Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLUP DOCUMENTATION 2000D Filed NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 0 Recorders Office County Of BUT CANDACE J. GRUBBS Recorder ROSEMARY DICKSON Assistant Work Order # 20010124036 1 FISH AND GAME CLERKS c5.00. TOTAL 25.00 CHECK 25.@0 - TOTAL TENDERED 25.0Q0 CHANGE . 11:49AM 24 -Jan -2001 2001@1BTTREC14 Maureen 17 Thank You Have a Nice Day! • TO: Signed. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Posted in Clerk's Office for 30 days & NOTICE OF DETERMINATION returned to ALUC files on 3/2/01 J X Office of Plan.& Research Dept. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X Butte County Clerk E�pN2�2oo� FROM: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965. SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AP Number: Various Applicant: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to clearinghouse): 2000032071 Contact Person: M. A. Meleka Telephone Number: (530) 538-6571 Project Location: The project area encompases the land within approximately 2 miles of each of the four • public -use airports in the County. Project Description: Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section, 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land and may determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. Airport Land Use Plans do not apply to the actual airport property, only the area surrounding the airport, within the Area of Influence. This is to advise that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above-described project on December 20, 2000 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1. The project will, _X_ will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of - CEQA. • _X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were, _X_ were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4+. A statement of oveRing considerations was, X . was not, adopted for this project. his is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and, record of project approval is available`to the general public at: 7 Country Center Dr. Oroville CA 95965 Date received for filing and posting at OPR Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 M. A. Mel -dl- Prin pal Planner • is • ` ( DECLARATION OF FEES DUE ) orma Fish and Game Code Section 4 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 96954 (530) 538-6571 FILING NO. Project Title/file number: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION O A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee (X) B. De Minimus Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption $25.00 Clerk's'Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED () A. Negative Declaration $1,250 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee O B. Environmental Impact Report $850 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. ( ) OTHER (Specify) $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. O PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s). 2. ( X) NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid. County Aggncy. Chief Planning Official By: M. A. Meleka Title: Principal Planner Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: January 16,.2001 TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIORTO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. J:\FORMS.NOD.frm CALIF�IA DEPARTMENT OF FISH GAME CER FICATE OF FILING FEE EXE ION De Minimis Impact Finding • (Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations) Project Title / Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Location: 7 County Center Dr., Oroville, CA 95965 Proiect Description: Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c). and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchaero Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each sirport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land and may determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. Airport Land Use Plans do not apply to the actual airport property, only the area surrounding the airport, within the Area of Influence. Findings of Ekemption (attach as necessary): The County of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a Negative Declaration so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact. • 2. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which. the wildlife depends. 3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, if applicable. 4. The project is hereby found to be de minimus in its effect on wildlife and exempt from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. M. A: Meleka; Principal Planner • Lead Agency:' County of Butte Date: January 16, 2001 f Revised September 1','.2000 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. M. A. Meleka 530/538-6572 4.. Project Proponent's Name and Address: . Same as #2 above. 5. Project Location: The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport; and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport influence areas range in size from about 4:0miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to 5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2) any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero- nautics Program. 6. General Plan Designation: Various. 7. Zoning:.. Various. 8. Description of Project: The plan' provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi- , cinity of the four public-use.airports and the aircraft activity -at these airports. The local agen- IS-1 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • cies that have jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes . policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor- dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: .> Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east. > Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref- uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area. > Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity. Town of Paradise a mile to the north. > Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of Chico nearby to the north and northeast. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission can adopt the plan without approval from any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, the Commis- sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub- lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as'required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec- tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority. over, land use. within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure. The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORSPOTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ing pages. Aesthetics _ Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality Biological Resources _ Cultural Resources _ Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials _ Hydrology / Water Quality _ Land Use [Planning _ Mineral Resources _ Noise _ Population / Housing Public Services _ Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic _ Utilities / Service Systems _ Mandatory Findings of Significance IS=2 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: JL I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect'on the environment, and an EN- VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and.2). has _ been addressed. by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described:on at- tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only: the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Signature Printed Name • Date Representing IS -3 • 01 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets. General Comment. The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to anticipate the spe- cific characteristics -of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso- ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un- changed from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither, precludes new development near airports nor, dictates the type of land uses which are -allowed. The plan merely limits the density, aft4 intensity, and height of the uses so. as to avoid creation of noise and safety compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which*af- fected local jurisdictions -can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan. Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to,the following environmental impact issues: . 1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Geology and Soils 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 9. Land Use and Planning 10. Mineral Resources_ 11; Noise 12. Population and Housing 13. Public Services 14. Recreation 15. Transportation / Traffic 16.' Utilities and Service Systems 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance All All All All All All Issues a), b) c), d), g), h) All Issue a) All Issues a), b), c), d) Issues b), c) Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv) All Issues a), b), d), e), 0, g) All Issues a), c) • For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the above General Comment. IS -4 Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) . Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light'or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources Issues In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? !0 0 t0 is 0 !0 m to0.01 St M Im C R 0. U) E _5an3.stn E X CL E 0 Z IS -5 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts 1. Aesthetics _T Issues0 CO a rn= oM a 0 acn N 35 305E z Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) . Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light'or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources Issues In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? !0 0 t0 is 0 !0 m to0.01 St M Im C R 0. U) E _5an3.stn E X CL E 0 Z IS -5 Initiol Study of Environmental Impacts c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? .. X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil- ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports. Mitigation: None required. 3. Air Quality Issues Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air polIution-.control..-- district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tion. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex- isting or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis- sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con- centrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting_a substantial num- ber of people? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. IS -6 mom_ isM 0 �Cc a a 0 CL E CM := � � E a�n _4i 3g �a5 cc cc a E 0 Z • • • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: None required. 4. Biological Resources Issues Would the project.. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on fed erally: protected . . wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) 'Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con- servation plan? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. W m cc o MM a�cea �c o► mceo 0.91 aNi o►«:- d as E CL U) 3w 31 _vn a E 0 z x IS -7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation. None required. 5. Cultural Resources Issues Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 6. Geology and Soils Issues Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) ,Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. IS -8 W C C R -acc o RR F W M C c E m c W 0 C 0ccc, amE 3N 35 rn CL 3 F E z X X X X X o R -acc mW RR 2V c E W 0)tm= a o5 ave E min 3� �ED ?N E •z X �7_ \I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac- tion? iv) Landslides? b) Result'in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- 6 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. InitialTtudy of Enviroinmental Im } x X ioW o X e��o X 7. Hazards and Hazardous Material mC ioW o Wa e��o tE =E a cE ; m � E Issues .2 Q, 1IIa M � � °' CO�, a a. )9 ?1 FO 32 3USE Z Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci- dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? IS -9 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz- ardous materials sites compiled .pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? �t e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a . public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? �t f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with,an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac- uation plan? �t h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res- idences are intermixed with wildlands? �t Discussion: 7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re- duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other. objects which might pene- trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a survivable emergency aircraft landing. 7.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. • 7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 74, 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: IS -10 None required. Y • tiaFStudy of Environmental 8. Hydrology and Water Quality C EC C 0 00 0 W 00 C Issues 'E c o, rL . o, m �' m o, c ave m�in Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc- tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or. area, including through the alteration of course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the . site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a.stream or river, or. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute, runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional, sources of pol- luted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? R CL E 0 Z X X X x' r Initial Study of Environmental Ats Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 9. land Use and Planning Issues m « « cm W ism o Cw «w eo «w v 0.01 am Em m cm«:- in 3� m 'M CL Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj- ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe- cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) ' Conflict with any: applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: 9.a) See preceding General Comment. X �o CL E 0 Z X K 9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local, government having jurisdiction over land use within locations addressed .by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify'its general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibility plan (or to go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). With regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap- pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis- tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse- quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan. IS -12 For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ- ated within an airport influence area. • Initia9udy of Environmental Impacts Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air- ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. - The Compatibil- ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc- tion were to be proposed. The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim- its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil- ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen- eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati- bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for compatibility review. Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es- tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris- dictions through the general plan consistency process described above. Because the affected jurisdictions have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compatibility criteria, 41 as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use environmental impacts which may result cannot be determined. at this.time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri- marily with regard to housing, is presently_ possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in response to the Compatibility Plan. 9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural. community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were to include proposals which, could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra- tion policies. Mitigation: None required. IS -13 9:1 IS -14 r Initial Stud of Environmental Im acts Y P •r 10. Mineral Resources a �+� m m o Issues T M a E z° Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability.of a known mineral re-. source that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? �t b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? x Discussion: See preceding General Comment: Mitigation: None required. 11. Noise a /C0 !0 � w d Issues. y r rn awl rn 0.0 a.rn 0. MO E ,Jin 3M 3ra9 z Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1t c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? k d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? �t 9:1 IS -14 0 .0 Initial 3`tudy of Environmental Impa e) 1f located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or'public-use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?. �t f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo sure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Discussion: 11.a), 11.b), 11.0, and 114: See preceding General Comment. 11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishing noise level 'reduction requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted- locations. The plan does not regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au- thority over such matters. 11.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. Mitigation: - None required. 12. Population and Housing Issues Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) -Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne- cessitating the construction of replacement housing. elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 C C C C C C « Q< W to of O a1 m to ;,« t� rte.. a c w2 •� w co -- E SO. 0 rn« «� H rna 0 o atn 1@ 3� 3va E z x X X IS -15 Initial Study of Environmental Discussion: 12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region- ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu- lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the data summarized in the following paragraphs, any such shifts would be small relative to the overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be less than significant. Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan, the two havine potential for extensive urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air- port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinitv of these two airports. Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati- bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning_ Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels desiipnated_ajzricultural-residential in that, under the Butte Countv General Plan, the minimum 41 parcel sizes for this designation range from as little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres. (It is recognized that the land use zoning of these parcels can be changed without amending the General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat- ibility Plan criteria.) The estimated percentaize of each compatibility zone which is alreadv developed is taken into account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula- tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com- patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par- cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion. The analvsis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelline units to be eauiva- lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed. Chico Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi- dentia) uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use IS -16 0 Initial Study of Environmental zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with- out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan. > Compatibility Zone B2: Nearlv 1,700 acres are planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses. ► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility would be on 400± acres (a portion of the Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated. ► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city general plan). The Compatibility Plan has ho affect on continued residential use of this ro e ► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated. > Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of . land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has Sbeen divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone C(1) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi- ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights). ► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone C(1), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini- mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3 - acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already_ subdivided into the minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re- maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than 100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is planned for urban low-density residential development (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total, implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400 new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use olan- ping and zoning. Sub -zone C(2), together with the Zone C area which allows either the hieh- or the low- density option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop- ment. evelopment. The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in some 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici- ap ted. IS -17 Initial Study of Environmental Im• is > Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in' higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above, the net effect could be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000 acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area. This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone CO. For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether. By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling units within the future Chico city limits. The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant. Oroville Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone 81: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Compatibility Plan thus would have no effect on the number of potential new residential lots. > Compatibility Zone 82: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi- dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low - or medium -density residential uses would be -prevented from developing at those densi- ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels. • > Compatibility Zone C: The Comi2atibility Plan requires future residential develo ment within Zone C to be either very low density (1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderately high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre). Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini- mum -parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These designations are consistent with the compatibility criteria. ► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re- quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). > Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu- nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi- cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations. 12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com- patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use r regulations. Also see preceding General Comment. IS -18 • initiftudy of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: 'None required. 13. Public Services Tc C �R �m o moo Issues6.09X m oM „COM 0 C" a c av) E Orn 3M 3vi E z a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of , which -could cause significant impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire. protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public services? X Discussion: 13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment. 13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed). The restriction is intended as a means of avoidi.ng future noise and safety compatibility con- flicts between aviation activity and school uses. In some cases, this restriction would necessi- tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept- able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid- ered .to be less than significant. 13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of county• and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen- eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten- cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan. Over the longterm, procedural. policies included .in the Compatibility Plan are intended to simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions. IS -19 15. Initial Study of Environmental Impacts a C C C, Mitigation: - m a None required. �� m c CM CL m rn« °� 0 rn a c 14. Recreation �.. a.v� E _JN 3�. min E z RR pis o 0W M Issues c IM CL om « �' a c E Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela- CL ve ern 3 N z a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh- borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili- system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re- X quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,'a level of cilities which.might have an adverse physical effect on service standard established by the county congestion the environment? X Discussion: See preceding•General Comment. ways? X Mitigation: None required. 15. Transportation /Traffic a C C C, C m R� a o M a «w M.2 m a Issues �� m c CM CL m rn« °� 0 rn a c a.v� E _JN 3�. min E z Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela- tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or. congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,'a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and high- ways? X N IS -20 Initial tudyof Environmental Impacts P IS -21 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible' uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency. access? X f)a Result in inadequate parking capacity? x g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup- porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs bicycle racks, etc.)? K Discussion: 15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.0, and 15.g): See preceding General Comment. 15.0 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it does include policies for.review of certain aspects of.proposed airport development which could have off=airport compatibility.implications..:- Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems - T . " R� cc Cc o RR C w U « w W « C V Issues n vyi rn = °f ami rn 1°. E z Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap- plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? K c) Require.or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? X IS -21 IS -22 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Md) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? )t e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commit- ments? 39 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity , to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? �t g) Comply with federal,'state, and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste? )t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance T R o 2 m m m « v « :E :. rte .. o. Issues a+cR �ct� �c� c a ami o, �„ .:, � o, 0. c 0. U) E �N 3M stn z a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat,of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam- ples of the major periods of California history or prehis- tory? x b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? . (:'Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection • with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur- rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro- jects.) x IS -22 • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei- ther directly or indirectly? X Discussion: 17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment. 17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ- mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air- port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With- out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality and to commu- nity livability - of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Mitigation: None required.: IS -23 . I a iOmr '_.Substitution of Miti_ ga+ t� ion Measures. in a Proposed Mitigated-Negative -Declaration.AL (a) As a result of the publiCieview process or proposed mitigated neg t` declaration, including any administrative decisions or public hearings conducted on..• ' • project prior to its approval, the lead agency may . conclude that certain mitiga measures identified in the . mitigated negative. declaration' are infeasible or othe undesirable. Prior to approving the project, the lead agency may,. in accordance with'. section, delete those mitigation measures and substitute for them other measures wh the lead agency determines are equivalent or more effective. (b) Prior to deleting and substituting for a mitigation measure, the lead agen shall do both of the following: `t (1) Hold a public hearing on the matter. Where a public hearing is to be.hel , order to consider the project, the public hearing required by this section may be combin with that hearing. Where no public hearing would otherwise. be. held to consider.; -..project, then a.public hearing shall be required before a mitigation measure may be dale. and a new measure adopted in its place. (2) . Adopt a written finding that the new measure is equivalent or more effect' in,mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it in itself will not `cause: potentially significant effect on the environment. �T (c) No recirculation of the proposed mitigated negative declaration pursuant Section 15M is required where the new mitigation measures are made conditions of are otherwise incorporated into, project approval in accordance with this section. ?, ' (d) "Equivalent or more effective" means that the new measure will avoi., reduce the significant effect to at least the same degree as, or to a greater degree ttt the .original measure and will create no more adverse effect of its own than would have.. original measure. L: 15075. Notice- 'of Determination on a Project for 'Which`' Proposed Negative or Mitigated ' Negative .Declarati Has Been Approved. (a) After deciding to carry out or approve a project for which a, negal;' declaration or-mitigated `negative •declaration• has been approved, the lead agency s a file a notice'of determination. For projects with phases, the lead agency shall file a not of determination after deciding to carry out or approve each phase. :(b) .- The notice of determination must include: (1) An identification of the project including its common name where'possi. . and its location.. (2) "A brief description of the project. (3) 'The date on which the agency approved the project. (4) The determination of the agency that the project will not have a signific effect on the environment. _ (5) ` A statement that a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declara_.•. has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. (6) . The address where a copy of the negative declaration or mitigated nega• declaration may be examined.' (c) _ If the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency shall file the notic.,- determination with OPR. (d) . If the lead agency is a local agency, the local agency shall file the notice: determination with the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project wil4 located.within,five working days after approval of.the project by the lead agency. -If project requires a discretionary approval from -any state agency, the local lead age.. shall also file with OPR.'c (e) All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available 'for pu inspection and shall be posted by the county clerk within 24 hours of receipt. Each no shall remain posted for a period of at least 30 days. Thereafter,'the clerk shall'return «. notice to the local lead agency with a notation of,the•period it was posted The local I� • • 0 ency shall retain the notice ,for not less than 9 montns. iiili7iiwg,,­6unL vi ' termination and the,posting-on=a»list'of such notices starts a. -30y -da . '''.• citations on court challenges to the"approval_under CEDA.� -- +- -; .. (f) Public agencies are encouraged to make copies of all notices filed pursuant this section available in electronic format on the Internet. 'Such electronic notices are . addition to the posting requirements of these guidelines and the Public Resources de. Article 7. EIR Process 5080. General. 4 , "`...-':'To the'extent possible, the EIR process should be combined with the =existing ning; review, and project approval process used by each public agency.,j y 81. Decision to Prepare an EIR. ` The EIR process starts with the decision to prepare an EIR. This decision will be ade either during preliminary review under Section 15060 or at the conclusion of adinitial . udy after applying the standards described in Section 15064. 081.5. , EIRs Required by Statute. - (a) A lead agency shall prepare or have prepared an EIR foi the following types rofects. An initial study may be prepared to help identify the significant effects of the oject. (1) The burning of municipal wastes; hazardous wastes, or refuse -derived fuel, uding but not,limited to tires, if the project is either: r (A) The construction of a new facility; or (B) The expansion of an existing facility that burns hazardous waste that'would. tease its permitted capacity by more than 10 percent. This does not apply to any ject exclusively buming hazardous waste for which a determination to prepare a ' ative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report was ;de prior to July 14,1989. The amount of expansion of an existing facility is calculated ursuant to subdivision,(b) of Section 21151.1 of the Public Resources Code. (C) Subsection (1) of the subdivision does not apply to: a;- 1. Projects for which the State Energy -Resources Conservation and Selopment Commission -has assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing.'.' Section 25500) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code: 2. Any of the types of burn or thermal processing projects listed in subdivision, -. of Section 21151.1 of the Public Resources Code.. ,. (2) . The initial issuance of a hazardous waste facilities permit to.a land disposal City, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 25199.1 of the Health and Safety Code.- eparation of an EIR is not mandatory if the facility only manages hazardous waste which entified or listedpursuant to Section 25140 or Section 25141 of the Health and Safety e on or after January 1, 1992; or only conducts activities which are regulated pursuant Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) of Division 20 of, the Health and Safety e on or after January 1, 1992... "Initial issuance" does not include the issuance of a. ure or post closure permit pursuant to Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100) ivision,20 of the Health and Safety Code. 1' r. (3) The initial issuance of a hazardous waste facility permit pursuant to Section 200 of the Health and Safety Code to an off-site large treatment facility, as defined rsuant to subdivision.(d) of Section 25205.1 of that code. Preparation of an EIR is not ` ndatory if the facility only manages hazardous waste which is identified or listed rsuant to Section 25140 or Section 25141 of the Health and Safety Code on or after uary 1,,1992; or only conducts activities which are regulated pursuant to Chapter 6.5 rhmencing with Section'25100) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code on or after uary 4, 1992. "Initial issuance" does not include the issuance of a closure or post 9 3�•�fy, , _-F .,� v ..tin' J j }.,,1a -_w .'fes.-•-tR,a •.. e ' 0 • PBB. 8.2001 12:18PM GOV PLAN & RESEARCH 322 2318 NO. 802 P.12 • GOVERNORS OFFICE. OF Tlanntn2' an d�l�esearch x400 Tenth Street -S=amento, FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL / 0 Date: ZS Facsimile +P hone number: 0539-77 0 To: At: From: Special instructions: State Clearinghouse Fax: 916-323-3018. Number of pages (including cover page) If you do not receive all the pages of this facsimile; please contact: 10 FEB..8.2001 12:18PM GOV PLAN & RESEARCH 322 2318 NO.802 P.2i2 Document Details Report, . State Clearinghouse Data B� SCH# 2000032071 Project Title Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Lead Agency Butte County Type NOD Notice of Determinatlon Alternate Title _.:Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLOP) Description Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et, seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains.a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports. Filing Agency Contact Name M. A. Melaka Agency, Butte County Phone 530 536.6571Fax email Address 7 County Center Drive City Oroville State CA Z!p 95965 Project Location County . Butte City Chloo,' Oroville ; Region Cross Streets Parcel No. countywide Township Range Section var. Base Approved by Butte County Airport Land Use Commission r Acting. as ® Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency Approval Date 12/20/2000 Determinations • _ 1. The project ❑ will ©- will not have "a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared ior this project pursuant.to. the provisions ofCEQA. , ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. . A. Mitigation measures ❑ were M ware not made a condition of the approval of the project. . 4: A Statement of Overriding Considerations LJ, was ® was not adopted for this project 5. Findings ❑ were ❑. were not . made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. s Final E1R Available at 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Date Received .01/29/2001 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. 1i _ 0 Feb T— (° All r Office RecordersOffice Co 111P f CANDACE J. GRUBBS Recorder ROSEMARY DICKSON - 1' . 4. (.Assistant . Y w Work Order # 20010124036 -. 1 FISH AND GAME CLERKS 25.00 v �• - . TOTAL 25.00 "CHECK 25.00- 25.00- 1 TOTAL TENDERED CHANGE .00 . 11:49AM 24 -Jan -2001 20010124000114 t Maureen BTTRECI7 „ '' , • �' +' Thank You . Have a Nice Day' r• tom- TO: 0 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION X Office of Plan.& Research Dept. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X Butte County Clerk FROM: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965 SUBJECT:. Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AP Number: Various Applicant: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission . State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to clearinghouse):. 2000032071 Contact Person: M. A: Meleka Telephone Number: (530)538-6 571 Project Location: The project area encompases the land within approximately 2 miles of each of the four public -use airports in the County: Project Description: Public. Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the .comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan. contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to' each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo . Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each . airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land and may determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. Airport Land Use Plans do not apply to the actual airport property, only the area surrounding the airport, within the Area of Influence. This is to advise that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission (Lead Agency.or Responsible Agency) has approved the above-described project on December 20, 2000 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1. The project will, X will not, have a significant effect'on the environment. 2. An Environmental. Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. • _X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were, X were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 'r. 4. A statement of o0ding considerations was, X vl'J'ds not, adopted for this project. . _ P P 1 his is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the general public at: 7 Country Center Dr. Oroville CA 95965 Date received for filing and posting at OPR Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 M. A. Mele a, Prin pal Planner • 0 DECLARATION OF FEES DUI ( lifornia Fish and Game Code Section 11.4) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 96954 (530) 538-6571 FILING NO. Project Title/file number: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION O A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling,Fee (X) B. De Minimus Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED O A. Negative Declaration $1,250 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee O B. Environmental Impact Report . $850 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. O OTHER (Specify) $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. O PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. - See attached receipt(s). 2. ( X ) NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid. CountyAggncy. Chief Planning Official By: M. A. Meleka Title' Principal Planner Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: January 16, 2001 TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. • THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIORTOTHE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. J:\FORMS.NOD.frm CALRNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISBD GAME CERTIFICATE OF FILING FEE E PTION De Minimis Impact Finding (Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations) Project Title / Butte County AirportLand Use Compatibility Plan Location: 7 County Center Dr., Oroville, CA 95965 Proiect Description: Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchaero Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code -Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each sirport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and, the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, may specify use of land and may determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. Airport Land Use Plans do not apply to the actual airport property, only the area surrounding the airport, within the Area of Influence. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): L The County of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a Negative Declaration so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact. 402. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, if applicable. 4. The project is hereby found to be de minimus in its effect on wildlife and exempt from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 0 M. A. Meleka; Principal Planner • Lead Agency: County of Butte Date: January 16, 2001 -Revised September 1, 2000 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Butte County Airport land Use Compatibility Plan BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. M. A. Meleka 530/538-6572 4. Project Proponent's Name and Address: Same as #2 above. 5. Project Location: The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to 5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2) any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero- nautics Program. 6. General Plan Designation: Various. 7. Zoning' Various. 8. Description of Project: • The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi- cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity.at these airports. The local agen- IS-1 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts cies that have jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also*establishes policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport..The plan is prepared in accor- dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:. > Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing residential development on north and west. Industrial uses 'and open land to the east. > Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of Thermalito to the northeast. State. lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref- uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area. > Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity. Town of Paradise a mile to the north. > Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of Chico nearby to the north and northeast. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission can adopt the plan without approval from any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, the Commis- sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub-. lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec- tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure. The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ingpages. Aesthetics _ Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality Biological Resources _ Cultural Resources _ Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials ` _ Hydrology / Water Quality _ Land Use / Planning _ Mineral Resources _ Noise _ Population / Housing _ Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems _ Mandatory Findings of Significance_ IS -2 • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts DETERMINATION • On the basis of this initial evaluation: JL I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.- A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN- VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. — I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially., significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described ori at- tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. — I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,' because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Signature Printed Name 1 Date Representing t IS -3 • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts i • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets. General Comment The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to anticipate the spe- cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso- ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un- changed from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely limits the density, arm intensity, and heieht of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which.af- fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan. Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues: 1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Geology and Soils 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 9. Land Use and Planning 10. Mineral Resources 11. Noise 12. Population and Housing'' 13. Public Services 14. Recreation 15. Transportation / Traffic 16. Utilities and Service Systems 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance All All All All All All Issues a), b)�c), d), g), h) All Issue a) All Issues a), b), c), d) Issues b), c) Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv) All Issues a), b), d), e), 0, g) All Issues a), c) For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the above General Comment. IS -4 Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which , would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts 1. Aesthetics T c' r c E V r None required. £ Issues R .� t_ c o> a y c, „ «� CM a o T IL E .min 3M �v� E z Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which , would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. • Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources T Issues c rn« O1 to o c 0. An E JN cm CL 3 u E In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CO CO CL E 0 Z X x IS -5 • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment'. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil- ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports. Mitigation: None required. 3. Air Quality 0 W 0 R W Co0 �w •-w R •- CLE Issues c 1°. m CD= CO d IM a C 0. Ch ern 3v5E z Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tion. Would the project:, a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? )t b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex- isting or projected air quality violation? X c). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is - non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis- sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? x d) Expose sensitive receptors -to substantial pollutant con- centrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- ber of people? x Discussion: See preceding General Comment. ISS Discussion: • See preceding General Comment. IS -7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: None required. 4. Biological Resources T' ca W Q o eo 0 co a Issues c c o, « � th a c IL 32 Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Xt b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian.habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected .wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological, interruption, or other means? # d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? x e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? x . 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con- servation plan? K Discussion: • See preceding General Comment. IS -7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts t Mitigation: None required. s 5. Cultural Resources' �. W eo a o a = nF o V ' E Issues o== CO o Op m ao E JN z Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance - of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X • Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 6. Geology and Soils T �a 1a a: W O la W W © Lw a " E Issues 6 e n. d to _� o, o C CL U) min 3� �v� z Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the • area or based on other substantial evidence of a , known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. X IS -8 . Initia7Stud of Environmental Impacts Y P ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac- tion? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result'in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? �t c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? �t d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: • None required. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Material C R C W o =.2 -4 t V « M.2 ... C Issues d C cd 40 C t S C R c o, a o, == 0 O)Q. C 0. U) N 3N�Fn z Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset, and acci- . dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? x c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X IS -9 s • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts d) Be located on a site which is included on a' list of haz- ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as.a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac- uation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res- idences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: 7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re- duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other..objects which might pene- trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a survivable emergency aircraft landing. 7.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, -the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. 7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 7.d), 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. IS=10 • • IS -11 • InitiaiStudy of Environmental Impacts 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 1 o co eo �o a -a E Issues a►ceo 0) �Em c IM a 0,:= oM a , C ave E JN 3� Jrn E z Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere_ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there . would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the. produc- tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the " site or area, including through the alteration of course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol- luted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? . X h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) .Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? X IS -11 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 9. land Use and Planning-- 'C �C r �C M R W o C Z t.2 R a Issues C.2 -Ci... o U o, a w o, a E a°WE ern 32 rnE z. Would the project: a) . Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan,: policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj- ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe- cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an • environmental effect? X c)^ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Discussion: 9.a) See preceding General Comment. 9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibility plan (or to go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). With regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would ' apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap- pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans concis-.' tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse- quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan. For a general plan to be considered'consistent with the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ- ated within an airport influence area. IS -12 • InifVStud of Environmental Impacts Y P Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air- ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria.' The Compatibil- ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc- tion were to be proposed. The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim- its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil- ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen- eral:plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati- bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for compatibility review. Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es- tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris- dictions through the general plan consistency process described above. Because the affected jurisdictions have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compatibility criteria, as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use environmental impacts which may result cannot be determined at this time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri- marily with regard to housing, is presently possible (see Section -12, Population and Housin . Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in response to the Compatibility Plan. 9.0 . The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra- tion policies. Mitigation: None required. • IS -13 Initial Study of Environmental ImP acts 10. Mineral Resources aCr- -� . - CO co a 0 - « � d 2.. V . � :' M � . 1° E Issues o 9 o. CO 0« rn" m rn n o - CL �N 35 z Would the project: - a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral.re- source that would be of value to,the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 11. Noise a RR IoW o cc Cc R a Issues c 0 n. d rn= d of CO o 0.U) ?in 9: v0E z Would the project result in: a) - Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X • • initis Study of Environmental Impacts e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X . f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo- sure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Discussion: 11.a), 11.b), 11.c), and 114: See preceding General Comment. 11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive • aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishing noise level'reduction requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted locations. The plan does not regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au- thority over such matters. 11.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. Mitigation: None required. 12. Population and Housing r C c C c �p /0 0 O l0 W l0 c E Issues 01Ca aeric O1 o�oce. rn of rn avo E ?y .jviE. z 3� Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) . or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 39 b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne- cessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 39 IS -15 Initial Study of Environmental Ippacts Discussion: 12.a), The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region- ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu- lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the data summarized in the following paragraphs, any such shifts would be small relative to the overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be less than significant. Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan, the two having potential for extensive urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air- port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibilit-y Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinitv of these two airports. Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati- bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable localeg neral plans and zoning. Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan, the minimum • parcel sizes for this designation range from as little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres. (It is recognized that the land use zoning of these parcels can be changed without amending the General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat- ibility Plan criteria.) The estimated percentage of each compatibility zone which is already developed is taken into account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula- tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com- patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the Dar - cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion. The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelling units to be eauiva- lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed. Chico Municipal Air "ort > Compatibility Zone 81: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use IS -16 • of Environmental zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with- out the added limitations of the Com.patibilitXPlan. > Compatibility Zone B2: Nearlv 1,700 acres are planned for residential or Agricultural resi- dential uses. ► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan would be on 400± acres (a portion of the Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated. ► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city general plan). The Compatibilitx Plan has no affect on continued residential use of this RroReU. ► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated. > Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has been divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone CO) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi- ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights). ► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone CO), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini- mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3- acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re- maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than 100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is planned for urban low-density residential development (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total, implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400 new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan- ning and zoning_ ► Sub -zone C(2), together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low- density option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop ment. The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in some 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici- ap ted. IS -17 Initial Stud of Environmental Impacts Y p > Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation 'of the Compatibility Plan would result in higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to the densities currently_ planned. Under the assumptions noted above, the net effect could be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000 acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area. This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone CO. For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether. By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling units within the future Chico city limits. The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant. Oroville Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone 81: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Compatibility Plan thus would have no effect on the number of potential new residential lots. > Compatibility Zone 82: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi- dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low - or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi- ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels. • > Com atibilit Zone C: The Corn,2atibifity Plan requires future residential development within Zone C to be either very low density 0 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderately high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre). ► Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini- mum parcel "sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These designations are consistent with the compatibility criteria. ► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re- quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). > Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu- nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of•total dwelling units as indi- cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations. 12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com- patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use regulations. Also see preceding General Comment. IS -18 • Init►I Y Stud of Environmental Im Mitigation: None required. 13. Public Services T o em M m Issues c °' int ca cc Mo. E zo a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) . Fire protection? �t ii) Police protection? �t iii) , Schools? 1t iv) Parks? • 9t v) Other public services? 1f " Discussion: 13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment. 13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed). The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con- flicts between aviation activity and school uses. In some cases, this restriction would necessi- tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific plans.. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept- able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid- ered to be less than significant. 13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen- eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten- cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan. Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to • simplify the'ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions. IS -19 • Initial Study of EnvironmentalP lacts Mitigation: None required. 14. Recreation a W W o w W CO Issues 0E CO d aD r _� CO o) CO C E MW �N 3 z a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh- borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili- ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the . facility would occur or be accelerated? K b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re- • quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. w Mitigation: None required. 15. Transportation /Traffic T moo -co em o eoR c= «.—�.. m «- v a E Issues c rn cc,cogo o t d rn a c , E 3� atn �N _J z Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela- tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of . service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and high- ways? �t IS -20 • • 0- • InHO Study of Environmental Impacts Y P c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? k d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? . x g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup- porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs bicycle racks, etc.)? X Discussion: 15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15A and 15.g): See preceding General Comment. 15.0 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which could have off -airport compatibility implications. Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Issues Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap- plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? c) ' Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the .construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? K X IS -21 o �a « ."-- t;« .2 m .—� E d c ct w c C 0.01 IL0 E CM « 3, 3� a, a JV1 E Z X K X IS -21 Initial Study Environmental nta1 Impacts • • e d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it • has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commit- ments? X 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? �t g) Comply with federal,"state, and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. ` Mitigation: None required. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 a aJ M 0 o t0 0I t0 E Issues 0.01 d o« «� rn °. o n.v�E �� 3M �ra E z a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the ' habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam- ples of the major periods of California history or prehis- tory? )t b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? .("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur- • rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro-. jects.) �t IS -22 • 0 Init)S"Study of Environmental Impacts c) Does the project have environmental effects which will - cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei- ther directly or indirectly? �t Discussion: 17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment. 17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ- mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air- port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With- out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality -and to commu- nity livability — of allowing -incompatible development to occur may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Mitigation: None required. IS -23 • 0 CLUP ADOPTION Adopted at the December 20 2000 ALUC Meeting g MOTION OF ADOPTION • Commissioner Wallrich made a motion, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Greenwood, and unanimously passed by vote as recorded at the end of the motion which follows: THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION OF BUTTE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN AFFECTING THE CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, THE RANCHAERO AIRPORT, THE OROVILLE AIRPORT, AND THE PARADISE SKYPARK AIRPORT, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING AREAS, AND ALSO OTHER POLICIES THAT APPLY WITHIN THE BALANCE OF BUTTE COUNTY, recognizes the need to protect airports and their planned operations from development in surrounding areas that may interfere with those operations. The State Legislature has enacted enabling legislation under the California State Aeronautics Act (ref. Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq., and Public Utilities Code Sections 21661.5 and 21664.5, State ALUC enabling law) to provide for airport land use compatibility planning to be conducted at the local level; the purpose of airport land use planning is to: • Provide for the orderly development of each public use airport and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; • Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Also, State ALUC enabling law provides that each Airport Land Use Commission, including the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, shall provide for a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and the area surrounding the airport within the jurisdiction of the commission, and will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general; the Commission plan shall include and shall be based on a long-range master plan, as determined by the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation that reflects the anticipated growth 'of the airport during at least the next 20 years; State enabling law requires that the Commission review the plan as often as necessary in order to accomplish its purposes; In addition, recognizing the need to update and improve the airport land use compatibility plans for the mentioned four public -use airports within the County, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) tasked the consultant and staff to develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan including Comprehensive Land Use Plans for the four public -use airports: The Chico Municipal Airport, the Ranchaero Airport, the Oroville Airport, and the Paradise Skypark Airport and policies within Butte County in general; Staff was aided in the formulation of the Plan proposal by a planning consultant with aviation and airport land use compatibility expertise; staff and/or the consultant consulted with the • local agencies and concerned parties/individuals including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and 1 Paradise. After prior notice having been issued, staff and consultant conducted a series of • public workshops in March and October, 2000 that reviewed the Draft Plan and accepted public input. Two Public Comment Periods were scheduled. The first started on March 25, 2000 and ended on June 9, 2000. The Second Public Comment Period started on October 5, 2000 and ended on November 22, 2000. After notice was issued in accordance with law, many hearings were scheduled on the proposed plan before the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, in April, May, June, July, September, and November, 2000, at which time all interested parties might appear and testify. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State and County CEQA Guidelines, consultant and staff prepared an initial study on the .proposed plan which determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and on October 5, and November 18, 2000, a Notice of Intent and time extension to November 22, 2000 to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project were posted as required by law. At the December 20, 2000 hearing, testimony was again accepted from all interested parties, and at which time the hearing was closed. The Commission having considered all evidence and testimony submitted in this matter, RESOLVED, that the Airport Land Use Commission of Butte County finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed clan will have a significant effect on the environment; the proposed Negative Declaration determination is consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore; the Commission finds that the Negative Declaration determination is appropriate and ADOPTS • said determination for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and the Neizative Declaration reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Commission, hereby, and in accordance with Section 21675 (a) and (c) for the establishment of planning boundaries and adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for each of the County's four public -use airports ADOPTS the proposed March 2000 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Butte County as amended by Addendum No. 2, as the Compatibility Land Use Plan for Butte County, excluding any discussion in the Addendum document (Just corrections to the body of the Draft). This adoption also incorporates all modifications made by the Commission at the December 20, 2000 hearing including: the changes to Figure 3-A regarding Zone C east of the Chico Municipal Airport, the boundary between B-2 and C to the southeast; Policy 2.4.4(c), 2 & 4 regarding the nonconforming nonresidential development to be allowed. to rebuild to previously allowed intensity if totally destroyed provided that reconstruction must begin within twelve months of the date that the damage occurred; accepting the fire attack aircraft flight tracks information; changes on page 2 of the Addendum #2 regarding Policy 1.5.3(b); adding one additional appendix that incorporates the Airport Land Use Compatibility Concepts; and adding a chart depicting the Airport Land Use Planning process to Appendix H. The Commission further directs staff to publish the Plan and forward copies of the adopted Plan and notify local agencies within Butte County including the Cities of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise, and the County of Butte County that pursuant to Government Code Section • 65302, they are required to review their respective general plans, and any applicable specific 2 plan to make them consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by (180 • days from the date o distribution of the adopted Plan); should the respective City/Town Councils and Butte County Board of Supervisors not concur with any provisions of.the Plan' required under Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, then it may satisfy the provisions of this Section by adopting findings pursuant to Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code. Staff -is further directed to file with the County Clerk's Office a. Notice of Determination relative to the Commission action on the CEQA determination and on the adoption of the proposed Plan. The decision of the Airport Land Use Commission, -Butte County, State of California was given by motion of the Airport Land Use Commission on . December 20, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Chair Rosene, Grierson, Wallrich, Harp, and Causey; Alternate Commissioner Papadakis (sitting in for Commissioner Lambert), and Alternate Commissioner Greenwood (sitting in for Commissioner Hatley). NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 • 0 0 CLUP MAPS T • r ' h f ri ��M�rm.uYn�e • • �p+yrrrA • , • / • • b l I TAI 9 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO NOVEMBER 22, 2000 • e Butte County Airport Land Use Commission I C' • Notice of Public Review Extension Period for the Airport Land Use Compatibilitv Plan and GS Adoption of a Proposed Negative Declaration Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission.. that the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and an environmental document, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, has been prepared for adoption. SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION During the November 15, 2000 meeting, the Airport Land Use Commissionextended the Comment. Period for the referenced- Plan to November 22, 2000. This would allow more time for any concerned entity to make comments. Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to ;the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport, and the Ranchaero Airport. The Butte County -Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each airport: Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. Iri formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-6571 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR 0 COMPLETE PACKETS ALUC - 32 0 UPDATED 11/9100 N A LAMBERT 1 43 RIVER ROAD CHICO, CA 95928 r. CHESTER WARD 4 LEMMON HILL COURT OROVILLE, CA 95966-3708 J. CAUSEY V80HILLDALE AVE. ILLE, CA 95966 B AN BALDRIDGE 11088 MIDWAY CHICO, CA 95928 URA WEBSTER PAC C MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10461 OLD PLACERVILLE ROAD, SUITE 110 SACRAMENTO, CA 95827 i NO H VALLEY PILOT ASSN. P.O. BOX 6856 CHICO, CA 95927 N CK ELLENA . Smith- City Editor Enterprise Record PO BOX 9 Chico CA 95927 ED GERST 860 LAUREL ST GRIDLEY, CA 95948 HOLTGREVE O Barbara Peterson Geography/Planning Dept. California State University, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0425 DUANE GREENWOOD UBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1735 MONTGOMERY ST OROVILLE CA 95965 OHN PAPADAKIS 462 CREEK HAVEN PL. CHICO, CA 95926 ROBERT N. HENNIGAN 5130 ANITA ROAD CHICO, CA 95926 RRY HODGES 5 LONG BAR ROAD OROVILLE, CA 95965 ART HATLEY 1176 20"' ST. OROVILLE, CA 95965 TTM ASSOCIATES ATTN: KEN BRODY 707 AVIATION BOULEVARD SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 GEORGE KAMMERER Hefner, Stark, & Marois 2150 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 450 Sacramento, CA 95833-3883 AL McGREEHAN PLA ING DIRECTOR 5555 SKYWAY PARADISE CA 95969 ATTY,C4RRY THELAND � 34 SHADY OAK WAY FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 jVLA LEASURE LAFCO 0, �4d, C 14— 0 16 F, ( /`9-t ROBERT A. GRIERSON 1740 CARDINAL CT. CHICO, CA 95926 UBERT D HARP L0 E. LASSEN AVE // CHICO, CA 95973 DONALD R. WALLRICH X1'39 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD L/ OROVILLE, CA 95965 NORMAN ROSENE 1049 VILLAGE LANE CHICO, CA 95926 C" TOM PARILO DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES V MELEKA CLERK OF THE BOARD ` Public Binder (Admin. RANDY CRAIG COMPLETE PACKET BINDER , .1 E KAP lap ning\ALUC\LABELS\P KT.LAB.wpd �ROVILLE MERCURY 2081 SECOND STREET OROVILLE, CA 95965 V GRIDLEY CITY MANAGER 685 KENTUCKY STREET GRIDLEY, CA 95948 AGENDAS AND MINUTES ONLY (11) `PARADISE POST DRAWER 70 PARADISE, CA 95969 GRIDLEY HERALD P.O. BOX 68 GRIDLEY; CA 95948 V OROVILLE CITY MANAGER R. WALT ZWICKER 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET 847 DEERWOOD LANE OROVILLE, CA 95965 PARADISE, CA 95969 t semblyman Sam Aanestad 196 Memorial Way #4 AGENDAS ONLY, ChicoPA95926� (11) EXTRAS FO ETING (7) E (1) WTD _ " (1) DISPUWTASE Total: 2 + For Admin. Lobby Table: _..(1) Complete set in Notebook (,.,G/HICO NEWS AND REVIEW 353 E. 2"d STREET CHICO, CA 95926 �.ADIV. OF AERONAUTICS 1120 N. STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 94814 �ARADISE TOWN MANAGER VIA COURIER MAIL tXWG IN-" UTES ALUC ALPHA III NUTES OTEB ITY OF'CHICO AIRPORT COMMISSION CITY OF CHICO VIA COURIER MAIL K:\Planning\ALUC\LABELS\PKT. LAB.wpd (0lek �u r L L) (0 G- N U'S e r2Y 'lJ 7D DEcL4le,4r i a N . ft-- 10 1, C'C-Lc�-o, �F-9573 this list includes A businesses mown @ CNI A, including tenants ind property owners (who may '10*e a business as such). associated Pension Consultants 1000 Fortress, Suite 800 :,hico, CA 95973 -.hico Door Systems 275 Fairchild Ave, #107 Chico, CA 95973 Debco Roofing Supplies 1060 Marauder Chico, CA 95973 Dynamic Traffic Systems 5050 Cohasset, #10 Chico, CA 95973 AS Federal Express / 100 Lockheed, #B Chico, CA 95,973 Four Counties Roofing/ 3 Crusader Court Chico, CA 95973 Hardesty & Sons / 2 Crusader Court Chico, CA 95973 251 Beein , Same as Jeff Day/ dy's Je&Truck Service & Repair :iOJCCohasset / lChico, CA 95973 v Henry Roberson Air Carriage 109 Convair Chico, CA 95973 ,.;1BiTech Software 890 Fortress Chico, CA 95973 Cloud Nine Studio. 