Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLANw,y#' OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 411 Main Street CITYorCHICO P.O. Box 3420 INC. 1872 Chico, CA 95927 ,(530) 895-4800 FAX (530) 895-4825 A?SS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono July 18, 1998 Norm Rosene 1049 Village Lane Chico, CA 95926 RE: Materials Relating to Adoption of Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC Findings of Inconsistency. Dear Norm: Per your request at the last ALUC meeting, enclosed are materials relating to the adoption of the current Chico General Plan and Override of ALUC findings of inconsistency including the adopting resolutions, agenda for the 11/16/94 City Council meeting, minutes. of that and prior meetings relating to the matter and a copy of the County staff s letter indicating ALUC's finding. If you have any questions regarding these materials, please call City Manager Tom Lando at 895- 4802 or me at 895-4820. Sincerely, Robert E. Koch Risk Manager c: City Manager ��� Made From Recycled Paper t � ry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 x 20 '� 21 I ` i m) � 22 I� 23 I I\� 24 25 26 27 26 RESOLUTION NO. 82 94-95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF NOVEMBER 161 1994 AND REPEALING THE XSTIN IG CITY OF CHICO PLAN ADOPTED NJE WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes, the Chico._City Council adopted a General Plan for the City of Chico on July 6, 1976, and has.from time to time amended said plan; and WHEREAS, due to the passage of time, continuing increases in population and related development, other changing conditions in the Chico Urban Area, and adoption of new federal and state legislation affecting local land use and growth, the City Council determined to initiate a comprehensive update to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 65300, considered and established a Planning Area for said update which encompasses an approximate 155 -square -mile territory located in western Butte County, approximately 100 miles north of the City of Sacramento, and 180 miles south of the northern California border. The Planning Area is further defined as being bound on the north by Rock Creek and generally on the south by the Sacramento River, Fell Road and a boundary line that extends eastward to the intersection of Neal Road and State Route (SR) 99, .and follows Neal Road to a point approximately 3 miles southwest, of, the Town. of Paradise. ' The eastern border is formed by the existing 500 kV Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) power line, the northernmost Bidwell Park boundary, and an --average 1,400 -foot elevation line in the. foothills. The western border is the Sacramento River; and WHEREAS, after establishing said Planning Area, the City Council initiated the General Plan update process in late 1991 with PLD GEr,PLAN4.RFS Novcmbu 16, 1994 PAGE I I� 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the appointment by the City Council of a 41 -member Task Force. The members of the Task Force resided within the Planning Area, both within and outside of the incorporated boundaries of the City of Chico. The Comprehensive Update of the General Plan began with the identification of issues relevant to the update- process, an assessment of the positive characteristics of the Chico Urban Area's 'built_ anti natural environment and preparation of._ -`a- Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) for the Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning Commission and Task Force evaluated said background information and considered opportunities and constraints presented by this data and various planning and land use options for the Planning Area; and WHEREAS, based on the above background information, the City Council, Planning. Commission and Task Force further: conducted an extensive evaluation of various potential growth areas adjoining the Chico Urban Area and within the Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the results of such analysis were used by the Council, Commission and Task Force to direct preparation of a Discussion Draft General Plan which contained all seven required general plan elements: the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Open Space and Environmental Conservation Element, Safety and Safety Services Element, Noise Element, and the Housing Element. The Housing Element was incorporated by reference because it was recently updated by the City. Two optional elements, the Economic Development Element and the Community Design Element, were also included in the Comprehensive update of the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Discussion Draft General Plan was widely IPLD GENPLANCRES NavcmW 16, 1994 - PAGE 2 V A 1 distributed and several public work sessions were conducted with the 2 City Council, Planning Commission and Task Force to review the plan 3 land receive public testimony; and 4 5 6 -7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E WHEREAS, a Draft General Plan was prepared to reflect City Council direction emanating from said work sessions;_ and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was also prepared and-..publ:..cly noticed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report were received and Responses were prepared and distributed in the form of a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, this Council, having considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan and having certified said Final Environmental Impact Report making the required findings and. -adopting a.statement of overriding consideration pursuant to the California Environmental IlQuality Act; and WHEREAS, the State planning and zoning laws require that the Planning Commission make a written recommendation --on the adoption or amendment of a General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 3uVY%.cu a--�-------- recommending City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Update to the General Plan by not less than a majority of the total membership; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chico has held a noticed public hearing and has deemed the.proposed Comprehensive Update to the General Plan to be in the public` interest. ' PAGE 3 PLD GENPIAN4•RES November 16, 1994 f:. f 1 2 c 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2` 21 2' 2� IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City NOW,. THEREFORE, BE if Chico as follows: 1. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan dated November 1994, including that certain text set forth in said Plan and the Land Use Diagram which, designates residential, commercial, industrial, public and open -. —space. land use within the Chico Urban Area and Planning Area, and any additional amendments deemed appropriate by the City Council at the November 16, 1994 public hearing, is hereby adopted, effective immediately, as the General Plan for the City of Chico. 2. That all mitigation measures set forth in the' Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth herein in full. 3. That the mitigation monitoring program contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein. 4. That, the City Council has further acted, by a two-thirds vote, to override the Airport Land Use Commission's finding.that the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is inconsistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan, finding:' a. That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan is consistent with the updated 1994 Chico Municipal Airport Noise Compatibility Plan. I b, That the Comprehensive Update of the General Plar pertaining to the CMA Environs area shall be PLD GE PLAN4.RES Nov=bcr 16, 1994 PAGE 4 F �. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 2; 2. 2 2 Z 3 4 5 ;6 >.7 Z8 5. 6 C 7. 8. 9. with the update of the Chico Municipal consistent . Airport Environs Plan. at in making those findings noted in (a) and b Th rehensive above, the Council also finds that the Comp the General Plan is consistent with the Update of 4, part findings contained in Article 3.5, Chapter of the Public Utilities 9 Section 21670 1, Divisi � Code. of Anne That the General Plan be dedicated to the memory r Longazo (1920-1993) whose service to the community, , Dor and Planning including serving as a Councilmember Commissioner, spanned three decades. council hereby exP. sses . its appreciation to the That the Co d to General Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, an bers of the public who have.participated.in and other mem new ibuted to the preparation and adoption of the contr General Plan. which was That the General Plan for the City of Chico, b Resolution No. 4 76-77 on July 6, 1976, is. adoptedY erseded. hereby rescinded, repealed and sup in Director is hereby directed to prepare That the planning Use Diag and Land ram and to . a final General Plan Council . incorporate any amendments approvedby the City of November 16, 1994. at the public hearing the Land Use General Plan, including That copies of the. clerk am be kept on file -in the of f ices of the City de Diagram, copies and the be ma Planning Division, and that available to local libraries. PAGE PLD GENPLAN4.RPS was.adopted at a regular meeting of THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION Chico held on the 16th day 1 the City Council Of the City Of 2 the following vote: 1994 by Hubert, 3 Of November � Francis, Guzzetti, Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, 4 AYES McGinnis and Owens. 5 NOES : None. 6 ABSTAIN: None. 7 ABSENT: None. 9 ATTEST: 10 - 11City Attorney Barbara Evans 12 City Clerk �13 _ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of n rFr-pLA'4•V-ES PAGE6 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 L > 18 f ~� 19 20 21 A = 1 22 <I $ I IC F 23 I24 '9 25 I I 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 81 94-95 CITY OF CHICO-CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN Section 1. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS A. WHEREAS, the City of Chico initiated the General Plan update process in late 1991 with the appointment by the Chico City Council of a 41 -member Task Force. A comprehensive update of the 1976 General Plan began with the preparation of the Chico General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), and then an update of all seven required general plan elements: the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Open Space and Environmental Conservation Element, Safety and Safety Services Element, Noise Element, and the Housing Element. The Housing Element was incorporated by reference because it was recently updated by the City. Two optional elements, the Economic Development -Zlement and the Community Design Element, were also included in the update of the City's General Plan; and B. WHEREAS, the Chico Planning Area (Planning Area) encompasses an approximate 150 -square -mile territory located in western Butte County, approximately 100 miles north of the City of Sacramento, and 180 miles south of the northern California border. The Planning Area is bordered on the north by Rock Creek and generally on the south by the Sacramento River, Fell Road and a boundary line that extends eastward- to the intersection of- Neal Road and State Route (SR) 99, and follows IGPFTNDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 1 '1 .t L 1 Neal Road to a point approximately 3 miles southwest of the 2 Town of Paradise. The eastern border is formed by the x 3 existing 500 kV Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E) power line, �.4 the northernmost Bidwell Park boundary, and an average 1,400- 5 foot elevation line in the foothills. The western border is 6 the Sacramento River; and 7 C. WHEREAS, a Master Environmental Assessment for the Chico 8 General Plan, January 1994 (hereinafter MEA), incorporated by 9 reference, provides a comprehensive inventory of physical 10 resources that exist in the City of Chico (as of the date of 11 publication). The MEA was used as one primary data base for .12 development of the proposed Chico General Plan and serves as 13 the base for existing conditions in the Chico General Plan --14 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 15 D. WHEREAS, on November , 1994, the Chico City Council, prior 16 to reaching a decision on the General Plan EIR, independently 17 reviewed and considered the information in the Final 18 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for completeness and 19 compliance with CEQA, .',State CEQA Guidelines, and City CEQA 20 procedures. y 21 Section 2. GENERAL FINDINGS 22 WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council has made the 23 following general findings in regard to the approval of the Chico. 24 General Plan based on evidence presented in the FEIR, referred to 25 in or incorporated into the FEIR, and found elsewhere in the 26 administrative record of these proceedings: 27 A. The adoption of the Chico General Plan would establish 28 GPFII.'DINGS PAGE 2 Novcmbu 15, 1994 1 allowable uses of land and would benefit the public welfare by 2 providing housing and employment uses for anticipated future 3 growth, establishing the infrastructure system for operation 4 of the City, and providing community -oriented uses and 5 programs. 6 B. The Chico City Council reviewed the Discussion Draft General 7 Plan and the Draft EIR (DEIR) in an October 11, 1994 public 8 hearing. During the City Council hearing, the following 9 substantive changes were made to the General Planinresponse 10 to public comments, and to reduce potentially significant 11 environmental effects of'General Plan implementation. These 12 project modifications were made to the proposed General Plan 13 in preference to the specific alternatives described in the ._14 DEIR. 15 1) Housing: = The Chico city 'Council reduced development - 16 oriented land uses from the proposed Sphere of Influence. 17 As a result, residentially -designated land uses were 18 decreased by 960 acres and the total number of dwelling 19 units (dus) were reduced by 1,070. The reduction of 20 residential lands occurred principally in the East of 21 Airport, Bell -Muir, and North of SR 32 areas. 22 2) Population: The anticipated buildout population was 23 reduced corresponding to the reduction in housing. The 24 population was reduced by approximately 2,000 'people, 25 resulting in a new buildout population of approximately 26 134,000. 27 3) Bell -Muir growth area: The General Plan Diagram will 28 indicate land uses as they currently exist in that area. GPFINDINGS PAGE 3 November 15, 1994 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 _14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27, 28 The General Plan Diagram will indicate Bell -Muir as a study area with a notation that Butte County will take the lead in planning for the area, with assistance by the City of Chico and local residents. Bell -Muir will be eliminated from the Chico Sphere'of Influence. 4) CSA 87: This area will be retained on the Chico General Plan Diagram and Chico Sphere of Influence. The City of Chico would not, however, pursue annexation of CSA.87 at this time. The land use Diagram will be modified to conform to the most recent alternative land use plan prepared by Butte County for the area. A note will be added to the Diagram to indicate, that the City would pursue a change in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and annexation of CSA 87 if the adopted plan conforms with City Planning. Conversely, an. SOI adjustment- and annexation of CSA 87 would not be pursued if the adopted land use did not.agree with City planning. 5) Airport Environs: . The special development designation will be applied to a portion of the original growth area to be contiguous with the "question mark" boundary, and an open space (40 -acre minimum) .designation applied to the remaining land. The City of Chico would encourage annexation of the "question mark" area into the Chico SOI. The City would also encourage Butte County to retain City -designated open space in the airport environs as 40 -acre minimum lots. ' 6) SR 32 (north of SR 32, east of . California Park) : This area would be redesignated as open space (40 -acre minimum IGPFINDWGS Nov=bu 15, 1994 PAGE 4 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 _14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27, 28 The General Plan Diagram will indicate Bell -Muir as a study area with a notation that Butte County will take the lead in planning for the area, with assistance by the City of Chico and local residents. Bell -Muir will be eliminated from the Chico Sphere'of Influence. 4) CSA 87: This area will be retained on the Chico General Plan Diagram and Chico Sphere of Influence. The City of Chico would not, however, pursue annexation of CSA.87 at this time. The land use Diagram will be modified to conform to the most recent alternative land use plan prepared by Butte County for the area. A note will be added to the Diagram to indicate, that the City would pursue a change in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and annexation of CSA 87 if the adopted plan conforms with City Planning. Conversely, an. SOI adjustment- and annexation of CSA 87 would not be pursued if the adopted land use did not.agree with City planning. 5) Airport Environs: . The special development designation will be applied to a portion of the original growth area to be contiguous with the "question mark" boundary, and an open space (40 -acre minimum) .designation applied to the remaining land. The City of Chico would encourage annexation of the "question mark" area into the Chico SOI. The City would also encourage Butte County to retain City -designated open space in the airport environs as 40 -acre minimum lots. ' 6) SR 32 (north of SR 32, east of . California Park) : This area would be redesignated as open space (40 -acre minimum IGPFINDWGS Nov=bu 15, 1994 PAGE 4 1 development parcel) with a Planned Development zoning 2 overlay; this is expected to yield approximately 12 3 dwelling units (du). With a Planned Development, the 4 City of Chico would allow twice the designated density 5 (e.g., 24 du) if units are clustered and the remainder of 6 the property is retained in open space use. 7 7) Chapman/Mulberry area: The City of Chico will consider 8 prior Butte County planning efforts for this area into 9 the Chico General Plan. The City will review Butte 10 County road standards for this area when the City revises 11 its own street standards. Also, the City will consider 12 adoption of Chapman/Mulberry neighborhood plan into the 13 Chico General Plan after its adoption by Butte County. 14 8)- Vallombrosa (and other) roads: These roads will be 15 designated as scenic roads. A maximum of two lanes will 16 be allowed. Scenic roadway standards will be developed 17 by the City of Chico. 18 9) Resource Management Program (RMP): The City of Chico 19 will integrate the RMP process more closely into existing 20 City development review processes. Policies have been 21 adjusted in the General Plan to indicate that the current 22 development review process • will be used as the 23 preliminary RMP review meetings. 24 C. The FEIR identifies one significant environmental effect which 25 will be reduced to less than significant levels with project 26 mitigation. Changes or alterations have been required in, or 27 in into, the project which avoid or substantially 28 lessen safety issues associated with the risk wildland fire GPFINDD;GS PAGE S November 15, 1994 1 resulting from implementation of the Chico General Plan as 2 identified in the FEIR. Findings regarding this effect are 3 set forth in Section 4 of this resolution. 4 D. The FEIR identifies the following eight significant and 5 unavoidable environmental effects which would -.result from 6 implementation of the Chico General Plan, as follows: 7 - _ 1) _conversion of open space to urban uses; 8 2) loss of viable agricultural lands; 9 3) increased emissions from residential fireplaces, 10 residential wood combustion, leaf burning, and 11 agricultural waste burning; 12 4) increased utility -related emissions; 13 5) generation of significant fugitive dust emissions during -14 = the duration of construction activity with General Plan 15 implementation; 16 6) short-term contribution to existing exceedences of 17 criteria pollutants resulting from exhaust emissions of 18 NO,, CO, and PM10; 19 7) generation of significant, regional, mobile source air. 20 emissions, and 21 8) increased regional emissions of NO,, CO, and PMIo. 22 Findings regarding these significant and avoidable effects and 23 a statement of overriding considerations are set forth in 24 Section 5 of this resolution. 25 E. The FEIR identifies the following thirteen potentially 26 significant and unavoidable environmental .effects that would 27 result from implementation of the Chico General Plan, as 28 follows: GPFINDINGS PAGE 6 Navcmbu 15, 1944 . r I � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12, 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1) operation of some roadway segments below standard levels of service; 2) reduction of existing acceptable LOS at some arterial intersections to unacceptable levels and exacerbation of currently unacceptable LOS at arterial intersections; 3) significant increases in traffic noise for existing sensitive receptors; 4) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs); 5) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in non. -Resource Management Areas (RMAs); 6) loss or degradation of seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools; 7)- degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive biological resources outside Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Resource Management Areas (RMAs); 8) degradation, removal, and/or disruption of Butte County meadowfoam outside Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) or — Resource Management Areas (RMAs); 9) operation of some freeway ramp/arterial street intersections below standard Levels of Service; 10) alteration of open, undeveloped visual. quality of the foothills as viewed from existing urban areas and Bidwell Park, and 11) a substantial change in the character of foothill areas.. 12) increased potential for flooding of, Lindo Channel/Big Chico Creek; and 13) increased use of groundwater supplies GPFWUINGS November 15, IM PAGE 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 —14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings regarding these potentially significant and avoidable effects and a statement of overriding considerations are set forth in Section 5 of this resolution. F. The FEIR identifies the following two significant cumulative environmental effects that would result from implementation of the Chico General Plan, as follows: 1) generation of CO emissions, and 2) effects of generation of ozone precursor and PM 10. Findings regarding these significant and avoidable effects and a statement of overriding considerations are set forth in Section 5 of this resolution. G. The FEIR identifies the following three potentially significant cumulative environmental effects that would result from implementation of the Chico General,Plan, as follows: 1) cumulative habitat loss; 2) cumulative use of groundwater supplies and 3) cumulative flooding impacts. Findings regarding these potentially significant and avoidable effects and a statement of overriding considerations are set forth in Section 5 of this resolution. H. All mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR shall be made conditions of project approval by the City as part of City decisions conditionally approving all discretionary approvals implementing the project and/or'future projects requiring City approval. I. The Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in the FEIR has been prepared and incorporated into the project 'approval pursuant to Assembly Bill 3180 and meets the requirements and IGPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 --14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 intent of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 for mitigation monitoring. Section 3. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the alternatives to the General Plan described in the FEIR and considers these alternatives infeasible and/or do not meet General Plan objectives for the reasons specified below: A. No Further Development. Under this alternative, no further development would occur in the City of Chico beyond what currently exists. No increase in the size of the planned Sphere of Influence (SOI) would occur; the existing 24,060 - acre SOI would remain unchanged. The proposed increase in the City's current incorporated area of 14,446 acres would not occur; the total developed area of 20,980 acres within the Planning Area would remain the same. The total developed area within the SOI and within the City Limits would also remain unchanged at 17,400 acres and 10,360 acres, respectively. Adverse effects with respect to conversion of open space, conversion of viable agricultural land, visual resources, land use compatibility, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, biological resources, hydrology and groundwater resources, and water quality would be avoided or reduced with the implementation of this alternative. However, improvements associated with implementation of the General Plan design guidelines would not be implemented. Similarly, potential visual enhancements in existing developed areas would not occur. The new policies included in the updated General Plan intended to enhance community character and to provide a more GPFIIIDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 ..7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 consistent community design would not be put into effect. This alternative would result in fewer demands on public facility and community service issues, including fire protection, wastewater, health and medical services, child care, telephone, cable, natural gas, electricity; -and safety. For these services, however, implementation of the proposed. General Plan would result in less -than -significant impacts because policies are available to ensure adequate public facilities are provided prior to development occurring and to ensure unsafe conditions do not occur. Because the No Further Development alternative would freeze development at existing levels, it is considered infeasible, and would result in adverse effects on local economic development. Due to existing property rights, stopping all development within the Planning Area would in all likelihood be legally impossible and, if achievable, would likely not be in the best economic interest, of the community. Further, this alternative would not provide housing for a population anticipated to occur at any growth rate. The No Furt-her Development alternative would also be expected to result in piecemeal development within the County .portion of the Planning Area, which would cause adverse impacts on urban form, viable agricultural land, natural resources, and existing travel characteristics. Given the economic and housing limitations, this alternative would not meet three basic project objectives: a compact urban .form, sustainable development that balances growth and conservation, and economic development. GPFINDINGS Novcmbu 15, 1994 PAGE 10 ' � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 —14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4� 25 26 27 28 B. No Project. Under the No Project alternative,, the proposed General Plan would not be adopted by the City of Chico, and the existing General Plan would continue.to guide development in the City. Differences between the existing and proposed General Plans occur primarily in six areas that -would remain vacant, or would be developed in another, use under the No Project Alternative. These seven areas are identified as CSA 87, Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road, Foothill Park, Bidwell Ranch, Humboldt Road - Foothills North &JSouth of SR 32, and Diamond Match. This alternative would result in the conversion of fewer acres of land in CSA 87 to urban uses, and no urban development of Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road. Similar development of the Foothill Park area would occur with the No Project alternative, but without the benefits of General Plan policies that would protect environmental resources, retain a park site or open space set-aside south' of Sycamore Creek, or policies requiring a master, plan for mixed-use neighborhood cores. Similar development in the Bidwell Ranch area would also occur with this alternative, but without the benefits of policies directed at minimizing the 'effects of development in foothill areas, policies to control wildland fire impacts, and policies that specify development maximums, promote clustering, protect viewsheds and biological resources, and ensure coordination with the Chico Unified School District (CUSD) for schools. Potential development in the Humboldt Road- Foothills North & South of SR 32 would not occur. Finally, the Diamond Match site would be converted to industrial', uses instead of mixed GPFWDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 11 1 use, as is proposed in the General Plan. 2 Implementation of the No Project alternative would reduce the 3 total development area as compared to the proposed General 4 Plan, and would result in fewer.adverse environmental effects. 5 However, the No Project alternative would confine land use 6 planning and growth trends in Chico to areas identified in the ..7 adopted General Plan, potentially limiting the City's ability 8 to meet the current needs and goals of the community by not .9 requiring special development areas, and not providing housing 10 and employment (project objective) opportunities. Proposed 11 policies to enhance community character, identity, and visual 12 amenities (project objectives) and wildland fire protection 13 would not occur with the No Project alternative.' Further, —14 without the proposed project, development within the 15 surrounding County areas could continue as piecemeal 16 development inconsistent with City growth objectives resulting 17 in land use and natural resources impacts. .18 C. Elimination of Growth Areas. This alternative would eliminate 19 the following growth areas --which are currently- viable 20 agricultural lands --from the proposed sphere of influence 21 (SOI): 1) Airport Environs East of Cohasset Road property; 2) 22 a portion of what was once referred to -'as the Southeast Chico 23 area; and 3) a portion of what is now referred to as the 24 proposed Humboldt Road - Foothills North of SR 32 special 25 development area. 26 This alternative would reduce the acreage within the Planning 27 Area that could be urbanized, thereby reducing ,environmental 28 impacts associated with urbanization. Environmental impacts GPFIKDINGS PAGE 12 November 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ID. that would be avoided' or. reduced with this alternative include: conversion of open space, visual impacts of foothill development from the valley floor and Bidwell Park, land use compatibility .of development in the foothill areas, potentially significant increases in stormwater runoff, biological resources, and potentially significant reduction in groundwater availability. However,. these impacts_would not be reduced to less -than -significant levels. This alternative would result -in similar impacts to the proposed General Plan related to air quality, traffic, and noise. This alternative would reduce the City's ability to comprehensively plan and expand development into relatively large vacant lands, and would reduce- opportunities for economic development (project objective) within the Chico region. Moreover, proposed policies to enhance community character, identity, and visual amenities -(project objectives) would not occur with this alternative, and the inventory of land available to provide anticipated needed housing would be less. Sketch Plan B. This alternative would extend the Planning Area west and southwest (towards agricultural areas), as compared to the proposed General Plan and would retain the foothills in their existing state, except for specific areas where development is already approved'or anticipated as part of an existing assessment district. More urban growth would be accommodated under this alternative than under the proposed General Plan, with a "holding capacity" (maximum population) of 163,400, or about. 30,400 more than under the proposed PAGE 13 GPFINDINGS Nov=bu 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 -7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 General Plan. However, be some land might remain vacant or in its current use over the planning period, the probable buildout population may be somewhat less. This alternative plans higher density development in proximity to SR 99 and the railroad and may provide more efficient traffic patterns than the proposed General Plan, and because a- higher population level could be accommodated than the proposed project, it would better meet anticipated growth into the future. In addition, this alternative would result in fewer impacts to biological resources, a lower demand for wildland fire response. However, this alternative would accommodate development on more prime agricultural land, a significant and unavoidable impact, than the proposed project, and would result in higher air emissions, and higher demands on public services and utilities. The potential for land use compatibility conflicts J and exposure to herbicides and pesticides would be higher with the alternative than with the proposed project since development would be extended further into agricultural- areas. E. Nance Canyon and Gateway Areas. This alternative is similar to Alternative C in that three areas, one located east of the airport and two located in southeast Chico, would be removed from the proposed General Plan with this alternative. However, this alternative would include two additional growth areas, identified as Nance Canyon and Gateway. This alternative would allow the City to comprehensively plan a currently undeveloped site that has few owners.The area has access to major roadways and it would not remove prime IOPFWUINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 14 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 agricultural lands with urbanization. However, this alternative would accommodate development upon biologically sensitive lands, is farther from the urban core, and would result in traffic impacts due to constraints of existing roadways in the area. In addition, this alternative would result in noise and air quality degradation associated with introducing urban development in southeast ._Chico, the potential.for flooding associated with increased runoff, the potential to disturb cultural resources, and the need to extend City services. F. Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Further Development alternative would be considered the "environmentally superior" alternative because it would eliminate the significant and potentially significant environmental impacts associated with any new development in the City of Chico by completely restricting new growth. The complete restriction on new development would be virtually impossible to implement, however, because of: 1) the current goals and policies included—in the existing General Plan; 2) historic, and projected growth in the Chico area; and 3) legal rights of landowners which allow the development of these vacant lands as long as their development is in conformance with existing City policies and regulations. In addition, projects that have been approved and are currently under development would continue to be developed. To restrict these developments and possible. future developments that are consistent with the existing General Plan would 'severely hamper the City's economic viability. Therefore, due to the IIGPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 —14 15 16 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 infeasibility of this..alternative, it was not selected as the preferred project. As CEQA requires selection,of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is identified as environmentally superior, Alternative C: Elimination of Growth Areas would be considered the 'environmentally superior alternative to the proposed General Plan. _With. this alternative, potentially significant impacts related to the conversion of open space, visual and land use compatibility impacts of foothill development, traffic, short-term and long- term air quality, increased noise levels at existing sensitive receptors, storm water runoff, biological resources, and groundwater availability, would be reduced. However, significant or potentially. significant and unavoidable impacts would, as with the proposed General Plan, still occur in the following areas: conversion of open space, traffic, and short- term and long-term air quality, and biological resources. Section 4. FINDINGS REGARDING FULLY MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS -- WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following environmental effects, more fully described in the FEIR, can'be fully mitigated by means of mitigation measures set forth,in the FEIR. A. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the effect as identified in the final EIR: Safety 1) Potential for wildland fire impacts from the lack of a GPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 34 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City rectuirement for fire-resistant building and roof materials. Approval of the Chico General Plan would continue to allow the construction of dwelling units and other structures using building and roof materials that are not fire-resistant. Mitigation Measure. . Mitigation measure 4.10-1 would _ require the City of Chico to develop standards to protect structures in the wildland fire areas for inclusion in a Best Management Practices Manual or similar implementing program. These standards will include use of fire- resistant building and roofing materials, installation of fire-resistant landscaping, maximum road gradients, and clearance of vegetation proximate to structures. Section' -5. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED AND ADOPTION OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following significant effects described more fully in the FEIR cannot be fully mitigated. A. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The following findings apply to potentially significant and significant impacts that would occur with project implementation: Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or GPFINDINGS PAGE 17 November 15, 19% 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR, but significant effects would remain. Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, 'make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR. Land Use and Community Character 1) Conversion of open space to urban uses. This effect is significant and unavoidable because the loss of open space is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan policies. The City shall prepare a nexus study to establish an appropriate mitigation fee to offset impacts to loss of open space lands. 