Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (2)BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND -USE COMMISSION Minutes of December 20, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Chair.Rosene, Commissioners Grierson, Wallrich, Causey, Harp, and Alternate Commissioners Papadakis, and Greenwood. Absent: Commissioner Hatley, and Alternate Commissioners Hodges, and Ward. Others Present: Commissioner Lambert (seated in audience) Alternate Commissioner Baldridge Alternate Commissioner Hennigan M. A. Meleka, Principal, Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Consultant Larry Thelen, Legal. Counsel to ALUC Kim Yamaguchi; Butte County Supervisor -Elect • Kim Seidler, Planning Director, City of Chico C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 15, 2000 MEETING Commissioner Grierson requested a correction on page 5, line. 38 changing wording in the draft from "2000 -foot extension to the north plus a 1000 -foot safety ramp" to "2000 -foot extension'to the north,plus the required 1000 -foot runway safety area." It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to adopt the minutes of November 15, 2000 as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Chair Rosene requested that the Commission consider reviewing Issues #3 and #15 of the matrix at the same time, since both items concerned Zone B-2 on the southeast side of the Chico Municipal Airport. It was moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to accept the Agenda as revised. E. BUSINESS ITEMS 0 ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING Adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Negative Declaration, continued hearing from November 15, 2000: a. Review recommended changes to the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Addendum based on all the comments received during the public comments period ended on November 22, 2000. Accept public testimony on the recommended changes. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review 'of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public -use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the. Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. b. After reviewing recommended changes and public testimony, the Commission will consider formal action including adoption of the referenced Plan and the Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirement. COMMENT/RESPONSE MATRIX Mr. Meleka informed the Commission that Issues #1,& #3 were the remaining issues from the last meeting to be discussed. These two issues had initially been reviewed at the November 15, 2000 ALUC meeting and had been deferred to the December 20, 2000 ALUC meeting for • a decision. Following review of these issues, he added, Mr. Brody would review Issues #11 through #25, and respective recommendations. Mr. Meleka further stated that it was the desire of Chair Rosene that each comment ori the matrix be addressed thoroughly and fully by this Commission. Mr. Brody started with issues #1 and #14 as follows: Issue #1—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, East Side of Airport (Jon H. Bechtel; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; City of Chico/Kim Seidler) Deferred from the November 15, 2000 meeting to this meeting for a decision. (Issue #14 is a continuation of Issue #1) (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; North Valley Pilots Assn./Rick Thompson, President; Butte County Board of Supervisors, Jane Dolan, Chair) . Chico Municipal. Airport Compatibility Man: Zone C, East Side of Airport – (Issue #1) The following was requested under this issue: _ (1) Reduce the width of Zone C on the east side of the airport from 7,500 to 6,000 feet in order to match the west side of Zone C. (2) Apply C-2 designation and criteria instead of C-1 on the east side of the airport within the central portion of the zone. It was noted that correspondence from the City of Chico Planning Department dated 10/9/00 • indicated that the City did not have any objections to Mr. Bechtel's request for the application 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 2 ■ of Compatibility Zone C-2 on the east side of the airport if the ALUC determines that the modification is consistent with the purposes of the CLUP. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: There are two interrelated components to this issue: (1) the zone boundary, and (2) the criteria to be applied within the zone. (1) Zone C is 1,500' wider east of the Runway 13L -31R than it is west of Runway 13R -31L because of the difference in the types of aircraft using each runway. Larger aircraft primarily use the longer runway, 13L -31R. Even with the contemplated extension of both runways, this circumstance is expected to remain. Because Zone C is defined as encompassing the principal traffic- patterns, its eastern boundary should remain as currently proposed. (2) Within the context of the countywide compatibility criteria set forth in the draft plan, there are three options worth considering with regard to the compatibility zone designation for east of the airport. These choices are: (a) Keep the C-1 designation as currently proposed in the plan addendum. The residential density criterion for this zone is '< 0.2 dwelling units per acre (average parcel size of < 5.0 acres), the same as'in Zone B-2. A C-1 designation .provides the greatest long- term compatibility protection for the airport. • (b) Switch to a C-2 designation for all or part of the area as indicated in the comment. Residential development would then need to have a minimum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. (c) Designate the -area as Zone C, thus leaving the density choice to the land use jurisdiction (currently Butte County) and the landowners. This is the concept originally set forth for this location in the March 2000 draft plan. It also is the designation proposed to be applied in the area southeast of the Chico Airport and universally at the other three airports. Mr. Brody's recommendation: . From a compatibility standpoint, two factors affecting the area east of Chico Municipal Airport need to be considered with regard to determining the best response to this issue. These are: (1) the regular overflight of the area by fire attack and other large aircraft; and (2) the rising terrain. Given these factors, maintaining the current undeveloped or very -low- density residential character is the ideal choice. If this option is not tenable, then a Zone C designation seems to be more logical than C-2. By leaving the density choice open, landowners theoretically could divide a large parcel into 5 -acre lots rather than being required to create 0.2 -acre lots if they choose to develop their property. • ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 3 ■ Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, East Side of Airport — (Issue #14 — Continuation of Issue #1) Following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) Designation of area as C-2 would allow for potential development and not be inconsistent with purposes of Compatibility Plan. • (HS&M) Confirm, that the straight Zone C designation is equivalent to a Zone C-2 designation. • (HS&M) Reduce the Zone C width east of the airport to 6,000 feet. • (NVPA) Areas west and east of runways should be designated Zone C-1 due to noise and safety factors. • (County) Document that fire attack and other large aircraft use the traffic pattern east of the airport and the rationale for Zone C-1 size and land use restrictions. • (County) Eliminate separate mapping of Zones C-1 and C-2 in favor of a Zone C allowing either C-1 or C-2 option. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: As shown on the accompanying "Compatibility Map Options" drawing, fire attack aircraft tracks and the noise associated with them affect a large area east of the runway's south end. Factors to be considered include the frequency with which various tracks are utilized, the • altitude of the aircraft, and the high terrain in portions of the area. As indicated in the Issue #1 discussion, continuing to designate the area east of the airport as Zone C-1 remains the ideal response to this issue from a land use compatibility standpoint. However, in recognition of the comments received, three other options can be identified. • As previously discussed, one is to return to a single Zone C designation either just on the east side or in the entire airport influence area. This option would allow either high- or low-density development choices at the discretion of the land use jurisdiction. • A second option, as discussed at the 11/15/00 ALUC meeting, is to establish a Zone C-2 in the area lateral to the runway between Mud Creek on the north and a line perpendicular to the south end of the runway. To better reflect the impacts of fire attack aircraft flight tracks, this option could be refined by extending the remaining southern portion of Zone C-1 eastward to the 230 kV transmission line. The accompanying drawing shows the resulting configuration. • A third option is a combination of the preceding two. Except for the southeastern C-1 piece, all C-1 and C-2 areas could be combined into a Zone C allowing either choice. The southeastern C-1 area would then be added to the adjacent Zone B-2 which has the same residential density criteria as C-1. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keeping the area as Zone C-1 remains the preferred choice, but the other options are • marginally acceptable. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 4 ■ Mr. Brody addressed Issues #14"& #15, east and southeast of Chico Municipal Airport. To clarify his understanding, Mr. Brody stated his assumption that noise abatement was the issue here, and asked Commissioner Grierson whether the two major flight paths ,for departing tankers were evenly divided between left turns toward the southeast and the other potential direction. Commissioner Grierson responded that tanker tracks as depicted are consistent. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan also concurred, stating that 55% of tanker flights followed Sycamore Creek. Commissioner Grierson then added that the B-2 Zone to the southeast of the airport is the most critical corridor. Mr. Brody projected a map, including the compatibility zones around the Chico Municipal Airport, with a new boundary line drawn within the southeast area, based on the Commission's direction from the last meeting. There was much discussion regarding the appropriate placement of the boundary taking into consideration noise and safety issues. The line on the mentioned map was drawn at approximately 500' south of Sycamore Creek, measured from the centerline of the Creek. Mr. Brody asked the Commission to consider whether to continue to have C -1/C-2 zones or all C, leaving administration of the consistency criteria to the jurisdictions. Chair Rosene suggested reviewing each area separately and asked whether more discussion would be needed relative to the east side of Chico Municipal Airport. • Commissioner Greenwood asked why some of the area north of Bidwell Ranch, now in the C- 1 zone, was not designated as B-2. Mr. Brody replied that from a residential standpoint, the densities would be the same for either C-1 or B-2; he added that if the C -1/C-2 is redefined as C, the Commission may then choose to further protect the area by designating it B-2. Commissioner Greenwood concluded that it might be better to leave the area as designated to maintain the proposed density. Then he distributed a map including compatibility zones boundary for consideration and discussion. is Alternate Commissioner Papadakis pointed out that while it was conceded that CDF and their flight tracks were most important, he also felt it was important to be cognizant of other flight activity at the airport such as U -2s, Coast Guard instrument approaches, flying schools, and agricultural -related, all of which could be sources of noise and safety concerns. Commissioner Grierson commented that increased flight activity was a valid point; he further stated that the airport had experienced continuing increases in flight activity including 3 business jets daily, military. activity, U -2s, and other documented activity. ' Chair Rosene read the requirements of the Plan that related to the east side of the Chico Municipal Airport. He said that if the Commission changes the C -1/C-2 designation on the east side to C, this would be in conflict with the City's General Plan. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public for comment. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ Mr. Kammerer spoke on behalf of his client, Mr. Bechtel. He related that he had met with '0 Mr. Meleka and also had met with Tom Parilo to discuss plans for his client's property. Mr. Kammerer confirmed an assumption from the prior meeting, stating it was Mr. Bechtel's desire not to have his pre -development results in the Plan disseminated. He further stated that Mr. Bechtel had been working with Heritage Partners, and ultimately had incurred in excess of $200,000 in pre -development expenses to date. Mr. Kammerer asserted that the City of Chico, in the October 9th letter from Kim Seidler to the Commission, gave its support and he added that it had Tom Lando's "blessing." He further asserted that his client's proposed development is fully consistent with the City's General Plan and urged acceptance/adoption of the C-2 designation or C if this would be more tenable. Chair Rosene then asked for specifics of the proposal, questioning whether any residential development was planned. Mr. Kammerer replied, "There is residential development shown on a portion of those plans. The stuff closest to Cohasset Rd., up front, along Cohasset, is primarily proposed for industrial, which is exactly what we showed in the plans, but immediately behind that is planned for residential." Mr. Kammerer then summarized his comments and asked the Commission to support the C-2 designation or C. He further asked the Commission to provide a- reasonable solution, stating that. Mr. Bechtel would look at an override if this was not done. Chair Rosene said that he had.listened to the tapes from the Nov. 14 Board of Supervisors' meeting and wished to discuss concerns from.that meeting. He said that Supervisor Houx had questioned why, the C area was wider on the east side than on the west side. Commissioner Grierson responded to comments made by Mr. Kammerer at the November meeting of the Board of Supervisors, in which• he stated that the Chico Municipal Airport experienced infrequent flights and, in his opinion, that the CLUP dramatically overstated the frequency_ and noise issues affecting the area. Referring to the 1978 Master Plan, Commissioner Grierson said that it had figures in it that were relatively overstated. He gave a brief history of the changes in types of aircraft, sizes of aircraft, noise levels, as well as the resulting effects. In addition, Commissioner. Grierson related that documented activity at the airport had been increasing steadily at a rate of 18% per year, with air cargo growth activity substantially higher than the national average. , Alternate Commissioner Hennigan stated his concern regarding tanker logs were being ignored which he said documented more than 1000 flights per year. He believed that the noise contours and findings should be objectively evaluated. Mr. Parilo spoke on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, commenting on concerns in their letter of November 20 to the Commission. He said the Board had asked the Commission to consider eliminating the split*C area to the east of the airport, in favor of a C designation. • The public hearing was then closed 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 6 ■ Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked Mr. Brody for Shutt Moen's recommendations • relative to the east side of the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Brody stated their recommendation as maintaining C-1 on the east side; however, he said he could see other possibilities supported, mentioning Mr. Kammerer's earlier comment that Mr. Bechtel had been approached regarding the possibility of a golf course. He added that perhaps some proposals incorporating creative planning, such as a golf course, might open development possibilities. Mr. Brody proceeded to outline options regarding the future anticipated development of the runway extension to the north at Chico Municipal Airport and potential impacts to be taken into consideration. He further commented that ' noise contours (and sources) give some indication of impacts; however, he added, since this is a relative issue, there is no clear answer. Variables include ongoing replacement of individual aircraft with higher performing aircraft and lessening the noise impact; however, it is unlikely that CDF will be replacing their larger, heavier, noisier aircraft quickly. Mr. Brody concluded by saying that timing for the implementation of the north runway extension is also an unknown variable at this time. Chair Rosene called for a break from 10:40 a.m., reconvening at 10:50 a.m. Chair Rosene again opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Kim Seidler, Planning Director for the City of Chico, addressed the Commission and asked whether the changes made at this meeting were included in the prepared compatibility • document. Mr. Meleka replied that the proposed changes fall within the general parameters of the specifications in the document. Mr. Brody concurred. There being no further public comment, the hearing was then closed to the public. A motion was made by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously passed to change Figure 3-A to include Zone C as a replacement of Zone C-1 depicted in Exhibit 1 that was distributed to the Commissioners and the public during the meeting. The northern boundary of this zone coincides with the Mud Creek/Richardson Springs Road and the southern boundary follows the property boundaries as illustrated in Exhibit 1. The attached Exhibit 1 a illustrates the final -modifications to the compatibility zones and boundaries. Issue #2—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, West Side of Airport (Webb Homes/Greg Webb 10/24/00) The following was requested under this issue: The request that 83 acres south of Sycamore Creek and north of Eaton Road (AP #007-020- 123) and land at the southwest corner of Sycamore Drive and Hicks Lane be designated as C- 2 rather than C-1. • This request is based upon the following factors: • The areas have limited safety risks. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 7 ■ • They are located outside identified noise contour lines. • • Direction from the ALUC has been for boundaries to follow natural features and parcel lines to the extent possible. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The center of this property is situated approximately 4,000 feet laterally (southwesterly) of the extended centerline of Runway 13R-31 L and 3,000 feet beyond (southeasterly) of the existing runway end. The proposed southeastward extension of the runway would reduce the latter distance to about 1,500 feet. With the runway end in its present location, the property is roughly where small aircraft begin to turn from downwind to base when landing on Runway 31L. Aircraft turning right after departing from Runway 13R also may overfly the property. The proposed runway extension probably would move the traffic pattern base leg over existing development south of Eaton Road, although the downwind leg would remain over the property in question. The options with regard to this location are the same as with the issue concerning Zone C east of the airport—designate the area C-1, C-2, or an either/or combination of the two. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave the property designated as Zone C-1- pending City of Chico adoption of the airport master plan and a determination as to when a runway extension might be constructed. 0 Chair Rosene opened the hearing to public comment. • Mr. Greg Webb spoke in supportof the mentioned request. He indicated that the City of Chico is experiencing a housing crisis. He further stated that because of environmental constraints and other land use -related issues in Chico, there is not enough 'land to accommodate the housing need. In addition, he questioned the need for expanding the airport at this time because the resulting impact would exacerbate the housing conditions. in Chico. He requested the Commission to delay their adoption of the Plan until the City completes its planning process– . There being no further public comment, the hearing was closed. It was the Commission's consensus to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #3—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibilitv Map: Zone B-2, Southeast of Airport (City of Chico/Tom Lando) (Issue #15 is a continuation of Isiue #3) City of Chico/Tom Lando; Rural Consulting Associates, Jim Mann;' Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; Caltrans Aeronautics Program, Sandy Hesnard, Environmental Planner) 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 8 ■ Issue #3 • The Compatibility Map for the airport appears to show the southern boundary of Zone B-2 on the southeast side of the airport, lying south of Sycamore Creek. Previous direction by the- ALUC has indicated that boundaries of the compatibility zones' should follow existing boundaries and natural features to the greatest extent, possible. In this case, however, the boundary appears neither to follow the creek itself nor any existing parcel boundaries. The City requests that the map be adjusted to show Sycamore Creek as the southern boundary of Zone B-2 at this location. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The intent of the Zone B-2 shown southeast of the airport is to encompass the noise -abatement flight track utilized by fire attack aircraft. If these aircraft generally fly well north of Sycamore Creek, then the creek alignment is a suitable boundary for the zone. However, if aircraft tend to fly more directly over the creek, then Zone B-2 should extend south of the creek in order to provide a suitable buffer. Given the large size of the parcels in that area, placement of the zone boundary on a distinct geographic feature may not be practical. In such case, the line could be drawn at a set distance from the creek or tied to an offset from nearby roads or other geographic features. Mr. Brody's recommendation: For purposes of clarity, some modification of the boundary line appears to be appropriate. The ALUC should examine this issue and make a determination as to the most logical basis for positioning the line. Issue #15 — (A continuation of Issue #3) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) It is premature for the City to amend its General Plan for Bidwell Ranch in that no decision has been made on future use. • (Chico) The B-2 zone boundary should follow Sycamore. Creek or the line designated by the Army Corps of Engineers as buffer south of the creek. • (Rural Consulting) There is no ascertainable evidence of residential development south of the airport should be limited to the extent proposed: building design can reduce interior noise to 45 dB CNEL; aircraft (including fire attack) are getting quieter; accident potential is low. • (HS&M) Shift the B-2/C zone boundary southeast of the airport north to follow Sycamore Creek. • Caltrans) Zone B-2 southeast of the airport should be expanded to include the adjacent undeveloped area proposed for Zone C; for noise and safety reasons, fire attack_ aircraft need a relatively uninhabited area beneath their departure track. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 9 ■ According to airport management, the typical current fire attack flight track toward the southeast closely follows Sycamore Creek. However, the noise impacts of aircraft following this route extend well south of the creek. Accordingly, the Zone B-2/C boundary thus should be positioned south of the creek. At such time as the runway is extended to the north, this flight track may shift northward from its present location, although noise impacts would still extend south of the creek. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Given the above factors, ' an approximately 500 -foot buffer measured south of Sycamore Creek's centerline is proposed as shown in Exhibit 1. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public for comment. Mr. Pete Giampaoli addressed the Commission with concerns relative to development of a property he owns located in the vicinity of Sycamore Creek. He requested that the Commission reconsider placement of the proposed 500' buffer area, suggesting the boundary follow the top of Sycamore Creek, and not located 500' from the centerline of Sycamore Creek. This would allow him to proceed with residential development as he had planned. The current proposal would reduce his development by 10-20 parcels. Mr. Kammerer spoke on behalf of Mr. Giampaoli, citing the rationale for consideration of his client's request. Mr. Seidler, representing'the City of Chico, appealed to the Commission to consider delaying the adoption of the CLUP until such time as planning for Bidwell Ranch had been completed. He commented that no determination had yet been made by the City as to its ultimate disposition, but he stated that, at this time, the City was opposed to the B-2 Zone as proposed for the Bidwell Ranch area. The public hearing was then closed. In concurrence with Mr., Brody's recommendation, Commissioner Papadakis made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and passed with one abstaining vote from Commissioner Harp to incorporate a 500 -foot buffer measured south of Sycamore Creek's centerline as depicted in the schematic, Exhibit 1. Mr. Meleka drew a schematic on the board outlining details for depicting the boundary between B-2 Zone to the north of Sycamore Creek and C to the south of it. These details are related to the most western stretch of the boundary line. This line follows East Lassen to its end, then joins with a line that. is drawn 500 feet south of the Creek's centerline. The following schematic illustrates these details. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 10 ■ • Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. for a lunch break, at which time the meeting reconvened. (Issues #4410 ALUC provided its direction regarding this issue at the November 15, 2000 meeting, therefore, these issues were not discussed at this meeting.) Issue #11—Open Land Requirements (Fred Gerst) This issue is related to the implementation of open land requirements. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The revised Policy 4.2.5(c) (see Addendum) describes how open land criteria are to be applied. The checklist of general plan consistency requirements in Appendix H-1 further describes local jurisdiction options for implementation of the open land criteria. Mr. Brody's recommendation- Leave.policy as proposedin the Addendum. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. The ALUC Commission concurred with Mr. Brody's recommendation and unanimously agreed to retain the revised Policy 4.2.5(c) as it appears in the Addendum. Issue #1 La: Designation. of ALUC Secretary (ALUC) Chair Rosene said he wanted to avoid past history with regard to some issues that should have come before this Commission, however, the Commission had been bypassed. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: In accordance with Section 21671.5.(c) of the Public Utilities Code, staff assistance to the ALUC should be provided by the County. Nothing in the, law indicates that the ALUC has any authority' over the selection of ALUC staff. In any,, case, this is not an issue for the Compatibility Plan, but it should be addressed through the ALUC By -Laws or a separate MOU with the Director. of Development Services. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave_ policy 1.2.5. as drafted. Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 11 ■ Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. There was a consensus to add the following to the end of the definition of ALUC Secretary in Policy 1.2.5.: ".:.and with the concurrence of the ALUC Chair." Issue #12—Relationship to Chico Municipal Airport Master Plan, (Building Industry Association of Superior California) Issue #13—Relationship to Oroville Municipal Airport Master Plan (City of Oroville—Council Resolution 11/22/00) Mr. Brody reported that issues 12 and 13 were previously discussed. This had resulted in additional language added to the Addendum. Mr...Brody•further commented that there was general acceptability of what had been proposed. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. The Commission confirmed Mr. Brody's recommendation. (Issues #14 & #15 - Refer to Issues #1 & #3, respectively for conclusions) Issue #16—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, West Side of,Airport • (City of Chico/Tom Lando and Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan) (Continuation of Issue #2 discussed at the November 15, 2000 meeting.) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • The C-1 designation on property north of Eaton Road would reduce the number of residences from 550-920 allowed under city zoning to 11 under the C-1 designation. Under this issue, the City contended that the mentioned impact had not been addressed in the initial study. • The County requested that the Commission reconsider the proposed Compatibility Zone C=1 area north of Mud Creek within the North Chico Specific Plan. The SR -1 zoned lands within the mentioned area were previously found to be consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The urban densities within the town center of the North Chico Specific Plan was the subject of the County's override of the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The draft 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan has recognized the planned urban portion of the North Chico Specific Plan as being compatible and the SR -1 area as being incompatible. Section 2.4.4.f of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan allows ALUC to recognize specific situations where incompatible uses, due to extraordinary factors or circumstances, can be found to be compatible. The Board believes that for the reasons ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 12 ■ • stated above that this area within the North Chico Specific Plan should be recognized by ALUC to qualify as a special circumstance. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The effect of a Zone C-1 on this property was included in the housing impacts analysis summarized in the revised initial study dated September 1, 2000. Mr. Brody also started discussion regarding the issue of North Chico Specific Plan area north of Mud Creek (zoned for 1 -acre parcels). This issue was referenced in the Board of Supervisors' letter distributed at this meeting. He mentioned that 1 -acre development existed in the northern portion of the C-1 area and that the North Chico Specific Plan allows 1 -acre parcels in most of this area. Mr. Brody referred to the proposal that had been drafted to address the Board's concern regarding the North Chico Specific Plan area to the north of Mud Creek. He read a portion of this proposal in the event that the - Commission would choose to incorporate it: Notwithstanding the Compatibility Zone C-1 designation and its associated requirement limiting the density of residential development to a maximum of 0.2 dwelling units per acre, a density of up to .1.0 dwelling units per acre shall be permitted within the area marked on the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A). If the anticipated configuration of runway extensions is revised as part of the forthcoming airport master plan, modification of this special exception policy may be warranted. • Mr. Brody said that may although he not fully support the proposal, the Commission may still g Y consider it as an alternative approach. • Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Parilo spoke in support of the proposal and urged the Commission to maintain the consistency status of S -R1 'as included in the 1978 Plan. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Grierson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to maintain the C-1 designation'to the north of Mud Creek, within the North Chico Specific Plan area. Issue #17—Definition of Existing Land Use (Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair 11/21/00) The Board requested that the planning or zoning for land where major infrastructure has been installed, funded, or accepted by a public entity should be recognized as an existing land use. This particularly applies with regard to the North Chico Specific Plan area north of Mud Creek. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 13 ■ Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: • Theo inion of both the ALUC legal counsel and another land use attorney contacted by the consultant is that the ALUC has jurisdiction over vacant properties with infrastructure in place because these properties have not yet been devoted to any specific use. However, the ALUC also has the authority to treat such properties equitably by allowing optimum use of that infrastructure, consistent with the constraints of airport protection. The fact that the North Chico Specific Plan was the result of a long planning process is not relevant to this issue. - Moreover, it would appear that airport compatibility concerns were either overlooked or greatly downplayed during that planning process. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keep the policy defining existing land use (1:2.10) as previously written in the Addendum. Chair Rosene opened the hearing;to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously passed to retain Policy 1.2. 10 as it appears in the Addendum. Issue #18—Effects of Intensity Limitations on Existing Businesses (Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair 11/21/00) Under this issue, the Board stated that the effect of proposed intensity limitations on existing nonresidential uses could not readily be assessed. The ALUCP, the Board added, could constrain expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new development. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The Compatibility Plan has no effect on existing land uses, either residential or nonresidential, even if such uses are not conforming with the compatibility criteria. As indicated in Policy 2.4.4(b) a nonconforming nonresidential development .may be continued, modified, transferred, or sold provided that its usage intensity (the number of people per acre) is not increased. A proposal to expand' a nonconforming use would be evaluated by the ALUC in accordance with Policy 2.4.4(f). Mr. Brody's recommendation: Keep policies as set Torth in the March 2000 draft plan. Commissioner Grierson, stated that the airport flight paths are well accommodated in the C and B-2 Zones and he sees no problem now. For the record, he further stated that the Commission's focus is to encourage .and foster industrial development at the appropriate 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ .Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ intensity. Chair Rosene concurred saying that it is the intent of this Commission to encourage and support businesses at the airport.' Commissioner Grierson asked in what manner the Commission would communicate to the Board of Supervisors its conclusions following review and discussion of the Board's stated concerns. Commissioner Harp suggested that the responses be detailed and specific.' Chair Rosene concurred' stating his interest in providing information which would contribute to a genuine understanding. In addition, Mr. Meleka suggested using the matrix and adding ALUC direction to this matrix which already does spell .out in detail the issues, concerns, analysis, and recommendations. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, seconded by • Commissioner Grierson; and unanimously carried to modify Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) and (4) to allow reconstruction of a totally destroyed building to the previously allowed intensity provided that construction must begin. within 12 months of the date that the damage occurred. Issue #19—Intensity Criteria (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The City raised the following concerns: • People -per -acre criteria cannot be calculated consistent) and fairly. Y Y • There is no need for such limitations in much of the urbanized area covered by the plan. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: As a measure of risk, usage intensity provides the, -best common denominator among most nonresidential. uses. ALUCs and affected communities sometimes consider higher intensities to represent an acceptable risk within existing urban areas, but limitations are nevertheless appropriate. Even in urban areas, high-intensity uses present the prospect of a catastrophic outcome in the event of an aircraft accident and thus need to be avoided. These factors notwithstanding, it is recognized that people -per -acre is not a common measure in land use planning and, therefore, may . not be ' easy to implement. Consequently, the Compatibility Plan does mot require that local jurisdiction adopt the identical criteria when modifying their general plans for consistency with the ALUC's plan. As long as a correlation between an alternative set of criteria and usage intensity can be identified at the time that a general plan is submitted for consistency review, the alternative can pass the consistency test. For example, some jurisdictions in other counties have established nonresidential development limitations in which•the number of required parking spaces is used as a surrogate for usage intensity. • r Mr. Brody's recommendation: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 15 ■ . Keep people -per -acre compatibility criteria as currently . proposed. Allow jurisdictions reasonable latitude in developing alternative methods of assuring that unacceptably high land usage intensities are avoided. Chair Rosene opdned the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. There was a consensus of the Commission to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #20—Prohibited Uses (City. of Chico/Tom Lando) Under this issue, the city is concerned that it does not have control over some uses listed as prohibited (e.g. schools and daycare); The City requested that the ALUC should allow some flexibility in case-by-case review. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: It is recognized that local jurisdictions do not have full control over all such uses. Nevertheless, the fact -remains that these uses should not be located' where they would be incompatible with airport activities. Thus, to the extent practical, local policies should discourage such development. The Compatibility Plan allows the ALUC flexibility in evaluating such policies (see Policy 2.4.4.f). Mr. Brody's recommendation: Generally keep policy language as set forth in the draft plan; modify note in Table 2A with regard to daycare centers. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. - It was the consensus of the Commission to implement Mr. Brody's recommendation.. . Issue #21=Infi11.. (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Butte County Board of Supervisors/Jane Dolan, Chair) (Continuation of Issue #9 discussed at the November 15, 2000 meeting) The following are the comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) Once an area is found to qualify for infill, the only limitations ALUC should consider are the existing zoning and Table 2A= prohibited uses. • (County) The ALUC should consider all lands of 20 acres or less to be bound by the same infill criteria. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 16 P The objectives of the infill policy are two -fold: (1) to be -fair to owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped land whose property lies in the midst of more highly developed parcels; and (2) to assure that a reasonable degree of airport land use compatibility is maintained. The issue is where to strike the balance between two objectives. In this regard, it should be recognized that, by its very nature, the infill policy is permitting additional development of a type which would otherwise by regarded as incompatible with airport activities. Both of these comments, though, would, in effect, remove most restrictions from the residential densities and nonresidential intensities allowed in infill areas. As the policy currently stands (see Addendum -page 4), residential infill on less than 10 acres would be permitted to have a higher density than if the affected area is between 10 and 20 acres in size. Basically, the smaller area is allowed to develop to an intensity. equal to the average of nearby parcels while the larger area is limited to no more than double the density set by the primary compatibility criteria table. For nonresidential uses, new development is limited to 50% above the intensity in the primary compatibility criteria table. Any relaxation of the infill criteria currently proposed would be contrary to the direction provided by the ALUC at the'l 1/15/00 meeting. However, if any further compromise is to be made; it might be to establish two tiers of intensity criteria for nonresidential uses similar to the two tiers now provided for residential development. Mr. Brody's recommendation: . Modify Policy 2.4.4(a)(3) to allow nonresidential development infill of 10 acres or less to equal the average intensity of surrounding development (see Addendum). Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Harp, and unanimously carried to modify Policy 2.4.4(a)(3) in concurrence with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Issue #22—Nonconforming Uses (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The issue under this item is that policies on nonconforming uses and reconstruction remain unclear. For example, is an otherwise permitted and conforming use that exceeds the. maximum number of people per acre considered nonconforming for the purpose of construction? Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page l7 ■ By definition, if an existing use exceeds the density, intensity, or other compatibility criteria . set forth in the Compatibility, Plan, it is a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use which is fully or partially destroyed may be rebuilt, subject to the limitations outlined in Policy 2.4.4(c). Mr. Brody's recommendation:, Leave policy as indicated in the draft plan unless a more specific need for clarification is identified. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. There was a consensus of the Commission to leave the policy as indicated in the draft plan. Issue #23—ALUC Review of On -Airport Development (City of Chico/Tom Lando) The City's issue is related to the determination of whether it is solely up to the City to. decide if an on -airport use is aviation -related or not, not the ALUC. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: For the purposes 'of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is intended to mean facilities and activities directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. Such uses specifically include. runways, taxiways, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, etc. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Policy 1.5.3(b) should be expanded with a definition to this effect (see Addendum, page 2). Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public.. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Grierson made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Papadakis, and unanimously passed to add the following to Policy 1.5.3(b): "For .the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is defined as any facility or activity directly associated with air transportation of persons. or cargo or the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft at an airport or heliport. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways, helipads, and their associated protected areas defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars, fixed base operations, terminal building, etc." Issue #24—Adequacy of Environmental Review ` (City of Chico/Tom Lando; Building Industry Assn. of Superior Califomia/Jim Mann) 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 18 ■ The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • (Chico) The city still has some concerns about adequacy of environmental review, although they are diminished to the extent that changes to the draft have diminished the potential for significant environmental impacts. • (BIA) Why is an EIR not required? Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The ALUC legal counsel responds that there is some question as to whether CEQA is applicable at all to adoption of a compatibility plan. The principal reason which has been given in support of a conclusion that such an action is not a project for the purposes of CEQA is that compatibility plans are primarily advisory documents subject to rejection by the local government entity having land use jurisdiction. Also, compatibility plans can be considered as functionally equivalent to an environment document in that their sole purpose is to limit uses which would adversely affect the airport environment. This point of view notwithstanding, the Butte County ALUC has elected to prepare an initial study. After so doing, the ALUC determined that nothing in the Compatibility Plan could cause an adverse impact on the environment and accordingly completed a draft negative declaration filed with the state's Office of Planning and Research. The Compatibility Plan neither authorizes any specific development, nor totally precludes development. It merely sets in place density, intensity, height, and other limitation development. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Approve negative declaration as drafted. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Seidler questioned the adequacy of the environmental document and also asked that the Commission delay adoption of the Plan. Mr. Thelen said, commenting on the adequacy of the environmental review, "You've got to keep in mind that the purpose of CEQA is to deal with the adoption of a project which is to say constructing something. The first question you have when you are putting together an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is what is it, if anything, you are proposing to construct, and in the case of your plan, you're proposing to do exactly the opposite. You are proposing in every case to constrain the extent to which development can go on by others. There is a question as to whether or not a CLUP is even subject to CEQA and lawyers are divided on that." He added that the environmental document, included in Appendix D, analyzed and answered all environmental -related questions and concluded that there is no possibility of an impact on the environment. Mr. Thelen, therefore, concluded that the environmental document is adequate. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 19 ■ Alternate Commissioner Papadakis made a motion to approve the Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried. Issue #25—Adequacy of Public Notice (Building Industry Assn. of Superior Califomia/Jim Mann) The following are comments made to ALUC and were combined under this issue: • Property owners have not been properly noticed regarding proposed changes to currently prescribed or intended land uses. • Changes to land zoned or prezoned for residential development should not be made without discussion with property owners. Mr. Brody provided the following analysis: The draft Compatibility Plan has been the subject of numerous publicly noticed meetings of the ALUC, as well as formal hearings. Many of these meetings have been attended by property owner representatives. The plan has been'the subject of several newspaper articles and the public hearings were formally noticed in these newspapers. Additionally, the plan has been presented to and discussed by the elected bodies of the four affected jurisdictions. Lastly, the ALUC legal counsel notes that the commentor cites no statute that the ALUC may have violated with regard to public notice requirements. Mr. Brody's recommendation: No additional action appears to be necessary. Mr. Thelen addressed the issue of adequacy of public notice during the planning process. He indicated to the Commission that they have given far.more than 10 -day notice and timely posted notice of several meetings. He also pointed out that the public notification was made, during this process, in a manner that was totally consistent with State laws. Chair Rosene asked Mr. Thelen, "In reviewing. our public comment periods, the length of them, the adequacy of notice, do you find any potential legal problem where we or staff have erred." Mr. Thelen answered, "No, and in fact, it's actually the other way around. I think the staff has demonstrated an extreme thoroughness, directness, and candor in ,addressing the various comments that have been raised." - Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comment, the hearing was closed. It was the consensus of this Commission to concur with Mr. Brody's recommendation. Chair Rosene opened the hearing for any additional public comments. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 20 ■ Mr. Hennigan distributed a document describing the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concept and requested that the Commission incorporate this document in the Appendices of the Plan. Also, Alternate Commissioner Greenwood provided the Commission with a flow chart describing the Airport Land Use Planning process and asked that this chart be incorporated to Appendix H of the Plan. A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Harp, and unanimously carried to incorporate in the Plan the mentioned flow chart and the Concepts. The Commission then discussed the McClintock—Becker Part 150 Study. Since the Commission has repeatedly reviewed this study and considered its inadequacy, particularly in relation to air tanker activity at the Chico Municipal Airport, it was the ALUC consensus to incorporate into these minutes the attached document (labeled as Document I) to reflect the Commission's findings. There being no further public comment, the hearing was closed. The hearing adjourned for a 10 -minute break, reconvening at 4:50 p.m. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood requested a full-size Compatibility Map for the Oroville Airport. Mr. Meleka agreed to provide a full-size map this week as requested. Mr. Brody commented that a final check -print would be provided prior to the final printing of the CLUP document and subsequent distribution. Chair Rosene requested a 3 -hole binding which was the consensus of the Commission. The Commission agreed to appoint *a Subcommittee to review the final check -print of the adopted Compatibility Land Use Plan with staff prior to the final printing. CLUP Adoption Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and unanimously passed by vote as recorded at the end of the motion which follows: THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OF BUTTE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AFFECTING THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, THE RANCHAERO AIRPORT, THE OROVILLE AIRPORT, AND THE PARADISE SKYPARK AIRPORT, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING AREAS, -AND ALSO OTHER POLICIES THAT APPLY WITHIN THE BALANCE OF BUTTE COUNTY, recognizes the need to protect airports and their planned operations from development in surrounding areas that may interfere with those operations. The State Legislature has enacted enabling legislation under the California State Aeronautics Act (ref. Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq., and Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5, State ALUC 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 21 ■ enabling law) to provide for airport land use compatibility planning to be conducted at the • local level; the purpose of airport land use planning is to: Provide for the orderly development of each public use airport and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Also, State ALUC enabling law provides that each Airport Land Use Commission, including the Butte County. Airport Land Use Commission, shall provide for a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general; the Commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport during at least, the next 20 years; State enabling law requires that the Commission review the plan as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes; In addition, recognizing the need to update and improve the airport land use compatibility plans for the mentioned four public -use airports within the County, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) tasked the consultant and staff to develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan including Comprehensive Land Use Plans for the four public -use airports: The Chico Municipal Airport, the Ranchaero Airport, the Oroville Airport, and the Paradise Skypark Airport and policies within Butte County in general; Staff was aided in the formulation of the Plan proposal by a planning consultant with aviation and airport land use compatibility expertise; staff and/or the consultant consulted with the local agencies and concerned parties/individuals including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise. After prior notice having been issued, staff and consultant conducted a series of public workshops in March and October, 2000 that reviewed the Draft Plan and accepted public input. Two Public Comment Periods were scheduled. The first started on March 25, 2000 and ended on June 9, 2000. The Second Public Comment Period started on October 5, 2000 and ended on November 22, 2000. After notice was issued in accordance with law, many hearings were scheduled on the proposed plan before the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, in April, May, June, July, September, and November, 2000, at which time all interested parties might appear and testify. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and County CEQA Guidelines, consultant and staff prepared an initial study on the proposed plan which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and on October 5, and November 18, 2000, a Notice of Intent and time extension to November 22, 2000 to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project were posted as required by law. At the December 20, 2000 hearing, testimony was again accepted from all interested parties, and at which time the hearing was closed. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 22 ■ 0 The Commission having considered all evidence and testimony submitted in this matter, RESOLVED, that the Airport Land Use Commission of Butte County finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed plan will have a significant effect on the environment; the proposed Negative Declaration determination is consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, the Commission finds that the Negative Declaration determination is appropriate and ADOPTS said determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and the Negative Declaration reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Commission, hereby, and in accordance with Section 21675 (a) and (c) for the establishment of planning boundaries and adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for each of the County's four public -use airports ADOPTS the proposed March 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Butte County as amended by Addendum No. 2, as the Compatibility Land Use Plan for Butte County, excluding any discussion in the Addendum document (Just corrections to the body of the Draft). This adoption also incorporates all modifications made by the Commission at the December, 20, 2000 hearing including: the changes"to Figure 3-A regarding Zone C east of the Chico Municipal Airport, the boundary between B-2 and C to the southeast; Policy 2.4.4(c), 2 & 4 regarding the nonconforming nonresidential development to be allowed to rebuild to previously allowed intensity if totally destroyed provided that reconstruction must begin within twelve months of the date that the damage occurred; accepting the fire attack aircraft flight tracks information; changes on page 2 of the Addendum #2 regarding Policy 1.5.3(b); adding one additional appendix that incorporates the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts; and adding a chart depicting the Airport Land Use Planning process to Appendix H. The Commission further directs staff to publish the Plan and forward copies of the adopted Plan and notify local agencies within Butte County including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise, and the County of Butte County that pursuant to Government Code Section 65302, they are required to review their respective general plans, and any applicable specific plan to make them consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by (180 days from the date o distribution of the adopted Plan); should the respective City/Town Councils and Butte County Board of Supervisors not concur with any provisions of the Plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, then it may satisfy the provisions of this Section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Staff is further directed to file with the County Clerk's Office a Notice of Determination relative to the Commission action on the CEQA determination and on the adoption of the proposed Plan. The decision of the Airport Land Use Commission, Butte County, State of California was given by motion of the Airport Land Use Commission on December 20, 2000 by the following vote: 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 0 Page 23 ■ A'' - AYES: Commissioners—Chair Rosene, Grierson, Wallrich, Harp, and Causey; Alternate Commissioner Papadakis (sitting .in for Commissioner Lambert), and Alternate .Commissioner Greenwood (sitting in for Commissioner Hatley). NOES: ` 0 •i ABSENT: • 0 ' ABSTAIN: 0 • Chair Rosene opened the meeting to .the public for any final comments; there being none, the hearing was closed to the public. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT None. t G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA + • Y Alternate Commissioner Hennigan asked that the attached document (Document I) be , incorporated into these minutes.' ' J.- ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,`the meeting was adjourned'at 5:35 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. MLEKA, Principal Planner Minutes prep red by Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I " r 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of December 20, 2000 ■ Page 24 ■ BUTTE, COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CC).1 ' _oMPt" TE PACKET BINDERS �. ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 Is (530) 538-6571 FAX (536, 538-7 i.,5 0 REGULAR 1VIEETING'OF THE COMMISSION_ , • t. i Location: Butte County"Administration Building, Supervisors'.Chainbers ' ' 25 County Center Drive; Oroville California° - ; Date/Time: December 20,2000 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA a ALL ITEMS ARE. OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT .. ` A. Pledge of -Allegiance'., R B. _ Roll Call. C. Approval of the draft minutes for the November 15, 2000 meeting. D:'f Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members orstaffmay request additions_ , deletions, or changes in, the Agenda order): - E. Business Items: �^ } ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS t 1. Adoption -of the Butte County Airport -Land. Use Compatibility Plan and' Negative ' Declaration, continued hearing from November 15.,2000: , a. Review, recommended changes to the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and • Addenduin'based on all the comments received during the public comments period, ended on November 22, 2000. 'Accept public testimony on the recommended changes. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains, a comprehensive review of .the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public -use airports: the Chico �. Municipal Airport, the Oroville :Airport, - the • Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. b. After" reviewing recommended changes and public testimony, the Commission will { consider formal action including adoption.'of the referenced Plan and the Negative - Declaration in accordance with CEQA requirement. F. 