275 Fairchild, #101A Chico, CA 95973 Don Ray Drive -A -Way 4950 Cohasset Rd., #B Chico, CA 95973 -Elgin School Supply Co. 260 Ryan Avenue ,Chico, CA 95973 Fleet Irvine 1100 Fortress Street J Chico, CA 95973 F From the Garden 681 Liberator Chico,, CA 95973 ✓All-Star F 295 Co Chi_ , C n r�n�✓ _"O 95973 �' a Chemonics Industries, Inc. 1335 Fortress Chico, CA 95973 'Coit Services' 275 Fairchild, #103 Chico, CA 95973 Dorvin Industries J .1070 Marauder, #A Chico, CA 95973 Feather River Display 255 Sikorsky Avenue Chico, CA 95973 Flanho 'FA :fk i#G ndeliverable / -Hanson Racing Technology 4950 Cohasset, #4 Chico; CA 95973 Hardwoods of California, I C. 1070 Marauder, #B Chico, CA 95973 1 looker No longer Ai rt per note 9/8/99 Kipp Aircraft Sales 109 Convair Chico, CA 95973 Haver Survey Stakes / 650 Thunderbolt L/ Chico, CA95973 f- V •ti Jack n R Transporters /3,� 10 uder t -d' CA 95973 . 9s Landacorp 900 Fortress Street, Suite 100. Chico, CA 95973 LOS Storehouse 1040 Marauder ,hi40CA 95973 ?risrr+a EI ie -Powder -Eeating Undeliverable 9/17 �9 Teodo's Deli ✓ 999 Marauder Chico, CA 95973 . � V ,McNeill Ma acturint %Peugeo Only �® ,'4950 C set, #15 5050 sset, #71 4e- Gk Chi 95973 ` / C ' 95973 460 gsg73 SOW 10 n's o R RV Service Sudco 4950 asset, #4 �- 275 Fairchild, #104 C ' 95973 �( Chico, CA .95973 0 ,.,Bill & Jeanne Gaines Transfer Flow, Inc. 1444 Fortress Chico, CA 95973 - unite I %f ZW11 sun q Fa L44 turned 9/7/99 10Q, 4 03 T Western Woods, Inc. ,Yellow Cab Company :, 'Fire Trol Holdings LLS �. 275 Sikorsky 4950 Cohasset , j' Tim Jenack / Chico, CA 95973 Chico; CA 95973 1335 Fortress Street V Chico, CA 95973 'Margaret Davidson 'Belmont Fane Hays Trust , _.,;�-omn bi u united (� /ql 3' LCSW ✓ Curt Hays 2812 a ane 290 Airpark Boulevard 1111 Marauder �� A 928 Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 'Lothar Kleiner Design Concepts _ •John G. Sears P. O. Box 87 Go Gene McFarren P. O. Box 2023 Los Altos, CA 94023-0087 1063 Woodland Avenue Chico, CA 95927-2023 Chico, CA 95928 'Real Estate Dynamics, Inc. 8124 W. Thirst St. Los Angeles, CA 90048 Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. 300 Ryan Avenue Chico, CA 95973 Charles W. Lohse 2 Laguna Point Road Chico, CA 95928-2977 tares Research 295 Lockheed Avenue Chico, CA 95973 /Charles & Fay Hays ' 1111 Marauder Street Chico, CA 95973 ,John E. Dandl Living Trust ° John E. Dandl, Trustee 2050 Springfield Dr., #221 Chico, CA 95928-6366 M land Air Conditioning, Inc. ''. rRobert & Susan Reed 69underbolt 751 Liberator Street Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 _,.National Data Funding Corp. 290 Airpark Blvd. Chico, CA 95973 _ ;!RNR MAP LP 447 Posada Way Fremont, CA 94536 Gerald K & Linda Richter P. O., Box 4402 Chico, CA 95927-4402 v California Water Service Co. Mark Lightcap 1540 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 Sisco Revocable Trust et al Frank & Ann Sisco, Trustees / 31Somerset Place CIP CA 95926 .Kushner White Associates c/o Beatrice Kushner J 35 Presidio Terrace San Francisco, CA 94118 l*ortress Development Group '`Attn: Howard Slater 3753 Morehead Chico, CA 95928 '6TS Adventures Attn: Joan Reed 170 Airpark Blvd. Chico, CA 95973 -Chico Aerial Applicators, Inc. -/ "Dutch Wahl or Russ Schaffer P. O. Box 3549 Chico, CA 95927-3549 Chico Westside Little League 1354R East Ave., #204 Chico, CA 95926-7336 `,Koret of California Attn: Dan Kempers, Vice Pre id nt 1210 Marauder Chico, CA 95973 Tri Counties Bank Attn: Rod Stanbeny, Vice President 15 Independence Circle J Chico, CA 95973 'United Express Attn: Joellen Indiveri, Local Manager/ 150 Airpark Blvd., Suite #10 Chico, CA 95973 Wilson J JB front Deli 160 Convair Avenue, Suite #100 Chico, CA 95973 .,/6;adys Moving & Storage Inc. Jeffery B. Day 251 Boeing Avenue Chico, CA 95973 , _ . MLS General Partnership '' Lowen Real Estate 250 Vallombrosa Ave., Suite 266 Chico, CA 95928-3958 iAmedflight, Inc. ' Attn: Gary Richards, President 4700 Empire Avenue, Hangar t Burbank, CA 91505 `Budget Rent A Car Attn: Mary Rudicel, Location Mgr. 2659 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 I ,j*bert Penna et al 265 Boeing Avenue;/ Chico, CA 95973 f,"-1'-1Charles & Judy Cadet i 6 Kingston Circle Chico, CA 95926 Chico Moulding Co. Attn: Velma L. Middleton, Prudent P. O. Box 1729 Chico, CA 95927-1729 ,Fortress Independence Partnership Attn: Karl W. Hall. 1353 Woodland Avenue Chico, CA 95928 . 41arold Schooler / Schooler Flying Company 4702 Cable Bridge Drive Chico, CA 95928 Union Flights ' Attn: G. Jay Paynter, President . Executive Airport J 6273 Freeport Blvd. - Sacramento, CA 95822 6W'estAir Industries, Inc. -� Attn. Lawrence Olson,. President P. O. Box 7735 Fresno,.CA 93747 /A/C Industrial Services Nick Buck 1111 Marauder Street Chico, CA 95973 :Wadley Brothers Gerald R. Bradley, Partner 9332 Frederick Lane Durham, CA 95938 JButte Training Center Attn: Craig Rigsbee, Director 3536 Butte Campus Drive Oroville, CA 95965 rhico Travel Service Attn: Patty •Gillett 150 Airpark Blvd., Suite #20 Chico, CA 95973 ,Glyn Pye Vending 3110 Thomtree Drive Chico, CA 95973 Avis Rental Cars Attn: Rich Cornelius #3 Premier Court Chico, CA 95928 agen Rapi ckagew FAX- 89 80 rSylvester & Evelyne Willingham 620 Oasis Drive Chico, CA 95973: a S ,-MaryMooney v Mooney Farms 1220 Fortress Street Chico, CA 95973 • • • Aero Union Corporation rP � j ; Linda Patrick, Manager Vic`Alvistur " Pacific Flight Services 100 Lockheed Avenue 109 Convair, #10 CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 Schooler F n Co. 'Harold oler 4 -'Paul Farsai Sch v Mach 1. 100 Piper Ave. 1000 Fortress Street, #700 Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 'Skywest Airlines Herfi Aircraft Bell -Carter Foodi� Joellen Indived, Station Manager P. O. Box 515 5 Glacier Peak Lane 150 Airpark Blvd., #10 Chico, CA 95927-0515 Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 Merit Medi s, Inc. Retta Herli. .Larry yne Ste ngl 129 W.sta Avenu e Chic , A 95973 �% • 4tobert N. Ryan, D.DL Autte Creek Aviation, Byron Parsons 525 Salem Street P O. Box 24 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95927-0024 1. R. Morgan, M.D.:,Don S. Liebermar� 8 Williamsburg Lane VII 5420 Scottwood . ;hico, CA 95926 Paradise, CA 95969 . Wallace A. (Tod) Davis, Jr ✓ " Robert Grierson 6041 Kifisia Way 1740 C al Court�Le`7 Fair Oaks, CA 95628-2519 Chico, CA 95926 Butte Flying Club t/ Tom Seely N. O. Box 101' 925 Dias Drive Chico, CA 95927-0101 Chico, CA 95926 Jim FletcherAgri Electric, J.Thorpe 272 Pinyon Hills Drive 11011 Midway L/ Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928 JacoHagewood, MD . Inc Thomas R. & Gaye DeVor: 578 Rio Lindo Avenue, #3 219 Estates Drive Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95928 Lewis A. Everett 2165 Nord Aveue, Suite 10 Chico, CA 95926 . Drako, Inc., Dan Drake P. O. Box'1448 Chico, CA 95927-1448 *bon S. Li 542 -1 'se, CA 95969 ;VX Butte Fl ' Club P. O. Bo 01 ` Chico A 95927-0101 Retta M. Herfi P. O. Box 515 - "` Chico, CA 95927-0515 Tom Aylward 14577 Camaren Park Driv!,/ Chico, CA 95928 C. Randy Landis.- 107 Donald Drive Chico, CA 95973 Roger Mathews,/`; - P. O. Box 4342 ,- Chico, CA 95927-4342 Randall E. Caviness, MO. - 1040 U.1040 Mangrove Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Edgar G. Knox ,V/ , 636 Bryant Avenue` Chico, CA 95926 Randall E. Caviness y - 1040 Mangrove Avenue Chico, CA 95926 CIMP James _ j/ Vayda Enterprises \j Paul T. Persons I lley Ridge Drive 2667 Aspen Springs Drive 1834 Arroyo Canyon Drive Paradise, CA 95967 Park City; UT 84060 Chico, CA_ 95928 Scott D. Memmott ' Stephen Schwartz / P. O. Box 111 1985 Hooker Oak Avenue t/ Willows, CA 95988 Chico, CA 95926 Lila Bacon /"+ Leslie or Roberta L. Su&° 56 Mimosa Lane �_ i 208 Tom Polk Circle Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973-0679 Lewis A. Everett 2165 Nord Aveue, Suite 10 Chico, CA 95926 . Drako, Inc., Dan Drake P. O. Box'1448 Chico, CA 95927-1448 *bon S. Li 542 -1 'se, CA 95969 ;VX Butte Fl ' Club P. O. Bo 01 ` Chico A 95927-0101 Retta M. Herfi P. O. Box 515 - "` Chico, CA 95927-0515 Tom Aylward 14577 Camaren Park Driv!,/ Chico, CA 95928 C. Randy Landis.- 107 Donald Drive Chico, CA 95973 Roger Mathews,/`; - P. O. Box 4342 ,- Chico, CA 95927-4342 Randall E. Caviness, MO. - 1040 U.1040 Mangrove Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Edgar G. Knox ,V/ , 636 Bryant Avenue` Chico, CA 95926 Randall E. Caviness y - 1040 Mangrove Avenue Chico, CA 95926 CIMP James _ j/ Vayda Enterprises \j Paul T. Persons I lley Ridge Drive 2667 Aspen Springs Drive 1834 Arroyo Canyon Drive Paradise, CA 95967 Park City; UT 84060 Chico, CA_ 95928 Lewis N. Hyatt john Burghardt, Attorney'. l chard J. Powell, M.D.-- 16414 .D. 16414 Highway 99 ✓ 1092 Corino Real f 392-A Connors Court Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 Carl Selkirk ✓ ' / Charles Gerhart and % John Eckalbar 1026 Sheridan Avenud Margaret A. Murphy-Carhart� 41 Crow Canyon Court .� Chico, CA 95926 P. O. Box 1580 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95927-1580 Paul P Gene Kemper, Sr. i M. B. Keeney C/ 1834 yo Canyon Iv !' 42 Edgewater Court 2243 Durham -Dayton Highway' Chi , CA 95928 1,7 Chico , CA 95928 Durham, CA 95938-9651jD James Mead Robert Marjama dt Lee Exum/ Doug on 3111 Burdick Road 1478 Country Oak Drive 110 ence"Circle;�f20 Chico, CA 95928 Paradise, CA 95969 C ' f�9597� Ralph Plemmons Rene Brunel Leslie and Ro a L. Sue 756 Lorinda Lane P. O. Box 414 208 Tom Circle -� Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95927-0414 Chi A 95973-0679 KAan KCLLC: John Patrick/ Ronald J. Engstrom P. O. Box 1391 50 Guynn Bridge Court ✓ 60 Guynn Bridge Court Chico; CA 95927-1391 Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 Rob7Sern ./Ryan �� Beverly Strisower,' / Dave Murray ' 525 mStreet 203 Brookve Circle t/ P. O. Box 4299 ChiA 95928 Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95927-4299 Phillip Wolfe Tony Nasr Clay Kangerga 781 Sierra View Way 88 Lary S Lane t/ 1058 Mangrove Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95,926 Steve G. Nettleton ; : ' ✓ Stan or Leslie Gungl Chico Admin Services, David C. Favor 165 Falcons Pointe Dr. 129 W. Shasta P. O. Box 1297. Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95927-1297 D c Del Carlo and Steve Silacci Tom Dory - Aaron ind rg / 22 Esplanade / 1284 Manzanita Avenue 108 , #36 �✓ Chico, CA 95926 v Chico, CA 95926 C , CA 95973 v cSrw, CPQ `�3-72a-314k Hugh Tyler 2 Via Flora Court ward Schreder P. O. Box 7785 — `� and Nfissy Knox 636 Bryant Avenue Chico, CA 95973, Chico, CA 95927-7785 Chico, CA 95926 ibomas J. Aylward �f . Richard L. Ramsey Thomas J. A 0 e C 4577 Camaren Park Drive 2961 Highway 32, #1 14577 Parkt;r ve Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95973 Chi CA 95973 V J /1 Bell Carter bods, Roy Grossman, MD. ;-� Doug Benson Cherry Street ! 012 d StreetUr 2500 Zanella Way, Suite 1711 North Cornin CA 96021 Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95926 James F. Schlund V. L. Wood vs Road 1257 Shadybrook Lane 621 Paseo Compane Chico, CA 95928 Chico, CA 95928 �• _� .� u Bteounty AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 County Center Drive • • T y , ' 7 Oioville, CA 95965-3397' .• •. ^ .-�, - � ��:.� �•tifacsrrle�t�ansrrttal�" - ._ . . . To: .. Gordon Andoe, Mayor, City of Fax: -538-24.26' -; r Oroville r From: ;,Cheryl Spoor, Planning Date: 4 } n 11/16/00 " Re: ALUC/CLUP Extension -Pages-: 2, including cover sheet .. . + • t (530) 538-6571 4.t • -, � .{• - •may - r- ❑Urgent ElFor Review [],Please Comment. r ' •❑ Please Reply • ❑ Please Recycle Y , - • .. • •• • •. . is • Paradise Post Inc. ' P. O. Drawer 70 Paradise, CA 95967-0070 �N-� \) p ti �N���M�s Butte Co. Planning Commission C� �c��co nvoice 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965" P\aPoac DATE INVOICE # 11/18/2000 492-00 INCHES— DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT 12 Public Notice.: Notice of Public Review Extension 4.60 55.20 Period for the Airport Lad Use Compatibility Plan and Adoption of a Proposed Negative Declaration 1 Publish Date: 11/18/00 I Due and payable upon receipt. Total $55.20 Paradise Post Declaration of Publication , State of California County of Butte ` F Butte CountvAlmortL;9ndatF salon -�. _ ; Notice of Public Revl®w Exterisfon'tPert�¢for �fha- Declarant Says: That at all times herein,mentioned Declarant is and was a resident of said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one not a to nor • AdoAtlon of a Proposed NegvR Declarat ori N6iM6 e. I I . i?[�y� the $mite Codnty Corrimission.,that the ButtesC}quntyiAlrpq s Compatibility Rlar years; part and an eninronmentaY fiefit interested in the within matter' that Declarant is now and was at all times herein mentioned the Legal Clerk of the Paradise Post, a tri- pursuant to the,'Calrfomia`E6vironmentaf,�Qrisiity�A6t, asbeen prepeedfortdoption'F'' , weekly newspaper, which said newspaper was adjudged a newspaper of SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION• general circulation on November 12, 1946, by Superior Court Order Dunng'the{Novemb'er 15`l200o meeting'the°Alrpon Land Use.:Commission, exteriilecftfieComien�� No. 22262 asentered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court; and that said Penod for the referenced Plan tallov�emtie22rOb newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thursday and This would allow more time for any concemed entity,' Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that the to make comments Public Utility, Code Seciions 2'_1'6'7­4L'('_c}'and 21875 et Public Hearing Notice z seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensi�%,1and use plans for each of the Countys public use airports County of Butte - The proposed airport land use plan contains�a comY - Airport Land Use Commission - prehensive review of the-;compatbility cntena'"appllc�' able to `each ofthe Countys : public airpos; 492-00 :use ',Chico L: which ,applies•;to the Muiiapal�Airport�„the Oroville Airportthe Paradise Skypark Airport.. BMW, hich the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a true printed copy, WS in said newspaper in the issues of: • Ranchaero Airport ",� 1 is ' * U0 '� The Butte County:Airport Land Ilse Commission asi; —tion2t675°(a)�to?_ = published required by Public -Utilities ode.. formulate a comprehensive land; ;use plan that `will• November 18, 2000 provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the,:General Welfare of the inhabitants within the -vicinity ott_tie ailr; and that such publication was made in the regular issues of said paper - port and the public in deneral..ln formulating "the pla N, and not in ansupplemental edition or extra thereof). y pp the Butte County Airport.. Land Use Commis}on�may' develo height restrictions on buildin 4 s' eci uses of land and determine`tiuilding'standardsto ii�iide' I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports wifh in the planning area . The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and:•i Executed on November 18, 2000 Initial Study are on file and available for publid.viia ing at the office of the Butte'County Depart•menf° at Paradise, California. Develo m y "l Development aril Services, ,7 Count Center Dnye �. (Moeda; CA. ,For information call (530)`.538 6571 (Monday through Friday, 8 a:m. to 4 P.M-) 1 '. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION Declarant THOMAS A. PARILO, _•-+ 4 x , ::;: , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR 'Nov.''18f2000'f u / 1 L_J DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS NIARYSVILLE (530) 743-8511 — _ . -= ----- ----- ------ -- -L. � _--- -- -- --- -• _ �-FIELD � NUMBER - )UNTY.;OF BUTTE. PURCHASE ORDER .F.257240 OVILL99 CALIFORNIA Iaradise Post Drawer 7,0 Paradise, CA 95967 1/15,00 IPUBLIC HEARING NOTICE To bepublished in Saturday, 11/18/00. Issued By Department t copies of the affidavi+_ of publication (ALUC Comment Period extension notice) Cheryl - 538-6571 Butte County Planni 7 County Center Dri ,7,0 1480-001-37 TOTAL I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered or, where authorized, are hereby contracted for and that there is a Budget Ap riation for the same. Dated: Department Head or Authorized Deputy 1 4 5 W. I F 257240 Submit WHITE, CANARY and PINK to PURCHASING SERVICES with supplier's invoice. Retain GOLDENROD. • 0 `�� 2� �-I ADVERTISING INVOICE l CHICO ENTERPRISE RECORD PO BOX 9 400 EAST PARK AVENUE. . CHICO CA 95927 530-891-1234 ACCOUNT NUMBER 016410 BUTTE COUNTY LAFCO � COUNTY CENTER DRIVE D OROVILLE CA 95965 �w 2 e�Tt� cotj" nSSIOS �o ase. NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIE A�RPORt .�A PUB NOV 18, 2000 257241 8 3/4" @ 7.50/IN. PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT TOTAL $65.63 A 11 (SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In the Matter of No. NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of California ss. County of Butte The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: That I am, and at all time herein mentioned During—the Novempel,5 was a citizen of the United States and not a party 2000 meeting,= tFre"Ai port Land use Comr�lss!oneX to nor interested in the above entitled matter;, tended 09.-.gommenl Pen�d- for therrefare nced etan,to, that I am the principal clerk of the printer and p p p Novemtier'.z220ooj!7r;is would; allow•:more?time�.io[. publisher of any concerned eriHty !o' Putihc'Utill CodetSec; The Chico Enterprise -Record tions 21674,jc� and'21&75', et. seq allow a ye .1"Wilp. The Oroville Mercury -Register • date to the comPrehensive, land rse prans;toieachoY, thaCounty's putilic_use,air- ports. The'proposed, airp bo That said newspaper is one of general circula- land use plah _contains .-a comprehensive ;: review. ;bf tion as defined by Section 6000 Government the compatibility crjteria.ap=. Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796 plicable .to eacW',.'6 `_'114 County's public use;ar�drts, Which apppties;to _the: ft by the Superior Court of the State of California, Municipal,Airporti�thq.-_ ro- in and for the Countyof Butte; that said news a- p ville Airport;. the `;Paradise Skypark, Airport,;yand'.the per at all times herein mentioned was printed P p RanchaeroAl ort::-:;} The Butte, County Airport 1 and published daily in the City of Chico and Land use - ubli "u �li re by Public" utilities County of Butte; that the notice of which the quired Code Section 21675(aj ao, annexed is a true printed copy, was published in formulate a compretierls ve land use plan.that wllCpro- said newspaper on the following days: vide for the orderly, growth: of the area'1'surrou,R ing each airport: Such plods will safeguard the generafwel-, fare of the inhabitants within NOU 18, 2000. the vicinity: :01,the _ airport and the public in general. lh,for- mulating the plan; the Butte County Airport_ Land::@Use Dated November 21, 2000, 'develo Commission may_ height restrictions on build - at Chico, California. ing5, specify use,bf land, and determine. ';buildin standards to include sound- �i proofing of structures'adja- I cent to airports within the 1 planning area. , . • -1'''-'. i .The Draft Airport ,Land (Sign re) Use Compatibility Plan and I Initia! Study are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte De- County Department of velopment Services, ..- County Center Drive, Oro- ville, CA. For information rail: (530) 538-6571 (Mon- day through Friday, 8 a.m. 0 4 p.m.). I BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DE- VELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR F257241 Ptibiish: November 18, 2000 COUNTY OF BUTTE. OILOVILLE, CALIFORNIA U 9302492 -� 10/CO BUSINESS FORMS MARYSVILLE (530) 743-8510 FIELD NUMBER PURCHASE ORDER F 257241 P Chico Enterprise -Record P Attn: Donna L P.O. Box 9 I Chico, CA E 95927 R DATE QNTY INVOICE NUMBER AND D 11/1!