2) Loss of viable agricultural lands. This effect is significant and unavoidable because the conversion of IGPFINDINGS November 15, 1944 viable agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses is an irretrievable commitment of resources. Altnougn implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan policies. The City shall prepare a nexus study to PAGE 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 establish an appropriate mitigation fee to offset impacts to agricultural lands. Transportation 3) 4) GPFWDINGS November 15, 1994 0 eration of some roadways se ents below standard Levels of Service. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because operation of roadway segments at unacceptable LOS is substantial. Although implementation of the General Plan Transportation Systems Management program, General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would be capable of improving operating conditions at affected roadway segments to acceptable levels so as to avoid or substantially lessen ithis effect. \ Mitigation Measure. To mitigate potentially significant traffic impacts of individual projects proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan, subsequent project -specific review processes will examine the effect of a proposed pro-j-ect on the transportation system based upon conditions in existence at the time, conditions reasonably expected in the future, and conditions possible within the limitations of'the General Plan. Reduction of existin acceptable LOS at some arterial intersections to unacceptable levels and exacerbation of currentl unacce table LOS at arterial intersections. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because conditions at some arterial intersections, which currently operate at acceptable LOS, may Operate at PAGE 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unacceptable LOS with development of General Plan land uses. At some arterial intersections, which currently already operate at '.unacceptable LOS, unacceptable conditions may be exacerbated. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such policies would be capable of improving operating conditions at affected arterial intersections to acceptable levels so as to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. To mitigate potentially significant traffic impacts of individual projects proposed in accordance with the proposed General Plan, subsequent project -specific review processes will' examine the effect of a proposed project on the transportation system based upon conditions in existence at the time, conditions reasonably expected in the future, and conditions possible within the limitations of the General Plan. This will permit responsible local..officials to compare. the individual project -related impacts to the framework permitted within the limitations of the General Plan, and establish appropriate mitigation actions to preclude, to the extent feasible, significant impacts. Air Quality 5) Increased emissions from residential fireplaces, residential wood combustion, leaf burning, and agricultural waste burninct. This effect is significant and unavoidable because the collective increase in PAGE 20 GPFWDINGS November 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GPFINDINGS November 15. 1994 emissions from these stationary sources, which are irreversible, would contribute to existing and projected future exceedances of state and federal ambient air quality standards. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would'serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure._ Prior to approval oftheChico General Plan, the following policy will be included to reduce stationary source impacts: LOW NO, WATER HEATERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ANY NEW RESIDENCE BUILT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. Increased utility -related emissions. This effect is significant and unavoidable because the collective increase in utility -related emissions, which are irreversible,.would contribute to existing and projected future exceedances of state and federal ambient air quality standards. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Prior to approval of the Chico General Plan, the following policy will be included to reduce utility emissions from energy consumption: ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH'THE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES MANDATED BY TITLE 24 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. NEW FACILITIES WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN THE FACILITIES THEY PAGE 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 ^14 15 16 17 Noise 7) IIGPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 REPLACE OR EXISTING UNITS, EVEN AT HIGHER DENSITIES. significant increase in traffic noise for existincr sensitive receptors. This impact is potentially significant and unavoidable because existing sensitive receptors adjacent to noise -impacted roadways may experience a significant increase in traffic noise with buildout of the General Plan. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce potential noise impacts, it is unknown whether such mitigation will avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. In conjunction with roadway link improvements that significantly increase traffic capacity, noise attenuation devices shall be implemented to reduce impacts to acceptable levels, as practicable. Biological Resources Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs). This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in RMAs is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. To reduce potentially significant impacts related to sensitive resources in RMAs, prior to PAGE 22 18 8) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IIGPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 REPLACE OR EXISTING UNITS, EVEN AT HIGHER DENSITIES. significant increase in traffic noise for existincr sensitive receptors. This impact is potentially significant and unavoidable because existing sensitive receptors adjacent to noise -impacted roadways may experience a significant increase in traffic noise with buildout of the General Plan. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce potential noise impacts, it is unknown whether such mitigation will avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. In conjunction with roadway link improvements that significantly increase traffic capacity, noise attenuation devices shall be implemented to reduce impacts to acceptable levels, as practicable. Biological Resources Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in Resource Management Areas (RMAs). This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in RMAs is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. To reduce potentially significant impacts related to sensitive resources in RMAs, prior to PAGE 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 adoption of the General Plan, policy OS -I-22 will be modified to require Final RMP components for buffer zones, wildlife movement corridors, recreational and educational plan, habitat. for special status species, mitigation monitoring program, and habitat enhancement at the Draft RMP stage; refinements thereof will be required with the Final RMP. Although this mitigation would reduce impacts, it cannot be conclusively determined that reduction would be to a less-than-significanf level. While close adherence to the RMA policies and RMP guidelines would substantially prevent impacts on biological resources through the Planning Area, some disruption of important habitats and loss of sensitive acreage or protected species could still occur with future development. Unless policies that offer complete protection to all special status species, and preservation of all sensitive or -regulated habitats are instituted, this impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable. 9) Degradation, removal and/or disruption of sensitive resources in non -Resource Management Areas (RMAs). This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive resources in non-RMAs is substantial and irreversible. GPFINDINGS Nov=bcr 15, 1994 Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. PAGE 23 1 Mitigation Measure. In addition to implementation of 2 General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to 3 evaluate individual project impacts to determine if 4 sensitive habitats in non RCA- or RMA -designated areas 5 can be avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant 6 level. If avoidance of sensitive habitats in non RCA- or 7 RMA -designated areas 'is possible, then- less -than- 8 significant impacts would result. When avoidance is not 9 possible mitigation including revegetation and offsite 10 mitigation could also reduce this impact to less-than.- 11 ess-than-11 significant. However, in some instances, this impact may 12 not be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant 13 level, and this impact would, therefore, : remain -14 _ potentially significant and unavoidable. 15 10) Loss or degradation of seasonal wetlands, including 16 vernal pools. This effect is potentially significant and 17 unavoidable because the loss or degradation of seasonal 18 wetlands or vernal pools is substantial and irreversible. 19 Although implementation. of General Plan policies and 20 evaluation of individual project proposals would serve to 21 reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures 22 would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. 23 Mitigation Measure. In addition to implementation of 24 General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to 25 evaluate individual project impacts to determine if, flora 26 and fauna associated with seasonal wetlands can be 27 avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. 28 If avoidance of flora and fauna associated with seasonal GPFWDINGS PAGE 24 Nov=bu IS, 1994 9 11) 10 11 12 13 _14 r 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wetlands is possible, then less -than -significant impacts would result. When -avoidance is not possible mitigation including offsite mitigation could also reduce this impact to less -than -significant. However, in some instances, impacts to seasona-1 wetlands_ may not be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level and would, therefore, remain potentially significant and unavoidable. Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive biological -resource outside Resources Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Resources Manactement Areas (RMAs)_. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation removal and/or disruption of sensitive biological resources located outside RCAs or RMAs is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and evaluation of individual project proposals would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitiaation Measure. In addition to implementation of General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to evaluate individual project impacts to determine if sensitive°species which occur outside of RCAs or RMAs can be avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. If avoidance of sensitive species which occur outside of `RCAs or RMAs is possible, then less -than- significan't impacts would result:. When avoidance is not possible, mitigation measures could reduce impacts to PAGE 25 GPFINDINGS Novcmber 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 _ 8 9 11) 10 11 12 13 _14 r 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 wetlands is possible, then less -than -significant impacts would result. When -avoidance is not possible mitigation including offsite mitigation could also reduce this impact to less -than -significant. However, in some instances, impacts to seasona-1 wetlands_ may not be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level and would, therefore, remain potentially significant and unavoidable. Degradation, removal, and/or disruption of sensitive biological -resource outside Resources Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Resources Manactement Areas (RMAs)_. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation removal and/or disruption of sensitive biological resources located outside RCAs or RMAs is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and evaluation of individual project proposals would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitiaation Measure. In addition to implementation of General Plan policies, the City of Chico will continue to evaluate individual project impacts to determine if sensitive°species which occur outside of RCAs or RMAs can be avoided, or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. If avoidance of sensitive species which occur outside of `RCAs or RMAs is possible, then less -than- significan't impacts would result:. When avoidance is not possible, mitigation measures could reduce impacts to PAGE 25 GPFINDINGS Novcmber 15, 1994 .r 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 30 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 less -than -significant. However, impacts to _certain species including those officially listed as threatened or endangered, could remain significant and unavoidable. 12) Cumulative habitat loss. This cumulative lZD. potentially significant and unavoidable because continued development within the Planning Area in conjunction with _regional growth is likely to result in the .substantial loss of sensitive habitat and habitat for species that are currently, or in the future, considered rare, 13) GPFRCDINGS Nov=bu 15, 1994 threatened, endangered, or candidates for such listing. No feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed General Plan policies to preserve regional biological values and project -specific mitigation would. -lessen impacts; however potentially significant cumulative impacts remain. Degradation, removal. and/or disruption of Butte County meadowfoam outside Resources Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Resources Management Areas (RMAs). This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the degradation removal and/or disruption of Butte County meadowfoam located outside RCAs or RMAs is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of General Plan policies and adoption of a revised Conservation Plan for Butte County meadowfoam (in progress) would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect-. Mitigation Measure. To reduce potentially significant PAGE 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Z4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26! 27 28 impacts to Butte County meadowfoam in non -RCA or non -RMA areas, the City of Chico will adopt a revised Conservation Plan for Butte County meadowfoam. B. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project_unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation ofof the rationale for each finding. The following findings apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with project implementation: Findings. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Chico. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or. can and should be adopted by another agency. Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Transportation 1) Operation of some freeway ramp/arterial street intersections below standard Levels of Service. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the operation of freeway ramps/arterials at unacceptable GPFINDINGS Nov=bu 15, 1994 PAGE 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IGPFINDINGS Nov=ba 15, 1994 LOS is substantial, and in most cases right-of-way constraints under or over SR 99 preclude the construction of additional to improve LOS, making the effect potentially unavoidable. Improvements to freeway ramps/arterials may be under the authority -of. the City of Chico, Caltrans, the Federal Highways Administration, or any combination thereof. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether traffic improvements or traffic flow modifications would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. To maintain adequate Levels of Service at freeway ramp/cross arterial intersections, the following actions will be implemented in cooperation with Caltrans. .These are intended to reflect a combined approach of maximizing operational and low -construction cost alternatives, modifying travel. patterns, and evaluating the appropriate level of service requirement for freeway operations. • Review intersection control systems (signals, signing, marking) and check for adherence to standards, together with review of access control options on arterial street approaches. IClosuring and/or restricting movements at driveways, providing alternate site access routes, and purchasing access rights should be considered. • Evaluate operational control options including peak period turn prohibitions to increase intersection capacity, and approach signal timing along arterial streets. • Evaluate interchange locations for opportunities for reconfiguration of lane layouts, possibly requiring design exceptions, to add maneuver lanes to accommodate especially heavy movements. Reassess PAGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ � 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 right-of-way availability. • Conduct regular traffic monitoring studies of peak period freeway operations and determine the extent t.o_which local traffic uses SR 99 as an "arterial" roadway for travel between adjacent or second interchanges, instead of*using surface arterial streets. Evaluate options for changes in traffic control systems to favor arterial street travel for short, local trips. • Evaluate each freeway interchange location for operational effectiveness at different levels of service, and consider changing "LOS- standard for ramp/arterial street intersections. • Review intersection control systems (signals, signing, marking) and, check for adherence to standards, together with review of access control options on arterial street approaches. Closuring and/or restricting movements at driveways, providing alternate site access routes, and purchasing access rights should be considered. • Evaluate operational control options including peak period turn prohibitions to increase -intersection capacity, and approach signal timing along arterial streets. Evaluate interchange locations for opportunities for reconfiguration of lane layouts, possibly requiring design exceptions, to, add maneuver lanes to accommodate especially heavy movements. Reassess right-of-way availability. Conduct regular traffic monitoring studies of peak period freeway'operations and -determine the.extent to which local traffic uses SR 99 as an "arterial" roadway for travel between adjacent or second interchanges, instead of using surface arterial streets. Evaluate options for changes in traffic control systems to favor arterial street travel for short, local trips. • Evaluate each freeway interchange location for operational effectiveness at different levels of service, and consider changing LOS standard for ramp/arterial street intersections. Water Service 2) Increased use of groundwater supplies. This cumulative effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because GPFIND1NGS Novembu 15, 1994 PAGE 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 approval of the Chico General Plan would result in substantial population growth that would substantially increase demand for groundwater supplies. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the-- impact, the availability of groundwater resources cannot be specifically quantified until the Butte Basin. -Groundwater Model is available. Resolution of this issue is regional, requiring the cooperative effort of, at'least, the Butte Basin Water Users Association and the City of Chico. Mitigation Measure. 4.11-2(a): Following completion of the Butte Basin Ground Water Model, the City will have accurate estimates of the amount of groundwater available in the Butte. Basin. General Plan policies PP -I-24 through PP -I-26 will enable the City to use the model to set limits on groundwater withdrawal and establish a realistic water budget that will allow for sustainable levels of growth planned in the General Plan,. while protecting basin supplies from becoming overly committed as the General Plan is implemented. The Butte Basin Water Model, when available to the City, together with General Plan policies (PP -I-24 through PP -I-26), would allow for groundwater management and would reduce potentially significant groundwater availability impacts to a less -than -significant level. No further mitigation is necessary. t The City of Chico will develop a list of PAGE 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 —14 15 16 17 18 19', 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 water conservation measures to be imposed on projects in the event that groundwater availability drops below acceptable levels, as will be established by the City of Chico after review of the outcome from the Butte Basin Groundwater model. These conservation measures may range from buy-back incentive programs to more stringent water metering requirements. 3) Cumulative use of groundwater supplies. This cumulative effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because continued development within the Planning Area in conjunction with regional growth is likely to result in the substantial drawdown of the water table, increased cost of pumping, drying of wells, and reduced water quality. No feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or substantially -lessen this effect. Although implementation of General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the project's contribution to this cumulative impact, the availability of groundwater resources cannot be specifically quantified until the Butte Basin Groundwater Model is available. Resolution of this issue is regional, requiring the,cooperative effort of, at least, the Butte Basin Water Users Association and the City of Chico. Mitigation Measure. 4.11-2(a): Following completion of the Butte Basin Ground Water Model, the City, will have accurate estimates of the amount of groundwater available in the Butte Basin. General Plan policies- PP -I-24 through PP -I-26 will enable the City to use the model to GPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 31 1 set limits on groundwater withdrawal and establish a 2 realistic water budget that will allow for sustainable 3 levels of growth planned in the General Plan, while 4 protecting basin supplies from becoming overly committed 5 as the General Plan is implemented. The' Butte Basin 6 Water Model, when available to the City, together with 7 _ General Plan policies (PP -I-24 through PP -I.-26), would 8 allow for groundwater management and would reduce 9 potentially significant groundwater availability impacts 10 to a less -than -significant level. No further mitigation 11 is necessary.. 12 4.11-2(b): The City of Chico will develop a list of 13 water conservation measures to be imposed on projects in 14 the event that groundwater availability drops below 15 acceptable levels, as will be established by the City of 16 Chico after review of the outcome from the Butte Basin 17 Groundwater model. These conservation measures may range i8 from buy-back incentive programs to more stringent water 19 metering requirements. - 20 C. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no 21 public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which 22 an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more 23 significant environmental effects of the project unless the 24 public agency makes one or more written findings for each of 25 those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation 26 of the rationale for each finding: The following findings 27 apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with 28 project implementation: GPFIN'DINGS PAGE 32 Nav=bcr IS, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21j 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinc[s. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Chico." Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by another agency. Also, specific economic, social, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR. _ Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality 1) Increased potential for flooding of Lindo Channel/Bicr Chico Creek. This impact is significant and unavoidable because implementation of development accommodated by the General Plan would result in increases in impervious surface area, peak runoff, and total runoff volume. Improvements along Lindo Channel/Big Chico Creek are principally under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Although it is possible that increased urban runoff would not increase the potential for flooding of 2) GPFIN'DINGS Novcmbu 15, 1994 Planning Area waterways, some controversy exists with respect to the capacity of Planning Area waterways and 100 -year flood characteristics. Therefore, although implementation of General Plan policies would serve to reduce the impact, it is unknown whether such measures would avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed policies PP -G-12, PP -I-30, PP -I-31, PP -I-45, PP -I-29, PP -I-32, PP -I-46, PP -I-47, PP-G-11,.PP-G-18, PP -I-33, and PP -I-36, and no other mitigation is warranted. Cumulative Flooding Impacts. This cumulative eff.ect is PAGE 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 potentially significant and unavoidable because continued development within the Planning Area in conjunction with regional growth is likely to result in the substantial conversion of open space to developed uses which will increase peak runoff and total runoff -volumes. No feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Flood control improvements are under multiple jurisdictions including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento Area Flood Control Authority, and other regional flood planning agencies. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan policies, continuation of local, and FEMA studies, and no. additional mitigation is necessary. D. Section 15o9-1 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written. findings for each of those• significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. -The following findings apply to potentially significant impacts that would occur with project implementation: Findings. Specific economic, social, or other considerations, make. infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR. Land Use and Community Character 1) Alteration of the open, undeveloped visual quality of the PAGE 34 GPFINDINGS NcvcmW 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 foothills as viewed from existinct urban areas and Bidwell Park. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the loss of views as a result of the conversion of open space to urban uses is substantial and irreversible. Although implementation of"General Plan policies and recommended mitigation would serve to reduce the impact, no mitigation measures available. -to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan policies and no additional mitigation measures are feasible. 2) Substantial chancre in character of foothill areas. This effect is potentially significant and unavoidable because the change in.land uses on otherwise open hillside lands would result in a substantial change in character resulting from the contrast of urban uses on open lands, density andintensity of development, and alteration of visual setting. These changes would be substantial and irreversible, and there --are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of General Plan policies and no additional mitigation measures are feasible. Air Quality 3) Generation of significant fugitive dust emissions during the duration of construction activity with General Plan implementation. This effect is significant and unavoidable because construction workers and the GPFINDINGS Novcmbcr 15, 1994 PAGE 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 population in the vicinity of individual developments accommodated by the General Plan would be exposed to air- -borne dust during construction activities. Although implementation of General' Plan policies would serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General Plan for fugitive dust emissions. 4) Short-term contribution to existing exceed ances of criteria pollutants resulting from -exhaust emissions of NOXJ CO, an PMIo. This effect is significant and unavoidable because exhaust emissions of NO,, CO, and PMIo would be generated by construction vehicles such that current exceedances of state standards would be exacerbated for the duration of construction activities for individual projects accommodated by the General Plan. Although implementation of General Plan policies would serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General Plan for exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles. 5) Generation of significant regional, mobile source air emissions. This effect is significant and unavoidable because the addition of regional mobile source air IGPFINDINGS Nov=bcr 15, 1944 PAGE 36 I emissions to the basin is irreversible and would 2 exacerbate existing adverse air quality conditions. 3' Although implementation of General Plan policies and 4 transportation control measures :detailed in the 1991 AQAP 5 would serve to reduce the impact, there are rio-mitigation 6 measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this _ 7 - _ _ effect. 8 Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures 9 exist beyond the policies provided in the Chico General 10 Plan for regional, mobile source air emissions. 11 6) Increased regional emissions of NOx CO and PM10. This 12 effect is significant and unavoidable because increased 13 generation of NOx, CO, and PMIo, which is irreversible, 14 would contribute.to existing violations of state AAQS. 15 Although implementation of General Plan policies would 16 serve to reduce the impact, there are no mitigation 17 17 measures available to avoid or substantially lessen this 18 effect. 19 Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures 20 exist beyond those provided in the General Plan for point 21 and area source emissions. 22 7) Cumulative CO emissions. This cumulative effect is 23 significant and unavoidable because projected growth 24 under the Chico General Plan, in 'combination with other 25 regional growth would increase traffic congestion and CO 26 emissions in the Northern Sacramento Valley. No feasible 27 mitigation measures are available to avoid or 28 substantially lessen this effect. PAGE 37 GPFINI)INGS Novembu 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 15 16 17 18 19 20 21I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed General Plan policies and no additional mitigation is feasible. 8) Cumulative ozone precursor and PMI0 effects. This cumulative effect is significant and unavoidable because projected growth under, the Chico General Plan, in combination with other regional growth would contribute to future violations of ozone and PMIo standards. No feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or substantially lessen this effect. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of proposed General Plan policies and no additional mitigation is feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council, in approving the Chico General Plan, finds that the benefits of the project, as approved, outweigh the identified unavoidable adverse effects for.the below noted reasons. Individual reasons are found adequate for the purposes of these overriding considerations; invalidation of one reason does not invalidate the remainder. A. The proposed project is a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan, which was last completely revised -in 1976; it provides the necessary framework for long-range development in the City of Chico. The General Plan embodies the spirit of City administrators, public committees, and other interested individuals for future .growth in the City of Chico. The comprehensive update of the proposed Chico General Plan was initiated in late 1991 with the appointment by the Chico City Council of a 41 -member Task Force. The Task Force, consisting of members with wide-ranging backgrounds, was initially asked to review the City's 1976 General Plan and to advise the GPFINDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 38 1 Council on updating the Plan. The General Plan Task Force, 2 meeting over a six-month period, identified critical issues 3 — facing Chico and recommended that a comprehensive update to 4 the Plan be undertaken. The City Council concurred, and the 5 proposed General Plan is the culmination of a three-year work 6 effort to accomplish the comprehensive update. .7 13.__ The _General Plan contains all elements as mandated by 8 California Government Code, Section 65302: 9 1) The Land Use Element establishes policies which are 10 intended to guide future growth in the Planning Area. The 11 element defines and maps various land uses and their 12 intensities, and defines an updated Sphere of Influence. 13 Through the land use policies and Diagram, the element r14 encourages land use compatibility, protects. agricultural 15 uses, continues a compact .urban form,.... and sets forth 16 community -oriented uses (e.g. schools, parks) for future 17 generations. 18 2) The Transportation Element establishes a roadway 19 hierarchy and network, and includes policies for the. 20 provision of a variety of transportation modes. The 21 element also encourages non -automobile transportation 22 modes and a reduction in auto -dependent trips. 23 3) The Parks, and Public Facilities and Services Element 24 includes policies relating to the provision of park 25 facilities, use of natural and open spaces as parkland, 26 and policies to provide adequate school facilities. This 27 element also ensures that residents of the Planning Area 28 are provided water, wastewater, and storm drainage GPFINDINGS PAGE 39 November 15, 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21'. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 services by establishing thresholds that must be met with new development. 4) The open Space and 'Environmental Conservation Element addresses issues associated with several resource areas including air quality, biological resources, water quality, natural open space, agriculture,. mineral resources, energy resources,. and waste management and recycling. 5) The Safety and Seismic Services Element addresses methods intended to maximize emergency preparedness and minimize the threat to life and property from wildland fire, seismic events and other natural events. - 6) The Noise Element establishes new standards and policies for acceptable outdoor noise levels to minimize future noise impacts associated with new growth. 7) The Housing Element of the General Plan incorporates the City's recently updated Housing Element. 8) The General Plan also contains an optional element directed to specific economic development and community. character attributes of the City of Chico. The economic development element provides direction for the economic vitality of the City through specific land uses and policies of the General Plan. 9) The Community Design Element is another optional element of the General Plan which includes policies to protect and enhance community -recognized features of the City related to community form, continuity and connection, neighborhood conservation and development, downtown IGPFINDINGS Navcmbu 15, 1994 PAGE 40 f •' 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .. 7 areas, commercial and industrial areas, residential neighborhoods, public art, and specific development areas. _ C. The policies, maps, and diagrams of the General Plan are internally consistent, as required in California Government Code Section 65300.5, while providing a balance of land uses, and directives to resolve issues, and meet competing community objectives. Based on issues identified and prioritized by the Task Force, and consistent data provided by the City of Chico and its consultants, the City and its designated Task Force conducted a multi-year program to define, prioritize, and compromise on mechanisms to resolve issues by various means in the General Plan. This program allowed for systematic decision-making in. the development of policies that are, contained in the nine elements of the General Plan. D. The General Plan establishes a comprehensive framework for the City's subsequent adoption of a wide range of policy documents, standards, specific plans, and regulations, all of which would be consistent with the guidelines provided.in the Plan. Specifically, the General Plan is the basis for the City of Chico to pursue the following: 1) Sphere of Influence boundary adjustment 2) pre -zoning, zoning, and annexation of property within the proposed Sphere of Influence 3) zoning code amendments 4) subdivision code amendments 5) development of a Best Practices Manua l 6) creation of a design manual 7) completion and use of other ordinances, guidelines, use permits and other actions consistent with the General Plan or necessary for its implementation GPFWDENGS Nav=bcr 15, 1994 PAGE 41 1 2 3 4I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. The General Plan Diagram and other maps and figures establish potential sites for housing, schools, parks, creekside greenways, open space, various commercial and industrial uses, roadways, and other public infrastructure necessary for the continued health and well being of Chico residents, and for operation and maintenance of the City. F. The adoption of the Chico General Plan establishes allowable uses of land and benefits the public welfare by providing housing and employment uses for anticipated future growth, establishing the infrastructure system for operation of the City, and providing community -oriented uses and programs. G. Without the General Plan, additional lands necessary to accommodate growth anticipated in the City would not be made available. These lands would remain under the land use authority of Butte County, which has established open space and very low intensity rural land uses. Population projections would not' be accommodated with the existing General Plan. Land necessary to accommodate employment - oriented uses would not be, provided without adoption.of the proposed General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Chico, County of Butte, State of California, on the 16th day, of November, 1994, by the following vote: IIGPFWDINGS November 15, 1994 PAGE 42 1 AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. 2 NOES: None. 3 ABSTAIN: None. 4 ABSENT: None. 6 ATTEST: AAarbaAaA- 8 Evans 9 City Clerk 10 APPRO ED S T FORM: 11 12 Ro e e m 13 Ci y A torney 14 15 16 .17 18 19 V 20 21 22 23 24 ,. 25. 26 27 28 PAGE 43 GPFINDINGS Novcmbu 15. 1994 AGENDA - CHICO CITY COUNCIL AND CHICO PLANNING COMMISSION Chico Municipal Center - Council Chamber - 421 Main Street Adjourned Regular Meeting - Wednesday, November 16, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 1.1. Flag Salute. 1.2. Roll Call - City Council and Planning Commission. 2. _ NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE REGULATION AMENDMENTS, '-REZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY, AND PREZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CHICO - URBAN AREA. City •staff will provide a brief overview of •each resolution and - ordinance and be prepared to respond to Council and Planning Commission questions and comments. The Mayor will open the hearing to the audience and request that speakers state their name and address. The Mayor will ask for any further Council or Planning Commission discussion and then close the hearing. A. PLANNING COMHISSION ACTIONS: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO _ RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN. Adopt motion recommending amendments to Title 19 "Land Use • Regulation" and Title 18 "Subdivisions". RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHICO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PREZONING PROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CHICO URBAN AREA TO LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN fSCH92123062). RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF NOVEMBER 16, 1994, AND REPEALING THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED ON JULY 6, 1976. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATION", TO .INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHICO_- FINAL READING AND ADOPTION. 11/16/94 Page 1. Page 2. 11/16/94 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO ADOPTING AN �N ORDINANCE OF THE T CHI 18 ENTITLED 'SUBDIVISIO AMENDMENT TO TITLE STS DE ESIGN BUBD VF N AUTHORIZE MODIFICATION •F I I MUNICIPAL CODE TO ERIA AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN - FINAL READING AND ADOPT. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO REZONING TEE CITY OF CHICO TO 0 E TIES WITHIN HE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN ID USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT UPDATE FINAL READING AND ADOPTION. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClT OF CHICO PREZONUSE TO LAND USE ROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CiiICO URBAN AREA WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ISTRICTS CONSISTENT FINAL READING AND ADOPTION. yam. , :._•;.•^: ,: _ 3, ITEMS ADDED AFTER POSTING OF AGENDA. q. BUSINESS FROM TSE FLOOR. . 5. CLOSED SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT. Tom' • :•;;� Page 2. 11/16/94 4 j 0 novcr..bcr 16, 1994 Council was provided with a letter dated 11/15/94 from Independent Living Services of Northern California requesting that the Council consider leasing it space in either the Finance or Engineering Building if they would be retained. Following discussion, Councilmember Guzzetti moved that the Engineering Building located at the corner of Fourth and Nall streets and the Personnel office located at the corner of Fifth and Nall Streets not be demolished. The motion was seconded but failed to carry with Councilmembers Andrews, Guzzetti and Hubert voting aye, Councilmembers _Francis, McGinnis and Owens voting no, and Councilmember Fletcher being absent. Therefore, the buildings would be disposed of per the Municipal Center plan. REVIEW OF PARR FACILITY FEES: City manager Lando reviewed the report Park dated 11/8/94 regarding anticipated revenues, expenditures and _ development in Fund 331 Neighborhood Park Facility Fees, in each of the Facility ten Neighborhood Park benefit zones, in Fund 330 Community/Creekside Fees Park Facility Fees, and in Fund 332 Bidwell Park Land Acquisition Facility Fees. Be recommended that Neighborhood Park zones •D' and "E' be combined and zones •F- and 'G" be combined since the number of units estimated to be developed in zone •D- and zone "F• would not generate adequate income to support a park in those zones. Be also recommended - charging -interest -on any loans made to Park Funds at the same rate the - General Fund was currently receiving. Councilmember Francis moved to include in the new General Plan the City Manager's recommendation to combine and modify zones as outlined in his 11/8/94 memorandum, and that any loans made to Park Funds be charged the same interest rate as the General Fund was currently receiving. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember McGinnis voting no and Councilmember Fletcher being absent. CITY ATTORNEY'S SCHEDULE OF PENDINGORDINANCES AND CODIFIED City RESOLUTIONS: City Attorney Boehm submitted his quarterly schedules of Atty. pending ordinances and codified resolutions and requested that the Council Pending review the schedule and indicate whether it reflected their priorities. Be noted that the list reflected a small percentage of his Mrd./Res. workload, and that he would begin providing a monthly report of his Schedule other activities. REPORTS AND COYYVNZCATIONS: The following reports and communication Reports items were provided for the Council's ir._orr:ation. It was noted that —'no action could be taken on any of the items unless the Council agreed & Comm. to include them on a subsequent posted agenda. state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, application for on -sale beer and wine license, eating place, Pillars, 121 Broadway. ADJOURNYXNT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. this evening in the Council chamber for a General Plan Hearing (joint meeting with Planning Commission). JAN 17 1995 Date Approved City Clerk Mayor ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEYBER 16, 1994 Pursuant to adjournment, the City Council met in joint session with the Planning commission at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center. Present at roll call Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - None. City staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Community Development Director Baptiste, Planning Director Sellers and senior Planners Hayes and Jolliffe. Planning Commissioners in attendance - Chair short and Commissioners Crotts, Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort and Wright. NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLkV. LAND USE REG:rLATION A?FNDYr-NTS Hearing REZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY AND PRiZONING PROPERTIES IN THE CHICO General URBAN AREA: Senior Planner Hayes reviewed his memorandum dated ' 11/10/94 sun-+arizing the major changes that the Council directed be Plan made to the Draft General Plan and EIR, and submittingthe Planning Update ;:.:::;•..':,,::.- Commission and City Council ordinances and resolutions which would Z Novc,bcr 16, 1994 4 3 9 adopt the General Plan, certify the EIR, amend land use and subdivision regulations, and rezone/prezone parcels in the Chico urban area. Senior Planner Hayes also reviewed his memorandum dated 11/16/94 attached to which was additional correspondence received since distribution of this evenings agenda, an amended Resolution making findings and Adopting a Statement of overriding Considerations for the Adoption of the General Plan, all Planning Commission resolutions, and the Resolution Adopting the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan (Attachments •A• through "F') . This evening the Council was provided with additional letters received from Ferguson t Brewer investment Company (11/16/94), Jon Wren (11/16/94), Colby Family Trust (11/16/94), and Steve Davis (11/14/94). He advised that staff had also received a verbal request from Pleasant valley Assembly of God that .the land use designations and zoning for its property (off Humboldt Road) be left open for consideration when staff reviewed the zoning/pre zoning in the future. Senior Planner Hayes related that many of the comments addressed the rezone and prezone proposal; that zoning errors had been made for the properties listed on Attachment •I• which would be corrected by deleting the parcels from the proposed rezoning; thus retaining existing zoning; that staff believed many of the other requests for zoning changes merited further consideration; that staff suggested that LO the zoning ordinances be adopted this evening as proposed, and that staff analyze the additional requests and make other changes to-tlie 0 General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoning for consideration by the Council and Commission within the next six months. He also stated that -� the vacant parcel (005-443-011) on Ricky Court proposed for the skip Reager low income housing project was inadvertently shown on the rezone CO map as R-3 High Density Residential, and staff requested that the Q Council amend the rezoning of Parcel 005-443-011 as R-2 medium Density Residential. In regard to Attachment •G•, West of Airport Environs, Senior Planner Bayes reported that during hearings on the Draft General Plan, the Council directed that policies addressing development of the CSA 87 growth area include language that the County,s adopted specific plan be consistent with those land uses shown in the City's General Plan. Bowever, this language was inadvertently omitted, and Implementing Policy LU -I-54 had been added to correct the omission. In addition Attachment •H•, Resource Management, was revised to further clarify that this program would be integrated with the environmental assessment process, but still require that certain resource information be submitted during the Development Review process and that a Resource Management, Monitoring and Reporting Program be incorporated into final environmental documents. Senior Planner Hayes further related that concerns were raised relating to visual simulations in the Community Design Element of the final General Plan, that additional information would be provided as part of the zoning ordinance, and that additional detail could be added if the Council wished. He also noted that Page 5-28, Table 5.6-1 in regard to storm drainage, the performance standard "No alteration in the drainage flow through a site" was an oversight and should be deleted, and that staff recommended adding to the second sentence of PP -I-47 relating to community -ride funding for library facilities, language that the City would work with LAFCo and Butte County to explore the feasibility of establishing community -wide funding for library facilities and services. The Mayor opened the hearing. Darrell Kaiser, 1259 East First Avenue, stated that he and adjacent property owners requested that their properties which were the only parcels remaining on the south side of East First Avenue east of the freeway zoned R-1 Single Family Residential be rezoned R -P because they were unsuitable for residential purposes due to their proximity to the freeway and problems associated with traffic. Charles Felver, 1069 Woodland Avenue, reviewed his letter dated 11/8/94 requesting that Parcel No. 5177004 which consisted of a house located at 196 East 15th Street and a fence contracting business at 1430 Locust Street retain its existing commercial zoning because it conformed with the commercial zoning on the west side of Locust Street from 13th to 15th Street. Ben Bos, 178 East 7th Street, reviewed his 11/7/94 letter objecting to prezoning his property presently designated R-3 High Density Residential in the County to City R-2 because he had operated his business from his home at this location since 1971, it was surrounded on three sides by nonresidential parcels, the property was too small for residential development, and R-2 zoning would reduce the value of the property, and requesting instead a C-1 or C-2 designation. 440 Kovc-bcr :6, 1496 Jack Horgan, 1524 Manchester Road, a Partner in Esplanade Enterprises, reviewed hie letter dated 11/15/94 in opposition to prezoning of Parcel No. 6-38-10, located on the Esplanade and consisting of approximately 3.5 acres, to R -P Residential Professional and R-2 Low Density Residential. He related that the parcel was purchased as C-2 commercial; that with the exception of two parcels, all of the property on the east side of the Esplanade between Lassen and Shasta Avenues was zoned C-1 Commercial; that he proposed that the back 640 feet be zoned R-2 which was adjacent to medium density property, and that the front of the property being used as commercial be zoned C-1 or C-2. He also advised that the owner of Parcel 6-38-16, who could not attend thie— evening's meeting, also requested commercial zoning for his property. Lee Colby, Trustee, Colby Family Trust, 72 Fairway Drive, reviewed his letter dated 11/16/94 protesting the downzoning of Parcel No. 2190024 located on Notre Dame and Forest Avenue from C-1 to R-2 and Parcel No. 2260014 from C-1 to R-3. He explained that he owned additional parcels zoned C-1 (surrounding the NCR building), and he was primarily concerned that the downzoning would decrease the property value and yield less revenue. He also expressed concern that he was not personally notified of the zone change, that when it came to his attention, Planning staff indicated his property would not be affected. He requestedhis property remain C-1, but if it would be downzoned, that notice be -mail -ed to individual property owners. Greg Brown stated that his property located at Yosemite Heights Drive and Highway 32 was currently designated neighborhood commercial and was proposed for medium to high density residential; that the property was unsuitable for attached housing because it was bifurcated by power lines and approximately one-half of the property would be taken by setback requirements. He requested that the property not be rezoned for reasons of safety (due to the power lines) and economic hardship to his partnership, and that the property be zoned for home storage and recreational vehicle storage to serve the adjacent area. He noted that Sierra sunrise supported this use because California Parks CCtR•e did not permit parking of recreational vehicles in the subdivision. councilmember Fletcher stated that the surrounding property owners should be noticed and a public hearing set if M-1 zoning was to be considered for the site. With regard to the property at Highway 32 and Yosemite Drive, mo Hest, —the developer of Sierra sunrise village, disagreed with staff that Bruce Road and Highway 32 should be zoned neighborhood commercial because the newer lots and apartments in California Park did not have adequate room for parking recreational vehicles or boats and they could not be parked on the street; that he agreed it was improper to permit industrial use in California Park, and that he requested a zoning designation which would permit this site to be developed with a home storage facility to serve the area (as discussed in a letter dated 11/16/94 .from Ferguson L Brewer) and which would also address the needs of other narrow lot projects. In addition, he believed that the newspaper legal ad was inadequate public notice and unfair to property owners and suggested that when future General Plan revisions were proposed that all owners be directly and personally notified. Sandy Anderson, 8 Tilden Lane, stated that she had informed her clients that the parcel at Highway 32 and Yosemite would be developed with a — facility providing recreational vehicle and home storage, that it was shown on the California Park Master Plan, and she believed that the project could be designed to be compatible with the' area with appropriate landscaping. Nancy Magill, 1958 Hooker oak Avenue, related that their property was zoned R-1 which permitted existing horse uses, that they believed a density of less than two houses per acre was more appropriate for the area, and they requested RS -20 zoning with a grandfather clause permitting existing horse uses to be passed to new owners if the property was sold. Councilmember McGinnis suggested zoning the north side of Hooker oak Avenue which contained larger lots and ranchettes as RS -10 which would meet the General Plan designation of low density for the area. Steven Schwartz, 1985 Hooker oak Avenue, also requested that the area be rezoned from County R-1 to very low density or RS -20 in the new General Plan, however, RS -10 would be preferable to R-1 zoning. Joanne savage, 20 oak Manor Court, and Maurice Mow, 22 Roble vista Court, also spoke in support cf RS -20 zoning for the neighborhood. Richard Mounkes reviewed Chico Nut Company,s letters dated 11/6/94 and 11/15/94 requesting that Parcel 003-351-005-000 bounded by East 9th, 10th and oleander Avenues, be rezoned from C-1 Restricted Commercial to Y.-1 Limited Manufacturing consistent with the other parcels used in the Chico Nut Company operation which would permit the construction of truck scales and a scalehouse for the business. In response to Council : Novcmbcr 16, 1994 i questions, he indicated they would prefer M-1 zoning rather than PD M-1 zoning to preserve their options for use of the parcel. -. Councilmember McGinnis expressed concern that the neighbors had not received notice of a potential change in the zoning. --- ThsCouncilrecessedfor15 minutes and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. -- - - - Sally Smith, 952 Filbert, requested a compromise that would address uses for parcels over one acre and the needs of individuals who owned i' animals which would permit the transfer of the right to own animals to a purchaser without requiring existing owners to maintain animals on the property until it was sold. Norm Rosene, 6327 Cohasset Road, expressed concern that a great deal of residential usage was being applied to the Airport area and that the Airport might be adversely impacted if future residents objected to increased activity. Erica Johnson, representing Karen Reeves, a resident of the Hooker Oak - - - Avenue area; requested that Manzanita Avenue to Vallombrosa Avenue remain very low density residential. Kathy Russo, 23 Roble Vista Court, indicated that the neighbofs would accept a compromise to zone Vallombrosa to Hooker Oak, Juniper to Manzanita RS -20 and the north side of Hooker Oak RS -10 or RS -20. Kirk Smith, Citrus Heights, requested the Council to consider rezoning to C-1 Community Commercial a 14 acre parcel to the west of the Cub Food Store site located at Forest and 20th Street which was currently zoned R -P. with some high density residential when the other properties were considered for do%.mzoning either tonight or at a subsequent time. Gene Damschen, 20 Betsy way, a partner in Springfield Properties, the owners of property at 20th Street and Springfield Drive, related that they had recently received a letter with regard to bicycle problems with the school being in the area, and that Smith Hawkins had agreed if the zoning was favorable, that they would cooperate on a- bikeway through the easement. Margaret Ford, 24 Roble Vista Court, also requested zoning for the ,,,.i.::.:.::• Booker oak area as discussed earlier this evening. Reith Gurnee, consultant on the Diamond match property owned by Louisiana Pacific, expressed support for the recommended rezone/prezone for Diamond match and adoption of the General Plan. Grant Magill, 1958 Hooker oak, requested RS -20 zoning for his property but indicated he would accept RS -10 as an alternative. Steve Honeycutt, Heritage Partners, supported the General Plan adoption this evening and discussion of further planning or suggestions for several properties they represented in the future. No one else spoke from the audience, and the mayor closed the hearing. City Manager Lando believed it would be appropriate to proceed with the commitment that staff would review the rezone/prezone requests and related General Plan amendments and within six months staff come back before the Planning Commission and Council after notifying property owners and holding neighborhood meetings. Councilmembers then discussed whether some of the zoning issues should be resolved this evening or at a subsequent time. Both Council and Commission members expressed concern that the neighbors were not notified of potential changes, and City Attorney Boehm pointed out that any significant change right bear on the environmental review. Comz.issioner Wright announced that he would abstain on issues relating to the Hooker Oak Avenue area. _. Councilmember McGinnis recommended designating the area bounded by Y.anzanita, Vallombrosa, Juniper and Hooker Oak as RS -20, and the north side of Hooker oak between Hooker Oak and Lindo Channel as RS -10. Councilmember and Andrews and Hubert indicated they could only support the change if the Capshaw development was excepted because the Council had already approved R-1 zoning for that property, and Councilmember McGinnis agreed to the exception. Following discussion, Cc=issioner Gruendl moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that the Hooker Oak Avenue area under discussion be removed from the rezone/prezone ordinance with the exception of the Capshaw development, and that the Ccr%ission not recommend any rezone for the area at this time. The motion was 442 Novembcr :6. 1996 seconded but failed to carry with commissioners Gruendl and McAdams voting aye; ComL.issioners Crotts, Keene, Monfort and Short voting no, and Commissioner Wright abstaining. commissioner Keene then moved that the Commission recommend to the council that the rezoning and prezoning ordinances be amended to designate the area bounded by Manzanita, Vallombrosa, Juniper and Hooker Oak as RS -20, and the north side of Hooker oak between Hooker Oak and Lindo Channel as RS -10, excluding the Capshaw property located at 1972 and 1976 Hooker Oak Avenue. The motion was seconded and carried with Commissioner Monfort voting no and Commissioner Wright abstaining. Following discussion, Commissioner Gruendl moved that the Commission adopt the three Planning Commission resolutions, and that staff review all rezone/prezone requests and related General Plan amendments and submit the matter to the Planning Commission and Council within six months. The motion was seconded and unanimously carried. A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COYMISSION OF TY.E CITY OF CHICO Planning - RECOHYXNDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE COMPREP.ENSIVE UPDATE Comm.. _ OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN: The resolution received reading by Resolution title only. Commissioner Gruendl moved adoption of the Approving resolution, including the revisions noted by Senior Planner Hayes General at the conLiencement of the meeting. The motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Co=issioners Crotts, Plan Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort, Wright and Short. NOES: None. Update ASSENT: None. Commissioner Keene moved that the Commission recommend to the Council adoption of amendments to Title 19 :,and Use Regulation* and Title 18 -Subdivisions-. The motion was seconded and unanimously carried. PLAN UPDATE: The resolution received reading by title only. Commissioner Gruendl moved adoption of the resolution, amended to include the zoning changes for the Hooker oak Avenue recommended by the Commission above. The motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Crotts, Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort, Wright and short. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. UlbTm1C"1'b CUN211bTLN'1' WITH 1'11L CITY Or CniCO GLNEXAL PLAN UPDATE: The resolution received reading by title only. Commissioner Gruendl moved adoption of the resolution, amended to include the zoning changes for the Hooker Oak Avenue recommended by the commission above. The motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Crotts, Gruendl, Keene, McAdam, Monfort, Wright and short. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved to amend the rezoning and prezoning ordinances to designate the area bounded by Manzanita, Vallombrosa, Juniper and Hooker Oak as RS -20, and the north side of Hooker Oak between Hooker oak and Lindo Channel as RS -10, excluding the Capshaw property located at 1972 and 1976 Hooker oak Avenue, which was previously prezoned R-1 by ordinance No. 2021 adopted on 11/1/94. The motion was seconded and carried with Mayor Owens voting no. 1r�rAC"1' mLruml' rum Tnl CnlCu 4_-NEKA1, rLAn (bC Y. `1L1LdUOL7 Tne resolution received reading by title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the resolution, and the motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Planning Comm. Resolution Recommend. Rezone Ordinance Planning Comm. Resolution Recommend. Prezone Ordinance Res. 80 Certifying EIR for General Plan Sovc-bcr 16, :994 4 4 3 Res. 81 RESOLUTION NO. 81 94-95 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Findings b CITY OF CHICO MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A STA7EMENT OF :`.' •: State. Of OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN: The resolution received reading by title only. Councilmember Overriding Andrews moved adoption of the resolution, and the motion was Consid, for seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: General Councilmembers Andrewe, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, Plan McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Res. 82 RESOLUTION NO. 82 94-95 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Adopting CITY OF CHICO ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL General PLAN OF NOVEMBER 16 1994, AND REPEALING THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED ON JULY 6. 1976: The resolution received reading Plan by title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the Update resolution, including the revisions noted by senior Planner Hayes this evening. The motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. _ o \) Ord. 202$ ORDINANCE NO. 2025 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY - __Amend_ ,... OF CHICO AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE. CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, nTITLED _ Land Use 'LAND USE REGULATION". TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED"TO Regs. t0 IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHICO: The ordinance received final reading by tit1Q only. Implement councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the ordinance,�nd-the Q General motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Plan Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owers. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Ord. 2026 ORDINANCE NO. 2026 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Modif. t0 OF CHICO ADOPTING AN AYENDYENT TO TITLE 18, ENTITLED Q Subdiv. Design -SUBDIVISIONS-. OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE Consistent MODIFICATION OF SUBD.VISION DESIGN CRITERIA AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN: The ordinance With r received final reading by title only. Councilmeber Andrews General moved adoption of the ordinance, and the motion was seconded and Plan carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, MCGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ASSENT: None. Ord. 2027 ORDINANCE NO. 2027 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY : Rezoning OF CHICO REZONING PRO?ERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF �''•�.•''••. '' .• �, .:...•.: �':'•'• P70 ezties P THE CITY OF CHICO TO LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY ' ter• '.::- .•`.. •. i Consistent OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN U?DATE: The ordinance received final reading by title only. Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of With the ordinance, amended to include the motion the Council adopted General above. The motion was seconded and carried by the following Plan vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Ord. 2028 ORDINANCE NO. 2028 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Prezoning OF CHICO PREZONING PRO?ERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CHICO URBAN Properties P AREA TO LAND USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: The ordinance received final reading by Consistent title only. Councilmember -Andrews moved adoption of the With ordinance, amended to include the motion the Council adopted General above. The motion was seconded and carried by the following Plan vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. The Council concurred with City Manager Lando's recommendation that staff review all other prezone/rezone requests and related General Plan amendments by geographic location, meet with applicants and neighbors, and then submit reco=endaticns to the Planning cormission and Council for consideration. Mayor Owers thanked General Plan Task Force Co -Chairs Jon Luvaas and : Jeff Carter and the other Task Force members and the Planning Commission for the work they had contributed during the General Plan : update process. Mayor Owens then presented Tom Hayes with a Mayor's Award for his time and commitment to the General Plan, and also presented a Mayor's Award to the Planning office which was received by Planning Director sellers and Senicr Planner Jollif:e. The Mayor also thanked Councilmer.bers Fletcher and Francis who would be completing their to=s of office in December and leaving the Council. 444 Novcmbcr 16, 1996 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. JAN 17 1995 Date Approved City Clerk-- Mayor REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 6, 1994 REORGANIZATION: The City Clerk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, on Tuesday, December 6, 1994, in the Council Chamber. Members of the Sierra Cascade Council Girl Scout Troop #20 presented the colors and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Reverend Michael J. Newman of the Newman Catholic Center delivered the invocation. Honorable Ann Rutherford, Judge of the Butte County superior Court, administered the oath of office and delivered certificates of Election to Mary Andrews., Rick Keene and Kimberly King (four year terms). The remaining Councilmembers in attendance were Councilmembers Guzzetti, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. The City Clerk then opened nominations for the office of Mayor for a term expiring December 3, 1996. The Council agreed that if there was more than one nomination, that the names would be placed in a box and voted upon in the order in which they were drawn. Councilmember Andrews nominated Ted P.ubert for Mayor, and Councilmember Guzzetti nominated Michael McGinnis for Mayor. Nominations were closed. Councilmembers Guzzetti, Xing, McGinnis and Owens voted for Michael McGinnis. Michael McGinnis was elected Mayor. The City Clerk then opened nominations for the office of vice Mayor for a term expiring December 3, 1996. Mayor McGinnis nominated Ted Hubert —for vice Mayor. The nominations were closed, and Ted Hubert was elected vice Mayor by a unanimous vote. The City Clerk thanked all who participated in the evening ceremonies for swearing in the newly -elected members of the City Council. ------------------------------- The Council recessed from 7:40 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ------------------------------- JAN 17 1995 Date Approved City Clerk Mayor REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING - DECEY.BER 6, 1994 The City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency, met in regular session at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center. Present at roll call - Mayor McGinnis and Councilmembers Andrews, Guzzetti, Hubert, Keene, King and Owens. Absent - None. City staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City clerk Evans, Assistant City Manager Dunlap, Risk Manager Koch, General Services Director shaddox, Community Development Director Baptiste, Director of Public works Ross, Planning Director sellers, Personnel Director Erlandson, Chief of Police Dunbaugh, Finance Director Sesnon, Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager Smail, Housing Officer McLaughlin, Assistant City Attorney Barker and Park Director Wright. Reorgan- ization CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor announced that anyone on the Council or in Consent the audience could have any item removed from the Consent Agenda for Agenda separate discussion or action. He then read the following items on the Consent Agenda, copies having been furnished in advance to Councilmembers: November 8, 1994 4 2.3 aware that Mr. Wright was cousin to the City Manager,e wife, and that this fact did not influence their opinion that Mr. Wright was the most qualified applicant for this position. Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved that Rollie Wright be confirmed as the City's Park Director at a monthly salary of $5,106. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember Guzzetti being absent. The Mayor expressed the Councils appreciation to General services Director Shaddox for his many hours of work in acting as Park Director since the vacancy occurred. General GENERAL PLAN: City Manager Lando stated that the primary purpose of Plan today's meeting was to introduce the ordinances implementing Code revisions; that when zoning designations were made, some errors had occurred, a list of which were provided to the Council this evening, and that staff requested that the ordinances be introduced this evening including these corrections. He further related that a public hearing _ on the ordinances was scheduled for 11/16/94 concurrent with the _ — — -- hearing on the General Plan update. _ In response to Councilmember Andrews, senior Planner Hayes explained that the Bell -Muir core area was eliminated and relocated to Easton Road and the Esplanade, but other core areas were not listed specifically, : O but only generic examples of mixed use neighborhoods were provided. Councilmember Andrews stated that it was her understanding that Bell - 7 Muir was to be eliminated from the. development area and the area handled in cooperation with the County, but the map of special (� development areas (Figure 3-7) still showed Bell -Muir. Q Mayor Owens believed that it was inappropriate to indicate the Bell - Muir area since other core areas were not shown, and that the area should not be eliminated as a special development area in the General Plan even though the County had primary responsibility because the City would still be involved in the process. city manager Lando clarified that the Bell -Muir special development _ area would only indicate special development concerns existed with the intent of assuring the neighbors that the City recognized the existing :'.". land uses in Bell -Muir. Planning Director sellers reviewed changes to City Codes which were necessary to facilitate implementation of the General Plan upon adoption. These changes included the following: 1. Adoption of an ordinance amending the city's Land use Regulations, including the establishment of new zoning districts, to implement policies contained in the General Plan. A revised copy of the ordinance was provided to the Council this evening. He reported that the ordinance was intended to provide changes to the zoning ordinance that would reflect new language and policies in the General Plan. The first major revision was the requirement that the zoning be consistent with the General Plan as far as zoning and land uses permitted. It also established six new land use designations. 2. Adoption of an ordinance amending the City's subdivision Standards to allow modification of Design Criteria and Improvement standards where necessary for a subdivision design to be consistent with the General Plan. 3. Adoption of an ordinance rezoning certain portions of the City limits to new land use districts consistent with the General Plan designations. A revised copy of the ordinance was provided to the Council this evening. 4. Adoption of an ordinance prezoning the unincorporated portion of the Chico urban area to land use districts consistent with the General Plan designations. (?rezoning would only become effective upon annexation to the City.) A revised copy of the ordinance was provided to the Council this evening. The Planning Director reported that some corrections would be nada in the zoning map which were primarily bookkeeping errors or as a result of requests .from property owners with which staff concurred. City Manager Lando reiterated that the intent was to correct the Bell - Muir area so that the zoning reflected existing land uses. In regard to the Enloe Hospital site, staff recommended that it remain at the current R-1 low density residential designation (with P -Q for the hospital site) until such time as the Development Agreement was executed. «. 424 November F. 1994 In response to Council -member McGinnis, City Manager Lando advised that subsequent to adoption of the General Plan, Title 19 would be reprinted and would include a table of contents. Senior Planner Hayes reviewed the list of zoning errors and some of the changes made from the Draft General Plan which were made on the General Plan Diagram, noting that the zoning map reflected parcel specific zoning while the General Plan Diagram did not. Senior Planner Hayes then reviewed changes which had occurred since the Council's 10/11/94 meeting. He reported that the owner of property on • the west aide of the Esplanade south of Shasta Avenue (Enloe family?) which extended back a considerable distance wished to retain the County commercial zoning. staff designated commercial along the Esplanade and low density residential farther in, but the owner would be able to utilize the property for corLnercitl purposes with a use permit. Associate Planner Hayes further advised that Chico Nut Company submitted a letter concerning its parcels located near the Esplanade :i and oleander which were zoned M-1 Limited Manufacturing with the exception of one parcel which they requested be rezoned from C-1 Reatr3cted.C_ommercial to M-1 consistent with the other parcels. staff recommended retaining the existing zoning since specific details were not submitted. Richard Mounkes reviewed Chico Nut Company's 11/16/94 letter and requested that they be allowed to present their zoning request at the 11/16/94 hearing. They believed that rezoning the one parcel located west of Oleander between East Ninth and Tenth Avenues from C-1 to M-1 would be consistent with its current use and would permit them to construct truck scales and a scalehouse on the site for use in their nut processing operation. Councilmember Francis suggested that it would be more appropriate to discuss any rezone of the property subsequent to the 11/16/94 hearing so that adequate notice could be given to the neighbors that the matter was being considered. Senior Planner Hayes also advised that an owner of property on Manzanita Way wished to rezone the property C-1, but staff believed it was more appropriate to retain R -P zoning which was more consistent with the other properties in the area. He further reported that an owner of property at "the northwest corner of Marigold and East Avenue wished to designate the property commercial. Councilmember Hubert supported rezoning this property, but none of the other Councilmembers expressed an interest in doing so. In response to Councilmember Hubert, City Manager Lando explained that zoning changes were involved for 40,000 parcels; that the City Attorney recommended that parcels be listed by assessor's parcel number rather than by property owner; that the notice was published in a newspaper legal ad, and that staff believed it was the most appropriate and efficient way to provide notice for a large number of parcels. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO ;UXENDING TITLE 19 Ordinance OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED ^LAND L'SE REGULATION TO Amending INCORPORATE PROVISIONS REQUIRED TO I!'