'Monthly Status Report. G. Committee Appointments. .H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements. I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission, sprohibited by state lawfrom taking action on any. item presented if it is not listed. on the agenda) •Airport Land Use Commission September 20, 2000 Agenda Page 1 �," J. Other Business. • L. Closed Session - None. M. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to, participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M, A. Meleka, Principal Planner at (530) 538-6571 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving.recognftion from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address of the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting.notice and posted on December 8, in advance of the meeting, at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. 0 •Airport Land Use Commission *September 20, 2000 Agenda Page 2 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of November 15, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present:. Chair Rosene, Commissioners Wallrich,' Grierson, Causey, Harp, Alternate Commissioners Papadakis, Baldridge, Hennigan, Hodges, and Greenwood. Absent: Commissioners Lambert and Hatley, and Alternate Commissioner Ward. Others Present: M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Consultant C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 Alternate Commissioner Papadakis requested the following wording be inserted into the minutes, page 6, line 40: Mr. Kammerer stated that Mr. Bechtel's property development proposal—for land currently in the County—had been reflected in the City's General Plan as far as the extension of the sphere of influence. I In response to Alternate Commissioner Papadakis' inquiry, Mr. Kammerer further, commented that it was the intention of Mr. Bechtel to annex the property to the City of Chico. Commissioner Rosene requested replacing the wording on Page 6, lines 37 & 38, "traffic pattern is heavier on the east side" with "traffic pattern on the. east side of Chico Municipal Airport is, in general, for larger, heavier, .and faster aircraft requiring. a wider pattern." It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to adopt the minutes of September 20, 2000 as corrected. D. RESCINDMENT OF MR. HATLEY'S RESIGNATION A motion was made by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously approved to.accept the rescindment of Mr. Hatley's resignation from the Airport Land Use Commission. - • E. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to accept the Agenda as presented. F. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Addendum). Continued from October 19, 2000. COMMENT/RESPONSE MATRIX Mr. Meleka stated that the comment period for the Draft Plan/Addendum started on October 511h and ended on November 17`h. He added that based on the comments received before the mail out (including comments made during the ALUC Joint Meeting), a Comment/Response matrix was prepared. Mr. Meleka indicated that during its November 14 meeting, the Board of Supervisors made comments on the Draft Plan/Addendum some of which were already addressed in the mentioned matrix. The remaining comments, he also pointed out, would be addressed together with any others (received by the November 17 deadline) during the December meeting. • Mr. Meleka concluded his introduction by mentioning that the matrix included 10 major issues; he then turned it over to Mr. Brody to present these issues and the recommended responses. The following underlined issues (from' 1 through 10) represent the comments made on the Plan. Issue #1—Chico Municipal AirportCompatibility Map: Zone C, East Side of Airport ` (Jon H. Bechtel; Hefner, Stark & Marois/George Kammerer; City of Chico/Kim Seidler) Mr. Brody stated that with respect to.the width of the zone, it has to do with the type of aircraft that are flying. He added that he had talked with Commissioner Grierson regarding this issue. He said that fire attack aircraft departing to the south, ostensibly are flying over the east side of the airport; business jets also fly a relatively wider pattern when circling around to land. In addition, he added, the whole concept of the C Zone (whether it's C-1 or C-2) is that it encompasses the downwind leg of most of the aircraft that are flying at the airport. Following is additional information that Mr. Brody provided to the Commission to further explain his recommendation. In addition to having larger aircraft flying to the east, higher terrain also exists. This • heightens the sensitivity in this area. Ideally and considering airport compatibility, the better choice is to keep the subject area as a C-1, which limits the densities to large 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 2 ■ • • lots basically equivalent to the B-2. There may be some opposition to that idea. If the Commission should decide that it is just not worth the fight or not tenable to keep it as C-1, the area would just be designated as C, rather than changing it to C-2. That would leave the option, if desirable, for a property owner of a large piece of land to split their parcel into 5 -acre lots or 10 -acre lots. Commissioner Grierson mentioned that he had met with George Kammerer twice in the past month, as well as meeting individually with property owners Jon Bechtel, Pete Giampaoli, and Greg Webb. He stated that the Commission is interested in listening to Mr. Bechtel's comments to see what could be done to incorporate these comments into the final CLUP. Commissioner Grierson stated ,that he asked Mr. Bechtel, in particular, to specifically identify the property he had referred to and to submit his plan. Commissioner Grierson reflected the consensus when he asked the question, "How do .we protect something that we can't put our hands on?" Chair Rosene asked Commissioner Grierson whether the City (of Chico) had seen Mr. Bechtel's plan. Mr. Grierson affirmed that the City had not seen a plan yet. Commissioner Grierson asked whether the County had received any plan regarding the Bechtel property. Mr. Meleka responded that the staff had formally requested such documentation, through a letter sent to Mr. Kammerer. It was staff's impression that Mr. Kammerer and his client did not want to submit any documents they have at this time. To further clarify, Chair Rosene said that ALUC, through staff, had requested • that the biological studies and all other pertinent information from Jon Bechtel be submitted to ALUC so they could see the documents that Mr. Kammerer had referred to when he had spoken to the Commission. To date, ALUC and staff have not received anything. Chair Rosene commented that he lives to the northeast of the airport and is routinely overflown by larger aircraft, especially King Airs, the Redding flight school that flies the pattern, as well as the tankers. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood debated the fact that ALUC split the area on the westerly side to C-1 and C-2 and suggested that ALUC should consider the possibility of doing the same thing on the east side. Chair Rosene pointed out that the Commission had previously compromised on the west side to ,include the increased density which accommodated the land already developed, as well as the City and County's desire for increased density. Chair Rosene also commented that he had been at the City of Chico's General Plan hearings in 1994 and 1995; he related that the vicinity where the Bechtel property and surrounding area is located was only discussed as commercial development properties at that, time. Chair Rosene said that ALUC should consider an appropriate compatibility zone on the east side of the Chico Airport based on the traffic pattern. He commented that one ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 3 ■ • pattern that hadn't been mentioned previously on the east side was that of tankers that come around heading towards the north which will sometimes curl back around and travel close to the foothills, traveling at about 600-700 feet. This is another potential problem, he added, when flying over a populated area. The Commission continued its debate regarding air tankers. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan stated that the smallest diameter for a circle made by a departing air tanker is about 8000 feet. All of the departing tankers, he added, have to turn left and then turn right or they turn left and then turn left again. He suggested that the diameter be projected on the map by locating the center of the circle, drawing an 8000 -foot diameter which would represent the flight path which the tanker aircraft are forced to fly now. He also stated that it would appear that north of that circle up to about Mud Creek would be the .only area the Commission should be willing to concede. He further commented that about fifty percent of.the tanker departures turn left and then right. k Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. Mr. Meleka informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors, at its November 13 meeting, had commented on the possibility of eliminating.the C-1 and C-2 Zones, and using the C Zone designation only. • It was the consensus of the Commission to defer, a motion at'this time and.continue the discussion on this item (Comment 1) at the December.20, 2000 meeting. IV, Issue #2—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone C, West Side of Airport (Webb Homes/Greg Webb) Webb Homes has requested that 83 acres south of Sycamore Creek and north of Eaton Road (AP#007-020-123) and the land to the north, of the mentioned property and east of Hicks Lane be designated as C-2 rather than C-1 (refer to Figure 3A in the Addendum). Mr. Brody provided the following analysis. I The center of this property is situated approximately 4,000 feet laterally (southwesterly) of the extended centerline of Runway 13R -31L and 3,000 feet beyond (southeasterly) of the existing runway end. The proposed southeastward extension of the runway would reduce.the latter distance to about 1,500 feet. With the runway end in its present location, the property is roughly where small aircraft begin to turn from downwind to base when landing . on Runway 31L. Aircraft turning right after departing from Runway 13R also may overfly the ' property. The proposed runway extension probably would move the traffic pattern base leg over existing development south of Eaton Road, although the downwind leg would remain over the property in question. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 4 ■ The options with regard to this location are the same as with the issue concerning Zone C east of the airport—designate the area C-1, C-2, or an either/or combination of the two. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave the property designated as Zone C-1 pending city of Chico adoption of the airport master plan and a determination as to when a runway extension might be constructed. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There being no comments, the hearing was closed. A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and passed with Robert Harp abstaining, to leave the property designated as Zone C-1. Issue O—Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map: Zone B-2, Southeast of Airport (City of Chico/Tom Lando) With regard to delineating the boundaries of B-2 southeast of the Chico Airport, Mr. Brody stated that ALUC tried to match what the City of Chico recommended. He added that there is some validity to their comment that it would be easier to follow some sort of identifiable boundaries. In addition, Mr. Brody informed the Commission that when tankers fly down the fire track, they follow noise abatement procedures: He added that tankers stay generally north of Sycamore Creek or (as more common) fly almost over the Creek; in which case, some buffer south of the Creek may be warranted. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan confirmed that the best thing to do is to stay close to the Creek; for many of the aircraft, this is the best they can do, then they will immediately go from a left turn to a right turn. Regarding the main runway extension, Mr. Brody said that there would definitely be' a benefit to noise abatement by extending the runway to the northwest. Mr. Brody asked Commissioner Grierson about the extent of this extension. Commissioner Grierson answered that for the primary runway, Chico Municipal Airport is looking at a 2000 -foot extension to the north plus the required 1000 -foot runway safety area. Commissioner Harp said that the point of contention is coming from a piece of property owned by Pete Giampaoli. He added that the City's comment is coming from a little pie -shaped area that is proposed for B-2 designation and they want to move the line forward to Sycamore Creek. Commissioner Harp said that the land west of the subject area being debated, and currently designated B-2, is densely developed. The argument is that once the planes depart, if they fly over this area, they have already flown over this densely developed ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 5 ■ • area and once they fly over the undeveloped land, they are flying at an even higher elevation. Chair Rosene called fora 15 -minute break from 10:45 a.m., reconvening the meeting at 11:00 a.m. (During the break Mr. Brody drew a circle of approximately 8000 feet illustrating potential fire tankers' flight patterns.) Upon reconvening, Mr. Brody proceeded to explain different turns which tankers would make while flying east of the main runway. Chair Rosene asked whether the Commission liked the boundaries as they exist or whether any modification would be needed south of the Creek. Commissioner Greenwood said that there is a need to keep a buffer area south of the Creek. Mr. Brody concluded that one of the difficult things ALUC is dealing with, particularly at the Chico Airport, is different runway configurations, as well as the uncertainty of the Master Plan. Even if the Master Plan were adopted, he added, then it becomes the uncertainty of the construction date and" the land use protection necessary in the interim period. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public, to make comments on the debated item. Ms. Barbara Hennigan pointed "out to the Commission the need to•.clearly explain to the public the criteria that are being used to delineate the B-2 boundaries within the subject area and the tanker track. She added that the City of Chico has consistently operated with the Part 150 Study that removed the air tanker movements out of the base data; if the data disappear, she added, the lines could be placed anywhere. Ms. Hennigan concluded that it is the job ,of the ALUC to put these data back before considering changes to any compatibility zone boundaries. The Commission discussed the data justifying the compatibility zone boundaries as they currently stand. , Mr. Brody further explained that a variety of data were illustrated in the report including noise contours, risk contours, and the traffic pattern envelopes. Ms. Hennigan asked that the tanker tracks data be clearly. incorporated into the Plan report. The Commission concurred and ; confirmed that the subject information is included but may need to be further supplemented and updated. Chair Rosene closed the hearing. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge referred the Commission to the ,testimony from the CDF tanker chief that they can stay right over Sycamore 'Creek. He said that in the spirit of compromise, the Chico City Manager worked with the Commission to delineate mutually acceptable boundaries. These boundaries, Mr. Baldridge added, could be based on a setback from the Creek's center line as a buffer zone. Mr. • Baldridge supported his opinion by stating that houses would not be constructed right up to the edge of Sycamore Creek. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 6 m Commissioner Wallrich agreed with buffer zone along the Creek. There was a discussion about the size of the recommended buffer zone; the debate was centered on this buffer to be between 500 to 1000 feet from the Creek's center line. The Commission confirmed. their direction; through a motion by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and passed to continue the hearing on this item to the December 20 meeting. The Commission directed the Consultant and staff to incorporate the tanker tracks (in a map) as well as any other pertinent information for reconsideration by the Commission during the mentioned meeting. Issue #4—Appendix H: Local Plans Consistency Review, Town of Paradise (Town of Paradise/Al McGreehan) This is a request by the Town of Paradise to review consistency of the Paradise General Plan Noise Element relative to Compatibility Zones C and D. Mr. Brody provided the following information. ' Two issues were identified in this comment: - 1) With respect to the acceptability of the town's land use designation and the Compatibility Plan, the analysis conducted in appendix H is preliminary and was intended to assist local agencies in identifying areas'of potential conflict between their existing plans and the ALUC plan. This section does not represent a . comprehensive analysis or a formal finding by the ALUC. Furthermore; during the 180 -day time frame that agencies are given (under state law) to make their plans consistent with the Compatibility Plan, they can conduct analyses or provide information to demonstrate that their plans are in conformity with the' ALUC's plan. 2) Regarding the noise criterion, Compatibility Plan policy 4.1.3 states that "except for south of Chico Municipal Airport, the maximum CNEL considered normally acceptable for residential uses in the vicinity of the 'airports covered by this Plan is 55 dB." As indicated in Appendix H, the Paradise General Plan Noise Element policy conflicts with this criterion and should be in As a practical matter, however, the focus of the Compatibility -Plan is on the compatibility criteria listed in Table 2A and the associated maps in Chapter 3. At Paradise Skypark Airport, the projected 55 dBA CNEL contour is. essentially encompassed within Compatibility Zone B-1. The maximum residential density criterion for this zone is a 0.1 dwelling units per acre. Thus, provided that land use and zoning designations for Zone B-1 preclude future subdivision of parcels to less. than 10 acres, the fundamental consistency test will be met. Also, note that, in accordance with Policy 2.4.4(d), a single-family residence can be constructed on any legal lot of record which is already less than this size. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 Page 7 ■ • Mr. Brody's recommendation: No changes to the Compatibility Plan, are necessary. . These issues will need to be examined as part of the ALUC's consistency review of the Paradise General Plan. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public; there being no comments, the- hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and passed to make no change at this time in the proposed CLUP relative to the Town of Paradise's stated concernswhich may be reviewed at such time as their General Plan is submitted. Issue #515-7—Advisory Reviews (City of Paradise/Alan White, Mayor) The Mayor of Paradise expressed concerns regarding a clarification found in Sub - policy (3) to Policy 1.5.2(b) which he believed weakened the policy as a whole. Mr. Brody stated that the intent was that of clarification and recommended that the Sub - policy remain unchanged in the Plan document. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public; there being no comments, the hearing • was closed. Alternate Commissioner Papa dakis made a motion to retain Sub -policy (3) to Policy 1.5.2(b) in the CLUP document, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and passed. Issue #C—Nonaviation Development within Airport Property (Chico Airport Commission/Steve Lucas) Mr. Brody provided the following information. Policy 1.5.3(b) includes as a major land use action "proposed nonaviation development of airport property if such development has not already been included in an airport master plan or community general plan reviewed by the Commission." The intent is that such development be treated in the same manner as comparable projects situated off airport property. Thus, when examining an airport master plan submitted for review, the ALUC should evaluate whether any proposed nonaviation development complies with the applicable compatibility criteria. This latter point, however, is not explicitly mentioned in Section 3.2 dealing with review criteria for airport master plans. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Modify Policy 3.2.2 as indicated by the following underlined text. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 ■ Page 8 ■ • Consistency Determination—The Commission shall determine whether the proposed airport plan or development plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission shall base its determination of consistency on: (a) Findings that the forecasts and aviation -related development identified in the airport plan would not result in greater noise, overflight, and safety impacts or height restrictions on surrounding land uses than are assumed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (b) A determination that any nonaviation development proposed for within the airport boundary will be consistent with the Primary Compatibility Criteria set forth in Table 2A. Chair. Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Following comments by Ms. Henningan, the hearing was closed. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and passed confirming Mr. Brody's recommendation, with the intent that proposed development of airport property, whether it is proposed for aviation or nonaviation uses, should be evaluated with the same criteria. Issue #7—Expansion of Existing Nonconforming Uses (i.e. Schools) (City of Chico/Kim Seidler) Mr. Brody provided the following information. Policy 2.4.4(b) prohibits expansion of any nonconforming . nonresidential development. This policy is applicable to schools. However, Policy 2.4.4(f) allows exceptions for special conditions. Any such exceptions will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. The character of the existing and proposed use, the nature of the uses which surround it, the compatibility zone involved, and the specific relationship of the site `to noise contours, flight tracks, areas of risk, etc., are all factors to be considered in such reviews. The best time for these issues to be addressed would be as part of the general plan consistency review, although it, could also be done at a later date in conjunction with a specific development project. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Leave policies as proposed; address issues on a case -specific basis at time of general plan consistency reviews. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Fred Gerst commented that state law has demonstrated its support for expansion of schools -and single family houses within airport jurisdiction, regardless of consequences of noise and safety issues present, thereby effectively negating airport protection issues. • There beingno further comments the hearing was closed. g 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 9 ■ •. Commissioner Harp made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and passed for ALUC confirming Mr. Brody's recommendation and adding the wording "unless otherwise prohibited by applicable statutes." • Issue #8—Day Care Centers in Airport Zoned Areas (Audience Question) The Commission .concerns centered primarily on safety issues relative to a daycare center permitted to operate in an airport compatibility zone area. It was generally conceded that it is becoming increasingly common for corporate employers to offer onsite child care to their employees. There was general agreement that a commercial daycare center seemed inappropriate in an airport environment; however, the Commission was willing to entertain the option of onsite child care for corporate employers Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Following remarks by Ms. Henningan regarding safety and risk issues, the hearing was then closed. Mr. Brody stated his reluctance to permit daycare in the B-1 Zone. He stated that the relative risk is essentially the same, whether for children or adults. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood made a motion to allow corporate onsite daycare of employees' children in B-2 and,C Zones, as long as the intensity allowable by the Plan is.not exceeded, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Papadakis, and passed. Chair Rosene called for a 15 -minute break from about 1:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Issue #9—Infill (Audience Question) The revised infill policy 2.4.4(a) included in the Addendum delineates clearly which infill development would be allowed and, as indicated in Sub -policy (4), the intent is that these locations be determined just once, with the option of ALUC case-by-case review for possible minor exceptions. Therefore, Mr. Brody recommended no change to the infill policy at this time. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public; there being no comments, the hearing was closed. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood made a motion to retain the infill policy as it exists, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and passed. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 ■ Page 10 ■ Issue #10=Ranchaero Airport (Nina Lambert) There was general discussion regarding flight traffic patterns and take -offs relative to the proposed minor modification .of the B-1 Zone. This was related to the question: Why does the boundary for Compatibility Zone B-1 at the south end of the airport flare outward toward the east? Mr. Brody provided the' following information. The zone boundary reflects the fact that aircraft departing toward the south sometimes begin a slight turn toward the east after passing the end of the runway. Mr. Brody's recommendation: Retain the boundaries as proposed in the'Addendum. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public; there being no comments, the hearing was closed. Alternate Commissioner Greenwood made a motion to retain the current boundaries as • recommended by Mr. Brody at the Ranchaero Airport, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and passed. The Commission continued the hearing on the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to the December 20 meeting. 2. ALUC File No. A00-09 Consistency Finding for.John and Sharon Byrne — Tentative Subdivision May APN 007-260-081 & 082: Mr. Sanders presented the staff report. He stated that this item is a consistency review of an application to divide 11.1 acres into 11 parcels of (1+ acres each) for single family dwellings. The property is located at the southwest corner of Eaton Road and Godman Avenue, Chico,.south of the Chico Municipal Airport. Staff recommendation was that ALUC find the project consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport CLUP as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Fred Gerst asked whether this project, in compliance with the proposed CLUP, would fulfill the -open space criteria set forth. Mr. Sanders responded affirmatively, stating that,10% would equal roughly one acre. Chair Rosene then closed the hearing. 0 Airport Land Use Commission i Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 Page 11 ■ • It was moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to find ALUC File No. A00=09 Consistency Finding for John and Sharon Byrne - Tentative Subdivision Map (APN 007-260-081 & 082) consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999. The project was approved with the following findings. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. Although the project is not completely consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended .on -October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, the project can be found consistent with the operations of the Chico Municipal Airport based on the following findings: 1. The current CLUP would, permit 27 dwelling units. Twenty six units would be allowed on the 6.5 acres of the site located in Safety Zone 7 and 1 dwelling unit on the 4.5 acres located in the Traffic Pattern Zone. The surrounding parcel sizes are predominately less than 1 acre in size. The proposed development could be considered as infill creating 11 parcels of one acre in size. This would: a. Reduce the overall number of dwellings; b. Be more consistent with surrounding parcel sizes; C. Not significantly impair the operations at the Chico Municipal Airport; and d. Not subject any people to unreasonable noise or safety risks Associated with aircraft operations. 2. The Draft CLUP currently being considered would allow, as infill Development, the proposed lot .configuration and density. B. Approval of the, project without implementation of the requirements below would necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must be supported by new, substantial, factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 0 Page 12 ■ Overriding Findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, heresay, or -on the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body. 1: A condition shall .be required as part of the subdivision map stating that prior to the,issuance of a Building Permit, the property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting to the City of Chico 'the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and acknowledging'any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. Commissioner Causey left the meeting. G. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT The Monthly Status Report was submitted for inspection with the November 15, 2000, mailing. H. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. I. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. J. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. K. OTHER BUSINESS • Resolution of 'Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. Chair Rosene commended Mr. Fred Gerst, on. behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission, for his exceptional dedication and years of service to the Commission. • Designation of ALUC Secretary in the CLUP. There was much discussion and differing views expressed regarding the definition of the ALUC Secretary, its, function, and whether any, one person should be- designated in the Plan as the ALUC Secretary. The Director of Development Services is currently designated as the ALUC Secretary. 'Chair Rosene commented that just for a check and balance, someone needed to be assigned the responsibility of reviewing proposals that are not required to come before the • Commission. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 ■ Page 13 0 Mr. Brody noted that there are different categories of actions, some of which should be directed to the Airport Land " Use Commission. 4 He added that assigning such I responsibility for reviewing certain minor proposals to staff expedites the review process and eliminates less. significant items from coming before the ALUC. Chair Rosene suggested that instead of designating a specific person, to insert language which identifies "staff person of our choosing" or `.`staff designee."; He. further stated that he believed the Commission needed to have a degree of trust in the person assigned this responsibility: , A motion was 'made by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and passed to replace the language., in the CLUP which designates the Director of • Development, Services as the ALUC Secretary with wording that describes the Secretary as "Person or staff person so designated by `ALUC or the Director of Development Services. • Extension of Public Notice Period A motion was made by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Papadakis, and passed to extend the public notice period from November 17 to November 22, 2000, to allow additional comments with the notification advertised in the newspapers and mailed to_interested parties. - r • .'Mr. Fred Gerst asked a question• related to the CLUP, to be included in the .Comment Matrix, -regarding the implementation of the open space land requirements. 1 S . L. CLOSED SESSION , None. 1 M. ADJOURNMENT There being no fiirther business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION g 4,w� M. A. MKA, Principal Planner Minutes preptE byCheryl Spoor, Secretary I ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of November 15, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ BUTTE COUNTY AI"ORT LAND Ul,'', ,..�COMPLETE�PACKET BINDER ■ 7 County Center -Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-76011;:, REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County, Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California , Date/Time: November 15, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance.' B. Roll Call. C. Approval of the draft minutes for the September 20, 2000 meeting. D. Rescindment of Mr. Hatley's resignation from ALUC: On October 17, 2000 Mr. Art Hatley, a City Selection Committee appointee to ALUC, submitted his resignation. The City Selection Committee has been unable to meet to appoint another person. Mr. Hatley wishes to rescind his resignation to ensure the City of Oroville's representation on the Commission. E. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or a3' request sta m re additions, deletions or chap .ff 4 � es g in the Agenda order). F. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibili Plan (Addendum), continued from September 20,2000: Review recommended changes to the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan based on the comments received' to date.- Accept public testimony on the recommended changes. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public -use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. 2. ALUC File No. A00-09 Consistency Finding for John and Sharon Byrne - proposed. Tentative Subdivision Map APN 007-260-081 & 082• An application to divide 11.1 acres into 11 parcels of 1+ acres each. The property is located at the southwest corner of Eaton Road and Godman Avenue,'Chico, south of the Chico Municipal. Airport. G. Monthly Status Report. • H. Committee Appointments: I. Correspondence. and Commission Announcements. sAirport Land Use Commission ArSeptember 20, 2000 Agenda Page 1 v J. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented • if it is not listed on the agenda.) K. Other Business: • Resolution of Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. L. Closed Session - None. M. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction. of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. • 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. . This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. NAirport Land, Use Commission ArSeptember 20, 2000 Agenda &Page 2 • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of October 19; 2000, Special Meeting A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . B. ROLL CALL Roll Call was conducted by asking each jurisdictional body to. introduce themselves to the collective body. ATTENDEES: Board of Supervisors Town of Paradise Jane DolanAlan White; Mayor . . R. J. Beeler Debbie Presson : Mary Ann. Houx Al McGreehan, Community Development Director Curt Josiassen Absent: Steve Lambert Fred C. Davis Dan Wentland John Blacklock, CAO C. L. Lew Hubb Marion Reeves, Clerk of the Board Airport Land Use Commission City of Oroville Norm Rosene Art Hatley Nina Lambert • Joe Spada Jim Causey. Dr. Al Koslin Robert Harp Karolyn Fairbanks Donald Wallrich Absent: Gordon Andoe, Mayor Art Hatley . Gary Alt Absent: Bob Grierson Dan Pillus Dr: Chester Ward Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services City of Chico M. A. Meleka; Principal Planner Steve Bertagna, Mayor, Cheryl Spoor,.. Secretary I Dan.Herbert Ken Brody, SMA Consultant Coleen Jarvis Laura Webster, PMC Consultant Maureen Kirk Sheryl Lange Chico Airport Commission Tom Lando, City Manager Allen Sherwood Kim Seidler, Planning Director Georgie Bellin Absent: David Guzzetti Al Silva Rick Keene . Wendy Coggins Steve Lucas • • C. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING Joint Meeting to hold a workshop to present the 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, Chico City Council, Paradise Town Council, and Oroville City Council: Presentation by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen Associates of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum. The proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum contain compatibility criteria and compatibility. zones proposed for.each of the County's public use airports, which apply to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchaero Airport. The purpose of the workshop is strictly to provide information to local legislative bodies. No action regarding the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will occur. Members of the public will be invited to make comments following the consultant's presentation and the questions/comments of the legislative bodies. Norman Rosene, Chairman of the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, convened the meeting at 6:07 p.m. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Chair Rosene welcomed attendees to the Butte. County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan presentation. He encouraged input and participation in discussing the Plan by inviting questions from elected officials after the presentation, and said this would be followed by comments from the. public. He added that this is the second phase of public meetings in compliance with State -mandated requirements. These involve consultation with affected agencies and public participation in the planning process: Chair Rosene introduced Shutt. Moen Consultant, Keri Brody, presenter. Mr. Brody provided an electronic presentation of the Proposed Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and its process. He stated that it is the intent of the ALUC to involve all affected. parties in the -planning process of this proposed Plan to address the issues in a consistent and equitable manner. In formulating the Plan,_ issues considered include noise, safety (addressed in terms of risk), airspace protection, and overflight.. He added 'that the finalized Plan would also incorporate anticipated growth or changes in the next 20 years. (Plan materials had been distributed prior to this meeting for review by representatives of each jurisdiction and candidates. Additional materials were made available for review at this joint meeting.) Mr. Brody related the history of .the Draft Plan that has been in process for the past two years and is anticipated to be nearing finalization. He added that the Plan includes two types of policies; these are Procedural, which set forth direction on how ALUC handles its functions, and Compatibility. policies. The consultant reviewed ALUC authority/powers and its functions established by State law. ALUC is primarily responsible for preparing and drafting a compatibility plan, as well as reviewing proposed land use development actions, among other related responsibilities. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting ■ Page 2 ■ Mr. Brody identified State -imposed limitations to ALUC powers. ALUCs have no power over:. 1. Existing land developments, even if the use is.incompatible with current use; 2. Operations at the airport; and . 3. The ability and responsibility of each jurisdiction to implement its own plan. To promote airport compatibility, this Plan will update'and consolidate the existing Plans, which date back to 1978-1988. The finalized Compatibility Plan will lay a foundation for each airport to follow. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementation based on the finalized Plan, as well as the General Plan. consistency requirement. It is not required that identical implementation is carried out by each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions may. amend their individual general. plans according to the procedure outlined in the finalized Compatibility Plan. A map was displayed showing noise contours and the flight track envelope for the Chico Municipal Airport. The map also. illustrated risk gradient contours—to show the highest concentration of accidents—used in assessing risk factors. for zone placement. Other maps were also available for review at the meeting. In adopting a Plan, Mr. Brody stated that individual jurisdictions may choose from the following options: 1) Include the criteria in detail; 2) Adopt criteria by reference; 3) Refer all major actions to ALUC; or 4) Combination of the three options listed above. Mr. Brody concluded his presentation. Elected officials, candidates, and staff were invited to ask questions of Mr. Brody. The floor was then opened to public questions. QUESTION/ANSWER Q: There is a substantial difference in the airport compatibility maps; what prompted you to.revise those maps?.- A: aps?. A: A lot of input, not only by the ALUC, but frankly by the public and agencies. There were comments from the City of Chico staff and in response, we came up with a compromise that we thought would meet the needs of both the ALUC (the compatibility issues) and the development needs around the City of Chico. It really was a considerable effort to come to some middle ground. Q: (Tom Lando, City of Chico) Mr. Lando complimented ALUC on its efforts and cooperation and then raised questions on 4 points: 1. East side and West side of Chico Airport. 2. Natural boundaries regarding. Sycamore Creek, South of the airport. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting ■ Page 3 ■ • • 3. Property N. of Eaton Rd., S of Sycamore Creek. (Tom mentioned. he had previously. discussed this issue with Bob Grierson.) 4.. Bidwell Ranch property is shown on the map in an undeveloped state. He stated that the Chico City Council unanimously voted to pursue options and explore plans to develop this property and he asked that this intention go on record. A: I .have seen those comments. I will be working with staff, the ALUC, and the airport manager, whose input we definitely would like, to see what response would be appropriate. Q: (Chico Airport Commission) - - - -- - Question about whether a daycare. center would be.allowed in the "C" zone. A: That is probably the way the policy is written right now. This issue has come up in some other counties where we have worked. We have been trying to come up with a compromise that would avoid the large commercial daycare facilities, but would allow something within an industrial area. We might need to look at that as well. Q: Any more meetings of this type planned? A: Not of this magnitude, but obviously the ALUC will continue to deliberate on.this Plan. There is a written comment period until November 17`h and the ALUC meeting will be before that date. Actually there would be an opportunity both at the ALUC meeting and for a few days afterward for. additional comments: Then the intent would be to come up with a final set of proposals. We are targeting the ALUC's December meeting for adoption. Q: (Alan White, Mayor, Paradise) Mr. White referred to Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2, Subsection 'B. He commented that the referenced section was a slight restating of the first recommendation which not only seemed unnecessary to restate, but also as stated, tended to weaken the policy as a whole. He believed that jurisdictions, at times, might use this subsection as a "backdoor" in opposition to ALUC recommendations and policies. A:.. We thought that. we were .staying fairly consistent and. were. just trying to clarify it, not to . weaken it. A lot of that is very closely based upon State law and some issues there. We can take a further look at that. Q: (Kim Seidler, City of Chico) In the Chico area, a lot of uses in that area would become non -conforming for children's schools/public schools. Would public schools In that area be able to expand to accommodate a change in the population? A: In general, the intent would be that if the use is a non -conforming use, that it is judged to be incompatible, then it would not be expanded. That is the general thrust of the Plan. There are some circumstances where this is not practical and it is something that really has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. In another county, we had a situation in which a hospital was located less than a mile from the end of the runway and it wanted the opportunity to expand. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 0 Page 4 • Even though we thought it was not the ideal answer, we came up with a compromise allowing some expansion, but only on a limited scale. It is something that really has to be looked at in those kinds of situations on a case-by-case basis. I think the overall policy still should apply which is to say that is not the intent. It may not be something that can be addressed right now in this Plan. It may be something that, at a later date, would have to involve a change in the Plan. There are also provisions in the Plan that if the ALUC reviews a particular action and feels that it has its own overriding circumstances, special conditions apply in which it can make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Q: (Jane Dolan, Board of Supervisors). - - Are the maps being used current?. A: County staff prepared these. I believe these are the latest. Q: (Jane Dolan, Board of Supervisors) Ms. Dolan requested March & September maps to see changes. A: The staff has those. Maps are available at the Butte Co. Planning office—the ones we had for the workshop earlier this year just after the Plan came out. We also have some large maps we had done at that time. In addition, we have some overhead projection slides and we do have an overhead projector here. Q: (Jane Dolan, Board. of Supervisors) Did you or the Commission make some policy or determination about the current Airport Master Plan regarding projections? A: There is information in the background chapters on each of the airports ---chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7, one for each of the airports—which differs with regard to each airport. With respect to Chico, because they are in the midst of a planning process, we have coordinated with their consultants and this Plan is based upon what is anticipated to be in the Chico Master Plan. If, indeed, something at the last minute were to change in terms of their runway configuration, we do have a policy already included in this Plan which says we need to go back and look to see whether that necessitates a modification of the Plan. 4n.terms of the work they. have been doing in environmental analysis, we are parallel to that. With regard to Oroville, their last Master Plan was eight years ago or so. They do not have any major revisions that will change the configuration of the airport. We are extrapolating their activity levels and so on. The two private airports have layout plan drawings and their expectations of their use, but they have no master plans. Q: What is the proposed policy on infill? A: There .is a specific policy in the Plan for infill. It is fairly limited in terms of how or why. One of the suggestions that we would have is that, as part of the General Plan consistency process, the County and cities would submit to the ALUC all the parcels that they think the infill policy should apply to and everybody agrees on it right there. Our concern has been that infill does not start to become expansion. If you infill one parcel and that allows the next one 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 0 Page 5 ■ to be infilled and so forth. We want it to be looked at one time and then that becomes the base line status. There are some obvious locations, but we have not attempted, in our process, . to go in and map those in a concerted fashion. . Q: Is there a timeline for us to define what we want as infill? A: The intent is that it be done in conjunction with the whole process of making the General Plan consistent with the ALUC Plan. State law says that it is supposed to happen within 180 days after the ALUC adopts its Plan. I do not think anyone would be "holding the feet to the fire" in the individual jurisdictions to that exact date as long as there was progress being made, but in terms of the infill and intensity, it is part of that process. Q: Is there something in this process that would trigger that action? A: There is actually (included in the Addendum) a checklist of all the things that need to be done for a general plan to become consistent. We are going to add that to the Plan. Typically, the basic mechanism that we have used in other counties where plans have been adopted is that* once the final report is printed, it is sent out to each of the jurisdictions on an official basis and stated that under a section of State law, they now. have 180 days within which they are expected to modify their plan. Q: Is there a subsequent process? A: To help facilitate that process, one of the appendices in the original March draft Plan lists, at least from our initial review, where there were conflicts. In doing so, we identified where the general plan does not address the issue at all. Another option might be—as some jurisdictions have done—to simply adopt this Plan by reference and go from there. Another common one, and one we think is a real good idea -and we are working on in another county—is actually to work on a "combining zone ordinance" that would be the basic tool for local implementation of the Plana There are different ways it can be done and we are hopeful that there would be a close working relationship, especially at the staff level and also between the elected officials and the ALUC. Q: (Fred C. Davis, Board of Supervisors) He mentioned future plans anticipated for Sky West, a 50 -passenger jet. Has this been taken into consideration? A: There is some consideration for that, consistent with what the ongoing planning is for the Chico Master Plan. Again, it comes. back to what is anticipated to be in the Chico Master Plan. We used the same noise consultant for both projects. Q: Has there been any assumption considered for any type of commercial service for the Oroville Airport in the proposed CLUP? A: There is no indication within the Oroville Airport Master Plan at the present time that they would have any type of commercial service and since that is not an adopted City policy, we ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 0 Page 6 ■ are somewhat precluded from having that as a factor within this Plan. We have had to take the same fundamental role and assumptions which say that there could be more of what there is now, but there would not be something different. With respect to Oroville, no, there is no. assumption of any type of commercial service there. Q: (Kim Seidler—City of Chico Planning Director) What is the concept for the intensity, people per acre? Do you have any idea how well this works in other jurisdictions that have the same kind of a concept? A: It varies, some jurisdictions have felt quite comfortable working with that. It is kind of an odd measure, it is not something that is used elsewhere in planning, but it is common statewide. in terms of looking at risk. It is kind of the common denominator for non-residential uses, other than special uses like schools and hospitals and so forth. Basically, what we are saying is if there are 50 people in .the building, we really do not care whether it is a retail building or an office building, there are 50 people 'at risk, so that is how that measure has come about. Yet we recognize that when it gets down to the local level and implementation, it is a little bit harder. There is some suggestion, again, in one of the appendices to the Plan, that you can bracket that number at one end by looking at what your local parking requirements are and— at the other end—using the .building code which usually ends up with a much higher use in most cases. In another county, we had that same question come up. We looked at a couple of examples. For one use we calculated both, based on parking and the building code, and 'it was very.similar.. Then we looked at something like a furniture store, the UBC says that you have one person for 30 square feet and that is not going to happen in that type of use. What that particular jurisdiction has proposed—and we anticipate the ALUC, agreeing to—is a measure based on parking requirements. They had a fairly .defined list of the number of parking places required for different uses and we said for most uses we would say 1.5 people per car and for a few uses, 2 people per car. That would be the basic measure used in most cases. I do not recall for the City of Chico—how detailed their parking ordinance is—but this is one alternative mechanism that can be used. There are ways of making it more "user friendly" within an individual jurisdiction which, again, is part of the whole consistency process, as I said earlier. It does not have to be the same as what the ALUC uses, as long as it is agreed upon and this meets the same intent of what the Compatibility Plan has. Q: (Kim Seidler—City of Chico Planning Director) Do you see this agreement occurring within the 180 days? A: That is the intent. I think realistically with the four different jurisdictions, even the ALUC is not going to be able to deal with all of them in quite that timeframe. I think it is more important that there is progress being made than the exact letter of the law be met, and no one 'is going to challenge that. Q: (Woman, Chico) Questions regarding the infill criteria. A: We are trying to compare with other uses, not just residential. For example, there might be • one row of houses and 100 feet away there might be open land and so on. We are trying to 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting ■ Page 7 ■ take the general character of the surrounding uses rather than what is next door: That is the intent there. Also, 300' is rattier common for notification and other things in planning. Q: (Same Woman, Chico) Are these infill criteria negotiable? A: One of the things to be done is to use those criteria first of all and see what it provides in terms of infill. GIS capabilities are one of the ways to do that. ,Then, if it is not a workable situation sometimes it is taken to another step, either as part of the General Plan consistency or another resolution. Right now we know that there are some areas where infill applies. -Part of the issue comes down to how to define "existing use" and there has been a lot of debate over that in the last six months since this Plan came out. We have modified it somewhat in the Addendum, not fully to the extent that the Chico staff had suggested, but one that we think is on solid ground, nonetheless. Q: How far into the future did you project uses of airports? A: Our intent, based on the law, is to have a twenty-year time frame. We extrapolated the forecast for the activity levels but only within the realm of the type of use that is already anticipated for that airport in the adopted Master Plan. As I was responding earlier in the case of Oroville, there is nothing in any Oroville plan that we are aware of, certainly not in the Master Plan, that says that there will be commercial service there. So, we have not projected commercial services there. Q: Question related to the interrelationship between modifying an airport master plan and an adopted CLUP. A: If the City were to establish policy either through an amendment of its Master Plan or some other official City Resolution stating that they see a potential for different types of activity, then the ALUC would have to modify its Plan or consider modifying its Plan to match that. The State is quite explicit that the ALUC Plan has to be based on the adopted Master Plan. If it is not in your master plan, even though it has come up and some ALUC members would like to take into- account other things like different instrument..approaches or, whatever, we are saying that is going, beyond what we think is the intent of the law. City policy could change that and then the ALUC would take a. look at it. Q: Applying logic, have the uses of commercial buildings been taken into consideration? For example, commercial businesses keep specific day hours during the week and not on the weekends, making it the highest use during the daytime. . A: There are a couple of things. First, in setting the intensity criteria (the number of people per acre) there are different ways of approaching it. We have seen some ALUCs that want to know the average over a 24-hour period so if there are 150 people for eight hours and none for the other 16 hours, that is only 50 people per acre. The approach we have taken in this Plan is that we are looking at the maximum use. It is not that we could not use the other numbers but then, if we were, we would probably change what the numbers are in the criteria. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 0 Page 8 ■ We tried to match the maximum typical use at any time for which the facility was designed. We make exceptions for special uses like an airshow or other things like that. However, in general, we are not looking at the super peak use. There are similar concepts used"in terms of traffic flow, parking, and other things. We ask,"what is the typical maximum use of this facility?" and that is what our criteria are comparing against. Q: Would you say that this Plan encourages commercial use in the outer zone when the airport is at its highest use, when people are not home? A: Conflicts with residential uses occur often on the weekends when an airport is busy and at a higher usage. In general, especially close , to the airport, we do not like the idea -of "residential" and try to keep it at a minimum. We start looking at this unusual set of criteria in the traffic pattern. Q: Are there limitations placed on residential? A: In the ``C" zone, in 'particular, there are limitations. In the "D',' zone, there are no limitations on residential. Within the traffic pattern, what we are saying in terms of residential, is that we do not want.'a lot of 1 -acre ranchettes. There would be a lot of people, but still low ambient noise levels. _ We would really rather either keep it very, low like 5 -acre parcels, rural kinds of use, or we would rather have urban --uses where people are closer together. Also, there are less outdoor activities, perhaps because there are apartments. The general idea where safety is not a real factor but noise is, is to go one way or the other and not in between. That is why our "C" zone had a couple of variations in it. In terms of the non-residential uses, other than schools we have a graduated set of standards in which we can have !ower intensities close -in and then as you get farther out, many uses other than major shopping centers and so forth, can be consistent with a graduated set of standards. Q: (Tom Parilo, But County, Director of Development Services) Tom asked Ken Brody to explain the process of overrides. A: We are working on the assumption that we will reach a consensus that has been our thrust from "day one'.''