/00 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Issued By planning,. ALUC Department . jTo be published in the Chico Enternrise� 11/18/00. Please furnish this office with two c affidavit nf n1,h1 i r of --i ^ , (4LUC Comment Period extension notice) %'11UL 1 Butte Count .Plannin 7 Count Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 s of Ithe 480-001-37 W. I TOTAL I Coo I (OlS I I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or. articles specified above have been performed or delivered or, where authorized, are hereby con= rand that there is a Budget Ap nation for the same. Dated: ° F- 25724.1 SUPPLIER NO. DEPT ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT NO. INVOICE NO. INV. DATE ENCUMBRANCE AMOUNT 1 2 3 4 i 5 16 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO NOVEMBER 17, 2000 • IN - ., EXTRA ' - - + MEETING COPY Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Notice of availability 'of die addendum'to the Draft Airport Land Use".!., Compatibility Plan and Public Review period for•the' adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration Notice is hereby, given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an addenum to the Draft ~ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is available for public review and comment. • In addition, an environmental document pursuant to the.California Environmental Quality Act has beedprepared for the proposed Plan and is also available forpublic review and comment.: ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED SUMMARY PROJECT, DESCRIPTION+ Public Utilities Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq..allow a yearly' update to the 4 + - comprehensive. land use plans for each of the County's' public use airports. The pioposed Airport ' Land Use' Compatibility Plan contains a comprehensive review of the -compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's ,public • use airports, which applies to:, the Chico Municipal , ' Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. ; h' The Butte'County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the • .. area surrounding each airport.- Such plans will • safeguard the general welfare of the inliabitants - ` within the vicinity of the airportand the public in general. In forrhulating the plan, the Butte County' Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of siructures adjacent to airports within the planning area. The Draft'Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan'and Initial Study are'on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7'County Center Drive, Oroville,. CA.. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 P.M.). Comments may be'submitted until November,17 2000 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION • . -' - THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES -CdU-NTYDVBUTTE. . ¢FIELD OR'7VILL%E,:CALIFORNIA -' .PURCHASE ORDER I Issued By (Department 553 DATE r :QNTY INVOICE NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ;S .'CHARGE -TO . s . ;.W.O. s 9/29/0 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE +480-001-37 2 3 To bepublished-in the Paradise Post on Thursday, October 5 2000. 1 6 Please furnish this office with two copies of the affidavit of publication. " (ALU( Joint Mg. NOTICE r � Q Cheryl - 538=6571 Butte County Planning 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 TOTAL I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered or, where authorized, are hereby contracted for and that there is a Budget Appropriation for the same. F 251553 Dated: Department Head or Authorized Deputy SUPPLIER NO. DEPT ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT NO. INVOICE NO. INV. DATE. ENCUMBRANCE AMOUNT 1 2 3 -5 6 Submit WHITE, CANARY and PINK to PURCHASING SERVICES with supplier's invoice. Retain GOLDENROD. • Butte Co. Planning Commission Tuvoice 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 DATE ; INVOICE # 10/5/2000 416-00 INCHES DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT . 13.5 Public Notice: Item on which a negative declaration 4.60' I 62.10 regarding environmental impact has been Due and payable upon receipt. Total $62.10 e Paradise P_ ost Declaration of Publication State of California County of Butte } 3 } Declarant Says: That at all times herein mentioned Declarant is and was a resident of t<��Y b;�s �, !:' •< ,:,;, N�� - or �.pre6ens P ' ` said county of Butte over the age of twenty-one years; not a part to nor £� interested in the within matter that Declarant is now and was at all �� ntysru6;Seati :fan nd" �° 'nE times herein mentioned the Legal Clerk of the Paradise Post, a tri- =!e=pro . m.� = a� s o` weekly newspaper, which said newspaper was adjudged a newspaper o y a tports pati general circulation on November 12, 1946, by Superior Court Order , f the iF,��pr�hr ar: ena ap Ie to nii No. 22262 as entered in Book 30 Page 223 of said Court; and that said t .- }, o en a t ,the o n s newspaper is printed and published every Tuesday, Thursday and seT�i r1'M uh ch Tithe I� l,., 'pian Saturday in Paradise in said County of Butte; and that the rt Co'` fat i s t co °� � Kli �o _ tY .Y � � p Public Hearing Notice i. �t cal �h°dte a 8 - - th Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Q lity n a n a1Se Notice of Public Review period for therepar6, Pro earoX ! posed It of ption of a proposed Negative Declaration F251553 gutta' o" llirport t e YCo e 00 Land UseCort►patlbildyarld Use Comi►iTy on Orov�Ue,Ao.o Pfan -� � = retauired by fublic� ( s3 ` z Ui�litres Code e.ction r uc of which the copy annexed on the margin hereof is a true printed copy, t 5 , a)'to few to , 9 a in• was published in said newspaper. in the issues of - A., u �rt�tm�ertts` u' { 1., i' 'will Oy'Vlde,)•9r .01 rip �b. - � October 5, 2000 ,� ,� rroundinegc`"% _ �f Suchiplan w� +BUTTE COU All theme general : PORP QOM SUMMARY QROJECT,* wetfar of theinftabi �THOMI ., and that such publication was made in the regular issues of said paper �?, DESCRIP'TION tants within thejvrcfr�ity of DIREG�OR;-S, 01 tfie airport and the publico; R� MENT-S fCE (and not in any supplemental edition or extra thereof). public :Utility . Code in general In formulatlng ' r`� Sections 21674 (c) and the :plan the, Butte October 5' 2000- ; I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2ts75 et -seq. allow a .-.-County 'Airport�Land Use:,',,; 416-00 yearly update to • tf�e _ Commission may devei S Csz u.r Y: n, {. Executed on October 5, 2000u at Paradise, California. A ' t. Declarant k• 11 0 • Butte Bounty Airport Land Use Commission Notice of -Public Review period for the adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for the proposed adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING . 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land -use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the • area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. The Dra$ Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through -Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEM RA D M F1LE O N U cp�y DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. PLANNING DIVISION To: AUDITOR'S OFFICE/ACCOUNTS PAYABLE �� �✓� From: CHERYL SPOOR/PLANNING t� Subject: OCTOBER 11, 2000 Date: STATEMENT - CHICO E.R. - FYI Attached is a statement (and appropriate paperwork) submitted to your office for payment. As discussed with Kathleen, I received the statement from the Chico ER today for a legal notice placed in the paper. I called the ER and talked to a Donna, the individual who issued the statement. I told her that the County pays on invoices, not statements. She said that this is their new. form - a statement and not an invoice. PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT TOTAL $63.75 jj L A! STATEMENT CHICO ENTERPRISE RECORD PO BOX -9 400 EAST PARK AVENUE CHICO CA 95,927 530-891-1234 ACCOUNT NUMBER 016410 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE CA95965 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW F251554 PUB OCT. 5, 2000 8 1/2" @ 7.50/IN. PLEASE RETURN WITH PAYMENT TOTAL $63.75 jj L A! PACE FOR FILING ST t IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In the Matter of Noti.ce...... of Public.......Review......................... No ... :..................................................... . ................................. .................................................................................... 1 u ..................................................................... AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of California County of Butte ss. The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: That I am, and at all time herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States and not a party to nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of The Chico Enterprise -Record Oroville Mercury Register. That said newspaper is one of general circula- tion as defined by Section 6000 Government Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796 by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa per at all times herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and County of Butte; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was published in said newspaper on.the following days: Oct. 5, 2000. I certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, at Chico, California. Dated............ Oct.,........COQ.O....................... I........, at Chico, California. ........:.�..�'v2 .............................. (Stgn� re) tions vi et. seq:" date to;1 land use the Coun FPons.. Thi use comprehe the coma The Butte c and Use Con Iuired by Pi ,ode Sectlori Drmulate 'a a and usepplIan ide for'the a f the :: area' ach airport Si ateguard the ve of the Inha to vicinity of nd ie public Iri pe use. lstandards to.Includ6j" Proofing o1 structures - cent to airports, wfthln.: the planning area. >. The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing et the office of the Butte County Department of De- velopmental Services, 'on ,s:7 County Center Drive; Oro- ville, CA. For Information call: (530) 538-7601 (Mon- day through Friday,' 8 a.m: to 4 p.m.). Comments mey be submitted unfit Novem' ber 17,2000. BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT; Y) "COUNTY-.OFBUTTE. OROVILLE,s'CALIFORNIA FIELD NUMBER PURCHASE ORDER qt 69 F 251554 �II S Chico Enterprise -Record :Issued B Attb:_- Donna 'Department P ent Planning/ALUC P. 0. 'Box 9 E Chico, CA 95927 R DATE; QNTY:: :INVOICE NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION -AMOUNT -CHARGE TO W. O. # 9/29/0 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 480-001-3 2 3 To be published in the Chico Enterprise -Record/ Mercer -Oroville on Thursday, October 5 2000. 6 Please furnish this office with two copies of the affidavit of ublication. (ALUC Joint Mtg. NOTICE) Cheryl - 538-6571 Butte County Planning 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 TOTAL, Z - J I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered or, where authorized, are hereby contracted for and that there is a Budget Appropriation for the same. F 251554 Dated: Department Head or Authorized Deputy SUPPLIER NO. DEPT ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT NO. INVOICE NO. INV. DATE ENCUMBRANCE AMOUNT 1 2 3 6 Submit WHITE, CANARY and PINK to PURCHASING SERVICES with supplier's invoice. Retain GOLDENROD. 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 '530-538-7.601 [fax 530-538-7785] fa'x { to: Ch��o /(� nA- fax #: cl ;L4 % � � S 5% 38,C, 1 .from:rpt 0- *y i A PSL✓ J C l — date: subject: -Fl C C, pages: 3 including coverpage NOTES: �u� Butte Bounty Airport Land Use Commission Notice of Public Review period for the a adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for the proposed adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Utility Code Sections 21674'(c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission'is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the • area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may .develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing at. the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For .information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C7 • Butte Bounty Airport Land Use Commission Notice of Public Review period for the adoption of a proposed Negative Declaration • C] Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Airport Commission that an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared for the proposed adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Utility Code Sections 21674 (c) and 21675 et. seq. allow a yearly update to the comprehensive land use plans for each of the County's public use airports. The proposed airport land use plan contains a comprehensive review of the compatibility criteria applicable to each of the County's public use airports, which applies to: the Chico Municipal Airport, the Oroville Airport, the Paradise Skypark Airport and the Ranchearo Airport. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission is required by Public Utilities Code Section 21675 (a) to formulate a comprehensive land use plan that will provide for the orderly growth of the area surrounding each airport. Such plans will safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. In formulating the plan, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission may develop height restrictions on buildings, specify use of land, and determine building standards to include soundproofing of structures adjacent to airports within the planning area. The Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Initial Study are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). Comments may be submitted until November 17, 2000 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT COMMIS THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DE SERVICES To be published in the Oroville Mer cu , Chico Enterprise Record, and Paradise Post on Thursday October .5, 2000 • • • ALUCYCLUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT Meetings with Public Hearings Meetings without Public Hearings Joint Meetings Workshops Public Comment Periods Committees: , Airport Land Use Commission Subcommittees: Densities/Boundaries 6 Infill 2 Disclosure & Public Education 2 14 4 3 _7 2 Total 10 Letters received: 29 Persons/Entities in support of CLUP 12 Persons/Entities in opposition to CLUP Mailings: March/00 CLUP Draft Distribution (to Butte Co. Board of Supervisors, Cities of Chico & Oroville, Town of Paradise, and one each to the Oroville and Chico Libraries) 60 ti Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of Draft Year 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 217 Negative Declaration Public Hearin Ng otice 164 Sept/00 Public Comments Packet - 32 Joint Meeting Invitation Packet 57 Agenda & Joint Mtg. Invitation 24 Notice of Availability of Addendum to the Draft ALUC Compatibility Plan... 155 Postings: In compliance with Brown Act Postings made for each mailing above: Posted in Butte_Courhy Administration Bldg. -1 on window at entrance, '1 in glass display case. Also posted in newspapers—Chico ER, Oroville Mercury -Register, and the Paradise Post • Motion of Adoption: December 20, 2000 , • • 2/26/01 cs Is CLUP Historical Meeting Dates Meetings Initial CLUP Preparation • Aug. 19, 1998 Monthly Status Report for ALUC Meeting. Staff distributed CLUP RFP to five consultants in June 1998, (with a July 15, 1998 deadline to respond), only one of which responded, Shutt Moen Associates. The other four were contacted and asked why they did not respond the CLUP RFP. Three of the four responded as follows: - Aries Consultants – Because of its thoroughness, this firm got the impression that the RPF had been prepared for the ALUC by a consultant that was already likely to get the contract. - Cortright & Seibold – They are a small fifrm who has had difficulty competing with Shutt Moen Associates on CLUP update projects. They chose not to respond to the RFP because they have essentially quit preparing proposals for these types of assignments. Walt Gillfillan & Associates – Mr. Gillfillan runs a "one man" operation which provides assistance to ALUC staff members who are preparing CLUP updates "in house." At times he also works as a subconsultant for larger firms. Since he does not have the staff or resources to support completion of an update of this magnitude, he chose not to Orespond to the RFP. Meetings With Public Hearings 1. Aug. 19, 1998 ALUC Meeting— Staff and the Airport Land Use Commission Subcommittee recommended the firm of Shutt Moen Associated be selected to prepare the Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan for the four public use airports in the County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Butte County Board of Supervisors. 2. Jan. 20, 1999 CLUP Kick-off mtg.//Ken Brody presented. 3. Apr. 21, 1999 CLUP//Ken Brody presented a progress report. 4. Oct. 20, 1999 ALUC Mtg.-- 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). 5. Nov. 17, 1999 ALUC Mtg.-1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). (Continued from Oct. 20, 1999). 6. Special Meeting//Dec. 29, 1999 ALUC Mtg.— 1999. Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) (Continued from Nov. 17, 1999). Discussion regarding proposed 1999 CLUP Amendment adoption. Motion carried to adopt the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the four respective Comprehensive Land Use Plans, as an interim measure, prior to the 2000 CLUP Update. 7. March 15, 2000—Introduction of Draft 2000 CLUP by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Assoc. • "The Consultant is requesting the Commission and the public provide comments on the draft plan." 8. April 19, 2000`ALUC Mtg.—Review and possible adoption of the Draft 2000 CLUP. 9. May 17, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP)— Review of the Draft 2000 CLUP. The public comment period extended to June 9, 2000. (Noted on the May 17 Agenda.) 10. June 21, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP) (Continued). 11. July 19, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP) (Continued)—Discussion regarding committee recommendations. 12. Sep. 20, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP Addendum) (Continued from July 19, 2000). Review recommended changes to the Draft 2000 CLUP made at the July 19, 2000 meeting. 13. Nov. 15, 2000—CLUP discussion—Review of Comment Matrix relative to CLUP 14. Dec. 20, 2000—CLUP final review and Adoption. 15. Jan. 17, 2001—ALUC response to local jurisdiction comments on the adopted CLUPs. Meetings Without Public Hearings • August 18, 1999 ALUC Mtg.—CLUP Working Session—"Issues of County -wide Significance"—Discussion Paper. Emphasis of this paper is on land use compatibility concepts and issues having -general countywide significance. • August 31, 1999 Joint Meeting City of Chico Airport Commission and ALUC at the Chico Municipal Airport (DO NOT KNOW IF THIS WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) Summary Minutes by Dave Doody document the -.meeting. • Oct. 20, 1999 ALUC Mtg.—CLUP Working Session—Issue Paper #2. Emphasis of this • paper, is on the Oroville, Paradise, and Ranchaero Airports. ("Updated forecasting information from the consultant preparing the Chico Airport Master Plan has been delayed and was not available. Therefore, Issue Paper #2 will not include a discussion on the Chico CLUP.) • June 8, 2000-4oint meeting for the Boundaries/Densities and Infill Subcommittees. Workshops 1. March 15, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP)—Introduction of the. Draft 2000 CLUP by Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates. 2. March 21, 2000 Meeting with City of Oroville. 3.' March 23, 2000 Meeting with the Butte County Planning Commission. Presentation by Laura Webster. 