?LEKENT PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED Land Use GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CHICO: Councilmember McGinnis moved that Regs. to the ordinance be introduced as amended by reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Implement Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. Revised NOES: None. ASSENT: Councilmember Guzzetti. General Plan reading its title only. The moticn was seconded and carried by the mbers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, following vote: AYES: CounciL^�e Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Guzzetti. Ordinance Amending Subdiv. Standards Consistent With General Plan L OF THE CITY OF CHICO REZONING Ordinance PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF THE CITY OF CHICO TO LAND Rezoning USE DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: Property Councilmember McGinnis moved that the ordinance be introduced as Consistent amended by reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried With by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ASSENT: General Councilmember Guzzetti. Plan Novcmber S. 1994 2 Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICO PREZONING Prezoning PROPERTIES IN THE UNINCORPORATED CHICO URBAN AREA TO LAND USE •`'•;`.::..' Property DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CHICO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: Cons Consistent Consamended Councilmember McGinnis moved that the ordinance be introduced as by reading its title only. The motion was seconded and carried With by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, General Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. ABSENT: Plan Councilmember Guzzetti. Emergency EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT SKATING IN MUNICIPAL PARKING STRUCTURE: Ordinance City Manager Lando and City Attorney Boehm reviewed the proposed Prohibiting ordinance regarding an amendment to Chapter 10.60 to add a section Skating prohibiting roller skating within any multi-floor parking structure. They explained that the emergency to be addressed by this ordinance was in City the frequent use of the newly opened municipal parking structure on Parking Salem street by roller skaters, which use posed a serious hazard to Structures those roller skaters and to others using the parking structure for parking motor vehicles. Councilmember Andrews moved that the Council find that the need to take. _ action on this item arose subsequent to the agenda being posted. and that an emergency situation existed. The motion was seconded"and carried with Councilmember Guzzetti being absent. Ord. 2023 ORDINANCE NO. 2023 - ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of; CHICO Ln Prohibiting AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10.60 OF THE CHICO MUNICIPAL CODE : Q Skating ENTITLED 'ROLLER SKATING• BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 10.60.040, in City TO BE ENTITLED "ROLLER SKATING WITHIN PARKING STRUCTURES -- PROHIBITED-: The ordinance received final reading in its entirety. Parking Councilmember Andrews moved adoption of the ordinance, and the motion m Structures was seconded and carried by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher, Francis, Hubert, McGinnis and Owens. NOES: None. Q ABSENT: Councilmember Guzzetti. CounciLnerber Andrews requested that staff review the safety of the . strands of wire which were installed in ladder-like fashion in the parking structure. ADJOURNMEENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. to Wednesday, 11/16/94 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room No. 1. JAN 17 199 Date Approved City Clerk Mayor ADJOUNANED REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING - NOVEMBER 16, 1994 — Pursuant to adjournment the City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency, met at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 1994, in Conference Room No. 1, Chico Municipal members Andrews, Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and council- Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - None. City staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Assistant City Manager Dunlap, Risk Manager Koch, General Services Director Shaddox, Community Development Director Baptiste, Director of Public Works Ross, Fire Chief Lowden, chief of Police Dunbaugh, Personnel Director Erlandson, Finance Director Sesnon, Econoric Development/Redevelopment Manager snail, Housing officer McLaughlin and management Analyst Pierce. Nearing FEARING ON FIVE YEAR IMPLEXENTA•TION PLANS FOR THE CHICO PURGED 5-Year REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE GREATER CHICO URBAN AREA Implement. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ARrA (CONTINUED FROM 11/1/94): The Mayor opened the hearing. City Manager Lando reviewed the Economic Development/ Plans for Redevelopment Managers memorandum dated 11/3/94 reporting that the Chico California Community Redevelopment Law provided that on or before Merged 6 12/31/94 and each five years thereafter, each agency that had adopted GCUARPA a redevelopment plan prior to 12/31/93 adopt, after a public hearing, an implementation plan containing the specific goals and objectives for the project area; the specific programs, including potential projects, and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years; and an explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs, and expenditures would eliminate blight within the project area and implement the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law pertaining to low and moderate income housing. Attached to the memorandum were the resolutions listed below. In response to eouneiLienber McGinnis, the City manager explained that the plans would be updated each five years cr earlier if necessary, and that priorities J;Jf: October 4, 1994 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to Tuesday, 10/11/94 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. N U V 1 G 199 Date Approved City Clerk Mayor ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 11, 1994 Pursuant to adjournment, the City Council met at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, October 11, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembere Andrews, Francis, Guzzetti and Hubert. Absent - councilmembers Fletcher and McGinnis. City staff in attendance -.City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evane, City Attorney 'Boehm, Community Development Director Baptiste, Planning "- Director Sellers and senior Planners Hayes and Jolliffe. DRAFT CHICO GENERAL PLAN: Mayor Owens announced that a public hearing General J was held by the Council on the Draft Chico General Plan on 9/27/94. Plan This evening the Council would review staff's responses to letters and comments received to date and make recommendations for incorporation into the Final Plan. senior Planner Hayes provided the Council with his memorandum dated 10/10/94 providing additional comments from the public regarding the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report which were received after preparation and distribution of his 10/7/94 memorandum to which staff had not yet been able to respond. Additionally, comments dated 10/11/94 were received from Butte County at this evening's meeting. He requested direction from the Council on whether it wished to 1) direct staff on major policy decisions based on comments and staff responses, and authorize staff to make responses to additional comments received which would then be submitted to the Council for approval, or 2) hold another meeting to allow staff to respond to additional comments. ------------------------------- Councilmember McGinnis arrived at 7:10 p.m. ------------------------------- Councilmember Guzzetti wished to ensure that the Council and public had opportunity to respond to comments to date including those made this evening in a public meeting. He suggested that General Plan discussion be included on the regular Council agendas prior to the next General Plan hearing. City Manager Lando explained that a final hearing or hearings' on the EIR and to adopt the General Plan in November would provide additional opportunity for Council and public input. He indicated that staff would provide a report to the Council responding to comments received to date and staff responses. Senior Planner Hayes recommended that the Council approve those changes recommended by staff in its responses to comments contained in Attachment •A, to his report with the exception of the major issues mostly in regard to the map, which would be discussed this evening. Senior Planner Hayes related that the Council previously directed that; the Bell -Muir area be included as a potential growth area, and it might be appropriate .to eliminate the specificity in regard to this area and" to indicate a generic mixed use on the map. In response to various comments received, he emphasized that it would be made very clear in the City's General Plan that the County would take the lead in regard to the Bell -Muir area, and the City would provide appropriate assistance. In response to Councilmember McGinnis, Senior Planner Hayes explained that at the Discussion Draft stage, staff was directed to only include for potential growth the area to Bell and Muir Roads, but if land was developed beyond that it should be at urban densities. It was determined that there was enough developable vacant land to accommodate a mixed use core in the Bell -Muir area. He also pointed - out that staff's opinion was that the Plan provided a good foundation for development in the community, and if all the development did not occur, there was still the framework for it, and with the one and five year reviews, there was opportunity to determine if additional areas should be added. In response to Councilmember Andrews, he was not certain if another EIR would be required if the core was moved to the intersection of Eaton Road and the Esplanade. LF senior Planner Hayes further stated that in regard to comments that Vallombrosa Avenue be redesignated from a major arterial to a lesser status, staff responded that it was designated as a potential scenic road within the urban area and standards and guidelines would be developed for that area. City Manager Lando added that many of the issues, i.e. that it remain a two-lane road, could be clarified through the design details. In regard to Hooker oak Avenue, Senior Planner Hayes noted that the City had received petitions from a number of residents east of Juniper and west of Manzanita Avenue requesting that the General Plan redesignate the area from low density residential to very low density residential. staff responded that the area should remain low density, the market would determine the density range. In regard to concerns that the plan did not include sufficient policies for neighborhood planning, the Plan clearly called for design district guidelines in the Community Development Element and included discussion of neighborhood planning in the introduction section. staff requested direction as whether the Council intended to only involve neighborhoods or to provide for actual planning for specific areas. Senior Planner Hayes reported that at the Council's direction, staff was currently completing a study of the feasibility of establishing a greenbelt on the west side including reviewing what other communities had done. If the Council wished to include additional language in the Plan as to funding mechanisms for a greenbelt, it should so indicate. staff had received torments that a more comprehensive approach was needed to develop viewshed corridors primarily in the northeast and southeast into the foothills, that the Community Development Element discussed policies to consider the location and siting of parks, open space, etc., and staff would like Council direction on whether this was sufficient. senior Planner Jolliffe reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Executive summary including some of the findings, focusing primarily on mitigations that were identified for the various categories of areas which could be impacted. October 11, 1994 3.9 Senior Planner Hayes further related that sone property owners of the area along the Esplanade indicated low density use was too great a -. change from the existing commercial use designation proposed. The Plan's intent was to reduce strip commercial along the Esplanade. Staff responded that staff believed that an option of going to medium density and office mixed use on the west side would still provide for some residential and mixed uses with a transition into the low density residential areas. - ------------------------------- Councilmember Fletcher arrived at 7:20 p.m. ------------------------------- Senior Planner Hayes reported that in regard to CSA 87, staff proposed including discussion of the County's revised specific Plan, and if a Final Specific Plan was adopted by the County, that it be included in City's Plan. 'Senior Planner Hayes advised that the county indicated that it wished to be involved as far as specific plane for areas east and west of the Airport, and that such direction was included in the Plan and could -be - strengthened. In addition, east of the Airport and on the western parte of the site north of Highway 32 the intent was to cluster development, however the environmental constraints could limit development in these LO areae. J Q Senior Planner Hayes further advised that the Planning Commission recommended removing the foothill area north of Highway 32 as a development area and replacing it with the Dayton Road area. m Senior Planner Hayes noted that the Pleasant valley Assembly of God Q opposed the removal of the C-1 designation from its 19 acre parcel bordering Humboldt and Bruce Roads and reduction of any R-3 designated portion of the land to a medium density. Currently this area included over 60 acres of commercially designated land use which staff believed was too much and recommended that the commercial designation be balanced out on both aides of Bruce Road but to reduce it to a minimum (approximately 20 acres) to reflect the amount of residential in that area. J In regard to a comment by the County in regard to the Chapmantown- =,= Mulberry Improvement Plan, Senior Planner Hayes indicated that staff 5th had responded that the City's General Plan would indicate that the City o would work with the County, but since the County had not adopted the Improvement Plan, it would be premature to adopt it into our General Plan. However, we would include the street Improvement standards contained in the Plan which the County had apparently adopted. senior Planner Hayes further stated that in regard to comments that Vallombrosa Avenue be redesignated from a major arterial to a lesser status, staff responded that it was designated as a potential scenic road within the urban area and standards and guidelines would be developed for that area. City Manager Lando added that many of the issues, i.e. that it remain a two-lane road, could be clarified through the design details. In regard to Hooker oak Avenue, Senior Planner Hayes noted that the City had received petitions from a number of residents east of Juniper and west of Manzanita Avenue requesting that the General Plan redesignate the area from low density residential to very low density residential. staff responded that the area should remain low density, the market would determine the density range. In regard to concerns that the plan did not include sufficient policies for neighborhood planning, the Plan clearly called for design district guidelines in the Community Development Element and included discussion of neighborhood planning in the introduction section. staff requested direction as whether the Council intended to only involve neighborhoods or to provide for actual planning for specific areas. Senior Planner Hayes reported that at the Council's direction, staff was currently completing a study of the feasibility of establishing a greenbelt on the west side including reviewing what other communities had done. If the Council wished to include additional language in the Plan as to funding mechanisms for a greenbelt, it should so indicate. staff had received torments that a more comprehensive approach was needed to develop viewshed corridors primarily in the northeast and southeast into the foothills, that the Community Development Element discussed policies to consider the location and siting of parks, open space, etc., and staff would like Council direction on whether this was sufficient. senior Planner Jolliffe reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Executive summary including some of the findings, focusing primarily on mitigations that were identified for the various categories of areas which could be impacted. e October 11, 1994 39� Councilmember Guzzetti expressed concern that additional discussion and mitigation had not been provided for the potential impacts on air quality. Be also believed the Plan was weak in effecting an overall picture of various concerns which was not accomplished by merely cross- referencing policies. senior Planner Hayes noted that the General Plan included a number of mitigations, and generally all the items discussed in the Air Quality Element provided by the Air Pollution Control. District were included in the Plan, but staff did not feel all parts of the Element should be included in the General Plan. The City Manager added that the EIR contained approximately 20 pages dealing with air quality. Councilmember Andrews requested that language be included in the Plan for some form of regional coordination to reduce the impact on air quality in. the Northern Sacramento valley. senior Planner Jolliffe outlined some of the measures addressed in the EIR and General Plan to improve air quality and indicated that the City would need to continue working with the Butte County Air Pollution Control District and the state. In response to Councilmember Hubert, she indicated tha'e noise attenuation walls would be an option along busy thoroughfares if there was sufficient room to accommodate them. Responding to Councilmember Andrews relating to the Hydrology, Flooding and water Quality section, she indicated that Best management Practices would be developed at a later date. Councilmember Fletcher recommended incorporating into this section new technology for landscaping standards from the state. we should include as far as water service the intention to develop policies for more efficient landscaping in new development (PP -I-27). Councilmember Hubert noted that if the Nitrate Action Plan was confirmed that the recharge of groundwater from septic tanks would no longer be available. Councilmember McGinnis believed stronger language was needed that if developer fees were not sufficient to mitigate the impact on schools, then additional growth would not be permitted. City Manager Lando advised that the City was charging the full mitigation fees which were determined by CUSD's nexus study to provide full school facilities. The Council recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. ------------------------------- Councilmember Andrews recommended eliminating the Bell -Muir core area and a core area be established at Eaton Road and the Esplanade. Following discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved to eliminate the Bell -Muir core area; to match the existing land uses (densities) with the County's existing designations rather than rural residential; to move the urban core area to Eaton Road and the Esplanade; to amend LU -I-49 to eliminate -up to 4,200' and to include residents of the area in the planning process; to delete all of LU -I-50, and to eliminate the last line of LU -I-51. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmembers Fletcher, Francis and Owens voting no. Councilmember Andrews believed that the commercial on the Esplanade should have more of a core rather than a strip effect with cross- referencing in the Plan, that there was not a need for commercial north of the Esplanade west of Eaton Road, and that single family residents would not want to be located on the Esplanade, but perhaps multifamily/office would be appropriate. The Council agreed that it would be appropriate to designate office and multifamily residential uses on the southerly part of Esplanade. Councilmembere did not indicate a preference north on the Esplanade..' eouncilmember Hubert stated that he would abstain on items relating to CSA 87 due to a financial conflict. City Manager Lando advised that the language in the General Plan would permit the inclusion of the County's Plan for CSA 87 as long as it protected the Airport. Following lengthy discussion, Councilmember McGinnis moved to include the County's CSA 87 Plan in the city's..eneral Plan as long as it protected the Airport and did not permit urban growth south of the existing sphere, that the City request LAFCO to not amend the City's sphere of Influence to allow growth south, and to continue to oppose amending the sphere until the County adopted a plan for csA 87, that if the County's CSA 87 plan was different than the City's policy, that the it be further reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmember Hubert abstaining. councilmember Andrews recommended that the General Plan provide for more cooperation with the County east of the Airport and greater communication to ensure an area for industrial development which would CSh 4i� October 11. 1994 399 not jeopardize the Airport and would avoid the environmental constrains on the east side and the low areae where water flowed down from the foothills. City Manager Lando advised that the area was identified as a resource area which would be analyzed based on development potential, and those statements could be strengthened. Following discussion, councilmember McGinnis moved that on the east side of the Airport the City's development be restricted to the area shown as a dotted line on the General Plan Update Expansion study Areas Map and to encourage the County to keep the current zoning in place. The motion was seconded and unanimously carried. Mayor Owens noted that the EIR indicated that the area north of. Highway 32 east of California Park was impacted and environmentally constrained, and it would be preferable to remove the area from the Plan. senior Planner Hayes stated that additional studies were conducted .which located some areas in the west which could be developed with some homes. _ councilmember Andrews suggested clustering and developing other. standards (i.e. permitting septic tanks) which would provide for development appropriate for the environment. she also recommended the Plan include the ability to transfer densities. Q Councilmembers Fletcher and McGinnis recommended a mechanism which would permit the purchase of conservation easements or the purchase of open space in the foothills. Following discussion councilmember McGinnis moved to delineate the area co North of Highway 32 east of California Park as open space with a Q planned development overlay and to develop mitigation measures to preserve the open space. The motion was seconded and carried with councilmember Hubert voting no. City Manager Lando recommended if the council wished to consider adding the Dayton Road area as a growth area, that the discussion not occur this evening to permit staff to notify the neighbors of the date the matter would be considered. Councilmember McGinnis moved not to accept the Planning Commission's a recommendation to include the Dayton Road area as a growth area. The :: •, motion was seconded and carried with councilmember Hubert voting no. councilmember McGinnis believed 20 acres Would be sufficient com-•nercial zoning for the Bruce Road and Highway 32 area and possibly a specific plan would be in order. councilmember Fletcher suggested the commercial be divided between both sides of Highway 32. The Council concurred that staff examine the constraints for designating a maximum of 20 acres commercial on both sides of Highway 32 on two corners. Following discussion, councilmember McGinnis moved that staff obtain a copy of the standards for the Chapmantown-Mulberry Improvement Plan and submit a recommendation to the Council for those standards which should be included in the City's General Plan after they were adopted by the County. The motion was seconded and carried with councilmember Hubert voting no (because he wanted to review the entire plan). City Manager Lando believed it was more appropriate to designate vallombrosa as a scenic road rather than a rural road (from Arbutus to Manzanita) which would remain two lanes and to examine alternative design standards. councilmember McGinnis believed it was important to extend the bike lane to Highway 99. City Manager Lando indicated that the sidewalk should also be examined. Councilmember McGinnis moved that vallombrosa Avenue be designated as a scenic road and that design standards be developed. The motion was seconded and unanimously carried. councilmember Guzzetti moved that the Booker oak Avenue area designation be changed from low density residential to very low residential to correspond to county RS -20 zoning. The motion died for lack of a second. ------------------------------- The Council recessed for 5 minutes and reconvened at 10:25 P.M. ------------------------------- Councilmember McGinnis recormended both examining specific areas where it would be appropriate to develop specific plans and to involve the neighbors in the planning process. Mayor Owens added that the budget process would determine the level of funding which would be available for various areas, and subsequently areas could be prioritized for specific plans. The Council concurred. 400 O0 October 11, 1996 In response to Councilmember Hubert, Senior Planner Hayes explained that -Resource Management Plans (RHP -s) would be part of the environmental review process, and the information which would be provided by RHP•s was required by CEOA. However, it was important to staff that the RHP'e be completed at the commencement of the process so that the information could be utilized to determine whether the project design was taking full advantage of protecting resources on the site. subsequently, the final RHP would be integrated into the CEQA environmental review document. Councilmember Francis suggested that the preapplication submittal meeting for projects within an RHA which was discussed on page 7-16 be part of the Development Review Committee process rather than a separate meeting. Planning Director Sellers indicated that the Planning - Commission had expressed similar concerns, and the change would be made in the final draft. Councilmember McGinnis recommended the addition of a mitigation measure which provided that when open space was used that a fee was paid into a pool to purchase conservation easements or other land, a measure which provided for the transfer of development rights, or other _ measures- which woaid ensure the preservation of agricultural land in perpetuity. Councilmember Fletcher agreed and suggested also exploring whether residents would be willing to pay a small fee and ,a matrix of other funding mechanisms to establish a greenbelt. Councilmember Francis indicated that he did not feel enough information was available at this time to support the concept. Councilmember Andrews expressed the concern that the fees would be minimal but would discourage some areas from development that were needed to achieve the densities needed. city Attorney Boehm advised that impact fees might only be permissible when agricultural land was converted for housing development, but not when other lands were being converted. Following discussion, Councilmember Fletcher moved to include the requirement of impact fees as a mitigation measure to offset the impact of the conversion of agricultural land to facilitate the purchase of a greenbelt, unless it was not legally feasible. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmembers Andrews, Francis and Hubert S: 'r voting no. City manager Lando indicated that staff would secure information from other communities relating to impact fees to offset conversion of agricultural land. councilmember Guzzetti moved to add as a mitigation measure for projects impinging on views to the foothills that the applicant would complete a view corridor study for projects from Bruce Road, Highway 32, East Avenue and what remained of Highway 99 which included their project and how it affected the surrounding areas. The motion was seconded but failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Guzzetti and McGinnis. NOES: Councilmembers Andrews, Fletcher Francis, Hubert and Ovens. ABSENT: None. In response to Councilmember McGinnis, senior Planner Hayes related that CUSD was consulted and indicated generally where schools would be needed. City manager Lando added that it would be appropriate also as a policy issue to indicate that additional schools were needed. Councilmember McGinnis recommended including in the General Plan that it was desirable to have smaller neighborhood parks (about two acres). He believed there was a need for a park site somewhere between Bruce Road, Forest Avenue and 20th Street, and the small corridor on the south side of 20th Street might be suitable, that it might be appropriate to include smaller neighborhood parks in California Park and the.Drake Homes property on the north side regardless of whether housing was developed there, and that what was designated office space be redesignated as a park site. The Council concurred. senior Planner Hayes stated that Elizabeth Devereaux requested the addition of more detail as to what might be included in an inner ring and to include the concept in the Transportation Element as well. In response to Councilmember Hubert, senior Planner Hayes advised that the grid pattern would be corrected throughout the document to stipulate 5001. Councilmember Hubert stated that Table 5.6-1, page 5-27 - Storm drainage, the performance standard should read No net increase in peak stormwater run-off." City manger Lando indicated that the statement would be eliminated. City manager Lando agreed with Councilmember Hubert that special development areas (page 3-4e) should be more general and require specific plans instead of including the criteria in the General Plan. Octobcr 11, 1994 4 0' 1 City Manager Lando agreed with Councilmember Hubert's recommendation that the requirements provided for in policy 5-I-10 (page 8-13) relating to fire sprinklers for new development be included in the Building Code rather than the General Plan. City Attorney Boehm indicated that he would determine whether the requirements would be legal. The Council agreed to—replace policy s -I-10 with a policy to provide adequate fire protection measures in subdivisions that had the potential for wildfires. In response to Councilmember Francis, concern that the diagram on page 2-30 could imply the assumed approval of the design, City Manager Lando indicated that the diagram would be eliminated. The Council agreed with Councilmember Francis that T -G-9, T -i-22 and T -I-23 (pages 4-16 and 4-17) would be modified to encourage rather than 'to require employers to adopt and implement TSM programs. The.Council also concurred with Councilmember Francis to modify policy T-1-42 (page 4=28), the fifth bullet, to encourage rather than,.:to. require that cul de sacs be limited to no more than 30% of all streets, to also require bicycle and pedestrian connections, and to include residential ae well as commercial properties in policy PP -1-37 Ln (page 5-24). 0 councilmember Andrews moved to eliminate policy PP -I-44 (page 5-25) and 0 to include in policy PP -I-43 the concept of community funding for libraries. The motion was seconded but failed to carry with coouncilmembers iQJ Francis, Guzzetti, McGinnis and Owens voting no. In response to councilmember Andrews concern, City Manager Lando indicated that staff would consider alternative language in the first paragraph of page 4-22 (relating to collector streets providing a link between local streets and arterials) which would support the concept of neighborhoods. The Council concurred with Councilmember Andrews, recommendation to eliminate T -I-16 (page 4-14) relating to bicycle detector loops and - mid -block bicycle -activated signals; to modify LU -G-17 (page 3-37) to promote neighborhood identity and encourage alternative modes of. Jam. transportation, and to modify the first line of LU -G-19 as follows: -Provide specific sites for automobile -oriented services. Limit ._. expansion of . FutureFUTURE fO ETINGS: The Council agreed to schedule at its 10/18/94 Meetings meeting a hearing on the Final Environmental impact Report and adoption of the General Plan. Councilmember McGinnis requested that staff submit a list of what the Council should review to be prepared for the hearing. City Manager Lando requested that at its 10/18/94 meeting the Council consider rescheduling the 11/16/94 all -day work session due to several staff members having been summoned to appear at a hearing on that date. Sierra SIERRA PACIFIC PACKAGING BUILDING AT THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT: City Pacific Manager Lando announced that negotiations had not progressed it would be sufficiently to discuss this item this evening, and placed Bldg. on the 10/18/94 agenda. at CMA CONFIRMATION OF 10/26/94 COUNCIL MEETING RE: ENLOE REZONE: Meetin g aHOSPITAL Mayor Owens requested that the Council confirm that quorum would be re Enloe in attendance at the 10/26/94 meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. regarding Hospital the Enloe Hospital rezone inasmuch as Councilmembers Guzzetti and Rezone Fletcher could not attend on that date, and he and councilmember Council Francis would abstain due to a conflict of interest. The agreed to cancel the 10/26/94 meeting, and to discuss alternative dates on 10/18/94. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. to 10/18/94 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. DEC 06 1994 Date Approved City Clerk mayor Scptembci 20. 1994 381 The Council designated CounciLmember Francis to take minutes during the closed session. The Council reconvened to open session at 9:20 p.m. ------------------------------------ )DJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to Tuesday, 9/27/94, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. city Clerk Date Approved Mayor ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 . -- -- Pursuant to adjournment, the city Council met at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday September 27, 1994, in the Council Chamber, Chico Municipal Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Andrews, Francis, Gusxetti, Bubert and McGinnis. Absent - Councilmember Fletcher. City staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City ' Attorney Boehm, Community Development Director Baptiste, Planning Director Sellers, Senior Planner Hayes and Senior Planner Jolliffe. Hearing NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HEARING DRAFT OF THE CHICO GENERAL PLAN General AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Mayor announced that the Plan b purpose of today's hearing was to receive public testimony on the Draft Draft EIR General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Senior Planner Hayes noted that the Council was previously provided with copies of the Chico Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). He reviewed his memorandum dated 9/26/94 providing background information and an overview of these two documents and setting forth the recommendations of the General Plan Task Force. He noted that this evening the Council was provided with a letter dated 9/27/94 from Mary Joan Leaver submitting comments on the Draft General Plan. Senior Planner Hayes also reviewed his memorandum dated 9/27/94 providing additional comments from the public and providing the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He related that the Commission recommended that the Council accept the Draft EIR subject to any additional comments and information received through the comment period, that the comment period on the Draft EIR not be extended from 10/13/94 to 10/31/94, and that the Council accept the Draft General Plan subject to additional comments, to revisions to reflect the changes recommended by staff on Attachment •A•, and to revisions recommended by the Commission set forth in the memorandum. Be advised the Council that staff had not been able to respond to all comments, and would need additional time after today's hearing to respond to prior comments and those received this evening. in regard to corents relating to Vallombrosa Avenue, he advised that the General Plan designated Vallombrosa as a two-lane road, and it would not be developed to a four -lane arterial. Senior Planner Jolliffe discussed the purposes of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and provided an overview of the various categories of impacts (land use, transportation, air quality, noise, hydrology, flooding and water quality, biological resources, safety, water service, and cumulative impacts), whether mitigation measures ware available to offset the impact, whether the impact remained significant and unavoidable, or whether the impact -was not known because all information was not yet available. The Mayor opened the hearing to the audience. Vince Phelan, North Avenue, believed that water quality would be significantly affected by the cumulative impacts identified in the Draft E:R. He recommended 1) assigning priority to Table PP -I-24, 25 i 26, page 11-5-1, to protect groundwater resources both as to quality and quantity, and 2) delaying consideration of the Draft General Plan until the Butte Basin Groundwater Model was completed and its findings could be assessed. Jerry Ball, 3135 Aloha Lane, speaking for herself, her mother Mary Ball, and approximately 100 residents of the Bell Muir area, opposed the inclusion of the Bell Muir area as an urban growth area in the General Plan. 3 8 2 September 27, 1996 Mike Campos, 777 Hillview way, requested that "covered- be removed from Policy T -I-6, page 11-36 of the Implementation Program, relating to secured covered bicycle parking because it would be infeasible to retrofit existing facilities. He believed that the provisions of page 5-11, PP -I-2, relating to protection of riparian habitat with a 100• setback along creeks would create difficulty when homes designated as R-3 from Park Avenue to Dayton Road needed additions or improvements because they were not 100, deep. In regard to page 11-24, Land Use Element, LU -I-1, he agreed with zoning and development standards being consistent with the General Plan and the zoning map being amended to ' be consistent with the diagram, but requested clarification as to the . designation of a boot shaped portion of Pomona Avenue. He proposed that the property north of Pomona Avenue be zoned high density because of its proximity to the University, that the R-3 designation around Taco Cortez on Dayton Road remain R-3 also due to its proximity to the University, and that the Dayton Road area be added back in as a growth area as recommended by the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Bayes explained that some errors had been determined in the diagram, and the council had been provided with a aeries of diagram changes which included the section of property to which Mr. Campos alluded. Ray Schoenfeld reviewed his letter dated 3/25/94 to the Butte County Board of Supervisors indicating his concurrence that the area south of Bell and Muir Roads should be a study area" the subject of a Specific Plan prepared with involvement by the County, City and land owners of the area. However, he believed that terminating the warner/Holly connection at 6th Street and then continuing at 8th Street was poor planning, and noted that•page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR discussed the need for parallel routes west of SHR 99. Gloria Bettencourt, 1366 Vallombrosa, reviewed a petition from approximately 154 residents of Vallombrosa Avenue and adjoining cul-de= a acs requesting that the City reaffirm its commitment in the General Plan to protect Bidwell Park and that Vallombrosa Avenue be redesignated