..on, this project. Nevertheless; there -is the .provision for. an override by individual jurisdictions. As I mentioned, an override requires a M vote of the elected officials of the jurisdiction after first holding a public hearing and after adopting very explicit findings as to why their actions are consistent with the requirements of the State law. The findings must be "spelled -out" and related to the specific issues that I have mentioned regarding health, safety, and welfare. The 1993 edition of the State handbook delineates the findings process. Mr. Brody stressed the importance of adequacy of findings, saying that there have been lawsuits not just here but elsewhere based on the adequacy of findings, adding that this is a key element to the override process. Q: (Kim Seidler—City of Chico Planning Director) We have been very gratified by the response of the ALUC and at the same timewe anticipate getting to the point where a Plan is adopted that would not be subject to overrides. That will take some time to go through the process. Right now we are 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 0 Page 9 ■ looking at 30 additional days for review by the various jurisdictions. What is the timing and point of view of ALUC at this point? Do you anticipate that adoption of the Plan will go very quickly after the comment period? If we get into a more protracted negotiation on some of these issues, will time be allowed for. this to happen? What is ALUC's concept of timing? . A: I might need to turn that back over to staff of the ALUC. I know that there was the hope, at least, that it could proceed fairly rapidly at this point and maybe we could adopt the Plan in a couple. of months. If there are still some very important issues that are going to take longer, then it may take longer. We do not want it to go on indefinitely. You know it has been a two- year process already, an expensive one. On the other hand, and this is a more personal view rather than representing the ALUC, we want'it to come out right. If that means that there is the opportunity for. coming to an agreement with a little more time, that is fine. If we ultimately get to a point that we are just going to have to agree to disagree, then that is a situation in which we will proceed with adoption and, at least for some particular facets of the Plan, local jurisdictions might have to proceed with the override. Q: Question related to whether ALUC has authority over development within an airport property. A: Yes and no. By State law, the ALUC must review the Airport Master Plan; it' is equivalent to the general plan, in terms of the review process. If the ALUC has reviewed the master plan And says, "yes, this is consistent with our Plan," then as long as any future development you do on the airport is consistent with your master plan, it is not subject to additional review by the ALUC. In other words, if you are trying to protect your own airport, it is a little incongruous to say that "We are going to put a development on our airport property because it is our property, but if this were private property, it would not be allowed." If you are trying to protect your airport from incompatible uses, then you need to play by the same rules. The master plan is the overriding consideration first of all. If it is in the master plan, then it is covered there. Q: If expansion was considered, at a later date, following the adoption of the CLUP, then what criteria will the-ALUC use? It forces us to go to. an extra level. ..Our. concern is that it is a grey area. A: We may have to tighten up the language, but.the basic intent is that such uses are to be treated similarly. If it is a non -aviation use, it should be looked at it in the same manner whether you are inside the airport property 'or. you are outside. 'It is just a different vehicle by which you look at it. In one case, it is the master plan, and in the other case it is the general plan; otherwise, at least at a fundamental level, they are to be treated similarly. PUBLIC COMMENTS ' Q: (George Kammerer, Atty.) 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting ■ Page 10 ■ Mr. Kammerer asked that. the. Public Utilities Code limitation of one amendment per • calendar year be addressed. He then added, "Is that a driving factor in wanting to get the Plan _adopted?" A: I do not know whether it is necessarily a driving factor. 'Certainly, if the Plan were to be. adopted now, then it allows the next year in which to consider the various other inputs that the cities go through in their general plan review process. I suspect that regardless of whether it is this year or next year, or the year after, that some modification to the Plan may be mutually agreed to be necessary. We are starting to draw to the end in terms of funding, not that it can not be extended. This project is funded through the State with a grant'agreement and although we do not want that to stand in the way of getting the Plan developed, it would be desirable to get it wrapped up. But basically, what you are alluding to is the provision in State law that says the ALUC can' amend its Plan only once per calendar year. The way that it ,is generally interpreted is that you can amend it once for Chico's Plan and once for Oroville's Plan. That is still two separate airports so you can do them separately. But in terms of the countywide policies, there could only be one change within a,calendar year. Q: (George Kammerer, Atty.) Is the grant funding the reason why the ALUC is "rushing the process?".. A: You would have to individually ask them. J am saying I think that is a .,factor, but not necessarily the absolute deciding factor. If .you need more time; you -can take it, .but not to extend things out.. I think there has to be some very strong reason why some additional time • is necessary. . , Chair Rosene added, "The ALUC is more concerned about doing it right than rushing -to conclude the Plan adoption process," mentioning that it.has already been a two-year process. FINAL REMARKS With no further questions or comments-, Ken Brody, Shutt -Moen Consultant, concluded his remarks, stating that he would be available to meet with anyone to answer questions following the meeting. D. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. • AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 0 A. MEIXKA, Principal Planner I., Minutes prepared by Cheryl Spoor, Secretary I ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of October 19, 2000, Special Meeting 8 Page I I ■ I � COMPLETE PACKET I� . BINDER i BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ . SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION' Location: Chico Area Recreation District Community Center 545 Vallombrosa, Chico, California Date/Time: October 19, 2000 - 6:00 p.m. AGENDA 1 A. Opening Statement by ALUC Chair. B. Business Items: ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Joint Meeting to hold a workshop to present the 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, Chico City Council, Paradise Town Council, and Oroville City Council: Presentation by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen Associates of the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum. The proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Addendum contain compatibility criteria and compatibility zones proposed for each of the County's public use airports, which .. applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchaero Airport. The purpose of the workshop is strictly to provide information to local legislative bodies and no action regarding the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will occur. Members of the public will"be invited to make comments following the consultant's presentation and the questions/comments of the legislative bodies. C. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-6572 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative'to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. Airport Land Use Commission ° October 19, 2000 Agenda ff Page 1 e -0-1 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785. ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building; Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: September 20, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. C. Approval of the draft minutes for the August 16, 2000 meeting. D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order). E. Business Items: ) ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Adendum), continued from July 19, 2000: Review recommended changes to the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan made at the July 19, 2000 meeting. Accept public testimony on the recommended changes. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the:County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. 2. ALUC File No A00-05 Consistency Finding for Butte County Department of Development Services - proposed General Plan Amendment to the Agricultural Element and Zoning Code Amendment adopting new agricultural zones Continued open from August 16, 2000: This is an amendment to sections of the Agricultural Element together with the Land Use Element including the Orchard and Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands designations. The application also includes new agricultural zones (Intensive Agriculture 10 - acre minimum through 160 -acre, IA -10 through IA -160) to be applied to lands designated Orchard and Field Crops. l 3. ALUC File No A00-07 Consistency Finding for Steve Schuster - General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 014, and 015: Consistency review of a request to amend the North Chico Specific Plan to relocate a 5 acre neighborhood park and concurrent review of a revised tentative subdivision map application to create 30 parcels on approximately 44 acres. The parcels range in size from 1.0 ArAirport Land Use Commission -September 20, 2000Agenda &Page I to 1.3 acres. The property is located on the east side of Garner Lane, immediately north of Keefer Slough, northwest of the Chico Municipal Airport. !� 4. ALUC File No. A00=08 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico Draft Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance: The draft ordinance contains zoning regulations and development standards for wireless communications facilities located within the incorporated limits of the City of Chico. F. Monthly Status Report. G. Committee Appointments. H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Other Business: • Resolution of Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. K. Closed Session - None. L. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection'. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. aAirport Land Use Commission • September 20, 2000 Agenda z Page 2 m BUTTE COUNTY. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of September 20, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lambert, Wallrich, Grierson, Causey, Harp, Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and Chair Rosene Absent: :.Commissioner Hatley. . Others Present: M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner JillBroderson, Administrative Services Assistant Thomas A. Parilo, Director of Development Services Alternate Commissioner B_ aldridge Alternate Commission Papadakis Kim.Siedler, City.of Chico .C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 16,_2000 Commissioner Grierson suggested that the word "invited" on page 7, line 9, should read "informed". It was moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of August 16, 2000, as corrected. . D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Causey, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to accept the Agenda, as presented. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC BEARINGS 1. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Addendum). Continued from July 19, 2000. Commissioner Lambert stepped down from her position with the Commission and sat in the audience; Mr. Papadakis took his seat with the Commission as the Alternate Commissioner. ' Mr. Meleka said that Ken Brody would not be attending today's meeting and that Ms. Laura Webster would be presenting the highlight of,the major changes in the addendum, which 10 includes items on which the Commission reached a consensus direction at their meeting of July 19, 2000. He also stated that staff prepared presentation size maps which illustrate the major modifications per the Commission's, direction during their meeting of July 19, 2000. 0 • Ms. Webster said at the July meeting, the. Commission reviewed public comments and recommendations from the sub -committees regarding potential modifications to the Plan. During this meeting, the Commission provided direction .to address these comments. She said that the ALUC direction was summarized in a matrix included in the packet. Ms. Webster stated that of the 28 items that were discussed, the Commission. reached a consensus on approximately 22 of them. She added that changes reflected in the addendum before the Commission are consistent with the intent of the preliminary language that was presented in the originally issued matrix. Ms. Webster listed examples of the primary issue areas where the Commission achieved consensus as follows: Splitting Zone C into sub -zones C-1 and C-2. Zone C-1 would indicate areas where only the low density option of one unit per five acres would be applied. The C-2 option would indicate locations where the higher density options of at least four dwelling units per acre would be applied. Ms. Webster stated that the original plan indicated five units or more and the City of Chico' made a request relative -to reducing the amount to four units; the Commission agreed. She said that areas where the Commission has chosen to leave the application of either density option up to the local jurisdiction are indicated with the letter C. 2. The Commission made a number of similar modifications to the compatibility map • for Oroville. Ms. Webster stated that Zone C was applied to the entire area, rather than specifying individual locations for either option. The compatibility zones' boundaries were .also adjusted to follow natural and man-made features as requested by the City. n U Ms. Webster stated that similar modifications were also made to Ranchaero. She said the modifications to the . map were made based primarily upon recommendations from the ALUC Boundaries/Densities Sub -committee. 4. Appendix D which identifies additional compatibility criteria and guidelines for specific land uses should be considered as examples or a guide in the plan, rather than an adopted policy: Ms. Webster said that the exhibit was modified to incorporate some of the recommendations that were made by ALUC sub -committee members. Parking lots should not be included in calculations of usable open space areas because of dangers presented by typical features, such as large trees, light poles, etc. Ms. Webster said that the Commission discussed a few issues where they had a divided opinion or agreed to a general concept but requested that the consultant develop appropriate language. These issues are as follows: ■ Airport Land Use Commission n! Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ 1. Definition of existing land uses: Ms. Webster said that some members of the . Commission wanted to include areas that are subject to assessment districts and lands where developers had constructed improvements to be incorporated in the list of examples of existing land uses. She said that Shutt -Moen did additional research and found that in some instances this may be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. However, the consultant did not feel it was the best idea, so he suggested that these circumstances not be included in the standard list, but they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 2. Infill policies: Ms. Webster said that revisions have been included in the addendum to accomplish the Commission's goal of allowing higher residential densities on smaller infill parcels and also encouraging affected jurisdictions to provide maps where infill policies would be applied. 3. Clustering: Ms. Webster said that the Commission agreed to retain clustering as an option within the plan but requested additional language to clarify the clustering definitions, as well as objectives. She stated that Shutt -Moen incorporated this information within the addendum. 4. Avigation Easements: Ms. Webster said that the Commission seemed to agree that language should be added to the avigation easement to incorporate a waiver of the right to sue the airport, as one of the easement provisions. She stated that this was included in the addendum and also in Appendix F-2. Ms. Webster said that there was some disagreement regarding where avigation easements vs. deed notices and buyer awareness measures should be applied. She said that the draft plan had proposed that avigation easements be required in compatibility zones A and B-1, as well as in the height review overlay zone. She added that the deed notices were suggested in B-2 and C; buyer awareness measures were suggested in zone D. Ms. Webster said that some Commissioners felt that avigation easements should be required in zones A through C and that deed notices would be appropriate in zone D; there was no real clear consensus. In the addendum, Shutt -Moen continues to recommend that the requirements for avigation easement remain as presented in the original Draft Plan. 5. General Plan Consistency: Ms. Webster said that through discussions at workshops and other meetings, it has become clear that demonstrating general plan consistency and zoning compliance with the compatibility plan (after adoption) is going to be a very complex task. Shutt -Moen has developed a checklist that would be incorporated as Appendix H-1, which was included in the Commission's packet. She said that this appendix would be intended to serve as a guide for both the affected jurisdictions and the ALUC. 6. Environmental document: Ms. Webster said that Shutt -Moen felt the primary issue which could result in a potentially significant impact is the loss of housing units resulting from the plan depending on which compatibility criteria the Commission ultimately chooses. She stated that Shutt -Moen provided a quantitative analysis of this issue in the Initial Study and that a negative declaration is recommended as the • appropriate environmental documentation for the project. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ • In closing, Ms. Webster recommended the Commission's concurrence regarding the changes included in the addendum and.the environmental documentation. She stated that a new public review period.of 30 days for both documents is also recommended. . Chairman Rosene asked when the public review period would begin. ' Mr. Meleka said within a week to 1.O 'days. There was a brief discussion regarding the public comment period. Mr. Meleka said that a joint meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, October 19,'2000. He also said that the consultant will.be.presenting and explaining the major components of the plan. Chairman Rosene asked the Commission about. their preference regarding'the duration and start of the comment period. Commissioner Wallrich'agreed with. Commissioner Grierson in having the public comment period start after the joint -meeting had taken place. Chairman Rosene asked whether the public comment period could start before the joint meeting but. run for another 30 days after the joint meeting? Mr. Meleka agreed. He also reminded the Commission that there was already a 30 -day • comment period that previously took place. . • h It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich and unanimously carried to start the public comment period 15 days before the joint'meeting i on Thursday, October 19, 2000, and extend to 30 days after. Chairman Rosene' asked ;each Commissioner to state their comments, if any, on the addendum." Alternate Commission Papadakis asked a question concerning development on airport ,.property. Ms. Webster said that this issue is still not clear, butin general, the consensus is if development is on airport property, the ALUC does not have jurisdiction. Chairman Rosene asked Ms. Webster if this issue could specifically be clarified by Mr. Brody. M Chairman Rosene noted that Commissioner Causey had no comments. Chairman Rosene had the following comments: ■ Suggested, that the consultant define the sentence at the top of Page 4, by adding • "within the airport compatibility area ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 0 Page 4 ■ • ■ Page 2-15, Table 2A, No. 14, the acres should be referenced as "5.0" and not "4.0". ■ Page H-12 under Buyer .Awareness Measures, rather than using the word "encourages" he suggested using stronger language and making it a requirement. Chairman Rosene noted that Commission Wallrich had no comments. Commissioner Grierson referenced Table 2A on.page 2-14 and Page D-2 and compared wording under the B-2 zones and asked if it was going to be 5.0 acres or 4.9 acres? Commissioner Greenwood said the additional area that was deleted should be added back on the westerly corner of the B-2 zone in the Oroville Compatibility Map. Commissioner Greenwood also questioned the B-2 zone on the easterly side of the airport where the two extensions come in. After discussion, Mr. Meleka clarified the triangular area being restored to Zone C. Chairman Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Rainy Coy, employee of Webb Homes, questioned why there was a density of 5 -acre minimum vs. a 4 -unit per acre parcel designated to Mr. Webb's property (north of Eaton Road). • Chairman Rosene said that it relates to the flight patterns. Commissioner Grierson gave a further explanation about how it relates to these patterns. Mr. George Kammerer said, on behalf of his clients, they are supportive of the addition of the C-2 designation on the west side of Chico airport and that this is evidence of good faith and accommodation by ALUC to take into account some'of his clients' interest and come up with a reasonable compromise. Mr. Kammerer said that he had two additional changes that he felt were very important and should be made the plan. Mr. Kammerer said that this first issue pertained to the C designation south area of the runway and that it should be an extension of the C-2 zone. He also added that ALUC has discussed using natural boundary lines for determining boundaries between the different compatibility zones. Therefore, he suggested that the B-2 zone boundaries follow the natural boundary line of Sycamore Creek. He also suggested that a footnote be included which acknowledges that there will be open space preservation. Commissioner Grierson asked Mr. Kammerer if he was talking about the Bidwell Ranch property. Mr. Kammerer said that the Bidwell Ranch property is on the north side, but the area on the south side is all controlled by other private development partnerships. Commissioner Grierson asked Mr. Kammerer if only the property boundary line for Bidwell Ranch would be the boundary line. • ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ Mr. Kammerer said he felt the natural boundary line should be Sycamore Creek since it is • the property boundary and natural feature. Commissioner Grierson clarified with Mr. Kammerer whether he would like to see Area C have the ability to go as high as. C-2., Mr. Kammerer said he would like to see the area formally designated as C-2, which he feels represents reality in the area. Mr. Kammerer asked if the Commission would be willing to move the boundary line. Chairman Roserie answered "no" because of the'tanker corridor. Mr. Kammerer asked if the Commission could create a C-2 zone on the easterly side, using Mudd Creek as a boundary, similar to the west side. There was a discussion about the property owned by Mr. John Bechtel. Mr. John Bechtel, owner of a large landholding east of the Chico Airport, said the C-1 zone penalizes him and would prefer this property including within the C-2 zone. Mr. Kammerer noted that C zone on the east "side of the airport is wider than the C zone on the west side, and felt that this width is an issue. Chairman Rosene said the reason for a wider C zone on the east side and C-1 designation • is because the traffic *pattern on the east side of Chico Municipal Airport, in general, for larger, heavier, and faster aircraft requiring a wider pattern. Mr. Kammerer stated that Mr. Bechtel's property development proposal—for land currently in the County—had been reflected in the City's General Plan as far as the extension of the sphere of influence. In response to Alternate Commissioner Papadakis' inquiry, Mr. Kammerer further commented that it was the intention of Mr. Bechtel to annex the property to the City of Chico. Mr. Kim Seidler,, City of Chico Planning Director, said that the City would provide comments to the Commission from their perspective on what has been proposed by Mr. Bechtel and Mr. Kammerer. Chairman Rosene said that Mr. Seidler's offer would be a big help to the Commission. Mrs. Nina Lambert, as a private citizen, said that her properties are in the.B-1 and B-2 zones and noted that the Commission has fanned the north end of Ranchero to the west, but the south end has not been fanned to the west and asked if it is possible to make the turns westerly rather than easterly, After a discussion on the B-1 and B-2 zones, Chairman Rosene asked Ms. Webster to ask the consultant to consider this issue along with the other comments. • The hearing was closed to the public. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 6 ■ • Chairman Rosene directed staff to incorporate only the Commissioners's comments made before the opening of the public hearing. He also directed staff to continue compiling all comments, particularly dealing with the maps and compatibility zones, for ALUC consideration during the discussed public comment period. Chairman Rosene said that he would like for the consultant to review the changes and if the changes are acceptable, new maps could be printed. * * * * * Break from 10:55 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Lambert returned to her seat on the Commission. 2. ALUC File No. A00-05 Consistency Finding for Butte County Department of Development Services - Proposed General Plan Amendment to the Agricultural Element and Zoning Code Amendment adopting new agricultural zones. Continued open from August 16, 2000. Mr. Sanders said that this item had been. continued to allow the ALUC to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission. He said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing and at this time has not made any definitive recommendations. He said that the Planning Commission scheduled this item for a workshop hearing on November 20, 2000. He also said that the statutory requirements are that the Commission make a consistency finding within 60 days. The staff s recommendation, he added, is to have • the Commission make a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent and if any changes occur, they be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Lambert said she would like to know what the changes are before the Commission finds consistency. The hearing was opened to the public No one spoke. The hearing was .closed to the public. Chairman Rosene commented on lighting, dust, bird attraction and its influence on the airports. Mr. Sanders said that it was not in the current ordinance, as proposed. He said his recommendation for addressing. Chairman Rosene's concerns should come out in the consistency process. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 7 �E It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and • unanimously carried to adopt the proposed General Plan Amendment to the Agricultural Element and Zoning Code Amendment, which adopts new agricultural zones on a conditional basis provided that there are no changes to the language, intent, or focus by any other body. (ALUC File No. 00-05). SECTION 1.: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. A Negative Declaration was submitted and reviewed with this review. SECTION 2: CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT A. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for the Chico Municipal Airport, Paradise Airport, Oroville Airport, and Ranchaero Airport as amended on December 29, 1999, as follows: 1. The proposed changes to the ButteCounty General Plan Land Use Element and Agricultural Element will not increase residential densities above what is allowed by the current zoning. 2. The uses allowed by the IA -10 through IA -160 zones are generally compatible with airport operations. However, some uses such as communications towers and hunting clubs have the'potential to create • situations hazardous to flight operations. The regulation and review of these uses within the airport areas of influence must be addressed to the satisfaction of the ALUC when the County brings their General Plan into conformity with the existing CLUPs or future CLUP revisions. 3. ALUC File No. 00-07 Consistency Finding for Steve Shuster - General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013.014 and 015. n U Mr. Sanders noted that this item was reviewed for a consistency finding several months ago, but was found inconsistent with the current 1999 CLUP for the Chico Municipal Airport. He stated that when the Commission reviewed the item, neither they nor the applicant were aware that. there was a proposed five -acre community park: Mr. Sanders said that the alternative is to move the proposed community park to the southerly portion of the property along Keefer Slough. Chairman Rosene clarified that the number.of housing units went from 34 to 30, the park land was moved to the south to run along the creek and parcels currently range in size from 1 to 1.3 acres while the Commission's plan calls for 2.5 acres per. parcel. Mr. Sanders agreed. The hearing was opened to the public. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 8 ■ Mr. George Kammerer, representing Mr. Steve Shuster, asked the Commission to exercise • their discretion on the project in a way that is not unreasonable, but consistent with the airport. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Lambert asked if the subject proposal would be a planned unit development if it is approved in the proposed configuration. Mr. Sanders answered "no," that it is a straight subdivision and that there would be a dedication of the park space to the appropriate agency. Chairman Rosene asked whether it is going to be in the C-1 zone in the proposed CLUP. Mr. Sanders answered "yes," and that it is in the area where the Commission has indicated concern of the turning movement. Commissioner Grierson said that it is not yet in a noise impacted area. Chairman Rosene noted that it is more dense than what the Plan currently calls for and is much more dense than what the CLUP would potentially call for. Commissioner Harp asked as part of the requirement, would the Commission request an avigation easement over the property? • Mr. Sanders said it is currently a recommendation in the 1999 CLUP, and that if the Commission is, following those guidelines, they would then ask for an avigation easement in the consistency finding. Mr. Kammerer said that this project does not expect any conflicts and the risk of aircraft - related accidents is not considered significant. Chairman Rosene noted that the consultant has recommended to the Commission that they should steer away from one -acre type projects. He also said that the consultant would not approve this project, the North Chico Specific Plan ignored the airport, and this is a fairly high traffic area. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood, and unanimously carried to find that ALUC File No: 00-07, General Plan Amendment/Rezone and Revised Tentative Subdivision Map (APN 047-350-013,014 and 015), is inconsistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999. If a residential subdivision is to go forward on this property, it is recommended that the project be re -designed in accordance with the conditions listed in Exhibit "A." SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 9 ■ r1 L SECTION 2:. CONSISTENCY FINDINGS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT • A. The proposed project is inconsistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, as follows: 1. A portion of the proposed.project is located in Overflight Protection Zone A. This area is subject to frequent low altitude overflight activity. No new residential uses are permitted within this'zone. The proposed project shows one parcel and the majority of two other parcels, planned for single-family residential use, in this zone. 2. A. portion of the proposed project is located in Overflight Protection Zone B. This area is subject to less intensive overflight activity. No new single-family development is allowed, but multi -family uses may be permitted in this zone. The proposed project shows three parcels and the majority of four other parcels, planned for single-family residential use, in this zone. 3. The balance of the proposed development is in Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone). This area permits residential development at a density not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. Inconsistent with that, the proposed project shows residential lots ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 acres in • size within this zone. • B. Approval of the project as proposed would necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding Findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, heresay, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body. SECTION 3: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY If the applicant wishes to revise the development proposal -to conform with the requirements of the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, the following conditions shall apply: 1. The lot design shall be amended to show no single family residential building sites within either Overflight Protection Zone A or B. No residential lot for a single family dwelling shall be less than 2.5 acres in gross size. 1 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 10 0 2. A condition -shall be required on the Final Map stating that prior to the issuance • of a Building Permit the property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting to the City of Chico the right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. SECTION 4: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS A. Airspace Protection The Commission finds that due to the topography of the project, there are no transitional surface problems. The subject property is located slightly below the airport surface with approximately 188 feet between the ground level and the horizontal surface. Approach surfaces would not be affected due to topography or future development. 1. A' condition should be included on the Final Map stating that any project - related lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. •2. , A condition should be included as part of the proposed rezone or future parcel map stating that uses which have the potential to create visual, electronic, or physical flight hazards including the generation of dust, smoke, glare, electronic interference, or the attraction of birds to the project area shall be avoided. B. Safety Accident scatter information adopted as part of the October 21, 1998, Chico Municipal Airport CLUP Amendment, Exhibit D (Hodges and Shutt -1993 and UC Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies - 1993) indicates that the highest concentration of both departure- and arrival -related aircraft accidents takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and Approach Surface off the ends of the runway and on either side of the runway. Due to the project site's location away from these runway areas, no special conditions are necessary for safety purposes provided that, the, recommended residential density is adhered to. 4. ALUC File No. A00-08 Corisistencv Findine for the Citv of Chico Draft Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance: The draft ordinance contains zoning regulations and development standards for wireless communications facilities located within the incorporated limit of the,City of Chico. Mr. Sanders summarized the proposed ordinance along with the recommended additions • and deletions, which would then make it consistent with the CLUP currently being prepared. ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 11 ■ Commissioner Grierson said that cell towers are concerns of many people and in regard to an industrial park by the airport, there are certain limitations that"one needs to • realistically approach. The hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Kim Seidler, City of Chico Planning Director, clarified the City's proposed language that in airport zones only, towers shall be painted and lit with a beacon in accordance with FAA standards. He also said they want to eliminate, to the extent possible, the public concerns about the way the tower looks. The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Seidler said the portion of the language that is of concern is "shall be painted and lit". ' Mr. Sanders said the wording could be amended. The wording was discussed and amended. Mr. Seidler agreed with the amended wording. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Harp and unanimously carried to : • shall be demarcated with lighting or.painting as deemed necessary during the ALUC review. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT 1. Mr. Meleka reported that in response to a meeting with the County Counsel's office, a letter dated August 31, 2000, regarding ALUC Opinion Request has been prepared and mailed. ;A copy of the letter was included in the packet. 2. Mr. Meleka said that he distributed a copy of a letter to the Commission at today's meeting that follows -up on the letter dated August 3.1, 2000. 3. Mr. Meleka said that in reference to the joint meeting that had been scheduled for October 19, 2000, he drafted a letter on behalf of the Commission to invite local jurisdictions (the City of Chico, the City of Oroville, and the Town of Paradise) and the Board of Supervisors. He stated that the intent of the meeting is to facilitate understanding of the final draft CLUP. He also gave a brief update on the planning of this meeting. 4. Mr. Meleka introduced Ms. Cheryl Spoor. He said that Ms. Spoor joined the County staff staon September , 6, 2000, and among her duties, she will be the Commission's • secretary. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 12 ■ • Commissioner Grierson asked if the October 19th workshop was in lieu of the regularly y scheduled meeting for October 18, 2000. Chairman Rosene said that he expected the joint meeting to be,a presentation meeting and not a separate ALUC meeting." Mr. Meleka said that would be fine, and that the meeting --for October 18, 2000, will be held, as scheduled, unless changes occur. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. . J. OTHER BUSINESS ■ Resolution of Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. Mr. Fred Gerst was not present, however, the Commission noted that Mr. Gerst will be honored by the California Pilot's Association on October 7, 2000, as Airport Defender of the Year at Harris Ranch. K. CLOSED SESSION None. L. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. LEKA, Principal Planner Minutes prep red by Jill Broderson, Administrative Services Assistant ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of September 20, 2000 ■ Page 13 ■ C71 7-d Q BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION • Minutes of August 16, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Before the actual roll call, Chairman Rosene introduced and welcomed recently ' appointed Commissioner, Robert Harp. Present: Commissioners Grierson, Wallrich, Lambert, Harp, Alternate Commissioner Hodges, Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and Chair Rosene Absent: 'Commissioners Causey and Hatley Others Present: M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Jill Broderson, Administrative Services Assistant •Thomas A. Parilo, Director , Brian Larsen, Principal Analyst Alternate Commissioner Baldridge Alternate Commissioner.Hennigan • Alternate Commission Papadakis C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 8, JUNE 21, AND JULY 21,-2000 Minutes of June 8, 2000 Commissioner Lambert recommended that on page 5, line 35, inserting the words "stated the Committee" before the word "suggested" and also inserting the same wording on page 6, line 4, before the word "suggested". Chairman Rosene said on page 2, line 34, delete the word "which" and replace with "and". Page 3, line 46, the word "honerst" should be spelled 'onerous". It was.moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded -by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to approve the. minutes -of June 8, 2000, as corrected. r Minutes of June 2�1, 2000 Chairman Rosene said the minutes from the June 21, 2000, meeting. had been continued from the last meeting, to include Alternate Commissioner Papadakis' information packet which he already. distributed at the meeting. • ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 ■ Page I ■ M • It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried tq approve the minutes of June 21, 2000, as presented. Minutes of July 19, 2000 For clarity, Commissioner Grierson recommended that on page 14, line 21, adding the wording "in the affected zone." after the word "living." Also, Commissioner Wallrich recommended that on page 16, lines 9 and 10, adding the wording "in adopting a CLUP without. a finalized Airport Land Use Master Plan." after the word "actions." In addition, Chairman Rosene recommended that on page 7, line 29, adding the wording "allowed in the plan." after the word "densities." Page 9, line 20, the word "demark" should be spelled "demarcate." He also recommended amending the sentence on page 10, line 4, to read "because the cross wind depart leg is where full power setting is used." Page 16, line 50, the word "original" should be added before the word "request." Page .19, lines 10 through 12, "Rothschalk" should be spelled "Rottschalk". Page 19, line 25, the word "form" should read "from." It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of July 19, 2000, as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA • Commissioner Lambert recommended hearing Item No. 3 before Item No. 2.. • It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to accept the Agenda, as amended. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued from July 19, 2000 - ALUC File No. A00-03 Consistency Finding for the City of Chico -General Plan Amendment and Rezone, APN048-020-061 (ptn.) and 100 (ptn.). Continued from July 19, 2000. Mr. Sanders said that this item was continued from the Commission's last meeting of _ July 19, 2000, to recognize a typographical error in the acreage of the subject project. He summarized the project proposal/staff report and stated that the recommendation is to find the project inconsistent with the current CLUP. The hearing was opened to the public. Stacy Jolliffe, Senior Planner for the City of Chico, stated that the City initiated a General Plan Amendment and Rezone based on land use reasons. Ms. Jolliffe said 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 ■ Page 2 Y that the parcel has become very difficult to develop for single family residential units; • as there is no vehicle access off of Eaton`Road and major arterial in the City. Ms. Jolliffe said other issues included the utility line which has certain constraints. She said that she understood the project is not consistent with previous CLUP and asked for direction from the Commission in terms of how the City could expedite the process which appears to be consistent with the 2000 CLUP. Chairman Rosene asked if there was an electrical sub -station in the vicinity? Ms: Jolliffe said yes. The property owner said the sub -station was located to the west of the property. Chairman Rosene asked if there were time constraints and noted that the CLUP will hopefully be completed within the next few months. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Grierson said the Commission has receivedinformation from the consultant who has determined that the use would be consistent in the area. He asked the Commission if they could use this information as specific findings to override the 1978 CLUP to allow the project to go forward. Mr. Meleka indicated that he already consulted with the County Counsel regarding this issue and said the Commission could make a finding that if the CLUP addendum • (being prepared by the consultant) contains a density with which this application conforms, then the application would be considered consistent. He said it would be up to the City as to whether they can proceed without an override. Commissioner Lambert said in any case, the City would have to override. Mr. Meleka said the Commission has to go by the CLUP and by the criteria within the CLUP. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said that on a previous occasion (he was not sure if it would apply in this case), he recalled when the Commission could not find a project consistent, but did not want to find it inconsistent because the Commission thought it was a good project; in that case, he said, the Commission decided to not act. This is because the law requires the Commission to act within 60 days, otherwise the project would be deemed approved after this time period. Commissioner Wallrich said he would like to see the Commission find a way to make the project work and save the City six months or even a year. Mr. Sanders said the project was received May 24,2000 Ms. Jolliffe said that the City needs to received ALUC's recommendation before •0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 0 Page 3 0 they can process the General Plan Amendment. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded-by.Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to consider ALUC File No. 00-03 the City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone, APN 048-020-061 (ptn) and 100 (ptn) consistent based on the condition that the'2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) will be adopted with density criteria that make the subject project consistent. _t 2. ALUC File No A00-06 Consistency Findinp_ for Champion Christian School - Expansion of a church gymnasium from 5,400 square feet to 9,000 square feet, APN 048-300-049. Chairman Rosene stated that he would step down as he has personal conflicts with the project. He stated that Commissioner Lambert will run the meeting and that Alternate Commissioner Baldridge will vote. Mr. Sanders summarized the project proposal and staff report and stated that the recommendation is to find the project consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport CLUP as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29,.1999. Vice Chairman Lambert asked if the proposed 2000 CLUP allows for expansion of • existing facilities. Mr. Sanders said no. Vice Chairman Lambert clarified that a church would not be allowed if it was a newly proposed project and expansion would also not be allowed under the proposed CLUP. Mr. Sanders agreed. The hearing was opened to. the public. Vice Chairman Lambert asked if the applicant or anyone representing the applicant was present. No one spoke. + The hearing was closed to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and unanimously carried to find. the ALUC File No. A00-06 (Champion Christian School Expansion of a church gymnasium from 5,400 square feet to 9,000 square feet, AP#048-300-049) consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 ■ Page 4 0 if the requirements in Section 3 of the staff report are applied as presented in Exhibit Chairman Rosene took back his seat. 3.ALUC File No 00-05 Consistency Finding for Butte County Department of Development Services -Proposed General Plan Amendment to the Agricultural Element and Zoning Code Amendment adopting new agricultural zones. Mr. Sanders summarized the project proposal and staff report and stating that the recommendation is to find the project consistent with `the Chico, Paradise, Oroville, and Ranchaero Airports as amended on December 29, 1999.. Commissioner Lambert said that the Planning Commission will be hearing this item in a public hearing on Thursday, August 24, 2000. She said that since the project is a proposal, there could be changes and suggested that the Commission continue this item for one month so that the Commission could be aware of any* proposed changes from the Planning Commission hearing before ALUC takes an action. Chairman Rosene asked if there were any time constraints. Mr. Sanders. said no. • The hearing was opened to the public. In reference to the timing issue, Mr. Parilo (Director of Development Services) said without knowing what the Planning Commission would do, they could take an action and forward it to the Board of Supervisors. He said that if the Commission wants to be involved, they might think about reviewing the ultimate recommendation from the Planning Commission before it goes to the Board so that ultimate consistency can be verified. He said that in the event the Planning Commission continues the item, ALUC may want to leave the item on the agenda so that they could act concurrently. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Grierson suggested continuing the item. Chairman Roserie commented on how agricultural operations can impact aviation or airports from their dust, potential electronic noise from processing plants, towers, lighting and birds. He asked Commissioner Lambert to carry this comment to the Planning Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded -by Commissioner Hodges and • 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 ■ Page 5 0 L` • • unanimously carried to continue this item to the next meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2000. . MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Mr. Meleka said that per the Commission's request for information on ALUC's budget, a memorandum prepared by Brian Larsen from the Department of Development Services was submitted to the Commission this morning. He also stated Mr. Larsen was in attendance in case the Commission had any questions. Mr. Larsen summarized. the memorandum and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Grierson asked what type of revenue ALUC is producing and if the revenue is directly credited to staff costs. Mr. Larsen said the revenue that has been generated has been minimal and is directly deposited in the general fund. He said that the general fund supports the Planning Division and in an indirect way, it provides for staff support for ALUC. - Commissioner Lambert brought up the issue of hiring an attorney for the CLUP issue and the Grand Jury recommendation and asked. if this was a part of ALUC's budget. Mr. Larsen said that a part of the budget covering legal services for the Planning Division Js provided by the County Counsel. He' said that the County Counsel would have to make the decision with regards to legal support for ALUC. He also said that he understood that. the County Counsel -would be speaking to the Board of Supervisors on this issue. Commission Lambert asked about the Grand Jury recommendation. , Mr. Larsen said the responses that the Grand Jury requested were not from the Department of Development Services, but from the ALUC and the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Rosene asked about the funding of staff training. Mr. Larsen said this year's budget allows for training of professional staff in the amount f of $627.00 per planner. Mr. Meleka said that he has been working on the coordination between the governing bodies regarding the consultant's presentation on the CLUP addendum. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 ■ Page 6 0 Chairman Rosene informed the Commission of a meeting that was scheduled regarding • counsel support for the CLUP. G. • COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Grierson distributed copies of information that he had received from the consultant, Ken Brody, regarding avigation easements. He suggested that the Commission, review them. Commissioner Grierson informed the Commission of a lunch.program hosted by'the Chico Rotary Club on September 5, 2000, regarding land use issues, specifically airport land use issues and why itis important to plan and develop a CLUP. ********** Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked Commissioner Grierson if anything was mentioned about preserving an area on the west side at the Chico Airport for a future terminal. Commissioner Grierson said that it was still a discussion item. He said, in talking with the F.A.A., the costs are a big concern on their, part. He also said that to replicate the terminal will cost millions and to expand the existing terminal will cost between a half million to a million dollars. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked if anything was being proposed for the ground vehicle traffic. Commissioner Grierson said that the F.A.A. completed its ground transportation study last fall and the City of Chico has reviewed it. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None.. J. -.OTHER BUSINESS ■ ALUC direction to staff regarding the response to the 1999=2000 Grand Jury Final Report. • ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August .16, 2000 0 Page 7 0 Mr. Meleka said that staff is seeking direction from the Commission regarding the Grand Jury Final Report. Chairman Rosene said; on behalf of the Commission, that they appreciate the comments as contained in the 1999-2000. Final Report from the Grand Jury and that the Commission will attempt to fulfill them. ■ Resolution of Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. . Chairman Rosene asked that all Commissioners read and sign the resolution so that it may be presented to Fred. K. CLOSED SESSION ; None. L. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION r W.A. MEEKA, Pri cipal Planner Minutes prepare �y Jill Broderson, Administrative Services Assistant • 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of August 16, 2000 0 Page 8 0 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION F ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' 25. County Center Drive, Oroville California CL -i; 4 Date/Time: August 16, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. f %Zr ft:7 -� AGENDA w- - ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Introduction of New Commissioner (selected by Butte; County board of Supervisors). C. Roll Call. D. Approval of the draft minutes for the June 8, June 21, and July 19, 2000 meetings. E. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staffmay request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order). F. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued from July 19, 2000 - ALUC File No. A00-03 Consistencv Findine for The Ci of Chico - General Plan Amendment and Rezone, APN 048-020-061(ptn) and 100 (ptn ): A General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Rezone from R-1 to R-2. The approximately 25 -acre site is bordered on the north by the future Eaton Road extension, the west by Ceonothus Ave., the south by a power line easement, and the east by the extension of Cactus Ave., southeast of the Chico Municipal Airport. 2. ALUC File No. A00-05 Consistency Finding for Butte County Department of Development Services - proposed General Plan Amendment to the Agricultural Element and Zoning Code Amendment adopting new agricultural zones: This is an amendment to section_ s of the Agricultural Element together with the Land Use Element including the ard Orchand Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands designations. The application also includes new agricultural zones (Intensive Agriculture 10 -acre minimum through 160 -acre, IA -10 through IA -160) to be applied to lands designated Orchard and Field Crops. 3. ALUC File No. A00-06 Consistencv Findine for Champion Christian School - Expansion of a church gymnasium from 5,400 square feet to 9,000 square feet, APN 048-300-049: A consistency review for the. expansion of a church gymnasium facility located on the north side of East Avenue between Ceres and Floral Avenues, southeast of the Chico Municipal IAirport. The current zoning is Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) and the General Plan is Public. ArAirport Land Use Commission NAugust 16, 2000 Agenda i Page I Ar G. Monthly Status Report. H. Committee Appointments. •I. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: J. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item.presented if it is not -listed on the agenda) K. Other Business: • ALUC direction to staff regarding the response to the 1999-2000 Grand Jury Final Report. • Resolution of Commendation for Mr. Fred Gerst. L. Closed Session - None. M. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accoinmodation to participate in the Coniihissionproceeding is requested to contact M."A: Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO_PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon arty subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please'approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. .This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted .72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following -locations: Butte County Administration Building, front-entrance:and glass case. &Airport Land Use Commission ArAugust 16, 2006 Agenda ff Page 2 • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION' Minutes of July 19, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present:, Commissioners Gerst, Grierson, Wallrich, Lambert, Causey and Chairman Rosene Absent: Commissioner Hatley Others: Present:. Thomas A. Parilo, Director . M.A.'Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Jill Broderson, Administrative Services Assistant Ken Brody, Shutt -Moen & Associates Laura Webster, Pacific Consultants Alternate Commissioner Baldridge Alternate Commissioner Papadakis , Alternate Commissioner Ward . 'Alternate Commissioner Hennigan Alternate Commissioner Fairbanks r Duane Greenwood, City of Oroville Karolyn Fairbanks, City of Oroville Barbara Hennigan C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2000, APRIL 19, 2000 AND JUNE 21, 2000 Minutes of February 16, 2000 Commissioner Lambert noted that the minutes did not reflect if Alternate Commissioner, Bob Hennigan was either present or absent. f Alternate Commissioner, Bob Hennigan stated that he was absent. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and carried to approve .the minutes of February 16, 2000, as corrected, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson; Wallrich, Lambert, Causey and Chairman Rosene NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINS: Commissioner Greenwood . Minutes of April 19, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried to approve the minutes of April19, 2000, as presented, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson, Wallrich, Lambert, Causey and Chairman Rosene NOES: None ABSENT: None • ABSTAINS: Commissioner Greenwood Minutes of June 21, 2000 • Alternate Commissioner Papadakis said that two documents were erroneously sent in the information packet that was supposed to be provided to the Commission and the consultant. He said that the intent of the committee was to send the corrected documents. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner. Causey, and carried to postpone the approval of the minutes to the meeting on.August 16, 2000. The vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson, Wallrich, Lambert, Causey and Chairman Rosene NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINS: Commissioner Greenwood (Copies of the mentioned two documents were distributed to the Commission and the consultant during the meeting) D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Grierson said that after speaking with ALU.0 staff and the,City of Chico staff, he suggested that the Commission not review Item E.1, File No. A00-03, at this meeting. He stated that the project description_ should be amended to.reflect a 25.19+ acreage project area, as opposed to a 15 acre site. He said that this is a sizable difference in project scope. Commissioner Grierson suggested that the Commission direct staff to consult with the City of Chico to establish the project and the project boundaries before public hearing discussion is conducted. • Mr. Meleka stated that the letter received from the City of Chico included the acreage of 15 -acres. He said that he was told that when the application was filled out, it was filled out with the 25.19+ acres. However, the location remains unchanged. Mr. Sanders.said that the exhibit in the packet shows the accurate parcel configuration of the area that . is being requested fora Rezone/General Plan Amendment. He stated that the area is within the Airport. Influence Zone 7 and that continuing the item would not result in any different recommendation coming from staff in terms of compatibility. Mr. Sanders said that the acreage difference and change are not really significant in terms of airport compatibility. Commissioner Grierson said that when the Commission addresses a project and makes a determination on a project's consistency, the Commission should have the full packet so that it can be utilized to make a complete, informed and solid decision. Mr. Meleka again stated that the location of the project would not change. Mr. Sanders again stated that map before the Commission accurately depicts the area and the location. Chairman Rosene asked if there was a reason not to continue this item from a time perspective. Stacy Jolliffe, Senior Planner for the City of Chico, apologized for the inconsistency. Ms. Jolliffe agreed that probably the analysis would not change significantly for 15 or 25 acres. However, Ms. Jolliffe did request consistency with the draft 2000 CLUP. She also said that a continuance would make sense, because there would be a better understanding as to what ALUC wants -to do with the CLUP, as • it is a later item on today's agenda. Ms. Jollifee stated that this item is not a critical item for processing. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July; 19, 2000 0 Page 2 ■ Chairman Rosene asked for a motion. • 'Commissioner Lambert asked if a motion was made, would it be to a time certain? Mr. Meleka said'it would be best to withdraw the item. Mr. Sanders said it would be best to continue the item to a time certain, since it is a public hearing.. Commissioner Lambert asked how much time the City would like. Ms. Jolliffe asked that the Commission continue the item to a date certain. Commissioner. Lambert suggested the next meeting of August 16, 2000. . Ms. Jolliffee said that date would be fine and thanked the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously carried to Table Item E. 1 on today's agenda for the meeting of August 16, 2000. Commissioner Gerst said that he would like to distribute research that he has prepared in reference to Ruddy Creek. Chairman Rosene suggested discussing Ruddy Creek under items without a public hearing, at the end of the meeting. - It was moved by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously carried to accept the agenda and the modifications, as discussed. • E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING L� 1. ALUC File .No. A00-03 Consistency Finding for the. City of Chico - General Plan Amendment and Rezone, APN 048-020-061 (ptn) and 100 (ptn). Under Item D above, the Commission continued this item until their meeting of August 16, 2000. 2. ALUC File No. A00-04 Consistency Finding for Renee Jenett - Tentative Parcel Map 99- 11, APN 030-160-058 & 059. Mr. Sanders summarized the project proposal and staff report and stated that the recommendation is to find the project consistent with one condition requiring an avigation easement, with standard wording. Chairman Rosene asked for questions from the Commission. There were none. The hearing was opened to the public. No one was present. The hearing was closed to the public. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan pointed out a minor correction on Page 2, second paragraph from the bottom of the page of the staff report. The sentence should read "The horizontal 'surface is at 340 feet above sea level, significantly higher than the airport." ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, to find that ALUC File No. A00-04 -Consistency Finding for Renee Jenett - Tentative Parcel Map 99-11, • AP#030-1607058,059 is consistent with the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for - the Orovilie. Municipal Airport, as amended on December 29, 1999, if the requirements in Section 3, as modified by the Commission, are applied to the final map as noted in the findings presented in Exhibit "A", and that the specific findings of consistency meet the intent of Government Code Section 21670. ' Exhibit A The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of tM Lead Agency (County of Butte) when making a decision on the project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project . review. Section 2: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY: A. The proposed project will be consistent with the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Oroville Municipal Airport, as amended on December 29, 1999, if the requirements in Section 3 are applied to the final map. B. Approval of the project without implementation of the requirements in • Section 3 would necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must .be supported by new substantial, factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, heresay, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body. Section 3: PROJECT FINDINGS: A.- According to the newly adopted Oroville Municipal Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone Map "7-1 ", the project is located in Safety Zone 7 - "Airport Area of Influence The criterion of item "C" allows caretaker residences provided that interior noise. levels do not exceed 45 CNEL with windows closed, is not applicable to this project. The criterion of item "D" requires measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL within portions of buildings where the public is :received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. The language of criterion item "D" applies to commercial and industrial structures, not single family dwellings. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 4 ■ The criterion of item "H" for communication towers is not applicable to this project which would require ALUC review of a Use Permit. • The criterion of item "I" which .prohibits churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and similar aggregations of people is not applicable to this project. Use Permit requests for these types -of projects will be reviewed by ALUC. A note shall.be placed on the Final Map stating that: "Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for a single family dwelling, . the property owner shall sign an avigation easement grating the right of continued use of the Oroville Municipal Airport in - the airspace above the proposed parcels and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts." B. Airspace Protection: The Commission finds that due to the topography of the project,) there are no transitional surface problems. The subject property is located at approximately the same elevation as the. airport. Approach surfaces will not be affected due to topography or development. C. Safety: Accident scatter information presented in Figure 8C, Exhibit 8D (Hodges and Shutt - 1993) and Figure 9E (UC Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies -.1993) Chapters 8 and 9 of The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, indicate that the highest • concentration of both departure- and arrival -related aircraft accidents takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and Approach Surface off the ends, and on either side of the runway. Due to the project site',s location approximately 10,000 feet away and more than 5,000 feet off center of the main runway, the accident potential is very low.based on the above data. 3. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: Mr. Meleka said'that included'in the packets was a comment -response matrix which contains the. major issues that have been raised during the comment period. Analysis of relevant information and factors along with the consultant's recommendations are also incorporated. Mr. Meleka said that after today's hearing, the consultant will take the Commission's direction and then prepare an addendum; this leads to the environmental assessment and the final. CLUP. Commissioner Grierson complimented staff on the layout of the matrix. He said that it was very easy to read, follow, and track. Chairman Rosene agreed. Chairman Rosene opened the hearing to the public. George Kammerer, said that despite the fact that the report and recommendations are back from the consultant, his clients would like to reiterate their request of all issues they have raised previously regarding requests for modification of the 2000 CLUP. • Chairman Rosene closed the hearing to the public. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 0 Page 5 0 Mr. Brody said that Laura Webster had a major role in preparing the matrix, as well as Shutt- Moen. Chairman Rosene thanked Laura Webster'. 1. Project Review. Procedures. Chairman Rosene asked whether this item was going to clarify language or decrease the ALUC's ability to review projects. Mr. Brody said that it was intended as a clarification. He said that they are trying to clearly spell out what situations the Commission acts in an advisory capacity, which are major actions that continue to be submitted after the General Plan is deemed consistent. Other items that are not an ALUC advisory decision require an override. Commissioner Lambert asked for clarification on the third option listed in the matrix. Ms. Webster stated that in the policy, they are referring to the choices that an agency can have, in other words, making the distinction between whether or not ALUC's review would be advisory or mandatory; depending on which choice the agency makes. Chairman Rosene asked if there were any objections to the recommendation as listed in Item No.. 1. There were no objections. . The, Commission agreed with the recommendations as listed in Item No. 1. 2. Commission Action Choices. Mr. Brody said this item is to provide convenience and flexibility for the Commission. The Commission agreed with the recommendations as listed in.Item No. 2. 3. Definition of Existing Land Uses. There was a.discussion regarding government commitments to specific land uses and when such commitments become firm. The Commission had concerns with Development Agreements and Assessment Districts. Commissioner Grierson stated he would' like to see the last two items in Column 2 of the matrix included in the recommendation to the consultant. . Mr. Brody said he had more concern with the Assessment Districts. Commissioner Lambert agreed with Mr. Brody and stated she would omit both items. Commissioner Causey agreed with Commissioner Grierson. Commissioner Causey said he would like to see the two items included in the recommendation and felt there would be no harm. Airport'Land Use Commission Minutes of July .19, 2000 ■ Page 6 ■ Commissioner Wallrich also agreed. • Commissioner Greenwood said he would leave them out. Commissioner Gerst was in thought. Mr. Brody said that he could perhaps. find additional legal basis for what can be done. The Commission agreed to table Item No. 3. 4. Infill Policy. Mr. Brody said.that the main question was in reference to residential densities. He said they debated about changing the size of an area that qualifies as infill. Commissioner Grierson asked what the difference was between intensity and density. Mr. Brody said they apply density to residential development in dwelling units per acre and use the word. intensity when referring to the number of people per acre. Commissioner Gerst said infill should be weighed out, with guidelines. Chairman Rosene agreed with Commissioner Gerst. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis reminded the Commission that the committee recommended changes in this Item and asked that the action the Commission take be contingent on the consultant's review and reply of the committee's recommendations. After a discussion regarding infill and the numbers, Chairman Rosene said that the Commission liked the policy prepared by the consultant, but that at the low end more flexibility could be applied to let people infill to the densities allowed in the plan. Commissioner Gerst asked that once the infill policy is set up, would the cities and the county handle it or would it come before ALUC for determination. Mr. Brody said the intent is either to include a map in the plan that depicts infill qualifications, which is adopted up front, or each jurisdiction would provide the Commission with a map when they submit their General Plan for review. Commissioner Grierson said that he would encourage the communities to provide a map at a time.prior to the Commission's adoption. He said by doing it this way, it would then be the most current. 5. Definition of Nonconforming Uses Chairman Rosene said that the recommendation was to leave it as written. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said that the Commission should keep nonconforming uses, because land use, is being pushed towards more compatible uses in the future. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 7 • • The Commission agreed with the recommendation as listed in Item No. 5. 6. Reconstruction of Nonconforminp, Development Chairman Rosene said it is either market value or assessor's value. Mr. Brody said that both definitions have been used in different counties and have depended on what was convenient. He said the bigger issue is the percentage. Market value vs. assessor's value has a distinct difference, but it makes more sense to use market value in most cases. Commissioner Grierson said that market value is a very subjective term. He said that they should keep it as the assessor's value, because it is a public value and the uncertainty of appraisals is kept out.. Commissioner Lambert asked why is it based on value. Mr. Sanders said, from a zoning standpoint, the value never comes into play. He said that in terms of a nonconforming use in the zoning code, one is allowed to rebuild to the same extent as what existed. Commissioner Lambertasked why is it important to based;it on the value. Mr. Sanders said that in this situation, it would be a force to change the land use on the nonconforming use. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis said that the Building Inspector has the authority, under the Building Code, to determine whether it is 50%, 75%, etc., to determine whether to follow one code or another code. Chairman Rosene said that he agreed with the market value. He said he sees the assessor's value as the simpler technique, but he felt it was not as fair. Commissioner Wallrich agreed, along with Commission Lambert. The Commission agreed with the recommendation as listed in Item No. 6. 7. Noise Limitations for Residential Development Chairman Rosene said the recommendation was to retain the current noise standards. He stated that the text of the argument was very good. The Commission agreed with the recommendation as listed in Item No. 7. 8. Compatibility Criteria a. Residential Densities Zone C: Mr. Brody said that the number of units indicated in the matrix would • be eliminated by not allowing the higher density provision. His ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 8 ■ recommendation is to either keep very low density or very high density in this zone. He reviewed the other comments on the matrix. • Commissioner Gerst said he did not see a point in a high and a low. He suggested keeping the densities low, keeping one dwelling per one -acre parcels in Zone C. Mr. Brody said that if there were a lot of mini-ranchettes of one -acre size, the ambient noise levels would be low, therefore, it would cause a lot complaints. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said he agreed with Mr. Brody, because high density does result in a higher ambient noise level and it usually results in tenants rather than owners. He said that he believed ranchettes are exactly the wrong thing to have. Commissioner Grierson said that the Commission needs to really consider the wording "little . aviation . based rationale" within the consultant's recommendation. Chairman Rosene said that if the Commission had some aircraft -related rationale, he would feel more comfortable. He said from the pattern standpoint, the safest and ' least noisiest. is between the ends of the runway. Chairman Rosene said that he likes the County's idea of trying to demarcate it more clearly. Chairman Rosene thought that the east side, because of the terrain and other problems, should stay at the lower density. • Commissioner Grierson said he supported. Chairman Rosene's proposal. Chairman Rosene asked Commissioner Grierson if the proposal made sense and if he thought it was the quietest portion of the runway. Commissioner Grierson said, as a pilot, he agreed 100 percent and as an airport manager, he said an airport generates noise. Chairman Rosene said he has problems with putting a lot of houses or high density underneath the area where turns are made because that is where accidents can occur. Commissioner Gerst agreed with Chairman Rosene. Commissioner Gerst asked if it was going to -be dual on the ends or dual on the sides. Chairman Rosene said it would not be dual, it would be the more dense zones across the middle of the runway. Commissioner Gerst agreed. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said he liked the idea: He asked if they would use the.long runway for the perpendicular lines? i ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July, 19, 2000 ■ Page 9 ■ • Chairman Rosene said one would use the extension of the short runway and not the long runway because the traffic into the short runway is going to start turning sooner. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge then asked if it went out the 6,000 foot line. Chairman Rosene said yes, it extends all the way. to Zone C. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said he liked the idea, because the cross wind depart legis where the full power setting is used. Mr. Brody asked the Commission what choice of criteria they wanted in the table. Chairman Rosene said the split zoning for C is okay as long as it is delineated. Commissioner Grierson asked for clarification on who wanted to retain what. Mr. Brody. said the staff from the City of Chico indicated that it made a difference whether the minimum was set at four dwelling units per acre or five dwelling units per acre. Therefore, they indicated a minimum of four. Commissioner Grierson said that the bulk of the area that is impacted by Zone C is really within the County and that very little is within the City. Mr. Brody said it is within the current city limits and that there are areas within their planning sphere. of influence. Commissioner.Grierson said he preferred four dwellings per acre. Chairman Rosene asked the Commission if it was acceptable to accept four units per acre in the more dense area. The Commission agreed. Chairman Rosene asked the Commission if it was acceptable to have one unit per five acres in the least dense area. The Commission agreed. . Break from 11:02 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. b. _ Nonresidential Intensities c: Clustering, and Intensity Bonuses.. Mr. Brody said his recommendation was to leave it as -written. He said the numbers have been arrived at by. the few jurisdictions that have actually conducted surveys of how many people are involved in different uses. Mr. Brody said that assuming that the clustering issue also stays as proposed in the draft, they suggest the baseline numbers stay as proposed. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 10 • Commissioner Grierson said his concern was if it is allowed for industrial/commercial uses, there would be higher concentrations of people, • rather than lower concentrations associated with residential uses. Mr. Brody said the whole purpose of clustering is to increase the amount of open. land that is in between, which is a major thrust in terms of aviation -related risks. As a practical matter, however, any development will have an unequal distribution of the people on the overall property. He said buildings will have more; landscaping and parking will have less. Commissioner Gerst has a concern of open space and asked whether a parking lot is considered open space. Mr.. Brody said that the draft plan states open land is generally free of structures and other obstacles such as walls, large trees, poles and overhead wires. It also states that roads and automobile parking lots are acceptable as open land if they meeting the above criteria. Chairman Rosene asked if there was a way to make the clustering part of the plan contingent on future ALUC review. Mr. Brody said that the wording could be incorporated, but it would need further review. Mr. Parilo said that if clustering is going to occur, a planned unit development is required, which would. achieve a. shifting of the density. Chairman Rosene asked whether a project could meet .the definition of clustering but not require a rezone application. Mr. Parilo said that if zoning is consistent with the CLUP, and a landowner chose to rearrange things through clustering, the only way he could achieve that would be through a planned unit development. He said he believed that the flex lot is exempt. Mr. Sanders said that was only for residential, but that in a commercial/industrial setting, it is completely different. Mr. Parilo agreed. Mr. Brody said that they would have to consider non-residential vs. residential and how clustering works in each of those. He said it is easier in residential. . Mr. Parilo said that an agreement could be structured between the jurisdiction and ALUC so that when non-residential clustering takes place, it would need ALUC's review for an advisory consideration. Chairman Rosene said it would need to be addressed now and not in the future. • Commissioner Lambert asked if averaging is considered clustering. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page, 11 ■ Mr..Meleka said if you are trying to locate a certain number of dwelling units on only a portion of the site, that is what would be,considered a part of the clustering definition. He added that the number of dwelling units divided by the total acreage is the average density. Mr. Parilo suggested that the Commission may want to have a definition, for purposes of the plan, of what it constitutes, what amount of open area would have to be maintained, and how the open area would be utilized. Chairman Rosene agreed. Mr. Brody said that he had discussed this idea with Mr. Meleka. He said that their intent behind the term "clustering" is that it be a means to allow achievement of the open land criteria. From a residential standpoint, if on a 10 - acre parcel you were allowed 40 dwelling units and all 40 dwelling units.were placed on five acres and the other five acres remained open, that would be considered clustering. If yi li had some lots that were 15,000 square feet and others that were 8,000 square feet, and the parcels were filled up, that would be considered averaging and not necessarily clustering. In nonresidential, it becomes tougher to define the open land objective. Mr. Brody said they could try to revise the definition. Mr. Meleka said that in identifying clustering, certain objectives should.be established. Commissioner Lambert said she liked the'idea of ALUC reviewing it and the • idea of a planned unit development. Chairman Rosene asked if it could be required that clustering. include a planned unit development. Commissioner Grierson said that for clarification and implementation, the definition of clustering needs to be clearly explained. He said he was inclined to support' staff recommendations for Item No. 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d with an accompanying requirement for a detailed description of. clustering and the intent of the ALUC. Commissioner Lambert, asked Commissioner Grierson if what he supported included bonuses. Commissioner Grierson said he liked the bonus. Commissioner Lambert asked if they needed to decide how much the bonus is . or if the definition of clustering need to be decided first. Chairman Rosene suggested that they consider Item Nos. 8a, b and c at this time, before considering Item No. 8d. Chairman Rosene agreed with Commissioner Grierson. He said he does not have a problem with the bonuses if open space is .being created and is • maintainable. He said his concern is guaranteeing open space remains open ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 12 ■ space. Chairman Rosene said that a definition for clustering needed to be developed. • d. Open Land Chairman Rosene said he agreed with the consultant's recommendation, as. proposed.. However, he asked when open space is established, how can it be guaranteed and can it be done? Mr. Brody said the expectation would be that as part of the .General Plan consistency process, the areas that are defined as open land under definitions applied, would be submitted and an agreement would be reached. Once it is established, it would be agreed upon. Chairman Rosene asked the Commission .if they were comfortable with the percentage levels for the different zones in the recommendation. Commissioner Gerst again stated his concern about whether a parking lot is considered open land. Commissioner Lambert said the committee's recommendation for open space in the B-1 zone is 50 percent and for the B-2 zone, 30 percent. Chairman Rosene said he agrees with the current amount of open space, if they make it useful open space. He said parking lots are not necessarily open space. • Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said the objective of open space is to protect both the occupants of the aircraft and the occupants of the building. He said it might be helpful to describe how much real estate it takes to make a survivable crash.. The objective is to separate the wreckage from the building. Mr. Brody said that the plan, dimensions are of at least 75 feet by 300 feet. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said it should be 600 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Brody said the dimensions came. from research .prepared by CalTrans research on accident locations. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said he would like to see the Commission retain the mechanism of density bonuses as a way of having something to trade. Chairman Rosene asked if parking lots were considered open space. The Commission said no. Chairman Rosene agreed to delete parking lots and asked if the Commission was agreeable to the percentages that are in the plan and to the use of the definition of a crash pad as it exists. Commissioner Grierson said utilizing the reasonable aeronautical • recommendation as proposed by the consultant is the best route. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 13 • n U • • e. • Chairman Rosene said that if they .take the parking lots out and go with the recommendation proposed by the consultant that would be the best route. The Commission agreed Schools Commissioner Gerst said he did not think "children's" needed to be included: in the wording. Commissioner Grierson said he that the wording should remain as "children's schools". The Commission agreed to with the consultant's recommendation in leaving the wording as proposed. Easements vs. Deed Notices Mr. Brody said the concern is the implications of requiring easements and whether that is what is needed in order to accomplish the objectives. Commissioner Grierson said he .wants people to'not only acknowledge that there is going to be noise and pollution, but also waive their right to complain, as a basis for living in the affected zone. Mr. Brody said that the importance of an avigation easement that goes beyond a deed notice is the height restrictions. Commissioner Grierson suggested reviewing wording in different avigation easements. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said that disclosure documents are very important and enable people to make informed decisions. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis suggested that staff research legal opinions where avigation easements were brought before a jurisdictional body and overridden so that the language could be made stronger, so that an override can be withstood. Chairman Rosene said that through the C zones, an avigation easement could be required and it could be justified In the D zone, a deed notice would be sufficient, depending on what the avigation easement states. Mr. Brody stated he would research avigation.easement language. g. Relationship to Appendix D . Commissioner Gerst agreed with the recommendation. Chairman Rosene said he was not fond of Appendix D, because one could never writedown every possibility. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ Commissioner Grierson said he looks at Zone D as a buffer, however, he questioned what are they protecting people from if they are limiting • development of the property. He said his concern in looking at Zone D is that they need to ensure they are protecting the navigable airspace which falls under Part 77. Mr. Brody said in terms of noise, safety-, and overflight, they felt the primary criteria table in Chapter 2 really accomplishes what is needed. Commissioner Lambert agreed with leaving Appendix D to serve as examples. She asked if it was going to be accepted as it was originally presented or with some of the changes the committee suggested. Mr. Brody said that was still to be done, because they wanted to know what the criteria would be. Commissioner Lambert said it would be fine to be a reference. Chairman Rosene agreed but suggested the consultant modify.the wording to try to work with the suggestions of the committee. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge left at this time. Lunch break from 12:25 to 1:40 p.m. 9. Consistency with CalTrans (1993 Handbook) Compatibility. Criteria • Mr. Brody said most comments received focussed on the criteria in the handbook regarding.safety. He said that the draft plan as presented looks at both noise and safety. The Commission agreed with the consultant's recommendation. 10. Compatibility Maps a. Relationship to Criteria Mr. Brody said this was a general comment and that he was trying to emphasize the fact they have to be thought of together. b. Relationship of Compatibility Plan to Airport Master Plans Mr. Brody said that the law states the compatibility plan has to be based on a long range master plan. He said the draft compatibility plan is based on the Oroville and Chico master plans as they currently exist. Commissioner Grierson said that over the last few weeks, he has had numerous meetings with the Federal' Aviation Administration, Army • Corps of Engineers, Fish & Wildlife Service, other agencies and also ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19,, 2000 ■ Page 15 ■ n U • internally within the City, of Chico to determine what they could do With the Master Plan to exedite it's adoption. He said the Master Plan for the airport is almost completed. He said they are considering adopting the master plan as a plan for a local level which would make it applicable for the ALUC's CLUP. The next step is to work concurrently with the resource agencies getting things into. place. .Overall, Commissioner Grierson said he believed they could proceed with the master plan which identifies the runway extension and everything that needs to be completed at the airportand incorporated under CEQA while working concurrently for the full program under NEPA. Commissioner Wallrich suggested that Chairman Rosene prepare a letter addressed to CalTrans requesting documentation that CalTrans is aware of the master plan situation and they approve of ALUC's actions in adopting a CLUP without a finalized Airport Land Use Master Plan. C. Using Geographic Features for Compatibility Zone Boundaries Commissioner Grierson `said using physical boundaries is the best option. He said that they can be clearly denoted and, for implementation. purposes, it is'the best thing to do. Chairman Rosene,agreed. Commissioner. Grierson said the more specific ALUC can' be in delineating these boundaries by using property and physical boundaries, the more practical they become. Chairman Rosene said they agreed that where they could do it easily, they would. There was a discussion on approaches and airport master plans. d. Chico Municipal Airport Mr. Brody said the description of the City's recommendation is in the matrix and reflects a map that has not been physically reviewed. He said the map that the, Commission is.reviewing today is a map that was included in the packets and is a revised draft prepared with Shutt- Moen's suggestions to change. in response to, the City, County and ALUC's comments. The Commission reviewed maps and discussed extensively the different zones and options. Mr. Brody, said the maps will be amended to reflect the following comments. He also. said that with these amendments, they will accommodate the .City's and developers' needs and will still provide good protection for the.airport. Airport Land Use Commission Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page' 16 ■ t ■ Widen Zone A. • E. Keep Zone B-1; as previously prepared. ■ Modify the B-2 & C Zones, per the original request of the City, as they wanted to follow parcel lines. e. Oroville Municipal Aimort .- Mr. Brody showed the Commission a map that depicted the original boundaries along with the proposed changes. He said that the new map is relatively equivalent to the original concept. The Commission reviewed maps and discussed the different zones and options. Chairman Rosene suggested accepting the current map and seeing what kind of response is received from the City. He said the map is based on sound principles. f. Ranchero Airport Mr: Brody said they prepared the map based on recommendations from the sub-committee, with some minor adjustments. The Commission reviewed and agreed'with the map, as prepared. 11. Aviation Forecasts `The Commission- agreed with the recommendation, as prepared by the consultant. .12. Conflicts with City and County Land Use Goals and Policies/Reductions in Residential Housing Opportunities Mr. Brody said that by keeping the two choices in Zone C, issues have been addressed. He said the concern was how many dwelling units would be eliminated if it was only a low density choice. The Commission agreed with the recommendation, as prepared by the , consultant. 13. Taking of Private Property } The Commission agreed with the recommendation, as prepared by the consultant. 14.. 'California Environmental Ouality Act Mr. Brody said they will add information to the Initial Study, but that the expectation at this point, is still a Negative Declaration. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■. Minutes of July 19, 2000 ■ Page 17 ■ with the recommendation, as prepared by the The Commission agreed consultant. • 15. Timing, of Com atibili Plan Ado tion/Relationshi to Chico Ai ort Master Plan Update Mr. Brody said that these issues had been covered earlier. 16. Public c Notice The Commission agreed with the recommendation, as prepared by the consultant. 17. Support for ALUC Adoption of the Draft Compatibili Plan .The Commission agreed with the recommendation', as prepared by the consultant. Break from 3:10 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. Chairman Rosene asked the Commission whether their September meeting was okay to review the addendum. Commissioner Grierson clarified that after the Commission's review, they would be releasing the CLUP as a public document. • Chairman Rosene agreed. Commissioner Grierson asked how long the public comment period would be. Mr. Meleka said the comment period would be 30 days,.and that approximately in December, the ALUC would be adopting their CLUP. . ITEM WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING There was a very brief discussion on Ruddy Creek, initiated by Commissioner Gerst. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT The monthly Status Report was presented to the Commission. ■ Commissioner Grierson asked if the Commission was going to receive a synopsis of the ALUC budget. He also asked about revenue that has been generated from fees. Mr. Meleka said he would inquire about the requests made by the Commission and report at the next meeting. ■ Chairman Rosene said that the Commission had asked at a prior meeting that staff organize a combined meeting between the Chico City Council, Oroville City Council, and the Board of . Supervisors to review the addendum and the CLUP. He asked if the meeting could be organized and held in September or thereabouts. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 Page 18 ■ • Mr. Meleka said that he would coordinate this meeting. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Chairman Rosene said that he was approached by a Supervisor to talk to a project applicant regarding a project that will be in a C Zone. He said the applicant's name is Roy Rottschalk, a structural engineer. Chairman Rosene said that he met with Mr. Rottschalk and discussed his potential modification of a building. He said he reviewed with Mr. Rotschalk how ALUC reviews projects and issues that the Commission might consider, including intensity of use and location. 2. Chairman Rosene proudly announced that Commissioner Fred Gerst was named "Airport Defender of the Year." 3. Chairman Rosene said the Commission received a letter from Mr. George Kammerer and that he prepared a letter in response, both of which were included within the packets, and asked that the Commission consider making a motion to allow the letter to "come from the Commission rather than from himself, as the Chairman. " • It was moved by Commissioner Wallrich, and seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unammously'carried to have the letter, as written, forwarded to Mr. George Kammerer from the entire Commission. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. J. CLOSED SESSION None. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M.A. Mel a, Princi al Planner Minutes prepared by Jill Brodeison, Administrative services Assistant ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of July 19, 2000 1i Page 19 ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers `25 County Center Drive, Oroville California CLERK OF THE BOARD Date/Time: July 19, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. File folder for table rr AGENDA �- ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance. .� B. Roll Call. C. Approval of the draft minutes for the February 16, April 19, and June 21, 2000 meetings. D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staffmay request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order). E. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS ALUC File No. A00-03 Consistencv Findine for The Citv of Chico - General Plan Amendment and Rezone. APN 048-020-061 (Dtn.) and 100 (Dtn.): A General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Rezone from R-1 to R-2. The approximately 15 -acre site is bordered on the north by the future Eaton Road extension, the west by Ceonothus Ave., the south by a power line easement, and the east by the extension of Cactus Ave., southeast of Chico Municipal Airport. 2. ALUC File No. A00-.04 Consistencv Findine for Renee Jenett - Tentative Parcel Man 99- 11, APN 030-160-058 & 059: A Tentative Parcel Map creating four parcels and a remainder parcel from two parcels of 0.53 and 4.7 acres in size. The,proposal includes two parcels at 0.63 (+/-) acre, two parcels at 0.27. (+/-) acre, and a remainder parcel of 3.43 (+/-) acres. The property is zoned AR (Agricultural Residential) and.is designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan. 3. - Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: ;Review of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. Comment: The public comment period for this item closed on June 9, 2000. No action to be taken. AFAirport Land Use Commission aJuly 19, 2000 Agenda i Page I F. Monthly Status Report. G. Committee Appointments. >( H. Correspondence and -Commission Announcements: I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda.- (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if itis not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session - None. K. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. . *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to ,an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S. 08 per page. R ULES APPL YING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte, ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. 'Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the =� agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting, at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. Alter receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. ' 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the. Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those -requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County' Administration Building front entrance and glass case. t RAirport Land Use Commission NJuly 19, 2000 Agenda AFPage 2 Ar BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 21, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerst, Hodges, Lambert, Wallrich and Chair Rosene Absent: Commissioners Grierson and Hatley Others Present: M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Laura Webster, Consultant Ken Brody, Consultant Alt. Commissioner Hennigan . Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Alta Commissioner Ward Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2000 The Commission made the following corrections to the minutes of May 17, 2000:. Page 8, 6th Paragraph, change "SEPCO" to "CEPCO' ; Page 13, rewrite 8th Paragraph to read: "Mr. Sanders said they were not overlaying the 2000 CLUP over property where there is not already a current airport plan. The current airport plan for the City of Chico' includes areas where they do not allow residential units. The 2000 CLUP is allowing some residential uses. In some ways, the current airport plan is more restrictive that what the 2000 CLUP is proposing. He said the CEQA evaluation would be influenced by what the current CL UP allows. It was moved by Commission Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried to approve the minutes of May 17, 2000, as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was the consensus of the Commission to add the following items under the Correspondence and Commission Announcements portion of the agenda: 1. City of Chico override of the 1999 CLUP 2. Legal Counsel support 3. Ruddy Creek It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried to accept the Agenda, as amended by the Commission. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING • 1. Review of GIS -prepared °compatibility zone maps (Airport Environs Plans) of the 1.999 CLLP amendment for consistency with adopted action. It was.moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and carried to accept the GIS -prepared compatibility zone maps of the 1999 CLUP Update and find them matching those adopted in December, 1999. • ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: Ken Brody, Consultant, presented a slide: show and information regarding the Compatibility Criteria and Zone Boundaries 'contained in the Draft 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP). It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff and the consultant to consider and study the recommendations of the sub -committee regarding the Ranchearo Airport in the process of finalizing the 2000 CLUP. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the consultant's recommendations, as stated in the Draft 2000 CLUP, for the Paradise Skypark Airport. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff.and the consultant to consider and study the recommendations of the sub -committee regarding the Oroville Airport in the process of finalizing the 2000 CLUP. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff and the consultant to consider the public comments, the.Commission's comments, and the recommendations of the sub -committee regarding the Chico Municipal Airport to and study them in the process of finalizing the 2000 CLUP. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT, • The monthly Status Report was presented to the Commission. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Discussion of providing ALUC with Legal Counsel support Chair Rosene asked Mr. Meleka if he has inquired about getting a copy of the letter provided by Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP which formed the basis for the letter written by theNeil McCabe, County Counsel. He affirmed, but was not able to get it. Chair Rosene said he would ask the county Counsel to furnish a copy of this letter. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and carried to prepare a letter requesting the Board of Supervisors' reply to.the.request for providing the-ALUC with an attorney to provide guidance through the process of adopting the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Chair Rosene said he would write the letter. 2. - Ruddy Creek . It was the consensus of the Commission to review information regarding Ruddy Creek, to be provided • by Commissioner Gerst, for consistency findings with the 1999 CLUP Update and to determine whether the Commission's previous approval was based on misinformation. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of June 21, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ . 3. City of Chico override of the 1999 CLUP . It was the consensus of the Commission to formally invite the Chico City Council to a workshop to discuss the issues of the 2000 CLUP. L PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. ` J. CLOSED SESSION None. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:13 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. MEL KA, Pri cipal Planner Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of June 21, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ BUTTE COUNTY, AIRPORT-LAND':USE COMMISSION, ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville' CA.95965 ■ (530).538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ii L. REGULAR 'MEET ING OF THE COMMISSION' Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California ,.. B E COUNTY y Date/Time: June 21, 2000 = 9:-00 a:m. f' AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY. CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE. CA 95969-3397, AGENDA. , ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT " A. Pledge of Allegiance. ' B. Roll Call. - -. 1 • C. Approval of the minutes fot'the. May 17 meeting: The minutes for the Feb 16 and'Apri1 19, 2000 meetings have not been completed ;(The minutes should be ready for the,Commission at their July meeting.) D. Acceptance ofthe Agenda (Commission members orstaffmay request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order). IK.'E-.'A Business Items: 'r ITEM,WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING I. Review of GIS prepared,compatibility zone maps (Airport Environs Plans) of the 1999 "CLUP amendment for consistency with adopted action.: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: Review of the°Dtaft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The draft Airport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive• review of the'compatibility criteria applicable. to each of the . County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo'Airport. Comment --,'The public commentperiodfor this item closed • on June 9, 2000. -No action 107 be taken. F. Monthly Status Report. , G. Committee Appointments. „ H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: "' mAir&rt Land Use Commission sJune-2/, 2000 Agenda Ar Page l w- I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. 11. 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.) J. Closed Session - None. K. Adjournment. Any disabled�erson*needing,spectal accommodation to participate' in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Fsr^a r�.m..m . MelePa� tj0, 3,Qf ` J)q.,7601 ji6r*t th'e=meetingggn'd arrangements will be made to accommodate you. WIN. t ip�a� .du «oar vt s 6fTu pini *Anyperson dddressJhe Comm pVon. during the Business From the Floor segment of the agenda. 3J H-V Copies of the agen a an &5cuinen rel five to' an agenda item maybe obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Corihment" on the agenda. The Commission may' not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item; upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and addressat the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. Airport Land Use Commission -June2l, 2000 Agenda a Page 2 • • • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Special Meeting of the Commission Minutes of June 8, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. - ROLL CALL C. Present: Absent: Others Present: Commissioners Lambert, Gerst, Wallrich, and Chair Rosene Commissioners Causey, Grierson, and Hatley M.A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Jill Broderson; Administrative Services Assistant - Alternate Commissioner Baldridge Alternate Commissioner Ward Alternate Commissioner Hennigan Barbara Hennigan BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Joint Meeting for the Bou ndaries/Densities and Infill Sub -Committees: General discussion of issues and standards related to the 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Chairman Rosene stated that the purpose of the joint meeting between the Infill and Boundaries/Densities. Committees is to review the Committee's findings for each airport. The Commission agreed to review the airports in the following order: Paradise, Ranchero, Chico, and Oroville. PARADISE'AIRPORT Boundaries/Densities Committee: Commissioner Gerst said that the committee discussed the idea of moving Zone C to the east slightly; however, there was never an actual suggestion made. illCommittee: Chairman Rosene said the` Committee recommended that the current land use plan description of infill be applied as is. Chairman Rosene opened the hearing to the public. No one from the public spoke. Chairman Rosene closed the hearing to the public. He then asked for the justification of the suggested changes. • Alternate Commissioner Ward left at this time. ::► 111191F.11 I IN Commissioner Lambert said that suggestions for changes included: ■ Moving the western boundary (1,500 feet) in the B1 zone. ■ Moving the.eastem boundaries (1,500 feet) in the B2 zone. Moving the northern boundary of the B 1 zone to the north which would eliminate B2. Chairman Rosene asked if the intent was to straighten out the fan shape; he also asked the committee if they were straightening out the fan shape or leaving them towards the west at the approach ends. Commission Gerst said that his notes reflected that the fan shape was brought to the southwest, therefore, making a sharper turn in the arrival and departure. Mr. Sanders clarified the suggested additional fan width. He stated that there was a • change on the southern end of B1 to continue to a 2,500 foot radius to -the east, then eliminating the pie shape sliver of B2. Commissioner Gerst suggested that a portion of D (to the east) would be eliminated by approximately 1500 feet following the north end to Chico Creek out to 1500 feet. It would then go straight out to where it intersects with the 5,000 foot radius. Chairman Rosene said that discussion of moving,C to the east would be held during the CLUP adoption process. He said that C to the east side is not an overflight zone and that it is a noise zone. and is a potential safety zone. Chairman Rosene said that the' Committee had no specific comments, other than the 65 percent -surrounding -parcels rule and no mother-in-law units on the properties within u _._.certain zones, as already stipulated. He noted. that the City of Chico never approached the Committee with any conflicts. Chairman Rosene opened the hearing to the public. No one from the public spoke. - Chairman Rosene closed the hearing to the public. • Chairman Rosene pointed out to the need for justifications for the suggestions that have been made. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Special Meeting of June 8, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ • • • CHICO AIRPORT Boundaries/Densities Committee: !. • Commissioner Lambert said the committee had a concern about noise contours to the north and south. 'She said that suggestions for changes included: ■ Preferably follow natural boundary lines or parcel lines in general. IN Extend the southern end of B1 by 7,500 feet to match the north end. ■ Expand both east and west sides of B2 by 500 feet, with no clustering. ■ Allow clustering in C. ■ . No changes in D. Mr. Sanders suggested the following: ■ Keeping the same distance from the centerline of the westerly runway to the west and the same distance from easterly runway to the east. ■ From the end of each runway, instead of having 1,000 feet to where A ends, it would be 2,500 feet, similar to the main runway. The justification is that when the extension occurs, the same type of traffic would be occurring at both ends of the extended runway. Chairman Rosene said that the commission obtained a map from the City of Chico, it reflected their 'ideas and the concerns they have about the south end. Commissioner Wallrich suggested extending Bl to the south. Commission Gerst said that noise contours.should be taken into consideration Chairman Rosene,opened the hearing to the public. George Kammerer expressed his concerns that the recommendations of the sub- committees to the Commission are more conservative than what was proposed in the draft 2000 plan to begin with. He said that various members of the public requested thatthe criteria the ALUC considers be less restrictive and not make them more onerous than they already are in the proposed plan. Mr. Kammerer reviewed suggested criteria in both B2 and C. He said on behalf of his clients, who control over. 2,000.'acres around the airport, would like to see ALUC move the standards in line with the CalTrans Handbook.and relaxing them, rather than making them more restrictive: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Special Meeting of June 8, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ • Commissioner Hennigan said that there is a degree of control in most accidents and that if project sites should include an open space area, it would provide a useful place for a single engine aircraft to make an emergency landing. He suggested that this idea be considered by both the Commission and the consultant to see if they could somehow make it a part:of the plan. Mr. Kammerer agreed with Commissioner Hennigan. He then asked if the. recommendation of embodying the projects is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan or is it compatible criteria? Commissioner Hennigan said it would be a way of making the plan compatible when it might not -otherwise be. Mr. Kammerer asked about a the legal opinion that was provided by Remy, Thomas and Moose and if it has been received by the Commission? Chairman Rosene said. it was not public information and that if the Commission decides that it becomes public information, it will be made available for everyone. Commissioner Wallrich said the proposed infill is not more restrictive. Mr. Meleka said that Policy .4.25 on page 227, open land requirements for each compatibility zone are to be applied with respect to the entire zone. However, individual • parcel may be too small to accommodate the minimum size open area requirement; in this case, open space area requirements be accomplished at the General Plan or specific Plan level. The intent is to accomplish these requirements at the level of the entire zone. Barbara Hennigan brought a map to the meeting, which she researched and prepared herself, reflecting the accidents that have occurred around Chico Airport. Mrs: Hennigan reviewed the map with the Commission and noted that the map does not include the FAA. incident reports. Chairman Rosene closed the hearing to the public. In reference to the chart on page 214, the Commission reviewed the following: ■ Zone A. No change. ..Zone BL Under "other uses," delete "50 "and "not applicable," no clustering, use a floor area ratio 0.3, and do not include parking spaces and landscaping. Under required open space, change the requirement from 30% to 50%. ■ Zone 132: One dwelling unit per 5 acre. or. larger parcels. Under "other uses/ average;" delete "50" and suggest "35 ". Under single -acre intensity, delete "100" and replace with ."not applicable with no clustering allowed". Change the open space from 20% to 30% with a floor area ratio 0.3. Under. "prohibited uses," expand the list as appropriate. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Special Meeting of June 8, 2000 ■ Page 4 ■ A S!{ ■ Zone C: Under traffic pattern/over flight, the area to the north (where the runway expansion will take place) the density should be one dwelling unit per 5 acres; the area to the south should be of a higher density with infill. Under "other uses," the intensity "100" should be deleted and replaced with "50 ". The intensity "300" should be reduced to "150". No bonuses; the open space should be increased from 10 percent to 20 percent which would include streets and front yards. Clustering would be allowed. Under other development conditions, add avigation easement. ■ Zone D: Overflight area is of a minimal concern. The maximum density should . be four dwelling units per acre rather than no limit. Agricultural use is compatible with airport -related operations/activities. The commercial intensity should be limited to "50," the limit for single -acre intensity should be "150," and no bonuses are granted. Instead of no requirement under open space, the requirement should be 20 percent. Note: No clustering at Ranchero or Paradise; clustering is allowed in C. Although, not apart of the table, the language in zones B2, C, and D on page 2-28 should be consistent with the suggested criteria/standards modifications.' Chairman Rosene said that justifications are needed for the suggestions that have been made. . �RM10 a TV 1111'•: Commissioner Lambert stated the Committee suggested moving B2 boundaries out approximately 7,500 feet and moving out 131 boundaries 1,500 feet to the west and 500 feet to the east. Mr. Sanders pointed out certain suggestions to the subcommittee including: ■ North and south ends of the runway be consistent in terms of the compatibility zone distances. ■ Extend B2 out from a 7,500 feet radius to a 10,000 foot radius. ■ Based upon information from Alternate Commission Papadakis, extend B 1 further to accommodate a precision instrument approach. ■ Expand Zone A by 2,500 feet at the end of the threshold. Mr. Sanders noted that the City of Oroville had some suggestions. for making minor changes to Zone A on the north end. In.reference to Zone B2, Commission Lambert stated the Committee suggested moving it out 10,000 feet on the east and west sides of the airport, as well as 1,500 feet to the west side. Commission Lambert stated that there were no suggested changes for D. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Special Meeting. of June 8, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ 1'k • Mr. Sanders said there was discussion on.utilizing natural boundaries to delineate the different zories, particularly on the north side. , MY Committee: Chairman Rosene had no specific recommendations but to follow the infill directives already in place. Commissioner Hennigan expressed his concerns regarding pre-existing uses. A debate took place regarding CEQA compliance. Chairman Rosene said that the Commission needs to provide input to the consultant at the next meeting. He stated the Commission needs to document their changes and have rationale for the changes that they wish to make to the consultant's plan. He said that at the next meeting, they need to have strong arguments as to why they are making the suggested changes. Commissioner Gerst asked about having legal counsel in attendance at their future meetings, and suggested that this be placed on the agenda.as an item for discussion at the next meeting. " Tom Buford, Interim Planning Director for the City of Oroville, introduced himself and stated that a letter dated May 4 8, 2000, addressed to the Commission addressed several issues. He pointed out that he is available to meet with staff and said that the City intends to work closely and cooperatively with ALUC. Mr. Meleka confirmed receiving the Oroville letter and that it should be included in the mahout packet for the June 21, 2000, meeting. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Rosene asked when would the Chico's Master Plan be completed. Commissioner Baldridge replied that he attended Chico's Airport Commission meeting recently and that the Plan could take a while before it is adopted. Barbra Hennigan made a comment that she has been gathering information and facts that justify protecting the air tanker tract. D. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. AIRPORT ItUSE COMMISSION JV M. A. MVLEKA, P ' ciP al Planner Minutes prep ed by Jill Brod rson,.Administrative Services Assistant ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■, Minutes of Special Meeting of June 8, 2000■ Page 6 ■ L� f BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - B. INTRODUCTION OF NEW. COMMISSIONER (selected by City Selection Committee). - Chair Hennigan announced that Alternate Commissioner Wallrich was selected by the City Selection Committee to serve as a regular Commissioner to the Airport Land Use Commission. C. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson, Hodges, :Lambert, Rosen, Wallrich and . Chair Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Hatley Others Present: M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant • Laura Webster, Consultant Alt.. Commissioner Baldridge Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record D. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes for the February 16, and April 19, 2000. meetings were not completed. . E. NOMINATION. AND ELECTION OF. CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN Commissioner Rosene was nominated for the Chairman position. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and carried to elect Commissioner Rosene to Chairman. . Commissioner Lambert was nominated for the Vice -Chairman position. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried to elect Commissioner Lambert to Vice -Chairman. Commissioner Wallrich announced that Bob Hennigan will serve as his alternate. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried to accept the Agenda as presented. G. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Review of GIS prepared compatibility zone maps (Airport. Environs Plans) of the 1999 CLUP amendment for consistency with adopted action. Mr. Meleka sai&he had worked with the GIS staff to make sure that these maps matched the hand drawn maps adopted by ALUC in December 1999 for the 1999 CLUP Amendment. He said the GIS maps would make it easier for staff to provide more accurate and reliable information, as well as providing better project maps, until the new CLUP is adopted. Staff recommended the Commission find the GIS prepared maps match the maps adopted in December 1999 as part of the 1999 CLUP Amendment. Commissioner Grierson addressed the map prepared for the Chico Municipal Airport. He said the scale .of the map was not large enough to pick locations`out and requested seeing a larger map before the Commission adopts the maps. He said he did not remember adopting • the Over Flight Protection Zones as listed -on the GIS prepared map.. After reviewing the a copy of the original map, Commissioner Grierson accepted the overflight protection zone as shown on the GIS map. Regarding the Ranchaero Airport, the GIS map still shows that Zone 3 is to the left of the centerline of the runway. He said he remembered requesting that it cover it completely to the right. The map needs to reflect the protection as straight out. Mr. Meleka said staff had the maps that the Commission adopted in 1999 and will recheck them. Commissioner Gerst said the runway extension was not included in the Oroville Airport GIS map. It was acknowledged that the runway extension could not be included on the 1999 GIS maps as it was not on the hand drawn maps. Commissioner Papadakis requested that the GIS maps include the adoption date. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ALUC File No. A00-01 Consistency finding for Bellin Trust et. al. = Proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and • Annexation to the City of Chico on APN 047-280-014, 015, 020 -and 094. ■ Airport Land Use Commission -Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ • • 0 Mr. Sanders presented the report and recommendations prepared for the project Commissioner Grierson said Page 4, Section 3, 1 st line, should be changed from 'Paradise' Airport to 'Chico' Airport. Commissioner Lambert said the report showed that the County of Butte is the Lead Agency for the project. She asked if it should be the City of Chico? Mr. Sanders said the report should have stated that the City of Chico is the lead agency. Ms. Leasure said an annexation and sphere amendment is a complicated issue. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) has designated authority to the City of Chico to be the Lead Agency on environmental documents for annexations and the City also prepares the draft environmental documents for .sphere amendments where LAFCo is the Lead Agency. For this project, the City of Chico is the appropriate Lead Agency. Alternate Commissioner Hennigan recommended that on Page 6, Section C., Lb., last line, should say 'prohibited' instead of'avoided'. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. As there were no public comments, the hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Gerst was concerned about Section 3.B. l .a.,.allowing the intensity of use to greater than 100 people per acre. He said the CLUP subcommittee would be. recommending that the density be no greater than 50 people per acre. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried to find that ALUC File No. A00 -O I (Bellin Trust et. al. - Proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and Annexation to the City of Chico) is consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29; 1999, if the requirements of the Consistency Findings in Exhibit A -Section 3 (as amended by the Commission) are applied as conditions to the rezone and to future land divisions to the property. The project was approved with the following findings: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted 'at the time of project review. SECTION 2: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY A. The proposed project will be consistent with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October ■ Airport Land Use Commission■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 3 • 21, .1998, and December 29, 1999, if the requirements in Section 3 are applied as conditions of.the zoning and any future land divisions. B. Approval of the project'. without implementation of the requirements in Section 3 wouldl necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding. Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must be supported: by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act; as stated in Section 2.1670, "Overriding Findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, heresay, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body." SECTION 3:, PROJECT FINDINGS According to the newly adopted Chico Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone Map "6- 1' , the project site is located within Overflight Protection Zone "A" and is within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), with restrictions as follows: A. Airport Overflight Zone 1. This area is subject to the most low altitude overflight activity. The. development of - new residential uses is prohibited in zone A. B. Safety.Zone "6"- Traffic Pattern Zone 1: The project would be consistent with the CLUP if development within the project site meets the following conditions: a. The intensity of use shall not be greater than 100 people per acre. b. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas,. and . other areas where 'people work or congregate. c. Communication, towers are prohibited. d. Churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities,.. elementary and secondary schools, child care facilties;.and similar aggregations of people are prohibited. e: No bulk petroleum products (except airport related), flammables, or explosives or,chemical storage above ground is permitted: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17; 2000 ■ Page 4 • is -0 2. A condition shall be required as part of the rezone and future parcel maps stating that prior to the-- issuance of Building Permits the property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting to the City of Chico the. right of continued use of the Chico Municipal Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. C. Airspace Protection 1. The Commission finds that, due to the topography of the project, there are no transitional surface problems. The subject property is located slightly above the airport surface but there are approximately 128- feet between the ground level and the horizontal surface. Approach surfaces would not be affected due to topography or future development. a. A condition should be included, as part of the proposed rezone or future parcel map, stating that any project -related lighting shall be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. b. A condition should be included, as part of the proposed rezone or future parcel map, stating that uses which have the potential to create visual, electronic, or physical flight hazards including the generation of dust, smoke, glare,. electronic interference, or the attraction of birds to the project area shall be prohibited. D. Safe 1. Accident scatter`information adopted as part of the October 21, 1998, Chico Municipal Airport CLUP Amendment, Exhibit D (Hodges and Shutt -1993 and UC -Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies - 1993) indicates that the highest concentration of both departure- and arrival -related aircraft .accidents take place within the Runway _Protection Zone and Approach Surface, off the ends of the runway and on either. side of the runway. Due to the project site's location in proximity to the side of the north end of runway 13L, there is a slightly elevated likelihood for aircraft -related accidents to occur within the project boundary. Conditions required under Section 3, Items B.1. and B.2. within the ALUC's findings will ensure that future developmentwill be accomplished in a manner that reduces the hazards with respect to aircraft related accidents. 2. Staff, recommends that the City's environmental analysis contain a discussion of airport safety and 'include a mitigation measure that considers the proximity to the airport and provides enhanced ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ • protection in the event of an aircraft -related accident. Accordingly, a steel reinforced concrete or concrete tilt -up design would be preferable to a wood frame construction or a metal shell structure. Also, buildings that have significant numbers of employees should have an established evacuation plan, have at least one more emergency exit in addition to that required by the building code, and be limited to two stories to facilitate exiting in case of an accident. Staff was directed to communicate to the Planning Commission that this type of project is one that the ALUC encourages. 3. ALUC File No. A00-02 -Consistency findings for Steve Schuster - Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 014 and 015. Mr. Sanders presented the report and recommendations prepared for the project. Commissioner Wallrich pointed out that the Recommendation on page two of staffs report should reflect Steve Schuster's Tentative Subdivision Map, ALUC File No. A00-02 and not Bellin Trust et. al. Commissioner Gerst recommended that'in Zone 6' should be added to the last line of Section 3, 1. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Steve Schuster, potential developer of the project, said the Commission's adoption of the . December 1999, Policy trashes the property rights in the area. It also devalues the property by approximately 250%. He said he would appeal ALUC's decision to the Board of Supervisors. . He said the Commission had thrown out the density of the North Chico. Specific Plan. He said he would actively seek restitution for the property, along with others who live and own property on the street. Chair Rosene asked Mr. Schuster how the property has been devalued by 250%? Mr. Schuster replied that the current County zoning is one dwelling unit per acre. If it is set at 2.5 dwelling units per acre, a considerable amount of property is lost for development. ALUC is making the land virtually undevelopable. Developing the land at 2.5 dwelling units per acre is too expensive. Commissioner Lambert asked why Mr. Schuster requested developing only 34 parcels when he could have developed all 48 acres? Mr. Schuster answered that the North Chico Specific Plan requires that buffer zones are left in place. The buffer zones eat up about'8 acres.. Also, .the way the. lots lay out, it is not always possible to get. one unit per acre and leave enough space between houses. His first ■ Airport Land Use Commission v! Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 • Page 6 • • idea was to apply clustering to get 48 lots, but he was told that ALUC had eliminated clustering within the airport zone. The ALUC has eliminated everything in the area that makes it worth developing. There were no further public comments and the hearing was closed to the public. Chair Rosene said the Commission was charged with protecting the airports. He said the major reason that the United States is losing so many airports- is because of residential encroachment. It was moved by Commissioner.Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Gerst, and carried to deny the project, based on the inconsistencies and the lack of findings that would comply with the 1978 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Chico Municipal Airport, as amended on October 21, 1998, and December 29, 1999, for ALUC File No. 00-02 Consistency Finding for Steve Schuster - Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013, 014 and 015. Chair Rosene asked if Mr. Schuster decides to redesign his plan to meet the 2.5 acre criteria, would it come back before ALUC? Mr. Sanders said given the current state of affairs with the, General Plan and the inconsistency with the ALUC, all projects would come back. 4. Butte County. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: Mr. Meleka said this was a public hearing item comprising four elements; additional comments and testimony, the role and expectations of the sub -committees, the development of a timeline, and an update of the request for a legal opinion the Commission requested at the April 19, 200,0, meeting. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. Additional Comments and Testimony Jim Mann, representing Drake Homes and the Building Industry Association, said he had several clients who own land around the Chico. Airport and are affected by the CLUP. He asked for clarification regarding the sub -committees, such as how formal they are and what their objectives are. He said he was present at one of the Boundaries and Densities sub- . committee meetings, but understands that they have met four times. Proper notice was not provided to individuals interested in attending. Since ALUC staff is involved in the meetings, there should be proper notice to interested persons and an opportunity for dialogue. He said he heard from a colleague that the Boundaries and Densities sub -committee is ready to present formal recommendations to the full Commission. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 7 ■ Mr. Meleka said Mr. Sanders called Mr. Mann's office to inform him of the date and time of the third sub -committee meeting. Also, the day of the meeting, Mr. Meleka called Mr. Mann's office to again make sure he was informed of the third sub -committee meeting. He said according to the Brown Act, the sub_committee meetings are not considered regular meetings. He said staff made every effort to infoim everyone far in advance of the meeting. Mr. Mann said he received the agenda the.day of the meetings and was very concerned that proper notice was not being given to interested persons. Commissioner Lambert said Mr. Mann's colleague attended two sub -committee meetings and participated in the discussions. The last sub -committee meeting was dragging on and they asked that participants wait until the end of the meeting to present their comments so that the committee could finish its work or they could submit their comments in writing. Mr. Mann said he wished everyone could work together on land that already has zoning and general plan compatibility. He said he hated to see this thing go to overrides in June, but that is what is happening. Chair Rosene said the Commission also wanted to work together. He said ALUC staff would try to provide better notice to interested persons. Commissioner Grierson said he had met with people representing the Chamber of. Commerce, SEPCO, BIA, City Planning staff, and others, to discuss their views on this issue. He said it was his impression that the ALUC wants to reach out to the communities, affected industries, and interested parties to encourage participation, involvement, and ideas. The concern is that formal meetings are being held and recommendations are being made without taking into consideration the input from the communities and impacted parties. The reason the comment period for the CLUP was extended to June 9, was to consider further comments from the communities and impacted parties. He said he was considering suggesting that ALUC not continue with formal meetings, but rather that the Commissioners meet individually with the affected parties to help them formalize their comments and suggestions. The Commissioners could then bring the comments and suggestions back before the full Commission or they could be taken to the individual cities, because it is the cities that will . be adopting the CLUP. Holding meetings at this stage may be premature. The cities have not put together their recommendations and the Commission may not be ready to hear any recommendations at this time. He expressed concern about meetings being held when people may not know about them and wonder if they are secret meetings. He believes it is building mistrust between the ALUC and the communities. Commissioner Lambert said she did not consider the sub -committee meetings to be secret. The sub -committees were appointed_ by the Chair of ALUC during a public hearing. Commissioner Grierson said the meetings are being perceived as secret because proper notice has not taken place. • Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 8 ■ • Commissioner Lambert said it has been stated today thafthe City of Chico Council is going to make overriding findings in June. She asked of what? Commissioner Grierson answered the overriding findings would be on the Plan adopted in December, 1999. Chair Rosene said nothing happened at any of the sub -committee meetings that really matters yet. Staff is going to do a better job at giving notice to the public for these meetings so that everyone who wants to participate can do so. ALUC wants input from everyone. Commissioner Gerst suggested the sub -committees meet first to discuss proposed recommendations. After that, they could meet with the interested public to discuss those proposed recommendations. Commissioner Grierson suggested setting a series of sub -committee meeting dates and locations and then publishing the schedule. Commissioner Lambert suggested that the Commission also set guidelines as to how the sub- committees are to operate. Commissioner Grierson said the ALUC has received a plan by a qualified consultant with his best recommendation of the configuration. ALUC needs the input from interested and . affected parties as -to why the configurations are wrong or how they need to be modified. If individual- Commissioners have concerns about the consultant's recommendation, those concerns also need to be considered. Chair Rosene said he prefers that the sub -committee meetings be run as the Chair of each sub -committee sees fit so that the meetings are efficient while still receiving public comment: George Kammerer, Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP, representing land owners in the vicinity of. the Chico Municipal Airport, commented that none of the people he represents are opposed to the ALUC's ultimate goals of adequately protecting any of the airports in the County. He urged the Commission to provide better notice of sub -committee meetings and .i that informative agenda's be supplied in advance of the meetings. He said there is clearly a perception that the public is being shut out of the process. He believed the correct way to address the issues of densities andboundaries,- infill, signage, or any other issues is in a regularly scheduled ALUC public meeting. Mr. Kammerer presented a letter, dated May 11, 2000, providing his written comments on the issues discussed at the Densities and Boundaries Sub -Committee meeting of May 1, 2000. He said ALUC cannot legally adopt the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan without preparation of an Environmental Impact Report acknowledging alf potential impacts that will occur on lands in the vicinity of the airport. Commissioner Grierson asked Mr..Kammerer to provide a table identifying the various recommendations for changes to the Airport Environs Plan that were presented in his letter ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17,.2000 ■ Page 9 ■ of May 11, 2000. 'A table would make it easier for the Commission to follow these recommendations. Commissioner Papadakis said the April 24, 2000 meeting of the Densities and Boundaries Sub -Committee was not canceled. Barbara Hennigan said the Airport Land Use Handbook is designed for all of California. She said something that may be allowed off the end of a runway in Los Angeles is not appropriate for Butte County. Los Angeles densities are not permitted in the cities within Butte County so why should they be. allowed around Butte County airports? The Butte County ALUC Commissioners are the ones who know what is going on around the Butte County airports. She also entered a report into the record entitled, "Retardant Drop - Foothill Park East and Bidwell Ranch Aircraft Operations Impact and Conflicts Study "; dated November 1996, prepared by John C. Freytag, P.E., Director of Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. She commented on the inaccurate statements contained in the report and urged the Commission to be aware of erroneous materials brought forward and quoted as being expert information. There were no further public comments and Chair Rosene closed the hearing to the public. The Role and Expectation of the Sub -Committees Chair Rosene said the goal of the sub -committees was to evaluate and consider each sub- committee topic. Commissioner Grierson said the sub -committees are to analyze the impacts of each topic and make suggestions for the Commission's review and to consider the public's suggestions and recommendations to also bring forward to the full Commission. Input should also be sought from each community. Commissioner Wallrich said the deadline for comments is set for June 9, 2000. In fairness to the various groups responding to the deadline, it is problematic for the sub -committees to make new recommendations/changes when everyone who is interested may know nothing . about them. Commissioner Gerst said he believes the sub -committees should do their work and then present their recommendations to the communities to begin the public hearing process. As it is now, people are commenting on items the sub -committees keep changing. Chair Rosene said the Commission needs to elicit public comments early in the process so that we can see where the public's concerns are. Commissioner' Grierson said he does not believe the Commission needs to extend the comment. period. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000.■ Page 1.0 1� Mr. Meleka said there have been no requests to extend the comment period. There have.also is. been no written comments from anyone other than Mr. Kammerer. Commissioner Wallrich said he was not sure if the sub -committees could meet the June 9th deadline. The Infill Sub -Committee is still waiting for maps from the City of Chico. Commissioner Lambert said the Densities and Boundaries Sub -Committee is prepared to present their findings to the Commission if it is the appropriate time. Chair Rosene said he would like to hear the sub -committee reports at one time. He recommended that the sub -committee reports and the public comments be fashioned into a draft CLUP No. 2 that would go back to the public for public hearing comments and then the Commission would finalize the CLUP. The Commission agreed that it would be helpful to have an attorney assigned to ALUC. Chair Rosene re -opened the public portion of the hearing. Pete Giampaoli, Epick Homes, Chico, asked if the Densities and Boundaries Sub -Committee had determined the densities and boundaries around the airport in Chico? Commissioner Lambert said the sub -committee reviewed Table 2A and the maps of all of the airports and where the zones were placed on the maps by the consultant. The sub- committee discussed whether the zones were appropriate and whether they should be expanded or reduced. They also discussed the chart on Table 2A and made some modifications. The sub -committee attempted to be consistent with all four airports when possible. Nothing has been firmly decided and the recommendations will be brought back to the full Commission for their review. Mr. Giampaoli asked to know how the sub -committee's recommendations differ from the Draft CLUP. with respect to the south end of the Chico Municipal Airport. Commissioner Lambert said it was premature to discuss the sub -committees report at this time.. Chair Rosene said the sub -committees will present their reports publicly, next month. Mr. Meleka said the sub -committee meetings are not meetings subject to the Brown Act, but they are open to the public. Mr. Kammerer said if changes to the Draft CLUP come back from the three sub-committees- to ub-committeesto ALUC for review, it is imperative that the public be able to comment on those changes. Chair Rosene said no one wasexcluded from making' public or written comments.- The sub- committee recommendations will be presented to the public and they will have ample time ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page l I ■ to comment on them. The.Coinmission will formulate a Draft CLUP No. 2 -that will go out to the public for comment. It will then come back to the Commission for their decision. 10 MINUTE RECESS TAKEN. . MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:08 A.M. The Development of a Time Line Mr. Meleka announced the tentative time line schedule as follows: ■ June 9, 2000 - End of comment period for the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ■ June 21, 2000 - Commission will receive the comments from the public, as well as reports from the sub -committee and direct them all to the consultant. ■ Between the regularly scheduled ALUC meetings of June 21 and July 19, 2000, there will be an advertised Special Meeting where the consultant will meet with the Commission to respond to the public's comments and to receive direction from the Commission. At this Special Meeting, the Commission will determine which direction they will go with the Plan. ■ July 19, 2000 - the Consultant will present his recommendations to the Commission. ■ August 16, 2000 - A Workshop will.be held to provide an additional opportunity for public to comment. ■ September 2000 = Final Draft 2000 CLUP presented. ■ October or November 2000 - Final adoption. Mr. Meleka said the Commission will determine which environmental documents to prepare after the public comments have been received and the consultant has made his recommendations. Commissioner Grierson said the consultant and Caltrans have indicated that ALUC does not have the means to implement the Plan they develop because the communities are responsible for implementing the ' Plan. However, each community's environmental impact report is going to be different. Each community will take a different approach and make different findings. He said he would rather have a consistent environmental report. Ms. Webster said part of the concern is how the project is defined for the EIR. The CLUP will limit densities in certain areas and will address noise and'safety issues, etc. The various jurisdictions will respond to that because the CLUP reduces densities in certain areas, they will have to accommodate growth somewhere else., She said it is highly speculative for ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 12 ■ U ALUC to anticipate where tlio"se areas will be in order to prepare a comprehensive environmental document. Commissioner Hodges said he does not believe this is a project under CEQA because it does not affect .the environment. The jurisdictions that have projects operating within the guidelines of the CLUP are responsible for the environmental review. He said he did not see how ALUC has that responsibility. Ms. Webster said the Caltrans guidelines are very vague in this area. A recent discussion between Caltrans' legal advisors, Christa Engle and Ken Brody, regarding this subject, has produced no conclusion. There are arguments supported by case law validating that the update of a CLUP is not considered a project because it does not have the ability to implement itself in terms of land use changes. There are also arguments supporting a case- by-case determination. Mr. Kammerer asked the Commission to consider what kind of action they are taking to determine whether CEQA is triggered. ALUC is the agency designing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ALUC is directed by the state to be the Lead Agency for this Plan. He said lead agencies must comply with CEQA. Mr. Meleka said a determination regarding environmental analysis will not be made until after the public comments have been received, the sub -committees reports presented and the . consultant has made recommendations. He clarified that CEQA defines a project as a physical change in the environment. The Commission is determining what land uses are or are not compatible,*,but does not implement the zoning: That is the responsibility of the local jurisdictions. The safest approach for the Commission to take would be to consider the 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a project. From there, the Commission. can determine whether to prepare. a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Kammerer said the Commission's action is zoning and the courts have recognized that what ALUC does is exactly the equivalent of zoning. Therefore, it is an action by a Lead Agency that does have. a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner Grierson said he wants an ironclad Plan that the communities will approve and adopt. The Commission has received numerous letters addressing concerns related to CEQA. The Commission must address .those concerns in order to have a Plan that is consistently applied. Mr. Sanders said the 2000 CLUP is not being overlaid over property where there is no current airport plan. The current airport plan for the City of Chico includes areas where no residential units are not allowed. The 2000 CLUP is allowing some residential uses. There are ways that the current plan is more restrictive than what is being proposed. The CEQA evaluation will be influenced by what the current CLUP allows. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 13 ■ Chair Rosene said this issue underscores why ALUC needs their own legal counsel to provide advice and answer questions. Update on Request for a Legal Opinion Mr. Meleka said that Neil McCabe, County Counsel will provide a legal opinion by the end .of this week. 5. Ruddy Creek Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Gerst said the Ruddy Creek Mobile Home Park appeal will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 2000. He said when the project came before ALUC, the Commission determined that the project would-be based on 4 units per acre and not based on clustering. The project is in the approach zone of the Oroville Municipal Airport. He said since there are more industrial uses around the" airport, he was concerned that when the airport changes to an instrument approach, the mobile home park will make it hard to maintain the approach zone. He said that the Caltrans Guidelines provide that if misinformation was given when the ALUC made their decision, the Commission could request the project be returned for a re -hearing. He said the Board of Supervisors needs to be made aware that ALUC's approval was based on 4 units per acre with no clustering. He suggested that the Commission request the project be returned. • Alternate Commissioner Hennigan said that what is extraordinary about this project is that the appeal is neither based upon the project considered by ALUC nor the Planning Commission. The project seems to be constantly changing and the County Planning Division does not even have a map or project submittal of a revised plan. The appeal is based on a plan that no one has seen. Commissioner Lambert asked staff if the appeal is based upon the Planning Commission's action? Mr. Meleka said yes, that was his understanding. He said the Board of Supervisors continued their action in order to comply with ALUC's approval of 4 units per acre. It was the consensus of the Commission to write a letter to the Board of Supervisors informing them"of ALUC's concerns and the intent of ALUC's approval regarding the Ruddy Creek Mobile Home Park. Chair Rosene said he would write the letter. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Discussion to change the regular meeting time of the Airport Land Use Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue to meet at 9:00 a.m. on the third Wednesday of every month. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ H. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT The monthly Status Report was presented to the Commission. I. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. J. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. K. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None: L. CLOSED SESSION None. M. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further. business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION M. A. MkLEEX, Principal Planner Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant T ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft _Minutes of May 17, 2000 ■ Page 15 ■: N!, BUTTE COUNT AIRPORT LAND USLOCOMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time:. May 17, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Introduction of New Commissioner (selected by City Selection Committee). C. Roll Call. D. The minutes for the "February 16 and April 19, 2000 meetings have not been completed (The minutes should be ready for the Commission at their June meeting.), E. - Nomination and Election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman. F. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staffmay request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order). ' G. , Business Items: ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Review of GIS prepared compatibility zone maps (Airport Environs Plans) of the 1999 CLUP amendment for consistency with adopted Action. ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ALUC File No. A00-01 Consistency finding for Bellin Trust et. al. - Proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Sphere of Influence Amendment, and Annexation to the City of Chico on APN 047-280-014, 015, 020, and 094: The project involves 4 parcels totaling approximately 43 acres. The applicant is seeking a change to the land use designation and zoning for the parcels. The existing County zoning is LI - Limited Industrial on 20 acres and SR -3 on the remaining 23 acres. The proposed City General Plan designation and zoning is Research./Manufacturing Park. The project` site is located on the easterly side of the Chico ' Municipal Airport approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of Ryan Ave. and Fortress Ave. 3. ALUC File No. A00-02 Consistency finding for Steve Schuster - Tentative Subdivision Map, APN 047-350-013,014, and 015: A tentative subdivision map application to create 34 parcels on approximately 48.5 acres. The parcels range in size from 1.0 to 1.3 acres with an Airport Land Use. Commission ff May 17, 1000 Agenda • Page 1 # 4. H. I. t approximately 8-fe riparian buffer zone parcel on the solk side of the development. The property is located on the east side of Garner Lane immediately north of Keefer Slough, northwesterly of the Chico Municipal Airport. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), continued: Review of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The draft Aiiport Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive -review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. Comment: The public comment period for this item has been extended to June 9, 2000 in order to allow agencies additional time to respond and comment on the proposed draft CLUP. No action to be taken. a. Additional comments and testimony. b. The role and expectation of the sub -committees. C. The development of timeline. d. Update on request for a legal opinion. 5. Ruddy Creek Mobile Home Park. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Discussion to change the regular meeting time of the Airport Land Use Commission. Monthly Status Report. Committee Appointments. J. Correspondence and'Commission Announcements: K. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) L. Closed Session None. M. Adjournment. Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact M. A. Meleka at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. • RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS • 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. Airport Land Use Commission May 17, 2000 Agenda Page 2 �t 2. Comment ori items An the agenda should be made at the time inMed for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission m not act on an matter so raised and will have toput o t' aY Y p offaction ton until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific,agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. S. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. , This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. s ti &Airport Land Use Commission May 17, 2000 Agenda &Page 3 a 0 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of April 19, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Others Present: Commissioners Causey, Gerst; Grierson, Lambert,'. Rosene and Chair Hennigan Commissioner Hatley Paula Leasure, Principal Planner M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Laura Webster, Consultant Alt. Commissioner Wallrich Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Alt. Commissioner Ward Bill Davis, City of Oroville Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2000 r - The minutes of February 16, 2000 will be presented at the May ALUC meeting. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried to amend the agenda to return the proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) back to staff due to the inconsistencies relating to the delegation to the County Planning Commission the ability to amend Subpart "C" of the Federal Code of Regulations (14 CAR) Part 77, and to delete Agenda Item H. 1 relating to :Commissioner Grierson's update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status from the County of Butte, as Commissioner Grierson presented this information at an earlier ALUC meeting, and to delete Agenda Item H. 2. E. BUSINESS ITEMS .ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING Continued from February 16,2000: 1. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. As there were no public comments, the hearing was closed to thepublic. It was moved by Chair Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and carried to return this item • to staff due to the inconsistencies relating to the. delegation to the County Planning Commission the ability to amend Subpart "C of the Federal Code of Regulations (14 CAR) Part 77. 2. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP): It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to extendthe, written comment period for the Draft CLUP and Initial Study to June 9, 2000 to allow agencies additional time to respond and comment. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. Stacey Jolliffe, City of Chico Community Development. Department, said the City had submitted three letters commenting on the Draft CLUP. One from Mayor Steve Bertagna dated April 3, 2000, another from City Manager Tom Lando dated April 7, 2000, and one from Kim Seidler, Planning Director, dated - April 6, 2000. She said the letters summarized the. City's position on the proposed Plan. I George Kammerer, Hefner, Stark & Marois, said he represented landowners who control approximately 2,000 acres close to the Chico Municipal Airport. Mr. Kammerer referred to his letter dated April 7, 2000, summarizing the concerns of the landowners. Jim Mann, representing the Building Industry Association, said the Association wanted to work.with the Commission so that the CLUP will be a plan that offers viable protection for the future of all the airports within Butte County. Pete Giampaoli, owner of property within Zone B2 of the Chico Municipal Airport, said the present Draft CLUP rendered his property economically unfeasible to develop. If the ALUC adopts the Plan, as currently proposed at 5 acre parcels, the Commission must be ready to compensate him for the lost value and profit of his property. He said he would like _to see the ALUC Plan amended which.would allow the existing City of Chico General Plan and zoning currently in place. • Bill Davis, City of Oroville, said the Planning Commission had looked at the Draft CLUP and will be making recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Commission believes that the zones should be tailored to boundaries that already exist whether they are roadways, property lines, or natural boundaries. The City will be forwarding written comments to the Commission. Chair Hennigan closed the public hearing. 10 MINUTE RECESS. MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:30. Commissioner Grierson requested staff to request County Counsel to provide a written opinion of the impacts and'influences of the cases of Furey.v. City of Sacramento, as cited by Tom Lando, and City of Coachella v. Riverside. County ALUC, as cited by George Kammerer, by the May ALUC meeting. Additionally, he requested,that the Department of Development Services,advise whether an EIR should be prepared for the 2.000 CLUP. Staff was directed to schedule a future agenda to amend the ALUC By -Laws and MOU to designate a secretary to make the CLUP, By -Laws and MOU consistent. It was the consensus of.the Commission to refer the following items to Ken Brody: - 1. Consideration of special zoning for residences approximate to small, privately owned airports. 2. Review of the eastern boundary of Zone C of the Ranchaero Airport, as it may be too close to • the airport. • Airport Land Use Commission's Minutes of April 19,-2000 ■ Page 2 ■ A • v 3. On page 224, paragraph 4.1.6, Mr. Brody states that "nighttime engine test noise is not accounted for in the model." This has to be taken into account because* of night time fire • fighting activities. 4. Page 2.2, Policy 4. 1.1 requires that ALUC take into account projection of noise. There is no map of projected noise for the Oroville Municipal Airport. .5... Chico has aerial applicators where an escape route has.not been designated in the Plan. .6. More discussion necessary for accident scatter maps and safety zones. - In addition, more discussion necessary for survivable accident sites. Chair Hennigan appointed Commissioners Rosene and Wallrich to serve on a Sub -committee to discuss infill. Commissioner Grierson will act as a resource for the Infill Sub -committee. Commissioners Gerst, Causey and Lambert were appointed to serve on a Sub -committee to discuss. appropriate boundaries and densities. Chair Hennigan said he would serve on a Sub -committee to discuss disclosure and public education issues. Chair Hennigan suggested organizing the CLUP into a 4 -volume set and getting Mr. Brody's opinion as to the reorganization: 1st Volume: Laws and Regulations 2nd Volume: Advisory 3rd Volume: Studies and reports and background information 4th Volume: Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Commissioner Rosene requested a map showing the instrument approaches and departure procedures. Chair Hennigan said the staff, Commission Alternates, and interested members of the public should be - involved in the sub -committee meetings. Ms. Leasure said appointed Sub -committees were subject to the Brown Act and meetings must be posted 72 hours in advance. Staff displayed maps and overheads that show the difference between the boundaries of the proposed zones and the boundaries of the zones adopted from.the Handbook some months ago. Chair Hennigan said the 1999 CLUP Update was "The Plan" until the 2000 CLUP is completed. Staff has drawn the dimensions included in the 1999 Update using the GIS system. Up to now, staff has been using the hand drawn maps. Now that the maps are on the GIS system, staff is requesting the Commission look at the GIS maps and find them acceptable as the official maps rather than. the hand drawn maps. Staff was directed to place the item on the May agenda. Chair Hennigan directed staff to obtain an opinion from County Counsel on what ALUC's jurisdiction is on property uses that are on airport owned property, but are not related to the airport's operations. Chair 14ennigan closed the public hearing and the discussion of the CLUP. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS None. • ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of April 19, 2000 0 Page 3 0 F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT • No monthly Status Report was prepared. Report on the Ruddy Creek Project Mr. Sanders said the project would be going to the Board of Supervisors on appeal. Ms. Leasure said Tom Parilo told her that the applicant has proposed to change his plan to reduce the densities to an overall average density of four (4) dwelling units per acre and to keep the development out of the open space area -designated as the Inner Turning Zone, - which -should meet ALUC requirements. Commissioner Gerst said that allowing clustering was not ALUC's intent. Every time this project goes to a hearing, there is a different story. Ms. Leasure .said when the Commission reviewed the Ruddy Creek project, there were specific conditions developed that said the project was consistent subject to the following conditions. Those conditions were listed and voted upon by the Commission and that is what the applicant is going by. Chair Hennigan said that when a project changed from the project that the Commission reviewed, it should come back to ALUC. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. On-going Follow-up: Commissioner Grierson will provide an update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status from the County of Butte. The Commission deleted this item from the agenda. 2. Joint ALUC and Board of Supervisors meeting to be April 3, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers.. The Commission deleted this item from the agenda. Chair Hennigan said he received'two letters from the public asking the Commission to set the time of ALUC's meetings to 4:30 p.m. He asked staff to put the item on the May agenda. Ruddy Creek - Chair Hennigan asked Commissioner Gerst to attend the Board of Supervisor's meeting when they hear the appeal. If the project is different from it was when ALUC reviewed ic Commissioner Gerst can speak on the Commission's behalf to explain the ALUC's intent for approval. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA • None., ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of April. 19, 2000 ■ Page 4 ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION i ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive,. Oroville California Date/Time: April 19, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. 'AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Approval of the Minutes of February 16, 2000. (The minutes will be presented to the Commission at the May meeting) D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff, may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order) • - E. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from February 16, 2000: Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24,.Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction, Ordinance): At the January 19, 2000 ALUC hearing, staff was directed to prepare a final draft Obstruction Ordinance based on the original draft of the Airport Air Zoning Ordinance amending the definition of airport and referencing subpart "C" of the Federal Code of Regulations (14 CFR) Part 77. Recommendation: Review the changes as made by staff, .adopt consistency findings and recommend the Butte County Board of Supervisors approve the Amendment to the Butte County Code. 2. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP): Review and possible adoption of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan prepared by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates in conjunction with the Department of Development Services. The draft airport compatibility plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. Recommendation: Review the staff report, comments received from other agencies and continue the hearing for 30 days in order to allow agencies additional time to respond and comment on the proposed draft CL UP.) 1• i ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS None F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: 1. On-going Follow-up: Commissioner Grierson will provide an update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status from the County of Butte. 2. The Joint ALUC and Board of Supervisors meeting.to be held April 3, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Chambers. I. Public Comment on -Items Not Already .on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) , J. Closed Session - None K. Adjournment, • Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate'in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the - agenda. The Commission may not act'on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on. the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. sAirport Land Use Commission wMarch 15, 2000 Agenda &Page 2 Ar BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION • ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 s (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ SPECIAL. JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Personnel Training Room, County Administration Building, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California , Date/Time: April 3, 2000 3:30 p.m: N AGENDA ` ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C: Regular Agenda Discussion of Topics of Mutual Concern to the Board of Supervisors and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) - action requested - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY, ACTION NOT REQUESTED. • 1. Time line and expectations regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) updates; 2. Clarification of the status and plans of the annual update process; 3. Issues related to signage in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal Airport; 4. Discussion regarding requirements for an override of an ALUC decision, including clarification of the term "Governing Body" of Butte County; 5. Oroville Airport - discussion relating to processing of a Use Permit application for a proposed mobile home park near the Oroville Airport; and 6. Discussion regarding ALUC staffing issues. D. Public Hearing and Timed Items (NO ITEMS) E. Public Comment (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) E. Closed Session - NONE. F. Adjournment 0 Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPL YING TO "PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing .to address the' Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. - ,ry 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made' at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specificagenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at 1 the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents �to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. KAPLANNI NGL AL UOMEET/NGS12000U0/NTBOS14-3-00. WPD &Airport Land Use Commission rApril 3, 2000 ff Agenda rPage 2 a I • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of March 15, 2000 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Vice -Chair Rosene, Commissioners Grierson, Lambert, and Gerst, and Alternate Commissioners Baldridge, Wallrich, and Hodges. Absent: Commissioners') Hennigan, Hatley, and Causey; Alternate Commissioner Ward. Others Present: Alternate Commissioner Papadakis .. Mr. Brody, Shutt Moen and Associates Laura Webster, Pacific Municipal Consultants Paula Leasure, LAFCO Carl Leverenz, LAFCO Attorney Craig Sanders, Senior Planner M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services C.. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2000. Vice -Chair Rosene announced that the minutes of the February 16, 2000 meeting would be presented for approval at the next meeting of this Commission. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA There -was a consensus to accept the agenda with no changes. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITH PUBLIC HEARING 1. Butte County Airbort Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP): Mr. Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates presented the overview of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and .the Ranchaero Airport. This review is being conducted pursuant to Public Utility Code Section 21675. . The Consultant is requesting the Commission and the public provide comments on the draft plan. Mr. KenBrody, Shutt Moen and Associates consultant, was introduced. He proceeded to conduct a workshop for Commissioners to review the preliminary structure of the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan document and respond to any questions the Commission may have after their independent review of the Plan. Mr. Brody stated that there are two basic types of policies in the document; one of the compatibility criteria and the .second is related to procedural matters. (He said that to some degree, the procedural_policies tend to overlap the Commission Bylaws, however, he stated that they are not intended to replace the Bylaws, only to supplement and provide guidance in procedure for reviews of individual actions.) He further emphasized that the Plan is consistent with the Caltrans handbook, and while no two plans would be identical, Caltrans has fully supported other similar plans. Mr. Brody opened the hearing to questions and answers. John Papadakis asked about inclusion of the names of the consultant, and governmental bodies- contributing to the development of the Plan in.the document. Mr. Brody said that, typically following adoption, contributing Commissioners and staff as well as the consultant are listed in the final document. Vice -Chair Rosene questioned the wording on page 2-9, Section 2.2.3 on B in which the line reads, "Find the plan ordinance or regulation consistent with the compatibility plan, subject to conditions or modifications which the Commission may specify." He asked whether it would be more appropriate to replace the word "specify" with "require", or whether it referred to "recommendation" instead. Mr. Brody stated the intent as a . requirement and offered to change the word to "require." Vice -Chair Rosene emphasized the concerns raised from past experience and mentioned that the word "specify" also appeared on page 2-11, the' same section 2.2.3 on B, and requested that the wording be changed there to "require" for clarity, as well. Alternate Commissioner Wallrich asked for clarification of the statement on page 1-3 which says, "For ALUC to. review individual projects, the local .agency must agree to submit them." He asked whether it was an agreement or a requirement. Mr. Brody replied that it depended on the circumstances. Alternate Commissioner Wallrich continued saying that the wording implied that it might be optional to submit the information. Mr. Brody clarified by stating, "The whole thrust of the law is for local. General Plans to be made consistent with the ALUC (Compatibility) Plan. When each jurisdiction has done that to the satisfaction of the Commission, in other words, ALUC has reviewed what changes they are going to do and said `yes' this is now consistent, then the way the law is written, the ALUC cannot 'require other actions, other than changes to the General Plan, zoning ordinances and so forth to come to the Commission for review. A little bit of the handle on that is -'What, then constitutes a consistent general plan' in terms of comparison (compatibility) with the ALUC Plan? Most general plans don't go to the level of detail on compatibility that this Plan does, so therefore, we've added this into Chapter 2 and spelled it out as to what the options are of the local jurisdiction." Alternate Commissioner Wallrich then asked about overrides of the Plan and whether cities under ALUC's jurisdiction might meet with some noncompliance issues relative to ■Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 2 ■ the Plan. Mr. Brody responded that a local jurisdiction could oppose the Plan, choose to override, and not change their General Plan, however, "they would have to adopt findings., that what they are doing meets the intent of the law." Failure to do so "would be very much open to a legal question in that regard." Alternate Commissioner Wallrich said the Plan referred to overrides under "State Guidelines," however, it did ni of specify the criteria. The question was asked, "In the event of an override, where we end up with a local agency's General Plan being inconsistent with our CLUP, what happens at that point? What are the options, how do we operate under those conditions?" Mr. Brody responded, `Basically, where there's inconsistency and they've done an override, it would be necessary for the jurisdiction to be fairly explicit in terms of where they are disagreeing; either in a geographic sense or in terms of some of the other policies. If they completely 'ignore the whole plan, I think that would be a little bit difficult to support in the findings. It would be more likely that they'd disagree with the recommended criteria for certain parcels or in a certain area around the airport. In which case, what that basically means is whatever they then have in their General Plan becomes the guidance. As long as they don't then further try to change their General Plan regarding those policies, what's in their General Plan would apply and it would not come back to the Commission for further review, even if it's inconsistent with your plan. In other words, the local jurisdictions, for the most part, have the ultimate implementation • power. That's why we've been emphasizing all along that we feel it's to everybody's best interest to come up with a plan that all can agree to and decide to abide by and to try to avoid the override process. If it means some compromising in some locations, hopefully, this will be the outcome here as well. But where there is an override, well that's the decision. Unless somebody challenges the adequacy of the findings and the procedure in court, it remains in effect. And that's the guiding line use policy for those locations." Vice -Chair Rosene said that, considering the foregoing, it becomes more, important to have the override process specifically delineated in the Plan. That way, there will be one reference document and everyone will be "on the same page" when it comes to whether the criteria has been met or not. Commissioner Grierson commented that criteria, plans, and regulations change and since this is a twenty-year Plan, could there be an Exhibit stating that these are generally accepted standards used in overrides with a statement such as, "Please refer to the Airport Plan Use Handbook, current edition, for appropriate override procedures"? Mr. Brody replied that this could be addressed by stating in the Plan that this is the current state of the art but legal views and so forth may change. He added that this is true with a lot of portions of the Plan and that changes in state-wide laws can have implications locally. Commissioner Gerst commented that the CLUP is dealing with dwelling units per acre and people per acre and that the intent would be for the city to adopt an overlay zone of what the Airport Commission adopts, to include densities of people and units. He further 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 3 ■ 1. . 0 commented that since zoning could change periodically and the county could conceivably change their use 4 times a year in their General Plan, but the 'ALUC is, allowed to make one change per year, he questioned how an overlay would work, especially in relation to An R-1 zone, for example, in which there could be conditional use permits, etc. Mr. Brody was basically in favor of the "overlay or combining zone" which he stated is an "ideal method... in terms of density limitations and so on." He added that it would work as a combining zone such as a flood combining zone, or maybe an earthquake fault -line zone, or whatever may be added on top of the basic underlying zone. He cited a potential conflict which would necessitate a change in the local plan to eliminate the conflict. For example, "In some cases there"s... a direct conflict on what the underlying zone is. In other words, if the jurisdiction says that they want single-family housing at 4 -dwelling units per acre in an area that the ALUC Plan says should be 5 -acre lots, there's no way that an overlay is going to solve that." For other issues, specifically in non-residential uses dealing with intensity, number of people per acre, where that's not a factor in city planning or zoning, the combining overlay zone would be a means of adding those criteria into the local policy: In further discussion regarding consistency of General Plans -with the ALUCP, Mr. Brody identified the choices that a local jurisdiction may use to bring its General Plan into compliance with the ALUCP including: 1. Adopt the ALUCP by reference: (They take an action and say that this is their plan, • too, and,agree to abide by the components in the ALUC Plan.) 2. Fold the various components into their General Plan in -some form—in the land use, noise, or safety elements, etc.