities, such as structured playgrounds, ballflelds, or picnic pavilions. Uses compatible only if they do not result In a large concentration of people. A lupe concentration of people is defined as a gather ng or individuals in an area that would result In an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24 hour period enarng at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. This restriction does not apply to nonresidential uses in the Metro Air Park Special Planning Area. No uses that would cause electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation of aircraft or aircraft instrumentation. SACMErAMSAFETY Source: Sacramento Metropolitan Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update 1993 Exhibit D-2 Continued AW Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps / Appendix O. Exhibit 9 AIRPORT/LAND USE SAFETY C014PATIBILITY CRITERIA SAFETY ZONESL t L L i - V U M VI O N q m Y O c U c G O din CD L N— O n 1--- i- U t } O u L W a W L N t N C VI LAND USE CHARACTERISTIC m c c to c t c �' S v c co o�o— U — r4 1-- N O IV la: 2 -O N Residential Uses - (A) (B,E) (B,E) + Other Uses in Structures - (C,E) (D,E) + + Other Uses Not in Structures (C,F) (D) + + + Special Characteristics Distracting Lights or Glare - - - - (F) Sources of Smoke or Electronic interference - - - - (F) Attractor of Birds - - - (F) + NOTES 1/ Where safety zones overlap, the more restrictive criterion applies. 2/ For the purposes herein, the inner approach zone Is defined as having a length of approximately 7,500 feet for existing or planned precision Instrument runways (Sonoma County Airport Runway 32), 5,100 feet for existing or plan@ed noriprecislon instrument runways (Sonoma County Airport Runways 14, 1, and 19), and 3,000 feet for visual runways (all others). INTERPRETATION + ACCEPTABLE: Use Is acceptable with little or no risks. ( ) CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: Hazards exist, but use Is acceptable under conditions cited below. A Density no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres. B Density no greater than 4 dwelling units per acre. C Occupancy no greater than 25 persons per acre at any time. D Occupancy no greater than 50 persons per acre at any time. E Maximum structural coverage 25% with 30% of area open (aircraft could make emergency landing without damage to structures on ground). F. Characteristic cannot reasonably be avoided or located outside of Indicated safety zone. UNACCEPTABLE: Use Is unacceptable due to associated hazards. Source: Recommended Airport Land Use Policy Plan for the Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission June 1981 Exhibit D-3 Sonoma County Airport Land Use Safety Compatibility Plan D-7 Sample Compatiblilty Criteria and Maps /Appendix D AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY LISTING USES AREAS 1 2 3 11 5 6 .GRICULTURAL USES TRUCK 6 SPECIALTY CROPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 FIELD CROPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 PASTURE 6 RANGELAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORCHARD 6 VINEYARDS X X 0 0 0 0 DRY FARM 6 GRAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 TREE FARMS, LANDSCAPE NURSERIES E GREENHOUSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 FISH FARMS X X 0 0 0 0 FEED LOTS b STOCKYARDS X X 0 0 0 0 POULTRY FARMS X X C C 0 0 DAIRY FARMS X X 0 0 0 0 NATURAL USES , FOREST RESERVES X X 0 0 0 0 FISH 6 GAME RESERVES X X 0 0 0 0 LAND RESERVES 6 OPEN SPACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD 6 GEOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA.^. 0 0 0 0 0 0 WATERWAYS - RIVERS, CREEKS, CANALS, SWAMPS, BAY, LAKES 0 0 0 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL 6 INSTITUTIONAL ' RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 5 ACRES OR MORE X X C C 0 0 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL - S ACRES OR LESS X X X C C 0 SINGLE FAMILY (6,000 SQ. FT.) X X X C C 0 MULTI-FAY.ILY X X X X C 0 MOBILE HOME PARKS X X X C C 0 SCHOOLS, COLLEGES 6 UNIVERSITIES X X X X C C HOSPITALS C C X X C 0 CHURCHES X X X X C 0 RECREATIONAL GOLF COURSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 PARKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLAYGROUNDS 6 PICNIC AREAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATHLETIC FIELDS X X X C C 0 RIDING STABLES 6 TRAILS X X 0 0 0 0 MARINAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TENNIS COURTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 OUTDOOR THEATERS X X Y. X C 0 SWIMMING POOLS 0 0 0 0 0 0 FAIRGROUNDS 6 RACETRACKS X X X X C 0 USES COMMERCIAL USES AIRCRAFT SALES E REPAIRS FLYING SCHOOLS HOTELS 6 MOTELS SHOPPING CENTERS BANKS GAS STATIONS AUTO STORAGE 6 PARKING OFFICE BUILDINGS THEATERS 6 AUDITORIUMS PUBLIC BUILDINGS TAXI, BUS 6 TERMINALS MEMORIAL PARKS PET CEMETERIES RESTAURANTS 6 FOOD TAKE-OUTS RETAIL STORES TRUCK TERMINALS OTHER SERVICE USES INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES WAREHOUSES AIRCRAFT FACTORIES AIR FREIGHT TERMINALS NON -AIR RELATED MANUFACTURING RAIL SIDINGS OTHER TRANSPORTATION PARKS UTILITIES RESERVOIRS WATER TREATMENT SEWAGE DISPOSAL PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS BULK STORAGF ELECTRICAL PLANTS POWER LINES AREAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C 0 C C X C C 0 C C X C 0 0 C C X 0 0 0 C C X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C 0 0 X X X C C 0 C C C C 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0. X X X 0 0 0 X X X 0 0 0 C C C C 0 0 C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C 0 0 C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 C C C 0 0 0 X X C 0 0 0 C C C 0 0 0 X - PROHIBITED 0 - COMPATIBLE. C - CONDITIONALLY APPROVABLE Source: Airport Land Use Plan: San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission September 1973 Exhibit D-4 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Compatibility Listing D - s Exhibit D-6 Lake, County Compatibility Criteria D-9 Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D Compatibility Criteria Lake County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan NOTES 1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units per gross acre. Clustering of units is encouraged as a means of meeting the Required Open Land requirements. 2 The land use should not attract more than the indi- cated number of people per acre at any time. This figure should include all individuals who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.). These densities are intended as general plan- ning guidelines to aid in determining the acceptability of proposed land uses. 3 See Policy 3.2.5. BASIS FOR COMPATIBILRY ZONE BOUNDARIES 4 These uses typically can be designed to meet the density requirements and other development condi- tions listed. S These uses typically do not meet the density and other development conditions listed. they should be allowed only if a major community objective is served by their location in this zone and no feasible alter- native location exists. 8 See Policy 3.3.5. 7 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; i.e., the attenuation of sound level from outside to inside provided by the structure. The following general guidelines are used in establishing the Compatibility Zone boundaries for each airport depicted in Chapter 3. Modifications to the boundaries may be made to reflect specific local conditions such as existing roads, property lines, and land uses. A The boundary of this zone for each airport is defined by the runway protection zones (formerly called run- way dear zones) and the airfield building restriction lines. Runway protection zone dimensions and locations are set in accordance with Federal Aviation Adminis- tration standards for the proposed future runway location, length, width, and approach type as indi- cated on an approved Airport Layout Plan. If no such plan exists, the existing runway location, length, width, and approach type are used. The building restriction line location indicated on an approved Airport Layout Plan is used where such plans exist. For airports not having an approved Airport Layout Plan, the zone boundary is set at the following distance laterally from the runway center- line: Visual runway for small airplanes 370 feet Visual runway for large airplanes 500 feet Nonpreclsion instrument runway for large airplanes 500 feet Precision instrument runway 750 feet These distances allow structures up to approximately 35 feet height to remain below the airspace surfaces defined by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Source: Hodges & Shutt (September 1992) B1 The outer boundary of the Approach/Departure Zone is defined as the area where aircraft are commonly below 400 feet above ground level (AGL). For visual runways, this location encompasses the base leg of the traffic pattern as commonly flown. For instrument runways, the attitudes established by approach pro- oedures are used. Zone B1 also includes areas with- in 1,000 feet laterally from the runway centerline. B2 The Extended Approach/Departure Zone includes areas where aircraft are commonly below 800 feet AGL on straight -in approach or straight-out departure. It applies to runways with more than 500 operations per year by large aircraft (over 12.500 pounds maxi- mum gross takeoff weight) and/or runway ends. with more than 10.000 total annual takeoffs. C The outer boundary of the Common Traffic Pattern Zone is defined as the area where aircraft are cont monly below 1,000 feet AGL (i.e.. the traffic pattern and pattern entry points). This area is considered to extend 5,000 feet laterally from the runway centerline and from 5,000 to 10,000 feet longitudinally from the end of the runway primary surface. The length de- pends upon the runway classification (visual versus instrument) and the type and volume of aircraft ac- commodated. For runways having an established traffic solely on one side, the shape of the zone is modified accordingly. D The outer boundary of the Other Airport Environs Zone conforms with the adopted Planning Area for each airport Exhibit D-5 Continued - D-10 ofx:a7 w w+ 1 • �. i Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D City of Vacaville Zoning Code Implementation Standards I A ZONE (Density Standard 10 persons/acre in buildings. 15 persons/acre outside buildings) ACCEPTABLE USES - Pastures and open space - Parks with very low intensity uses - Aircraft tiedowns - Auto parking -Nurseries -Outside storage - Any other uses which are conclusively determined by the Planning Director to have an anticipated density of less than 10 persons per acre in buildings and less than 15 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. - Any other uses which are determined by the Planning Director and the Airport Land Use Commission to generally not have an anticipated maximum density of more than 10 persons per acre in buildings, and not more than 15 persons per acre outside of buildings on ' the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. NORMALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE USES Warehouses HL Zoning District uses HH Zoning District uses PROHIBITED USES Any substantial assemblage of people Any structure that exceeds the height limits es- tablished herein - 'Any noise sensitive uses -.Any residential uses B ZONE (Density Standard 20 persons/acre in buildings. 40 persons/acre outside buildings). ACCEPTABLE USES - - Acceptable Uses from the A Zone - Parks with low•intensity uses - Nurseries - Warehouses - Manufacturing uses permitted in the ML Zoning District - Manufacturing uses permitted in the MH Zoning District - Any other uses which are conclusively determined by the Planning Director to have an anticipated density of less than 20 persons per acre in buildings and.less than 40 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information.,,. - Any other uses which are determined by the Planning Director and the Airport Land Use Commission to generally not have an anticipated maximum density of more than 20 persons per acre in buildings, and not ' more than 40 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. NORMALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE USES - Retail uses - Office uses (except as accessory to Acceptable Uses) - Hotels and motels PROHIBITED USES - Any substantial assembly of people - Any structure that exceeds the height limits es- tablished herein - Any noise sensitive uses - Any residential uses Exhibit D-6 Nut Tree (Vacaville) Density Standards Implementation D-11 i Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps / Appendix D C ZONE (Density Standards 40 persons/acre in buildings. 75 persons/acre outside buildings) ACCEPTABLE USES - Acceptable Uses from the B Zone - Retail uses (one story maximum, except storage) - Office ad financial uses (one story maximum, except storage) -Auto dealerships -Motels (one story maximum) - Any other uses which are conclusively determined by the Planning Director to have an anticipated density of less than 50 persons per acre in buildings and less than 75 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. - Any other uses which are determined by the Planning Director and the Airport Land Use Commission to generally not have an anticipated maximum density of more than 50 persons per acre in buildings, and not more than 75 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. NORMALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE USES - Multiple story retail, office and financial uses - Theaters, auditoriums, assembly halls and churches - Amusement and indoor recreation uses - Restaurants and bars PROHIBITED USES - Schools, libraries, hospitals and nursing homes - Noise sensitive outdoor uses - New residential uses D ZONE (Density Standard 100 persons/acre in buildings. 150 persons/ acre outside buildings.) ACCEPTABLE USES - Acceptable Uses from the C Zone - Restaurants and bars (one story maximum, except storage) - Office and financial uses (two story maximum) - Retail uses (two story maximum) - Motels (two story maximum) - Any other uses which are conclusively determined by the Planning Director to have an anticipated density of less than 100 persons per acre in'buildings and less than 150 persons per outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. - Any other uses which are determined by the Planning Director and the Airport Land Use Commission to generally not have an anticipated maximum density of more than loo persons per acre in buildings, and not more than 150 persons per acre outside of buildings on the basis of specific floor plans and other related information. NORMALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE USES - New single family residential uses - Large shopping Malls (exceeding 500,000 square feet in area) - Theaters, auditoriums, assembly halls and churches - Schools, libraries, hospitals and nursing homes PROHIBITED USES - Noise sensitive outdoor uses Source: Airport/ and Use Compatibility Plan Nut Tree Airport Vacaville Gliderport May 1988 Exhibit D-6 Continued D-12 ito'I'll Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D Qa i136 I +'Illlii; - °II 148 0 ° ._.... ... .---.-- — - ---- — — $ 7 0 60 91 I I j — — — ��i — •�--'QI 135I �j 165---- 132 — u 1 !j84 133 ° 13 57 n j Iti rye t! ' �� li I :�i.. � .t� 11'; •fall i l 82 r — `,�: S Y� to {{{g �. I -It � y �,•....-I' 106. N ortninglon Rd. ..o•...50. li 49 cUn n i -.S �. tV' •:.'.I: .. u[.�.. >•. 79 ee, `n Iso. - �:+i• � 'II 51 c f f i'• 85 CNEL I: 60 CNEL = 55 CNEL 99 76 46 5j-' ..r.•v '�. - V I I� 47 ' .eo moi- -----zr is 75 a I`°100 3 s 98 73 i 74 !: Alen Re. dr.__---- _ - �s _ _I r',. I O.re _ •rcn.c U. as . u 41 40 A t a0 B _+ 5 \' l I 57. 6' E 3 City of Imperial __L \ s€ 58 68 I • cc.. r-- l0 43 Id' li 42 ! —0 60 v4.1 39 209 �_ 59 f �I City of EIIlCentro I 291................... ....... 53........ x....... T..i+::t!!� 0 $500 - Souroe: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Imperial County Airports June 1991 ----== Scale In Feet Exhibit D-7 Imperial County Airport Noise Impact Area D-13 Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D FRANKLIN FIELD AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES LEGEND O Safety Area t — Clear Zone O Safety Area 3 — Overflight Zone OSafety Area 2 — Approach/Departure Zone Source: Franklin Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan December 1988 Exhibit D4 Franklin Field Safety Zones D-14 � r I I Source: Franklin Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan December 1988 Exhibit D4 Franklin Field Safety Zones D-14 0 • Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps / Appendix.D Source: Hemet Ryan Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan 1992 Exhibit D-9 Hemet Ryan Airport Safety Area II D-15 Sampie Compatibility Criteria and Maps / Appendix D 142 nu 1\ i. 17 1 16 i A is 14 r 14 PPUCC I LAr[P.L J I•'a_ w4.n i �aJ N• eP uc. J Ow4 - '/ 'l — •- i (-.-... RaGr M Z........,,t . r p, �J _ L•r[w.t I , ............... u J o 20 �Q r r, ,1 23 1114 ... ......Shank Rd. _ -133 I� 1 - - = S I t �� 76 , au 1 , �I �n� I •,o None Rd. (Future) - -- — 7 i.1--------- �--------_- --' so 1 1 O I O 11000, CI a :� : „ ` - o.w LL o I �. % 000[ N 1.6- 1----•• i 71 77 '',1 MUNICIPAL _ i .. ' • 1 - Y' S. -123 .7'` i .' D •• - -s rir+L[r [ 'I. - 1�•� 1M� Y ��' BM - 132 : -- 2d 9 1 148 Sth I 10 3 46—�I IIj = o - ••'Sha sch -A Wortl,sthi �I � \ M. I lu Pu MrN it -_ n -Lar% .� I - �— �- �' 44I .. .. 43 52 - o a cr.. P.k a u I, �il 35 I . a -� • •-�� N I: Ir :T l .I'�� L. •, wii i 13.1 P -1k n }'ia� n ! �I ` J E-ewr.Mr� .1 Ju..L I .:O i'_ ' Moow r•o u.!2!.5...- - - / � I.F.eie I 17 � • � � I p `� . i R 45� •�4 I � p. ��r n Ir • I /� ,�� II �21 =� .' 2 122 iecsr .. ,.�.L . j .. .. / II BM - I:C_/ 125 124 122 i�I. ;l I 0 3000 Source: Airport Land Use/Compatibility Plan Imperial County Airports June 1991 I Scale in Feet :.77 qOCXWGOD Exhibit D-10 Brawley Municipal Airport Compatibility Map D-16 Sample Compatibility Criteria and Maps /Appendix D LAND USE AREAS '1•IN AIRPORT BUILDING AREAS 2.ON OTHER AIRPORT PROPERTY 3•UNDER APPROACH S. CUMBOUT EXTENSIONS 4•LANO ADJACENT TO AIRPORT BETWEEN RUNWAY EXTENSIONS 5 -OTHER LAND BETWEEN RUNWAY EXTENSIONS BOTHER LAND IN PLANNING AREA Source: Airport Land Use Plan: San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission September 1973 x/`:.11• _ 'r e Exhibit D-11 San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Areas D-17 v tb J i r r 1 �ll`�`�:\� /r��-�1�-./"600��1/`. ,� • / \ \�/li. `11.._.. f \L I ..�••;n_JT���I I— --\ IWe .Ill.illl 1Sprilig 1 �S 1•a I 1' —7 \ � 6 /� 1 • � - \ �� I' - ' l � � Cil%'_/° : e`• , — S ' �� c �, ^ � i - ... I / - - ' . ` .. t���_. o¢ 1'!��L•1,1'.r • Ho[ Cr ;�'l. %0 11 /_'`. r `� I o/�. OA A16 3 1 •33 .'\ • MAMMOTH JUNE LAKE511 I- � '`�' 'Ie90/ AIRPOR 395 i r*F:I-'M'hit _r°='- ,. •' - -.s ,-, f as [t• n '1 I�lut'Snln ,Y pi2 -=I /f r.7 .r1.,/ V. I �J� 4S3IIL I \ 1 Vp6 ©_ R _ I o may`•' CI 'nq0 12 70 .: I .400 1Q lQl T o s.: \%'r 1 3 ! N \ If U 1 OA -A Open �peoe-Aerbul{ure OA -M Open •Pooe-Rew,me Mom{. OA -R OPen OPwe-Repraetlon OA -&C Open ■Peoe-•{reem Goneerretbn AOO Airport Oerelopn n{ OIe{rloa 1 Induetrlel/ Menufeoturina PA Inetl{utlonN7 Public Aa.—, PUO Planned unit 01— lop- Source: Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Analysis Mammoth/June Lake Airport Land Use Plan October 1986 olU7.