from an arterial to a scenic rural road. Mike Borzage, 1662 Vallombrosa Avenue, and Darrell Stevens, Vallombrosa Avenue,. concurred. Tanya lienrich, Sierra Club P.O. Box 2012, reviewed her comments regarding the Draft General Plan dated 9/27/94 and requesting that the theme of sustainable development and balanced growth and conservation be removed from the General Plan. She did support Page 11-6 of the _ Implementation Plan. Billie Crosby, 1378 Vallombrosa, requested that Vallombrosa Avenue be protected because traffic was presently too fast and heavy for the number of individuals crossing over into the park, that existing homeowners be considered when development was being evaluated in any area, and that additional arterials be determined rather than impacting existing property owners. Tim Murphy, 881 Forest Avenue, reviewed his letter dated 9/27/94 submitting comments on the General Plan. Pat Kelly, 900 East 19th Street, believed that the General Plan did not adequately protect the wetlands and meadowfoam, and that more specific protection was needed for the Simmons, Stonegate and Schmidbauer properties. He noted that Figure 6-1, page 6-5 of the Implementation — Plan showed the area which was recently graded by Drake Homes without regard to protection of these resources. Greg Webb, requested that the property on north Esplanade on the west aide serosa the street from Philadelphia Square, which was previously zoned commercial by the County, be redesignated ccrmercial or at a minimum remain residential professional office. Kelly Meagher, Friends of the Foothills, 645 Flu --ie, inquired whether, the General Plan added 2,000 acres to foothill development. Mayor Owens explained that additional areas outside the City's sphere of influence were shown as hatched areas. Mr. Meagher stated that he opposed developing into the foothills, that the Draft EIR did not adequately address the importance of the area to groundwater recharge of the aquifer, water quality, where drainage would occur, and whether it could be severed, that a ridge line ordinance was needed to protect the viewshed if the area was to be developed and that he took exception to the five minute limit on speakers because he believed public participation and allowing the public to respond in a timely manner was an essential part of the CEQA process. Mike Campos, 777 Hillview way, requested that "covered- be removed from Policy T -I-6, page 11-36 of the Implementation Program, relating to secured covered bicycle parking because it would be infeasible to retrofit existing facilities. He believed that the provisions of page 5-11, PP -I-2, relating to protection of riparian habitat with a 100• setback along creeks would create difficulty when homes designated as R-3 from Park Avenue to Dayton Road needed additions or improvements because they were not 100, deep. In regard to page 11-24, Land Use Element, LU -I-1, he agreed with zoning and development standards being consistent with the General Plan and the zoning map being amended to ' be consistent with the diagram, but requested clarification as to the . designation of a boot shaped portion of Pomona Avenue. He proposed that the property north of Pomona Avenue be zoned high density because of its proximity to the University, that the R-3 designation around Taco Cortez on Dayton Road remain R-3 also due to its proximity to the University, and that the Dayton Road area be added back in as a growth area as recommended by the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Bayes explained that some errors had been determined in the diagram, and the council had been provided with a aeries of diagram changes which included the section of property to which Mr. Campos alluded. September 27, 1994 35a Tim Bousquet, 462 East 3rd Street, stated that the majority of his objections to foothill development would be submitted in writing. He reviewed a map of the general area designated for foothill development and illustrated planned new residential developments on the east side (Bruce Road area?). He believed PP -I-32 which required no net increase in peak storm+ater runoff and LU -I-33 which provided that runoff would be minimized were contradictory policies. He believed adoption of the Plan should be delayed until the results of the Butte Basin Water User Association computer model could be evaluated to determine what the impact of development would be on drainage, flooding and the water table, and fire standards specific to foothill characteristics should be established. He also reviewed a chart showing prior public objections to foothill development. ------------------------------- eouncilmember Fletcher arrived at approximately 9:20 p.m. John Miller, 173 East Sacramento Avenue, believed that future population was underestimated in the General Plan based on the accuracy of past estimates, and that the majority of citizens did not wish the City to grow a great deal. Pete Giampaoli provided the Council with two letters dated 9/27/94 from the Building Industry Association and Worthstate Business Center submitting comments on the Draft General Plan which he asked be given consideration. He recommended using the word •discourage, rather than prohibiting the use of high walls on page 2-49, CD -G-48, and using the word "encouraging, rather than *requiring- parking to be located behind buildings on page 4-28, T -I-42. In regard to page 5-25, PP -r-42, he did not object to a fee for libraries if it included the entire community, but not a fee for only new development. With respect to Table 5.6-1 Resource -Based Standarde and Review Criteria for Public Facilities/services, he believed no net increase in storm water runoff was inconsistent with the previous page which discussed peak runoff. In addition, it provided for no alteration on a drainage site; however, Terrell Murphy, 861 Forest Avenue, did not believe that compacting the City by increasing the density in infill areas would accomplish the objectives of the General Plan nor achieve affordable housing. Les Gerton, 795 Caprice way, stated that he agreed with Mary Anne 1 Pella-Donnelly,s 9/4/94 letter suggesting that a resource-based General Plan needed to establish guiding and implementing policies that limited growth, that he objected to foothill development because downstream homes could be flooded, that he believed the majority of citizens wished the City to remain compact and rural without increasing density, and that additional study was needed on biological resources to ensure their protection before the General Plan was adopted. ------------------------------- The council recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.. ------------------------------- Dan Shedd, Hignell i Hignell, on behalf of the Enloe family, the owners of property on north Esplanade across from Philadelphia square, related that they had been processing a subdivision map to subdivide a six acre parcel into three parcels, which was to be redesignated from commercial to low density residential in the new General Plan. They believed it - inappropriate to change the designation at this time and requested that _ "- it remain commercial because it was not possible to tie development= = into the Webb Homes site dueto construction of a sound wall, and the size of the parcels would not be suitable for residential development. Sandy Moran, 1053 Woodland Avenue, the owner of a 2.5 acre parcel -It the corner of Marigold and East Avenue, requested that the Council consider an exception to the zoning for this property which would m designate it neighborhood commercial so that she could provide services to Pleasant valley High school. Q Steve Schwartz, 1985 Booker oak Avenue, reviewed his letter to the Planning Commission proposing that the General Plan reflect very low density for the neighborhood bounded by Vallombrosa, Manzanita, Booker ` oak and Juniper and for the neighborhood on the west aide of Booker oak Avenue from 1874 through 1966 in order to preserve the ambiance and semi -rural lifestyle of the area. Tom Dioiovanni, Heritage Partnere, in regard to the Diamond Match plan, believed that page 2-37 of the Community Design Element, Policy CD -G-34 - Encourage a positive connection and orientation to Comanche Creek, could --not be implemented because Diamond Match was 700, away from _ Comanche Creek on the other side of the greenline. He also recommended that the provisions of page 3-52, LU -I-38, relating to a 300• noise buffer: up to the railroad right of way be addressed in the specific planning process and evaluated by the EIR for the project rather than in the General Plan. Tim Bousquet, 462 East 3rd Street, stated that the majority of his objections to foothill development would be submitted in writing. He reviewed a map of the general area designated for foothill development and illustrated planned new residential developments on the east side (Bruce Road area?). He believed PP -I-32 which required no net increase in peak storm+ater runoff and LU -I-33 which provided that runoff would be minimized were contradictory policies. He believed adoption of the Plan should be delayed until the results of the Butte Basin Water User Association computer model could be evaluated to determine what the impact of development would be on drainage, flooding and the water table, and fire standards specific to foothill characteristics should be established. He also reviewed a chart showing prior public objections to foothill development. ------------------------------- eouncilmember Fletcher arrived at approximately 9:20 p.m. John Miller, 173 East Sacramento Avenue, believed that future population was underestimated in the General Plan based on the accuracy of past estimates, and that the majority of citizens did not wish the City to grow a great deal. Pete Giampaoli provided the Council with two letters dated 9/27/94 from the Building Industry Association and Worthstate Business Center submitting comments on the Draft General Plan which he asked be given consideration. He recommended using the word •discourage, rather than prohibiting the use of high walls on page 2-49, CD -G-48, and using the word "encouraging, rather than *requiring- parking to be located behind buildings on page 4-28, T -I-42. In regard to page 5-25, PP -r-42, he did not object to a fee for libraries if it included the entire community, but not a fee for only new development. With respect to Table 5.6-1 Resource -Based Standarde and Review Criteria for Public Facilities/services, he believed no net increase in storm water runoff was inconsistent with the previous page which discussed peak runoff. In addition, it provided for no alteration on a drainage site; however, .Cf 384 September 27, 1994 alterations would be necessary when they relocated the natural drainage. In regard to the Carriage Park property, the land use map —discussed mix uses and approximately two acres called for commercial use. However, the General Plan called for 8-12 acres, and he proposed that those 8-12 acres be designated over those four corners, and that at the south end of that parcel, high density residential be reduced to medium density residential to be more consistent with the Enloe Hospital development. George Matthews, 318 orient, spoke in support of smaller 2500 foot lots which he believed would provide more affordable housing by creating a denser urban cluster which would encourage the use of alternative transportation. Jeff Carter, 600 Parkwood Drive, vice Chair of the General Plan Task Force, believed the General Plan was a good document which reflected the 'views -of the majority' of the community after much discussion 'and compromise, and it should be adopted. Jon Luvaas, Chair of the General Plan Task Force, encouraged the City to respond to the County's comments and keep the process open with them. He agreed with the County's recommendations for Chapmantown, but believed that the Bell Muir area should be included as a planning concept for discussion only. He indicated that it should be made clear to the County that. the Plan did not call for growth north or south of Chico. He recommended that growth east of the Airport be considered even though it was not recommended by the Task Force; however, that growth area was contemplated for industrial purposes, which was not consistent with the Task Force's recommendations. He also recommended that all areas be considered for solar alignment, and that the Implementation Plan include an assessment of what could be done to preserve the remaining views of the foothills. John Merz, 175 Rose Avenue, recommended that the comment period be extended for a minimum of 30 days, that the hearing be continued to 10/11/94, that a base line for growth in the City be determined, that staff be directed to provide as analysis of projects in the pipeline, and that a-grovth control mechanism be established which insured controlled growth. Don Schwartz, Rancho Palos Verdes, reviewed his letter dated 9/26/94 submitting comments on the Draft General Plan as it related to the current and future uses of property he owned consisting 5500 acres located south of Chico and outside of and abutting the City's sphere of influence. Kelly Meagher expressed concerns relating to environmental constraints for foothill development, i.e. impacts on the viewehed, riparian habitat, migrating deer herd movement through the foothills, water quality, oak woodland preservation and wildland fires. In response to Yr. Meagher (pages 4.10-4 and 4.10-5 of the Draft EIR), Senior Planner Hayes explained that the city already had and would continue its agreement with the County for vildland fire emergency response. In regard to the Draft EIR, Mr. Meagher•noted that page 4.10-4, S -I-11 and S -I-12 both encouraged the County to cooperate with the City. He requested that today's hearing be continued to allow the County to respond and that the comment period be extended another 30 days. Be believed to -encourage* the County was ambiguous and therefore not appropriate; that Bell Muir should not be developed because it would be altering or breaking the greenline; that the sections on alternatives and cumulative impacts were inadequate, and the document was confusing for a layman to read. Mark Radabaugh, 40 Mill Street, believed the Plan was as close to a consensus as could be reached with a few minor technical adjustments and should be adopted. No one else spoke from the audience. Mayor Owens recommended that the Council close the hearing this evening, that the Council hold a workshop to discuss all comments and make recommendations on 10/11/54, and that staff provide responses prior to the meeting. Councilmember McGinnis preferred to review the responses prior to closing the hearing. Councilmecber Guzzetti concurred, and added that because the Draft General Plan was only recently received in its final form, and the should be open for public comment for at least two meetings. Yollowing discussion, Councilmerber Eubert moved to close the hearing this evening, and that the council hold a workshop on 10/11/94 to review torments and make recermendations for incorporation into the September 27, 1994 , 85 Final General Plan. The motion was seconded and carried with Councilmembers Guzzetti and Hubert voting no. The Council agreed that the 10/11/94 meeting would be scheduled for 7:00.p.m., and requested staff to provide responses to comments prior to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 0 C T i S 15994 Date Approved.. city clerk Mayor REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING - October 4, 1994 The City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency, met in regular session at 7:30 p.a. on Tuesday, October 4, 1994, in the council chamber, Chico Municipal Q Center. Present at roll call - Mayor Owens and Councilmembers Fletcher, Francis, Guzzetti, Hubert and McGinnis. Absent - Councilmember Andrews. City staff in attendance - City Manager Lando, City Clerk Evans, City Attorney Boehm, Assistant City Manager Dunlap, m Risk Manager Koch, General Services Director shaddox, Planning Director sellers, Personnel Director Erlandson, senior Planners Figge and Q Jolliffe, Housing officer McLaughlin, and Economic Development/ Redevelopment Manager Smail. Invocation INVOCATION: An invocation was given by Pastor Tom Mount of valley Community church. Proclamation PROCLAMATION: Mayor Owens presented a proclamation to Fine Arts Commission Chair, Cris Guenter proclaiming October as National Arts and Humanities Month. -------------------------- Councilmember Andrews arrived at 7:35 p.m. --------------------- Consent CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor announced that anyone on the Council or in Agenda the audience could have any item removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion or action. He then read the following items on the Consent Agenda, copies having been furnished in advance to Councilmembers: Finance 1. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON MEETING HELD 9/12/94 AT 4:00 p.m. Comm. By memorandum dated 9/22/94, the Finance Committee submits a report on its meeting held 9/12/94 at 4:00 p.m., at which time the following matters were considered: Housing 1. (Action as RDA) Housing Proposal for single Family Project Proposal at 657 East 20th street (skip Reager) - Recommended that E. 20th St. the Council approve Mr. Reager'a request for a $15,000 (Beager) predevelopment loan for preliminary engineering, architectural and other site development services relating to the project. Advertising 2. (No Action - Committee still Reviewing) Advertising on CATS on CATS Buses - Recommended that staff further research the matter Buses and contact other cities concerning the success of their programs, the revenues they had received, any problems they had encountered and the amount of their city staff time to administer their program. (Councilmember Francis opposed.) RDA 3. (Action as RDA) Establishment of an RDA Funded Manufacturing/ Manufacturing/ Industrial Loan Fund - Recommended approval Industrial of a Redevelopment Agency Revolving Line of Credit Loan Guarantee Fund in the amount of $250, 000 as outlined in the Loan Fund Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager s 9/2/94 memorandum, with the minor modifications in language as noted in the Committee's report. MSP Policy 4. (Action as RDA) Mortgage subsidy Program Policy - re Maximum Recommended that a maximum housing expense ratio for Housing Mortgage subsidy Program loans beset at 388 for fixed rate mortgages and 358 for adjustable mortgages at the start Expense rate, and that the lenders be required to identify the Ratio relevant compensating factors that justified their approval when the ratios exceeded 338 for adjustable and '35% for fixed rate loans. ti October 25, 1994 Tom Lando, City Manager . City of Chico P. 0. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 utte Fount 'I :AND OF NATURAL Vv EA LTH AND _ =AL TY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538.7601 FAX: 19161 538-7785 RECEIVED OC i 2 51994 Citi MANAGER clry of Re: City of Chico's request for ALUC to review the draft General Plan for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport and Ranchero Airport. Dear Mr. Lando: At the October 12, 1994 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) meeting, the Commission found the draft General Plan for the City of Chico consistent with the Ranchero Airport Land Use Plan. However, the draft General Plan was found to be inconsistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan (CMAELUP). In order to find the CMAELUP consistent with the draft General Plan, the City Council must override ALUC's findings by a 2/3's vote. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me Monday through Thursday, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, 60 Barry K. Hogan Planning Manager BKH:bd 0ATE ALKMA ME cmc a_x ca D -*_L _Acu CA__ACA__ couKa Pit I ED..*W / uA Prr used coo � csso coP Po_Fc w_ , 5' y 1 +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT T LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - EA. ,. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: November 9, 1998 ITEM: Discussion of ALUC Request to Review All Discretionary Projects within the Chico Airport Area of Influence until Lo Agency Plans are Revised to be Consistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Aire Environs Plan or Overriding Findings are Ado tp ed: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of November 18, 1998 The Commission's adoption of various amendments to .the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) on October 21, 1998, has triggered the initiation of a 180 -day period during which time affected local agencies are required to revise their General Plans, Specific Plans and Zoning Ordinances to be consistent with the most current version of the CMAEP or adopt Overriding Findings. This process is discussed within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code. 65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land.Use Plans (a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. Although it is clear from the statutes that local agencies have 180 -days to act on their. Plans, it is not entirely clear whether* or not local agencies are "required" to submit applications for discretionary development projects to the ALUC during the initial 180 -day period. Staff has consulted with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff/legal counsel, staff members serving other Airport Land Use Commissions. and staff from Shutt Moen Associates for an opinion on this issue. All of the individuals who were contacted agree that the law is unclear in this area. However, the general consensus seemed to be that an ALUC can formally request that all discretionary development projects be submitted by local agencies during the initial 180 -day period. However, local agency submittal is not absolutely required unless the ALUC finds that a local agency has not acted to.,revise its Plans or adopted Overriding Findings within the 180 -day period. At that point, Section 21676.5 (a) makes it clear that the ALUC can require that discretionary projects be submitted until such time as revisions or Overriding Findings are adopted. . 7 Chairman Hennigan asked that this item be placed on the agenda to obtain a consensus from the Commission regarding whether correspondence should be sent to the County of Butte and City of Chico requesting that all discretionary development projects within the Airport Area of Influence for the Chico Municipal Airport be forwarded to the ALUC during. the initial 1.80 -day period. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission. 0 .s +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E.3. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: ALUC Staff DATE: November 6, 1998 Report • 1 Impacts to Local Agency1 Resulting • 11 the ' Octobe kmendments; to the Chaco Munecipal Airport Environs Plan and Request for Interpretatiions FOR: • 1 • Use Commission Meeting of Novemberi 1998 During the Commission's October 21, 1998 adoption of various amendments to the CMAEP, Commissioner Lambert asked if the 180 -day requirement for local agencies to bring their General Plans, Specific Plans and Zoning Ordinances into compliance with the current CMAEP could be deferred in light of the fact that a more comprehensive update to the Environs Plan is expected to be completed within the 1999 calendar year. Staff discussed this issue at length with Caltrans Aeronautics Program representatives. It is that agency's opinion that no "deferral process" is specified within the applicable statutes. It was also pointed out that the ALUC could theoretically update its CLUP once every calendar year, if such action was found to be necessary. Therefore, even though the Commission viewed this as an "interim measure," it is within the ALUC's authority to update the Environs Plan during consecutive calendar years. No mechanism has been found or is recommended by Caltrans to relieve the affected local agencies from the requirement to make their Plans and Zoning consistent with the latest version of the compatibility plan or adopt Overriding Findings within the 180 -day time period. Commissioner Lambert also asked for a report regarding whether or not changes to the General Plans, Specific Plans and Zoning Ordinances for both the County of Butte and City of Chico were likely to be necessary. The Commission should be aware that it has taken a considerable amount of staff time for the location of the Overflight Protection Zone to be accurately entered into the County's GIS system. Maps which show the OPZ and both City and County General Plan and Zoning information are still in the process of being prepared. Therefore, staff has been unable to complete the analysis necessary to determine the extent of needed modifications. There are also several questions regarding the language that the ALUC adopted to accompany the Overflight Protection Zone which need to be answered before a thorough analysis can be completed. The text that was added to the CMAEP specifies that new residential uses shall be prohibited in the Area defined as Zone A within the OPZ and that infill of the existing residential area would only be allowed in Zone Al. It also specified that no new single family residential uses shall be permitted in • Butte County *Airport Land Use Commission • a Zone B. However, approval of multiple family residential uses within Zone B appears to be consistent subject to conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants regarding overflight activity. In order to determine the consistency of existing local plans with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, a number of clarifications and/or interpretations are needed. For example: (1) There are likely to be a number of areas within Zone A and possibly Zone B of the Overflight Protection Zone that are currently designated with some type of Agricultural classification and zoning. In addition to a variety of agricultural related activities, these zones also generally allow the development of at least one single family residential dwelling unit per parcel. It appears from the language adopted by the ALUC, that although some aspects of the agricultural classification and zoning would be consistent with ' the intent of Zones A and B, these zones would be "inconsistent" with the 1998 CMAEP because they would typically allow at least one single family residence to be developed per legally created parcel if on-site sewage disposal requirements are met. (2) It appears that the development of a single family residential unit would not be permitted on existing legally created parcels in Zones A and B of the OPZ that are currently zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, S -R, SR -1, and SR -3 in the County and R-1, R-2, R-3, RR, RP, RS -1 and RS -3 in the City. Was that the Commission's intention? (3) Zone A and Zone B of the OPZ do not address any type'of Commercial, Industrial or Business Park Development. Was it the Commission's intention to prohibit those uses within the specified areas? If it was not the Commission's intention to prohibit Commercial, Industrial and Business Park Development within Zones A and B, what types of uses and building intensities and/or population concentrations are considered acceptable? (4) What other types of uses, if any, are considered compatible within Zones A, Al and B of the Overflight Protection Zone? (5) Text related to Zone B of the OPZ indicates that multiple family residential development may be considered acceptable with conditions such as requiring an avigation easement and providing tenant notification of overflight activities. What densities of multiple family residential does the Commission consider to be consistent with Zone B? • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 2 J (6) Language adopted by the Commission indicates that small neighborhood shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within the Outer Safety Zone and that concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. Would Industrial and Business Park uses that do not exceed specified people per acre concentrations also be considered compatible? In order to assist the Commission with development of the requested interpretations/clarifications, staff has attached pertinent sections from the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and other resources. These include: 1 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Table 3A: Summary of Suggested Compatibility Criteria (page 3-3) • Land Use Characteristic and Acceptable Forms of Development (pages 9-20 through 9-23) • Limits on Land Use Restrictiveness (pages 3-18 through 3-25) • Exhibit C -11A: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Safety Sacramento Metropolitan Airport (pages C-29 through C-33) Staff Comment - While Zones A, Al and B depicted within the Overflight Protection Zone of the 1998 CMAEP do not directly correspond to the safety zones identified within the compatibility plan for the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport (now referred to as the Sacramento International Airport), it does provide .a detailed listing of potential uses and their appropriateness in specific locations. • Table III -1 "Recommended Land Use Compatibility Designations Chico Municipal Airport." Staff Comment - This table was presented immediately following the discussion of the Overflight Protection Zone within the referenced document. The table addresses land use compatibility in conjunction with noise exposure levels. RECOMMENDATIONS: Since the Airport Land Use Commission may only adopt amendments to an airport land use plan once every calendar year, input provided by the Commission in response to this item will be considered as interpretations and clarifications only, and not incorporated as part of the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The information may also be used to help develop proposed modifications to the CMAEP that will occur as part of the 1999 update. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • 3 1 See Chapters 7 and 8 for a discussion of factors to be considered In calculation of noise contours. 2 See Chapter 9 (specifically Figure 9G) for suggestions regarding safety zone shapes and dimenslons. NOTE: These criteria should be treated as general suggestiono for consideration by irKVV duo/ ALUCs, not as state - mandated standards. Economic and technical feasibility may need to be taken into account when sexing criteria for individual airports. Source: Hodges b Shutt (December 1983) Table 3A _ Summary of Suggested Compatibility Criteria December 1993 • 3-3 Formulating Alrport•Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 Compaubluty Compatlbluty Zone Suggested Concern Delineation Compatibility Crtterla Noise • Calculated noise oontours;1 or • No residential within 65 dB C NEL contour. • Generalized area encompassing • Encourage use of 60 dB CNEL as maximum for residential land Indvidual contours. uses in quiet communities (or even 55 dB at rural airports). Safety • Up to 6 zones based upon rela- • Runway Protection Zones: tive risk of aircraft accidents in — No structures. each area 2 — No assemblages of people. • Take Into account typical flight — Encourage airport to own the property. tracks and areas overflown by • Inner Safety Zones: aircraft at low attitude. — Preferably no residential uses or, at most, very low density. • Consider Instrument arrival and — Limit other uses to ones which attract relatively few people departure routes. and leave substantial areas without structures. — Prohibit bulk storage of flammable or hazardous materials. — Prohibit schools, hospitals, nursing homes. — Maintain as much open land as possible by clustering of development. • Inner TumkV Zones: — Residential uses only at very low density. - Restrictions on other uses similar to Inner Safety Zone. • Outer Safety Zones: — No urban density residential subdivisions. — Other uses limited to ones with moderate concentrations of people. — Avoid schools, hospitals, nursing homes. — Maintain as much open land as possible by clustering of development. • Sideline Zones (Areas Adjacent to Runways): — All common aviation -related uses acceptable. — Limit non -aviation uses, on- or off -airport, to low -intensity activities. — Prohibit schools, hospitals, nursing homes. • Traffic Pattern Zone: — Avoid high-density residential unless clustered to leave open areas in between. — Avoid activities with very high concentrations of people. — Avoid schools, hospitals, nursing homes. Airspace • Zones defined by Part 77 of • Limit heights of objects In accordance with Part 77 criteria. Protection Federal Aviation Regulations. . Avoid other hazards to flight anywhere In airport vicinity. Overflight • Easiest to define in terms of Part • Establish some form of buyer awareness program. 77 horizontal zone, modified as necessary to exclude areas not routinely overflown by aircraft flying to and from airport. 1 See Chapters 7 and 8 for a discussion of factors to be considered In calculation of noise contours. 2 See Chapter 9 (specifically Figure 9G) for suggestions regarding safety zone shapes and dimenslons. NOTE: These criteria should be treated as general suggestiono for consideration by irKVV duo/ ALUCs, not as state - mandated standards. Economic and technical feasibility may need to be taken into account when sexing criteria for individual airports. Source: Hodges b Shutt (December 1983) Table 3A _ Summary of Suggested Compatibility Criteria December 1993 • 3-3 Safety Compatibility Issues / Chapter 9 As criteria for safety compatibility. mmurnum acceptable density of use numbers are commonly ar- .rtved at Irxirecdty. First, certain types of land uses are qualltatty- ey deterrNned to be unacceptable for a Elven proxlmityto an airport. The typlcal rxrnber of people per acro attracted . by these. Lowe Is then determined and subsequently set as the common basis for ther evaluating otypes of land uses. C Land Use Characteristics The potential severity of an off -airport aircraft accident is highly depen- dent upon the nature of the land use at the accident site. For the pur- poses of evaluating the relative risks presented by different land uses, three characteristics are most important: • Density of Use — The most direct means of limiting the potential severity of an off -airport accident is to limit the density of use. Den- sity of use is typically measured in terms of the number of people which the development can attract per acre. This measure is the. most useful common element by which to compare and evaluate the acceptability of most land uses. Some examples of the number of people per acre. attracted by various land uses are listed below: Typical,Densitiesof Use (People Per Acre) Ught-Industrial uses 35-50 Two-story motel 35-50 Shopping center (single story) 75-125 Single -story office structure 50-100 (the upper limit would occur if the building housed 1 occupant per •100 square feet of floor area — the maximum occupancy load allowed under the Uniform Building Code — and covered 25% of the lot) Sit-down restaurant 100 Fast food restaurant 150 • Residential versus Nonresidential Function = Residential land uses Are normally judged differently than non-residential uses. For various reasons, most people probably would agree that residential uses should be afforded a comparatively higher degree of protection. Thus, while the density of residential development could be measured as a people per acre function, the standard dwelling units- per acre measure is just as suitable for the purposes of evaluating safety com- pabbility. is Special Functions - Certain other types of land uses are also com- monly regarded as requiring special protection from hazards such as aircraft accidents. These uses fall into two categories: - Elementary and secondary schools, college campuses, hospitals, nursing homes, and other similar land uses for which the sig - 9 -20 December 1993 Safety Compatibility Policy Issues / Chapter 9 nificant common element is the relative inability of the people occupying the space to move out of harm's way. — Functions, such as aboveground storage of large quantities of flammable materials or other hazardous substances, which could substantially contribute to the severity of an aircraft accident if they were to be involved in one. Acceptable Forms of Development As is true with regard to the shape and size of safety zones, there is no correct answer to the question of acceptable risk. However, at least for the areas where the aircraft accident potential is greatest, a degree of consensus seems apparent that certain types of land uses are unwise. Although perhaps not always attainable, the following guidelines are suggested as -a,good starting point especially in light of ALUCs' funda- mental responsibility to promote a high degree of compatibility between airports and surrounding land uses. The individual zones described are ` as illustrated in Figure 9G. The areae just beyond the RPZs are also typically exposed to sIQ- nificant levels of noise, especially at busy airports. • Runway Protection Zones — FAA and AICUZ criteria for land uses in RPZ-s are explicit: to the maximum extent practical, these areas should be clear of all structures; any activities must be very low in- tensity in character and -confined to the sides and outer end of the area. — Density of Use — A density of 10 people per acre is the maximum normally judged acceptable. — Residential Land Uses— New residential development should be prohibited within RPZs. — Special Functions — These ,types of land uses also should be prohi- bited within RPZs. • inner Safety Zones — Next to the RPZs, these approach/departure corridors have the highest level of exposure to potential aircraft acci- dents. — Density of Use — Nonresidential land uses should be limited to activities which attract relatively few people to a given area. Shopping centers, eating establishments, meeting halls, multi -story office buildings, and labor-intensive manufacturing plants, are examples of uses which should be prohibited. Measured on the density -of -use scale, the maximum concentrations of people -gene- rally should be no more than 40 to 60 per acre. — Residential Land Uses — Residential uses, if not deemed unaccep- table because of noise, should be limited to very low densities — December 1993 9-21 • E, 10 acres or more per dwelling unit. In this proximity to an urban airport, low density effectively precludes residential development. In rural areas, the lot size requirements for exclusive agriculture or other similar zoning district should be considered the maximum acceptable density. , — Special functions — Special function land uses (schools, storage of flammable materials, etc.) should be prohibited. • Inner Turning Zone — The accident site patterns diagrammed in Chapter 8 show substantial numbers of points offset laterally from the extended runway centerline. This zone — included in some compati- bility plans and often combined with the inner safety zone — reflects the historical distribution of accident sites. The inner turning zone as depicted in Figure 9G encompasses locations where aircraft are typi- cally turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern and are' de"scending from traffic pattern altitude. It also encompasses the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff `power and flap settings to a climb mode and + have begun to tum to their en route heading. — Density of Use — The criterion for the number of people per acre allowed for uses in this zone should either be the