—ensuring that all the policies are there. (This requires a fairly extensive change to a General Plan and it was Mr. - Brody's experience that a lot of communities are not willing to go through this entire procedure.) 3. Eliminate whatever direct conflicts there are, and agree that all major actions we've identified will come before ALUC for review. 4. He stated that these are "not mutually exclusive choices'_' indicating that a combination of the above may acceptable. Mr. Brody stated that it -is up to the local jurisdictions to decide how to implement their General, Plan. He further encouraged all major actions be submitted to the ALUC for their review; acknowledging that if their General Plan is consistent, then the ALUC review would become advisory in nature. He pointed, out, in addition, that during the time period following the adoption of the ALUCP and prior to the General Plan adoption that the law requires that the jurisdictions submit everything to ALUC for review. Vice -Chair Rosene inquired whether adoption. of this land use plan, including the compatibility criteria, would result in the ALUCP essentially becoming an overlay for -the General Plan. Mr. Brody cautioned that there could be potential for undetected conflicts ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 4 ■ . and suggested that with the incorporation of the GIS system, that a method should be devised, such as "flagging" every parcel within the airport influence area so planners will be alerted to look at the compatibility criteria in addition to zoning for every "flagged'. parcel. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis referred to "Operation of an Airport" on page 1-3, which states, "This limitation on the jurisdiction of ALUCs, however, cannot be taken to mean that they have no authority with respect to new development on airport property," and continues, "...also are generally conceded to have authority to review proposals for non -aviation development on airport property," which he said he interprets to mean that ALUC does have some jurisdiction within airport property, and asked whether this was an accurate interpretation. While acknowledging that this is a "debated" subject, he said that the law doesn't really delineate what "operation of an airport" means in respect to an ALUCP; however, he said that a proposed change, such as a runway extension at an airport, which is not part of our plan then would initiate a change in our plan or if deemed not acceptable under the plan, the jurisdiction would be notified. He added that with respect to non -aviation development on airport property, it is generally conceded that ALUC does have some authority. Mr. Brody gave a hypothetical scenario exemplifying when it might be appropriatefor an ALUC to make a determination under the "operation of an airport" guidelines. Mr. Brody expanded his comments saying, "The reasoning for that is that, let's say there's a piece of land near the runway protection zone, but not in it, and on one side of the • airport protection zone it happens to be on airport property and you want to put some industrial building on it and the other side of the RPZ, it's off airport property. It seems very inappropriate for a local jurisdiction to argue that the ALUC doesn't have authority over the piece that's on the airport property and then want to go ahead and put an industrial use on it; and then on the other side of the runway, where it happens to be private property, the ALUC would look at it and say no, we don't want that industrial use there. So it's really a matter of fairness and equity that we suggest that in terms of industrial -type non -aviation uses that the ALUC should be looking at those." Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked specifically in regard to proposed development on the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport, what is the extent of the ALUC's involvement? Mr. Brody responded,. "If, when the master plan for the Chico Airport is submitted to you for review, that would be one of the things that you might look at, in addition to what the airport configuration is, you'd want to take a look at any non -aviation development proposals, just as if it were a specific plan for some land that's off of the airport. Based on that, it would determine whether that is or is not an acceptable use and what the limitations might be. So you review it under those circumstances and, again, once you've approved that plan, then the individual development proposals, depending on their magnitude and so forth, may not come back to the Commission for a detailed review. Again, that would be subject to agreement." . . Alternate Commissioner Papadakis commented that he'd read about an economic development agency, which he believed to be the Greater Chico Economic Development ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 5 ■ Agency, which he said is proposing a development in an area not included in the Master Plan. He asked whether ALUC has any jurisdictional authority over this project. Mr. Brody then asked Commissioner Grierson what information he may have about the proposed development. Commissioner Grierson responded, "In the (Chico) Master. Plan being developed there's approximately 200 acres on the west side of the airport which has been determined by the city to be unnecessary for the support and sustainment of aircraft and airport operations. This is located east of Hicks, south of Oasis, north of Eaton Rd.. Its kind of a triangular shape. By the time you get into putting in an infrastructure—roadways, and break it up into parcelization—you're probably talking about 160 acres that'd be available for development. The -discussion comes into play of, `Is it sold? How much of it is sold? How much would the FAA release?' All of that comes out of the. Master Plan and whether or not the FAA is`going to adopt and support that land transfer. Chico Economic Planning Corporation is really the lead on it at this point for the development. Now as to whether it's going to mirror the east side development, or whether it's going to operate more as a "research park" environment, that hasn't been established. There's no real plan on the development at this point. At this point the property is owned by the city. Five years down the road it is entirely possible, the bulk will have been sold -off for private development, similar to the east side." Mr. Brody replied that, "Clearly, if it is sold -off, then any development would be subject . to the ALUC. If it remains on airport property for development—based on the policies in • this draft plan—it still would be subject to the ALUC criteria. That's an issue that is more of a practical sense than necessarily spelled out in the law as to the ALUC's jurisdiction." Alternate Commissioner Papadakis asked what authority the ALUC Secretary has in determining which projects are routine versus projects which must come before the Commission: He also asked whether the Commission wants the Secretary to have this authority. Vice -Chair Rosene commented that he believed it customary in other counties for someone to be delegated that authority and then asked, "Is it usually the Planning Director or Dept. of Development* Services in our case? How is that decided?" Mr. Brody indicated that there are variances in how each county handles their review process and indicated that each ALUC may designate how they choose to handle which issues may be handled at the staff level and which must come before the ALUC for review. Mr. Brody stated that any type of action under the law must come before the ALUC for review, adding that it is clearly a function of the ALUC. Mr. Brody said that Shutt Moen's usual recommendation, -to simplify the whole paperwork and approval process of local development, is for staff to look at the issues presented and determine whether there is any kind of issue .for review by ALUC. These are .issues that are submitted on a voluntary basis, for advisory review, not a mandatory review, in which the staff (or assigned person) may make a determination whether the issue needs to go before • ALUC and then, if it does not go before ALUC, staff is delegated the authority to ■ Airport Land t Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March' 15, 2000 ■ Page 6 ■ communicate their finding to the submitting agency. If there's any question of an issue . that is borderline in terms of the intensity of use, or what effect it might have on surrounding development, or how large the area is, then those actions should cometo the Commission for their more extended evaluation. He indicated that this direction can be more clearly defined in the.Plan.. In response to Commissioner Grierson's question whether this is a process that currently exists, Mr. Brody replied that the Compatibility Plan includes policies on how these issues are to be addressed. He further stated that it is a change from current policy in that right now most everything that is in the Airport Influence Area that comes into staff is automatically forwarded to ALUC, whether it's an issue or not. Mr. Brody added that the intention is to "simplify and speed up" the process, emphasizing that any significant issue is intended to come to the Commission, even if it's only on an advisory basis. Commissioner Grierson stated his opinion that maybe part.of the review process should include all submitted items with documentation specifying the reasons certain issues were excluded from ALUC review. Mr. Brody asked whether he meant a "consent calendar" type of listing. Commissioner Grierson elaborated by saying he felt ALUC should have knowledge of all activity 'relative to presented issues. Mr. Brody restated his understanding of the request that a policy should be added requiring all projects that are received be submitted to the ALUC for consent. Vice -Chair Rosene added that problems occurring in the past were not easy to track and he favored the idea of putting one person in charge of that because then we can go back to one person and say, "Why didn't we • receive this project?," or they could contact us and say, "What do you think?," and we could say, "No, we don't need to see that." We need to somehow funnel that down so it goes through a narrow opening, and not filters through, from city to county, and bypasses us. "I don't have a problem with this the way it is, but we certainly could add something like you just suggested." Commissioner Gerst added that oftentimes Commissioners are asked about specific projects that have been submitted for review and he asserted that it was an advantage to be informed; he was, therefore, also in favor of a tracking system. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis had one final comment on the subject, saying he liked the suggestion that ALUC set policy for the Commission Secretary to follow in the Plan document. 0 Commissioner Gerst asked Mr. Brody about the definition of "open space" as it relates to the draft document. Mr.'Brody responded, "It depends on the'street. We've included some definitions as to what qualifies as open land. Just a residential street isn't wide enough, there's too many trees and so forth next to -it; but if you have a freeway or a major boulevard. or expressway that has been laid out in some fashion that you don't have trees or signs or whatever real close. in or in .the median or whatever, then that would qualify. Basically, what we're looking at is, "What sort of property .could an aircraft make a survivable emergency landing?" Alternate Commissioner Gerst then asked whether parking lots would qualify as "open space" for purposes of an emergency landing space. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 7 ■ Mr. Brody replied that they're not ideal, but Shutt Moen has usually concluded that "a • parking lot for automobiles, depending on how it's designed—a lot with concrete planters with trees in them might not work—if you were trying to put an airplane down some place where there aren't many choices, a parking lot would be preferable to a building. We've included that as something within the definition here." Commissioner Gerst questioned how the Plan applies the 10%/20%/30% designation of "open space" in establishing the safety zone. Mr. Brody responded that an area, first of all would be required to be a large enough space to accommodate an emergency landing to qualify as "open space" for purposes of establishing the safety zone. Secondly, he noted that a safety zone is established in each of the compatibility zones. "Ideally, that land would be part of open parks, ball fields ... or a freeway median or something like that, as opposed to a parking lot ... in some locations, the more urban locations, there isn't much of that type of use. We could consider, if you wish, to modify the definition and say that parking lots don't count as part of it, whether you'd need to adjust the percentage numbers simultaneously is something you'd have to look at." Mr. Brody explained that the preferred and effective way to establish safety zones is to look at the available open space as part of ALUC's review of a local general plan .or specific plan. Then, he said, the Commission can address the overall layout and development of a location, and consider the effects of alignment of the open areas in relation to the direction aircraft typically are overflying the area, providing direction that is consistent with protection of the safety zone. He emphasized the desirability of • establishing the safety zone prior to parcel development. Commissioner Gerst noted that the Caltrans Handbook recommends 4-6 units per acre, so we've gone to 4 units per acre. (He said in .the past it has always been 50 people per acre.) He added that the document states, "no limit requirements." He suggested that limits should be specified. Mr. Brody responded that, "It depends on how you relate that to the geographic location in which those policies apply. One option that many counties do is they don't even have this particular zone within the airport influence area." He stated that ALUC is looking at two issues: one, the height limit criterion, and secondly, to encourage some sort of real estate disclosure. If you look at Chico Airport, for example, the "D" zone that we are talking about here is mostly not even in your airport influence boundary that is currently adopted. The ALUC will not only look at the criterion that is proposed but where it is proposed, and the,proximity with the airport. He added that ALUC has expanded the recommended. boundaries for both Chico and Oroville, leaving both Paradise and Ranchaero the same. He added that where it is expanded, it's primarily in the "D" zone where we have only two issues considered to be of significance. Alternate Commissioner Wallrich noted that he had concerns about limiting the number of homes along the Esplanade, or 99. It.was his opinion that the airport has little influence in that area other than the potential for an aeronautical mishap and added that ambient noise • in that area far exceeds any potential noise generated from the airport. On another subject, 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 8 ■ • One Commissioner commented that he was.in agreement with the people per acre in area "C"and considered the best use of that land to be industrial or commercial, as opposed to residential, and added that he believed a higher concentration of allowed people in those areas is a more suitable use. He questioned why there was a deed notice requirement but no avigation easement, stating that he favored the inclusion of an avigation easement throughout the entire area of influence. Mr. Brody responded that- they discouraged inclusion of an avigation easement at the present time based on an interpretation of the law saying, "There are some, including the Caltrans legal counsel, who feel that required dedication of an avigation easement anywhere can be considered a `taking'. We have argued that, at least in those locations where it's close enough to the airport runway or on the top of a hill or whatever, that height limits are a significant factor. In other words, you really are restricting the use below what might be normally developed in the absence of an airport. We do have a Deed Notice requirement in the C zone which is fairly similar to the avigation easement in many respects except that it does not include a specific limit on height because we're saying it's not a factor in those locations and more significantly, it does not actually involve a conveyance of property rights, which is what an avigation easement does. Whether or not you say that those rights .already exist—overflight of property and low elevation and so forth and there's some argument in that favor—in terms of what rights the airport and aircraft operators have ... the language of an easement says that these rights are transferred from the property owner to the airport owner, and you have to give up those rights in order to develop your property. The Deed Notice, I think, serves the main • function that we have in those locations farther from the airport and what we are really trying to accomplish is a fairly firm type of disclosure, and make sure that people know, and there's something that's right on the Deed that says these are important areas that are subject to aiicraft overflights. So that's the distinction we've drawn. It has been a very contentious issue in some other counties where they have had a past avigation easement requirement (and many counties do). The public has suddenly begun to realize what's going on and has made that a major issue of the whole plan. The other factor is here in Butte County, even though we know that these avigation easements have been required, nobody has any record, short of going through and doing a title search on every property within the airport influence area; whether these easements have been done. Chico Airport likely owns some of these avigation easements someplace and it should show up on your airport master plana I venture that you have no idea where you have easements." In regard to avigation easements (while it could be conceded in area D), there was concern about the lack of an avigation easement in the C zone. The concerns centered on the traffic pattern area in which aircraft are flying 1000 feet above the ground and the potential impacts on navigable airspace. It was asserted that it is not that uncommon for businesses in the C zone,to be subjected to people flying model rockets, firework displays, and light shows or things like that near by which was felt to significantly impact the. navigable airspace. Commissioner Gerst, referring to 2-14 in the document, asked about the rationale for determining densities. ` ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 9 ■ Mr. Brody responded that ideally the concept is to have very few people, however, in an area where safety is a relatively limited concern-' if you can't avoid development—then you're better off with relatively higher density where it's higher ambient noise levels and so forth. What you want to avoid is the 0-1, and 2 -acre semi -rural uses that are most susceptible to the annoyance from aircraft overflight. (It was Mr. Brody's understanding that this is consistent with the policy adopted previously for Zones A, A-1, and B.) Commissioner Gerst said that he believed the adopted policy referred only to one small area that was "infill" in Zone A-1: He related that this was in the Part 150 study adopted by Chico, and that ALUC had only adopted portions of it—only those related to infill— not the study in its entirety. Vice -Chair Rosene stated that he did not recall this being in the latest CLUP Amendment and asked the Commission's position in traffic pattern Area C, having a split -type zoning in which there are larger .lots or smaller parcels and apartments where it's noisier and it's not, supposedly, as much of a safety concern. Vice -Chair Rosene polled the ALUC, asking the question, "What is the Commission's position in traffic pattern Area C; having a split -type zoning in which there are larger lots or you go with smaller parcels and apartments where it's noisier and it's not, supposedly, as much a safety concern?" • Commissioner Gerst said, "I don't think it's really necessary in Butte County because of the fact that we have quite a bit of land that can be developed and we don't need to encroach upon the airport. My philosophy is to keep the density down, especially residential, close to the runways. In the process of planning and of the businesses, commercial activity and whatever, there still has to be some type of standard for a little open space and too high of a density of people that –getting back to residential, which we're talking about here, I don't think it has any place in the overflight area because that's where your activity is around an airport and accidents are more prone to be there than right up at the airport." Alternate Commissioner Baldridge was in general agreement as long as there is a guarantee that the open space remaining from a density standpoint, be infilled. "My concern is that if we `clustered' an apartment'complex on one 5 -acre lot and left the rest open, how long would that remain open space?" Alternate Commissioner Wallrich commented, "I guess I wasn't involved in that discussion prior but I tend to agree with Fred on that point. I mean it seems like we're our own worst enemy sometimes, doing things like this and causing .problems: I also tend to agree with Bob on that avigation easement. I realize that is a potential issue but it just seems like that gets it clarified once and for all and you move forward. You don't have this coming back 10 years from now." Commissioner Grierson said, "If everybody's in agreement rather than just a Deed Notice. I would support that. I would rather see fewer homes, larger lots, and less concentration 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 E. Page 10.■ of people. My approach on it is -simply this, in dealing with the people that live around the airport on large lots, by and large they don't have a problem living next to an airport which is surprising to me. I've had the opportunity recently to meet with a lot of people on Keefer Road and other locations and they've quite honestly told me they've enjoyed living there. If we can keep an open space environment, I think that's more conducive for survivability in the event of a crash, for eliminating the number of noise complaints, for just being a better neighbor." Vice -Chair .Rosene stated, "From personal experience; having lived off the end of a runway, I am in favor of eliminating the smaller lot, more density kind of thing." He added, "The quality construction of apartment buildings that I've seen doesn't help deaden the sound, so these people are being subjected to noise and whether they're used to more ambient noise or not, I don't think it's fair to. them." He added additionally that he agrees with an avigation easement item and is willing to "take his chances" that some people might complain about a "takings" issue with the argument that the airport has been there since the thirties and most of them moved in long after that. Vice -Chair Rosene would defend the position that there is no "takings" issue because the property -owners basically conceded the airspace above them when they purchased their property. He further commented that he was in favor of eliminating the smaller lot, higher density designation. Commissioner Lambert said that she would go with the larger parcel sizes and the lower density and avigation easements, if they're legally allowed. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge agreed.with that as well. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis stated, "With regard to apartments, I know we're jumping here on this one but I do have a problem. It's on page 2-28, the top of the page 3, (A.3, Zone B-2) and says, "A building shall be a maximum of three stories in height." I would like to object to that. When you get to . three stories, you have elevators. When emergency elevators are shut down, then you require people to exit by stairs. I think that's a definite safety hazard and I would recommend that we just limit buildings to two stories in height." Commissioner Grierson commented, "I have to think for a minute on that. Very few homes you're going to find are going to be three stories. For the most part, you'll be just addressing apartments or possibly some offices and things of that sort: Generally, the biggest concern is height. I don't know if you've ever seen the parking garage off the approach of the runway into San Diego. It makes life very interesting. But, adjacent to the airport, if you are literally parallel to the runway, as opposed to being off either end of it, you can have some elevation. In fact, in some cases it may not be a bad idea. If you've ever been to, Concord Airport, Concord, Buchanan. There's a Sheridan Hotel that's literally located right on the airfield and that may not be a bad use of the property. I'm kind of torn, obviously, on either end of the runway, now you're dealing with federal, FAA Part 77, as far as elevations. But if you start heading east or west of the runways, you may be . talking about something that could actually be a good use of the property, ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page I 1 ■ providing that it's sufficiently far away from the runways because you do have a 7:1 slope. I'm not going to get into that." Commissioner Lambert, looking into the next twenty years, asked questions in regard to future development around the airport. She asked about height limitations in regard to motels/hotels and where they might best be located within the airport influence area. She specifically explored whether they should be located off the airport property itself, or on the airportproperty. Alluding to the anticipated Master Plan and expansion of airports, Commissioner Lambert asked whether it is appropriate for a motel or hotel to be located close to the airport to accommodate people flying in whose preference it might be to stay in close proximity with the airport. In response Mr. Brody stated, "In terms of your motel question, as a non-residential use, that would be evaluated in terms of the number of people that would be within the building and typically, for motels and hotels, the more significant factor is not taking the number of rooms and multiplying by 2 or whatever, but the number of people that .could be there during conventions and so on. Back in Appendix D where we gave some examples of what types of uses are acceptable in different locations—not intending this to be an explicit policy—but just some general examples and guidance, we say that motels— single-story motels—are unacceptable, obviously in A and also unacceptable in B-1. You get into the B-2 zone and we're saying that a small motel potentially is compatible. A large one probably is not in B-2. Then you get out into the C zone and again, it depends on the intensity of use. If you've got a really large motel with major conference centers • and lots of people and so on, it's probably not going to meet the criteria that we've set out, even within Zone C. Even with the intensity bonuses and construction and so forth, we're still talking about under 400 people per acre. I don't know whether a major conference room could meet that criterion or not. It would depend on the design. It becomes a case- by-case sort of analysis in some locations." Commissioner Lambert's second question related to the airspace outside the airport area of influence that ALUC would deal with such as cellular towers. She asked, "What's the jurisdiction, what review, where does ALUC fit -in, if at all, once you're outside? Is it determined by the height, or does FAA regulations satisfy that, and don't need any comments from ALUC as to paint, lighting, or location?" Mr. Brody responded to the question regarding cellular or other towers that are outside the airport influence area, adding "One of the major land use actions listed here says that anything that is taller than 200' above the ground would come to the ALUC in the same manner as those that must be submitted to the FAA for review. Now I know you've had some concerns over tall towers on ridges and so forth that might be less than that height. I think it would be reasonable to say that in certain locations that maybe anything taller than 100' you want to review, but I think that we need to work with you and pilots that are familiar with, the county to specify where those locations are. I don't have enough knowledge of the terrain throughout the county to say where, there are locations where aircraft are regularly coming right over some hill or whatever, and you wouldn't want a 200' object. So I think if you had some fairly narrowly defined locations where you might ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 12 ■ have concerns for even a 100' object, then I think if we can spell those out geographically • and add those. Lacking that, the direction that we've taken here and the reason for the 200' is because that's consistent with federal regulations that says that if you're above 200', the FAA has to look at it. So that's our reasoning behind that one." Commissioner Lambert reconfirmed with Mr. Brody that the FAA would look at it as to height, and whether or not it requires a light. Mr. Brody replied that the FAA would look at what effect a cellular tower (or other tower) would. have on the airspace in that area and whether it would require obstruction lighting and so forth, confirming the understanding. In further discussion regarding cellular towers,. Commissioner Lambert commented that as she understood it, the staff and not the ALUC would determine whether it's appropriate, whether it's. a hazard, whether it needs to be painted, or whether it needs to be located along with other power poles, instead of out in the middle of an open field, asking Mr. Brody if that was a correct understanding. Mr. Brody said, "That fits in with the discussion we had earlier as to what things come to staff and what things come to the ALUC for review. If there's a 200' tower proposed on some ridge line, even if it's miles from the airport, that would seem as though it's of sufficient interest that it would come to the ALUC. Obviously, your expertise in knowing where aircraft fly would make that important to come here. If it's a 100' or 200' foot tower maybe, or if there's a place where there's another tower that's in the middle of several 300' towers, well then that's probably not a factor and maybe they could pass on that." Commissioner Grierson commented that cell towers "not any higher than a control tower • or maybe even affixed to the control tower, can be, a source of revenue to an airport and literally, quite a few communities are starting to jump on. this band wagon." He commented that this could be a possibility for Chico in the future adding, " I don't want to preclude it but.I think there's a few more things that have to be studied and limited, as well." • Commissioner Gerst stated that in December the ALUC adopted standards for cell towers which had not yet been inserted into the CLUP document.. Commissioner Gerst'questioned a.section in Chapter 2 under "Special Conditions, Infill" (2-16). It says, "Where development not conforming with ... already exists, additional infill development for consumer land uses may be allowed to occur, even if such uses are not prohibited elsewhere in the plan, exception applied only with ...B-2 and C." Then it goes on to say, "...parcel sizes no larger than 20 acres. That seems contrary to what normal. -land use is. A lot of times somebody has bought land for speculation or whatever and then it becomes a problem, even when it's not around an airport it can get rezoned, and that's something that happens, then people- can't do whatever they had planned for many years. I believe that these larger parcels should be looked at again. Maybe they're already set up for apartment complexes and we've set the density at 5 acres or something like that, and then you allow an apartment complex to go in there, is that what this is saying, because the General Plan of the City or the County says that's what they will do?" 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 13 ■ Mr. Brody responded that he believed that Commissioner Gerst may be talking about two different things. One is what the approved land use for a particular development is and whether infill is involved or not. That comes back to the definition of what qualifies as an existing land use and what sort of commitments have been made to that use. "The infill, we're" looking at," he said, "is an area that let's say is still zoned AG, but surrounded by some higher intensity residential use, or maybe it's a block that's still a five- or twenty - acre residential and everything around it is subdivisions or one- or two -acres. That's where the infill policies come into play. What we're trying to define is fairly narrowly limiting the circumstances under which infill would be considered acceptable." Commissioner Gerst said that's not what he was referring to, clarifying that what he was thinking about is when there's a twenty -acre parcel there and the development around it is 4 or 5 units per acre. Then a party comes in with a 20 -acre piece which is open ground now, then airports would have an entirely different look to what protects them and so forth. The criteria set up by the. Airport Commission requires. 5 -acres. What this says here is that you must go to 6 or .whatever's in the neighborhood and what' they've been zoned for several years. The way I understand it, for the protection of the airport we go by the density, rather than the zoning. Then, what do you do? In other words, whatever you decide as a Commission the City or the County can just ignore it and apply the 6 -units per acre or whatever exists. Is that the CLUP's definition of "infill?" Mr. Brody replied that, "If it meets all the specified criteria that we've listed here, then what the policy is saying is that infill development would be acceptable, but it's fairly narrowly defined as to what qualifies as infill." Commissioner Gerst stated his position on the issue of infill saying, "You only have a vested right to develop, you have a vested map, or you have a valid building permit, or you have some structure constructed. I believe in protecting what has been legally established -out there, but I don't think you have a legally established use if you just have the zoning board and you don't have any structures on it, though it is subject to change and it always has been." Mr. Brody confirmed that his assessment is correct and that it would still be true. Commissioner Gerst questioned the 20 -acre designation and Mr. Brody commented that, "Maybe the 20 acres should be 10 or some other size if 20 is too large and added that maybe 10 would be a better number, much smaller than that." Commissioner Gerst added, "Three 10's in a row or something like that, you see. There are all kind of problems south of Chico Airport." Mr. Brody stated that, "What we have done in some locations -and we would encourage it here—is that in the locations where infill is going to be applied, we've mapped them all ahead of time, which is ideal. In some locations, in some counties, the ALUC has actually included where it considered infill to be acceptable, and where it isn't acceptable, as part of the adoption of the Plan. In this case, we've left that up to the individual jurisdictions. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 14 ■ If a jurisdiction has a certain area that they want to zone for a higher density than what . your plan allows they can say, `We'd like to be able to do that and it meets your test for infill,' and therefore, you would deem that to be consistent. But we haven't actually taken the step to define where all those locations are." Commissioner Gerst asked about the decibels on the CNEL, referring to a section on page 2-22. He commented that all airports are 55 decibels but Chico which allows 60. He added that it always been 55 throughout the County, but has now changed to 60 around Chico and asked what had brought that on. Basically, Mr. Brody explained, "You're looking at the fact that the 55 contours that we've developed as part of this work and as part of the Master Plan extend well into the already developed area south of the airport, whereas the 60 is much more aligned with the limits of development. Our general view in these sorts of situations is when there's a large area that's already developed, and ,maybe you'd rather that it not have been developed to the extent that has occurred, nevertheless it has already taken place, you don't have any authority to change that, unless it really is a very clear issue. For example, they put houses in the runway protection zone, or someplace that is really absolutely something that you don't want to ever say would be acceptable. Our perspective has been that let's leave it B. You can't change it anyway. Then let's define the policy so that you don't have a huge block of existing housing in which suddenly a whole neighborhood shows up here saying, `But you've just said that all of my neighborhood shouldn't even be there.' Well, maybe you feel that but if you want to put it in a policy..." It was Commissioner Gerst's point of view that it comes back as a pre-existing, non- conforming use that was put in there legally and it's just like any other pre-existing, non- conforming use. He said, "I don't believe in changing your rules just to cover something should have never happened anyway. So I guess that's where I'm coming from on it. I don't believe in designing this just to suit what's been done out there, unless you change your flight paths and sometimes you do. They do at a lot of airports but down south there, there's not many different directions you can go, aircraft must still fly over the overflight area. That's my concern there. I don't believe in changing the rules just because things were done. If it's legally established, it's already protected as a non -conforming case." Commissioner Grierson addressed two issues in Chapter 2: The first, Item 2.3.4 on page 2-11, addresses response time. The first paragraph says, "State law does not set a time limit." He said that he was under the impression that a time limit was set and it was .60 days. Mr. Brody clarified that there's a 60 -day limit with regard to the actions that are submitted to the ALUC on a mandatory basis such as the general plans and so forth. This section is dealing with the major land use actions which are submitted to you on a voluntary basis so state law doesn't deal with that. We're just simply specifying the same 60 -days in here, parallel to what's required on the mandatory ones. ■ Airport Land Use Commission •■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 15 ■ i Commissioner Grierson next addressed Item 4.1.6b, on page 2-24, which states, "Noise from testing of aircraft engines on airport property is not deemed an activity inherent in the operation of an airport,. thus not an airport -related impact addressed by this compatibility plan. Generally, the noise contour lines that are drawn are the result of aircraft operations and take -off, run-up, and departure. However, having withstood the brunt of people at 8 o'clock in the morning screaming because people were°doing engine run -ups at 3 o'clock in the morning, I can attest that testing of aircraft engines on airport property is an activity inherent. Is there another way to address that? Because I understand what you're saying but I think that we do have to mention that people will do engine run -ups and, quite honestly, if CDF has got a campaign fire and they shut -down at 8:30 p.m., they're going be working on those engines until midnight or I o'clock making sure they're ready to go. So there will be noise generated from the airport and I don't want this to give the wrong impression." Vice -Chair Rosene noted that he had the same comment because a.lot of times they're doing late night work, especially during campaign fires. He added that the ambient noise level out there is just nothing so you can hear run-up 4 or 5 miles away. Mr. Brody explained that, "We're not meaning to say that these aren't issues but in the sense that even the way the FAA would look at what constitutes an aircraft operation you're talking about moving the airplane down the taxiway, doing your pre-flight run-up, and taking off. An aircraft, or an engine apart from the aircraft, in some cases, that you're doing testing on is not an inherent part of the aircraft operation. Many airports require— especially those that do a lot of jet work—that they have "hush houses" and various other types of sound enclosures to diminish that noise. All we're trying to say here is, and maybe we haven't said it well enough, but the point we're trying to get at. is that while those may indeed be significant issues and certainly normal activity at an airport, typically you're looking at those, or the way it should be looked at is the same manner as any other point source of noise. It could be from some other manufacturing plant that does something that makes a whole lot of noise and then the county noise ordinance or the noise element of the General Plan usually would establish policies that say you can't make more than "X" decibels at the property line or something. That's really what we're trying to say. If we need to word it differently, we .can or if you feel that it's not important and you'd rather delete the whole thing, that's another option, too." Commissioner Grierson "What I'd suggest is literally crossing out most of paragraph B and taking the last sentence which is in parentheses, `Engine testing noise is not normally included in the noise contours and has not been considered in the noise contours containment' and move it up to the bottom of paragraph A as a continuation of that because it says the points between the two, and also addresses it in 1 & 2 that it's not considered in the Plan. It's not really addressed here." Vice -Chair Rosene agreed, adding that the issue of aircraft engine run -ups on airport property should be addressed, at least from a planning issue because it is a fairly noisy activity, and could be a substantial issue, if not addressed. Engine run -ups at night occur ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 16 ■ 0 is 0 (or. loud noises can occur) on the airport property unrelated to an aircraft operation, but more related to maintenance. Commissioner Grierson had one more item, page 2-13, 2.4.3, General Plan Consistency and Compatibility Plan which he felt needed a clarification and he said he thought that this would also go along with some of the infill discussion. In the event, it says ALUC has no authority, over existing land uses, general .land use designations which merely reflect existing uses.. I assume this talks about maybe some rezoning or something like that; that would be a change of existing uses possibly but what about in a case where you change the use of an existing building via a use permit. "My understanding on use permits in these areas, even if it's infill or whatever, is that this would come.to the ALUC." Vice -Chair Rosene stated, "Supposedly." Commissioner Grierson asked whether that needed to be specified some place in the document. . Vice -Chair Rosene asked whether his understanding was correct that a use permit would - come back to the ALUC: Mr. Brody responded"Well, again, the way that it should work, not necessarily the way it does is that let's say a community were to adopt these policies either.as they stand or as an overlay zone, or whatever, that in effect would say that for a particular land use that it limits the number of people that are allowed in that development. So if the use were to change and somebody would request a use permit that would still fit within that intensity limitation, in other words, they're not deciding to put a meeting hall in what. was a warehouse that didn't have any' people in it. As long as they're meeting the criteria in terms of the intensity of use, that would not be subject to ALUC review because it meets all of your standards and they just would approve it. On the other hand, a use permit, if they want to exceed the criteria that you have or if there is some issue on it that they've submitted it to the Commission for review, then you'd look at that just as if it'd be a new development. It depends on the circumstances. I don't think there's a real distinction between it being a use "permit of an existing property versus a new development, from an ALUC standpoint." Vice -Chair Rosene confirmed with Mr. Brody that if a meeting hall were being converted to a daycare facility with the same intensity of use, that it would. still fall under the other criteria.for daycare facilities, and not just intensity. Commissioner Grierson asked, "Is there anything wrong with putting something in the CLUP document that specifies 'use permits and discusses what you just mentioned? Because that can be forgotten about sometimes and that is a way around the zoning laws. He asked to have this included, not to make things more difficult, but to make it simpler and avoid issues." ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 17 ■ Mr. Brody replied, " Well, yes, I would have to look to see exactly where it would fit best but we can look at it. Maybe it's listed under certain circumstances what types of use permits. Because I don't think you want -to "blanketly" say that any use permit comes to you, that's not the point but maybe certain types of changes in use permits are subject to these criteria. I'm not quite sure how we would deal with that. We'd have to give it some thought." Vice -Chair Rosene asked, "I have a question on page 2-12, Section 2.3.5, Item B, a design of a project subsequently changes in a manner which could raise questions as to the validity of previous finding of compatibility. It lists when a project changes enough through the process that. it comes back to us. That's been a real issue we've had locally here. My understanding based on what's written, is that any increase in number of dwelling units and any increase in intensity would kick a project back for review. Is that correct? Because that's not what we've been seeing here." .. Mr. Brody confirmed that to be a correct interpretation. Vice -Chair Rosene responded; "OK. That's fine. I just want to make sure and leave it that way because -the projects, the way they go through the County and the different jurisdictions, if they're modified, sometimes they're modified where intensity of uses change or dwelling units are added .and we never get it back. They decide it wasn't significant enough and I would like us to be able to review that again and that's the way it's worded." Mr. Brody commented; "That's the way it's worded, but again, it all fits into—let's say that there's a location that your Plan says that 4 dwelling units per acre is OK and they originally proposed 2 and then decide to go to 4, you wouldn't look at it under either circumstance, most likely unless they've agreed to submit it. So many of these things depend on exactly when in the process things.happen as to what really is an issue in terms of compatibility." BREAK 11:00 'a.m. – 11:15 a.m. (Birthday cake for Fred Gerst for his 801h birthday this past week.) Vice -Chair Rosen suggested the ALUC review the next chapters that deal with the individual airport policies and compatibility maps, starting with Chico. He asked Commissioner Grierson for comment. Commissioner Grierson said, "Of course, you're going to be hearing comments from other people on City staff and you'll probably have me sitting in the audience as well when we meet on the 28th. A couple of things that I spotted. The first thing that jumped out at me, we didn't really talk about this in Item 2A, the matrix, but the selected format for the protected zones are not consistent with the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. There are many different forms that are out -there but I wouldn't mind knowing since I've never seen this kind of format, other than what you presented to us back in September, is this the. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 18'■ direction you're going in for the updated. Land Use Planning Handbook? If this was selected, why? It's easy to read, easy to follow, but it's just not what's out there now." Mr. Brody replied, "Two things, one is this is given as one of the options in the 1993 Handbook. It's not recommended either to do it as a combined approach or to keep -the separate noise contours and safety zones and so forth. Either one is acceptable and is consistent with the Handbook. The new Handbook will probably be fairly similar., We don't think there is a right and a wrong way of doing it. We're working, for example, right now trying to write 'a plan for Contra -Costa County, in which Byron Airport is located in a very rural area with absolutely nothing around it where we are using this approach versus Buchanan that you mentioned earlier, it's almost totally developed around it and it really didn't make much sense to try to combine zones. We really had to get down to very little, so each one depends on the circumstances around the airport. Overall, we have used this approach probably in a dozen or more counties that we've developed similar plans over the last 10 years or so. It's evolved over time. We think we've gotten a little better at it. As we've done each one, we always learn something new each time. This certainly isn't a new approach that hasn't been used by .any other county. It is used by many including in some counties where Shutt Moen Associates wasn't the consultant of the counties, have done it as well." Commissioner Grierson stated, '.Other things I've picked up includes where Area B-1 addresses the 60 dB CNEL contour line, but that contour line extends into Area B-2 as well, to the south, and that's if you're using the map, Exhibit 4K, that's where it's clearly • noted." Mr. Brody responded, "Unfortunately, the red lines didn't print real well on this map. We weren't real satisfied with the reproduction quality on some things here.". C Commissioner Grierson. then asked whether that would require a modification to B-1 or whether it was going to be addressed a little bit in Area B-2. Mr. Brody clarified, "It's such a tiny amount that it extends into. At the scale we're talking about here, it's probably 100' or 200' and given, as I talked about earlier, the accuracy level of contours, a question. came up as we were talking at break as to why that irregular boundary, on B-1. When we started off, we drew a smooth arc that encompassed most of the, or all of that contour which was more or less equal to the distance that's to the north end, but with the flare there for the noise abatement departure towards the east and so on. ..Then after taking a closer look at it, we went back and said there's some existing streets there that are real close to where that line would fall, and other than the one subdivision that was also pretty much the dividing line between whether there is residential and where there isn't, and what the General Plan says. We felt that, again, why have a few houses that we show on the wrong side of the line if it doesn't have any significant effect on the overall compatibility of the airport and therefore, we moved the boundary slightly, so that's where that came from." ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 19 ■ Commissioner Grierson commented, "While you've got Exhibit 4K out, one of the things I've noted with this is that we've really got a lot of information on this map to the point where it's hard to follow. I don't have a solution. I don't know if there should be several different maps that are published because if this thing gets reproduced, -which it will, in a black -and -white format, it's going to be very, very hard to read." Mr. Brody stated that he didn't know how to avoid the issue of the black -and -white for that particular drawing but in the basic compatibility plan we can and have changed those. He said, "The one we have up'here has shades of grey in place of it. The noise contours, which are probably the thing that's the hardest to read on here, have been separately included so at least those are available in amore distinct manner. This is one of those kinds of maps basically just showing all the layers that went into it and we tried—I don't know if it was successful—to change the dots we're using for the aircraft accident data base from black as previously used—and that just obliterated things—so now they're grey. They're hard to see, and the traffic pattern maybe is a little bit darker in the dots that are in it. We might fiddle with the relative intensity of different things but short of, as you say, if . you want to take it out and do separate drawings, we can, but then it's a balance between that and trying to see everything all together." Commissioner Lambert made the suggestion of using one celluloid overlay that depicts the accident scatter and then one depicting the noise contour, which could be individually lifted up or all left in place for a total. composite. She added, "That's one concept that works for me sometimes." Commissioner Grierson concurred, adding that perhaps one could fold from the right and one fold from the left, top and bottom. His noted his concern that in time the overlays may begin to break away. Commissioner Lambert added further that, as one option, overlays could come from one side just in layers. Mr. Brody responded, "We could look into what the cost of doing that. The real trick there is to get them so that they print accurately enough so that they register accurately. Otherwise, just folding it down, if it's not going to line up, is going to be more confusing. Knowing printing quality, my experience has.been that pages can shift 1/101h or'/o of an inch sometimes." Commissioner Grierson commented, "I can't help but think that if this were to be broken up into about three different drawings that may help because the people that are looking at the noise contours are not necessarily going to be looking at the accident scatter plan. The people that are looking at the traffic pattern routing may not necessarily be looking at, I don't know, if I had an answer I'd give it to you. The point I'm just trying to make is that it's very difficult to read and once we start. sending it into second and third generation duplication, it'll start to look fairly weak." Mr. Brody replied that this may be a case in which the County will have the originals of the whole Plan and it may be a matter of going back to the originals more often, adding that we'll see whether there's some way we can make it more clear. He said that they haven't come up with a good answer yet. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 20 ■ • Alternate Commissioner, Wallrich, looking for clarification with the map issues, asked whether this would be one of the first times this is being used anywhere throughout the state. Commissioner Grierson said, "No, it has been used about a dozen times thus far." A comment confirmed by Mr. Brody. Mr. Brody continued citing Lake County as one example. Commissioner Grierson asked, "Is this an option that we have, though? Do this or go back to the way we had prior or what was recently, we had some maps that we just got satisfied with here not that long ago. Is that a call, or is that a decision -point then?" Mr. Brody commented, "Well," I think you've made that decision, not that you can't always change it, but we are talked at various presentations in the past about the direction we are going and gave some illustrations a couple times ago, not for Chico because we didn't have all the information but for a couple of the other airports, I think we took Oroville and showed where all the different layers come together and the approach we are taking so we are trying to get that decision made while we still have the opportunity to change it and the consensus of the Commission in the previous times we discussed it has been that this is fine and let's go with it. After you see the whole Plan, obviously if you really think that you need to change it, but that's a lot more work than what we really. would want to bargain for doing at this point in time.. It certainly wouldn't be a plan that you'd be able to adopt in the timeframe that you had in mind." Vice -Chair Rosene said, "But the separate maps would be available if we wanted to, use this as a comprehensive map and then break out more of the different parts of this map that are overlaid over the parcel map. Somebody could see that I'm right on the approach leg here where I see your little dots, or the 45 to enter the down -wind, I'm looking at my parcel and I'm underneath." Mr. Brody responded, "Certainly that can be looked at in that direction, but really the whole purpose of this map included here and the reason it's not in the policy chapter, instead it's in the background chapter, is to show all the things that were taken into account in developing the combined zones. The intent is that under most circumstances that the combined zones in Chapter 3. are what you would be referring to for project review. There may be some instances where noise is a really critical factor to some particular use or whatever, and you might want to pull out the exact noise contours." He further commented, "The whole intent is that it's only under some unusual circumstances that you have to get back, lift the hood so to speak, and see what's underneath it. That's the way it's structured here. Especially for the individual communities and ' staff of jurisdictions where the person looking at it may not be as familiar with all the `nuts and bolts' of it, they want to look at something and say, `Is this OK, or isn't this OK?' " Vice -Chair Rosene asked for any comments regarding Oroville. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis commented that he had the same concerns as with Chico,. which he defined as "lots of information that is difficult to decipher." ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 21 ■ Vice -Chair Rosene stated, "I think that they're great maps. I think that you can really pull • a ton of information out, but I think that you can see that there is so much overlap that you really have to take it apart which isn't a problem, but maybe the copying is a problem." Mr. Brody commented that, "At a minimum maybe what we could do, just as we've. done the separate map with the noise contours, maybe we need a separate map with a couple of the other components so that if you want to look at that individual component, you can see it and leave this map pretty much as it is." Vice -Chair Rosene expressed his wishes that he definitely wants the composite map included but also would like some of the information broken out. Commissioner Gerst asked in relation to the Oroville Airport, "On the approach and departure to the north, how come it's way down compared to going south." Mr. Brody asked whether he was referring to the B-2 zone, or that in the B-1 zone. He further responded that there are two factors that change things. He noted that first, "In looking at the factors map, the noise contours get substantially larger toward the south because that's the predominant direction..." Commissioner Gerst then stated that he'd like to start from this issue and then talk about the noise contour, also. He added that some things don't seem to match. Commissioner Gerst asked, "Was this map based on the noise contours, is that what you're saying?" Mr. Brody responded, "That was a key component of it. Also, the instrument approach to the airport is from the south." Commissioner Gerst replied, "In the next twenty years will that always be from the south? Normally aircraft come in from the north because of the winds. Won't they change the approach to come from the north in time? A lot of approaches come from the north, they used to." Mr. Brody said, "The dominant direction for visual activity is from north to south. The instrument approach, the existing one is 'from the south and that's all that's shown on the City's adopted Plan. Again, all we can go by is what's on the plans that the City and/or the Airport operations have developed. You know if they had something in their Master Plan that said they expect a future. ILS equivalent precision approach from the north, then we would take that into account, too." Commissioner Gerst added that, "A lot is being spent on taxpayer money to develop that into a park so it looks like in twenty years, as plans go, why they will have the activity there to warrant it, your corporate jets and this sort of thing. Mr. Brody then responded, "There's obviously a lot of other factors in terms of whether you develop an approach from that direction besides it just making sense, I mean with GPS these days, it's possible to get a lot more approaches into runways that don't have them. On the other hand, you still have terrain to deal with and I don't know for this particular airport, what type of approach could be established from 'the north and what the 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 22 ■ minimums might be and so forth but nevertheless, that's not going to change the noise contour because the wind direction leans predominantly towards the south." Commissioner Gerst asserted, "To me, the noise contours are really faulted because, as I understand it, you're using the average. In other words, you have less traffic going to the north than you do the south so you don't fill as big an area, is that true, is that the way you get that down to where there's practically no noise area going north?" Mr. Brody'confirmed, "That's correct. Most of the impact is from landing aircraft to the north." Commissioner Gerst then commented, "It's not realistic to do it that way. I can understand it's not as often, you don't have as many complaints in all probability, but you got just as much noise over the same area going north as you do south. That airplane makes just as much noise if goes out to the .north as it does south. It may not happen as often, but this shows, anybody looking at. this, that you just don't have any problem at all with noise. You just pieced it down to nothing." Mr. Brody replied, "You're getting into the. distinction between the cumulative noise levels that are measured by CNEL and the single -event levels. I would say we rely more on the CNEL. There's really no real good standards for dealing with "single event." We use the single -event and we do take that into account and we certainly have at Chico, for example, the fire attack aircraft and so on more in terms of other zones, like B-2 and C, and where we feel that it's important because of the.frequency of noise intrusion that we have to have some type of disclosure." Commissioner Gerst stated, "Again, this is• set up supposedly for twenty years, and certainly there's going to be a lot of growth in twenty years, if we.get our money's worth out of the millions of dollars of taxpayer money that's going into that airport. But this gives a full picture of "noise" by cutting it down to where there's no noise; just to look at this, that's all the noise you've got—those borders. That noise is just the same going north as it is going south, it's just not as frequent. So to cut the area down where the noise is reflected, it gives a false picture, and like you say, there's no standard. I've been through the State handbook a dozen, times, and I can't find anywhere it calculates it that way. That's what I'm asking, where do you get the background to establish this?" Mr. Brody said, "I think it's more the other way around. There's no widely established criteria,or standards, California, nationwide, or anywhere, to use "single event" measures, which is what you're arguing for.. We don't have anything good to go by." On another. subject, Commissioner Gerst asked, " What's a single event? Mr. Brody replied, "A single event is one operation." Commissioner Gerst then commented, "Every one is one operation; it's just cumulative." Mr. Brody affirmed that. 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 23 ■ • Commissioner Gerst commented, "Every time an airplane takes off, there's not two of them taking off, there's only one. So a single -event is just more frequent." Mr. Brody said, "Right, so are you arguing that you do or don't take into account the frequency?" Commissioner Gerst stated his opinion, "I can't see how you can because the noise perimeter that the airplane makes, whether it takes off once or whether it takes off ten times, that perimeter is still there. And there's where=as I understand it, and I've talked to a lot of people on this—and there's where you get more complaints when there's less traffic than you do when ----:they get used to it, I guess. I don't know, there's no rhyme or reason." Mr. Brody commented, 'As I say, we've taken into account that the single -event noise footprints, in terms of areas where we feel the deed notices and disclosure and so forth are appropriate, but in terms of the high, more concentrated noise levels, that's where the CNEL contours come into play, and those do take into account the frequency. It's not that we're avoiding one or the other, but these contours as we've depicted them for each of the airports, are the overall composite impact of the airports. I can see your point, in terms of single -event, but -unless you have a way of taking a subsequent. step, and say, OK, if we were to do that, what does that mean in terms of policies?" Commissioner Gerst replied, "What it means is that you're showing where the noise contour is, whether it's one trip a day or six trips a day, it doesn't make any difference, that noise border is out there; and. my argument is that it's not the real picture." Commissioner Grierson asked Mr. Brody whether he did the modeling for that, or whether it was contracted out. Mr. Brody commented, "We did these three, other than Chico, and used the FAA standard for Part 150 noise modeling. We used the integrated noise model and most of the flight distribution data that are shown in the City's master plan from some years ago." Commissioner Grierson added, "The key thing I want to be sure of is that when we're using documents or drawings, or models, that they're assembled in accordance with established adopted Federal Regulations and Guidelines, thereby making them unassailable in the event of attempt for override, or things of that sort. Adding -in the single -event noise element is good for planning purposes, but what I'm thinking of is ensuring we've got. an ironclad plan here.. And if we've used the best available data, and used it with the appropriate adopted FAA models, I think then we've got the ironclad plan that's necessary for us to take the next step which is going to be airspace and land use designations." Vice -Chair Rosene noted one correction to the map, saying that Oroville had been listed as Chico in Exhibit 5H. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 24 ■ Commissioner Gerst said; "I have just one thing. It'll go along with what I was just • talking about.. When you come off the end of the runway, you have these "fans"—you take off this way, you take off that way—but your noise contour gets narrowed right down the middle. It doesn't go this way or this way, so how do you account for that? It doesn't go to the left or the right, it looks -like instead of narrowing down, it should widen up and then cut off, like your other maps -on your land use. Mr. Brody pointed out that, "To some degree, if you were to draw more contours out, to 50 or 45 contour or something like that, it would begin to reflect that, again, because the noise contours are built upon what the most common flight tracks are. It can be'done, but it's difficult to start to look. at every single possible flight track. We don't really have good enough data in order to do that. If _you have radar tracking and other information, you can begin to do that more accurately. We show the flare in some of the zones, again, reflecting areas where aircraft are descending down to a lower altitude for approach and landing at the airport, or where they're taking off and somebody's maybe begun to make a turn, but we're not fully'representing it in the noise contours." Commissioner Gerst responded, "I'm talking about direction, and not all those things, Ken, because a pilot taking off from the runway, when he gets to the end, if he wants to go the right, he goes to the right; if he wants to go to the left, he'll go to the left. Your maps show that right now; the direction; like your B-2, that's your overflight area, so that's the way your noise should be reflected, I think. Because you got that whole area because you don't know which way that airplane's going to be going. Your noise (contour) is going to • follow right along .with it." Mr. Brody then stated, "If you look at where you can see the contours more clearly, again, the,contours just by the mathematics of the way they work, are dominated more by the larger. airplanes, the noisier ones that are tending to fly farther straight ahead before they make a turn. And even. the smaller airplanes, perhaps, if we were to review what we modeled, maybe we'd indicate that more of them make an earlier turn or whatever, so it is possible to . add . additional flight tracks especially towards the southwest there, maybe it would end up making the contour a little bit fatter and shorter. The overall area usually stays about the same when you start doing that, it just kind of changes the shape a little bit." is Commissioner Grierson asked, "What would that be based on because it wouldn't be based on any kind of known flight pattern?" Mr. Brody replied, "Lacking really good information to say where all the flight tracks are -and we have even less for Oroville than for Chico—we go on the standard that an aircraft's going to take off and especially smaller airplanes, and you're going to get up to 400'-500' at least before you begin to make a turn, and then even at that, some airplanes are going to continue to fly. straight—the bigger airplanes are going to do that. You can add some other assumptions but they.are just that, as you say, there maybe some that are making a closer -in turn. ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 25 ■ Vice -Chair Rosene added, "I think we've discussed it and we either accept them or we don't accept them. If you don't accept them, we have to come up with some information that discredits them and for now, I'm willing to accept the noise contours. Is there any other thing that Oroville people would like to discuss? Then let's move on to Paradise. Does anyone have comments. on Paradise? OK. Lastly, Ranchaero, does anyone have any comments or questions for Ken on Ranchaero?" . Alternate Commissioner Baldridge commented, (His voice barely discernable.) .`My main question was that the dimension going to the east from the centerline of the runway, we run out of any kind of density limits at all going to area D, but then a 1500' distance ... in other words ... area C to the east is awfully close to the runway and why the criterion in there? Why is it so wide to the west?" Mr. Brody responded, "You don't have any traffic pattern on the east, correct? That's the main difference is where the traffic pattern is. We do have the lateraldistance to take into account, sort of a sideline noise of aircraft as they're taking off and landing but then you can. be heard some distance eastward. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that then the way aircraft fly at this airport, very rarely would aircraft ever be flying over that area farther towards the east, at least at traffic pattern altitude or below. _ They might take off and circle and head to Chico Airport or something." Alternate Commissioner Baldridge continued, "I don't know, I fly over on that side all the time, especially when you're going up to Chico, I go around that way." (Mr. Brody asked whether he said that he makes aleft turn.) "When I'm departing to the south, yes." Mr. Brody replied, "And make that tight of a turn so that you're west of..."(Alternate Commissioner Baldridge: "...much over downtown, try to stay out of the way of that United Express that comes zipping in over there.") "So again, my point is that, if we're looking at areas where aircraft are roughly at or below traffic pattern, have we missed something?" Alternate Commissioner Baldridge stated further, "Maybe not, but I mean, the relative percentage there, I don't know how you shift that zone; if say 90% of the traffic is on one side, do you shift it—where's that dimension come from? Is that a modeling thing, too?" Mr. Brody commented; "Your noise contours are pretty tiny but to some degree we looked at that, and we even went down to a 50 -contour for that airport because there are so few operatigns, it would put the contour off the runway. But when we're looking at the C zone, really we're more just considering where the traffic pattern was, and wanting to allow some degree of buffer on the east side. As to whether it's 1500 ft., or 1700. (ft.), or 2000 (ft.), there's probably no exact magic to that. What we pretty much did was look -at that relative to some of the other airports that we were showing, and where different zones lie and so forth. There's a combination of different factors that was the basis for that. I can't point to an exact one that says,; this is where 1500 comes from: It seemed to be an appropriate buffer, given the type of airport and where the traffic is, and the level of operations and so forth. If you were to tell me that, gee, much of the issue that people are ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 26 ■ complaining about is in a subdivision that's 1700 ft. directly to the east or something, then maybe we'd need to take a . look into. why that's happening and take something into account:" Alternate Commissioner Baldridge then said, "I guess really the only thing is, that there's no deed notice or anything... that area's still that close to the airport." Mr: Brody responded, "There is only the real estate disclosure requirement that would apply within all of D." Commissioner Gerst asked why wouldn'tthey adjust the Part 77 map if it's the same criteria? Mr. Brody responded, "The Part'77 doesn't look at where traffic patterns are, it just simply looks at the approaches straight -in and out. It assumes, in terms of the horizontal surface, potentially that you have a. pattern on both' sides. There's nothing in the regulations that take into account where you have traffic patterns. We debated here, for example, and I presume you went through some of this when you defined the overall influence area boundary for this airport whether to have it take in all of the Part 77 surfaces, which obviously would envelope a chunk of downtown and the university and so on..." (Commissioner Gerst: We did discuss it, yes.) "and in this particular instance we looked at what you had done. and concluded that was a good choice and used the same boundaries. That was the basis for that and then, given that, what goes on within that area • where aircraft are flying." L` Alternate Commissioner Baldridge mentioned his concern relative to the overall boundary area. Vice -Chair Rosene stated that there would still be time if he wanted a change. Commissioner Grierson asked,. "If we were to move it, how far out would you have to move it?" Alternate Commissioner Baldridge responded, "Given the fact that our, initial look at zone D, with the `,no limits' that we started out our review ... if we're going to be completely unrestrictive in zone D from a density or space standpoint, then suddenly at 100 ft.— boom—the restrictions go away. Then maybe it's not a big deal ... as .long as there is a disclosure." Commissioner Grierson expressed concern that people could buy a house down in the airport influence area and never be told they're near an airport which he felt could happen very easily. . Commissioner- Lambert commented that it is an area that's pretty well protected from any great density of development. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said, "From a greenline standpoint, yes. I don't know exactly where that runs, though." Airport Land Use Commission 9 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 27 ■ Commissioner Lambert replied, "From the city limit line, which is right at the corner of • . W. 5`s Street and where River Road begins by the Union Oil tanks." (Mr. Brody referred the ALUC to Exhibit 7G ... in Chapter 7, saying that on that map, it is orange rather than green.) Commissioner Grierson expressed his view, "If that's the case, it may not be an issue, but I can't help but look at the Part 77 drawing and look at where I live. It's not even listed on there—my street isn't listed on there -and it was at one time an orchard, and I can look over here in Area D on the east side and think, well that's an orchard now, too. I mean greenline may move and without establishing a formal blueline protecting airports, like we protect AG, who knows." Vice -Chair Rosene agreed saying, "Good point. OK. But take a look at that Brian'and come back. As far as the Appendices go, I'm going to ask for written comments. Do you want any changes or have any suggestions?" Vice -Chair Rosene opened the meeting to public comments requesting that anyone wishing to speak may step forward and state their"name for the record. Ms. Hennigan asked what other. counties have adopted this mapping system. Mr. Brody responded that "The ones we've looked at that have actually adopted it, let's see—basically any of the ones in green." Ms. Y Hennigan asked, "Are they're using this composite map system?" Mr. Brody replied, "I believe, yes. Some of them aren't adopted yet, with one or two possible exceptions and there might be a couple of older ones in there, but virtually all of the ones that are in there are ones where that method has been used. I know San Luis Obispo, where we did not work, has also used that method." Ms. Hennigan asked, "Are there any that have been in use for any period of time? What's the oldest one?" Mr. Brody answered, "Probably Solano and Imperial are the ones we have done. Mendocino has probably been in use for quite a while. Napa has been in use for quite a while." Ms. Hennigan commented on the split zoning. She said, "I think it would be very hard to maintain 5 -acre lots next to apartment buildings. No one's going to build an estate next to that sortof apartment situation. So it almost guarantees requests for rezones -for the 5 -acre parcels to make them back into high density zoning. As we have discovered in. the AG element, that there is no such thing as a transition zone, it's' only transitioning to higher densities or urban densities. It doesn't hold any line, the greenline is absolutely unique in California. There. are a couple of places where the noise contours do extend beyond the B-1 designations and even in a few hundred feet and.it's to the south of Chico and to the 0 Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 28 ■ north, in Oroville, and in both of those cases, they are extended into developed areas, i.e. • where there are people who will be offended by the noise. If you miss those lines over an area where there are no people, it hardly matters. In an area where there are people already, I think you're setting up a situation ripe for litigation from people who are offended by operations at the airport. As I said, even if it is only a few hundred yards, it needs to accurately reflect what's going on. I guess another comment about the use of the Part 77 surfaces as opposed to the areas that ALUC had designated. Those lines cut across people's property lines and it's very difficult to say, you can do this on the front half of your property, but you can't do that on the back half of your property; or you can't put your house where you want it to be, it's got to be over there, because of an invisible line that crosses it. And, I think it's much easier. to maintain the integrity of any of .these lines if they go along natural boundaries, like streets, creeks, anything that isn't going to disappear. It's inappropriate for a prospective landowner or landowner to not be able to know what he can do with his property, as opposed to what he can do with only part of it." Mr. Brody replied, "On that latter point, I still remember an instance some time ago— especially when you're dealing with large parcels—if you're going to try to follow parcel lines, a lot of times there are not parcels and other natural features where you sort of want to draw a boundary line; so that means either that you end up with. a very irregular-shaped area that looks a lot more arbitrary in many respects because you're trying .to follow parcels, or you decide to leave a whole parcel out of a particular zone—the situation I was going to mention is that one time we had a fairly large parcel and in the first draft we had three-quarters of the land which- was restricted and one part that happened to be by the street that was less restricted. Later on we changed it to `draw it' down the street and the property owner said, why didn't you leave it where it was, at least I could have a quarter of my land that I could do what I wanted on and now you say none of it—so it works both ways. In locations where it really seems to make more sense because of the extent of existing development, as was done for Ranchaero, and as we talked about at the southern part of Chico, we have followed available streets and other features but down in the more rural areas, and your really large parcels, there's not very many geographic features frequently to deal with, other than in a somewhat of a arbitrary fashion." Ms. Hennigan said, "I took the map for Chico and overlaid the area that had been adopted and, for example, there's a great deal of land to the southwest' of the Esplanade that is essentially written -off. In truth, it's not near any of the overflight zones." Mr. Brody said that he had wanted to try to do this in the computer, but after some effort at trying to duplicate the existing map, they found that they had just ran out of time. Ms. Hennigan commented, "We're not going to have a lot of people flying past the transmission lines." Vice -Chair Rosene responded, "Barbara, this proposal includes more land than what our sphere of influence has right now. I only see us gaining." Mr. Brody added that there were little areas there that were different. " 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 29 ■ • Ms. Hennigan continued, "But those are both areas that are going to develop with housing. I don't think we're going to get a lot of houses past the transmission lines. That will never be zoned high residential so having some sort of oversight control over that property is meaningless. But the area between Meridian and south of Rock Creek is going to develop very heavily, as is the .development towards town. - I think it would be more important to have the northwest corner and the southeast corner since these are places where urban development is going to happen." There being no other public comment, Vice -Chair Rosene closed the.public portion of the hearing. Vice -Chair Rosene asked for comments from the Commission as to the direction they'd like to provide Ken. Mr..Brody asked whether it might be an opportune time to maybe summarize what the subsequent meetings are, and the sequence it has seen at this point. Alternate Commissioner Wallrich commented, "There is only a very small piece of the CLUP that we will adopt. The rest is reference information." He. then said, "Can you divide the Plan into different books or put it in. a binder? If you had it under different tabs, it could be separated. I'm sure parts of this will be produced and handed out to the public and that approach would make it more user friendly. If you had it under different tabs, it could be separated." Mr. Brody explored other options saying, "We're certainly open to suggestions about that. You could pull out just the policy piece of it and have it in a separate book, if you wish. We have on one occasion. We were contracted to do kind of a separate summary document where we didn't even have all the policies, it just had about 8 or 10 pages. It really just summarized.the key criteria. You know, that's something that potentially could be done." Alternate Commissioner Wallrich added, "It sounds like some of the larger areas like Chico have GPS (Global Positioning System), an automated system, where you have a lot of flexibility. Some of the smaller areas are not going to -Have the dollars to do that, so they're going to have to produce it or have it in some other format. Are there any suggestions? -You mention that point, I mean you guys do a lot of this. In your experiepce, have other areas asked for it in a different format? Maybe there are 2 or 3 different choices here that already exist." . Mr. Brody suggested, "The Summary Document, that's the main one. There is one other possibility where, because of concerns of what gets adopted, it might ultimately end up being separate documents—one for each airport. I think if it becomes important that only certain pieces of it be in a separate document then maybe you're talking about chapters 1, 2, and 3 in one volume and the rest in a separate volume. In terms of the substance of what's in here, that wouldn't be that difficult just to separate it out if that became ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March I5, 2000 ■ Page 30 ■ necessary. There is the option of a Summary Document, however, ultimately it becomes • the individual jurisdictions' responsibility to deal with it. If you have any direction from the Commission, that's something we can entertain." • Vice -Chair Rosene stated, "I think we have a lot of information we have to cover. In order to bring someone up -to -speed, if they read the whole thing, they would get the background. `I see your point ekactly, but I think the County or the City could take the selected portions of this and make a little user-friendly packet, on their own, but this document would be the basis to do that.". Alternate Commissioner Wallrich asked, "Is the actual CLUP something we only have an opportunity to review once a year?" Vice -Chair Rosene responded, "Yes. But we could review any of the procedures, too, because they're included in that. It gives us more latitude, I think, in changing things if it's all as one package. That's my feeling." Alternate Commissioner Wallrich stated his view, saying, "It depends on who the user is but you have ' the State Handbook plus other information including some technical background data. Since we have separate communities with Chico, Paradise, and Oroville, we need the ability to give it to people in different formats, or at least have it broken up in a way that would be easier to. use. We need to give it some thought as to what the design should be." Vice -Chair Rosene concurred. Commissioner Lambert asked, "Would some of that be determined by the individual city—City of "Oroville, City of Chico—as to how they want to implement it in their document?" Mr. Brody responded, "That's part of it. I think from what I'm hearing, the comment is that for your purposes, you need it all, and would like it put into one document. We'd be happy to do some of them that are 3 -hole punched and loose leaf if that's easier for your purposes. That's no problem. For the individual communities, you're right, Paradise doesn't care about what's going on at the Oroville Airport. Apart from taking a very different approach and having a separate document for each airport which has its pluses and minuses—that's what you have now—you sort of -want to keep them running parallel." Alterna$e Commissioner Wallrich asked, "Wouldn't this be our opportunity to do that?" (Ken: Yes, it's a question of what.) "'In other words, you've got a community out there that's trying to use_this and. right now, they'd probably get it 3 different ways. If you have somebody that was interested in what you could do on a parcel of land, be it a developer or individual, if they go to one location, they'll get one sheet or if they, go someplace else, they might get half the book. It would seem . like we should have some ' options and provide consistency in the county. I.think it's something maybe we want to talk about." ,■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15', 2000 ■ Page 31 ■ Paula Leasure asserted that frequently they get people coming into the office and requesting information in regard to a particular airport. At that point they don't need to purchase the entire book. She suggested that they- could provide them those sections that are applicable. She added, ""I think that's what you were getting at in providing something a little easier for people to utilize." Mr. Brody replied, "The possibility—and we could work with staff—I mean, to create separate Summary Documents for each airport, or something like that. It's not part of our current scope, but it wouldn't be that big of a process to have something figured out. Our focus has really, been on what you need in order to adopt the plan, and let's make sure that we've got sort of a commonality going ori, and therefore, we have done it as one. But now I can see your point.". Commissioner Grierson suggested that after adoption, perhaps the communities could be notified that they could order their extract for $35.95 directly from Shutt Moen. Mr. Brody responded, " We'll be providing both the reproducible, camera-ready copy, as well as all 'the digital files to the county staff, and also all the drawings will be given to them in a manner that they can add, to their GIS so they'll have a number of different ways they can work with that information." Vice Chair Rosene asked, "Paula, do -you have a summary or direction?" • Paula Leasure said, "Not direction. I just wanted to let the Commission know that we will be holding a number of hearings during the next month= -doing meetings, workshops— and most of these meetings are on page two of your staff report that was provided. However, we do need to add one more item which is the consultation with the City of Chico scheduled for March 28, 2000 between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. with City staff at the Chico City Council Chambers." Vice -Chair Rosene questioned why there were two back-to-back meetings being held in Chico at different locations. Commissioner Grierson said, "There's actually a reason for this. This is staff review. This is not to be adopted by the Airport Commission or by City Council—it's for staff input, -staff review—and that's the approach being taken at this point. Originally, there was consideration of having a joint meeting but then it came down to, `Should we really have a joint meeting before the staff has had a chance to review and comment, and then considering that the Airport Commission's not even adopting this, and neither is Council, why are we making this more than it should be at this stage?' So it's really more of a workshop for staff." Mr. Brody added, "The workshop, scheduled between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., as I've envisioned it, is probablygoing.to go beyond that period of time because we'll have some time for an open house portion. I'll most, likely have a brief presentation and then the opportunity for questions and answers; and considering this meeting has been 371/2 hours long, hopefully, it won't be that long. I suspect it will be more than 1 hour at any rate, especially if we have open house. We'll have the drawings, the main maps we have 0 Airport Land Use Commission N Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 32 ■ already prepared on a large size board and so forth, so people can look at those. Hopefully, we'll get a reasonable turn -out. I don't know what you would be expecting, Bob (Grierson), or how big this room is, I haven't been in it." Commissioner Grierson replied, "City Council Chambers is larger. than this room, you could pretty much double it, that's what you're dealing with for Council Chambers. As far as the turn -out goes, who knows." Commissioner Lambert asked, "Who does actually adopt this document? I know that ALUC does, but does the Board. of Supervisors, do the city councils—does anybody else—or just the Airport Land Use Commission?" Mr. Brody answered, "Correct. In terms of adopting the Plan, you each have to do that, and then each jurisdiction has, its actions that it'll have to take in terms of the General Plan consistency which they'll develop in some draft form. Then they'll submit it to you, for evaluation as to whether their plan and their procedures are now consistent with your policies and then they'll adopt that. To reiterate what I was saying earlier, when you have the opportunity to review what each jurisdiction submits to you for consistency, that's when you need to take a real close look at it. In some counties and some ALUCs, the only thing the ALUC ever does is look at General Plan changes, and so on. So, while you can't dictate to each jurisdiction how they're going to handle the review of projects or in other words, whether they want to do it internally and have all the policies themselves, or whether they are going to agree to send things to you, you can require that they at least address that and have it in a policy, one way or another. They can't ignore the issue, so when you get to that stage, that's when you want to really make sure that you're satisfied with how they're going about it. You've got a lot of ways to go about it, but you have to make sure they've checked all the boxes, at least in some manner." Commissioner Lambert questioned whether the ALUC should consider adopting the CLUP before it sees and, reviews the Master Plan layout which is still incomplete. Mr. Brody provided a perspective on adopting the CLUP prior to review of the Chico Master Plan. He informed the ALUC that, "In spite of numerous requests, both from the Airport Manager and us to their Consultant, we still don't have a layout plan to include in here and still haven't seen anything yet. Maybe Bob (Grierson) can speak more on the timing of that. At this point, we are going on the basis that City's adopted plan will include the runway extensions as part of it. If the City Council ultimately adopts a Master Plan that does not include those runway extensions, then as I believe we noted in one of the policies here, it may be necessary to go back and revisit what the Compatibility Zones are. Right now we're a little bit ahead of the game in that, theoretically, this Plan is supposed to be based on an adopted Master Plan. The adopted Chico Master Plan is maybe 15-20 years old, (Commissioner Grierson: '22) 22 years old, so Bob and I have talked on various occasions to consider what to do. We've explicitly asked the County Planning .Dept. to put in writing that they want us to get ahead of the game here, and they've said yes after consultation with Bob, as well. We think that's the way their plan 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 33 ■ will end up, but nobody knows ultimately, by the time you get through all the . • environmental issues and so forth." Commissioner Lambert asked, "Except .for the fact that we're all anxious to have this completed and adopted, is .there .any real need to adopt it prior to at least being able to review the Master Plan?" Mr. Brody affirmed that the CLUP did not need to be adopted prior to review of the Master Plan. Commissioner Lambert stated her position saying that she'd like to at least see the Master Plan prior to. CLUP adoption because it could have a bearing on what may or may not, or what should or should not, be added to our adopted Plan. Commissioner Lambert stated that, "Things are moving now. This body has made some amendments that they felt were necessary so they were able to function with at least some updates to our old CLUP." She further asserted that she would not be comfortable adopting anything without having seen everything that's supposed to go into it before it's adopted. Mr. Brody asked Commissioner Lambert whether she was saying that she was in favor of pulling out the Chico Municipal portion of this Plan and not adopt it at this time. Commissioner Lambert replied, "Aren't we preparing this to cover all airports? If this is going to be a document that governs all airports, we should see whether there's anything in the Chico Master Plan that may change our thoughts for the other three. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to have the whole picture before I adopt what is supposed to be governing." Commissioner Grierson commented, "I think we could safely assume, even with the worst -case -scenario, that the Airport Master Plan for Chico would be adopted before the end of the calendar. year. The bulk of the Plan is. actually written. The only thing that's really holding things up right now is the Environmental Report and we've received the Environmental Report in its various portions. The staff is trying to clean it up right now and make. whatever adjustments are necessary for it to go into its final version. Then we'll go through our whole public process." Commissioner Lambert added that she was not suggesting that the process be rushed. It needs to be complete as well. Commissioner Grierson assured the ALUC, "It won't be rushed. As far as the timing goes, everything that Shutt Moen has produced is being included in the Airport Master Plan. Now the finalized version; after making it through the public process and through Council,.may have some differences." . Commissioner Lambert then questioned, "The Council does adopt the Master Plan?" Commissioner Grierson replied, "Yes." 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 34 a • Commissioner Lambert asked, "And we just have to accept it?" Commissioner Grierson responded, "I'm not sure if we accept it, or just review it, or file it." Mr. Brody explained, ."This is where you end up somewhat in a `Catch-22' situation in that the Airport Master Plan has to come to the ALUC for review for consistency with your Plan before it can be adopted. If you haven't yet adopted your Plan that shows the runway extensions, then their Plan is inconsistent with it. So you end up with this conflict of how do you do both. .That's why we're—based on how long each of the respective studies are—going to go on the basis that the runway extensions and the activity that are associated with it, will ultimately be part of what gets adopted for the Chico Airport. And those are the two main things that are of importance here. There's not really much of a land use element in the study as far as I know. It's really the runway configuration and the operational levels that we've relied upon and the same consultant has done the noise contours, both for the Master Plan and for us, so those are the same unless something happens later to change the assumptions for one reason . or another. Then it may be necessary to subsequently go back and review and update the Chico portion of the Land Use Compatibility Plan." Commissioner Lambert asked, "Is it our concern at all if they expand the runway to the north and it affects those houses north of Keefer, or in the Keefer Rd. area, or how will that be?" Mr. Brody stated, "The assumption of the runway extensions to both runways, the northern extension of the main runway, and in both directions on the smaller runway, and how that'll change the distribution of aircraft operations is taken into account in the Plan that we've presented to you. So we're assuming that will be all that is going to ultimately be part of the City's plan. If the City, for some reason, takes that out of the Master Plan, the CLUP might have to be reviewed to see whether it makes a difference. We're going on the basis that it will ultimately be in the City's plan." Vice -Chair Rosene asked, "What do we. need to do then, Paula?" Paula Leasure commented, "I think you've already provided enough direction to Ken so he knows certain areas of the. Plan that need to be looked at a little bit more, maybe augmented or changed. As far as this particular project goes, I think we're done." Voice of a man (not recognizable): In Chapter 2 of our Compatibility Criteria, "children's schools" is mentioned, I don't remember that. Did you discuss that at all? What's the definition of a "children's school?" Mr. Brody explained, "The reason the word `children' was in there is that we had a plan some time ago where we said `no schools' and somebody said, `Well, does that eliminate the FBO's flight school?' and we said, `Oh, well we better make that distinction,' so 0 AirportLand Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 35 ■ beyond that, we haven't really tried to define it, but that is the reason the wording was changed from just being `schools'." Commissioner Gerst questioned whether they were referring by contrast to colleges with 22 -year-old kids. Commissioner Grierson asked about law students in particular. Commissioner Grierson said, "I don't know if that's a big deal or not, then also on the Chico map, you've . indicated some .airplane approaches with the VOR and DME approaches and things like that.. You may want to include that AG aircraft operation, it's a tract that he always takes.". (Ken: To Ranchaero?) "No, to Chico." Vice -Chair Rosene commented, "Chico.. It's a no -radio, straight from..." (Someone present: It comes right over Garner Lane.) Mr. Brody asked someone to show him on a map and so he could have a look at it. Vice -Chair Rosene remarked that it's a pretty common approach. Mr. Brody addressed the ALUC, "You've presented a number of things that you would like to see done differently, or at least presented to you as an option, and you can ultimately decide what we'll do based on this meeting and the subsequent meetings, sort • of a `running addendum' if you will, with some discussion as to the rationale for change. When ultimately this gets to the point where you're ready to take an action on adoption, you can say, `This plan's subject to these addendum items.' There's some of them that you need to decide because some things have been brought up that I've taken notes on mentioned by one or two commissioners but on which you don't necessarily have a consensus. There are others that you've expressed a consensus on. So we can keep a list like that and you can revisit those at the time when you're ready to adopt and decide which ones you really want to include." Vice -Chair Rosene thanked Ken for his work and his efforts. Paula Leasure announced that Tom Parilo, representing the Board of Supervisors, had asked to address the ALUC. He offered two alternative dates for an ALUC meeting with the Board of Supervisors. After discussion, it was decided to schedule the meeting on April 3`d at 3:30 p.m. _ Mr. Parilo said that he'd pass that on to Mr. Blacklock. It was generally agreed that since a 3:30 p.m. meeting is closer to the end of everyone's workdays that it might be more convenient for everybody to schedule at that time. ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 2. Discussion of Airport Signage in the area of the Chico Airport for the North Chico Specific Plan: (This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Rosene.) ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15; 2000 0 Page 36 ■ Four airport: notification signs have been placed in the North Chico Specific Plan area to • provide notification of aircraft overflight. . Staff has requested County Counsel's office attend the Airport Land Use Commission meeting to inform the Commission of how wording for the signs was developed and how the location of signs was determined. Vice -Chair Rosene said, "I really just wanted to update everybody on the sign issue which seems to have become my issue. I really don't want it. However, since I live close to one of the signs—it stares me in the face every day—and I want everyone to know that the signs were put up about a week ago from last Friday so they've been up for 10 or 11 days. Four signs were put up and these were the North Chico Specific Plan signs and' I have a hand-out that you can look at the sign language. Unfortunately, I have to report that one . of the signs has graffiti on it `already and one of the other signs is `listing' at about a 30 degree angle because when these were placed, the holes that were dug were pretty shallow in soft dirt. There was no concrete used so I would say their expected lifespan is not very good. At another meeting I'd like to discuss the language in the sign. These signs weren't signs that we had any input into and I think that we're going to have to go with these signs personally. We can argue, but at least we do have some signs but they do have some problems. I. would like to discuss that at another time. Also on this hand-out is a picture of the City of Chico sign that they have put up. It's a very tiny sign; you won't be able to tell that from the photograph. It's about the size of a legal pad but it's a very nicely -designed sign and that's because we did it. This is a quality issue. Their signpost is metal and it's placed in concrete and you couldn't knock it down if you wanted to. I appreciate that from the City." • Mr. Brody mentioned, "Sinceou bring u signs,* I was at an airport noise conference last Y g P Tm month which has people from all around the country attending. Before this project I had never come across this idea of signs, it was unique to me. One of the speakers mentioned that they've put up signs around their airport." He added, "Somewhere back at the office I do have an example, at least, of one other airport that has used signs and what's on the signs and so forth. It was a fairly major airport. It's not unique." • Vice -Chair Rosene expressed his interest in educating people. Vice -Chair Rosene thanked Ken. He then mentioned his concern that if these are going to be. ALUC signs and they really don't provide a reference point for residents in the community to be protect and educate to know they are in an airport influence area then, "I think we should pursue more aggressively some disclosure documents to have available, or even,required that realtors hand out if they're going to be transferring property within the North Chico Specific Plan. I think that would accomplish some of the same goals that we wanted to with the signs. One thing about the signs is that 8 were required in the Plan and -4 were put up. When I asked Neal if County Counsel feels that the mitigation for North Chico Specific Plan has been accomplished, County Counsel's viewpoint is that it has been. In fact, he said to me, the City's sign count says a fifth sign and I said, it's not a city requirement that they do that, it's a county requirement." ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 37 ■ • Vice -Chair Rosene praised the City saying, "I do appreciate the City's efforts (at placing signage) because they are not required to do this at all and they've certainly tried to do some education that wasn't required and I think they've done an admirable job." 3. Discussion of the Preparation of Disclosure Information to Supplement Public Notification of Potential Airport Impacts for the North Chico Specific Plan area: (This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Rosene.) Vice -Chair Rosene asked to continue the disclosure information. part of the discussion to another meeting because the CLUP was the important thing to be accomplished at this meeting. He added that the sign issue has been ongoing and suggested having a meeting with the Supervisors to discuss it in person. He then asked for the status report. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Paula Leasure reported that there was staff time for pay periods 3, 4, and 5. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Paula Leasure reported that the correspondence log and some faxed material received from Steve Irwin had been provided to the Commission. She said that they would discontinue making copies of all of the letters that .have been received but offered to provide copies for anyoneupon request. Commissioner Grierson commented, "The last item is a court of appeal document, it should have a green cover on it and Chairman Hennigan requested that this be passed out to all the commissioners. It's in -regard to the Stevens project. He stated, "I haven't had a chance to read it so I really: don't know what it says and since we are named as a party, someone should probably give Jay White a calt and let him know this meeting is about to occur and see if there are any limits to our discussion.. As far as any decision there even being handed down, it could be up to a year. It has been filed. Basically, they're appealing the way that this suit was handled. Actually it's.a procedural appeal, more or less. Just for your information, anything that we do here with adopting a new CLUP will not affect this in any way, as far as this appeal. Since it's a procedural thing, compatibility won't be an issue with the new CLUP versus what the Stevens had at that time." Vice -Chair Rosene asked- whether this meeting would be Paula's last with the ALUC and he thanked Paula for the. work that she does saying that .she's really doing a good job and that he appreciates the efforts she's displayed for ALUC. (Paula: I may be back nextmonth.) We would appreciate that, too. • , ■ Airport. Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 ■ Page 38 ■ Vice -Chair Rosene also thanked Mr. Brody for his presentation and for doing such a thorough • job. I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. J. CLOSED SESSION None. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments, Vice -Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 4A.LEKA, P 'ncipal Planner (Minutes were transcribed by Cheryl Spoor who was not a Planning employee at -the time.of the meeting and did not attend the meeting.) ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of March 15, 2000 0 Page 39 ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 20, 2001 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Rosene, Commissioners Wallrich, Grierson, Lambert,' Harp, Baldridge, and Alternate Commissioner Greenwood. Absent: Commissioner Hatley; Alternate Commissioners Hennigan, and Hodges. Others Present: Alternate Commissioner Papadakis Alternate Commissioner Roberson James Causey, Ex -Officio Commissioner M. A. Meleka, Principal Planner Cheryl Spoor; Secretary I C. APPOINTMENTS TO LISTED VACANCIES 1. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR Commissioner Grierson nominated Commissioner Wallrich as Vice -Chair, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously passed., 2. WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONER Chair Rosene welcomed former Alternate Commissioner Baldridge as Commissioner, appointed by the Airport Managers for a term to expire the first meeting in May, 2005. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MAY 16, 2001 MEETING A motion was made by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously passed to adopt the minutes of the May. 16, 2001 meeting as presented. E. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Commissioner Harp made. a motion to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by `Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously passed. F. ITEM WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Buying Property Near a Butte County Airport (Continued from May 16, 200I): A document prepared by the Disclosure Subcommittee. A discussion item on the disclosure of the airport's influence area to prospective buyers of all airport -vicinity 0 • properties, prior to transfer of title. This item will have to be set as a public hearing item if further action is desired. The revised disclosure document (version 5) was distributed to members at this meeting; Chair Rosene called for a break to provide time for the ALUC to review the provisions prior to discussion. BREAK 9:15 a.m. — 9:25 a.m. The Commission and staff. discussed changes to the draft disclosure document and there was a consensus on the following changes: • Limit the document to one page. • Add maps of each airport as an attachment for additional information. • Insert basic operations data underneath. the legend for each airport. • Change "Commission is authorized to adopt annual updates to the plan" to read, "The plan can be updated annually." • State that all airports are 24 -hours unless otherwise posted. • Use regular font for the currently bolded section which reads in part, "...noise, overflight..." in response to a suggestion made by the safety, federal airspace; realtor professionals. • Eliminate language that might be construed as offering advice to prospective buyers. • Include the sentence, "A copy is available for viewing at Butte County Planning Division and at Butte County libraries." • Insert "mandated by the State to protect" while eliminating the wording "charged with" and "protecting." • Insert"'... comprehensiveinformation packet for the buyer which will include...". • Insert Appendix E, Compatibility Guidelines for specific plan , uses, into the paragraph that describes the appendixes of the Plan. • Use one title for the Plan: "Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan," instead of several different terms meaning the same thing. • Use separate paragraphs for each chapter. • Underline headings using bold or italicized fonts for ease in reading the document. • Restate the sentence which reads, "...department and staff will able to help" to "will be able to help." Commissioner Harp volunteered, to incorporate'all changes agreed upon. The wording "...under applicable California law the seller.of real property has both a common law and statutory duty. to discuss all material facts" was discussed and verified by Commissioner Harp to be factual and interpreted to mean that whatever affects the property must be disclosed. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of June 20, 2001 0 Page 2 ■ It was noted that disclosure of noise issues would be required by law if a "reasonable person" would think it is noisy; however, it would be up to the professional—realtor or attorney—to advise the seller on disclosure of noise issues. Chair Rosene opened the hearing to public comment. There being no public comment, the hearing was closed. As a final note, Chair Rosene continued the discussion item to the July 18, 2001 Commission meeting in preparation of finalizing the document for a public hearing. G. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT The Monthly Status Report was submitted for review with the June 20, 2001 mailing log. H. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. I. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Rosene briefly reviewed correspondence which includes a letter written by the Chair to the Board of Supervisors relative to the override findings of the Schuster, project, the Pheasant Landing Unit III subdivision. Also included was a letter from Patrick Tyner, Aviation • Planner with Caltrans, to the Board of Supervisors stating its agreement of the ALUCP incompatibility determination for the Schuster project. Chair Rosene advised the Commission that the Board has elected to uphold its previous override decision. He then reviewed additional correspondence received since the last ALUC meeting and made comments. These letters are one from the BIA in opposition to the 'ALUCP and a letter received from Kim Seidler, Planning Director, City of Chico. Mr. Seidler's letter referenced John Byrne's tentative Parcel Map, TSM 01-03, in which he clearly stated that the City of. Chico would not support the. proposal because of its inconsistency with the City's General Plan. One final correspondence discussed was a letter"to the `City. of Chico from Chair Rosene (on behalf bf the ALUC), commending the' City on its study to accommodate future growth. J. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA Chair Rosene opened the hearing to public comment. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis made a, brief presentation and distributed materials relative to' his proposal that the ALUC encourage the City of Chico to pursue annexation of parcels within the airport sphere of influence.' • The Commission, acknowledging relevant issues to be resolved to proceed with an annexation of this magnitude, deemed the proposal to be innovative and worthy of discussion. It was the consensus of the Commission to agendize the subject for discussion at its July 18, 2001 meeting. • There being no further public comment, the hearing -was closed. 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of June 20, 2601 ■ Page 3 ■ • K. OTHER BUSINESS • Adoption of Resolution of Commendation for James Causey Chair Rosene commended 'Mr. James 'Causey, on behalf of the Airport Land Use Commission, for his years of service ,and contributions especially during the ALUCP process which was adopted in December, 2000. (The Resolution_ was incorporated into the recorded minutes of this meeting.) • Minutes of March 15, 2000 It was the consensus that .the recorded minutes of the March 15, 2000 meeting be reviewed for corrections by the commissioners, and.then presented for adoption at the July 18, 2001 meeting. • .. North Chico Specific Area Mr. Meleka reported that he met with County Counsel regarding street names for the North Chico Specific Area. He stated that there is agreement to change the existing street names to aviation -related names. Chair Rosene requested Commissioners and Alternates present to submit their suggestions for street names to Mr. Meleka following this meeting. • ' L. CLOSED SESSION - None. M. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chair Rosene adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. AIRPORTiLAND USE COMMISSION M. A. � /, Principal Planner Minutes p epared by Cheryl Spoor; Secretary I ■ Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of Meeting of June 20, 2001 ■ Page 4 ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ I REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County. Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, -Oroville California Date/Time: March 15, 2000 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance 0 B. Roll Call C. Approval of the Minutes of February 16, 2000. (The minutes will be presented to the Commission at the April meeting.) • D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.) E. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Butte County, Airport, Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP): Introduction of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates. The draft airport compatibility plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports: the Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. This review is being conducted pursuant to Public Utility Code Section 21675. The Consultant is requesting the Commission and the public provide comments on the draft plan. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Discussion of Airport Signage in the area of the Chico Airport for the North Chico Specific Plan. (This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Rosene.) Four airport notification signs have been placed in the North Chico Specific Plan area to provide notification of aircraft overflight. Staff has requested County Counsel's Office attend the Airport Land Use Commission meeting to inform the Commission of how wording for the signs was developed and how the location of signs was determined. 3. Discussion of the Preparation of Disclosure Information to Supplement Public Notification 'of Potential Airport Impacts for the North Chico Specific Plan area. This p - p P � item was placed on_the agenda by' Commissioner Rosene.) , F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: 1. On-going Follow-up: Commissioner Grierson will provide an update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status from the County of Butte. 2. The Joint ALUC and Board of Supervisors meeting to be held March 21 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers HAS BEEN CANCELED. I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session -None K. Adjournment -0 Airport Land Use Commission •March 15, 2000 Agenda aPage 2 • • Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula • Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. r 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item:, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission ,(original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. r This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following • locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. K: IPLANNINGIALUCIMEETINGS12000103-15-00.MTGUGENDA. WPD 0 Airport Land Use Commission a March 15, 2000 Agenda Page 3 '' ' BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION •Minutes of February 16, 2000 A. .'PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Lambert, , Wallrich and Vice -Chair Rosene. Absent: Commissioner. Hatley Alternate Commissioner Hennigan Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Alt. Commissioner Baldridge . Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Alt. Commissioner Ward C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1999, DECEMBER 29, 1999, AND JANUARY 19, 2000 It was moved by Commission Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to approve the minutes of November 17, 1999, as presented, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Grierson, Lambert, Wallrich and Vice -Chair Rosene NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley . • ABSTAINS: Commissioner Gerst It was moved by Commission Lambert, seconded .by Commissioner Gerst, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of December 29, 1999, as presented. The Commissioner made the following correction'to the minutes of January 19, 2000: Page 8, line 19, change "sights" to .'sites." It was moved by Commission Grierson, seconded by Commissioner, Causey, and carried to approve the minutes of January 19, 2000, as corrected, by the following vote: AYES: 'Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Lambert, and Vice -Chair Rosene NOES: None - ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley . ABSTAINS: Commissioner Wallrich D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to accept the Agenda as presented. E. BUSINESS ITEMS • ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING 1. ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte-CuseoBird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 & 120. . Vice -Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. 'John Franklin, owner of the.Paradise Skypark Airport, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. and Mrs. Cuseo, project applicants, urged the Commission to approve the project. There being no further public comments, the hearing was closed to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, to find that ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte-CuseoBird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 and 120 is consistent with the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Paradise Skypark Airport, as amended on December 29, 1999, if the requirements in Section 3, as modified by the Commission, are applied to the final map as noted in the findings presented in Exhibit "A", and that the specific findings of consistency meets the intent of Government Code Section 21670. Exhibit A The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the Lead Agency (County of Butte) when making a decision on the project. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. No environmental documentation was submitted at the time of project review. Section 2: PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY: A. The proposed project will be consistent with the 1985 .Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Paradise Skypark Airport, as amended on December 29, 1999; if the requirements in Section 3 are applied to the final map. B. Approval of the project without implementation of the requirements in Section 3 would necessitate the adoption of Overriding Findings by a 2/3 vote of the governing body. Overriding Findings by the governing body can only be made based on substantiated facts and must be supported by new substantial factual evidence introduced into the public record that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as'stated in Section 21670. Overriding findings cannot be adopted as matters of opinion, here say, or upon the unsubstantiated fears and desires of the governing body. Section 3: PROJECT FINDINGS: A. According to the newly adopted Paradise Airport Environs Plan, Safety Zone • Map "9-1 ", a number of safety zones are located within the eastern half of the project site, as follows: ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of February 16, 2000 ■ Page 2 ■ - Approximately 200+- feet of the eastern. portions of Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are located within Runway Protection Zone • Approximately 1/3 of Parcel. 1 and a minor portion of Parcel 2 are within Inner Turning Zone "3. " - Approximately 700'+- of the eastem'_portions of Parcels 1; 2; 3 and 4 are located within Sideline Safety Zone "5. - The remaining portions of Parcels .1 through 4 are located within Traffic Pattern Zone " , 1. Runway Protection Zone "1": Approximately 200+- feet of the lands located west of the runway centerline are located within Runway Protection Zone A. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if this area is depicted on the final map as a "No Development Zone." B. The project would be consistent with the CLUP if the criteria -of. "G" and "H" are included as a note on the final map Criteria "G" and "H" prohibits buildings, structures, above. ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons at any time.. Communication Towers (excluding airport related facilities) are also prohibited. 2. Inner Turninz Zone "3": • Approximately 1/3 of Parcel land a minor portion of Parcel 2 are within Inner Turning Zone 3 Criteria "A" of the Inner Turning Zone only allows 20% coverage per acre (buildings and structures). This.will be achieved due to the large parcel sizes. The Criteria of item "D".requires measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL within portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. The language of Criteria Item "D" applies to commercial and industrial structures and not single family dwellings. The Criteria of items "H, I, J and L" are not applicable to this project because this project involves a land division for building future single family residences. The Criteria of item "E" states that residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL. This contour is estimated to pass through the eastern portion of Parcel 4 and the southeast corner of Parcel 3. These areas are already proposed to be "No Development Zones" pursuant to the criteria of Runway Protection Zone "1 " discussed in Finding 1. Although the noise contour indicates that projected exposure within most of the project area will be at or below 55 dB Ldn, it should also be noted that residents may be exposed to single event noise levels and other noise episodes which exceed those levels. ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of February 16, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ I? is C. A note shall be placed on the Final Map. stating that prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for a single family dwelling, the property owner shall sign an avigation easement granting the right of continued use. of the Paradise Skypark Airport in the airspace above the proposed parcels and.acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 3. Sideline Safety Zone "5: The easterly 'V2 of parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are within Sideline Safety Zone "5. ' The mapping data presented to the Commission show a 500' Sideline Safety Zone. The Commission finds this width consistent with the 1999 CLUP amendment for the Paradise Skypark Airport. The criteria of the 1999 CLUP Density Table does not allow any dwelling units per acre within the Sideline Safety Zone "5. " D. The project would be consistent with the. CLUP if the Sideline Safety Zone, being an area approximately 500' from the centerline of the runway and extending into the easterly %2 ofparcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 be depicted on the final map as a "No Development Zone." 1. Adopted Caltrans standards recommend less than 1000 foot setback. 2. Testimony from Airport owner citing consistency. 3.. Discovery of topographic protection of airport. 4. Airspace Protection: The Commission finds that due to the topography of the project, that there are no transitional surface problems. The subject property is located on a down slope, with a topographic elevation that is significantly lower than the airport.. Approach surfaces would not be affected due to topography. E. A note shall be placed on. the Final Map stating that any project related lighting shall -be directed within the project site and shielded to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. F. A note shall be placed on the Final Map stating that uses which have the potential to create visual, electronic or physical flight hazards including the generation of dust, smoke, glare, electronic interference, or the attraction of birds to the project area shall be avoided. 5. Safe . Accident scatter information presented in Figure 8C, Exhibit 8D (Hodges and Shutt -1993) and Figure 9E (UC Berkeley, Institute of Transportation -Studies -1993) within Chapters 8 and 9 of The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, indicate that the highest concentration of both departure and arrival related aircraft accidents takes place within the Runway Protection Zone and Approach Surface off the ends of the. runway and on either side of runway. Due to the project site's location in proximity to the north end of runway 17/35, there is an elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents to occur within the eastern half of Parcels.]. through 4. Conditions required under Section 2, Items IA., 2A. and 2B. within the ALUC's findings will ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■.Draft.Minutes of February.16, 2000 ■ Page 4 ■ ensure that, future residential development is directed to locations. which are not considered to have an elevated likelihood for aircraft related accidents. 2. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item to the April 19, 2000 ALUC meeting in order to bring back the definition for conical zones and for Commissioner Grierson to get feedback from the FAA. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Legal Opinion by Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP, Attorneys at Law Ms. Leasure summarized the report to the Commission dated February 15, 2000. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT The monthly Status Report was presented to the Commission. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS • 1.. Commissioner Grierson will provide an update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status from the County of Butte. Commissioner Grierson presented a report dated February 15, 2000. 2. Joint ALUC and Board of Supervisors'meeting to be held March 21, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers: , Meeting confirmed. 3. California .Aviation Strategic Plan:. The California Aviation Alliance has sent staff a fax outlining their fundamental components of the strategic business plan. Report was presented to the Commission. 4.. Attached are Aviation related bills being considered by the State of California Legislature. Presented. 5. Association of. California Airports, February 18, 2000 agenda. Presented. • Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of February 16, 2000 ■ Page 5 ■ L PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA . - None. J. CLOSED SESSION None: K. ADJOURNMENT There beirg rib -further-business; the meeting, -was adjourned at 11:17 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION PAULA LEASURE, Principal Planner Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ Draft Minutes of February 16,2000 ■ Page 6 ■ � • COMPLETE PACKET f • "BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT -LAND kUSE BINDER `. ■ 7 County Center Drive; Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530)'538-7601 FAX . ti. 4 ' REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte Countyr Administiation Building; Supervisors', Chambers • 25 County Center Drive, Oioville California ' Date/Time: February16, 2000 %1.9:00 a.m.. AGENDA : ALL ITEMSARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A.• Pledge of Allegiance- B. llegianceB. Roll Call C. Approval of the Minutes ofNovember 17; 1999, December 29, 1999 and January 19, 2000 D. Acceptance of the Agenda-- (Commission members or staff may request, additions,• deletions, •or 'changes in the Agenda order.) E. Business Items: ' - , it . . '... ,> •.z= ; •ITEMS WITH PUBLIC,HEARINGS 1. ALUG'File No. A99-06'(C6un of Butte mfuseo/Bird Tentative Parcel Man TPM 99-15) on APN 055-256-033,:Q -1; 037 & 120: , Tentative Parcel Map and .Lot Line Adjustment t involving 4 existing parcels;of 20,37; 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two ' additional parcels in a configuration of 'one 36 acre parcel. and five 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR'20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in'the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E 6ff both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, , _ approximately' 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. (Recommendation: . Staff recommends ALUCfind the project consistent with the 1985 Paradise Skypark CL UP as amended December 29;1999). -(Continued from Jan6ry 19, 2000) 2.1 Proposed Amendment tolthejButte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter'24, icle 11 Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance): At the January 19, 2000 ALUC hearing, staff was directed to prepare a`final.draft Obstruction Ordinance based on.the original draft of the �- Airport Air Zoning Ordinance amending the definition of airport and referencing subpart "C" ; of the Federal Code of Regulations (14- CFR) Part; 77. . (Recommendation: Review the changes as made by staff, adopt consistency)indings and recommend the Butte County Board of Supervisorsapprove'the Amendment to the Butte County. C ode.) .(Continued from January ' 4 19, 2000) - f 1` • �lli��f� rl f .'� - I - r j E� � � '�'- � '� 11:J•1�i.i �.i •. I .. E MMOL Z - • O r • - Ile • s. H f •. r'y* _t�, .r _f; t � J•�• r k a .- _ ri - .f '.. a r i1llj� .. ,1 .. . -1 t ' -� ' •.G pt ' � w �r, - ' T -. • •� P . � f f - • ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Legal Opinion by Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP, Attorneys at Law: At the January 19, 2000, ALUC hearing, staff was directed to formally agendize this items for review and discussion of the responses to ALUC's legal questions. (Recommendation: Review and discuss the opinion and direct staff to make changes to the SOPS as deemed necessary). F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: 1. Commissioner Grierson will provide an update on information gathered regarding ALUC negotiating independent status.from the County of Butte. 2. Joint ALUC and Board of -Supervisors meeting to be held March 21, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers. .3. California Aviation Strategic Plan: The California Aviation Alliance has 'sent staff a fax outlining their fundamental components of the strategic business plan. 4. Attached are Aviation related bills being considered by the State of California Legislature. 5. Association of California Airports, February 18, 2000, agenda. I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session - None K. Adjournment • sAirport Land Use Commission wFebruary 16, 2000 Agenda sPage 2 a , Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. 40 *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach thepodium and stateyour name and address at the microphone before • making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission i original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. K: I PLANNING IAL UCIMEETINGS12000102-16-00. WTGU GENDA. WPD • &Airport Land Use Commission aFebruary 16, 2000 Agenda xPage 3 a A. B. M • D. E. BUTTE.COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of January 19, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Grierson, Rosene, Lambert., Gerst and Chair Henmgan Absent: Commissioners Causey_and Hatley Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Teri Bridenhagen, Office Assistant III Alt. Commissioner Baldridge Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveying Nick Ellena, Chico'Enterprise Record APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of November 17, 1999 Ms. Leasure said Commissioner Gerst was to supply changes to the November 17, 1999, minutes, and those changes have not been received. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The Commission accepted the agenda as presented. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte - Cuseo/Bird Tentative Parcel Man TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre parcel and five 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project, site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. Recommendation: Staff recommends ALUC find the project conditionally consistent with 1985 Paradise Skypark CLUP. Continued from the meeting of June 16, 1999. Ms. Leasure explained that the soil test was completed. She suggested reviewing this project under the 1985 CLUP because the application was complete before the adoption of the 1999 CLUP. She feels the applicants were operating under certain rules and regulations and to • change it a week before the hearing date would not be right. Staff is recommending the project be approved subject to several conditions listed in the staff report. • Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. • John Cuseo gave a prepared hand-out to the Commissioners. • Mr. Cuseo said he read staffs report and it looked favorable in some aspects and not favorable in others. He did a little investigation because he did not agree with all the aspects of the report. The main part he did not agree with was the topography of the area. The airport has been slightly altered. The runway has been increased in size and the direction has been changed. It has also_been lowered -a few feet. Mr. Cuseo explained the maps "he provided to the Commission, noting the differences- in topography from Exhibit One.. He thinks the report has a lot of good detail, but he does not feel that it is accurate compared with his findings on the property itself. There are a few things about the property, one is that it is zoned for 20 acres, second, that the smallest it can ever be split is 20 acre single family homes. The upper part of the property, closer to the airport, is the good part of the property. The lower part of the property is not acceptable for a septic system. The mid part and the upper three-quarters of the property have excellent soil. The applicant has gone to a few City meetings just to think about the future of the area. The City meetings indicate that they want to pre -zone this entire area into three acre minimum parcels. By the applicants doing a twenty -acre minimum parcel split for single family dwellings, it will help to protect the airport. Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveying, said they had been having trouble getting information out of this committee. -They did not notify us of the first meeting. That is why they were not • there. He received the staff report yesterday afternoon for today's meeting. It is something that he thinks the Commission needs to work with staff on as it becomes more important on land divisions and other types of projects. If projects are going before this committee, the engineers and the applicants need to be notified of the hearing. Condition B speaks to limiting the construction of residences to the west half of those parcels. If in fact the Commission limits it to the west half of those parcels, there is no land division. That is why having the airport and the zones Accurately plotted.on maps is so important so you can see . just how it is going to affect these properties. As Mr. Cuseo has pointed out, the maps were inaccurate and he has attempted to give the Commission the information to show. them that the zones do not come into the properties as previously thought. He thinks it is something somebody needs to straighten out and to make sure if the Commission is going to be placing restrictions on recorded maps the applicant needs to know exactly what the requirements are and exactly where the lines are. So that they can be depicted. If the lines are going to move around a hundred feet or two feet one way or the other it makes a big difference. So he would ask the Commission to take a close look at the information and make sure that if they are requesting a setback line, there should be�some dimensions placed on it. He has tried to get from the Planning Staff the exact width of the zones. Are they measured from the center of the airstrip, are they measured from the side of the airstrip, from the ends of the airstrip, etc.? " Commissioner Grierson said Federal Aviation Administration regulation Part 77 identifies specifically where those lines literally begin. The transitional surface begins from the • centerline of the runway. The runway protection area literally begins 200. feet off the end ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 2■ of the runway. They spell that out in FAR Part 77. The other issue that the Commission • would be addressing really falls under the Caltrans Handbook, but it comes down to what the communities have adopted. Mr. Wrinkle said it would be very helpful in the process of this type of review that they supply the applicants with that information. So that if there is a dispute as to the accuracy of the information, they could evaluate it. The applicants should know what the rules are. Then the applicant could take the information and plot it on their own maps and see if it corresponds to the staff report, for example. They are not sure exactly where staff is getting their information as far as property boundaries, topography, etc. Commissioner Rosene said he appreciated the drawing that Mr. Cuseo made regarding the transitional surface and how the land dies off.. How does that affect Exhibit C? What change does that make to the inner safety zone and the inner turning zone? How does that overlay over the site? „ Mr. Cuseo said he looked at that and there is no scale on the map. As far as the parcel goes, this is inaccurate. He does not think that the size of the properties or the size of the runway is correct. The map says right on the bottom,'no scale. This is just an arbitrary explanation of what the zones are and the map is not accurate on what the angles of the zones are. It does not indicate how they go up from the runway. The map does not indicate the different elevations of the runway and the elevations of the property. • Commissioner Rosene said the zones overlay and that is his concern. He understands what the applicant is saying about the land dying off. Mr. Cuseo said the end of the airportwas farther north than it is depicted. That puts that overlay zone farther north which makes a tremendous difference on the property. Exhibit One, in the staff report, shows where some zones are depicted and where the lines overlay over the top of the property. That was from an old airport measurement. Also, the topography is different from what the topo map shows. When the airport is 450 feet from their property line, the end of the runway, that moves the airport very far north. Commissioner Rosene asked how much farther? Mr. Cuseo said 1,000 feet, if we use our plot map and the geological map. He thinks that was almost an arbitrary stamp on the map because it is not accurate on that ridge. The direction probably is original, but he does not think the positioning is. Chair Hennigan said the runway was extended to the north awhile back and the map on which the work was based may precede the extension of the runway to the north. Mr. Cuseo said we have the measurements. Chair Hennigan said to clarify, there are really three things that the Commission is concerned • with and the airspace protection is one of those. Those are the surfaces that go up. People 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19, 2000 ■ Page 3 ■ cannot build things into that airspace. The applicant is not likely to do that, particularity • since the land falls away. The other things we are concerned about are noise and safety. Those do not go up. They go all the way to the surface. The Chair asked if staff could supply the applicant with accurate dimensions and would the. applicant like to plot those dimensions on his map and have the Commission to look at it then. Mr. Cuseo agreed to that. Chair Hennigan said that the runway may have been reconstructed twice_ since this map was made. Not only did they extend the length, but they have had to realign the runway slightly. They repaved it recently and realigned it slightly. Chair Hennigan again asked the applicant if he would like to redo the maps. Mr. Cuseo said yes. Chair Hennigan stated that Mr. Cuseo has a surveyor who could accurately establish points. Ms. Leasure suggested getting the maps submitted to Caltrans by John Franklin, the owner of the airport.. They should have the exact dimensions on them and if there have been any changes that staff has not been notified of, the Commission would at least have the correct maps. Mr: Cuseo said that would be great. Being accurate is very important. • Chair Hennigan said that he thought the applicant could make the argument that because the land is falling away, it changes the picture a little bit. Mr. Cuseo said the extension of the runway changes the dimensions quite a bit. Chair Hennigan said that the extension of the runway changes the dimensions a lot, if these maps do not reflect that extension, that could make a substantial difference. The extension was several hundred feet. If staff would supply the applicant's engineer information from Part 77 and the Caltrans handbook, they can then plot it accurately on a current map. Ms. Leasure said she would be glad to do that. She asked if the Commission is going to allow this project to be reviewed under the 1985 Ranchaero Skypark Plan or whether the Commission is going to hold the applicant to the newly adopted 1999 CLUP. There is no sense in the applicant doing the work and coming back and finding out that the Commission will not accept it.. Commissioner Gerst said he spent considerable time on this and he has no problem doing what they discussed. In fact, justifying it with the maps that the Commission has adopted will be easier than with the maps the Commission is trying to look at here. The policy has been, with the County, to go under the date they submitted the application. The way the guidelines are, the Commission works under noise and safety and they become effective immediately. 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 40 Chair Hennigan said the issue that Commissioner Gerst is making, is one of health and • safety: In the inner turning zone what is our adopted density? Commissioner Gerst'said'one unit in.5 acres. Chair Hennigan said he agreed that the large parcels are appropriate in this location and 20 acre parcels are not going to be a problem: Mr. Cuseo said he would provide the Commission with more accurate information. Commissioner Gerst said he would make a motion of intent so the applicant knows the Commission is serious. Laurie Cuseo said that if they had notified them of the meetings they would have had all of this taken care of before the new 1.999 CLUP was adopted. She would prefer that the project stayed under the 1985 rules. Chair Hennigan apologized. He does not know why staff did not notify the applicant. He does not think there was a problem either way. Commissioner Gerst's point is that because the issues are noise and safety, the Commission is reluctant to grandfather things in. He is sure that the Commission can approve the project either way because the project meets the density requirements. • Ms. Cuseo said.that when they talked to Mr. Doody, he showed them other issues in the new plan. That is why they would prefer to be under the old plan. Chair Hennigan asked what other issues? Mr: Cuseo said he did not know and Mr. Doody is nothere. It was his recommendation that the project stay under the old rules. The applicant.did have everything in and done under that time zone. Commissioner Lambert asked when staff deemed this project complete? Ms. Leasure said December 15: . Commissioner Lambert said staff deemed the application complete before the adoption of the 1999 CLUP. There were no hearings scheduled before the December 29 hearing. Ms. Leasure said that was correct. Chair Hennigan said Paradise Airport runs downhill to- the south and so. in most wind conditions most people choose to land uphill and take off down. Which further reduces the impact in this direction. Chair Hennigan asked Commissioner Gerst if that were a motion of intent? ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 Page 5 ■ Commissioner Gerst said he could make it a motion of intent because he is satisfied that • what the Commission adopted recently favors this project. The traffic pattern zone allows one unit in N2 acres. This project is way over, that. Chair Henriigan said the project went way beyond what is required. He does not foresee any problems either way. Commissioner Gerst has made a motion of intent. Commissioner Grierson seconded the motion of intent. Ms. Leasure asked what is the motion of intent? Staff would like some specific language. Chair Hennigan said to prepare an accurate map to accompany updated findings. Commissioner. Gerst said his motion.of intent was to approve this project based on the pending receipt of the maps. Commissioner Gerst said he was very confident that it will be in the applicants favor to do that. Commissioner Grierson said the applicants are going to want to know about the conditions. Are the same conditions going to apply? • Commissioner Gerst said there are really not many conditions there. Chair Hennigan said 55 dB Ldn is the only one. Ms. Leasure said the project was outside the 55 dB Ldn. Mr. Wrinkle commented that recommended Condition C limited the building sights on the westerly half of the parcels. If the Commission adopts that condition the project has no sewage disposal area ancCthe applicants would not have a project. Commissioner Gerst said he did not want to go back on any of the conditions. He wants to start fresh with new maps. The overflight. area is not just the western part. That.includes everything in the overflight area. If there is anything that goes to the east and goes in the turning zone or. the safety zone it only has to be in the safety zone that would limit the applicant. Mr. Wrinkle said he was referring to page 3 of Laura Webster's staff. report. Chair Hennigan noted the first paragraph at the top, where it says it is recommended that any residence or structures be constructed in the west half of the parcel'to insure no penetration of the transitional surfaces. Commissioner..Gerst said he would like to eliminate the back staff report and start from • scratch with the, new maps. a Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 6■ Commissioner Lambert said that paragraph is just in the staff findings. It is not a part of the . Conditions of Exhibit "A." was it? If it is, it is under another letter. Ms. Leasure said what Mr. Wrinkle is talking about is on page 7, number B "Construction of residence or other structures shall be limited to the west half of Parcels 1 through 4". Commissioner Rosene asked the applicant if he looked at the transitional surfaces because it says no penetration? Mr. Cuseo said yes, that is why he drew that map because if that were a flat plateau you could not put a pencil up in the air. Chair Hennigan said he did not think the applicant has a transitional surface problem. Strike the west half and just indicate that the residence shall be limited to insure that no penetration of the transitional surfaces occurs. Mr: Cuseo said that would be great. Chair Hennigan said that no' one was going to build a house that high. Commissioner Grierson said lets not forget antennas. Some people may want to. erect antennas. • Chair Hennigan said right, but if construction of residence or other structures shall be limited, strike the west half of Parcels ,1 through 4. So it now reads, "To insure that no penetration of the transitional surfaces occur.". So if someone was a ham radio operator and they wanted to build a hundred -foot tower they 'Could not do it on that site. Mr. Cuseo said he agreed. That is a safety factor and that is what the. transitional area is. Commissioner Gerst said he wanted to do away with -this staff report. That is not part of the . motion to include the staff report and carry it forth. There was a short discussion.on the motion of intent Ms. Leasure said to make a motion of intent to approve on the strength of up-to-date maps to be prepared.. Commissioner Rosene said that did not limit the Commission of putting some conditions on because there are some conditions like.attraction of birds, generation of dust, lighting, that the Commission can add. Ms. Leasure said how about adding.to the motion with possible conditions. Commissioner Rosene said there will be the usual, conditions for any placement. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 7■ Chair Hennigan said he would rule that as a friendly amendment to the motion. Does the • Commission want to include, in the amendment, protection of the transition surfaces? CommissionerRosene said he wanted to include project lighting. The same hazards that are listed in safety and noise. Commissioner Gerst said those are standard practices and it would go along with the new staff report. Commission Rosene said the usual dust and lighting conditions. Ms. Leasure said John Franklin did ask for avigation easements and that is always a standard condition. Chair Hennigan said the Commission had a few boiler plate conditions. Commissioner Grierson said his second still holds. The only thing that he.wants to be clear on 'with the maps; is having the parcel maps'spelled out. If the applicant could just put in potential sites that they are looking at for housing. Since the applicant has already had the surveying done, they have narrowed it down to a couple of different locations. That would help as well, but that is not a deciding factor. The Motion of Intent to approve was passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Grierson, Rosene; Lambert, Gerst and Chair Hennigan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hatley ABSTAINS: None Chair Hennigan closed the public hearing. 2. Proposed Amendment to the Butte Countv ZoninLy Ordinance (Chanter 24. Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) (Continued Item from October 20, 1999) At the October 20, 1999 ALUC hearing, staff was directed to prepare a draft Obstruction Ordinance using a model ordinance obtained either from the FAA or the State of California.' Staff is presenting model ordinances retrieved from the FAA. Recommendation: None Ms. Leasure said the Commission requested that model ordinances be obtained from either the State or the FAA. Staff obtained these various ordinances from the FAA website. These sample ordinances .discuss utility type airports without instrument procedures or sample ordinances for larger than utility type airports with instrument approaches. It gets rather complex. Rather than redo a model or an ordinance for Butte County airports and bring it ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 ■ Page 89 to the Commission, she felt that staff needed to find out if this is. really what the Commission • is looking for. She would like the Commission to remember that the Commission does not adopt the ordinance. It is really a Planning function that would go through the Board of Supervisors to adopt the ordinance.. The Board of Supervisor's has one in effect right now. She said the major problem was with the way the ordinance defines the airport. It only addresses the Chico airport and not the other airports. Staff felt that there should: be a definition change., The Commission said they did not want to do that, they wanted to look at model ordinances. If this is what the Commission has in mind we can recommend that the Planning staff prepare model ordinances to come back to the Commission. Chair Hennigan said the other deficiency that the Commission identified is that there is no enforcement mechanism. Twice the Butte County Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance to protect airspace around airports. The second time, not only was the language confusing because they refer to airports plural and then use Chico Municipal singular.. So it is not clear whether the ordinance applies to the other airports. There is no mechanism for enforcement. Ms. Leasure said there is a mechanism for enforcement through County Counsel's office. The reason they could not enforce the ordinance regarding the Ranchaero Airport is because of the definition that said the airport was the Chico Airport.' It did not include Ranchero. So she thinks the quickest, easiest way to get an updated ordinance would be to just amend the definition, with the existing ordinance. Then, as time permits, prepare something more extensive, such as these model ordinances presented. • Commissioner Gerst asked how much difference is this proposal from the regular ordinance? He thinks it mostly repeats the ordinance that is already in effect. Ms. Leasure said yes, it is very much the same. Commissioner Gerst said he could not find anything different, but he really.did not go paragraph by paragraph. Ms. Leasure said the big difference was the list for utility type airports without instruments procedures or with instrument. procedures. It gets a lot more detailed. Commissioner Gerst said that is in the Code book. He thinks the Commission's big concern. is if the Board of Supervisors does adopt this ordinance, it does not give any explanation of who is responsible for enforcement. He thought when the County adopted an ordinance that they were automatically responsible for enforcement. Ms. Leasure said they are.: The existing ordinances on the books say that County Counsel's office is responsible for enforcement for the airport. The problem is the only airport listed is Chico. If Ranchaero's name and all of the Butte County airports were listed in the ordinance, then County'Council's office would be responsible for enforcement for all the airports. • ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19, 2000 ■ Page 90 0 Commissioner Gerst asked would that be sufficient or do we have to go through all of this. • Ms. Leasure said that she was recommending the Commission direct staff to do it. Chair Hennigan said it would be up to the Board whether they would want to do that. Ms. Leasure said she thought that the Commission stood a better chance of having an ordinance amendment if it is kept simple and is based on the existing ordinance with a minor definition change, rather than coming in with completely revised ordinances. Commissioner Gerst said in the General Plan it states that the language is the responsibility of the Airport Commission to protect the airports and so forth. That turns it right back to the Supervisor's because they adopted the General Plan. Commissioner Grierson asked if the existing ordinance adequately protects the areas around the airport, except for Ranchaero? Do we absolutely need to pitch the thing out and re-create the wheel? Chair Hennigan said, unfortunately, it refers to an airport air zoning map, rather than referring to Part 77 surfaces. Chair Hennigan. suggested making two changes. The first is to change the definition of airport to mean any public use airport. The Commission is concerned about public use airports. So any public use airport should be protected, rather than referring to the Chico Municipal airport air zoning map, it would be more appropriate to refer to the surfaces described in Part 77 of the Federal Air Regulation Ms. Leasure said to refer to surfaces described in 14 CFAR Part 77? Chair Hennigan said rather than referring town adopted map, the ordinance should .refer to . those surfaces that the Federal Government has established. ' - Commissioner Gerst said when the ordinance was adopted, Chico was the only airport that had a map showing FAR Part 77. That is probably why. That is all the Commission has today. Oroville has told him they have a map, but he has never seen it. Ms. Leasure said staff could make those changes and bring it back to the next meeting. Staff could have it done fairly quickly for the Commission to make consistency findings and move it on to the Board. Chair Hennigan said with the enforcement mechanism here, it shall be the duty of the County Counsel to bring and prosecute an action. The hearing was opened to the public Barbara Hennigan said she did not have a copy of the existing ordinance, but she keeps seeing references to creation of nonconforming uses and allowing nonconforming uses. By • definition a nonconforming use is one that causes the FAA or the State to come in and close 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 10■ the airport. So you really cannot have a mechanism to create nonconforming uses. Right • now, there are no nonconforming uses because no one airport has been restricted. Chair Hennigan said, apparently, the.Supervisors are going to insist on it. The Commission has been counseled that the Supervisors will not give up the right to create nonconforming uses. If the Board votes to close an airport, they will have to live with the legal consequences of that. He expects those consequences to be severe. Chair Hennigan closed the public hearing. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARING 3. Discussion of Potential for ALUC to Negotiate Independent Status from the County of Butte This item was placed on the agenda as a result of staffing discussions at the ALUC meeting of December 29, 1999, LAFCo's proposed move to independent agency status, and the need to begin preliminary budget discussions for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001. This item is, intended to encompass those personnel .issues which cannot be discussed in closed session. Ms. Leasure said this item was placed on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Rosene. Commissioner Rosene said he asked staff to put this on the agenda, only because LAFCo is breaking away from the County and developing their own staff. That will impact ALUC • because ALUC will be losing some staff members. It makes a lot of sense that ALUC tries to get that same independent status because of the conflicts that the Commission has had with the County. are somewhat similar to LAFCo's. He wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention that LAFCo is going to break away. He would like a'discussion to see if anyone has any ideas in what direction the Commission might want to pursue, if any. Commissioner Grierson asked if LAFCo has prepared any kind of analysis or study showing how they would be structured, operated, staffed? Ms. Leasure said LAFCo was currently in the process of doing that. The Chair of the Commission, as. well as two Commissioners, herself, Tom Parilo, John Blacklock and Sean Farrell, who is an administrative analyst for the Administrative office, have met. They have been going over the scenario of staffing and how that would work. Right now it looks like Barbra Duncan, Steve Lucas and herself would be leaving the County and moving into separate offices. It remains to be seen the exact format that will take. Whether they will continue to be County employees or not. The Commission is opting for them to not be County employees and to contract with the County for payroll, auditor services and benefits. Again that is up in the air. They are still working on it and still having meetings. The projected date for LAFCo leaving will be between March and July of this year. Commissioner Gerst said he read somewhere that there is one airport commission that is under that kind -of status in California. The make up of ALUC, as everybody knows, is very 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 ■ Page I I ■ similar to LAFCo's as far as .the operation. It is supposed to be independent and all those things. The way the Commission's relationship is right now with the County, he :thinks it would be good if ALUC did split away from the County. Ms. Leasure said there is a big difference in the law. LAFCo has the ability to become an independent agency. The law states how LAFCo obtains staffing, legal counsel and so forth. Whereas in the code for ALUC, it states that the County provides staffing through the Planning Department. In order for the Commission to make a move, ALUC would be _looking at going through negotiations through the Administrative office. It is not something_ easily done. Also, LAFCo collects quite a bit of money in fees from projects submitted. Where as to date ALUC has not collected fees. ALUC could not become even close to self supporting. Commissioner Grierson said he did note recently there is more than one independent ALUC. The number is closer to ten. A lot of them . seem to be contracting with the Regional Transportation Planning Agency. He has not seen any contracting with straight private sector planning companies. Commissioner Gerst said he would be interested in knowing how they do that. He noticed some of them operate under what is known as BCAG rather than planning. There are times when he thinks it might be a better way to go. BCAG is separate from the County. Chair Hennigan said there are only two Commissions in the County that exist under State • law as opposed to County. charter. ALUC is the other .Commission besides LAFCo. He knows that the Commission has `experienced some stresses and strains. Chair Hennigan asked what is the sense of the Commission? Would the Commission like to explore this possibility? Commissioner Grierson said he was not sure if the Commission really has a choice not to explore the possibility right now. With the complete restructuring of staff that the Commission is looking at as a result of LAFCo departing. It behooves the Commission to examine what all the options are going to be. As well as determine what the Commission is going to have to work with come July. Yes, 'he thinks the Commission owes it to the airports of Butte County to explore what options they have. Commissioner Rosene said he thought the Commission should explore this only because of the problems the Commission has had in the past, such as the Commission's lack of having the ability to go to County Counsel for any information. The Commission does need the ability to have some say in staff and legal issues. The Commission does not have that right now and it has hampered the Commissions ability to do the job. He would be willing to look at it. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said there are some resources the Commission could tap into to find out how else it is being done. Not only in the State, but in the country. He could talk to a few people that he knows. A meeting the other day showed that there is some • legislation in Sacramento along these lines. Butte County ALUC is not the only one who Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 12 ■ is experiencing this problem with conflicts in staffing. In the next year or two there maybe more direction from the State and even some budget mechanisms. Commissioner Gerst said there is quite a lot of activity in the State to protect the airports because they lose so many of them. It is.a concern down there. Chair Hennigan said the FAA had announced a new incentive as well. They have announced that they are going to get tough with local jurisdictions that have not been living up to their grant agreements. Chair_Hennigan asked who could be on the committee? Commissioner Grierson said he did not have the time to work on the committee, but he does have the contacts in place. He could do some initial digging, but he would like to work with someone else. on this as well. Chair Hennigan asked Commissioner Grierson to Chair that .committee and if there was anyone else who could help. Commission Rosene said he would help Commissioner Grierson if Alternate Commissioner Baldridge would help. Alternate Commissioner Baldridge said he would help. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis said this was something that has been on his mind for • some time. He said he would support the Commission looking into some sort of independent agency. Chair Hennigan said there is no need for a vote. A committee has been appointed to explore the independent status option for ALUC. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Ms. Leasure said the North Chico Specific Plan was going to be discussed at the joint meeting with the. Board of Supervisors. Ms. Leasure wanted to let the Commission know that she has received an administrative draft from Shutt -Moen and chapters two and three of the proposed CLUP. This is a preliminary staff draft. Staff has been requested to inform Mr. Brody of any potential problems. She said she is just about done withthe review and she will be sending her comments back to Mr. Brody. He will be looking at it to see if he needs to make changes. Commissioner Gerst asked if the Commission is supposed to make any comments at this stage.. Ms. Leasure said no, this is the staff portion where staff will look at it and try to iron out any potential problems, before it is brought to public hearing before the Commission. • Commissioner Grierson asked ifit is the inventory and the forecast. 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 13 ■ Ms. Leasure said it was -a list of policies. Chapters two and three talk about the purpose, the • definitions, geographic scope, and types of airport impacts.- Also, the actual review of land use actions and the review process for community land use plans and ordinances. That is what staff is looking at. There is a table that she has not yet reviewed. Much like the one the Commission adopted at the last meeting. The table talks about maximum density, intensities and additional criteria that apply to the CLUP. Commissioner Grierson said the reference portion of the document should identify what supporting references were used to create that document. Does Ken Brody refer to the 1993 Caltrans Handbook or does he refer to the Caltrans Handbook without a date? Ms. Leasure said since this is only chapters two and three, there is not a list of references. Commissioner Grierson said the reason he brought that up is because Caltrans is in the process of updating their Land Use Handbook. It will probably be the year 2001 before its adoption. Ms. Leasure said Ken Brody and Shutt -Moen are updating the Caltrans Handbook. So they are looking forward to what they believe will be in the new Caltrans handbook. Also the mapping that we have, is the mapping presented to the Commission a couple of months ago. This is the direction the Caltrans Handbook will be moving also. Commissioner Gerst said he found out that the mapping is the type that is being proposed • for the new Handbook. It is not a customary type of mapping that we use to make airports today. Commissioner Grierson said most airports are still in transition. Most airports are still trying to get into compliance with 1993. Ms. Leasure said she gave the Commission some information that we received from County Counsel's office. This is confidential information for the Commission and staff. Staff can have something ready for the next meeting. The subdivision map was approved in 1993. The final map with all the conditions met was filed in October 1998.. Mr. Doody was supposed to be looking to see if the project had been referred to ALUC in 1993. Unfortunately, he has been out of the office for several days and did not get that information for her. Since it was approved in 1993, the Commission has passed the time limit for submitting any objections. She said she looked at the subdivision yesterday and it is well under construction. This is the project that is located on the north side of Feather Avenue, west of Ruddy Creek. It is the one brought to the attention of the Commission at the last meeting. Commissioner Gerst asked if they have a vested map? Ms. Leasure said she did not know if they had a vested map. What Mr. Doody submitted to her was an approved subdivision map. He did not say whether it was vested or not. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 ■ Page 140 Commissioner Gerst asked, in Ms. Leasure's opinion, what status would that put the map in, • in relation to the Airport Commission? Ms. Leasure.said the map was approved. They have met all of the conditions of their map and are under construction. It has been seven years since it was approved. It is very hard to go back and to say that for seven years you have allowed a project to stay and'to be approved without raising an objection. Usually there is a ten to thirty day period in which an objection can be placed on a project. Chair Hennigan said there are no consequences if the City fails to submit a project? Ms. Leasure said she could not answer that. You get into the legal arena at that point. She does not know if this project did go to ALUC in -1993. We were not staff members then. Mr. Doody will have to do the research on that if the Commission wants that information. 'The Commission may choose to do something in the future. Commissioner Gerst said the project just south of that was approved and that cost the tax payer six million dollars to move the runway to the south, because the State came along and took 1,200 feet off the runway. Ms. Leasure said this project under construction now, is to the north of that subdivision. i Commissioner Gerst said the way he understood land use, if it is not a vested map they have no vested interest. . Ms. Leasure said once construction has begun, they have a vested interest. Once a person has a substantial investment intoa project it is approved. The County cannot allow someone to go in and put several hundred thousand dollars into a project, then come and say, You cannot do that." It becomes a vested project then. Commissioner Gerst said -he was just reading a case where they had all the foundations in and they did not have a vested map and had to stop. Ms. Leasure said she did not know the situation for that particular project. Commissioner Gerst said they had approval for a map and it was a straight map, not a vested map. That is why the vesting of the map comes into place because so often the zoning has been changed. Ms. Leasure said a vested map puts a halt to changes of the conditions. For example if you pay a school fee and your project is approved in 1993, but you do not start construction until 1998, you pay the 1993 *school fee: It does not mean that a new law can be adopted and retroactively be placed on your project. This is kind of an "up in the air" project. They have invested substantial money. They do have all the approvals from the City of Oroville. ■ Butte Airport Land U•se Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000■ Page 15■ I -Commissioner Gerst said.he would say the project is probably 40 acres. What they have • done now is put the electricity work in. Ms. Leasure said they have .the drainage pipes out. The ditches are dug and they are probably putting the pipes in this week. Commissioner Gerst said they have the pipes on top of the ground. He does not know if they have anything in the ground. He does not think they have been working lately. Ms. Leasure said she went by the project site yesterday and it looks. like they have been working. Commissioner Gerst said he did not think they should be stopped, but there should be some kind of burden put on the City to start cooperating with ALUC on things like this. Chair Hennigan said maybe Jane Garvey's get tough policy will solve that. If the City has to pay back the six million dollars, that might get their attention. Ms. Leasure apologized for not having any staff time accounting for the Commission. Numerous staff members have been off the last couple of weeks with the flu. It was diff cult even getting the packet out. Staff will try to get the time accounting to the Commission at the next meeting. • Chair. Hennigan said we are already. two weeks ahead of the proposed schedule, for the spring, for adoption for the new CLUP or the 2000 update, if Ms. Leasure has the administrative draft in hand. Ms. Leasure said she only had chapters two and three of the administrative draft. She believes this means staff is going to have the complete administrative draft by January 31. Chair Hennigan said his point was if the' Commission can get ahead of this schedule at all, doing so would be.desirable. The schedule shows the Commission doing the public review . process during March. If staff can share the -salient portions of the draft with the agencies, City of Chico and the City of Oroville particularly. There may be substantial public comment. Ms. Leasure said staff would be working with Ken Brody, and Laura Webster. They have not gone over this. They faxed it to her after five o'clock last night. She will meet with Ken Brody and Laura Webster on this and try to set up specific meetings and time lines to meet this date. Ken did mention that the Commission may have to have a special meeting to complete it by the end of April. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. i 0 Butte Airport Land Use Commission o Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 16 ■ , H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS • None I. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY, ON THE AGENDA . None J. CLOSED SESSION Chair Hennigan said the closed session was for performance evaluation. It is a personnel matter. The Commission will reconvene after the closed session and announce any results or actions that they, are required to announce. THE COMMISSION RE -CONVENED AT 11:00 A.M. Chair Hennigan announced there was no action to report from the Closed Session. K. ADJOURNMENT There being for further business; the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION SS ON PAULA LEASURE, Principal Planner ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of January 19, 2000 0 Page 17 0 COMPLETE PACKET BUTTE COUNTY'AIRPORT LAND USIS C01V BVTI R3xUN ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 :'AX (4 7 53 c0713 a REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION: Location: 'Bute :County Administration Building; Supervisors'. Chambers ' 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California. Date/Time. January 19, 2000 -19:00 a.m. , ` ..41 . AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT i A.Pledge of Allegiance r B. Roll Call ' C.-, Approval of the`Minutes of November; l 7,' 1999, D. •`Acceptance of the Agenda* (Commission members or staff may request additions,-deletions_or changes in the Agenda order.) - E. Business Items: ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. ALUC File No. A99A6 (County of Butte - CuseoBird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) f . on APN' 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120- Tentative' Parcel, Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two ' additional parcels in: a configuration of one 3.6 acre parcel -and five 20 acre parcels. - The • property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section -34; T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley,Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. (Recommendation: Staff • 'recommends -ALUC find. the'project: conditionally consistent with 1985 Paradise Skypark . 2.., Proposed Amendment to the Butte Cqunty Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Arti » - Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction ,Ordinance).(Continued Item from'October 20, 1999) At the October 20, 1999 'ALUC hearing, staff was directed to prepare a draft Obstruction Ordinance using a' odel ordinance obtained either from the FAA of the State of California. Staff is presenting model `ordinances retrieved from the FAA. Recommendation: None < ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS + = .3. Discussion of Potential for ALUC to Negotiate'Independent Status from the County of • Butte This item was placed on the agenda as a result of staffing discussions at the ALUC meeting.of December 29, .1999,'LAFCo's proposed move to independent agency status, and the need'to begin preliminary -budget discussions-for'the Fiscal Year 2000-2001. This item ' is intended to encompass those personnel issues which cannot be discussed in closed session. 'Al 1 • I a JJ ' i .. - Y ♦ iYa . I w i! F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements I. Public Comment on Items Not, Already on the Agenda -(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) J. Closed Session.- The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission will convene in closed session pursuant to Section 54957: Public Employee Performance Evaluation Thomas A. Parilo, Director - Department of Development Services Paula Leasure, Principal Planner - Department of Development Services, Planning Division K. Adjournment J -Airport Land Use Coinmisjion December 29, 1999 Agenda Page 2 Any disabledperson needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula 40 Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of :'hat agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at • the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. K-WLUCWMETINGSIOI-I9-00ACG14GENDAWPD • Airport Land Use Commission December 29, 1999 Agenda aPage 3