� I MAMMOTH/JUNE LAKE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN 0 1000 5000 10,000 scale feel rlr�nrl�i►v � Sample Implementation Documents Appendix E Sample Implementation Documents Some compatibility. plans require the dedication of avigation. or overflight easements or use of deed notices in selected areas around each of the airports in the county. The specific applica- tions are discussed in Chapter 5. Examples of three types of documents are presented on the following pages. Exhibit f1 - Avigation Easement Exhibit E2 - Overflight Easement Exhibit E3 — Deed Notice Sample Implementation DocuOnts /Appendix E Exhibit E1 Typical Avigation Easement This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between _ hereinafter referred to as Grantor, and the [insert County or City name], a political subdivision in the State of Cai fornia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assig- nable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on "Exhibit A" attached and is more particularly described as follows: [Insert legal description of real property] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is described as follows: The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or horizontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport official runway end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSC), as determined by [Insert name and Date of Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approxi- mate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to: (1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons, or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any portion of the Airspace hereinabove described; and (2) The easement and right to cause or create, or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Airspace laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or oaxu from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and (3) A continuing right to Gear and keep Gear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and (4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navigation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and E-2 Sample Implementation Documents /Appendix E (5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property, for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after reasonable notice. For and behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the[Insert County or City name], for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace, or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the easement and rights-of-way herein granted. The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the pnsert County or City name], State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying through said Airspace. This grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant tenement. DATED: STATE OF" ) ss COUNTY OF On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public E-3 Sample Implementation Docum nts / Appendix E Exhibit E2 Typical Overflight Easement GRANTOR hereby grants to the in , its successors or assigns, as owners of the (Name of Airport] , California, an overflight ease- ment for the following purposes and granting the following rights: (1) For the use and benefit of the public, and to the extent and in the manner consistent with safe operating procedures as provided under applicable governmental regulations, the right to make flights, and the noise inherent thereto, in airspace over the property described in Exhibit A (at- tached) in connection with landings, takeoffs, and general operation of the [Name of Airportl . (2) The right to regulate or prohibit the release into the air of any substance which would impair the visibility or otherwise interfere with the operations of aircraft such as, but not limited to, steam, dust, and smoke. (3) The right to regulate or prohibit light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), which might interfere with pilot vision. (4) The right to prohibit electrical emissions which would interfere with aircraft communication systems or aircraft navigational equipment. This easement shall be effective from this date and run with the land until such time as the [Name of Airportl is no longer used as an airport. The real property subject to this overflight easement is described as follows: See Attachment "A" DATED: GRANTOR: By: E-4 IM 0 Sample lmpledntatlon Documents /Appendix E Exhibit E3 Sample Deed Notice The following statement should be included on the deed for the subject property and recorded in by the County. This statement should also be included on any parcel map, tentative map or final map for subdivision approval. This property is in the area subject to overflights by aircraft using airport, and as a result, residents may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise of such operations. State law (public utilities code section 21670 et Seq.) establishes the importance of public use airports to protection of the public interest of the. people of the State of California. Residents of property near a public use airport should therefore be pre- pared to accept such inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort from normal aircraft operations. Any subsequent deed conveying parcels or lots shall contain a statement in substantially this form. E - s Appendix F Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Part 77—Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace Subpart A—General 77.1 . scope. This Part— (a) Establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace; (b) Sets forth the requirements for notice to the Administrator of certain proposed con- struction or alteration ; (c) Provides for aeronautical studies of ob- structions to air navigation, to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace; (d) Provides for public hearings on the hazardous effect of proposed construction or alteration on air navigation; and (e) Provides for establishing antenna farm areas. 177.2 Definition of terms. For the purpose of this Part: "Airport available for public use" means an airport that is open to the general public with or without a prior request to use the airport. "A seaplane base" is considered to be an airport only if its sea lanes are outlined by visual markers. "Nonprecision instrument runway" means a runway having an existing instrument approach procedure utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation equipment, for which a straight -in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved, or planned, and for which no precision ap- proach facilities are planned, or indicated on an FAA planning document or military serv- ice military airport planning document. "Precision instrument runway" means it runway having an existing instrument ap- proach procedure utilizing an Instrument Landing System (ILS), or it Precision Ap- proach Radar (PAR). It also means a. run- way for which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA approved airport layout plan; a military service approved military airport, layout plan; any other FAA planning document, or military service military airport planning document. "Utility runway" means a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less. "Visual runway" means a runway in- tended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA approved airport layout plan, a military service approved military airport layout plan, or by any planning document submitted to the FAA by competent au- thority. 177.3 Standards. (a) The standards established in this Part for determining obstructions to air navigation are used by the Administrator in— (1) Administering the Federal -aid Air- port Program and the Surplus Airport Pro- gram; ro-gram; (2) Transferring property of the United States under Section 16 of the,Federal Air- port Act; (3) Developing technical standards and guidance in the design and construction of airports; and (4) Imposing requirements for public notice of the construction or alteration of any structure where notice will promote air safety. (b) The standards used by the Administra- tor in the establishment of flight procedures and aircraft operational limitations are not set forth in this Part but are contained in other publications of the Administrator. F-1 Excerpts from Federal Aviation -Re. F-2 Part 77 /Appendix F is OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE 77.5 Kinds of objects affected. This Part applies to— (a) Any object of natural growth, terrain, or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein, and apparatus of a permanent or temporary character; and (b) Alteration of any permanent or tempor- ary existing structure by a change in its height (including appurtenances), or lateral dimen- sions, including equipment or materials used therein. Subpart B—Notice of Construction or Alteration 177.11 Scope. (a) This subpart requires each person pro- posing any kind of construction or alteration described in § 77.13 (a) of this chapter to give adequate notice to the Administrator. It speci- fies the locations and dimensions of the con- struction or alteration for which notice is re- quired and prescribes the form and manner of the notice. It also requires supplemental notices 48 hours before the start and upon the completion of certain construction or altera- tion that was the subject of a notice under § 77.13(a). (b) Notices received under this subpart pro- vide a basis for— (1) Evaluating the effect of the construc- tion or alteration on operational procedures and proposed operational procedures; (2) Determinations of the possible haz- ardous effect of the proposed construction or alteration on air navigation_ ; (3) Recommendations for identifying the construction or alteration in accordance with the current Federal Aviation Adminis- tration Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1 en- titled "Obstruction IMarking and Lighting," which is available without charge from the Department of Transportation, Distribution Unit, TAD 484.3, Washington, D.C. 20590; (4) Determining other appropriate meas- ures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and (5) Charting and other notification to air- men of the construction or alteration. PART rr 4 77.13 Construction or alteration requiring notice. (a) Except as provided in § 77.15, each sponsor who proposes any of the following construction or alteration shall notify the Ad- ministrator in the form and manner prescribed in § 77.17: (1) Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground level at its site. (2) Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes: (i) 100 to 1 for at horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport speci- fied in subparagraph (5) of this para- i►raph with at. least one runway more than :3,200 feet. in actual length, excluding heli- ports. (ii) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport speci- fied in subparagraph (5) of this para- graph with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliports. (iii) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. (3) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of it height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the Na- tional System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other traverse way not previously men- tioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally from Federal Aviatio ulations Part 77 /Appendix F • e9 l PPQ OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE However, a notice relating to proposed con- struction or alteration that is subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Com- munications Act may be sent to the FAA at the same time the application for construction is filed with the Federal Communications Com- mission, or at any time before that filing. (c) A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions of this Part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground, or an alteration that will make an existing structure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, directed to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not re- sult in an inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air naviga- tion, will a determination of no hazard be issued. (d) In the case of an emergency involv- ing essential public services, public health, or public safety that requires immediate con- struction or alteration, the 30 -day requirement in paragraph (b) of this section does not ap- ply and the notice may be sent by telephone, telegraph, or other expeditious means, with an executed FAA Form 7460-1 submitted within five days thereafter. Outside normal business hours, emergency notices by telephone or tele- graph may be submitted to the nearest FAA Flight Service Station. (e) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph (b) or (c) of § 77.13, or both, shall send an executed copy of FAA Form 117-1, Notice of Progress of Construction or Alteration, to the [Manager], Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdic- tion over the area involved. F-4 PART 77 § 77.19 Acknowledgment of notice. (a) The FAA acknowledges in writing the receipt of each notice submitted under § 77.13 (a)• (b) If the construction or alteration pro- posed in a notice is one for which lighting or marking standards are prescribed in the FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1 entitled "Obstruction Marking and Lighting," the acknowledgment contains a statement to that effect and information on how the structure should be marked and lighted in accordance with the manual. (c) The acknowledgment states that an aero- nautical study of the proposed construction or alteration has resulted in a determination that the construction or alteration— (1) Would not exceed any standard of Subpart C and would not be a hazard to air navigation; (2) Would exceed a standard of Subpart C but would not be a hazard to air naviga- tion; or (3) Would exceed a standard of Subpart C and further aeronautical study is necessary to determine whether it would be hazard to air navigation, that the sponsor may re- quest within 30 days that further study, and that, pending completion of any further study, it is presumed the construction or alteration would be a hazard to air naviga- tion. Subpart C—Obstruction Standards § 77.21 Scope. (a) This subpart establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation. It applies to existing and proposed manmade objects, objects of natural growth, and terrain. The standards apply to the use of navigable airspace by aircraft and to existing air naviga- tion facilities, such as an air navigation aid, airport, Federal airway, instrument approach or departure procedure, or approved off -airway route. Additionally, they apply to a planned facility or use, or a change in an existing facility or use, if a proposal therefor is on file with the Federal Aviation Administration or an appropriate military service on the date the notice required by § 77.13(a) is filed. Ch. 1 (Amdt. 77.11, Eff. 10125189) Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 / Appendix -F PART 77 OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE traverse it, would exceed a standard of § 77.15 Construction or alteration not requir. paragraph (1) or (2) of this section. Ing notice. (4) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be in an instrument approach area (defined in the FAA standards governing instrument ap- proach procedures) and available informa- tion indicates it might exceed a standard of Subpart C of this part. (5) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports (including heliports): (i) An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory of the current Airman's Infor- mation Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific Airman's Guide and Chart .Sup- plement. (ii) An airport under construction, that is the subject of a notice or proposal on file with the Federal Aviation Admin- istration, and, except for military air- ports, it is clearly indicated that the air- port will be available for public use. (iii) An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. (b) Each sponsor who proposes construc- tion or alteration that is the subject of a notice under paragraph (a) of this section and is advised by an FAA regional office that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice on a prescribed form to be received by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours before the start of the construction or altera- tion. (c) Each sponsor who undertakes construc- tion or alteration that is the subject of a notice under paragraph (a) of this section shall, within 5 days after that construction or altera- tion reaches its greatest height, submit a sup- plemental notice on a prescribed form to the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the region involved, if— (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet above the surface level of its site; or (2) An FAA regional office advises him that submission of the form is required. Ch. 1 (Arndt. 77.11, Eff. 10125188) No person is required to notify the Admin- istrator .for any of the following construction or alteration: (a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and sub- stantial character or by natural terrain or topo- graphic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation. (b) Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the height of another antenna structure. (c) Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft ar- resting device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or an appropriate military service on military air- ports, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. (d) Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. § 77.17 Form and time of notice. (a) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under § 77.13(a) shall send one executed form set (four copies) of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to the [Manager] , Air Traffic Divi- sion, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area within which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of FAA Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration and the regional offices. (b) The notice required under § 77.13(a) (1) through (4) must be submitted at least 30 days before the earlier of the following dates— . (1) The date the proposed construction or alteration is to begin. (2) The date an application for a con- struction permit is to be filed. F-3 Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 /Appendix F OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE (2) Fifteen feet for any other public road- way. (3) Ten feet or the height of the lilghest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road. (4) Twenty-three feet for a railroad. (5) For a waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it. 177.25 Civil airport imaginary surfaces. The following civil airport imaginary sur- faces are established with relation to the air- port and to each runway. The size of each such imaginary surface is based on the cate- gory of each runway according to the type of approach available or planned for that run- way. The slope and dimensions of the ap- proach surface applied to each end of a run- way are determined by the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end. (a) Horizontal surface—a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport eleva- tion, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: (1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual; (2) 10,000 feet for all other runways. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical value. That value will be the highest deter- mined for either end of the runway. When a 5,000 -foot are is encompassed by tangents con- necting two adjacent 10,000 -foot arcs, the 5,000 -foot arc shall be disregarded on the con- struction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface. (b) Conical surface—a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. (c) Primary surface—a surface longitu- dinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, F-6 PART 77 the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway, but when the run- way fins no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of a primary surface is: (1) 250 feet for utility runways hawing only visual approaches. (2) 500 feet for utility runways having nonprecision instrument approaches. (3) For other than utility runways the width is: (i) 500 feet for visual runways' hawing only visual approaches. (ii) 500 feet for nonprecision instru- ment runways hawing visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statute mile. (iii) 1,000 feet for a nonprecision in- strument runway having a nonprecision instrument approach with visibility mini- mums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile, and for precision instrument run- ways. The width of the primary surface of a run- way will be that width prescribed in this section for the most precise approach existing or planned for either end of that runway. (d) Approach surface—a surface longitu- dinally centered on the extended.. runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to'each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end. (1) The inner edge of the approach sur- face is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of: (i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual approaches; (ii) 1,500 feet for that end of a run- way other than a utility runway with only visual approaches; (iii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprecision instrument approach; Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 / Appendix F PART TT OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE (b) At those airports having defined run- ways with specially prepared hard surfaces, the primary surface for each such runway ex- tends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. At those airports having defined strips or pathways that are used regularly for the taking off and landing of aircraft and have been designated by approriate authority as runways, but do not have specially prepared hard sur- faces, each end of the primary surface for each such runway shall coincide with the cor- responding end of the runway. At those air- ports, excluding seaplane bases, having a de- fined landing and takeoff area with no defined pathways for the landing and taking off of aircraft, a determination shall be made as to which portions of the landing and takeoff area are regularly used as landing and takeoff pathways. Those pathways so determined shall be considered runways and an appro- priate primary surface as defined in § 77.25(c) will be considered as being longitudinally centered on each runway so determined, and each end of that primary surface shall coincide with the corresponding end of that ninway. (c) The standards in this subpart apply to the effect of construction or alteration pro- posals upon an airport if, at the time of filing of the notice required by § 77.13(a), that air- port is— (1) Available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory of the current Air- man's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement; or, (2) A planned or proposed airport or an airport tinder construction, that is the subject of a notice or proposal on file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and, except for military airports, it is clearly in- dicated that that airport. will be available for public use; or, (3) An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. (d) [Deleted] 177.23 Standards for determining obstruc- tions. (a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be, an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: (1) A height of 500 feet above -round level at the site of the object. (2) A height that is 200 feet aboVe ground level or above the established air- port elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each addi- tional nautical mile of distance from the airport up to a maximum of 500 feet. (3) A height within a terminal obstacle clearance area, including an initial approach segment, a departure area, and a circling approach area, which would result in the vertical distance between any point on the object and an established minimum instru- ment flight altitude within that area or segment to be less than the required obstacle clearance. (4) A hei-lit within in en route obstacle clearance area, including turn and termina- tion areas, of a Federal airway or approved off -airway route, that would increase the minimum obstacle clearance altitude. (5) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport. or any imaginary surface established tinder §§ 77.25, T7.28, or 77.29. However, no part of the takeoff or landing are -it itself will be considered an obstruction. (b) Except for traverse ways on or near an airport with an operative ground traffic control service, furnished by an air traffic con- trol tower or by the airport management and coordinated with the air traffic control service, the standards of paragraph (a) of this section - apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by: (1) Seventeen feet for an Interstate High- way that is part of the National System of 'Military -and Interstate Highways where overcrossim, are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance. F-5 Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 / Appendix F OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE PART 77 proach clearance surfaces to the inner hori- zontal surface, conical surface, outer hori- zontal surface or other transitional surfaces. The slope of the transitional surface is 7 to 1 outward and upward at right angles to. the runway centerline. § 77.29 Airport imaginary surfaces for heli- ports. (a) Heliport primary surface. The area of the primary surface coincides in size and shape with the designated takeoff and landing area of a heliport. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heli- port elevation. (b) Heliport approach surface. The ap- proach surface begins at each end of the heli- port primary surface with the same width as the primary surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. The slope of the approach surface is 8 to 1 for civil heliports and 10 to 1 for military heliports. (c) Heliport transitional surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the heliport primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet meas- ured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach surfaces. F-8 Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 / Appendbf T PART 77 OBJECTS AFFECTING' NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE (iv) 3,500 feet for that end of a non - precision instrument runway other than utility, having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths of a statute mile; (v) 4,000 feet for that end of a non - precision instrument runway, other than utility, having a nonprecision instrument approach with visibility minimums as low as three-fourths statute mile; and (vi) 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways. (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of: (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 to 1 for all utility and visual runways; (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 to 1 for all nonprecision instrument runways other than utility; and, (iii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 to 1 with an additional 40,000 feet at a slope of 40 to 1 for all precision instrument run- ways. (3) The outer width of an approach sur- face to an end of a runway will be that width prescribed in this subsection for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway end. (e) Transitional surface—These surfaces ex- tend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway center- line extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, ex- tend a distance of 5,000 feet measured hori- zontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. § 77.27 [Revoked) § 77.28 Military airport imaginary surfaces. (a) Related to airport reference points. These surfaces apply to all military airports. For the purposes of this section a military air- port is any airport operated by an armed force of the United States. (1) Inner horizontal surface—A plane is oval in shape at a height of 150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The plane is constructed by scribing an arc with a radius of 7,500 feet about the centerline at the end of each runway and interconnecting these arcs with tangents. (2) Conical surface—A surface extending from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface outward and upward at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the estab- lished airfield elevation. (3) Outer horizontal surface—A plane, located 500 feet above the established air- field elevation, extending outward from the outer periphery of the conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000 feet. (b) Related to runways. These surfaces apply to all military airports. (1) Primary surface—A surface located on the ground or water longitudinally centered on each runway with the same length as the runway. The width of the primary surface for runways is 2,000 feet. However, at established bases where sub- stantial construction has taken place in ac- cordance with a previous lateral clearance criteria, the 2,000 -foot width may be reduced to the former criteria. (2) Clear zone surface—A surface located on the ground or water at each end of the primary surface, with a length of 1,000 feet and the same width as the primary surface. (3) Approach clearance surface—An in- clined plane, symmetrical about the runway centerline extended, beginning 200 feet be- yond each end of the primary surface at the centerline elevation of the runway end and extending for 50,000 feet. The slope of the approach clearance surface is 50 to 1 along the runway centerline extended until it reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airport elevation. It then con- tinues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the point of begin- ning. The width of this surface as the run- way end is the same as the primary surface, it flares uniformly, and the width at 50,000 is 16,000 feet. (4) Transitional surfaces—These surfaces connect the primary surfaces, the first 200 feet of the clear zone surfaces, and the ap- F-7 Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 /Appendix F GAA corm 7460.1 - - F-10 DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS Aeronautical Study Number r NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION '• 1 •Z • y,n4.,,1 f i 1,1 U•µYv IU,U, hOMOI A,11011W, ACIrWY{IRl110r, 1. Nature of Proposal 2. Complete Description of Structure M1 r.: :+.• R Class Wolk schedule Dales A Include ellucuve oathated l,uwer and asSlynrd lretJuene y.d ❑ N—C. v„nuroon ❑ po'n,anem liequul... g all e.ISllny. p ... posedu, modelled AM FM or TV hn„edc:la ❑ al.,..no,!r• ❑ Temporary IDer,an(m munlosl Entl 5latiuns UIJI[Inq Ihls slruclUle B IIIClUde sin, mid cunhyurallon of power uansrnlsslun line'. ;end their selppur liny lowers Ill tree vicinity oil FAA facllitiet. 3A. Name and address of individual, company, corporation, etc. proposing the construction or alteration. Nurr,tie, Suitor. uav Sla(u and [op Curter and p„hhc airports C Include Information showing site onentahun ihmenvuns ( ) and CunSlruCtion nlaenals of the proposed structure area code Telephone Number F B Name, address and telephone number of proponent's representative It different than 3 above. (d more space is required. continue on a separate sheet.) 4. Location of Structure 5. Height and Elevation (Complete to the nearest loot) a Coordinates B Nearest City or Town ,wo Stale C Name of nearest airport hehpon. llightpark A Elevation of site above mean sea level : To neatest ,erono, n1 seaplane Kase o I t, D,cei•,r,• I„.11i ill D:Slance morn sin:clure Io nearest point of B. Height of Structure Including all Miles „ealesl runway appurtenances and lighting fit any) above Law ,!e ground. or water if so situated co ' 12. D.,ecnon to 48 (21 Direction from structure to airport C Overall height above mean sea level (A Br ..I:•�.;uoe C •1„oc,allunof sliewlln respect to highways. slteels.aorports p,ommeol terrain features. existing struCW,es.e1C Attach a U S Geological Survey yuad,angle map or i•r lir.. dtpnt car wing the relationship of construction site to nearest air poor 115) rot more space ,s requited. Continue on a separate sheer of paper and attach to this notice I .';,)ire 5 ,p. go,.,eo b y Pall: 7 of the Federal Aviation Regodanons l 14 C F if )',lot 77 , pursuanf to Secr,on 1101 of lire Fedetal Aviation Art of 1958. as ametldedf49 US C 1101, r • ',cm, lo—"yly ann w,lle,gly volare the Notice ieue memerits of Pat 77 ore subject to a /,ire 1 Cntnu,at penally) of not mote it $500 lot rile torsi olleose and not more • s2 (or to, s;,hsequenl offenses. pursoanr to Secr,on 902(a) of the Fede,,rf Av,,mon Act of 1958. as amended (49 U S C 14721d)) I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I agree to obstruction mark and/or light the structure in accordance with established marking & lighting standards if necessary. Date Typed Name -Title of Person riling Notice Signature FOR FAA USE ONLY. ' wP'v ;^ ;; s- t:=''yyam��•�•�''� �i� lm(WM oris"llir iclq�ow�p ► The Prosal: i1' acigm►.�lift►' b ;betwoned: ar' -w _.i ^',r•..,.!'p'o'+.r�T, -.n'. _;. ,.,, ..4'..• t . 4•`.::Y1.:,1_ 711 ❑ Does not require a notl0a,to FAIL ❑ Wlthfitiw: vow,, Nd-preateet height ❑ Is not identified as anobstruction under .•,,.� • ..- �' .+.•,:, . ,r,�? ' t;..'�43t'_,. any standard of FAR, Pan 77. Subpart C. This determinatlort'. on unless: and would not be a hazard to air navigation. (a) -ter did; rev(atea termini d'try pnti'.41t1p ciQor'” d as an obadlon under the c (b).#m conatnrcOmcl..MlpjaCttgt�.agabs atlt)wf pfA* FedeW.CcowpillrdicatiorWCommission and an ❑ Is identified W standards of FAR, Pan 77. Subpart C. but spQUcadgh'�:... Ilgtfte...FPC onor bef 'Qrei to above exptratlon date..ln such case lite' Oy-.tM. FCC.for ofoonstruc or on would not be a hazard to air navigation. :,.... . ooetpliltlon on. tM date'the• thlr ippUeatloml ❑ Should be ❑ obstruction marked, faou= " ;' ? E` ,.. p4rlod:attAM dtttermgi#tioit n".be Vx marked or delivered to the ❑ lighted AM FM /ldvry CIKW ` pdoll�� aldoti!datt; Ar;':.,. %'•...:_ 70/71601, Chapter(s)". a. ❑ obstruabrt and U aro not n the structure is.sublact,to tM''tkranallnp ttuttlgfty 0-thp' FCC. a copy of ttifa•.detartNnatlon will be sent to that marking lighting ' • /� :•".z Remark V. Ja RIM Issued In �• :: :. `' �:'• •' ~.+� N:.,:.;�.,.. �:,•.r. � ;, :. ' ,;r t;r • ;�;: :^sem. }rr,!�:i: .ter,.. GAA corm 7460.1 - - F-10 DO NOT REMOVE CARBONS Excerpts from Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 / Appendix F PART Tl OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE L A -w-i A Z/ A• UTILITY RUNWAYS B- RUNWAYS LARGER THAN UTILITY C- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 MILE D- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS AS LOW AS 3/4 MILE M ;RECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH SLOPE IS 50.1 FOR INNER 10,000 FEET AND 40-1 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 40,000 FEET COMICAL SURFACE PRECISION INSTRUM[N[ APPROACH VISUAL OR NON ►RECISION APPROACH -lC (SLOPE -EI 1 HotltorTAt fWgit ne'AAa[ [suaurto urroeT utranoA /. �� RUNWAY CENTCMUN[S lA 2 ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECTION A—A f 77.23 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES F-9 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS CFEET) DIM ITEM VISUAL RUNWAY INSTMUMENi CMUNWAY I'ON STMUI NSTRU EN A e A C 0 RUNWAY WIDTH OF PRIMARY SURFACE AND A APPROACH SURFACE WIDTH AT 250 1,000 !00 5001-0.000 1,000 INNER ENO e RADIUS OF HORIZONTAL SURrICE 5000 5000 5,000 10.000 "Oft- PREC.SPIOIN VISUAL IN PRECISION APPROACH a INSTRUMENT A S A C D APPROACH C APPROACHSURFACE WIDTH aT ENO 1,250 1,500 2,000 3!00 4000 16,000 D APPROACH SURFACE LENGTN 5.000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10.000 • E APPROACH SLOPE 20.1 t0.1 20.1 34-1 1 36.1 • A• UTILITY RUNWAYS B- RUNWAYS LARGER THAN UTILITY C- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 MILE D- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS AS LOW AS 3/4 MILE M ;RECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH SLOPE IS 50.1 FOR INNER 10,000 FEET AND 40-1 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 40,000 FEET COMICAL SURFACE PRECISION INSTRUM[N[ APPROACH VISUAL OR NON ►RECISION APPROACH -lC (SLOPE -EI 1 HotltorTAt fWgit ne'AAa[ [suaurto urroeT utranoA /. �� RUNWAY CENTCMUN[S lA 2 ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECTION A—A f 77.23 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES F-9 �f r Appe��dix G Glossary of Terms t To Be Included in Final Version Appendix G Glossary of Terms G-1. Qppendg'x H Index To Be' Included in Final Version Appendix H Index H-1 PROJECT STAFF Hodges & Shutt David E. Hodges Kenneth A. Brody David P. Dietz Rhonda Lee Jacquie DeRaedt Marilyn Ashe Barbara Emerson Steve Loveday Flight Safety Institute Arthur J. Negrette Chris Hunter & Associates Chris Hunter • Principal -in -Charge Project Manager Director of Planning Projects Planning Assistant Publication Coordinator Senior Graphics Technician Senior AutoCAD Technician Data Analyst University of California, Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies Dr. David Gillen Research Economist Douglas Cooper Research Analyst ffutto Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH. AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION _ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE; ,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916( 538-7785 BUTTE COUN'T'Y AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION THE NOVEMBER 10TH, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING HAS. BEEN CANCELLED, DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON DECEMBER 8, 1993. Dave R. Hironimus Staff DRH/she • L A N D O F NAT U RA L W EA LT H A N D BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916) 538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE C0NIIVIISSION THE OCTOBER 13TH, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMNIISSION MEETING HAS `BEEN .CANCELLED, DUE . TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER- 10TH, 1993. Dave R. Hironimus Staff DRH/she M utte Count _ LAND OF NATURAL. WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916) 538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION THE SEPTEMBER 8TH, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED, DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON OCTOBER 13TH;` -1993. e Dave R. Hironimus Staff DRH/she t • J of ; S BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION , AGENDA . August 11, 1993 TME: 9:00 am. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration , 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965. L Pledge of, Allegiance . II. Roll Call , III. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1993. IV. Business t 1. Discussion - Senate Bill No. 443 eliminating the State mandate for Airport Land Use Commissions. 2.' Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport'Environs Plan text revision. 3. Status .Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program kti 4. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to three 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.) ►� V: •. Correspondence i V1. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees y f VII. Announcements k 1. Next meeting is scheduled for September 8, 1993. , 4 ' BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - August 11, 1993 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on August 11, 1993, in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerst, Lambert, Rossas and Chairperson Crotts Absent: Commissioner Franklin, Koch and Stevens Also Present: David Hironimus and Sherry Elgan, ALUC Staff III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 12, 1993 Approval of Minutes was made by Chairperson Crotts. Yeses - All Noes - None IV. BUSINESS Discussion - Senate Bill No. 443 eliminating the State mandate for Airport Land Use Commissions. Staff noted information in the Agenda packet contained the official correspondence on this Bill. Staff noted also that Airport Land Use Commission can provide valuable input to the various agencies within the spheres of the airport.. On the other hand most of the land use planning is in pretty good shape in order to protect those airports. As a consequence we haven't had a lot of projects that even required a review recently. While we provide a service, maybe we have done too good of a job. Commissioner Rossas stated if Airport Land Use Commission is dissolved it might not be BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - so bad, because what is needed is a group formed by the "Air People", ( i.e. pilots, people who fly, or have flown etc., to protect the Airport). As it stands right now, business goes through the Airport Land Use Commission. He stated he is disenchanted with the Board of Supervisors because they feel the Commission is a device to get the people off their backs. Pilots need to make their voices heard to the Board of Supervisors. Presently the Commission is a passive Commission. Problems should be put before the Board of Supervisors an assertive way. Commissioner Lambert asked if the results of what goes on at the Airport Land Use Commission meetings goes before the Board of Supervisors? Staff stated if a project involves the Board of. Supervisors, it goes through the Planning Commission, then to the Board of Supervisors through the Staff recommendations. Commissioner Lambert asked if comments made by the Commission goes to the Board of Supervisors? Staff noted comments go back to Staff and are put in the report, then go to the Planning Commission and then on to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Rossas stated if the "airport -connected" people, (the users of the airport) get together, and decide to go the Chico Planning Commission Meeting, or any of these meetings, they can be assertive. Chairperson Crotts asked if these individuals could carry more weight, because they could approach their Board representative? Commissioner Lambert stated she didn't totally agree, because they weren't looking at the total picture. Chairperson Crotts stated she felt the pilots would be concerned Commissioner Lambert.noted these individuals might not understand zoning, general plan and that part of land use. Commissioner Rossas stated that Commissioner Lambert was Airport Land Use Commissions' only connection with the County Planning Commission. Commissioner Lambert noted she would be interested to know what the other Airport Land Use Commissions are planning to do with this new Senate Bill. 2 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - Staff noted there had been another discussion in the past. of putting Airport Land Use Commission under the Butte County Association of Governments. In that respect, it is a transportation mode, and