same as for the inner safety zone or can be adjusted slightly upward, but no high- er than the levels set for the outer safety zone. — Residential Land Uses — The minimum lot size criteria for residen- tial uses should be set somewhere in the range encompassed by the inner and outer safety zones; that is, between Z and 10 acres. — Special Functions — Special function land uses should be prohibit- ed.. • Outer Safety Zones — Many ALUCs have established outer or ex- tended approach/departure safety zones, especially for runways which are long and/or have instrument approach capabilities. This concept is supported by both the 1983 Handbook and AICUZ com- patibility criteria and is encouraged here. — Density of Use — The types of land uses which represent concerns within outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat, higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi- story office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small, neighborhood shopping centers and two-story office are reasonable within this more distant zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 -per acre. — Residential Land Uses Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be avoided. in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the' 2 to S acre range can be con- sidered acceptable, however. December 1993 — Special Functions — Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the outer safe- ty zone. • Sideline Safety Zones — At large airports, the areas of concern ad- jacent to runways and runway ends are normally contained within airport property. Aviation -related land uses on or adjoining airport property are typically viewed differently than non -aviation uses. Users of these facilities implicitly acknowledge some degree of risk simply by being present on the airport. All common aviation -related activities should be considered acceptable in this area provided that FAA airport design criteria are met For airports where the sideline safety zone encompasses non -aviation property, either on or off the airport, the safety criteria for the 'inner turning zone or outer safety zone are generally applicable. However, land uses involving more than 40 to 60 people per acre should be avoided in locations lateral to the runway ends; if necessary, higher density uses should be situated laterally from near the mid -point of the runway. - • Traffic Pattern Zone — Within other portions of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft, the potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is thus minimal. - Density of Use = Only very large assemblies of people in the 150 or more people per acre range — need to be avoided. — Residential Land Uses — In small communities, typical residential subdivision densities of 4 to 6 dwelling units per acre are accep- table from a safety perspective. In urban areas, even higher den- sities may be reasonable, especially if development is clustered to provide open space as discussed below. — Special Functions — Schools, hospitals and nursing homes should be avoided in traffic patten zones unless no'other feasible alter- natives are available. - Measuring Density of Use When developing density -of -use criteria, it is essential to define how the measurements are to be done. There are several sets of options which must be considered. Deoen*er 1993 3-23 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 This limitation on ALUC authority is not applicable when redevelop- ment or land use conversion Is proposed. The fad that the land area associated with the project is already occupied by existing de- velopment — either compatible or incompatible with the airport — becomes Irrelevant when that land use will be replaced by a new development or use. LIMITS ON LAND USE RESTRICTIVENESS Determining Limits of Existing Development The authority of ALUCs to conduct compatibility planning for areas around public airports "to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses" is generally accepted to mean that the commissions have no authority over areas of existing development. This suggests that it may be useful for ALUC compatibility plans to map the boundaries of areas considered to be predominantly developed. An aerial photograph of the airport environs is an ideal tool ,for this pur- pose. It shows the extent of development on a broad scale without providing largely unnecessary detail regarding the development status of individual small parcels. Delineation of the boundaries of existing development is particularly desirable if the ALUC's compatibility plan includes policies regarding infill and reconstruction. Infill By definition, infill areas are locations where development does not al- ready exist. The areas thus are subject to ALUC review authority. The chief issue with regard to infill is whether it is realistic for ALUCs to at- tempt to prevent development of a -small area surrounded by similar development even when that development is incompatible with airport activities. ALUCs clearly can determine such infill uses to be inconsis- tent with their adopted compatibility plan. From a practical standpoint, however, such determinations are often overridden by the local govem- ment agency. As an alternative, ALUCs should consider establishment of policies which indicate where and under what circumstances infill can be found con- sistent with the compatibility plan. • Infill Locations — In locations where substantial airport impacts occur — especially locations within the 65 dB CNEL contour or a runway protection zone — any incompatible development is considered un- desirable. However, in more distant locations where the -impacts are . less, infill of otherwise incompatible development might be deemed acceptable. • Infill Conditions — For infill to be permitted, specific condjtions should be met to assure that a,substantial increase in the overall compatibil- ity status of the airport does not occur. For example: 3--18 December 1993 The material presented in this section is written from a profes- sional planning perspective. It is not a legal opinion. Formulating Airport Land Use' Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 The infill area should be bounded by uses similar to those pro- posed. — The proposed development should not extend the perimeter of the area already developed with incompatible uses. — Increases in the intensity and/or incompatibility of use through use permits, density transfers or other strategies should not be per- mitted. — Other applicable development conditions (such as easement dedi- cation requirements and special structural noise level attenuation criteria) must be met. Reconstruction Reconstruction of existing incompatible land uses destroyed by -fire or other calamity can be treated in a manner similar to infill development. That is, areas where it is acceptable should be defined, and appropriate conditions should be set. The conditions could be based upon those followed by the local jurisdiction with regard to reconstruction of land uses which are otherwise not in conformance with local plans and zon- ing. Reconstruction should be limited to a density of use not exceeding that of the original development. Inverse Condemnation A concern sometimes raised (especially by landowners) with regard to establishment of airport land use restrictions is that the restrictions might constitute inverse condemnation — a taking of private property without just compensation. This is not a new concern. The criteria .for com- pensable takings have long been debated in legal literature.. Also, many court cases, including some specifically dealing with airports, have de- lineated when a taking has or has not occurred. Even as far back as 1952, the report of the President's Airport Commission, The Airport and Its Neighbors (the Doolittle commission report, discussed more fully in Chapter 8), devoted several pages to the topic. Inverse condemnation is a highly complex subject. It is not possible for this Handbook to delve into it at length — entire books can and have been written on the topic. Rather, this section is merely a brief summary of the issue as it applies to airport compatibility planning. The emphasis is on the implications for ALUCs. State law does not give ALUCs direct authority over land use. imple- mentation of an ALUC's policies is accomplished by the relevant city or county — to the extent that the local government concurs with the ALUC's policies. Therefore, it is a legitimate question whether it is Oecember 1993 3=19 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 r possible for an ALUC policy to result in a taking through inverse con- demnation. The local agency which implements the policies could be more readily sued. However, since the issue here concerns the limita- tions which the potential for inverse, condemnation presents in imple- mentation of airport land use compatibility measures, the question of which local agency could most readily be sued is not directly of interest. More to the point is the issue of what forms and degrees of land use restrictions for airport compatibility purposes are legally sound. Legal Basis for Regulation The legal basis for local government regulation of land use is well de- fined by both statutory and'case law. Generally, such regulations are founded upon the basic power of the state to enact legislation protect- ing the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens. This authority is typically passed along to -municipalities by state enabling legislation. The principal form of land use regulation in most municipali- ties is zoning. The constitutionality of zoning was upheld in a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 — Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company., In California, the ability of local governments to regulate land use is an exercise of the police power granted by Article XI of the California Con- stitution. The authority for airport land use commissions to establish land use regulations is provided by Section 21675(a). of the Public Utili- ties Code. This section states that "in formulating a land use plan, the commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards, including soundproofing ..." (An earlier reference for ALUCs "to achieve by zoning" the purposes of the statutes were deleted from the law in 1982.) Limits to Land Use Regulation The fundamental limitation on governments' power to take property is set forth by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The most direct application of this principle requires the government to pay fair value for property which it con- demns for public use by means of eminent domain proceedings. It is not necessary, however, for government to dispossess the owner or physically occupy the property in order to have effectively created a taking. A taking can also result through,overly restrictive land use regulations. The legal interpretation of when a government regulation of land use becomes a taking has continually been refined — and, occasionally, modified — as the courts have heard new cases. Although the basic principles have been in effect for some time, their application to a 3-20 December 1993 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies 1. Chapter 3 specific set of circumstances is often not a simple task. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has admitted that it has never been able to develop a "'set formula' to determine when 'justice and fairness' require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government ..." [Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)]. A succinct recent statement of the basic principles is found in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Agins v. City of Tiburon [447 U.S. 255 (1980)]. In that case, the court declared that for a land use regulation to avoid constituting a taking, it must pass two tests: — It must "substantially advance legitimate state interests" and — It must not deny the property owner of "all economically viable use of his land." The following two sections elaborate upon these criteria. Defining Legitimate Government Purposes The terms "substantially advance" and "legitimate state interests" as used in the first of these two tests have never been precisely defined by the courts. Over the years, though, many court cases have shed light on the nuances of their meaning. Mostly this has occurred through various rulings regarding the legitimacy of specific regulations which have been challenged. It is generally easier for courts to find a legitimate public purpose when a land use regulation "prevents a harm" rather than "confers a benefit." One case noted that the purpose of a regulation must be taken into ac- count: "the nature of the State's interest in the regulation is a critical factor in determining whether a taking has occurred ..." [Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. X-fahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)]. An important recent case on this subject (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 8.25 (1987] placed focus on the concept that there must be a nexus or con- nection between the burden on the community created by a proposed private development and the conditions or restrictions placed on that development. Such restrictions must clearly and directly serve to miti- gate the burden. Regulation of land around airports to assure compatibility with the air- port is widely held to be a legitimate public purpose., The purpose of all land use regulations, after all, is the reduction of incompatibilities among different types of land uses. The state enabling legislation for airport land use. commissions clearly defines the purpose of the statute as being "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that mini - December 1993 3-21 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 mize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards'within areas around public airports ..." There is, however, a body of legal opinion which suggests that, at some point,.measures to protect airports from incompatible land uses become a transfer of rights from.one private party to other private parties. That is, owners of land adjacent to an airport give up certain rights (for ex- ample, the ability to build structures which would penetrate FAR Part 77 surfaces) which are then given to the users of the airport. In this legal view, no legitimate public purpose is being served and the action is not a valid exercise of the police power. Compensation would be necessary for any such taking unless the property owner has waived this right by failing to take timely action '(in California, within five years of the event). The nexus issue is another takings -related concern that has sometimes arisen of late in the context of. airport land use, planning. In instances where proposed land uses are marginally incompatible with airport ac- tivities, it is the policy of many ALUCs to require the land owner to dedicate an avigation easement to the airport as a condition for finding the proposed development consistent with the commission's compatibili- ty plan. The issue raised is whether there is sufficient nexus - that is, a connection — between the negative effect of the development on the community (specifically, the community's airport) and the condition im- posed on the development. To establish this connection, the develop- ment must be shown to have the potential for causing harm to the com- munity and the imposed condition must mitigate that harm. A good case can be made for the required -avigation easement dedica- 6on in situations involving rezoning of land from an agricultural or other airport -compatible use to an incompatible use such as a residential sub- division. Such a change would have the negative effect on the commu- nity of creating a new constraint on the use of the airport — a public facility — and thus would likely constitute a sufficient nexus to warrant imposing the avigation easement as a development condition. On the other hand, the appropriateness of adding an avigation easement dedi- cation condition to land already zoned residential would be difficult to demonstrate unless the ALUC had previously found the local general . plan to be inconsistent with the commission's plan with respect to that property. Determining Reasonable Use of Land By their very, nature, government regulations have direct or indirect ef- fects on property values.. In examining whether a taking has occurred in a particular instance, the courts sometimes consider the extent of the resulting change in value of the property. However, when following this approach, the courts look to the value remaining in the property, not the value that was taken. Local land use regulations that have resulted in 3-22 December 1993 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 more than a 90% reduction in the value of an individual's land have been upheld as not a taking because sufficient "economically viable" use of the land still remained. Generally though, the greater the range of remaining permitted uses, the easier it is for government to avoid a suc- cessful inverse condemnation suit. Local governments are largely free to change land use designations and zoning at their discretion. Landowners are not entitled to reimburse- ment for hypothetical losses due to changes in zoning, nor do they have any right to anticipate a change in zoning. Zoning decisions are gener- ally held to be legislative acts and courts will not substitute their judg- ment for those of elected officials. However, vested rights to current zoning are considered to exist when the landowner has obtained: — A valid building permit, coupled with construction (generally the laying of the structure's foundation) having commenced; — A vesting tentative map; and/or — A development agreement with the local govemment. Vesting of rights to current zoning does not occur solely because a de- veloper has constructed infrastructure (e.g., roads, and water lines). In applying these principles to the work of airport land use commissions, a couple of points are noteworthy. One point, previously mentioned in Chapter 1, is that ALUCs can only go so far in restricting land uses for airport compatibility purposes. In locations close to the ends of run- ways, extreme noise levels, high accident potential, and significant limita- tions on the height of objects may restrict the choice of land uses to a few types of open space or agricultural functions. None of these land uses may be economically viable in urban areas. In these instances, acquisition of the property may be the only appropriate choice. This is an action which the airport owner must take — ALUCs .do not have this authority. The vested rights issue is pertinent to ALUCs in that it helps to define when a proposed land use becomes existing and thus no longer subject to the commission's review. It is important, therefore, that ALUCs have the opportunity to review land use proposals at an early stage — prefer- ably as a general plan or specific plan action — before they become vested. In some situations, financial commitments or other factors can result in' vesting occurring quite early in the development process. Remedies for Excessive Land Use Regulation As long interpreted by California -courts, the principal remedy in situa- ti lns where an excessive land use regulation was found to constitute a taking was for the court to invalidate the regulation. A 1987 U.S. Su- preme Court decision — First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of December 1993 3-23 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies 1 Chapter 3 Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 US. 304, 107 S. CE 2378 (1987) — overturned the California rule, however. In this case, the Court held that the US. Constitution also requires that the landowner be compen- sated for a "temporary taking" which occurred while the regulation was in effect. A simple invalidation of the regulation would not be a suf- ficient remedy for the resulting damages incurred by the landowner. A separate issue — one that is beyond the•scope of the discussion here - is how the amount of monetary damages are.to be calculated. The current status might nevertheless be summarized by saying that, much like with the overall issue of determining when a regulatory taking has occurred, the courts have adhered to a case-by-case approach when reviewing the factors affecting the calculation of appropriate damages. - Future court decisions will undoubtedly continue to. refine how various factors are to be included in the equation. Economic Considerations The emphasis of ALUC responsibilities is clearly upon preventing incom- patible land use development and preserving the utility of airports. Nevertheless, ALUCs cannot totally ignore the economic implications of providing a high degree of compatibility, especially around airports in urban communities. Whether the purpose is with regard to noise or safety, airport/land use compatibility has its costs as well as its benefits. These opportunity costs are bome not only by the landowner (in not obtaining maximum use of the land), but also by the community as a. whole (from underutilized infrastructure, lost taxes, etc.) and even by the airport (if acquisition of the property is the only means of preventing incompatible development). • Noise — The economic implications of noise are somewhat better understood— or at least more often studied — than those of safety. Various studies have concluded that significant airport noise can ad- versely affect the value of airport vicinity property, particularly resi- dential property near busy air carver airports (other studies, have found little effect, it should be noted). Regardless of airport proximi- ty, however, land zoned for commercial, industrial, and other uses relatively insensitive_ to noise typically carries- a higher price an resi- dential land. Thus, providing a high*degree of noise compatibility thtibility by precluding residential development in. areas exposed to moderate noise can even increase the land value if sufficient demand for non- residential land exists. Even in areas of high noise exposure, some type of economically viable private use of land is usually possible, although the choices may be- limited.. , • Safety — In rural areas, a high level of safety compatibility can nor- mally be accomplished by preserving agricultural land uses near the airport However, as discussed in Chapter 9, the choices for safety - 3 -24 December 1993 Formulating Airport Land Use Compatibility Policies / Chapter 3 1 compatible land uses in high-risk zones near urban airports are rela- tively few. Adding to the complexity of 'the issue is the fact that the tradeoff between the costs of virtually sterilizing an area where safety concerns exist and the benefits of potentially saving lives or reducing property damage is, a difficult one to quantify. The question that must be asked is whether, at some point, the incremental cost of establishing restrictions on additional acreage outweighs the incre- mental safety benefits provided. The bottom line is that, while airport land use commissions are not obli- gated to consider economic factors in their planning decisions, cities and counties almost always will. Unless a balance can be found which al- lows a reasonable degree of both land use compatibility and land use development, many local jurisdictions will proceed in a manner which they perceive to be the most economically advantageous and will over- ride ALUC actions if necessary. Exhibit CG11A Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Safety Sacramento Metropolltan Airport December 1993 C-29 SACRAMENTO6AETROPOIJTAH AIRPORT ' LAND USE.CO1fAPAT181UTY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY -LAND i1 COPATIBIIITY WITH USE CATEGORY CLEAR APPROACH- Fi DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT and (Standard Industrial.Clasalficatlort Code) ZONE ZONE ZONE RESIDENTIAL Slr�e-farr►Yy detached NO, Yas, .Yes„ T�vo-(amly ctweiltnq No No Yea" Muhl-tamoy dwelling (3 + faYles) No NO, Y0613Group quarters b rooming houses (702, 704) No No Yea" Moble home parks or Courts (6515) No No Yes' MANUFACTURING ` Food & kindred products (20) No No Yes" Textiles 8, apparel (22, 23) No No Yes" Transportation equipment (37) No No Yes" _ Lumber S wood products (24) No No Yes" Furniture 8, fbQures (25) No No Yes" Paper S allied products (26) No No Yes" Printing 8 publishing (27) No No Yes" Chemicals & allied products (28) No _ No No Asphalt Paving b Mist. Petroleum (295, 299) , No No Yes" Petroleurelining m(2911) No No No Rubber 8 plastics (30) , No No No Stone, day, Masa 8 concrete products (32) - No No .Yes Primary 8 fabricated metals (33, 34). No No Yea" Electrical, and electronic equipment (36) No No Yes"." Leather products (31) No No Yes" Industrial, Commercial &computer equlpmerrt (35) No No Yes"" ` Photo, oQtkal 3 medical equipment (38) No No Yea" Miscellaneous manufacturing (39) No No Yes" TRANSPORTATION. COMMUNICATIONS & UTILITIES ` Streets, roads, b highways No Yes Yes No Yes° " Heavy raY lines: freight 8 passenger (40) No Yes Yea ` 9 Ughi rail14�es: passenger (41) No Yes Yea Trucking b ral freight terminals (42) No No Yes" Warehousing 3 storage (422) ` No No Yea" Passenger tertn4nais 8 stations No No No Water transportation: freight 8 passenger (44) No No ..Yea" Parking lots (752) No Yeas Yea" ' Transportation servbes (47) No No Yes" Radio, TV & telephone (48) No No ' Yes,• „` Courier service (421 S) No No Yea" Electrical &natural gas generation b switching (491, 492) NO NO Yea"" Natural gas 3 petroleum pipelines 8 storage (46) • No No Yes" • , Water Vestment plants (494) - No No Yea°•'' Sewer treatment plants (4952) No. No ;Yes°•'' SaNtary landfills (4963) No No yes s., Recycling b transfer 18c9RJes (4963) ' No No Yes°." Hazardous material facilities Source: Sacramento Metropolitan Airport Comprehensive Lend Use Plan (1993) (4953) ' NO No Yes° " SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT • LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY ' COMPATIBILITY WITH " LAND USE CATEGORY CLEAR APPROACH- DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT' and . (Standard industrial Classification Code) ZONE ZONE ZONE WHOLESALE TRADE Pair, vamishes 8 supplies (5198) No No Yes' Chemicals 8 allied products _ No No Yes' Petroleum truck tem�lnels ' No NO Yes " Miscellaneous wholesale trade No NO Yea's RETAIL TRADE Department 8 variety stores (single) (53) No ; No Yes" Lumber, building materiels & nurseries (521, 526) No -No Y" es Grocery stores 8 drug stores (54) No No Yes" Palet, glass, wallpaper &hardware (523, 525) No No Yes" Auto, truck,' boat S RV dealers (55) • No No Yes" Mobile home dealers (527) No NO Yes" Auto & truck service stations (554) No • No Yes' Fuel dealers (598) No NO Yes" Apparel &shoes (56) No No Yes" Home fumishkiiys (57) No No Yes" Eating 8 drinking (58) No No Yes" Miscellaneous retail trade (59) No No Yes" BUSINESS 3 PERSONAL SERVICES Auto, truck, boat, RV & miscellaneous repair (75, 76) No No Yes' MobOe home repair (1521) No No ' Yes" Commercial laundries 8 cleaning (721) No No Yes" Coln -operated laundries (7215) No No • Yes" Photographers, beauty 8 barber, shoe repair (722-725) No No Yes" Funeral services (726) No -No ' Yes" Business services (73) No No Yes" ni Computer progrartxng & data processing (737) No No yes,13 Travel Agencies (4724) No No Yes" Legal 8 engineering (81, 87) NO NO Yes' Banks. credit unions 3 financial (63, 64, 65) _ No No Yea" Hotels, moteia„irv�a, bb &breakfast (701) No No Yea " Business perks b Industrial dusters No No Yes" Office bufkflnpa (offices for rent or lease) No No Yes" Business & vocatkxial schools (824, 829) No No •Yes" Construction businesses (15, 18, 17) NO No " Yeascellaneous Mi personal services (729) NO NO Yea" SHOPPING DISTRICTS Neighborhood shopping centers No No '.. Yea" Community shopping carters NO NO Yea" Regional shopping center No No No Exhibit C -11A Continued G-30 December 1993 C66 t jogweooa penupuoa V l l-3 11414x3 ON 0 x►puadd y sdeW pue eliailjo Ailll9l3eduioo aldwes ON ON ew eyl ON ON ON (8t6Li sPeAeoeti ON ON oON(6666) suoly9odze. pusspurwjbjle j ON ON ON �l��� VMOt tLem 's�un1�pP� ON ON ON s9ue� puw e snlPmS ON ON ON (tt�6L) t3� leuolsse}ad ON ON ON (M4exow jo £ - xeldiwo jeloet(1 emtPld uopoW ON ON ON - jeeyi emt�ld ug3oyy eI4P � 9"za (ESV� ON ON- ON (�) eoueiwoped eNl - s+eleeUl nseA ON ON 464464sl�Ux'8 �IPn� •sney eouea ON ON ON (EO(COL)steed AV '8 spur�abdwp 'sdwep cLseA ON ON (166vV+�'8euly VSKM nseA ON ON (661 'fes sieweo �ueu�esrnue v uollee�ek! u•z�•o�A zL•r�� ro 9•c�Jl s8ele je3BM IwnleN c�•zVro�A zi•rz�A a•t�A SSe�B le+nisu'8 eaeQs uedp ccseA ON ON (866 �1Qm �IPItl ON ON ON steed leugbej +p epyh-/*xiwwop cVzLseA ON ON SXted P�4OQU�N • N LL tl 3tl nseA ON ON (S08) �plp�l e� 6u�nN nseJl ON ON (SCS) B) (uejp}U� e�ow j0 9) �� em PAUJ ON ON ON ' (6216) s�eim uopue�9p +g sL1ef uBBA oL'z98A ON (M,99)) sel�e�ewep ccseA ON ON (99B) seuojrnq nseA ON ON (E18) seN�Qll CLSOA ON ON swnesn. (t'8) �NBU� ue'8 W . cc4e� ON ON P 3�0 oo tsR�'8 � (M)8- lOB) �4U useA . ON ON (L08) seNolsiogel felueP 4 1�1PeW ON ON'` ON (908) ��H ON ON ON (ZZ8) Nm '? �uIlo'J ON ON ON (t18) spoyaa tiefxiooes g /Ue�uewep used ON ON e Riecliw�zJ (C8) �1^�m lu cc�Jl ON ON �eu,eno� (98-16) tu CLOG ON ON (CS) �4No tsod 3 IAtl3 Il8 d-1 V arlV 8 d 3M02 - 3MOZ 3NO2 1H'Jlldtl3A0 3!lf11Wd3a !fN'31p p I�P�1 S) (*Po'J �l3�fr��W�n -NoVOtlddV y P�• l�tlO�J311/9 3Sf1 ONYI HlUN 1LLr119LLrdM00 • . OM A1VS 3dtl90:1 S3Nr1301t1J lLLflI8LLVd170p 3Sf1 IT • 1ilOdtlfl/ MIlf10dOM1311 O1H3MIVtlOVS: / SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR SAFETY LAND USE CATEGORY COMPATIBILITY WITH ' AND (Standard Industrial Classification Code) APPROACH - CLEAR DEPARTURE OVERFLIGHT ZONE ZONE ZONE AGRICULTURE AND MINING Row & field crops (011, 013, 016) Yes Ye32.6 Yes`-" Tree crops (012) No Ye326 Yee-" Intensive livestock (021, 024, 027) No Y032.6 Yes6•i2 Nursery products (018) No Yes2.6 Yes6•" Poultry (025) No Yes26 Yee-" Pasture r3 grazing YeSX6 Yes" Yes` 13 Agricultural services (7) No Y032 Yes" Mining 6 quarrying (10, 12.14) No Yes2A Yee-" Oil & gas extraction (13) No No I Yes" FOOTNOTES: Use compatible only if directly related to agriwttwd use of the property for the provision of dwe" units for the land owner's immediate family, or for employees required for the protection of the property. All such dwellings OW be encouraged to locate outside of the Approacn- Oepwture Zone If parcel lines pemtit ' Use compatible only it it does not reauk in a concentration of persons greater than 23 persons per ace at any fine or the storageof flammable or explosive material above ground. No building, strucaues. above -ground transmission lines. or storage at flammable or explosive material abode ground, and no uses resulting in a gatfwring of mon than 10 persons per acre at any time. No bulk petroleum products or chemical storage. ` Tour operator passenger faalioes fiat allowed. Uses compatible only If they do not mutt In a possibility that a water area, may cause ground fog at result In a bird hazard. ' Household hazardous waste facilities opwased as part of an integrated waste management program and resuttkp in only temporary storage of materials is allowed. Uses in buildings must be compatible. . Use compatible only q requkernents of Cawortnla Education Code. Sections -1 .7. 81038 and 81038 ale, fulfilled. 'O No chapels or funeral home& No dub houses• bars, restaurants or banquet facilities. Ancillary uses such as pro &hops, snack ban• and spedalty food and beverage services we allowed. New course layouts i revfaions to existing courses must be reviewed by ALLIC for safety impacts This restriction does not apply to the mwo Air Pak Sped- Ptw%L-q Ares " No high intensity uses or facilities, such as aaucLred playgrounds, ballflelds, or pick pavillom " Uses Compatible only it they do not result N a large aoraenvation of people. A large concentration of people Is defined as a gathering or individuals in an area that would result N an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24 hour period ena ng at midnight not to exceed SO persons per ace at any time. This restriction does not apply to nonaesidential uses in the Metro Air Pary Special Planning Area. No uses that would cause electrical interference that would be detrimental to the operation of akaaR of aircraft instrumentation.' SACME MMSAFM , Exhibit C -11A Continued C-32 December 1993 T, ■B--- I A......... � 1 1 yN � ' I � ,.oar :— - • � • �: _� J i ' � 1.700' , — - • • .��' 1 - 1 3 � Y 1 LEGEND_ soar 10 CLEAR ZONE O 1y\ Av}iCACHWARTUREZONE ZOW 4 riE'Tao AIR vAAK' SVEGAL vlAwre40 APZ'A l Source: Sacramento Metropolitan Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1993) December 1993 1 Exhibit Cr77Ts Airport Safety Zones Sacramento Metropolitan Airport 0-33 CHICO MUNI CIPA L A IRPOR T FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE r COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND fi ENVIRONS PLAN 0 m ..m p Table 111-1 Recommended Land Use Compatibility Designations Chico Municipal Airport , Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) Land Use Class: In Decibels Below'60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 Over 801 Residential Residential Y N(a) N(a) N N N Mobile Home Parks Y N N N N N Transient Lodgings Y N(a) N(a) N a N N Public Use Schools Y N(a) N(a) N N N Hospitals & Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, Auditoriums Y 25 30 N N N Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Government Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) Y(d) Parkin Y Y Y(b) -Y(C) Y N Commercial Use Offices, Business & Profess. Y Y 25 30 N N Building Material Sales Y Y - Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Hardware Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Farm Equipment Sales Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N General Retail Trade Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing & Production General Manufacturing Y Y Y(b) Y(c) Y(d) N Photographic & Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture & Forestry Y Y(f) Y(g) Y(h) Y(h) Y(h) Livestock Farming & Breeding Y Y(f) Y(g) N N N Mining & Fishing Y Y Y Y Y Y Resource Product.& Extract. Y. Y Y Y Y Y Recreation .Outdoor Sports Arenas Y Y(e) Y(e) N N N Spectator Sports Y Y(e) Y(e) N N_ N Outdoor Music Arenas Y N N N N N Nature Exhibits & Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, Parks, Resorts & Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables, & Water Recreation Y Y 25 30 N N KEY TO TABLE III -1 Y Yes, land use and related structures compatible without restriction. N No, land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. " NLR Noise Level Reduction. (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. 25,30 Land uses and related structures generally considered compatible; measures or 35 to achieve NLR of 25, 30, -or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. (a) Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve out door to indoor Noise Reduction Levels (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate noise problems. (b) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (c) Measures to achieve NL.R of 30 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings -where the public is recieved; office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal noise level is low. (d) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings whe_ re the public is recieved, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where normal.noise level is low. (e)' Land use compatible pro-vided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (t7 Residential buildings require and NLR of 2_`�. (g) Residential buildings require and N -LR of 30: (h) ` Residential buildings not permitted. AIRPORT OVERFLIGHT PROTECTION ZONE CITY/COUNTY GENERAL PLAN &-ZONING COMPATIBILITY OVERFLIGHT PROTECTION ZONE Al B • ■ •.T �®■® ■�■�■■�■gym■ ■�■�®sem■ ■�■�■■�■gym■ ■�■�®sem■ facsimile TRANSMITTAL to: Paula Leasure, Butte County DDS fax #: 538-7785 re: Draft Public Hearing Notices for 10-21-98 ALUC Meeting date: October 7, 1998 pages: 3, including this cover sheet. Attached for your review and approval are copies of the proposed notices for the agenda item dealing with the annual, review and update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The first notice would be published in the "Public Notice" section of the Chico Enterprise Record. The second notice would be mailed to the City of Chico. Please let me know if these look okay so that I can bring final versions to Paula Atterberry today for distribution. Thanks! From the desk of. Laura Webster Senior Planner Pacific Municipal Consultants 1465 Myers Street Oroville, CA 95965 (530)533-1131 Fax: (530) 533-7099 +BUTTE COUA.AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 a (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • ti Please publish the following notice in the Chico Enterprise Record on or before Monday, October 12, 1998: , Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will consider the following item at their regular meeting on October 21, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers (25 County Center Drive, Orovi Ile, CA): Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The ALUC will consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation, dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been prepared based upon information contained within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Commission will consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675. y Members of the public are encouraged to attend the hearing and provide input to the Commission. Questions regarding this item should be directed to Laura Webster, Butte County ALUC staff at (530) 533-1131. •Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • ► BUTTIE COUNTY AIRPORT, ]LAND USE COMMISSION + * 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • TO: Public Agencies and Interested Parties FROM: Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission SUBJECT:'. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. DATE NOTICE MAILED: October 7, 1998 This is your official notice that the Airport Land Use Commission will hold a public meeting on the following matter at the time and place listed below: HEARING DATE: October 21, 1998 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room Butte County Administration Center 25 County Center Drive . Oroville, CA 95965 Annual Review and Update of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Plan. The ALUC will consider adoption of a portion of the recommendations found in the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport prepared by P & D Aviation, dated February 10, 1995, and other maps and technical data that have been prepared based upon information contained within the 9993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Commission will consider the adoption of these amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan in accordance with Public Utility Code Sections 21674.7 and 21675. If you have any further questions or desire additional information, please call Laura Webster' of the ALUC staff, at (916) 533-1131. At themeeting, the Commission will consider oral and written testimony by any interested person or affected agency and the report of staff. The project file may be reviewed at the Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. AM 0-21-98.MTG\CHICO. NOT e Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission e =;.