4. March 28, 2000 Meeting with the Butte County Board of Supervisors. Presentation by Ken Brody. 5. April 3, 2000—Special Joint Meeting between Board of the Supervisors and ALUC. 6. Oct. 19, 2000—Joint Mtg. held in Chico @ the Recreation Center. Joint Meeting to hold a workshop to present the 2000 Draft CLUP and Addendum to he Butte County Board of Supervisors, Chico City Council, Paradise Town Council, and Oroville City Council. Presentation by Ken Brody, Shutt Moen. • Public Open House 7. March 28, 2000 Meeting at the Chico Municipal Airport. Presentation by Ken Brody. 2 Committees • *See Minutes, p. 7,of July 21, 1999 discussion of forming a Subcommittee/Committee to review CLUP Amendments for 1999—Instead of forming a Committee, it was the consensus that the Commissioners and Alternates each receive a copy of the CLUP and take notes to give to one person to consolidate and present a report to the Commission; Commissioner Grierson volunteered to present the report. Subcommittees 1. Airport Land Use Commission Subcommittee: Chairman Hennigan, Commissioner Gerst, and Commissioner Rosene. At ALUC's August 19, 1998 meeting, this Subcommittee and staff recommended Shutt Moen and Associated be selected to prepare the Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan for the four public use airports in the County. This recommendation was forwarded to the Butte County Board of Supervisors. Subcommittees (Open to the Public, not as hearings, but were Public Meetings) 1. Densities/Boundaries—Appointments 4/19/00 Nina Lambert Fred Gerst Jim Causey Per letter from Atty. George Kammerer, he attended a Densities/Boundary Subcommittee meeting held 5/1/00. 2. Infill—Appointments 4/19/00 Norm Rosene Donald Wallrich (Bob Grierson to act as resource to the Infill Subcommittee) 3. Disclosure & Public Education—Appointment 4/19/00 Robert Hennigan volunteered to serve on this Subcommittee; no one else is documented as being on this Subcommittee. • June 8, 2000—ALUC Mtg.—Joint Meeting for the Boundaries/Densities and Infill Subcommittees. General discussion of issues and standards related to the 2000 Draft ALUCP. Public Comment Periods (Posted per the Brown Act requirements 1. Mar. 25, 2000 -April 19, 2000 Extended to June 9, 2000 76 days (Motion to extend the time period to June 9, 2000 at the 4/19/2000 meeting) _ 2. Oct. 5 -Nov. 17, 2000 Extended to Nov. 22, 2000 48 days (30 day time period extended to Nov. 17, 2000 at the Sept. 20, 2000 mtg.). (Deadline of Nov. 17, 2000 extended to Nov. 22, 2000 at the Nov. 15, 2000 mtg.) 3 Letters received: 29 Persons/Entities, in support of CLUP (letters in file) and 12 Persons/Entities in opposition to CLUP (as documented in file). Mailings: 3/00 CLUP Distribution list to 60 . (Incl. 9 copies to Butte Co. Supervisors//10 to the City of Oroville//7 to the City of Chico//1 Town of Paradise//? Butte Co. Planning Commission// 1 Oroville Branch Library//1Chico Branch Library) 3/23/00 Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of Draft Year distributed to 166 (tenants & property owners within CMA area) + 41 on mailing list. 2000 Airport Land Use Compatitibility Pla published in Chico ER, Oroville 3/7/00 Initial Study and Negative Declaration forwarded to the OPR Clearing House. 3/20/00 OPR Letter of acknowledgement of receipt of above-named documents. Notice of Availability of the Draft Butte County ALUCP—announces March 15, 2000 mtg. @ 9:00 am in the Board Chambers —(From Notice "Following the release of the document, a series of hearings and workshops will be held on the Plan to receive public input. The first meeting will be held by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission on: March 15, 2000 @ 9:00 am Butte County Boad of Supervisors Chambers. 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Week of 3/22-3/25/00 Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Availability of Draft Year 2000 Airport Land Use Compatitibility Plan published in Chico ER, Oroville Mercury and Paradise Post. 3/23/00 CLUP 2000 Draft 3 numbered copies available to public for purchase @ $60 ea. 3/23/00 Negative Declaration Public Hearing Notice sent to 164 . 9/28/00 Letter to Caltrans: notification of public hearing process Oct. 5 -Nov. 17, 2000. 9/28/00 Letter of OPR: notification of public hearing process Oct. 5 -Nov. 17, 2000. 9/29/00 Public Hearing Notice posted for publication with the Enterprise -Record (Oroville Mercury), and also to the Paradise Post. 10/2/00 Mailing to OPR Clearin House: 1 Notice of Completion, 9 copies Initial Study, . 9 copies Addendum, and 9 numbered copies of the CLUP Draft. 10/2/00 Mailing to Caltrans: 1 Notice of Completion, 1 Initial Study, 1 Addendum, and 1 Numbered copy of the CLUP Draft. 10/3/00 Public Comments Packet: sent to 32 . 10/4/00 Joint Meeting Packet: sent to Butte Co. Supervisors & its candidates, City of Oroville & its candidates, and Town of Paradise and its candidates = 10/4/00 Environmental Impact Document was sent to 155 people/businesses. 10/11/00 Agenda & Joint Meeting Letter for Joint Meeting 10/19/00) sent to 24 . 10/11/00 Agenda – provided to Chico, Oroville, & Paradise Councils to post (to meet their • posting requirement) 10/12/00 Posting of 10/19/00 Meeting Agenda in Admin. per Brown Act requirements. 11/8/00 ALUC meeting packets and/or agendas mailed to 38. (Continued CLUP discussion) .19 r: 11/16/00 Notice of Extension of the Public Comment period to 177 (Extension voted on approved at the ALUC 11/15/00 meeting—extended public comment period to 11/22/00.) 12/8/00 ALUC meeting_ packets and/or agendas (for 12/20/00 mtg. mailed to 44. (Continued CLUP discussion) 12/11/00 ALUC meeting agenda (for 12/20/00 meeting) mailed to 165. Received Documents: 10/17/00 OPR – acknowledgement of receipt of notification of public hearing process. 11/20/00 OPR—letter acknowledging compliance with the. State- Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 11/22/00—from State of California Public Utilities Commission—Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report. MOTION OF ADOPTION: December 20, 2000 Motion made by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Alternate, Commissioner Greenwood, and unanimously passed. Additional Documentation File 210:14 County of Butte Initial Study: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Determination: ...the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Report signed by Dave Doody, Senior Planner, and Paula Leasure, Principal Planner on 11/22/99. File 210:14 -- 1999 CLUP Density Criteria Adopted by the Butte County ALUC 12/29/99 File 210:14'-- MEMO from Laura Webster//Report on Status of CLUP Update During the Commission's August 19, 1998 meeting, the firm of Shutt Moen Associates was selected to prepare the Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan for the four public use airports in the County. Additional comments re: grants and funding. She states, "Staff also submitted correspondence to Caltrans Aeronautics Program Staff on Sept. 1, 1998 requesting a determination from that agency regarding whether a work program which does not include an expanded noise analysis (if additional funding is not obtained) will be considered acceptable to that agency. J:\CLUP Historical Mtc Dates.doc 5 In Sunnort of CLUP: /31/00 Jay Wright supports airport protection. /31/00 John Mendoza supports airport protection. 5/31/00 Sally Wallace supports airport protection. 6/1/00 Sankey Hall supports airport protection. 6/6/00 Robin Nichols supports airport protection. 6/7/00 Kimball Bond supports airport protection. 6/7/00 Dennis Parham, CAP, supports airport protection. . 6/7/00 Russell May supports airport protection. 6/8/00 Dan Fregin supports airport protection. 6/8/00 Fritz Watson supports airport protection. 7/3/00 Allen Kennedy supports airport protection. 9/1/00 Chico Chamber of Commerce supports CMA and CLUP process. 10/24/00 Geri Benedict supports airport protection. 10/25/00 Douglas Snider, DDS supports airport protection. 11/6/00 Darlene Quinn supports airport protection. 11/5/00 Howard Simmons supports airport protection. 11/5/00 Joyce Simmons supports airport protection. 11/8/00 Joseph Ernandes supports airport protection. 11/9/00 Betty J. Root supports airport protection. 1/14/00 Paulette Wulff supports airport protection. 1/5/00 Del and Dolores Crum supports airport protection. 11/16/00 Sandy Hesnard, Dept. of Transportation suggests expanding the designated area of protection outside the Chico Municipal Airport beyond what is in the CLUP. 11/20/00 Sylvia Marshall and William Marshall support airport protection. 11/24/00 Kathleen H. Martin supports airport protection. 11/29/00 Ednamae Faircloth, Chair, Upper Ridge Coordinating Council, states the Council supports airport protection. 1/16/01 Dianne Harmacek supports airport protection 1/25/01 NVPA (North Valley Pilots Assn.) supports airport protection. 29 In Support of CLUP (letters in file) 4/6/00 Letter from General Council Associates, Douglas Aikens, 1891 Landings Dr., Mountain View, CA 94043; "...use of Negative Declaration... is a violation of both the literal legal requirements, as well as the "spirit", of CEQA. 6/9/00 Steve Shuster against CLUP affecting land in north Chico. George Kammerer (in behalf of clients). Greg Webb City of Chico—Tom Lando & Kim Seidler Jon Bechtel 10/31/00 Al McGreehan Town of Paradise, letter noting areas of agreement, and disagreement with CLUP, stating, "...if the Town of Paradise chooses to override the ALUC with appropriate findings, the Town of Paradise does not support additional project review by the ALUC." 11/l/00 Jim Mann, Rural Consulting Associates, states, "...there has been no ascertainable evidence indicating that residential development... should be reduced to the extent called for in the draft CLUP... We urge you to carefully review your decisions to restrict land use due to ill perceived rationale and look at the facts.:.and to support currently designated use of lands at the sourtherly end of the airport." 11/22/00 City of Oroville Resolution requesting more time before the final CLUP adoption. 11/22/00 BIA (Building Industry Assn.) ...Concerns relative to appropriate notification of property owners regarding proposed changes, and other concerns. 1/25/01 Bernice Mandville opposes C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico. 1/30/01 Ozell Callahan opposes C-1 zone for Garner Lane, Chico. 12 Person's/Entities in Opposition to CLUP • • • ADDENDUM II December 4, 2000 Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Addendum 2 This document is the second addendum to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan dated March 2000. It contains all of the proposed` revisions listed in the original addendum dated September 26, 2000, plus additional changes in response to subsequent public input. All newly proposed revisions are indicated by a vertical line in the left margin. A brief discussion of selected revisions follows the respective items where necessary to clarify the intent or background for the change. In most cases, reference is made to the analysis and recom- mendations contained in two matrices prepared in response to public and agency comments on the draft plan. The first of these matrices was dated July 12, 2000, and the current version of the second matrix is dated December 4, 2000 (the original version is dated November 7, 2000). Only substantive changes are listed here; minor typographical corrections will also be made prior to printing of the final document. After adoption by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, these revisions will be incorporated into the plan and a final document will be printed. 40 Back of Title Page: Names of commission members and staff will be listed. Page 2-2, Policy 1.2.10 — Revise definition of "existing land use" as follows: Existing Land Use — A land use which either physically exists or for which local government com- mitments to the proposal have been obtained; that is, no further discretionary approvals are necessary . Local government com- mitment to a proposal can usually be considered firm once one or more of the following have occurred: A tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved and the original' period (before any time extensions are submitted) within which the approval is valid has not expired; A vesting tentative parcel or subdivision map has been approved; A development agreement has been approved and remains in effect; A final subdivision map has been recorded; A use permit or other discretionary land -ase entitlement has been approved and not yet ex- ired; or A valid building permit has been issued. • Discussion This change is based upon the recommendation outlined in matrix item #3. Note that formation of an assessment district for the provision'of infrastructure and the actual installa- tion of such infrastructure are not listed as conditions which by themselves qualify a land use as existing. It is within the ALUC's authority to exempt from review any development proposals for which only those conditions — and none of the others listed above — occur. However, such a policy.should be stated elsewhere in the policies chapter rather than as part of the existing land use definition. ShuttMoen Associates' recommendation is that the ALUC not exempt projects from review under these circumstances. Page 2-5, Policy 1.5.1(6) — Modify as follows: The adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation which (1) affects property within an airport influence area, and (2) involves the types of airport impact concerns listed in Section 1.4 (State Aeronautics Act Section 21676(b)). Any proposed change or variance to any such ordinance or regulation also must be submitted for ALUC review if issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight as addressed herein are involved. Discussion: This modification has not previously been discussed. It is intended to clarify that a zoning change or variance which involves compatibility issues must be*treated similarly to a gen- eral plan amendment. Without this clarification, the prospect exists that compatibility conflicts could arise because of zoning changes or variances granted subsequent to when the ALUC finds the general plan'and its implementing ordinances to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Page 2-6, Policy 1.5.2(b) —Add new Sub -policy (3) as follows: Because the ALUC is acting in an advisory capacity when reviewing projects under these circumstances, local jurisdictions are not required to adhere to the override process if theX elect to approve a project without incorporating design changes or conditions suggested by, the Commission. Discussion: This addition represents a slight. restating of the first recommendation included un- der item #1 in the matrix. Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(a)(4) — Correct to read: "... 20,000 square feet or greater." Discussion: This is a correction of a typographical omission. Page 2-7, Policy 1.5.3(b) — Expand policy as follows: For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, an aviation -related use is defined as any facility or activity directly associated with the operation, storage, or maintenance of aircraft. Such uses specifically include runways, taxiways,'and their associated. protected areas defined by the Fed- eral Aviation Administration, together with aircraft aprons, hangars,,fixed base operations, etc. Discussion:. See matrix item #23. L_ J 2 Page 2-9, Policies 2.2.3(b) and 2.3.3(b) — Change last word in first sentence from "specify" to "re- quire." Discussion: This -change clarifies the original intent. g g Pages 2-14 and 2-15, Table 2A — Make the following modifications as shown on the accompanying revised table: ► Add note defining children's schools as including through grade 12. ► Under "Other Development Conditions" for Zones B1 and B2, change "office buildings" to "buildings with noise -sensitive uses." ► Split the dual residential density criteria for Compatibility Zone C into two distinct criteria and zones designated C(1) and C(2) and modify Note 13 accordingly. ► Reduce minimum density requirement for Zone C(2) from 5.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. ► Revise Note 3 to clarify applicability of open land requirements to private property. , Also make the following revisions, not yet included in the table ► Revise first sentence in Note.4 to read: "The uses listed here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they, meet the intensity criteria, unless such prohibition is precluded by applicable statutes." ► Add note with reference to day care centers: "Family day care homes, as defined by state law, are permitted in all Compatibility Zones except Zone A. Noncommercial day care cen- ters ancillary to a place of business are permitted in Compatibility Zones B2 and C provided that the overall use of the property meets the indicated intensity criteria." Discussion: The first change is necessary to make the table consistent with Policy 4.1.5(a). The others respond to matrix items #8A and #8D and the further direction provided by the ALUC. Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.3 — Insert the following revisions and additions: (2) Local jurisdictions have the'following choices, or a combination thereof, for satisfying this evaluation requirement: ► The general plan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulations must con- tain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed devel- opment fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility Plan this re- quires both that the compatibility criteria be identified and that project review proce- ' dures be described); ► The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference (additionally, the project review orocedure must be described in a separate instrument presented to and approved by the ALUC); and/or ► The general plan ... (3) The status of ALUC review of major land use actions depends upon which of the preceding options the local agency selects for making its general plan consistent with the Compatibility Plan. This status in turn affects whether a local agency would be required to utilize the override process in the event of a disagreement with the ALUC's action. 3 • r _► If either of the first two options under Sub -policy (2) is selected then referral of major land use actions to the ALUC is voluntary. In this case, the Commission's review is advi- sory and the local agency would not need to utilize the override process if it elects to approve a project without incorporating the Commission's comments ► If the third option is chosen, submittal of major land use actions for ALUC review is man- datory and override procedures would aoRly. Discussion: These changes reflect the remainder of the recommendations listed under Item #1 in the matrix. The wording has been slightly modified from the originally proposed language. Page 2-16, Policy 2.4.4(a) — Replace infill policy with the following: Infill — Where development not in conformance with this Compatibility Plan already exists, ad- ditional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone. This exception applies only within Compatibility. Zones 82 and C. (1) A Rarcel can be considered for infill development if it meets all of the following criteria Pius the applicable provisions of either Sub -policy (2) or (3) below:. ► The parcel size is no larger than 20 acres. ► The site is at least 65% bounded (disregarding roads) by existing uses similar to, or more intensive than, those proposed. f ► The proposed project would not extend the perimeter of the area defined by the sur- rounding, already developed, incompatible uses. ► Further increases in the density, intensity, and/or other incompatible design or usage characteristics (e.g., through use permits, density transfers, addition of second units on the same parcel, height variances, or other strategy) are prohibited. ► The area to be developed cannot previously have been set aside as open land in accor- dance with Policy 4.2.5 unless replacement open land is provided within the same com- patibility zone. [9/26 revision] (2) For residential development: ► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is 10 acres or less, the development density shall be no greater than the overall density represented by all existing lotswhich lie fully or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the parcel to be divided. ► If the size of the parcel proposed for division is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than 20 acres), then the development density shall be no greater than double the density per- mitted in accordance with the Primary Compatibility Criteria (Table 2A). For nonresidential development,: ► If the size of the parcel proposed for development is 10 acres or less, the usage intensi (the number of people per acre) of the proposed'use shall be no greater than the average intensity of all existing uses which lie fully or partially within a distance of 300 feet from the boundary of the proposed development. 