the transportation planners do deal with the airports also. Which makes the Butte County Association of Governments a parallel organization to ALUC. Also BCAG has the advantage of being'a multi organizational group. Commissioner Rossas stated that at the last Butte County Association of Cities meeting, it was suggested that the staff be put under PERS (public employees retirement system), and this was voted down. Commissioner Lambert noted the formation of ALUC as it is today was done as a direct result of Shelton Enochs and Butte County Association of Cities as provided for under code. Prior to that, the County Planing Commission just changed hats when there was a need pertaining to an airport related issue. Staff stated he wasn't recommending the Board do away with this Commission, because it has it's value. However there needs to be discussion on this matter. Commissioner Rossas asked if the.Board of Supervisors was.aware of this Senate -Bill? Staff stated he doubted it. Chairperson Crofts stated the Bill was in the Library. _ F Commissioner Lambert suggested the Board of Supervisors should be asked what their - feeling is on this Bill, and minutes of the Commission be sent to the Board, so they will be aware of what the Commission is doing. Commissioner Rossas stated the Commission has done some good, such as the houses saved at the end of the runways, and the apartments .that would have been built on airport .runways; and,.there needs to be a voice.out there. Chairperson Crofts asked if there .would be' any value in finding out if there was any communications from other Airport Land Use Commissions. It was agreed this was a good idea. Staff noted that in the development of both ends of Oroville" Forebay Estates, no one really knew what the land use requirements were at the time. Staff was able to use the lack of an Airport Land Use Plan.in the.planning process to raise the question of whether 3 ' k • BUTTE.COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - the development should be further subdivided. Down the line the Airport Land Use Plan was put in place , and the fact that it was in place, enabled the city to qualify for the F.A.A. grants for expansion projects. Commissioner Gerst asked if Paradise was under the jurisdiction of Airport Land Use Commission, and not under the town of Paradise? Staff stated Paradise was basically the same as Ranchero Airport. Commissioner Gerst stated that if ALUC dissolved and there was a group that went before the Board of Supervisors, there wouldn't be enough time to save the airport as they wouldn't act in time. Other airports throughout the state are an example of that. He stated he was concerned about ALUC being dissolved. Commissioner Gerst stated he understood the justification of Oroville and Chico controlling the destiny of their airports. He stated he would like to see more emphasis and credibility in ALUC. Once a denial was made by the ALUC Commission it could be overridden by 2/3rds vote by the next step up, and they declare it wasn't a safety problem. Staff stated this was partially true, in the case of new zoning, general plan designations, building regulations. The problem with the church was it was a use permitted item in a zone that was already in place. There wasn't the avenue of review at the zoning level . Most zoning permits in the county and city permit Public and Quasi Public uses with a Use Permit in most of the zones. We have to rely. on the City Councils, or the Board of Supervisors, to be responsible when it comes to these exceptional sorts of things that happen occasionally. Commissioner Gerst stated he was of the opinion that regardless of the zoning, if a health or safety issue exists they can still be denied. Staff reiterated this was true, and that ALUC does not have approval or denial capabilities on a project like a use permit through the city. They can only make a recommendation. ALUC only makes recommendations, and nothing says that recommendation has to be followed. Commissioner Lambert noted one instance that a matter went through Staff and never came to the'ALUC commission. Commissioner Rossas stated one more recommendation through the Commission wouldn't have changed the outcome, the Chico City Council was under pressure from the 4 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - public. Staff noted where there is dense population you will run into problems of this kind. Commissioner Rossas also noted approval of an intensely industrial area adjacent to a Senior Citizen complex. The City Council couldn't go up against .the people, which resulted in a rezone from heavy commercial to a Senior Citizen complex next to a lumber mill. Chairperson Crotts suggested ALUC send .a copy of the, minutes to the Board of Supervisors. It was an agreement that all minutes of the ALUC meetings be sent to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Gerst asked who reviews Paradise Airport and their problems. Staff noted it would be up to the Planning Department and the jurisdiction that covers the airport. In this case the county has to identify the aircraft related impacts of development near the airport. This is done through the environmental process, the staff reports, and studies. Having the Airport Land Use Commission gives those findings quite a bit more leverage. If the Commission was dissolved by the Board of Supervisors, the plans would still be in effect, and if the plans were rescinded, there would still bea valuable information tool. The work would not be lost. ***************************** Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision. Commissioner Rossas stated the Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan is linked to the Oroville General Plan which keeps falling further and further behind. The most expensive of planners for the job was chosen for the best quality. However he has come out with the idea that everything around the Oroville airport should be offices, even possibly at the end of the runway, which would be an accident waiting to happen. That will be changed. This contractor feels he is through, and is not going to do anymore. He has been paid, and the time has run out. He had a contract for a certain amount of time and that has run out. Now someone else is being considered for hiring, to handle all the hearings etc. There have been a whole series of hearings on this plan, which no one was able to agree on. One of the things that hasn't come to focus, is the fact, when the plan will get to the Counsel, probably after January I, 1994; and the hearings will be held in the late fall,'93. Mike Crump said time lines of November and January are going to be changed. Tomorrow the Governor will be in Oroville and will be making an announcement of interest 5 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - to the Commission regarding the airport industrial park adjacent to the airport. This aforementioned was Part 1, Part 2 is the development, and things are going great guns. Granite Construction has the contract for the improvements. The funds have been accepted, which are about 7 million dollars. The Wetlands are being done now, and there will be double Wetlands this winter. They will also do the Utilities. .This might mean the Utilities may be stubbed off and run up to the long runway, and begin off the other side. When they start working on the runway, which might be as early as next spring, they want to be sure the rains are over, because the runway will have to be closed down. It is a good contract for Granite, because it is all on one site. Contacting the consultant Brandley was advantageous for smoothing out the problems and completing the project in a months time. Commissioner Gerst asked if there was a completion date? Commissioner Rossas stated it was sometime at the end of the next working season. All the money was received in this fiscal year. The money had to be fronted to buy the property, and the FAA paid for the property, then that money will be used to pay the remaining 10% city share which will be due at that time. The only adjacent property not owned by the Oroville Municipal Airport is the north end, and this could be built on. Commissioner Gerst asked about Larkin Road, if it could be built on. Commissioner Rossas stated the portion of the flight way is owned by the State. The short runway is going to be the only one used all of next summer while the main runway is being constructed. The short runway crosses the flight pattern but not the main runway. Staff stated the thresholds are almost end to end. Commissioner Gerst was concerned about the houses in the residential area further toward Highway 162, next to Larkin Road. Commissioner Rossas stated this was still being fought. The City of Oroville didn't change the zoning, and the houses aren't going in there at this present time. The problem at this time is the drainage, not the airport. Commissioner Rossas noted the key question was that the City should front all the money, but the public felt the developers should finance the project. Various numbers were mentioned from 11 to 17 million dollars for the project, by the developer. The question was asked of the developer how much he would have invested in the project, A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - and the figure was $40,000, the city was to finance the rest. • It was determined the developer wasn't needed, nor has he been seen since. Commissioner Gerst stated he has been asked -why a development was allowed off the end of the runway. t Staff noted it was about a mile, but only 3/4 of a mile from the old threshold. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. ' Chairperson Crotts noted there was nothing to report, except the City of Chico received from the U.S. Department of Transportation an acceptance of the Noise Exposure ,Maps. It may be of interest to the Commission. Chairperson Crotts noted she would like to bring up the Chico'Municipal Airport Environs Report, from the Department of Aeronautics.This is an intensive survey of the users of the airport, and businesses at the airport, pilots flying in, and commercial aircraft flying in and out, people in the area and how the airport effects them. The Department of Aeronautics puts all the data in a computer and comes up. with a ' variety of charts and graphs, depicting the value of the airport to the.area of Chico and overall the County. There have been articles from the paper,, and the Chico Chamber of Commerce commented on it also. a Business from the Floor None V. Correspondence Staff noted there was a fax correspondence on portions of the Education Code which was in the Agenda packets, that deal with airport requirements and review. Commissioner Rossas asked if Bob Koch was still a representative of the Airport Land Use Commission? Staff noted his slot is an airport managers slot, and in the past the City Manager was x 7 r BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION•MINUTES , -August 11, 1993 - deemed to be on the Commission automatically. Now it's 'optional. Commissioner Rossas noted Bob Koch is the alternate to Tom Lando. Chairperson Crotts noted that' Tom Lando had' turned over the Airport Land Use Commission position to Bob Koch. Staff noted that Bob Koch was still a member of the Commission but was unable to,come today as he had too many things.that had to be, done today. Commissioner Gerst noted the Sacramento Airport had to make exceptions to their -noise . element, to allow the corporate jets to come in. , Commissioner Gerst also. asked if. corporate jets come into Chico? . Chairperson Crotts noted that there were corporate jets coming in to the Chico airport. Commissioner Rossas noted Oroville had a lack of fuel tanks which deterred jets coming into the Oroville Airport. However, Oroville is supposed to have an above ground tank in this years budget. The decision was still being made as to whether there should be two tanks, one for regular fuel, and one for jet fuel, or whether to have a tank with a partition. It had to do with the berm around the tank. There was a vote on the bid. Commissioner Gerst asked if above.ground tanks were cheaper to install? _ r , It was'noted that the above ground tanks are cheaper to install. Environmental Health and California Department of Forestry are: in conflict with each other, over the above ground tanks as opposed to the below ground tanks. VI. Referrals to. Staff and Formation of Committees ` None VII. Announcements „ The next meeting will be held September 8th, 1993.. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND'USE COMMISSION MINUTES -August 11, 1993 - ADJOURNMENT a There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 A.M. Signed: �Z'�.A: &-,Lz� - BRENDA CROTTS, Chairperson BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION BC:she b:wp50\aluc\Augmin.93 Inter -Departmental Memorandum To: Airport Land Use Commission From: David Hironimus, Planning Division Subject: SB 443, Eliminating mandated ALUCs Date: August 5, 1993 Attached is a copy of a letter from the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics outlining recent changes to State law regarding Airport Land Use Commissions. The changes in the law now appear to make the existence of the Butte County ALUC optional. Therefore, land use planning in the vicinity of airports could be left entirely to the agency having jurisdiction over the project site, with no avenue of review by aviation interests (ALUC) or other neighboring jurisdictions through ALUC. The Commission may wish to discuss this matter and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the continued operations of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTAOAND HOUSING AGENCY •' "' ' PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1130 K STREET - 4th FLOOR MAIL: P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 (916)322-3090 TDD (916) 654-4014 OeQs��gr< July'30, 1993 Q\so��o9 03 0 TO: ALL AIRPORT DIRECTORS ALL AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISIONS (ALUCs) Many of you are already aware of the recent change to the airport land use statutes which has a potential impact on all ALUCs. Senate Bill No. 443, Chapter 59 of the Statutes of 1993, was signed by the Governor on June 30, 1993 as a part of the budget process and takes effect immediately. The bill is intended to address those programs which place certain mandates upon counties and which requires the State to reimburse costs under those programs in accordance with the California Constitution. In effect, it carries out the- legislative intent to .eliminate certain State -mandated local programs which, in prior years, have been suspended through nonappropriations in the State budget. This bill addresses the requirement for counties to form an ALUC or to adopt a resolution that an ALUC is not needed. The effect of this bill is that those two requirements have been changed from a mandated activity to a permissible activity. Specifically, Public Utilities Code Section 21670(2)(b) now is changed by the words "shall" to "may" regarding the establishment of an ALUC or the transmission of a resolution to the Department of Transportation declaring that no noise, public safety or land use issues exist affecting the county's public use airports. For your information, the new language is as follows: Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670(2)(b). In order to achieve the purposes of this article, every county in which there is located an airport which is served by a scheduled airline may establish an airport land use commission. Every county, in which there is located an airport which is not served by a scheduled airline, but is operated for the benefit of the general public, may establish an airport land use commission, except that the board of supervisors of the county may, after consultation with the appropriate airport operators and affected local entities and after public hearing, adopt a resolution finding that there are no noise, public safety, or land use issues affecting any airport in the county which require the creation of a commission and July 30, 1993 Page 2 declaring the county exempt from the requirement. The board may, in this event, transmit a copy of the resolution to the Director of Transportation. For purposes of this section, "commission" means an airport land use commission... Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Christa Engle at (916) 322-9961. Sincerely, FRED STEWART- Chief Office of Local Planning 4 u ecounty .{vb"'-�•• LAND OF NATURAL W EALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 -�'��,' TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COW IISSION THE JULY 14TH, 1993. MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMAUSSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED, DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON AUGUST 11TH, 1993. ave R. Hironunus Staff DRH/she i coun y l-��..... LAND OF NATURAL VV EA LTH AND BEAUTY `'PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE: CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMaE SSION THE JUNE 9TH,1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMIVIISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED,DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON JULY 14TH. Dave Hironunus Staff DH/she Rutte County LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH` AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AGENDA z May 12, 1993 TIME: 9:00 am. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 L Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call M. Approval of Minutes of March 10, 1993. IV. Business 1. Election of Officers. ' 2. Discussion - Northwest Chico Specific Plan. 3. Discussion - Draft Butte County General Plan Background Report. 4. Review - Foothill Park Unit No. 8, Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report. 5. Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision. 6. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. 7. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to three 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.) r V. Correspondence VI. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees VM Announcements 1. Next meeting is scheduled for June 9, 1993. -� - - s � -• � OM1' . •; BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT' LAND, USE ' COMMISSION MINUTES - May 12,' 1993 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission F (ALUC) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on May 12, 1993, in the Board ' of Supervisors' :Room, County Administration' Center,. 25County Center Drive, Oroville, California: - I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners ' Crotts, Gerst, - Koch, Lambert,: Stevens, and Chairperson'Rossas Absent: Commissioner Franklin Also Present: David -Hiro'nimus :and 4 Sherr'Elgan; ALUC Staff III APPROVAL OF AIINUTES of March 10, .1993 Corrections to minutes of March 109 1993 were noted by Chairperson Rossas. - Commissioner Lambert noted changes to By-Laws, Article IV -,Quorums, Section I. The By-Laws were amended as part of the Minutes. IV. BUSINESS ` Election of Officers, 1993-1993 It was moved by Commissioner Lambert,. seconded' by Commissioner Stevens, and carried to approve Commissioner Crotts as the Chairperson for-', the • 1993-1994 fiscal- year by the following -vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Koch, Limbert,-,Stevens, and Chairperson Rossas NOES: None ' j BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 ABSTAINED: Commissioner Crotts 3 ,' ABSENT- Commissioner Franklin It was, moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner' Stevens and carried' to approve Commissioner Lambert- as Vice -Chairperson for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. - AYES:' Commissioners Crotts, Gerst, Koch, Stevens, and Chairperson Rossas NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner Franklin ' It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded' by Commissioner Gerst, and carried ` to approve Commissioner +Stevens as. 2nd Vice -Chairperson , for the :1993-1994 fiscal year. AYES: Commissioner Crotts, Gerst, Koch, Lambert, -and Chairperson Rossas NOES: None + ABSTAINED: Commissioner Stevens ABSENT: Commissioner Franklin The meeting was now, officially • Chaired by Chairperson Crotts. 