�.Ba fte, Count LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 October 22, 1998 Mr. Tom Lando, City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Dear Mr. Lando: On October 21, 1.998, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the following environmental. findings and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) as an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption. This notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps and text language adopted by the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code. JUSTIFICATION: Section 21674.7 of the Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the Aeronautics Program of the Department of Transportation. Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the comprehensive land use plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar year." — Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 2 It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. F Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because: 1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes proposed within the project area. 3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected area. ADOPTED AMENDMENTS: 1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone r Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 3 which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. 2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14: Overflight Protection Zone In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as Zone A within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term protection for the airport and area residents. Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the r 1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue. to apply to those areas outside of the OPZ. Outer Safety Zone Land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include: I • Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 4 Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered acceptable, however. Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer'Safety Zone. 3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP. 4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and the. CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing. 5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by —Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 5 Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES: Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans with airport land use plans. 65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans (a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with -the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code: Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific -findings that the proposed action is. consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 6 (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that the individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a City or County's general plan or spec plan that are made in response to the amendment of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for its ,review and consistency findings. If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code, please call me at 533-1131. Sincerely, W Laura Webster ALUC Staff t cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program City of Chico Airport Commission City of Chico Planning Commission A Exhibit A �a _ _ ',. -..'. '. - -- - %_ - f>.: __ ... � _, - � -<-:, �; _ _ - :� _ �• - I! ! 1. ..1 •;'�: •�(_•_ --- I)i;.},�. .".1 ,��.,(y-r ._. - -41 z -moi/ �•�i t vl.`_/i .fir S - _ - ✓?.� t -` l t '1 `'r. �'�y. i�-_ - — _ - _ \ '� i :, ,, ,.., \ _ �/' _ _ ,I . i �'1 ' • A. . ,rte - .. ,\ �- e F' .� - '�`. ,,-�,^. 't i �, .tC•I\ /.,moi �v •'\' - 'I!?_ .0 \ - .� - 1,'.. `C�_.i/ :•`i - `i. oaf �i - y-yz: .. _ - i - .'•". \ `� -• a •� - _ I .: '_��:- -4.�- ---Zine'' - �% _ .% I: i ' �•c',�. .•^ �, . ._ \ _ •_tee_ i• - _"�"` `�. �/ �� ,�= ,yam t:: i :� f�.,j r:j ♦� I•�-_ �� .'l. IL -:-�H(CO-41 INMJPALr41RPORT -- -,__ -^:: - 's� - "�:!1`�'-_' v '4 .-`•.�(•'.�'- 'ez� SCALE' /•7.- p^ , ` _ / ^v' �• \\ FEET :--�% -i,._.- ,>f•-• �.+�a��- - _a4-• .=�fi -=�.-.-. �-' •� {': .�i t'�:�'�� .� ! �` •i+:•J' / '��?.i'Z`.' NORTI ✓` r/.: "',mss • •c-' - i•' .� _ '� �. •. t• , � - /S :; j • ,q` .r 1 -.,) j• JI 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 , Safety YZone Names `•�'^ i-_- e/��,'' :- -;( ,�_ ._ �''��f'7;, `��• ,%,./��,<, -%''�r.--!:--_�- _ `U�,_d_...� \�:'f•;f�:'i,frZZone on�e . f/A � 'J- i:!'=-�.!►; "�...-- ��:'�.p:Pi"'G' _- i' p°i.�;3�:rr _�F.::'�`:i.:- J^_�i /-o/j__,nl=/:•e. -__ --Aw.-m�re• `—aI�I1- ' '`-_o- •�{;-�'1'..'_p-:.�.-..=-.�'�`__- ' -',. -'_ ,:— ,_.4_g_ _.b-_��:---`':z-;•-:`.,E:_`,fi`ti:_!- f•aesr/,^k , _'.I l i• �'-'t">_• l��It6��''_.�,`;:•-�::�;a ' '.�� ;�4s =: �f )�''�;I�,i �?-L~�•,'.j�`,`1 '•;_r�)/'f�/''�J :'I,�'•: .�,Q:'.�i__:'••,`-.. ► ' �Ji• _ ,<-�., . i't/'r`. :,'f�� sr\.,_.�-''' �;'�..`♦� t�C�t1 �: ,�-L=�'; �'1_� �f _����a- 111� •�t�.-i-p.1��J,'�--:- �. �' �.' \ - y�li` i c-_te `rt` _ t. • �r�`. • , f LE-G•--E- •N-D AirporttrDw,t Boundary n aery1 Runway Protection Zone Chico Sphere of Influencefe Zone Inner Sa-- h <h - - - Overflight Protection Zone ea• Airport Influence Area3 Inner Turning Zone a Outer Safety Zone X. Zone A and Zone B together r tV. 1.D"Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ)9 tntlue"c6 ;'aing Cl�%� C-14 ii 4. • is - , - --t" _• �.,. Z 4- ..��.. I� L IBM] - goo ,`�— ---�: •'_ < a fir' 1:- 1 j-•; c:_ _ a i:i:� • -7. Jr r a. W 4! _P vt :-c. _7 7 Vz - I- J 4A A., U. j, • AIRPORT BOUNMRY/ ... CLOSURE PONT 15,500 conu IMII IWWAC. � FMn jz 3z� 7 A. .Exhibit B1,1' 4 LV :zrj, V- A w.- .0. , S, 4;. P- X f7. RPORT 8 MARY T! 4 CNEL. V -7 ♦ ^tJ _1. .V 4W. r .. . .. . - - ­_ ­ . a j .'Safety Zone Names I RurrWay Protection Zone .2 Inner Safety Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone r 4 Outer Safety Zone 4 j 99 Zone A and Zone B together represent the definet! ."Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ)- Approved. By N').: Pevis,on By I Apvr Date Dole 0 77— op prc e D�rown JEP TMS I Designed Ft. OIXON SP11AS AGOOCIATER, INC. Checked Dole JEP AmM-378 AIRPORT -ENVIRONS PLAN CH.1CO'MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FUTURE CNEL-NOISE CONTOURS Drawing CIC -15 X 1:4 1r, Mv , - lkk^ 11.1 r. - �Woh M A. W! V- A w.- .0. , S, 4;. P- X f7. RPORT 8 MARY T! 4 CNEL. V -7 ♦ ^tJ _1. .V 4W. r .. . .. . - - ­_ ­ . a j .'Safety Zone Names I RurrWay Protection Zone .2 Inner Safety Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone r 4 Outer Safety Zone 4 j 99 Zone A and Zone B together represent the definet! ."Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ)- Approved. By N').: Pevis,on By I Apvr Date Dole 0 77— op prc e D�rown JEP TMS I Designed Ft. OIXON SP11AS AGOOCIATER, INC. Checked Dole JEP AmM-378 AIRPORT -ENVIRONS PLAN CH.1CO'MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FUTURE CNEL-NOISE CONTOURS Drawing CIC -15 1111 -�� �`��t��t . AW M ---� .� DEPARTURE - AREA DEPARTURE loom- 1000 low �T�---T�� -- --- ------------••m�.lfiliU��:!Uuiiij�y' ijjiiiij�!Illlii�!n...� •\�`\q_ ` ..1.11: , � 1 � ,i Ij�_ •' 41 q���--..� o �•ii111pEtL, tlT�'; - � 11.!4n��`19M.���j� �'= 'n►...v-ng• �i ♦��'��,♦� �` �'• � :_'=: �`J`* i� �Iq®� '�A,,_@gym 1 ������ �♦ O%p�� � •.: �y�`� �a1• Vie• `�'�+Iq, �`�� �. � i= ••�,�.:' `1� _ i°®"'�'�/�%.'p-� �• � I • , r_ �����,.\\ .!IIiIIIII _ 0 �prr 161 ,i,:,���� ��,,�i'pi, : .�s - aaa�%r'�` �• . - �� ,1 VIII •�' �:�`` _ (j111111111g111lp11i1lI,,,r,!e• ,•,1�lIri Exhibit C _y represen a ive •o requirementsof the airtanker fleet. _•�S i.— -- -- -"-=-' —^ ��`_-�'�. .s.. _':�''�"-,i-- :` '-`_\_4 '`�'���'i�`��' Vii. � � ='_--- . �.f•.., n _ •\ \ - _ .— - .— � �Cc. :-•' �. •'�_'•��..:� rim : �- _ •� - ' .•.� l••'� -• -- '•> - �'�.'- \ i' :\.•-•!' _ _ gni": .\-.��'. �'tti• - - t, : �•' - - — --- -- - ---- - — -- -- -- --- - - - — - - - - PREPARED BY THE CITY OF C 41CO PLANNING DAMON This map was •— - - _�-_a.-._�._ r ter- -+-- � _. prepared by the � . City of Chico Planning Department using aircraft . performance data -performance by-CDF Battalion Chief ti Steve Iverson which ` 1 consisted -of the turnin "radius and g N.' airspeeds required . for, the S -2F Tracker and"the P-3 Orion aircraft. These two, aircraft are y�.� t t' • f the _y represen a ive •o requirementsof the airtanker fleet. _•�S i.— -- -- -"-=-' —^ ��`_-�'�. .s.. _':�''�"-,i-- :` '-`_\_4 '`�'���'i�`��' Vii. � � ='_--- . �.f•.., n _ •\ \ - _ .— - .— � �Cc. :-•' �. •'�_'•��..:� rim : �- _ •� - ' .•.� l••'� -• -- '•> - �'�.'- \ i' :\.•-•!' _ _ gni": .\-.��'. �'tti• - - t, : �•' - - — --- -- - ---- - — -- -- -- --- - - - — - - - - PREPARED BY THE CITY OF C 41CO PLANNING DAMON Drawing CIC -16 •— - - _�-_a.-._�._ r ter- -+-- � _. .- —� �♦ - - _.__c..�.- _. - � -.. _ti.-... _-_-...—.�. ... � . _ •. • -• I ' Drawing CIC -16 1 • .\ .`t • ' •+,• �' ' ! �� \tom �. I � - .. �,i '4r •• F� Is I Cs 10 �` •fit: !- •. �j[^ I r.''.; .' � � :K�.a:. �,' '�1 i• 'y / 1 �j� `X `p4 : 'j■[j t, -' \\` ifs, `` r01 10 110. I � `' �? . fy `••, '1' ,. 1� \ �.b. - ' ,,,� �•• ��/ %;N, ir,:ar.q•• ��Yiil4/f1A! • w' V i -: ' • 1 + - / JIB ... 1 ,__,tr__ t�. I' ;iT•'�,:�• ,,\ T� •!�I '.•'';. t' �� ,�" tib' � ,, •. �•:•'• 04 r Al f �� •• r I �� I � � 1 ! li �- r • 1 ` .• :off ' j' •' I. `,^. `, ` - r ,r' � , i ;. -�_ Its-: � cy,� u � :•; _ r .. •(�'•`' j �'��_ a 1 � • •. r t'� it ` 1 .. • h1 at �� ' _ ��'� 1, w , �. ,'w i r, ` , �\ �t• 111 ,0 1 i� � �•\ •i•�`�-� •��:• •` I t r N / ' (�= I r" ; 1 ^/�IIMr• I /I�laI�IA�•• i.� !, A�NI►�A%/• ��►IVAiw.r /w •Ii�•.�w. A� Taw •+www••�•■�/..•w i��••.+�:.w /1 AA/11 . . - L. � 4Q h , tie o _ un • _ - L A,N DT,_O,F__,_N•A,.T_U.:R A L W E A L T H A N D B,E A U T Y • � � - -:ate c AIRPORT, LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397' TELEPHONE:(530) 538-7601 • _ f T FAX: (530) 538-7785 ,ty October 22, 1996' Thomas A. Parilo, Director, - `Butte'County Department of Development.Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: Notice of Adopted Amendments. to the Chico Municipal''Airport Environs Plan Dear Mr. Parilb: Y On October 21, 1998, the Butte, County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the '-following environmental findigs and amendments to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (CMAEP) as `an interim measure until a more comprehensive update is completed. These amendments became effective immediately following adoption. This notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, •specific maps and text language adopted by the Commission, and a summary of subsequent local agency actions ti required by the•California'Government•Code•and Public Utilities Code. JUSTIFICATION: Section 21674.7 of the -Public Utilities Code states that an airport land use commission that formulates, adopts or amends a comprehensive land use plan 'shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred to as the ,Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by, the Aeronautics_ Program of the Department of Transportation: Section 21675(a) of the Public Utilities Code,also states that, "the comprehensive land use plan (also known as the compatibility plan) shall be reviewed as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purpose, but shall not be amended more than once in any calendar - year. , Mr. Thomas Parilo October 22, 1998 Page 2 It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent . the development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because: 1. The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 2. All future development projects will require. individual CEQA review for physical. changes proposed within the project area. 3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected area. ADOPTED AMENDMENTS: 1) Exhibit A -This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety'Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone _' � 'tr In .rte s •� Y ` Y • , r X .r bra ♦- - , r • ', �.' re• � +.• - IA Al • i + r. Jq .'Y T - Mr. Thomas Parilo �._ . ,• October 22, 1998 Page 3 which the Overflight Protection Zone•does not incorporate is the'Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commissiori adopted the Overflight Protection. Zone and the'Outer.Safety . z Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. .� 2), The following text was'adopted to accompany Drawing CIC • w -14. _ Overflight Protection Zone ' In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of , j new residential uses shall be prohibited in the' area defined,as.Zone A ' within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This ' is the area that is subject to most low altitude, overflight activity. Existing . - residential uses shall beto remain An Zone A, and infill of the ' ,permitted existing, residential area would be allowed only in the area`designated as,, Zone Al. , The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive '. • overflight activity: ' In Zone B no new single family residential uses•sha_ II = • be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B ' shall contain conditions requiring the de'dicatiori'of avigation easements • - ..to the airport operator and notification of,potential tenants of overflight, • Factivity.�,-Zone A and Zone B together represent•the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ): When a development proposal 'is reviewed for eorimpliance­with' the ` restrictions proposed for the Overflight Pro'tection,Zone, it is imperative • that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied insure. long-term- . ' t .to protection for the airport and area residents. , r _ •. ` Note: There are.areas within the Airport Area of Influence whichhave', been assigned, Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) *categorfes in the. ! ;. 1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas'are located outside of the Overflight',', } , Protectiob Zone (OPZ). "Although the OPZ would supersede .they CLUZ ' - ' categories in areas where,it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those ' areas outside of the OPZ. -Outer Safety Zone • Land use compatibility and density, recommendations presented within'- the 1993_ Airport. Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 anis 9-23) will. w apply within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations,include:,' �" ; Mr. Thomas Parilo October 22, 1998 Page 4 Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concerns within outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are unacceptable closer to the,'runway end, small neighborhood shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered acceptable, however. Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone. 3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are developed and adopted as ' part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. *The Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP. 4) Exhibit C - As part of the City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and the CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing. 5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993). Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Mr. Thomas Parilo October 22, 1998 Page 5 Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES: Government. Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans, with airport land use plans. 65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans (a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of, the Public Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the. provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised ,its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the local agency to submit all subsequent. actions, regulations and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. 3 Mr. Thomas Parilo October 22, 1998 Page 6 (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and thelocal agency agree that the individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a City or County's general plan or speck plan that are made in response to the amendment of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for its review and consistency findings. If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code, please call me at 533-1131. Sincerely, Laura Webster ALUC Staff cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County Planning Commission Butte County Planning Division ;r ; a� Exhibit A x Y 'r - �. _ _ .Id _ �� Com.;. �'•i�- a.-�.� .'�. j � i �i • � i ry r` 1/�/ vc t"(� %`.� ;� ! i %1�;: �•/ -•� it - lnflue' pce\nc@�'� o/ �4 t_'.r - _ � '_ - �- � - .:��.F �. .� ��-,��Zone• ... -.. 13. `_ - -�'- - -?e:�• - _ _ \ `- \ 4• r}' •' Vii- ` v - -'�. r ci . .. j �- �.: i ri i*' •• _ rz A. `moi. :x'• . i. � ` : = S v `K I•' ��Y . Cli1C0-IVIUNJCi-AlrA1RPORT 4A i Safety Zone Names SCALE FEET I 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 - - •J ,_ b "►�Zone A LEGEND 1 Runway Protection Zone '- 2 �' �> one "`" "� I f:',, �r'� i `� Airport Boundary 2 Inner Safety Zone - _ - - r' << �' __�i =• 1 '� •f 1J ` ��-� , :e i Chico Sphere of Influence �'f• `�� r o� . Overflight Protection Zone 3 Inner Turning ne y,r. Airport Influence Area j Ti9 Zo A ort 1 - 4 Outer Safety Zoneiia _ / /� ra .,. •:' 'fir_ �. ., , ® �. _ - a•�a_aa•aa•aat .J - 4 . •�. \,. ` .111..y .1 - �.: j._ �-� �• . iJ __. _^' . G :, .\s' ' . r� / 1_ - 1G _ tAate.. • � _ � •• [ -1/ .. - r J �. �-r _ ,� . _ � . • .( _- -.-- _ _.._ _ IL-: __-.'`�•1 �•- TIS.. Zone A and - _ �` ^ - - . , _ _ •'� Zone B together re resent /V _ P _ `,•, f ,: ;,�; :- Area' �. C L ;.'1�_ . i. 3 ' Overflight Protection Zone OPZ '*. ' % —�f• n,i \ �Ve6C = o f ` '/ - If j� '•%a'i�r ) i_, to •—�'t t : :.+:: • ^. �. r t • :O ,. a `••r _-„ :i`t�, - .A "`'-- - { _It> �l� '. —tee .1 k•y` -. :•t.: .` ..t:.. •'• �! i:i' _ I f _ tl -'f ' i• ' ` - a1 ` o<�,.. •.moi, P ' S �'_ ___ .- •:1 �w-- - I .. - •I. SII. • :I•f '; _+ � , . //- •, � / •. .q _ _,.: 11 t , lac _ • _ _ .. .,.. 1 Drawing CIC -14 TN Exhibit B', - L A % 1I 1 :tib M C JK 7, It e Mi 4. V 1 J i- WN y•rj. 7. !7 • - AP' % II AIRPORT BOUNDARY/ S; Z4 Ar SOO CLOSURE POINT 15,• AiiWay Fmnlftl 00 C V, 5. a. X Al JDAR CM tuo - 3I.5 f4L C 7-4 L t7L 4' -7 '41 r- + SiIifety Zone Names Q 7. 1. Runway Protection Zone. 2 Inner Safety Zone IA NIP SA j r 3 Inner Turning Zone, i t 4 Outer Safety Zone' Zone A and Zone B together represent the definet! "Overflight Protection, Zone" (OPZ)- .0-30 0 -000 =0M SC -.E me IECI Approved. Designed Df Own AIRPOPIT ENVIRONS PLAN Pr%C JEP TMS By- FUTURE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS k DIXON @PEA& ASSOCIATIS. INC. Checked Dole CHIC MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Revm-on 8? 1 Am Dole Dole JEP ArRIL 11178 Drawing'CIC-15 • A �DEPARTURE CLEAR AREA m EDGE OF DEPARTURE .-'CLEAR AREA ,�� ,ROM�� _ �. � , NEW EMS -4. M�_ 1 i .Itl ljl 11 I+Illli�t�ylA1 "'�W • 1�. qty n'+h,�l,lhn11u11R •91z# �� Is `� 1j1 11^ttl Illlhl, 11 1+111111,1+1 �•s•t h1�� 1 1 • 1 1 r•. h, 1, hn n`��.I�h1u1g1 +1,11tuuhl+llhhF• V �` I+r.11+ `.t11+111,++1111111•tl''tl 1 +1 +Ilnh, +1, 11111111 +1 11tH Plitt +1 111 t, t, Itblll + +1 +1 1 1111111 +1 14Bqq, R ••:!: �h1111j+ t+1111i1t1+Iltl++I III II It1t11+1111111/l+li�ltiii:�t,l+l,�llllllll�t ZM'p � 1 q vuiq;il��4uull�hil+� ;uutgy�•- .... r . II:i+1ji4+i ���il'�i h ��.o�_!*tr►�����^^�.,���� �� 1 1 1 1 1 1�i.tjiRAI Jq1 iiiiiij�lljtllllttljllltllli111fli���,N �"`d \ 1 UL...1 1 hhnnryt Illhulhlt 1, Ihunl 1 Ilhuh 11 q gY -''��p��p����•�"� /1:1..r_•�.1.) j . 1 1 1,t11iliiinilj+il4iiiiiilttill�iiue�►�,,®t_-�b� _� ,• -- 11:1111t11nlgm�ttlln/!t.!!nu:h�lyl++t+'++4:l41hv- u1•' � r�,-�� 0� �.al,� �' ..I.il�•i1i1111�'1!11If1.. ---_:!I1:l1!I�i'I�r�` �41 R� Id._a.•L4�.• ��� ���:�i;� .,,sur, • - .�, _� .., .. =.1�: �,►i;1����•��� • 1 1 1 • ♦ ��,,�,�`, r� �j�` �- -'1.41 lteli�IN „i �•�♦�•�� .`ie � ����:�--. `�. �- � � �: � \\\ .��I��III _ e � �` r 1611 1 t � r �4� ���' � -„ _�►% '�;�"'•_ �'� ISI �.;�♦ � �i � `moi iQ. � -�- • ,- 1 I1ltlltlllllltlttlllitll+• •,11(1 �1,'�I moi♦ — ,1 Drawing CIC-16- .} � 1. >-tip , i � �• • . '. .. . • 91 IN _� .. � •, ice• 1 _ �'f ' . ji )'NN I p777 • ' • f � •.'% G . � .—_.Iii- 10 00 IN l . is X 110 /- •� - _� ' � •I + _'' � i-'' +•moi' .I ,.. I .5Z 10 41 XiN ny Al s a •!:: ILis 7r77 - JSWO 0 use •,�O � d ^ �: •~,.�'� e`er' l. .��F,,.._1,j1'�u� 1.{111,;•.. � ib j• . •' ham` •• �: •• 17 Ii `(� '{f • � ew ` � I •L\ �• 111• C 1 jf' •� / •.� . „'�.1.`.,� 1 �^_ "r •.• 'S� `►yam•• �> • y ;'• •. 1 � �� � ?�. 1 7-Cn i Q w1C$"'El •a b {'e14 y,t L e.t• b .,,. � . .. l i r- �' tet. ••i '\ ` 1 • '_"�.+eee��• �Iw%/�Ierlh• wI ^wli%.�e�i,w, l7�e•%alw•• Iw�1/1ee1•e. i+� T�www.....iwlEww C��.•..=f.... /I /SA oil y. October 22, 1998 I Ms. Christa-Maria Engle, Aviation Planner Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program M.S. #4. P.O. Box 92874 i Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Subject: Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Dear Ms. Engle: Attached for your information are copies of correspondence to the City of Chico and Butte County Department of Development Services which specify amendments to the 1998. Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which were adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission during their regular meeting on October 21, 1998. Please feel free to call me at (530) 533-1131 if you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions. Sincerely, Laura Webster ALUC Staff Eatte Count q' LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 October 22, 1998 I Ms. Christa-Maria Engle, Aviation Planner Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program M.S. #4. P.O. Box 92874 i Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Subject: Adopted Amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan Dear Ms. Engle: Attached for your information are copies of correspondence to the City of Chico and Butte County Department of Development Services which specify amendments to the 1998. Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan which were adopted by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission during their regular meeting on October 21, 1998. Please feel free to call me at (530) 533-1131 if you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions. Sincerely, Laura Webster ALUC Staff • . =;-: - . • butte COunt �... _ • LAND Of NA'T-URAL WEALTH AND .BEAU,TY' - z AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-77.85 October 22 1998 Mr. Tom Lando, City Manager City ofChico - r P.O. Box 3420 , Chico CA 95927 T Subject:' 'Notice, f Adopted Amendments"to-the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan ; Dear Mr. Lando: :j On October 21, 1998, the'Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted the following environmental.findings and amendments -to the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Pla'n'(CMAEP) as,an-interim..measure-until amore comprehensive update is completed. These amendments became effective irrimediately following adoption. This notice includes the ALUC's justification for the amendments, specific maps and text h language adopted by the Commission, and a summarylof subsequent local agency actions required by the California Government Code and Public Utilities Code. n •JUSTIFICATION:. � . - t- -• ' - . a Section 21674.7, of the Public.Utilities..Code.states'that an airport land Lase commission that formulates, adopts: or amends a comprehensive land use plan shall be guided by information prepared and updated pursuant to Section 21674.5 and referred, to as.the - Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the 'Aeronautics Program of the Department of Transportation. + Section 21675(x) of the Public Utilities Code also states that, "the. comprehensive land use .� plan, (also known as the compatibility plan) shall,be reviewed as often as necessary in, order to accomplish its purpose, but shall nottb amended more than once`in,any calendar - year. . _ ' t � s i Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 2 It was found by the Commission that the standards within the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan are not compatible with the intent of the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21670 (a) (1) and (2)) and the guidelines presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook prepared for the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Amendments to the 1978 CMAEP approved by the Commission will prevent the development of new incompatible land uses and preserve the viability of responsible airport operations at the Chico Municipal Airport. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines states that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility" that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, that activity is not subject to CEQA. The ALUC has found that the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan meets this CEQA exemption because: The adoption of proposed amendments to the Plan will not result in any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical conditions within the project area including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, or affect objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 2. All future development projects will require individual CEQA review for physical changes proposed within the project area. 3. Proposed amendments to the Plan will not increase the development potential for the affected area. ADOPTED AMENDMENTS: 1) Exhibit A - This map depicts the Overflight Protection Zone identified in Exhibit III -1 of the FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Environs Plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. The four safety zones depicted on page 9-16 of the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook have also been overlaid onto this exhibit. The Runway Protection Zone (1), Inner Safety Zone (2), and Inner Turning Zone (3) are all contained within the Overflight Protection Zone. The only Caltrans Safety Zone Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 3 which the Overflight Protection Zone does not incorporate is the Outer Safety Zone (4). The Commission adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and the Outer Safety Zone as Drawing CIC -14 of the CMAEP. 2) The following text was adopted to accompany Drawing CIC -14: Overflight Protection Zone In response to concerns regarding overflight activity, the development of new residential uses shall be prohibited in the area defined as. Zone A within the Overflight Protection Zone depicted in Drawing CIC -14. This is the area that is subject to most low altitude overflight activity. Existing residential uses shall be permitted to remain in Zone A, and infill of the existing residential area would be allowed only in the area designated as Zone Al. The area defined as Zone B is subject to less intensive overflight activity. In Zone B no new single family residential uses shall be permitted. Any approval of multiple family residential uses in Zone B shall contain conditions requiring the dedication of avigation easements to the airport operator and notification of potential tenants of overflight activity. Zone A and Zone B together represent the defined "Overflight Protection Zone" (OPZ). When a development proposal is reviewed for compliance with the restrictions proposed for the Overflight Protection Zone, it is imperative that the more restrictive criterion shall be applied to insure long-term protection for the airport and area residents. Note: There are areas within the Airport Area of Influence which have been assigned Compatible Land Use Zones (CLUZ) categories in the 1978 CMAEP. Some of those areas are located outside of the Overflight Protection Zone (OPZ). Although the OPZ would supersede the CLUZ categories in areas where it is applied, the CLUZ categories depicted on Drawing CIC -13 and corresponding policies will continue to apply to those areas outside of the OPZ Outer Safety Zone Land use compatibility and. density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (pages 9-22 and 9-23) will apply.within the Outer Safety Zone. These recommendations include: Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 4 Density of Use - The types of land uses which represent concems within outer safety zones are similar to those in the inner safety zones, but somewhat higher densities of use can be considered acceptable. For example, whereas shopping centers and multi -story office buildings are unacceptable closer to the runway end, small neighborhood shopping centers and two-story offices are reasonable within this more distant zone. Concentrations of people should be limited to no more than 60 to 100 per acre. Residential Land Uses - Typical subdivision -density residential development should continue to be avoided in this zone. Rural residential uses with lot sizes in the 2 to 5 acre range can be considered acceptable, however. Special Functions - Most special land use functions, particularly schools, hospitals, and so on, should be avoided in the Outer Safety Zone. 3) Exhibit B - This map overlays the Overflight Protection Zone and Caltrans Safety Zones onto the future noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP. The map confirms the ALUC's utilization of the noise contours shown within the 1978 CMAEP until new contours are developed and adopted as part of the CLUP update prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. The Commission adopted this map as Drawing CIC -15 within the CMAEP. 4) Exhibit C - As part of the. City of Chico's approval of Foothill Park East, modifications to the departure tracks for CDF Air Tanker flights were mutually agreed to by the City of Chico and the CDF Base. This figure depicts the agreed upon departure path for CDF Air Tanker flights and was adopted by the Commission as Drawing CIC -16 within the CMAEP to accurately reflect current traffic patterns. The same land use compatibility and density recommendations presented within the 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for the Outer Safety Zone will apply to lands identified as the "Departure Clear Area" within this drawing. 5) Exhibits D and E - The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook contains maps depicting accident scatter characteristics based on information generated by Hodges and Shutt (1993) and the University of California Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies (1993).. Exhibit D depicts an overlay of the UC Berkeley Study onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport and surrounding environment. Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 5 Exhibit E depicts an overlay of the Hodges and Shutt data onto a map of the Chico Municipal Airport that was used during the adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. These exhibits were adopted by the Commission as Drawings CIC -17 and CIC -18 within the CMAEP to identify areas with particular safety related concerns. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS REQUIRED BY LOCAL AGENCIES: Government Code Section 65302.3 and Chapter 4, Article 3.5, Section 21676.5 of the. Public Utilities Code address the consistency of local plans with airport land use plans. 65302.3 Consistency with Airport Land Use Plans (a) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan prepared pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450), shall be consistent with the plan adopted or amended pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (b) The general plan, and any applicable specific plan, shall be amended, as necessary, within 180 days of any amendment to the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code. (c) If the legislative body does not concur with any provision of the plan required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, it may satisfy the provisions of this section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Section 21676.5 Review of Local Plans (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may require the local agency to submit all subsequent actions, regulations and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, the action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the commission plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. Mr. Tom Lando October 22, 1998 Page 6 (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the - local agency agree that the individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. Discussions with Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff also indicate that any revisions to a City or County's general plan or specific plan that are made in response to the amendment of an Airport Land Use Plan must be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission for its review and consistency findings. If you have any questions regarding the Commission's actions or the process described Within Government Code Section 65302.3 and Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code, please call me at 533-1131. Sincerely, Laura Webster ALUC Staff cc: Christa Engle, Caltrans Aeronautics Program City of Chico Airport Commission City of Chico Planning Commission r. A Pi El .:� COMMUNITY SERVICES ' DEPARTMENT - Fifth and Main Streets CITYoP.O. Box 3420 INC. 1 187Z 872 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4893 ATSS 459.4893 December 10, 1991 Dear Airport Operator/Tenant- The City of Chico is in the process of updating the Airport Environs Plan which was designed to.comply with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 to-provide'noise_ protection for the airport and assist in determining compatible land use'swithinthe. environs of the airport. - A public meeting has been. scheduled for Thursday, January 9; 1.992 - at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located -at 421 Main Street, Chico to discuss the plan and to'obtain citizen comment. On behalf'of the City, I:am interested in obtaining any information you have regarding your plans at theairport particularly as they regard aircraft operation. *Any projections that you can provide for the next*.5, 10 and 20 year period would' be greatly appreciated. These and any other comments can be provided in writing to Thomas J. Lando, Community Services Director, P. 0. Box 3420, Chico, CA' 95927 or at the meeting. Sincer_elT; Thomas J. Lando Community Services Director TJL:ce cc: City Manager City Council Airport Commission Mike McClintock Butte County Land Use Comm. 4,Butte Couiity9Planning Butte County Administration FAA John Vfeifer , Chamber of Commerce SOS/SOAP/CEPCO FR: CMA Environs Plan Chrono ce/wp/csd3/a:environs NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 421 Main Street, Chico, to discuss the update of the Airport Environs Plan. This discussion will include a briefing as to the method to be used in updating the plan. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments and ask questions. This will include a brief description of the method to be used in making operation projections to be used in the update of the plan. - Interested citizens are invited to attend and/or provide comments in'writing.to_Thomas J._Lando,--Community ServicesDirector,.P. O. Box 34201 Chico,, CA '. 95927: • .1 ZZ, Publish: _... E -R 12-14-91/12-15-91 N&R 12-19--91 ROUTING CITY OF CHICO U LQ E C. INTER -OFFICE -MEMORANDUM 60 J1N DESIRED To I IOL • W. • WIT. WFUU CITY 1, CITY C TO:. CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR The Airport Environs public. meeting is scheduled for January 9, 1992 in the City Council Chambers . 1, o D m- v DA rE AGENDA - FiLE-_=.INFO CIRC _ Clerk _CM _CM Desk 1 DCM _ACM- ACM- Council AOTech- ADToch- PersAM Media CA _AC _COP _CSD _FC _FO _ PIT _ Other A LLte - / y /1.�� r+")er+ G.,. -1 Seg 1 Slat 1AkN figowiv (Coffvmt it F. CIO= iate) mid rrmm ICityManager I0eA`Iri aN mgr' Call/See me re this !ty Cierk Investigate and report Idly Attorney Act as indicated SCO I Please orocess IAawPoFor your Into.Alle A&n. Tech. -CO IYour sngnattue renil(EO IAdm. Te. -Pers. nn Return to sender Pun. Into. Tea,. Per vour est IQtiet of Police Circulate Comm. Ser. Dir. Post on Bulletin eoaros Dlr. Pub. Wrks. FILE 1 Flnatce Officer IFlre Chiet�+ IPerk Olrector lPiaming Director TICKLER: secret I ( I Thomas J. Lando/ce I 0"`" *CSD Dam SEC n 4 1Qa1 OFFICE OF THE ' CITY MANAGER CITYorCHICO 196 E. Fifth Street INC 1872 PO. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4800 ATSS 459-4803 G-GA-2-10/Chrono October 1, 1991 David Hironimus Butte County Planning 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Dave: I am enclosing herewith an, -updated proposal from Mcclitock, Becker & Associates (MBA) concerning the information documentation which I think would be of substantial benefit to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUCj- As discussed at the last meeting of ALUC, I indicated that I would request MBA to send a representative to the meeting of October 9; therefore, I would appreciate your placing this item on the agenda ` and circulating a copy of the proposal to the members of the Commission at the time you send out the agenda, so that they would be in a position to carry on an appropriate discussion with the MBA representative. Further, you will note that the estimated cost for this is well within the funds allocated within BCAG's overall work Program (OWP), albeit that the OWP item relating`to funding for the study will have to be modified. Jim Brown -is very familiar with the item, and I believe you worked with both MBA and Jim Brown concerning the information that ALUC would like to develop in.connection with Butte County.airports. If you have any additional questions, please feel free_ to contact me at 4802. sincerely, FRED DAVI � ' City Manager/Airport Manager. FD:ps , Enclosure - cc: Community Services Director (with enclosure) Interoffice circulation CM Desk Jim Brown McClintock, Becker & Associates Bettye -Kircher, County Planning — = = ciTY of cHica McCLINTOCK, BECKER & ASSOCIATES "Y ' September 23, 1991 Mr. Fred Davis City Manager City of Chico P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 Re: Letter Proposal to Prepare Airport/Aviation Facilities and Land Use Manual for Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Dear Mr. Davis: McClintock, Becker & Associates (MBA) is pleased to provide you with this letter pro- posal to prepare a comprehensive airport/aviation facilities and land use manual which will inventory and describe aviation facilities (i.e., airfields, airstrips, duster strips, . etc.) and land use conditions at all public use, personal use, and special use airports in Butte County. The purpose of this manual will be to provide the Butte County Airport: Land Use Commission, and other local planning agencies, with a single comprehensive document which shows the location and layout of each airport or airstrip in the County, classifies them according to their use, describes the facility, and presents a graphic depiction of land use and other considerations in the airport environs. The compilation of this manual is envisioned as the first stage of a two-stage process. This first stage would represent an inventory of existing airports and other aviation fa- cilities and land use conditions, while the second stage would entail the development of 'A planning policies and comprehensive land use plans for specific airports required to have such plans. PROJECT NEED As is the case with many airport land use commissions, the Butte County ALUC has become concerned about recent trends which point toward growing pressure to develop noise sensitive residential land uses and potential obstructions to air navigation at the: many public and private airports in Butte County. The problem is compounded by the - fact that no one single comprehensive source exists which contains information on the - location, nature and extent of airports and aviation facilities in the County. County- wide land use and zoning information is generally available, but these data are also not consolidated in a single source that could be used by the ALUC and others in deter- mining the compatibility of proposed development in proximity to Butte County air- ports and aviation facilities. .1'fr DATE AGENDA FILE,- ' INFO _:RC _ Clerk _CM _CM Desk I DCM _ACF. AC.