2. Discussion; - Northwest Chico Specific Plan , Staff introduced Steve Honeycutt of Heritage Partners, a Planning .and Consulting. Firm in Chico. - Mr. Honeycutt stated his firrim was working for _the County of 'Butte to devise a program, and head up a team of consultants drafting a specific .plan for the area just westerly of the Chico. Municipal Airport.. Mr., -Honeycutt noted his mission was a broader one, which will make some trade offs to .protect the airport and provide Jor some development of the area. At this time he -pointed out`his Exhibits,, .which were designated with different BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 colors for specific areas. The area of the Specific Plan is bounded on the east by the Airport. The airport boundary on the south by Sycamore Creek, and two significant areas below that. The west boundary is the Esplanade and Highway 99, with Rock Creek on the north. It comprises about 3750 acres, and is generally flat, with non agricultural soils. There are 550 dwelling units there now. Part of the land use map of the Chico area, in yellow indicates single family homesites. Light green is the light agricultural uses with Commercial uses along the Highway 99 corridor, and the two levied creeks which were levied in the 1960's. Also a couple of other creeks which gave rise to the beginning of this program, Keefer Slough, and Rock Creek. The creek problems in drainage gave rise to County Service Area .87, established in the early 1980's, and that was formed for drainage maintenance. In commencing or designing the program, we suggested the County use County Service Area 87 and expand the powers through Local Agency Formation Commission and use the CSA to fund the Specific Plan. Then the property owners were assessed within the planned area, depending upon whether they had vacant land subject to great benefit from the plan potentially, or whether they were existing residents, and raised $275,000 to fund a full blown Specific Plan and an Environmental Impact Report for the whole area. The reason the Board took this action, was because there was and continues to be, a lot of development pressure in that area. The subdivisions over the last 5 years have had a lot of parcel maps. In addition to those approved, there were 22 pending applications for parcel maps, rezones and various development application at that time. The Board recognized the problem, and came to Heritage Partners. The County had several times during the 80's attempted to either initiate a specific plan or an area plan, to take a more regional look at the environmental effects without success. Environmental constraints tend to show up on the existing land use, which have not been developed to a high degree. Mostly because the soil will not support septic tanks, but does support alternative water treatment methods which are acceptable. A Golf Course Project with 200 lots surrounding it, was one of the 22 pending applications at the time this Project commenced, and was turned down by the Board. A waste water treatment design was proposed, and accepted by the Staff level analysis. One alternative of a long term view would be to develop with alternative treatment methods for wastewater. Specific areas tend to be better for septic tanks and have developed one acre plus lots along those lines. There are about 550 dwelling units within these specific areas now. Three of those applications were off the north end of the runway, having to do with lot splits. The drainage issues and the poor circulation have given rise to much of the controversy. Eaton Road is an east -west collector street, and three and a half miles away is Keefer Road. Along Highway 99 there is no east - west collector street in between. In commencing the program numerous meetings were held with the area residents going over their hopes for the area. The trade offs for schools and good roads were discussed. Policies were set forth dealing with residential, 3 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 commercial, circulation, park and open spaces, environmental protection, drainage, public facility improvements, and financing. A Specific Plan is a type of plan under State law that requires four things: (1) Implement the General Plan with a more detailed look. (2) To set land use for the area. (3) To define the infrastructure needs for that land use. (4) To put forth a financing program in order to build the infrastructure, to support that land use. The Plan is intended to come full circle and is intended to be good responsible. planning that takes into account not only the land use, but the issues and requirements to properly support that land use and build the community the way it should be built over time. At this point Mr. Honeycutt. discussed the proposed policies relevant to the airport. He pointed to the "Proposed Policies of the North Chico Specific Plan", under General Policies, item Number 3 - Protect the longterm operation of the Chico Municipal Airport through the provision of compatible land uses and other measures, while minimizing the occurrence and severity of noise and safety issues. The idea is to absolutely not harm the long term viability of the airport in any way. Not only because of the transportation aspects, but because of the economic aspects. The airport is a very critical industrial area for the Chico region. Number 8 of the "Proposed Policies of the North Chico Specific Plan", under General Policies is to identify opportunities to integrate economically beneficial activities such as the designation or improvements of industrial land or the removal of constraints to the development of existing industrially -zoned land adjacent to the plan area and westerly of the airport. The airport area is now in the city of Chico. Adjacent to the airport, and in the county it is zoned industrial. The proposed policy pertains to those areas. The plan itself is an administrative draft at this stage. The next stage will be the feedback stage. The next stage would be the draft plan in the public arena. Hearings are anticipated hopefully within a month or six weeks, to allow you some time to review the plan. Today is an informal workshop introduction to the Plan. Mud Creek is not feasible for .extensive improvements.. There is not enough density for sewers for the area, as well as many other reasons. The area along Highway 99 *tends to be developed for transportation corridor type of uses, commercial and industrial. The area south of Sycamore Creek is basically residential, single family type of density with some medium density and higher density along Eaton. The area representing open space, and industrial, .are largely wetland habitat, Butte County meadowfoam, a rare and endangered plant. In spite of the fact that there is a great amount of acreage there is a very low relative use of that land. 4 i BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 i The central feature of the Plan is the "Village Core". The Village Core is an Urban level of development, sewer, city and county standards, including a mixed use which would minimize air quality and traffic impacts, with very close relationship with worksites. Having employment as well as housing. There is an issue of appropriateness of that kind of use and density with the airport. This will be discussed today. The school and neighborhood park is in green which is about 1 mile from the runway, and subject of five alternatives that were reviewed by both Chico Unified School District Site Selection Committee, and the Division of Aeronautics. Two were rejected which were northerly of this area, and two or three others which tended to be along Garner Road were approved. The criteria was distance from the runway and the relative altitude of overflight at that point. The single family residential tends to be about three or four units per acre. With the. medium, higher level of density, small lots, are the more affordable housing. Then there are the multifamily lots..The business and professional areas which tend to be multiple types of uses, generally with a commercial theme right in the middle of the plaza. The objective is to buffer the airport operations with industrial sites, next business sites to step down and provide structures to mitigate against noise. Specific areas have been deliberately designed with very low densities, with Wetlands and Meadowfoams, also partly because of overflights, . to reduce density underneath. Commissioner Koch asked Mr. Honeycutt to describe the proposed and existing circulating plan. Mr. Honeycutt stated the goal was to open up the west side of the airport and to find a way to service the west side of the airport to highway 99, which is not easily accomplished. County has approved, and constructed subdivisions in this area which block any interchange at Garner Lane. There are also a lot of constraints showing up at Eaton Road, because of residential developments in that area. An area was looked for that had good accessibility, across Garner Lane, which opens up and acts as a backbone road for this area, which crosses Mud Creek and enters into the Village Core which gives a good intersection, and opens up to service the industrial zone, then crosses Sycamore Creek and ties into Eaton Road at Godman. Then Eaton Road could function to disperse that traffic back to Highway 99 or back to Cohasset Road. Hicks Lane would be rerouted to take out the 90 degree turns, and to remove Hicks Lane. from the airport runway protection zone. Removing 90 degree turns would be a safer route, encouraging 5 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 121 1993 traffic to use the new circulation route. Hicks Lane would continue to function for 10 or 15 years, halfway into the 30 year life of the plan. Hicks Lane should be capped, as it needs to be four lanes, and will be bypassed. The Financing Program is largely "pay as you go", rather than put assessments and burdens on lands that could sit fallow for decades. As the development is viable the development will pay its own way. Mr. Honeycutt asked if there were any "friendly" comments. Commissioner Lambert asked why the higher density development was located nearest to the airport, and the one -acre development located farther away? Was this because of the soil? Mr. Honeycutt stated it was not the soil, it was to have an urban core, that would be attractive and friendly. Unless several thousand people are approached, you would not get the feel of the "Village Core". It is not a perfect plan. There are no noise impacts that are significant on a CNEL (community noise equivalent level) basis. There will be single events that will generate complaints. Avigation easements are required throughout the plan area. An enhanced disclosure would also be required, similar to agricultural uses. Road signage would be proposed along key routes. Also noise attenuation features will be required in new construction where relevant. Mr. Honeycutt asked for feedback from the Commission on the matters of avigation easements, enhancement disclosures, and . road signs. As they would require joint venturing with the cities airport commission. As these have to do with an airport information package and outreach meetings. The general knowledge of airports, and the tradeoffs are highly misunderstood. There should be outreach meetings either annually or biannually, giving the public a chance to talk about where the airport is. developing, along with their comments. Lastly, one of the more important long term items .to protect the airport is economic development.. The more people understand, such as a constituency of job holders dependant upon the .airport. Commissioner Rossas asked "why" the Northwest Chico Specific Plan came about? Mr.Honeycutt stated the reason the Northwest Chico Specific Plan began was because of the pressure for development occurring. The General Plan in this area is Agricultural Residential, and allows one acre lots. If nothing is done, the, legislative body will turn down project after project over the years, and the landowners will be forced to leave R BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 their property vacant. Commissioner Rossas asked who Mr. Honeycutt represented. Mr. Honeycutt stated he represented the County of Butte. Commissioner Rossas said he was appalled at the idea of the "Village". The light industrial park is fine. The residential park, with it's concentration of people is disturbing. Mr. Honeycutt stated that the Board of Supervisors did not charge Heritage Partners with the accelerating development. of the area. But for more than a decade there has been developments proposed in the area of the northwest Chico area. This tended not to be large developments, a 200 lot subdivision was the largest proposed. Most were 10 and 20 units, and parcel splits. This is what leads to a completely unplanned community, with inadequate infrastructures. This would be an alternative that would stand on it's own two feet, economically and socially and does what an area such as this should do. Mr. Honeycutt explained the two bands of constraints on either side of Chico, and generally run through the County. The west side is agricultural soils that shouldn't be significantly developed. On the east side is foothills and topography and environmental constraints that prohibit development. Between the two bands where they interface, is a band of typically rocky, not agricultural soils, that are gentle enough topography, that development can occur. Regardless of any specific project, we will see an increasing number of development proposals for this specific band of Butte County. This is where Chico tends to grow, not to the east or west, but to the north and south. There will be further Rancho Esquons, and Nance Canyons, and McKnight Ranches, and there will be further efforts to develop that land because, other than grazing, the only thing you can do with it is development. The airport is within the band. Secondly in the Chico urban area, if you look at a map you look at all the vacant spaces, and think there are a lot of options. Having been involved in many of projects, I can tell you .the Wetlands constraints, the Meadowfoam constraints, and the open space requirements, and the Blue Oak Woodlands, and on and on, there is far less development potential in those areas than it looks on the surface. There is, in my opinion, a need for a long range view as to where Chico's growth areas could best be. The idea that there are many other areas where growth can go is becoming increasingly inaccurate. Commissioner Rossas .said it was a poor statement on the part of the Board of Supervisors that we have to expose the Chico Airport, because they can not withstand the pressure that's put on them, that's essentially what you've said here. The belt you are talking about goes all the way to Red Bluff on the north and Marysville on the south. Certainly it can have a holiday in it, right around the Chico Airport, the belt 7 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONMISSION MQNUTES MAY 12, 1993 extends 50 or 60 miles. The village concept is a great concept, but not next to the airport. Mr. Honeycutt . stated the Northwest Chico Specific Plan was weighing options, and achieving objectives that include protection of the airport. Mr. Honeycutt at this time stated he did not want the Board of Supervisors labeled as advocating the plan. The plan is not yet formally before the Board of Supervisors. This is a product of the planning team, and consultants. Commissioner Koch asked Mr. Honeycutt where the impetus came for the inclusion of the high density residential of that area? Mr. Honeycutt stated other housing objectives, affordable housing, range of housing etc. It's entirely possible the higher residential areas could be shrunk without detracting or going below that threshold to make other things function correctly. One of the forces for any density, typically is the economic viability. Certainly this is the case here, where it is proposed to do it right', and doing it right is expensive. Whether or not the. residential areas could be lowered,. it would have to be looked at. Staff asked if this was the 1 acre subdivision, consistent in what is seen in other overflight areas? Mr. Honeycutt stated yes, this was correct. Staff noted concerning the noise contours from the environs plan the light aircraft pattern comes about at the one mile line and the, heavier aircraft would be at a higher altitude. The light aircraft creates less noise impacts. Commissioner Koch noted according to the noise contours, ,there is only a small area of residential inside the 55 db line; the rest 'is. outside that line, which is the farther line out. The airport .protection measures: will mitigate against complaints. Staff also noted that the higher noise levels do not even get off the airport property. Mr. Honeycutt asked for feedback, as to airport protection :measures, and if there were any suggestions. Commissioner Koch stated that .some of the.:protecton measures -had been talked about by the Airport Commission, as well as Staff in the ,past in Chico. The signage hasn't been a protection measure talked about, that is an interesting concept that should be helpful 8 r - � f a BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT , LAND USE CONIlVIISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 Mr. Honeycutt noted when a person is being shown around by a Real Estate Broker, it will be difficult to say they didn't see the signs. t Commissioner Rossas agreed with the aforementioned, and the "buyer should beware however these complaints, of not seeing - the ` signs, will influence the others, and the problems .do exist. ' Commissioner Lambert asked .if there. was an alternative for a school outside the 1 mile line zone? :. Mr. Honeycutt stated the key elements for keeping the elementary school adjacent with the park, the village core, the. day care center, ° and , the •plaza, would create the elements of non vehicular land- type uses. ` 'Which would discourage the automobiles, and encourage foot traffic. On balance this area selected is the best spot. - Commissioner Rossas stated the numbers of-airc 'raft accidents reported around school areas tended to be quite numerous. Commissioner Koch noted - that the FAA accident - reports shows no more accidents involving schools than anywhere 'else. The media 'reports more of the school accidents. Commissioner Gerst asked' how far the school' would • be from the airport boundaries?. Mr. Honeycutt stated it was one mile. { Commissioner, Koch noted the Board of Supero_ isors. ;would.. have. to approve an ordinance for a disclosure measure. Chairperson Crotts stated the names of schools and streets would be aviation related names, so • as to be ever mindful of the presence of aircraft in the area. ` . Commissioner Koch • noted -,the noise '.'attenuation , features in . new construction, in connection with .this North Chico Specific. Plan, as ,well as the Geoigie .Bellin's development in the north end of the airport area. Mr. Honeycutt asked if. there was any. communication ,from the Airport Land. Use Commission to the Board of Supervisors • asking them. to adopt or consider any of these measures. Staff noted there is, a package in .. the County Counsels' office .to look.. at the possibility " of an avigation easement on building permit requirements:' BUTTE " COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION NE NUTES MAY 12, 1993 Mr. Honeycutt also asked if there ` was any consensus reached on the signage with the Chico Commission. Chairperson Crotts noted it was just brought. -up for consideration. Staff noted from the standpoint of densities. within overflight areas, we have certain uses that will be subject - to ALUC review if they result in large concentrations of people underneath, and downwind, and base legs or departure paths, or frequently used airport patterns.., Threshold for review of large concentrations -is on the order of 25 people per acre, for non residential uses, or more than four: units per acre for residential uses. - This isa common density goal within all the airports in' the county except for Chico, and Chico -uses the Compatible Land Use Zone concept,- which does - . effect the aforementioned, but didn't specifically state the density levels to be . achieved, just types of uses. Commissioner Koch said Chico was probably extending" the use of the same kind of zone;. and updating the concept., This should be in the next phase, which isn't ready at this time. Commissioner . Gerst asked if the school was one; mile from the runway or a mile from the boundary? Mr. Honeycutt noted the school was one ' mile from the runway. n ` Commissioner Gerst. asked what if the, airport were to . relocate the boundary with another , runway? Commissioner Koch noted the only other runway was a small one. Mr. Honeycutt stated the, airport - traffic 'growth would have to be completely off the chart to have the need for another runway. , Commissioner Rossas asked about another- warm-up area for the runway. Commissioner Koch stated a warm-up area would occur .to � the east of airport which 'is airport property, which. ultimately will be developed ,as a construction issue, rather than a safety issue. Commissioner Koch also noted the buffer is intended . to allow the noise to go up, rather than out. Mr. Honeycutt noted the Village Core; will tend to be constructed first, then, the single 10. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 family, them the jobs, then the multifamily. By the time any real population: is in this area, the structures will buffer the noise, just by.,the way the market place works. At this time Mr. Honeycutt thanked the Commission for their time and asked if there was anymore comments. Mr. Honeycutt was requested to provide copies of'the charts he exhibited, to each ALUC Commissioner. He stated he would do so. There were no more comments at this time. The Commission thanked him. for coming. 3. Discussion - Draft Butte County General Plan Background Report. Staff noted Butte County was embarking on a new. General Plan. He pointed out the -. Background Report and stated there were copies available in the Libraries, and also for purchase at the Planning Department. Commissioner Lambert noted the last item • on page 5-21 Glenn County, short cut, and state route 32, and potential to • increse traffic volumes on SR 32' entering Chico Staff noted this section 5.8 was "Other Transportation Projects" and didn't have anything to do with the. inventory, of the airports within ., the. County, but has to do with Highway 70, and Highway 99, and Highway 32, and not a factor .that needs to. be dealt with from an Airport standpoint. Commissioner Koch had some corrections on page 5-20,. under Chico Municipal Airport. This should read Cohasset Road, not Cohasset . Lane. On the second paragraph , of Chico Municipal Airport page 5-20, there should be one .commuter airline. American Eagle is no longer in Chico. Daily direct flights are available to only San Francisco now, with 6 flights daily. San Jose,, : and Klamath Falls, Oregon are no longer available. The third paragraph of Chico Municipal Airport .page 5-20 , should read "An airport environs plan has been .prepared, but no' immediate -improvements are ,planned. Commissioner-, Stevens also noted on page 5-21 first paragraph under Oroville Municipal Airport, it should read "Oro Dam Blvd" not Oroville, Dam 'Road. Staff noted the draft reports. were out for comments. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION -MINUTES MAY 12, 1993 Commissioner Stevens wanted to bring up the fact that Chico Municipal Airport page 5- 20 has quite a bit of commercial, and flight instructions and should be included on page 5-20. 4. Review- Foothill Park Unit No. 8, Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report. Staff stated the Chico City Planning Commission had discussed the project of the Foothill Park Unit No. 8, a couple of times in the past. The proponent of the project has gone ahead with the project, through the City of Chico, and an Environmental Impact Report has been required. The phase now is to provide input for that Environmental Impact Report. In the initial study the issues of noise and safety are covered. The City of Chico has copies of the minutes and discussions from ALUC. Commissioner Koch asked if we had -given someone an informal direction that the ALUC Commission did not want to see the Foothill Park Unit No. 8 project developed? Staff noted yes, that it was premature until the Commission received the Environs Plan, and higher density development right off the end of the runway, and it's extension was probably not in the best interest of anyone. Commissioner Lambert noted she specifically wanted to talk about the 1 1/4 acre community park, with 144 single family .residences, with 3+ people per unit, it comes out to. 400 + people. Staff stated he was not clear as to who proposes the park, or whether it was in the clear zone. Commissioner Stevens seconded the same, concerns aforementioned by Commissioner Lambert. Staff stated he would forward these comments also. Staff also stated since the Commission is commenting on environmental impact reports, and are concerned with safety regarding noise, location of park, and types of uses proposed, this is not the place to recommend, it will come up in later hearings. General concerns and comments at this point will suffice. The � studies by the consultant will expand as appropriate, and as is related to .future constraints. Commissioner Stevens asked if we need to be more specific. Staff noted we had been more specific in the initial study. The Commission does need 12 r a , • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 129 1993. t, some expansion on the question of the park. However,A the overall questions were stated very .well. Commissioner -Rossas asked how the -.Commission' can be, more emphatic. Staff noted the Environmental Impact Report "was one of the steps in the process. Hopefully the City of Chico will reiterate our concerns. Commissioner Gerst stated this Foothill Park Unit ' No. 8 didn't seem to be in the best interest of the airport ..or anyone that will live there. - Commissioner Rossas noted the only reason the Foothill Park Unit No. 8 was being constructed was because. it was there, and they 'got it cheap. Commissioner Koch stated this was a chance for the Commission to comment, and should reiterate the Commissions' concerns again for the record. Staff noted the Commission would send comments, and past minutes containing comments to the City of Chico. 5. Status'Report: Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text . revision. Commissioner Rossas stated he 'would report next month. t 6. Status Report'- Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan ' and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. Commissioner Koch noted _there was not .much ;to 'report. The consultant is working on the .various aspects of it. The latest being the year 2010 noise assumptions, and are working with the community group, SOS is reviewing, and considering their concerns. Regarding the. figures ' being . used,' as soon �as, those , are reviewed they. will be in a report, .which is about - 97% :complete, � probably on ,the June, or .possibly the July Agenda. 7. Business from the floor Mr. John Papadakis of Chico,. in the County .of Butte ''came to the podium_ Mr. Papadalds stated what he heard today is quite disturbing to him, and feels the City of Chico should think quite . seriously ' about ..whether the airport could exist or not. The City of Chico is considering projects, that are encroaching very, close to the safe operation -13 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION. MINUTES.. MAY 12, 1993. 1993 of the airport. The Bellin project that was presented in March -was quite disturbing.. A very close look should be given as to whether ' `the' City of Chico wants a first class airport, or whether ' the City of Chico wanted an . airportto -go the way all other airports have been going in California. V. Correspondence None VI. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees VII. Announcements P' The next meeting will be June 9th,; 1993. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, .the. meeting was adjourned at 10:45 A. M.. Si ned: ,F BRENDA CROTTS, Chairperson BUTTE COUNTY . AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION b: wp50\aluc\maymin.93 t y 14 L � s e r OFFICE: (916) 893-8982 �Ierltage Partners : 426 Broadway, Suite 205 Chico, CA 95928 MAIL: P.O. Box 3669 Planning and Development Chico, CA 95927-3669 Fax(916)893-8985 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Sherry Elgin, Planning Department FROM: Steve Honeycutt, Heritage Partners RE/PROJECT: North Chico Specific Plan ' DATE: May 19, 1993 ......................... ...TRANSMIT: . under separate cover VIA: ``!('`'?<`>>' overnight delivery ........................... . ..........................:::::: courier " fax tel# #• pages: 10 copies Letter to the members of the Airport Land Use Commission; Proposed Policies of the North Chico Specific Plan; Airport Protection Measures REMARKS/COMMENTS: Dear Sherry, Enclosed are the materials that I indicated I would furnish. Thank you for disseminating it to the Commissioners. Steve N I *v.d Copies to: 1 file Heritage Partners Planning and Development 426 Broadway, since 205 Chico, CA 95928 ' (916) 893-8982 FAX (916)'893-8985 May 19, 1993 Members of the Airport Land Use Commission County of Butte :. 7 County Center Drive ' Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Proposed North Chico Specific Plan Dear Commission Members: ; Thank you•very-much for the opportunity to•discuss the draft North Chico Specific Plan with you. I found your comments regarding airport protection and related issues valuable and will attempt to further address these issues with you in the future. As we discussed, I would anticipate ,a formal presentation and submittal of the proposed Specific Planto you*sometime in June. } Enclosed is the material you requested'. Please do not hesitate to contact me if ' you.have questions or would like to discuss this with me in advance. Thanks again, I look forward to our next meeting. Sincerely, Stephen Honeycutt Enc. cc: Mary Anne Houx Starlyn Brown. ` Tom Lando Bill Farrel Dave Hironimus T PROPOSED POLICIES OF THE NORTH CHICO SPECIFIC PLAN General Policies 1. Preserve the semi -rural lifestyle now enjoyed by existing residents of the specific plan area, while providing for the future housing needs of the area. 2. Create a Village Core with appropriate design qualities that helps establish a community focal point for the area. 3. Protect the long-term operations of the Chico Municipal Airport through the provision of compatible land uses and other measures while minimizing the occurrence and severity of noise and safety issues. 4. Ensure environmentally responsible development without further expense and time loss for the processing and approval of residential projects which are consistent with the Specific Plan. Residential Policies 5. Provide buffers between residential uses and industrial uses and/or arterial thoroughfare streets through use of landscaped corridors, berms, greenbelts, or setbacks. 5a. Recognize existing land use patterns and densities north of Mud Creek. 5b. Provide for higher density residential uses in the Village Core. 5c. Develop a pedestrian -oriented Village Core that can provide shopping, social and recreational facilities for the surrounding community. 5d. Locate multi -family residential uses adjacent to the Village Core to maximize the benefits of community amenities and to minimize travel within the development. 5e. Provide for mixed-use (residential, retail and public) in the Village Core. CommerciaUlndustrial Policies 6. Locate and orient commercial buildings to minimize negative impacts on adjoining residences. Outdoor activity areas and noise - generating equipment should be located away from residential areas. 7. Incorporate outdoor public gathering areas, including fountains, arbors, seats, public art, or other elements into commercial sites to facilitate social interaction by Plan area residents and employees. 8. Identify opportunities to integrate economically beneficial activities such as the designation or improvement of industrial land or the removal of constraints to the development of existing industrially - zoned land adjacent to the plan area and westerly of the airport. Circulation Policies 9. Limit access from residences and businesses along major arterial. 10. Design local streets within residential neighborhoods to discourage through traffic by use of curvilinear routing or other design techniques. 11. Encourage non -vehicular access to the commercial area and through the Plan area by construction of sidewalks, pedestrian/bicycle paths and bicycle parking facilities, that provide for the efficient and enjoyable circulation of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the specific plan area and within the surrounding area. Parks and Open Space 12. Provide open space, parks and recreational facilities proportionate to the needs of the area and coordinate as appropriate with other Specific Plan elements including wetland and riparian habitat protection, educational facilities and natural resources. 13. Design parks with recreational amenities and facilities consistent with the needs of nearby residents. 14. Where possible, locate park sites adjacent to school sites, with joint - use agreements with the school district. In such instances, recreation amenities, including play equipment, should be coordinated to minimize duplication. 15. Link parks and nature preserve areas by a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system to the maximum extent possible. Environmental Protection Policies. 16. Minimize impacts to archaeological, biological, riparian and other natural resources, while enhancing compatible human uses and enjoyment of the resources. 17. Require development siting and implementation of mitigation measures which results in no net loss of wetlands in the North Chico Specific Plan area. 18. Allow use of wetland preservation areas for possible recreational activities (such as walking trails) if compatible with protection of resource and habitat values. Drainage Policies 19. To the maximum extent possible, storm drainage should be by means of natural, or natural appearing, stream or drainage courses. 20. Design storm water facilities, including detention basins to ensure public safety, to be visually unobtrusive, and to provide temporary or permanent wildlife habitat values, and where feasible, recreational uses. 21. Development (except for flood control purposes) is not permitted within the FEMA 100 -year flood plain. Recreational activities that do not conflict with habitat uses may be permitted within the flood plain. 22. Minimize releases of concentrated runoff into wetland preserve areas. Public Facility - Service Improvements 23. Identify, prioritize and provide funding for improvements to streets, bridges, intersection controls and other traffic -related items needed to serve the existing and proposed development of the area. 24. Determine the nature and level of public services required by existing and future residents including law enforcement and fire protection, and address the financial methods by which these services will be provided. 25. Identify and provide for the siting of educational facilities, particularly the anticipated need for at least one elementary school within the plan area. Financing 26. Fund the full costs of the on-site and off-site public infra -structure and public services required to support development in North Chico from revenues generated by development within North Chico. 27. Use pay-as-you-go financing to the extent possible. Use debt financing only when essential to provide facilities necessary to permit development or to maintain service standards. 28. Allocate the backbone infrastructure costs to property within North Chico based on the general principles of benefit received, with consideration to the financial feasibility of the proposed land use. 29. Require developers who proceed ahead of the infrastructure financing sequence, to pay the costs of extending the backbone infrastructure to their project subject to future reimbursement. 30. Landowners who do not wish to develop will not be required to participate in debt financing that would result in a financial obligation on their property. AIRPORT PROTECTION MEASURES • Require avigation easements throughout plan area. • . . • Develop and require, enhanced disclosure measures. similar to agricultural activities. ; Install "overflight zone" road signage at key access points - Keefer, Eaton., Garner, Hicks, New Collector Road, Cohasset. . Require noise attenuation features in new construction.' • Create an airport information package for residents, buyers; brokers update and redistribute periodically. . -• .. -• Conduct seducate pecially noticed outreach meetings to . e and communicate with public. . • Expand jobs and regional economic benefits form airport and adjacent industrial lands.. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CON MMSION THE APRIL 14, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED,DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON MAY 129 1993 FOR ELECTION OF OFFICERS. ave Hironimus Staff DH/she LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 • �c TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CON MMSION THE APRIL 14, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED,DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON MAY 129 1993 FOR ELECTION OF OFFICERS. ave Hironimus Staff DH/she 'eatte, Count LAND OF NATURAL WEAITH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AGENDA March 10, 1993 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes of January 13, 1993. IV. Business 1. Airport Estates Subdivision (R. & G. Bellin) Tentative Subdivision Map - ,A.P. 047-280-014, 015 & 020: Review for conformity with Chico Municipal Airport 'Environs Plan. 2. Revision of Butte County AirportLand Use Commission Bylaws. 3. Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision - 4. 4. Status Report. - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. 5. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to three 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.) V. . Correspondence VL Referrals: to Staff and Formation of Committees VII. " Announcements 1. Next meeting is scheduled for April 14, 1993. • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND. USE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - March 10, 1993 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on March 10, 1993, in the Board of . Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Crotts, Gerst, Koch, Lambert and Chairperson Rossas Absent: Commissioners Franklin and Stevens Also Present: David Hironimus and Sherry Elgan, ALUC Staff ********************************* III APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 13, 1993 Corrections to minutes of January 13, 1993 were as follows: Commissioner Lambert noted on the bottom of page 2, last line should be would instead of should. Commissioner Gerst noted on page 5, Abstain: should have been Commissioner Franklin AYES: Commissioners, Gerst, Koch, Lambert and Chairperson Rossas NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Crofts arrived at this time. 1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONEMSSION AIIWTES -March 10, 1993 - ************************************************* IV. BUSINESS 1. Airport Estates Subdivision (R. & G. Bellini - Tentative Subdivision Man - A.P. 047-280-014,015 & 020. Review for conformity with Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Staff would like to insert into the record the Staff Memo dated March 3, 1993, that carries staff recommendations. He would like to add the third recommended condition that the applicant grant the City of Chico an Avigation Easement. Essentially this is an project that consists of an 11 lot subdivision, lots 1-5 are in an SR -3 zone, and the remainder of the parcels are in a light industrial zone, which allows residential uses only in conjunction with an industrial use on sight: One of the proposed conditions would demand clarification. A note would be placed on the map. Staff asked if there were any questions: Proponent: Cal Bachman, 3012 Esplanade, Chico,Ca., asked about the Staff Memo, and stated he did not get a copy. Staff noted it was only recently available. Mr. Bachman said the lower portion L -I, was intended for people owning small manufacturing. He felt that was a good use of the property. Not a Mobile Home Park under the flight line, but the project was a method for people to have their home and still be near their manufacturing type business. The other portion, 5 lots across from the Ballpark, would make nice residential portions. Mrs. Bellin, the applicant said . she had a map, she wanted to hand out to the Commission. Many people don't understand what .they have , out there. The . piece of property was developed long before the Airport was developed. The house that is there is 40 some years old, built by a gentleman that had a lumber company. Mrs. Bellin stated they do drive in through the last road of the Airport, through the olive tree driveway to the most beautiful piece of property in the north Chico area, having magnificent oak trees and a stream. At night the Airport is deserted. The manufacturing companies are empty at night and on weekends. The property is beautiful in that the creek runs through it. The parcels which face the Fleetwood side of the, property, have one owner who is in -the Landscape business and is also an Orchardist. He will be building his home, surrounded with trees, * and an 'orchard. A second gentleman is a . painting contractor, who will have his paint shop.- This proposal will be perfect with 01 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONEMSSION MINUTES -March 10, 1993 - large parcels having homes and their small business also. The homes in the Hegan Ridge Estates, half million dollar properties off Keefer Road, are at the end of the runway. This proposal will be tucked off on the side, including the existing homes which have been there for years. When the airport is not operating at night, the baseball fields are alive with activities. Even though it is described as Airport property, it has its own little valley, and there is no Airport noise. Staff would like to add to the Findings, the history of the L -I and the SR zone. These were placed in the area in 1980 or 1981, right after the Airport Environs Plan was adopted and was a part of the North Chico Airport Rezone. The L -I zone was designed to act as a buffer north of the airport. Commissioner Lambert asked about the SR -3 zoning, and three of the parcels being 1 acre plus, and some being 4 acres plus. Does the Environmental Health Department have any problem with one acre parcels meeting the requirements in the type of soil on those three parcels? Staff did not have the Health Dept. findings on the subdivision as of yet. The Engineers are testing it. Parcels 1-5 are SR -3 zoning, and 6 through 11 are lite industrial. (L-1) Commissioner Koch said there ought to be a requirement added as a statement of acknowledgement of airport noise. As things develop over time, airport usage could increase. The draft noise contours puts us outside the 55db contour. The County requires an agricultural statement of acknowledgement, we could do an Airport noise statement of acknowledgement. Staff noted there are statements in the Environmental Documents about noise. The Board of Supervisors would need to approve an avigation easement. The Subdivision map would need to be approved by the Advisory Agency, and eventually go to the Board of Supervisors for a finalization. Unless there is an appeal, it would not normally go to them. County Counsel said there would have to be a Board directive to attach that kind of condition, since it's not really a condition that directly involves impacts caused by the project. That Ag statement was Board directed. The Board adopted an ordinance requiring it. Commissioner Koch noted avigation easements on the south end of the airport, but there are still people who say it is noisy and they did not know anything about the noise from the airport. Chairperson Rossas noted since this was a subdivision, there would be a public report for the state, and should take care of any concerns. 3 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MDWTES . -March 10, 1993 - Commissioner Crotts asked if the County , requires an avigation easement for a subdivision a ,map but not for individual parcels? Staff stated easements are granted over all the parcels and get . carried forward on the title reports on subsequent sales. Commissioner Gerst asked if the Environs Plan, dated 1975, or ,1978; does compare with the one they are working with now? i Commissioner Koch said the map, Exhibit E, shows where the proposed contours are going to be, unfortunately you can't utilize this because it hasn't been adopted: The final Environs Plan that replaces the officially adopted plan won't be before the Airport Commission before April. So you can rely on this map officially until after the city adopts it, only then it can be adopted as the Environs Plan for the Airport. This could be May or June. Staff noted the policies listed in the existing plan' mention interior noise levels of 55 db. The only thing the County has in it's codes for interior noise levels are for multi family. dwellings. Therefore we want to apply the multi family noise standards to this area. There are no standards for single family dwellings. Commissioner Koch asked if this was allowed . to go forward now. Approval would find it in conformity with the conditions the Staff suggested. If the new Environs Plan. is to be considered, then approval would be in .June. Staff noted this was the opposite situation. With the possibility there could arise conflict with the existing plan, and not the new one. These contours are based on testing done much . more recently. The existing noise contours are inside even those on Exhibit ' E. Hard data collected; whetheranyone adopts' it or not, these contours exist as of the date of the test of the plan. The new map is a logical extension, and has not been adopted, but this 95-96 enhanced forecast, is a worse .-`care scenario.. Tested contours we had in 1978, were collected when I there was commercial jet traffic in and out of there on a full time basis. Chairperson Rossas asked for a motion. Commissioner Koch asked if Mr. Bachman or Mrs. Bellin had any problems, with the Staff recommendations. , It was noted they had no problems. Commissioner Koch moved for approval,. `subject to the conditions, placed on them. 4 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONDRSSION MINUTES -March 10, 1993 - Moved by Commissioner Koch and seconded by Commissioner Lambert. Ayes: Commissioners Crotts,Koch, Lambert and Chairperson Rossas Noes: Commissioner Gerst Abstain: None 2. Revision of Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Bylaws. (CONT.) Commissioner Lambert rioted Article 3, Section 2, Item 2, should delete "and Second Vice Chairperson". Also Article IV.. - Quorums, Section 1. Second sentence should read "The full membership of the Commission". Commissioner Gerst noted the word press should' be changed to "media". Chairperson Rossas said Article III, Section 4,'fifth paragraph should read "a Chair Pro' Tem may be selected from the members present". Also Article III, Section.4, 3rd paragraph'. should-, read "meetings"instead of "conferences". Commissioner Koch noted "his" should be changed to "his/her". He then moved acceptance of the Bylaws. Seconded by Commissioner Crotts. Ayes: All Opposed: None Abstain: None 5 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONIlVIISSION MINUTES -March 10, 1993 - 3. Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision. Chairperson Rossas, referring to runway extension,. said the Fairy Shrimp could be a problem if declared an "endangered species", in connection with the moving of the Wetlands. If the State adopts the endangerment at the project meeting, the project will be delayed. If on the other hand, we will wait until the next meeting. The Wetland may have to be moved from point A to point B. The money for the extension is there, and they are ready to go. The first half of the money was allocated such because of time constraints, before the rainy season. Chairperson Rossas asked if there was any 'comment on the Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Staff noted the Business Park designation will be in whenever the Zoning Ordinance is written. Chairperson Rossas said' the current status was up in the air and depended on the budget. The General Plan will run over the 180 days contracted. It doesn't look like there is any money for additions. There may be a 17% cut in personnel, and we hope the Sate Legislature sees things logically. Various other lobbies are more powerful than City and County lobbies. The State is pushing responsibility down to a county and city level. However, the Counsel took the most expensive bid with a vote of 6-1, and now the Plan is not finished, and the proposal is running out. It is agreed by everyone that the definition for the Airport Park is completely wrong. The definition would limit to offices, and included in that, is the "back office". These have a great concentration of people in small spaces or cubicles, about a yard square. This draft has caused many irate people in the city of Oroville. Until this is clarified the city will have to . go into a holding pattern. Chairperson Rossas asked if there were any questions. There were none. 4. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise I BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMIVIISSION 1VIINUTES -March 10, 1993 - Compatibility Program. Commissioner Koch ,stated the draft report for Staff. review will be available the first of April. The . earliest it will be to the Commission will be the regular quarterly meeting, the end of April. The city is required to have a Public Hearing at City level before it is adopted. Staff said the County would need a copy of the environmental Notice of Determination. 5. Business from the floor. None V. Correspondence None VI. Referrals to Staff and' Formation of Committees Commissioner Koch asked about the Conflict of Interest' form to be filled out. Staff said they were being sent out this week. VII. Announcements 1. Next meeting is scheduled for April 14th, 1993 VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further_ business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 A.M. Signed - 7 ROSSAS, Chairperson UTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMNIISSION . MINUTES -March 10, 1993 - /she b : wp50\aluc\ mar-93 . min Inter -Departmental Memorandum To: , Airport Land Use Commission From: David Hironimus, Planning Department Subject: Airport Estates Subdivision, AP 047-280-014,015 &020 Date: March 3, 1993 The above referenced project has been referred to this Commission by the Butte County Department of Development services for review. The project consists of the subdivision of three existing parcels into eleven new parcels of from 1.11 to 4.55 acres in size (Exhibit A). Parcels 1 through 5 are all over 4 acres and are located in an SR -3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) zone and an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation. Lots 6 through 11 are from 1.11 to 3.19 acres in size, are zoned L -I (Limited Industrial) and are in an Industrial General Plan designation. The project site is adjacent to the Chico City Limits ant the airport and is located in an area subject to overflight by light aircraft (Exhibit B), noise from engine runups and noise from nearby industrial uses. The existing Airport Environs Plan shows the industrial lots subject to CNEL 60 to 65 noise levels while the residential lots are subject to CNEL 55 to 60 levels(Exhibit Q. The Compatible Land Use Zone designations III and V indicate that residential uses should achieve an indoor CNEL 45 (Exhibit D). The recently completed Airport Noise Compatibility Plan indicates the project is located outside the 1995/1996 forecast CNEL 55 contours (Exhibit E). The City of Chico has provided comments regarding both airport noise and industrial noise that will impact the subject property (Exhibit F). The applicant has stated that the proposed use of the subdivision is single family residential and light industrial use with a single family residence for the owner (Exhibit G). This conforms to the zoning requirements for the SR -3 and L -I zones (Exhibits H and I). , Recommendation: Find the project in conformity with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan only if the following notes are placed on the final map: 1. Any residence constructed on proposed lots 6 through 11 is to be secondary to an industrial use located on site. 2. Any residence constructed on proposed lots 1 through 11 is to meet the interior noise level requirements for multi -family residence contained within the Uniform Building Code or other applicable ordinance. rn tit m C� v► • 0 • • ,\• , .. ry� • JI� i lam'` .._ 1 • • �(�.. JAL STUDENT PATTERN r _' - T06 � � .`gam __- '�• ��C'Ao ,\ I• JET/HEAVY AIRCRAFT PAT�RN 4 rp\a i ,,/� — oa Toa , ...--- •- — - �s oyer- CHICO MUNICIPAL- - AtP_P �, -::".- AIRPORT o - ° e� V e FAR PART 150 ~ ~ e LIGHT AW TTER ' 15 • • �°o~c i�, .: ' ' .� AIRPORT NOISE (uMl , p • - _ a _ COMPATIBILITY i� ° "'•• PROGRAM AND ,....' ENVIRONS PLAN CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SCALE STRAIGHT-OUT (311•) A © STRAIGYR-IN (3.1 T•)•• •`' STRAIGR- ao ILS/ •- B 3L rr'' AC % ./f0 , : (UGH7� A/ ON Y) •�� FEET O Aio J Ago R ENTO (1 •) t.�. N NORTH oao t3 (122 1 i' �� �._. •r •' ;.c,. ' E L oao - Aa VOAIOm � c��4�y�aw.iw + ~� �. .�, i � •� .i' VOq .. .:�`.. o ••.'/ o„ 0 1000 2000 a000 4000 (302 ) 0• \ '• dZ ntl1 roe HELICOPTER PArrERN�� ` -• i1 rJ a jjr ApAgOA ', , LEGEND TANK RACTICE DROP PATTERN w /ram) '- LIGHT RAFT P `'!� ✓.. a \ 'x.,' �.. • i,;: �. : qq.. rJ * Airport Boundary Tota _ T03 - - � • ..` • F Chico Sphere of Influence • - i241% •.� �,, pO`�`•• ;.� ��, pa Business Jets and Heavy Aircraft •�_ ^ PO Light Aircraft LIGHT AIRCRAFT PATTERN 2 Tote E - r: T021 - 10 O .� ,� P �,-,, -�, _ 1� Limited Use Pattern t PTS •'•'•: _./ `' ti.. "fie ••...- • 4.: ,, �� ; `r v �/-_-+L•.-�• / Tanker Practice Drop Pattern HEAVY, AIRCRAFT PATTERN 1 Tp\� %1- a+o t Noise Monitoring 01 Site c- ' C • .'t.. - ,1 �. °�.•.? , e' 1 . -'•`, _' - .e. as .�` O wesoau w•va•wo na.l �( r Z ok Noise Monitoring Site O p 7 c - -+:' rJr M1` n.r• u.neo run � _ � •' y�� :• + y • - �cr;� i c ��, �—� Avigetion Easement ` O ° 1 it - y `•..:� .. :., , �...-�'�`+ / m �,r ..�i -' .t •-. ,_apt V �.% ~may e/ -s� ;•, � -- , - i'.,i; -- •_. �.,'� _'-�:.� � Al Arrival Track Designator v, i _..._ 1• '- N �+^ �•:-� � �' � �I � � � J � ! D1 Departure Track Designator c G / • --�7 a t I) O /; S��iy�. v ! i+'�. 99j 9 _ r I• l• t "'';r_.iae TG1 Touch and Go Track Designator i p . " •� '_ \ •\, 1 • Q�, 1 � N � i'? 1.,,�;,�.%fit •,� ft f IQ - J4. GENERALIZED { 1.° =�--- `_ �: "`, �'. yL FLIGHT TRACKS ;� ` : _ �'�• :� :e • MCCL/NTOCK, BECKER & ASSOC/A TES • ~- 1 {- ' �• • SUSSIOUIRY OF /a0 rECMNOLOO/ES EXHIBIT 40M :ii LEGEND. -- INTERIM ZONING FLIGHT CORRIDOR r. UZ CATEGORIES COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONE (CL ) < 1 I CNEL 65. OR HIGHER, IN OR OUT -OF CORRIDOR ? r� [ - .i ... :r• ,FIC-` PII M •�r CNEL 60- 65 PROTECTED AREA r.. L Y. ♦ .fi•- SS rt F 3, _.�r...:� t _ �Cp CN 60 65, IN CORRIDOR T , d r- F a� P E II[ CNEI 60 - 65 OUT OF CORRIDOR Krj•'s,r ' 9 ..ti • \ -.. ....... � - ..r .... � .. ...: ... ,. �'...:y:-... l/r •� 5.o-• �t :r'' - `<� - Sr. _ 1N CORRIDOR EL 55 :60 - lY CN a�• J �2 r•Q , r r� s •r:�: . •�L Y' 1- - - r• 3 t t - a y.'. F CORRIDOR _ Y CNEL 55 60, OUT O - gx : l ..i' ..' .. - — .,-, t •'..,+ �. ,k )�3YOa .� C»,w&"G..' Y.waa- !w,. (' ;! t" rs'^ ` .. - .:y 1 .. .ay„z. epi` yE�fs 9 i 4• r 1: ” e'a. �t N - -i[. ',.70. �` • �,..air 'm,,'. '�.„+.'a»��-.,�,.:.. .. .. ' .: AIRPQRT a r9 _� hv. ,.,y<f' Kms' o y. •^,s<,�:< 'uri p $; • FLIGHT CORRIDOR - s � ;.,,� � � . • - • „ .. ._. .. .. :... • .?. ,.-,. :. ,:..•: - ,. tit .., z,. _ � e', =tea``', �', fi \i. •�ryq,. �:: ,, x . .... .: .. _ o.. ,....•':. ". .. _. •- ... n '�[, 1. t '.: ...: ... ... �,.. .., ,. .. .., ..,,_. .. .. ,. .... .._ :... .. _ •a —.mss•,.•!;. .1� 1 .•r v ti: J , ,i b: lira - �� rl 1_ a '+ �=•,.••. �ps QA RE 2. n� `AIRPORT ROUN t° •�"1�' >:e . • ..:.: -ar.,:.._ .. .� ..•.: :.c:. t.r �.:. '�•• .,1 •x:•. c ` e , N E � f 3r.... w rim:'*; �nC . V� � •,,!i' - >r •:1t. Si t -�R 1 .x -rt:- f -e s.. , .. ._,. _ . .. .. .... , � .. . _ ... -"-!$ fly %`' '�" r ': r . ' > < .`•�i:.. :S;'•.; : ,. ,�2g J -�i -f __a. „is•; r !air: .�' E 1c, i `j' . ,^'-,. r Y�•`9r f.- _. .... .. .. ... ... .... �,, ., .,. .. .. -a ... ...-.. t ,-,:.f3 +� >tt/ :C t. _ b SY �• 7 .c ems• .:�. :r .. •_... � -<-. e_. .... ......... �-. .._ _ r ......,-.. }•c� :-i'�:Y� ''•'x 'ter fi`: its }s.-•C:..� .7 •H. .,,ar. ,� r f , -Y r Nfl K, b F ate; � -..•-•' J. , - 'v. , .�es�: •%r , I ' , 99 . •. w a �•11GHWAY ' .. 100c 0 1000 2000 SOURCE R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATES ' suEE IN vEE, DRAWING NO. - -- -_ --- _ _ Approved: ' _ �----ti- --,- - Designed Drawn AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLANP� REA JRH LAND USE COMPATIBI ITY MAP CI'C- 13By Y • A. DIXON 6PEAS ASSOCIATES, INC. Checked Date --�-- - Date JEP JULY 1978 CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT _ . Revision -- By , Appr Dote - C i 0 III. CNEL 60-65 OUT OF CORRIDOR: Residences other than detached single family units require indoor CNEL 45 under CAC Title 25. Transient lodging required to achieve indoor CNEL 45 under CAC Title 25. No mobile home park development by Butte County/Chico City Ordinance.* Recommend noise control measures in building permit plan check.* Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntary action of real estate board.* Publish.map.of record in recorders office to be addressed in Title Search.. IV. CNEL 55-60 IN CORRIDOR: Recommend noise control measures in building permit plan check.* Disclosure of aircraft noise environment via deed attachment and voluntary action of real estate board.* No mobile home park development by Butte County/Chico City Ordinance.* V. CNEL 55-60 OUT OF CORRIDOR: Mobile home park required to achieve indoor CNEL 45 by Butte County/ Chico City Ordinance..* *Recommended actions f - r V — • r ► ,�.: P. . � CST7o��� ",� _• __ ......._. -'�' •- 1 _ • c��, CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CV — — FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE • ... ,� COMPATIBILITY / a[p i� . ~• as —. .� • ... PROGRAM AND ENVIRONS PLAN F CNEL 5 .... �. •� �.. ... I 3F �•'�, - CNEL 6008 NEl 650 • i ' '- {' •; f. SCALE MEL 70118 CNEL 7608 `.�`` `> - , C -T ►G �/�!' � �` _ , � `�7, 7� � �o� FEET ryO d '�• •. ` F _CiiiCO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT , , • .. ' 7•' -� � �• i�� - 5 NORTH p M -•, ` •� , :r` �~ 0 1000 2000 1000 4000 wrimmilim `• ' LEGEND • +rR• l.' - .rt. , ..1 .' •�" w•�."6 }'�.: .1.: •F'.,` Auoort Boundary ' 'ham .. � _ -... ' `.a: ;t �... � ..z• l � ..�'' �� Chico Sonere of tnttuence '� �• •`� �•,' .� \ �_'�, rJ ,•''�' 1�.., - -' 1995/1996 indigenous P, . - � a 111 �! ' �' • � ,'_ �• - r. `j •t - AC _' . . -___—. 1985/1896 Enhanced J C , `1 2c - Noise Sensitive Lend Use % .• , i _ • ✓/ r? - .m Vii: S.r. : i ..- — •.r . •r�;r- y" �M p�.a,.a.,;.,+ , _ F l�ti C r lk os •� , n � \�.�1 , � F' I :� �:i ���_ _ Iry '`+ [I - `,: i I .. 'lam i • — : i : • • C �C"!n �, ` �� r�� ' • .. _ f �,...�..: = COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: '� � ' - • —�`�. �..:�_� ;'=. - � .. . , � ' tl'., .. . s . ":�` � _ .= .•�''.�---� " ,� 1995/1996 INDIGENOUS ENHANCED FORECAST Ji CONDITIONS rte' - / =� %. �;• v`7 :/ • McCL/NTOCK, BECKER & ! :,/� �. j ( Z-4, ' �•.L ASSOCIATES .,r• , � 1 •.! .!• �. "�•• ': .` A SN[gO,ARY OF ILO TEC"""OO/FS m — �EXHIBIT V-2 1 OFFICE OF THE • CITY MANAGER planning �� 196 E. Fifth Street CITYo►CHICO Po. Box 3420 o p 2 1993 INC Is ChiCo. CA 95927 MQI` (916) 895-4800 CaIltOrnla ATSS 459-4800 oroVI1Ie, D-90-1/Chrono County of Butte Department of Development Services Attention: Stuart Edell 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 February 26, 1993 Re: Airport Estates Subdivision (R. & G. Bellin) - Tentative Subdivision Map - A.P. No's 47-28-14, 15 & 20. Dear Mr. Edell: This letter is in response to your February 1, 1993 request for comments regarding the above referenced tentative subdivision, located adjacent to the north boundary of the Chico Municipal Airport. The City of Chico Airport Commission reviewed this matter at its February 23, 1993 meeting and expressed the following concerns regarding this subdivision: 1. Noise. This proposed subdivision is located in an area which is subject to aircraft engine noise exposure, including departing airborne aircraft and extended on -ground aircraft engine operation in connection with maintenance and repair procedures. In this latter regard, it is not unusual for the Airport tenant located at the north end of the Airport to run very large engines at full power for two to three hours at a time, and for the airline operating at the Airport to rev up aircraft engines early in the morning in the "run up" area at the north end of the taxi -way. 2. Safety. Due to its proximity to the Airport operations area, the proposed subdivision could be subject to low-level aircraft.. overflights, particularly on departure, which could create potential safety concerns in the event of an aircraft emergency. 3. Incompatibility with Airport Industrial Uses. The proposed subdivision is located immediately adjacent to and behind the very large Fleetwood Motor Home manufacturing facility located in the Airport -Industrial Park, which operates on a 24-hour per day basis, and which includes an engine shop on the north side of the property. The Commission felt that the proposed residential uses in the subdivision would be incompatible with thesg industrial uses. Fx14r8 t7- f� County of Butte • Department of.Land Development Services` Attention: Stuart Edell February 26, 1993 . Page2 # In addition to the above; the Commission recommended that this matter,be referred to the Butte.County Airport Land Use Commission for review as well since this proposed subdivisionis located in an area under its e jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration of the Airport Commission's concerns and comments regarding this matter. Sincerely, • ... .3 ROBERT MONTGO Vice-Chair . City.of Chico Airport Commission REK xc: CM info , Planning Dir. Commission (5) Butte Co. ALUC'•' f • r V SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT Name Robert & Georaie Bellin• Date July 1992 Project TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION AP # 47-28-14, 15 & 20 1. Existing use (s) of the land single family residence 2. Proposed use (s) of the land single family residential and light industrial use with a single family residence for the owner 3. Improvements proposed (See Ch. 20-21' County Code) 4. Public areas proposed N/A 5. 