`.i- Council -AD';;cn- AD T ,xh FersAnt Media _CA _ACA _COP _CSD _FC _F0 Otherp• 94yft--*i Sc Sec'I SIM;. 1291 Suite �1T 1- s;er C.•..--j1dornia 94404 G- &A -,2-I o • 415) 349-4424 MCCLINTOCK. EECKER & ASSOCIATES Mr. Fred Davis September 23, 1991 Page Two Goals The goals of the proposed manual are (1) to inventory and describe all existing airports and aviation facilities in Butte County in one consolidated comprehensive document; (2) to develop land use information and obstruction clearance criteria for each facility for use by the ALUC and others to protect these aviation facilities from encroachment by noise sensitive, hazardous or other incompatible land uses, and (3) to provide the Butte County ALUC with the basic information required to make informed decisions concerning policies and plans for each of the airports as required. PROPOSED PROJECT APPROACH MBA proposes to prepare a consolidated, comprehensive airport/aviation facilities and land use manual for the Butte County ALUC on the basis of the following activities: Inventory MBA will inventory and prepare updated information on all Butte County. airports and aviation facilities. This inventory will be based, in part, on existing information avail- able from the airport operators, ALUC, County staff, State Division of Aeronautics and FAA sources, including airport plans, Airport Layout Plans, FAA Forms 5010-1 (Airport Master Record), and regional aeronautical and obstruction charts. Airports and other aviation facilities will be inventoried and classified on the basis of being (1) publicly owned/public use, (2) privately owned/public use, (3) personal use, or (4) special use facilities. Preliminary research reveals at least twelve aviation facili- ties located in Butte County, as follow: 1. Publicly owned/public use airports Chico Municipal Airport Oroville Municipal Airport 2. . . Privately owned/public use airports Chico Ranchaero Airport Paradise Skypark Airport 3. Personal use aviation facilities Biggs(?) airstrip Durham(?) airstrip Peterson airstrip Siller airstrip Stirling City (?) airstrip MCCLINTCCK. SECKER & ASSOCIATES Mr. Fred Davis September 23, 1991 Page Three 4. Special use aviation facilities Hog Ranch (Johnson) airstrip Lake Oroville sea plane facility Richvale airstrip Prepare Graphic Exhibits and Data Tables MBA will prepare a large-scale map of Butte County depicting the location of all rele- vant aviation facilities. Individual maps will also be prepared for each airport depicting r the length width and orientation of runways, existing airport environs land use, and FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance criteria (Attachment 1 is a representative sample of a large scale regional airports location map and Attachments 2 and 3 are examples of maps depicting information for a specific airport). A data table will also be prepared summarizing the characteristics of Butte County avi- ation facilities (see Attachment 4). BUDGET . MBA believes that a properly prepared and thoroughly documented airport/aviation-fa- cilities; and land use manual for Butte County can be prepared for the sum of $25,000 to $30,000. This budget'includes the necessary inventory and mapping involved in preparation of the proposed manual. The lower figure includes preparation of data for the twelve airports cited above and provides for up to three meetings with the ALUC, including a kickoff meeting with ALUC and project staff. The upper end of the range presumes that there will be additional facilities to be in- ventoried and allows for additional briefings and study sessions. This budget range also assumes that major economies can be realized by concurrent preparation of the manual and consolidation of study findings with the imminent Environs Plan Update for Chico Municipal Airport. In conclusion, we are looking forward to the opportunity of working with the Butte County ALUC on this important project. Please contact John Becker or me if you have any questions or require additional information about this proposal. Respectfully submitted, Mida'�.wlintock, AICP Principal ; attachs. SAN JOSE !SA JOSE � casae AFB °Sen Gregorio INTERNATIONAL Atwat IRPORT N@Wn18n Myers . RE HILLVIEW AIRPORT �• < o'', �;a MERGED � . - - - Gust\ ' MUN CEIPAL r O \ AIRPORT t ! GUstine Flying M Ranch® 5 s AnA...Dn pJohnson ASSMATION Of MONTEREY (ti(rq 101 BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS °�18olrlder Geek Q - Newhall Ranch CHOWCHILLA • Loch Cek•er organ Hill -••N`- ® AIRPORT Lomone t, q R•••^ �D,Q„ - Santa ua Chowchiva REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM Las Trances Bonny Doon'o;, `j L•k• LOS BANGS 9Z Willis Ranch (PA) T� .. , .. - CDA Village ® :° c9v�. oO - - sour COUNTY " . ` - RPORAL PLAN UPDATE - � • • G,yT IRPORT D San W. .� s Chipman Scotts. Vasey /h ) Reservoir Los Ban s Azevedo Davenport.TNS s 9 SPB Ben L.I. SCALE RRA•nolr e. Alta Ista Gtlro Dos Palos MurDER AL worrrN W MUNICIPAL ILLE Dos_ Pa Do ' AIRPORT ` o.IINicAN MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL A P RT .A _ STATUTE MLLES ^. ATSO L OFraziet Lake Avpark'�' �+' • ® - Haws 'Q o s w NAUTICAL MLLES ' - SANTA CRUZ Monterey Bay '. VLCOYNUNRV HOSPI 25 a -'+� 1 EI PECO Ranch tQ Academy R P� : �� OLLISTER 1 Eagle ' / MUNICIPAL AIRPORT O(PVU V, ` tQ o FIREBAUGH Christensen Ranch Airport OG �FlrebeUgh LEGEND ollister ' Mass LeII�tB i HOSPITAL SANTA BOUNDARIES COUNTIES) NTEAEr AND • ° 25 "FAB e � , MENDOTA � URBAN=AREAS y - OMUNICIPAL AIRPORT Gomes Oh �„d0� /A AIR CARRIER NUB OF REGIONAL .. _ •� `„ �/(/ SIGNIFICANCE Man a Fri�AZAcFhe AUNAS c l . OR - © A RPO REGION PUBLICLY OWNED Dubois Ranch AIRPORT • O ` SALINAS • 9� _ �' Ort 4' © MUNICIPAL /� • Peltoelte O OTHERAI PUBLICLY OWNED OR PUBLIC 0 d,� AIRPORT 9y `1 9, LOSE AIRPORT OPRIVATELY Y OWNED AIRPORT MONTES (t Seaside Ouall Geek o i .9 (Drt) ILIYITED PUBLIC USE) 8 - Del ROY Oak. BB 9 101 ` ' PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPORT Pacific GrOVe MONTEREY �y F` (EMERGENCY USE oNLr) Cannel PENINSULA IRPORT 9{Q \ MILITARY AIRFIELD OF °j 9er. Fat City R T ` e OO REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE • m� R '\ ,•� G OZaI` , `sari BenitO \O OTHER MILITARY AIRFIELD CL arrnel Valley \� AMPORT CLOSED Chalone Vineya!Q..• - Carmel Valley ® RanchCreek�( i\ S Prison q(�ijl aeh�9y r Five FoiMsO Five Potts•i\ SEA FLAME BASE q/- . .. Soledad. C • © 'FAA CERTIFIED MELiPAD ' ® SoledaC�. . C. west side \ San Clemente Doud Ranch OG �R:i�rvoU Harris Agro Rancho Clerk Renc 1%� 2 West `` O Westaide • �"' y ^ /j) \®Metz .... - `• n Greenfiel iw Harris Ranch �� SII '. MEE HOSPITAL Mesaw.Del Rey - •\ tot O'King Vim. . COALINGA King City Prbst Vete 1 MUNICIPAL 0 \ AIRPORT Coalinga G . � I., 9 'ti �: •''\ „ L� Hunter-Liggett San Ardo Field O Avenal REVISED OCTO•ER •Qf0 A O AAF Aurignac • Sat Ardo R �9"ice O AHP Hunter-Liggett Avenel Figure 2 NOTE: THIS MAP PREPARED FOR /1 PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND IS `•`� •John NOT TO BE USED FOR AIR NAVIGATION. Martinus Texaco ( REGIONAL AIRPORTS MAP ® aLoekwood /� • Parkfield 0 Avery Farms LAke San Antonlo `� - Oq EadetRanch - • BradlsY ®Camsouzou HemeiVelley - Ranch Buttz Ranch Roberts AAF ® Ranch a —� iMcCLINTOCK, MONTEREY Ranch COUNTY O (SAN LUIS OBISPO COaQ__�____ tc—�s— BECKER & ATTACHMENT 1 cp SIA N L 0 R E \14 Z (SOBE3RANE Aa ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREYR�VERN��• ' REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PIAN UPDATE A N L 0 R E ,U 0 �a J BM "^�• v 393 (S O B it It A N N S) ;, d�. • —� ... iII /•• `��` \` � �� \J �y`\` ` i % it 363 \,�O U 1 U II 1 I- • .'o- ME—SAID RPoif\ w+ do m: 3 " LEGEND -- __ .��I .•� RES RESIDENTIAL . 1 INDUSTRIAL � -�� CB COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS ...i. °_ �,�' ;.•••'• �• °, �i�� Aa AGRICULTURAL i%ti :dll: S SCHOOL T/U TRANSPORTATION/UTILITY yCB / AP AIRPORT PROPERTY .` •`\\ ' ��• Y � 'rte TJX&�, r i� '�.��' i t •F� \'`%z9s' RES o -j '�.�►� S fat, \ / FIGURE 4a NORTH GENERALIZED ENVIRONS LAND USE Q, 0 2000 MESA DEL REY AIRPORT FEET CITY OF KING, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN (SEPTEMBER 1976) McCLINTOCK. BECKER Q ASSOCIATES A 1 1 AuHmrIV 1 J I/ AIRPORT LOCATION MONTEREY COUNTY Monterey Peninsula Monterey Salinas Municipal Salinas Mesa Del Ray King City Fritzsche AAF Fart Ord Hames Valley Bradley .Roberts AAF Camp Roberts Carmel Valley Carmel Volley Rana Crook Ranch Carmel Valley San Clemente R4ncho Carmel Valley Gomes Halipad Csstroville Cholame Ranch Choleme Huntse-Uggett (Tusi) Ft. Huntar-Ugga Fat City Cattle Co. Gonzales Matz Airstrip Greenfield Mea Hospital Helipad King City Butts Ranch Lockwood Maninus Lockwood Avery Farms Parkfield m Casouzou Parkfield Eade Bros. Ranch Parkfield Quail Creek Salinas Aurignac San Ardo San Aida Field San Aldo Texaco Helipad San Aida Chalons Vineyard Soledad Clerk Ranch Soledad Doud Ranch Soledad Pinnacles Soledad C.T.F. Helipad (Soladad Prison) Soleddd tt X X TABLE 1-7 A,J X X AMBAG REGION AVIATION FACILITIES° ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL' AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN UPOATE i 1990 OWNERSHIP/ - BASED NO. OF SURFACE INSTRU- OIISTANCEb USE 'o• p JAICd RUNWAYS CONOITIONSe E TATIONI t f 1..i , .. 4E PUiPU 188 2 ASPH•G P 3SE PU/PU 241 4 ASPH-G PN - 1N PU/PU 80 1 ASPH-G V O M 117 1 ASPH-G GCA SW PR/PR 0 1 DIRT -G None O IM 0 1 NIA None IN PR/PU 15 1 ASPHISOO-P None IDE PRIPR 0 1 GRAVEL -G None 53 PRIPR O 1 ASPH-G None ISW PR/PR 4 N/A DIRT -G None 7N PIJ/PR 0 1 DIRT -F None 0 M 1 1 ASPH-G None 4NW PRIPR 0 1 ASPH-G None 3E PRIPR B 1 OIRT•F None 1NW PR/PR 0 N/A NIA None 7S PR/PR 0 1 ASPH•G None 2W PRIPR 0- 1 ASPH-P None 12W PR/PR 1 1 ASPH-G Nana 8W PRIPR 1 1 DIRT•G None 3S PRIPR 0 ASPH-G None SSE PR/PR 8 1 DIRT•F None 1W PRIPR 0 .1 DIRT -P None 2N PRIPU 0 1 ASPH-F None 8S PRIPR 1 N/A ASPH•G None ONE PR/PR 0 1 GRAVEL•F None SS PRIPR • 1 1 ASPH-G None 3S PR/PR 0 1 GRAVEL•G None OE PR/PR 0 1 DIRT•F None 1N PU/PR O N/A ASPH-G None FAA CLASS-_ SERVICES LONGEST FEDERALLY IFICA- MAINTE• RWY ILXW► OBLIGATEDg nONh EUE11 NANCE ATCTI 7800 x 1 SO 500S x200 4485 x 100 3000 x 75 2500 x 40 NIA 2475 x 3S 2500 x•10 2200 x 50 N/A 0000 x 4S 570 x 50 2700 x 7S 2500 x 80 N/A 1000 x 40 1000 x 50 3000 x 40 2500 x 40 2800 x40 3000 x 90 2150 x 85 2000 x45 N/A 1750 x40 2420 x 40 1800 x 40 1890 x 70 N/A X X X T T Gu NIA None NIA BU None None None None N/A None None HP Nano None None None. None None None None HP None None None None None A,J X X A,J X X , A,J X A,J X ATTACHMENT 4 r� I CITYorCHICO INC.. 872 MUNICIPAL BUILDING P.O. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95927 (916) 895-4800 ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono Airport Land Use Commission County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 August 28, 1991 Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter to the Board of Supervisors concerning dedication of Avigation Easements in accordance with the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan. The -Chico Municipal Airport Commission is requesting that the County require the Avigation Easement when a County building permit is issued to a property owner. In addition, the CMA Commission is asking the. support of the Airport Land Use Commission for the dedication of Avigation Easements in connection with County building permits. Please place this on the agenda for the September 11 meeting for discussion by the Airport Land Use. Commission. Sincerely, a Shor Chairman Chico Airport Commission Enclosure cc: Dave Hironimus, County Planning" Council Clerk Airport Commission CSD Planning Director CM Desk Interoffice Circulation MUNICIPAL BUILDING P.O. Box 3420 .Chico, CA 95927 CITYovCHICO (916) 895-4800 11 INC. 187Z ATSS 459-4800 G-GA-2-10/Chrono August 29, 1991 Butte County Board of supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 The Chico Municipal Airport Commission, at its meeting of July 30, 1991, had an opportunity to review the City and County policy concerning the requirement for developers to provide Avigation Easements in accordance with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The Commission has asked me to convey their appreciation for the County's requirement which provides that developers provide the City with an Avigation Easement in connection with the approval of parcel and subdivision maps. In reviewing this matter, the Commission determined that the City not only requires developers to provide Avigation Easements in connection with parcel and subdivision maps, but also in connection with building permits issued to property owners within the City area covered by the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. The Commission has asked me to request your Board to consider adopting an appropriate provision"in the County Code which would also provide for property owners'to provide the City with an Avigation Easement in connection with the issuance of County building permits. If you require any additional information in this regard, the City offices of the City Manager and the community services Director will be happy to provide it. sincerely, /ald'�/,Short Chairman Airport commission cc: Mary Anne Houx, P. o. Box 1087, Chico Jane Dolan, 196 Memorial Way, Chico Will Randolph, Butte County Administrative officer Bettye Kircher, Butte county Planning Butte County Airport Land use Commission City Council City Clerk Community services Director Planning Director City Manager Desk Interoffice Circulation Airport Commission �r CITY OF CHICO INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: BRENDA CROTTS, CHICO MUNICIPAL DATE: June 7, 1991 AIRPORT COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO ALUC FROM: CITY MANAGER FILE REFERENCE: G-GA-2-10/chrono SUBJECT: BUTTE COUNTY ALUC MEETING JUNE 12, 1991, AGENDA ITEM V.3.,- STATUS REPORT - CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN MESSAGE 1. since the City staff and Council will be in an all -day budget session on June 12, neither I nor any City staff will be in a position to attend the meeting; therefore, I am providing you with the following information regarding the status of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan so that you can convey it to the commission. It appears that FAA is close to notifying the City officially that it has approved the !mss updating of the CMA Environs Plan, since the matter of the grant was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1991, indicating that Chico was to receive $98,024 (the City's contribution of 10% will be in addition to this amount) to conduct "Noise Compatibility Plan Study" (Airport Environs Plan). with this information it appears that the City, hopefully, will be proceeding within the next 30-60 days. You will recall that the study will probably take in excess of one year, since one of the provisions of the plan is a requirement that'the consultant perform actual noise level monitoring. 2. In addition to the above item, although not on the Commissions 6/12 agenda, I would appreciate it if you would notify the Commission that the BCAG Overall work Program incorporates $35,000 for hiring a consultant to prepare other information, which I previously discussed with the Commission, relating to other airports in the County. I believe the Commission will be in a much better position to make its decisions once all of the appropriate information has been accumulated and presented to the Commission in a form which can be used during its discussion of matters relating to airports in Butte County. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. FRED DAVIS FD:ps cc: ALUC Commissioners Dave Hironimus --if you need any further clarification,. please call me community services Director Il b 1 191 10Dr". r CITY OF CHICO INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM T0: BRENDA CROTTS, CHICO MUNICIPAL DATE: June 7, 1991 AIRPORT COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO ALUC FROM: CITY MANAGER FILE REFERENCE: G-GA-2-10/chrono SUBJECT: BUTTE COUNTY ALUC MEETING JUNE 12, 1991, AGENDA ITEM V.3.'- STATUS REPORT - CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN MESSAGE 1. since the city staff and council will be in an all -day budget session on June 12, neither I nor any city staff will be in a position to attend the meeting; therefore, I am providing you with the following information regarding the status of the Chico Municipal Airport (CMA) Environs Plan so that you can convey it to the Commission. It appears that FAA is close to notifying the City officially that it has approved the PP&z*s updating of the CMA Environs Plan, since the matter of the grant was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1991, indicating that Chico was to receive $98,024 (the City's contribution of 10% will be in addition to this amount) to conduct "Noise Compatibility Plan Study" (Airport Environs Plan). With this information it appears that the City, hopefully, will be proceeding within the next 30-60 days. You will recall that the study will probably take in excess of one year, since one of the provisions of the plan is a requirement that the consultant perform actual noise level monitoring. 2. In addition to the above item, although not on the Commission's,6/12 agenda, I would appreciate it if you would notify the Commission that the BCAG Overall Work Program incorporates $35,000 for hiring a consultant to prepare other information, which I previously discussed with the Commission, relating to other airports in the County. I believe the Commission will be in a much better position to make its decisions once all of the appropriate information has been accumulated and presented to the Commission in a form which can be used during its discussion of matters relating to airports in Butte County. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. FRED DAVIS FD:ps cc: ALUC Commissioners Dave Eironimus - if you need any further clarification, please call me Community services Director 11 !" 1,91 1001.1- s LEGEND r INTERIM ZONING n • (s r», ...,.<:.:.. FLIGHT CORRIDOR I ", COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONE (CLUZ) CATEGORIES r I CNEL 65 OR HIGHER, IN OR OUT OF CORRIDOR - 65 PR - \ Y `.S•1 : - r- � ' • r .. - - .r F �`_•aY'y .ti.r. ry _� �.: ,+ _: r � 'ry. M'r TECTEO AREA IIP CNEL 80 O - - •" _ �' ... C 1 7L CNEL 60 65, IN CORRIDOR w - : �' FT>. t Ea '� a `� „m "PPS S:` �.' IIC CNEL 60 65 OUT OF CORRIDOR . ., . ...._. ..- W , .; ��« r' �t �!' .> ��::, < •ems `°� - - - ...- •qY,:' _ -�•• • '"�aa" acs«':;€ _ \ i� lY CNEL 55 -•60 1N CORRIDOR ? .. . :.. .. r .. ...:_•,.:. . -z .��; '•:-,r::ter•'+Y. ,� s•�>, :. �'• ,j, 4`.<.' �{ h. r • �.Y _.CORRIDOR....... r. .. . • ... ._ / - '. - :r,_-� •:.. t- :'•: ' �'�.,.y;R;�::.: - CNEL 55 _.60, OUT OF �•.. \ 4 a • r : �<:c�>.. �5:> «.. d: o °�.•*-- - • .. r -r _: r,.. x ».«%z a °w: , `t >: s r -a L r, 4a%;E � �e��u-`at .m. . z� ' . - � �; �_ e,....5 � ,<,?s _ -.. sr - .Ilf. ...,::... .t<a . ,. ... � ...- ,:'.• .-:..�w �� ter'... •.:.- ^' .re AE. ' -� • .k a <]�%��y...-.>.a'su''" . .. :. ., _: �. - .. .a. � �. t .]'t. F '�% < ,>.. . Y:. .aaX: •Q<.f'n ~ c. : � �; �` a.. ., cJ»': . � . ... , ,. _ _ .. .. - c.,, ' .� .:.... .. ... ,�'� .. '�. c � .: ,-u'$r`+eEY>a• „ d(sxss>£ �.i.r r9�X�..� y ;.�.,',e' mss... :.�.' � ,r:.. ,..0;,3.;' t _.' .'• ': ..- :_ ';y,v: ... �,, ... :w;r», - .'�i?'r:�;Syti... n ^'._•�` �'"xp�,n ."�• a� .A�e4. ( a �" i►� 1Q A�3 •. i. �, ,/ :i. i I' ♦� ol umL CORRI DOR FLIGHT i J.`A:3"+`oy, ...:. .. a,:. .._... .,. ,.. .,. �. <., - Ky4`���. �"r..a.'�V•?,�.F^h�+4+^- -I kx,.+.�" \r ��`. 1.1�•. . &e `=yv^,G'ft: -• a - ..: _ >31.. .. r . _ .. .... ,.4,_ I Ax - - _ 6' : �Li ` •:I:S.G. 'd.. .,�':. �/!' _ .. V\ .. .y � k•: '.'::� ,•'e:. 'AIRPORT, aOUN�';^• -•r" n. I •• • A .n.r_ �- �:. .a••>::'e to .�, .. - .yt'• _ e@x �`':;: Ot .. _ .•tom : i• - .i. •�Q.4 �' :s .s _ : i I .... M.-... .... h .,.,F•d,' • .. .. ..- - .. .. _ .err 9 Z'i ::psi+' .t. �" .•,. _- .. n '.. _-. ..,. :. ::" -. :-..� ;, '.. "-. ;.'::. _ .':i•a�'.5-:.,.:- ':rte':... �.� `�i-:4 , - r tc :a,:!+.-•. ..�. '.: �...:-•:.;fir. ..--.:. "' ..,• ..,tip >� a,FiF- .� _... a.:• .. .. - .. ,.,.. .. .ti..,. .. ,, - .._.. _.. • •_ ._... a „_- , -� r. - '\ :dr Q•. r -.r.. -r , Jir. i -..DRi: ♦ - a. '-c s •u ,. .._.. .,. O - .. .... a ... °t ... /r e.. ... '�, r `J� '� •� - J�_ .i « z F •=I t. , le• 9 1 4/v ` HIGHWAI lour o Woo z000 _ SOURCE : R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOCIATESse.0 in rte, f' Approved: DRAWING NO. �\� Designed Drawn AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN AND S By ~ pr " REA JRM L USE COMPATIBILITY MAP cic- 13 .--- - -- A. DI[oN VCA/ AGGocuTIG. INC. Checked Da1e CHICO `MUNICIPAL AIRPORT No. - Revlslon By ADDr Date Date JEP JULY 1978 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Bill Collins, Professor - Chico State FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Chico Municipal Airport DATE: August 31, 1994 ABSTRACT: In 1978, the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan was adopted. It was prepared by R. Dixon Speas Associates of Los Angeles, California. It is long overdue for a comprehensive update. Pursuant to our conversation, we are transmitting the scope of work below to be used for this semester's class project. DISCUSSION: This scope of work has been.developed in consultation with the City of Chico and County Planning Staff. The intent of this scope of work is twofold. First, the scope is intended to provide the County and the City with an updated Draft AELUP. Second, the scope is provided to focus the work effort for the students and to provide a valuable "real world" experience. The materials for preparation of this scope of work will be paid for by both the County and the City up to a maximum of $2,000.00. A maximum start up cost of $500.00*is anticipated. The work effort must result in a completed Draft AELUP by the end of this term. What will the•County and the City supply? The County will supply computer generated mapping files and a hard copy reproducible map of the planning area with the proposed CSA 87 land use plan and the proposed City of Chico draft land use plan. The County will supply three hard copies of the currently adopted AELUP. The County will supply one copy of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The City will supply three copies of the latest Noise Compatibility Report and one copy of the Draft of the proposed General Plan with the applicable goals, policies, programs relating to the airport highlighted. The City will supply three copies of any ordinances related to development within the airport sphere. The City will supply one copy of the adopted Airport Industrial Specific Plan. The City will supply one copy of the City Zoning, Subdivision and Sign Ordinances, and one copy of the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Proposed Scope of Work Review the current AELUP and indicate those areas of the Plan which need elimination, amendment or to be added in order to bring it into conformance with the current requirements of the Public Utilities Code, alignment with the proposed CSA 87 Specific Plan and the Proposed Chico General Plan. Indicate those areas of the existing Plan which can be relegated to a technical appendix, such as the Noise Studies. Consult with Bob Koch, City Managers Office, City of Chico and Barry Hogan, Planning Division, County of Butte on the suggested changes to the AELUP Prepare an outline of the proposed Draft Plan. Prepare a timeline indicating milestones (i.e.the major components of the Plan) and the expected date of completion of each milestone. All map graphics shall be prepared using the ARCINFO computer mapping system and presented to the County in hard copy and digital format. One copy of the text, in a Word Perfect 5.1 or other acceptable word processing format shall be provided at the conclusion of the scope Of work. The format of the AELUP shall be suggested by the class and approved by the County. Bary Hogan, Planning Manager for Butte County, will be the Project Manager and primary contact for the completion of the project. Receipts for all materials purchased for this project shall be submitted and approved by the project manager prior to authorization of payment. A start up advance of $500.00 shall be given, after approval of the outline and timeline for the project. A maximum of 75 copies of the Draft Plan shall be printed with a minimum of 25 copies submitted to the County for distribution. Copies of the Plan shall be distributed by the County to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission and to the City of Chico Airport Commission. A 30 minute presentation shall be given to the County Airport Land Use Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting in April, 1995, or at a specially called meeting at or near the end of the semester for the class. Ar Butte County Ar Department of Development Services Ar Planning Division w 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Bill Collins, Professor - Chico State FROM: Barry K. Hogan; Planning Manager SUBJECT: AirportEnvirons Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Chico Municipal Airport DATE: August 22, 1994 ABSTRACT: In 1978, the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan was. adopted. It was prepared by R. Dixon Speas Associates of Los Angeles, California. It is long overdue for a comprehensive update. Pursuant to our conversation, we are transmitting the scope of work below to be used for this semester's class project. DISCUSSION: This scope of work has been developed in consultation with the City of Chico and County Planning Staff. The intent of this scope of work is twofold. First, the scope is intended to provide the County and the City with an updated Draft AELUP. Second, the scope, is provided to focus the work effort for the students and to provide a valuable "real world" experience. The materials for preparation of this.scope of work will be paid for by both the'County and the City up to a maximum of $2,000.00. A maximum start up cost of $500.00 is anticipated. The work effort must result in a completed Draft AELUP by the end of this term. • What will the County and the City supply? The County will supply computer generated mapping files and a hard copy reproducible map of the planning area with the proposed CSA 87 land use plan and the proposed City of Chico draftland use plan. The County will supply.three hard copies. of the currently adopted AELUP. The County will supply one copy of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The City will supply three copies of the latest Noise Compatibility Report and one copy of the Draftof the proposed General Plan with the applicable goals, policies, programs relating to the airport highlighted. The City will supply three copies of any ordinances related to development within the airport sphere. The City will supply one copy of the adopted Airport Industrial Specific Plan. The City will supply one.copy of the City Zoning, Subdivision and Sign Ordinances, and one copy of the Redevelopment Plan for the area. Proposed Scope of Work Review the current AELUP and indicate those areas of the Plan which need elimination, amendment or to be added in order to bring it into conformance with the current requirements of the Public Utilities Code, alignment with the proposed CSA 87 Specific Plan'and the Proposed Chico General Plan. Indicate those areas of the existing Plan, which can be relegated to a technical appendix, such as the Noise Studies. ■ Butte County ■ Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 1 Consult with Bob Koch, City Managers. Office, City of Chico and Barry Hogan, Planning • ' Division., County of Butte on the suggested changes to the AELUP Prepare an outline of the proposed Draft Plan. Prepare a timeline indicating milestones (i.e.the major components of the Plan) and the. expected date of completion of each milestone. All map graphics shall be prepared using the ARCINFO computer mapping system and -presented to the County in hard copy, and, digital format. One copy of the text, in a Word Perfect 5.1 or other acceptable word processing format shall,be provided at the conclusion of the scope of work., The format of the AELUP shall be suggested by the class and approved by the County. Barry Hogan, 'Planning Manager for Butte - County, will be the Project Manager and primary contact for the completion of the project. Receipts for all materials purchased for this project shall be submitted and approved by the project manager prior to authorization of payment. A start up advance of $500.00 shall be given, after approval of the, outline . and timeline for the project. A maximum of, 75 copies of the . Draft Plan shall be printed with a minimum of 25, copies submitted to the County for distribution. Copies of the Plan shall be distributed by the County to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission and to the City of Chico Airport Commission. A 30 minute presentation shall be given to the County Airport Land Use- Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting in April, 1995, or at a specially called meeting at or near the end of'the semester for the class. b:\aelup.mem BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND, USE COMISSION e w.: Minutes , ctoberl2, 19 Page 4 ' B �: ReQuest'f_o' r Consistency Findings -City of Chico. A request by the Citv of'CFiico for=AL`UC to review�'tfie proposed draft"General Plan for.consistency with the Aimort� Land -Use Plan for the -Chico Muncipal Airport and`Ranchaero Airport:{ Commissioner Gerst said that 3500 ft. from the western runway does not allow for expansion of the airport in that' direction. The airport needs a location for testing -'rebuilt engines and that could be a logical area.There is no indication on any maps at this time to use that area for anything' other than warehousing. There is not enough consideration -of the future growth of the airport. Commissioner Gerst was also ' :. concerned about the possibility of a school beinglocated so close to. the airport. Mr. Hogan said that in answer to the 3500 ft., that was suggested by the City of Chico in dealings with the City to reach a consensus ,on a land plan .that the City could support for CSA 87. The 3500 ft. came from the City of Chico and the County was able to modify the,plan to comply with that. Mr. Hogan said he would suspect that if the CSA 87 alternative plan was packaged into an Airport Environs Plan which includes residential, that is closer than has been indicated, and that will include the school,'and is beyond the 3500 ft. but which might be considered to be adjacent, Commissioner Gerst would probably not support that as part'of the'environs plan. Mr. ;• Hogan said that may in fact be the case: There may be some adjustments in'that plan that this commission would like to see and the development on the properties -where the Environs Plan would differ from the approved specific plan, it would be found to be inconsistent and would take over-riding votes of the approving authority to allow development to occur, but that site is an approved. site for the school... It is approved by the state. That is in writing, so they have looked at that. Mr. Hogan would concur that it is not the best site, but the issue of CSA 87 would only come back to this Commission after it. has updated the Environs Plan, because there is still, no consistency finding that could be made. It is the intent that county staff bring it back to this Commission once the Environs Plan for CMA has, been updated and to 'see how much consistency can be found so that an over-riding process does not have to be gone through every time. Commissioner Gerst said"he would like to see a paper trail for approval of the school t, site, since it did not come before ALUC-for. consideration. ti ; Mr. Hogan said he could look into that:' Commissioner Gerst said that the proper information might not have been available to, the entity that made the decision on the :school site. r -, Commissioner Gerst said that regarding noise contour levels,, he felt that single event . • noise should be taken into consideration. �F, . • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMISSION Minutes — October 12, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Hogan said CNEL is the way in which the contours are required to be done. Single event noise can skew the readings away from the real picture. Large single event noises continuously or over large periods of time will skew the average and increase the CNEL's, but not as great as if- it were done only on single events. That Would be a significant change in the way business is done if that procedure were to be changed. Commissioner-Gerst said he would like to see the noise levels graph that was used to work .out the average. He said that another thing that is not being considered by Chico is the overflight area. The core area of CSA 87, with the school and shopping areas, is directly under the flight. The airplanes that use the airport are small, but there are lots of them. Commissioner Smail said that while Chico is working on developing.a quality plan for the CSA 87 area, Tom Lando wants it to be clear that the City is not interested in a sphere amendment to incorporate that area and in fact would oppose such a recommendation. Commissioner Rossas said that he did not see how it would be possible to shirk the responsibility for a de facto Sphere of Influence. He said that the whole picture needs ` to be looked at: the environs, the land uses, and the airport. 'The CSA 87 area cannot be ignored and neither can the airport., Things should not get segmented so people can be provincial and consider only their own interests. He hoped that Chairman Lambert would be able to represent the concerns expressed by ALUC at the Planning Commission. . Chairman Lambert asked specifically what concerns Commissioner Rossas would like expressed. Commissioner Rossas said he would like all the concerns being discussed at this meeting expressed. He .said. that he saw lots of problems with the draft document of CSA 87: The CSA 87 area cannot be ignored by the City of Chico even though they are not technically in the city. Mr. Hogan said the City of Chico has been talking about including the final county approved Specific Plan for CSA 87 as part of the Chico General Plan, but not include it within the Sphere of Influence. The CSA 87 area is seen as a growth area for Chico whether or not it is incorporatead. He suggested that in planning for airports, ALUC should view them as continued areas of growth and viability and look at an Airport Environs Plan that protects and encourages long term airport use. •BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMISSION . Minutes — October 12, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner Gerst said that several things are in flux right'now including the airport Environs Plan, Chico's Sphere of Influence, and CSA 87. The steps are out of sequence and decisions are being made on things that are open-ended. ALUC made a decision on a CSA 87 plan that has since been changed. Mr. Hogan said that ALUC could draft a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing concern with process. Mr. Hogan did not see any purpose in bringing the Specific Plan back for reconsideration. It has not changed significantly enough that ALUC could make a finding of consistency. Mr. Hogan said he has been directed by the Supervisors to move this plan forward. Commissioner Gerst thought the plan should go first to the Board of Supervisors for over-riding findings prior to going to the Planning Commission. : Mr. Hogan disagreed. He said that in the adoption of the plan, if the ALUC finds the document to be inconsistent, it takes 2/3 vote of the legislative body. The legislative body cannot vote on the plan until after the Planning Commission has reviewed it and made their recommendation. It cannot vote to over -ride the findings of ALUC without voting on the plan. The plan is not ready to be voted on, so it is still at the Planning Commission. It is not a Catch 22. The Commission has not recommended the plan . for adoption. The commission, if it does not like the plan at all and prefers the current land uses, could recommend that plan to the Board. If that plan is recommended and the Board intends to adopt that plan and doesn't feel they have the 4 votes to do it, they could direct staff to bring it back to ALUC for a consistency finding, which would probably be made if it were the current land use. The process is moving along and the plan has improved and will probably have greater improvements after review by the Planning Commission. Chairman Lambert asked Barry Hogan to assist her in reporting the concerns of ALUC expressed at this meeting to the Planning Commission .regarding CSA 87 in relation to the airport . Commissioner Rossas said he agrees with what Commissioner Gerst has been saying. He recognizes that a lot of compromise is necessary. He noted that schools are a creature of the state. The state can ignore local regulations where instructional activities are involved. Local regulations must be followed for non -instructional activities. There was a discussion of which divisions of state government determine approval for school sites and how the proposed school location in CSA 87 was selected. • HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC • BUTTE' C_OUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMISSION r Minutes —'October 12, 1994 - -Page 7 -John Papadakis, a citizen, discussed the location and elevation of approaches to the Chico Airport for instrument landings. ". 'HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC It`was moved by.Commissioner Smail and seconded by Commissioner Crofts that ALUC find the Chico draft General Plan consistent with the Rancha_ ero Airport Land , Use Plan. The motion was carried unanimously. It,was moved by Commissioner Smail to find the Chico draft General- Plan consistent with the Chico Muncipal Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The motion died for lack of - a "second. It was suggested by Mr. Hogan that ALUC find the text of the Chico -Draft General Plan consistent and find the Land Use•Plan inconsistent: He noted that there are tight time lines for this finding due to the upcoming elections. Commissioner Rossas said he would object to 'signing a blank check." t_ i • Chairman Lambert said she could not find consisten_cy'with.a revised draft for something she has not seen. ' It was moved by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Rossas, that the Draft Chico General Plan be found inconsistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Land' .Use Plan. Commissioner Rossas then rescinded his second and the motion died for lack of a second. - There was a discussion of what action ALUC.should take at this time.,. , [It was again moved by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by�Commissioner Rossas; , that the Draft Chico General Plan be found inconsistent with th'd' co Muncipal - Airport Land Use=Plan.. The motion was earned by the following .vote: - AYES:. Commissioners Franklin, Gerst, Stevens, Crotts, and Chairman ` Lam bert NOES:' Commissioners Smail and Rossas ABSTAINED: No one ABSENT: No one