'Tree planting/or removal (approx. number) none 6. Preliminary copy of any condition, restrictive reservations or covenants existing or proposed shall be attached to this statement. attached none 7. State type of division, i.e., private road,'urban.rural, etc. private road LD 1040 4EX H 17317- �. SECTION 24-163 3 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) ZONE • (a) Uses Permitted: (1) One single-family dwelling per parcel, not including tents, trailers or mobile homes; (2) Accessory buildings pertinent to the permitted uses; (3) Agricultural uses, including the keeping of animals, subject to the animal maintenance requirements of Sections 24-35.1 through 24-35.3, inclusive, of this Code. (4) The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not be less than three (3) acres, the provisions of section 24-33 notwithstanding; (5) The minimum lot width shall not be less than one hundred thirty (130) feet, the provisions of section 24-33 notwithstanding. (b) Uses reauirina use hermits: The following uses are permitted subject to securing a use permit in each case: (3) Keeping and raising small animals for domestic use, including dogs, cats and household pets, poultry and other birds, bees, fish and frogs; (4) Keeping of animals, subject to the animal maintenance requirements of Sections 24-35.1 through 24-35.3, inclusive of this Code. (5) Prospecting, claiming, drilling, mining, excavating and dredging of mineral, hydrocarbon and geothermal resources, except as limited in paragraph (b) below; (6) Protection of land and forests from fire, erosion, floods, slides, quakes, insects, diseases and pollution, including arboretums and natural wilderness, experimental and study areas; (7) Display and sale of products of agricultural uses and home arts and crafts produced on the premises; (8) Accessory uses, improvements and structures customary and pertinent to permitted uses, except as limited in paragraph (b) below, including guest houses, barns, sheds, shops, garages and storage areas; Board of Supervisors Discussion Item 83-233: Uses permitted: Small . hydro generating plants of 5 megawatts or less. (b) uses reauiring use permits: The following uses are.permitted subject to first securing a use permitin each case: • (1) Residential uses other than one single-family dwelling per parcel or one single-family dwelling per one acre for TM -1, including labor camps, commercial guest lodging, group quarters or dwelling units at greater densities; (2) Commercial wood processing plants;. (3) Commercial kennels and animal hospitals; (4) Commercial livestock feed yards; (5) Animal product processing plants (6) Mining, quarrying and excavating activities which might be objectionable by reason of noise. odor.'smoke, dust, bright light. service stations, drive-in restaurants and other uses which are of similar character; (8) Recycling facilities as per section 24-68. (c) Site requirements: The requirements of section 24-33 of this Code are modified in the following particulars for building sites in H -C zones: (1) Lot width required: Minimum lot width shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet. The lot width requirements for residential dwellings shall conform to the requirements for any residential zone. (2) Side yard requirements: None, except when the side of.a lot abuts upon the side of a lot in an R district, in which case the abutting side yard shall not be less than five (5) feet; and except where the side yard on the street side of a corner lot abuts on an R district, in which case the side yard on the street side shall be one-half the front yard required in such R districts. The side yard requirements for residential dwellings shall conform to the requirements for any residential zone. (3) Rear vard requirements: Twelve (12) feet, or five (5) feet adjacent to any alley. SECTION 24-113.5 L -I (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL) ZONE (a) Uses permitted: (1) Storage and distribution of goods and materials, including wholesaling, warehouses, moving services, vehicle storage, mini - storage, delivery services and similar uses, but.not including storage of flammables, explosives or materials which create dust, odors or fumes; (2) Off-site construction and maintenance services, including building, electrical, plumbing, heating, roofing, painting, landscaping, excavation and similar contractors and janitorial, fumigating, septic tank pumping, and similar services; (3) Assembly and light manufacturing uses which are not objectionable, obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of noise, smoke, dust, odors, fumes, cinders, heat, bright lights, vibration, radiation, refuse matter or water -carried waste and which do not involve the handling of flammable, explosive or dangerous materials. Permitted uses include woodworking and cabinet shops; sheet metal work; printing, engraving and sign manufacture; and manufacture of clothing, handicrafts, tools, instruments, fixtures, parts and equipment from previously prepared materials; but do not include casting, milling, smelting, refining, weaving, rebuilding, recycling, brewing, bottling, canning, tanning, rendering or any chemical processing; (4) Public uses and utilities, not including recreation facilities, disposal sites, sewage treatment and power plants; (5) Residence of caretaker or proprietor; (6) Advertising signs. 100 /± x f -f /B / T .._� utte Count .......... L AND O F NAT U RA L W EA LT H A N D BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 . TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COAEMl SSION 0 THE FEBRUARY 10, 1993 MONTHLY BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED, DUE TO A LACK OF BUSINESS ITEMS. �i4.BnrGrnc� - 'Dave Hironimus Staff DH/she .�W 0 'eutte, County L AND 0 F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AGENDA February 10, 1993 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 I. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of Minutes of January 13, 1993. IV. Business 1. Revision of Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Bylaws. 2. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. 3. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to'three 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.) V. Correspondence V1. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees VII. Announcements 1. Next meeting is scheduled for March -10, 1993. utte Count y LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH 'AND. BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AGENDA January 13, 1993 ................................................ TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes of December 9, 1992. IV. Business 1. Request Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) tolinclude,acquisition of land located in the clear zone(s) of Paradise Skypark airport in the State Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) pursuant to the provisions of Section 21602 of the Public Utilities Code as amended by Assembly Bill 2624. 2. Revision of Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Bylaws. 3. Status Report- Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision. 4. Status Report - Chico Municipal- Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. 5. Business from the floor - (Presentations will be limited to three minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taldng Action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) V. Correspondence ! . VI. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees VII. Announcements 1. Next meetino, is scheduled for February 10.'1993. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES - January 13, 1993 The meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on January 13, 1993, in the Board of Supervisors' Room, .County Administration Center,, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE " 11. " ROLL CALL Present: ,Commissioners Crotts, Gerst, Franklin, Lambert, and Stevens and Chairperson Rossas Absent: Commissioner Koch Also Present: David Hironimus and Sherry Elgan, ALUC Staff III APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 9,1992' Corrections to minutes of December 9, 1992 were as follows: Chairperson Rossas noted on the top of page 7 it was a consensus of the Commission to notify, and not a motion. . Commissioner Lambert noted on page 4, third paragraph from bottom, that it should be Commissioner Lambert not Chairperson .Lambert. Also Chairperson and Vice Chairperson should read "alternates could be elected to serve as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. And the next line should read Commissioner Koch, not Chairperson Koch. On a motion made by Commissioner Stevens' -and seconded by Commissioner Lambert to approve December 9, 1992 minutes with corrections, 'by the following. vote: AYES: Chairperson Rossas, Commissioriers Crotts, Gerst, Lambert and Stevens NOES: None Commissioner Franklin arrived at this time. Wz BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES , -January 13, 1993 ABSENT: Commissioner Koch ABSTAIN: None IV. BUSINESS 1. Butte Count Association of Governments to include acquisition of land located in the clear zones of Paradise Skypark in the State Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) pursuant to the provisions of Section 21602 of the Public Utilities Code as amended by Assembly Bill 2524. This item was tabled until Mr. Brown arrived. - 2. Revision of Butte Count Airport Land Use Commission Bylaws., Commissioner Lambert suggested we leave second Vice Chairperson, in Article III, Section I. Section I add criteria for choosing, a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson. and 2nd Vice Chairperson. 2. 2nd Vice Chairperson moves to first Vice Chairperson and new 2nd Vice Chairperson: is selected. Going 'back to the way it' was. originally. Chairperson Rossas suggested adding an "s" to Vice Chairperson in the' last sentence Section 4. Commissioner Gerst, Commissioner Lambert, and Chairperson Rossas suggested' on Section 6, it read "Alternate members appointed according to Public Utilities Code, may hold Chair only if they actively served as a voting member for at least 1 year. Commissioner Crotts asked if there shouldn't be a definition of "Alternates". Staff mentioned a reference to the Public Utilities Code, "alternates appointed. pursuant to Public Utilities Code:' , Article V. Section 1. was to be changed' to delete "in the Board of Supervisors' Room". Commissioner Crotts asked about Article VII, Section 2. Staff noted this should be at the bottom of the page. Staff said there wold be a corrected version of the Bylaws at the next meeting. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMIVIISSION MINUTES -January 13, 1993 - 1 Request Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG)(Cont.) Staff noted there were two airports that would qualify for funding under the new bill. At this time Mr. Jim Brown was introduced as the Transportation Planning Consultant. Mr. Brown said to include a project such as the Commission is discussing in the transportation improvement program, the project needs to be clearly identified, as to the scope of the project. An applicant agency needs to be identified, i.e. Butte County. Also the amount of funding required to complete the project. The source of the funding, including both state and local funds to match. The year anticipated for construction of the project, or acquisition of the land that was requested. The adopted transportation improvement program for Butte County, in terms of airport projects, only has projects listed on it that are from the city of Oroville for the Oroville airport. The city of Chico for it's airport, has chosen not to pursue aviation funds thru the state of California, because of the nature of the funds, and the lack of funds on a regular basis. There is an adopted project list which would require Butte County advising Butte County Association of Governments they have a project that they would like included in the transportation improvement program. After the specifications are layed out, Butte County Association of Governments would approve that project. What is normally done in the plan, is to rank the projects in priority order. Where there are several types of road funding, there are different project lists, such as state local street and road system, etc. However, with new source of funds, a determination of whether this would be separate from the Oroville airport.needs to be determined before requesting action by Butte County Association of Governments. The people from the State want these applications for these projects to be received by about February 1st, or close to that date. Depending on the Board of Supervisors agreement to be an applicant agency, to identify the specifics of the project, the amount of funds required, and the source of the local matching funds this may or may not be an achievable deadline. Further discussion indicated there is a window for this current funding cycle of funds that are available for this new source of airport revenue for private airports. The next window for that is approximately 2 years from now and the funds for this cycle would be 93 - 94 fiscal year. The next cycle would be for 95-96 fiscal year. There is not a lot of money in this account, and it will be very competitive. Approximately $ 1 million will be available in each funding period, for these types of projects. With a maximum amount of $500,000 for these types of projects. The average of projects being funded is approximately $200,000. There may be five or six projects each cycle, and therefore might be approved. It was also indicated this legislation was also developed for a specific airport in the Los Angeles area. There is the availability to use local match , such as property owned by the jurisdiction. A specific piece of legislation was written for the benefit of a specific piece of property. There is an opportunity for other privately owned public use airports in the state to take 3 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMIISSION MINUTES -January 13, 1993 advantage of that. But it will be a very competitive - process. Also there will be ranking criteria, , along with a lot of competition for the funds. Chairperson Rossas asked if this wasn't a list of just one? Y h Mr. Brown said if there are two sources of funds, and they are run parallel to the State... Highway system versus the local -streets and road systems, you would have a list of one. If you merge this into the list of existing projects, ( 6 or 8 projects already on the list for the Oroville Airport). Chairperson Rossas said he did not see this as' a problem. Oroville is dependant on Butte County Association of Governments. Staff stated there was another 4evel of review -to solve any potential: conflicts. Chairperson Rossas said the city of Oroville's funding is mostly FAA, rather than ,the State. The Paradise Airport isn't in conflict with the Oroville Airport. Commissioner Lambert asked if we have priority of one that's interested, but there are two airports that would quality, the Ranchero - ' and. Paradise. Would these compete with the city of Oroville, city of Chico for_ the same funds? Mr. Brown said it was his understanding if parallels are run that might be the case, as one is publicly owned and one is private. Two lists would be logical. • Those two would compete within Butte. County, then those in turn would compete with other projects throughout the state. But private airports would not compete with the public. The condition in the legislation is, if you are successful . in receiving these state funds, there is a 20 year commitment that it will stay in use, and if it is not in use at that point. you would have to reimburse the state for the funds 'granted. to you. Chairperson Rossas. stated that even if you merge the Paradise airport: into the other lists, the funds that have to go to a private airport, have to go down thru the list until you strike the first private airport. Commissioner Stevens. asked what the next 'step would be? Mr. Brown said he felt a recommendation to the Board of Supervisor's would be the next step, to identify this as a project, identify - the matching funds that are to. be made available to implement this project. Then the Board of Supervisors has to request that Butte County Association of Governments put+ it on the list. Commissioner Stevens moved that the Board of Supervisors request that Butte County of Association of Governments add this ..project for the Paradise ' Airport to the list, and BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT - LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES - 'Y -January 13, 1993 - the. Board of Supervisors 'work together with the airport owner to identify the limits the project -, the cost of the project, and the source of the - funds that, are going to be used to provide the matching funds. They then request that Butte County Association of Governments include this in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Commissioner Crotts seconded the motion. Ayes: Commissioner Crotts, Franklin, Gerst, Lambert, Stevens, and Chaaperson " Rossas Noes: None Abstain: None 2. Revision of Butte Count Airport Land' Use Commission. Bylaws. (CONT.) Chairperson , Rossas stated - in the Bylaws, Article 5, Section I.' "in -the Board of . Supervisors' Room", can create a problem. Staff said just deleting that portion of Article .5; Section I. and stating "held at County Center Drive, Oroville", would solve the .problem. 3_ Status Report - Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan text revision. Staff noted the environmental report on the- General -Plan Amendment has been received and reviewed. No comments at this point. Chairperson Rossassaid the City is so involved in' the General Plan ' at this present time, and has finished all the hearings in the districts. Now will move, to the Planning Commission level. More hearings will be held • there, then, it will'move to the Counsel. level. It is expected to hit that level sometime in June or July.The park definition is still unclear, and needs a lot of work on it. The -idea is fine,, but needs_ a new designation as far as the city of Oroville is - concerned. It should appear on the next Agenda. - ' Oroville is in a tremendously tight situation. With all .that is going. on in the State Legislature, with regard to the State Budget there is no money at all to hire people: The other side of this, is with the. Bond Issue, there are large amounts of money to use for capitol outlay. Which is just reverse of the normal. Consequently the, next meeting coming up on Montgomery Street, and the j 5 BUTTE ' COUNTY AIRPORT LAND 'USE COMMISSION MINUTES -January 13, 1993 Oroville Airport, there is $3.8 million which is half of the grant and is enough to move all the earth, which is the first phase, plus � several other items. There is also money coming from property acquisition. City ' funds are ' used to get the property, then FAA is applied to for reimbursement, and ' 90 % comes back which is used - for the airport. This will take care of the 10% which is used to match on the big grants. The airport project seems to be going unless the State stops it. Staff should prepare everything by July 1st. Engineering firms will have to be hired from outside, instead of in-house. 4. Status Report - Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan and Airport Noise Compatibility Program. Staff said Commissioner Crotts will bring us up .to date as to what is happening in Chico. Commissioner Crotts reported the Airport ., Noise Compatibility - Program report is completed and the Final Report is out. Staff asked if the County was to receive copies? Commissioner Crotts noted all Commissioners would receive a copy. 5. Business from the floor. None V. Correspondence None VI. Referrals to Staff and Formation of Committees , None VII. Announcements 1. . Next, meeting is scheduled for February 10, 1993 ' VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting; was adjourned at 10:10 A.M. 6, BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES , -January 13, 1993 = Signed- JSigned- JANrES ROSSAS, Chairperson BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONMSSION /she b: wp50\aluc\j an-93 . min