2 _► If the size of the parcel proposed for development is greater than 10 acres (but no larger than 20 acres), the proposed use shall not have an intensity (the number of people per acre) more than 50% above the intensity permitted in accordance with the Primary Com- patibility Criteria (Table 2A) [For example whereas an average intensity of 50 people per acre is normally permitted in Zone 82, the infill policy would allow a total of 75 peo- ple per acre (50 people/acre x 150% = 75 people/acre).) (4) To avoid the ripple effect of infill development on some parcels permitting additional parcels subsequently to qualify for.infill, the ALUC's intent is that parcels eligible for infill be deter- mined just once. Thus, in order for the ALUC to consider proposed development under these infill criteria, the entity having land use authority (Butte County or affected cities) must first identify the qualifying locations in its general plan or other adopted- planning document approved by the ALUC.. This action may take place in conjunction with the process of amending a general plan for consistency with the ALUC plan or may be submitted by the local agency for consideration by the ALUC at the time of adoption of this Compatibility Plan. In either case, the burden for demonstrating that a proposed development qualifies as infill rests with the project proponent and/or affected land use jurisdiction. Discussion: This change is based upon matrix item #4, as modified by ALUC suggestions. Page 2-17, Policy 2.4.4(c)(2) — In last sentence, replace "assessor's full cash value" with "market value." , Discussion: This change reflects item #6 in the matrix. Page 2-21, Policy 3.2.2 — Revise as'follows: Consistency Determination — The Commission shall determine whether the proposed airport plan or development plan is consistent witli the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission shall base its determination of consistency on: Findings that the forecasts and aviation -related development identified in the airport plan would not result in greater noise, overflight, and safety impacts or height, restrictions on surrounding land uses than are assumed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. N A determination that any nonaviation development (see definition in Policy 1.5.3(b)) or000sed for within the airport boundary will be consistent with the�Primary Compatibility Criteria set forth in Table 2A. Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — In Sub -Policies (b) and (d), delete references to automobile parking lots as acceptable forms of open land. (b) Roads and atitermobile parking 1 are acceptable ... (d) ...providing contiguous landscaped and -perkim areas is 5 Discussion: For the reasons cited in matrix item #8D, the ALUC concludes that automobile parking lots do not meet the basic safety-related objectives for providing open land. Page 2-27, Policy 4.2.5 — Replace Sub -poli (c) with the following: Sub -policy g Open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone Community general plans and/or implementing. policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met Application of open land requirements to individual development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property Measures must be . established to assure that property designated as open land will continue to meet the open land criteria for as long as the airport remains in operation. Discussion: This change matches the proposed revisions to Table 2A, Note 3. Pages 2-27 and 2-28, Policy 4.2.6 - Modify introductory paragraph; insert new Sub -policy (a); and renumber subsequent sub -policies. Criteria for Clustering = The ALUC generally supports clustering as a means for both enhancing safety compatibility in the airport vicinity and accomplishing other development objectives This policy describes the purposes of clustering and the limitations on its use a) Clustering occurs when development on a site or within an overall compatibility zone is concentrated in only a portion of the area and the remaining area is set aside either as open land (see preceding_ policy) or is otherwise held to a low -intensity usage. Clustering mai apply to either residential or nonresidential development. I. In terms of airport land use compatibility planning, thearimary purpose of clustering is to provide locations where an aircraft can attempt an off -airport emergency landing. Clustering may also serve to limit the risks to people on the ground, even if open land is not provided by shifting habitable areas away from principal aircraft flight tracks. especially tracks close to the runway ends. ll From a development perspective, clustering may be desirable or necessary because of various other site planning considerations not associated with airport compatibility. Examples of clustering include: Residential development where the building envelopes on large lots are all close together, such as adjacent to a street. Residential development in which most of the lots are small so that a large area can be provided for purposes such as a common recreational use or preservation of an environmentally sensitive habitat. Nonresidential development in which the buildings are surrounded by large areas of low -intensity uses such as landscaping, C: n U (b) Clustering of new residential development ... Discussion: This change reflects the Commission's guidance concerning matrix item #8C. Page 3-3, Paragraph 1.1.4 — Revise Sub -paragraph (a) and add the following new paragraph (c) to the discussion of the basis for defining the boundaries of Compatibility Zone C. (a) Annoyance associated with aircraft overflights is the major concern within Zone C: Although the zone lies mostly outside the 55 -dB CNEL contour, land uses are nevertheless subjected to frequent aircraft noise events. Risk is a concern mostly only with respect to uses such as schools, hospitals, and ones involving very high intensities. (c) In some portions of the Chico Municipal Airport influence area, Zone C is divided into two sub -zones designated CO) and CO. See Paragraph 2.1.2(d) for a description of the basis for delineation of these zone boundaries. Page 3-4, Paragraph 2.1:2(d) — Revise discussion of the Chico Municipal Airport boundary determinants for Zone C as follows: (d) Zone C, including Sub -zones C(1) and C(2), contains the. normal traffic pattern for both runways. The zone is wider to the northeast than to the-soufhwest because of the wider pattern sometimes flown by the heavy aircraft which use the primary runway. Extensions of Zone C to the northwest and southeast follow the offset nonprecision instrument NOR DME) approach procedures to each end of Runway 13L-31 R. Where sub -zones are designated, Sub -zone C(1) is applied to locations where noise, risks, and potential overflight annoyance are comparatively higher than in Sub -zone C(2) and urban density residential development neither exists oris planned. Sub -zone C(2) is generally intended fd'r the comparatively less impacted locations lateral to the runways or for areas -where extensive urban residential development already exists. Locations where future residential development may adhere to the criteria of either sub -zone are simply designated Zone C on the map_ Discussion: This change responds to the Commission's guidance regarding matrix item #10D. Page 3-5, Policy 2.2.1 — Revise as follows: :: - Relationship to Lone -Range Airport Development Plan — As of the adoption date of this Compatibility Plan the city of Chico is nearing completion of a new master plan for the Chico Municipal Airport. In anticipation of the near-term adoption of the new master plan and with the concurrence of the city of Chico the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 3A) contained herein takes into account both the existing configuration of the runway system and the future configuration which the city expects to adopt. 7 • (a) The existing configuration is represented by the 1977 master plan currently in effect Also after a new master plan is adopted, the current configuration will remain in use for an indeterminate period until such time as the proposed improvements can be constructed In the meantime, land use compatibility associated with the existing configuration needs to be maintained. LbJ The future configuration is expected to include a northward extension of the prima (eastern) runway and extension of the secondary (western) runway both northward and southward. If the city should decide either not to pursue these projects or to change the length of the extensions, modification of the Compatibility Map may be appropriate. Discussion: See Issue #12 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Page 3-6, add new Oroville Municipal Airport Policy 3.2.1 as follows: Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan - The Oroville Municipal Airport Compatibility Map (Figure 36) is based upon the airport role and facility improvements reflected in the airport master plan adopted by the city of Oroville in 1990 together with construction which has occurred subsequent to that date. Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Page 3-9, add new Paradise Skypark Airport Policy 4.2.1. as follows: Relationship to Long -Range Airport Development Plan — No master plan has been prepared for Paradise Skypark Airport. The "Compatibility Map (Figure 30 is therefore based upon the airRort configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 6B in Chapter 6 herein) as authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Page 3-11, add new Ranchaero Airport Policy 5.2.1 as follows: Relationship to Long -Range Amort Development Plan — No master plan has- been prepared for Ranchaero Airport. The Compatibility Map (Figure 3D) is therefore based upon the airport configuration reflected in the Airport Layout Diagram (Exhibit 7B in Chapter 7 herein) as authorized by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. Discussion: See Issue #13 in 12/4/00 comment/response matrix. Chapter 3, figures 3A, 3B, and 3D — Replace the Compatibility Maps for Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, and Ranchaero Airport with the attached new versions. • Discussion: These revisions correspond to 7/12/00 matrix item #10 and the comments provided by the Commission. Designated locations of Zones CO) and C(2) are shown on the Chico E] Municipal Airport map based upon the Commission's input. Additional modifications of the Chico Municipal Airport Compatibility Map are -proposed. See attached map. • Appendix D — Replace with the revised version attached. P , Discussion: The major changes proposed for this table are expansion of the introductory paragraph'and revision of the evaluation definitions to read "normally.compatible" or "normally incompatible" rather than simply "compatible" or "incompatible." Modifications have also been made in the residential land use category in response to the split of Compatibility Zone C into C(1) and C(2) sub -zones. Suggestions offered by the ALUC subcommittee were examined and several revisions and additions have been made, but most of the evaluations as originally included in the draft plan were judged to be consistent with the Table 2A criteria and various other policies in Chapter 2. ' I Appendix F2, *2nd Page, 3'd Paragraph —Add language as- follows to recommended avigation easement document concerning property owner waiver of right to sue the airport. Grantor, together with. its successors in interest and assigns hereby waives its right to legal action against Grantee, its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement associated with aircraft.. operations in the air or on the ground at the airportincluding future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore Grantor, its successors and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of aircraft operational procedures or restrictions However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role or character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a furidamental manner which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the time of the granting of this easement and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations. Also this grant of, easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns,•of any rights which ' may from time to time have against any air carrier or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. Discussion: The addition was discussed in matrix item #8F. Note that no change is recommended with regard to the zones within which dedication of an avigation easement is required as a condition for development approval. Appendix H — Expand introductory section as noted below and add attached Appendix H1 table. As indicated in Chapter 1, state law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within 180 days of when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. Alternatively, a local agency can override the ALUC by a two-thirds vote after first -holding a public hearing and, making findings that the agency's plans are consistent with the intent of state law. • • This appendix contains two types of information intended to To facilitate the general plan consistency process, thas appei Aix eemtaims: 1) an initial review of the current general plan and • applicable specific or community plans of each jurisdiction affected by the Compatibility Plant and (2) a checklist of general plan consistency requirements. The emphasis in this the general plan consistency review is on comparing the adopted local land use designations with the compatibility zone criteria set forth in Chapter 2 herein. Other elements of the general plans (the noise elements in particular) also need to be consistent with the Compatibility Plan. With regard to land use designations, consideration is given to whether the designation is for future development or merely reflectsexisting uses. Where a local plan's land use designation represents an existing use, changing the designation is not required for the purposes of consistency with the Compatibility Plan. The existing development could remain as a nonconforming use as indicated in the plan. policies. Any future redevelopment of the property, however, would need to be consistent with Compatibility Plan criteria. The checklist sets forth the types of modifications or additions to a community's general plan and/or separate implementation documents which are necessary in order for the plan to be fully consistent with the Compatibility Plan. Listed items are divided into two groups: compatibility criteria; and project review procedures. The comparison with ... (Note: this final paragraph'will be modified as appropriate once the plan is adopted.) Discussion: The addition of the. checklist is.intended to assist local jurisdictions and the ALUC in ensuring that all aspects of general plan consistency requirements are implemented. Initial Study — Revisions to the Initial Study of Environmental Impacts are indicated by underlining and strikeouts on the accompanying pages. Discussion: The modifications provide additional information regarding the effect of the Compatibility Plan on the number of new residential lots which can be created in the vicinity of the Chico Municipal and Oroville Municipal airports. 10 • • Countywide PoUales / Chapter 2 82 Extended. 5 0. 2 50 100 130 20% Children's schools,10 day ► Minimum NUR of 20 dB in Approach/Departure (average care centers, libraries residences (including mo - Zone parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes bile homes) and buildings 25.0 acres) Highly noise -sensitive with noise -sensitive uses 12 uses (e.g, outdoor the- ► Airspace review required aters) for objects >70 feet tall - ► Hazards to flight' ► Deed notice required C Traffic Pattern (1) 50.2 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools,10 day ► Deed notice required (average care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects > 100 feet tall z5.0 acres) ► Hazards to flight', or 1` - - (2) 24.0 (average parcel size 50.2 acres) D Other No No No Hazards to flight' ► Airspace review required Airport Environs Limit Limit Req't for objects > 100 feet tall ' Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying Airspace review required Overlay Compatibility Zone Appli- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall 12 cable ► Avigation easement dedica- tion required Table 2A • Primary Compatibility Com atibili Criteria ButteCounty Airport Land Use Compatibility. Plan 2-14 Maximum Densities / Intensities Additional Criteria Otherum Zone Locations Restde�l (PSP le/ac)2 Re 'd Open Prohibited Uses` Other Development (du/sc) Aver- Single mitt Land' Conditions rhe' Acre' Bonus' A Runway Protection 0 10 Not Not All ► All structures except aero- ► Avigation easement dedica- Zone Appli- Appli- -Remain- nautical facilities with lo- tion and cable cable Ing cation set by FAA criteria within Building ► Assemblages of people Restriction Line ► Objects exceeding FAR Part 77 height limits ► Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials ► Hazards to flight° B1 ApproactMpartum 50.1. 25 50 Not 30% ► Children's schools, 110 day ► Locate strictures maxi - Zone (rriftn lin • Appli- .care centers, libraries mum distance from ex -. and parcel size cable . ► HospiIals, nursing homes tended runway centerMe Sideline Zone 210.0 ► Highly raise -sensitive ► Minimum NLR of 25 dB in acres) uses (e.g. outdoor the- residences and buildings aters) with noise -sensitive uses 12 ► Aboveground bulk storage ► Airspace review required of hazardous materials" for objects >35 feet tall" ` Hazards to flight' ► Avigation easement dedica- tion 82 Extended. 5 0. 2 50 100 130 20% Children's schools,10 day ► Minimum NUR of 20 dB in Approach/Departure (average care centers, libraries residences (including mo - Zone parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes bile homes) and buildings 25.0 acres) Highly noise -sensitive with noise -sensitive uses 12 uses (e.g, outdoor the- ► Airspace review required aters) for objects >70 feet tall - ► Hazards to flight' ► Deed notice required C Traffic Pattern (1) 50.2 100 300 390 10% ► Children's schools,10 day ► Deed notice required (average care centers, libraries ► Airspace review required parcel size ► Hospitals, nursing homes for objects > 100 feet tall z5.0 acres) ► Hazards to flight', or 1` - - (2) 24.0 (average parcel size 50.2 acres) D Other No No No Hazards to flight' ► Airspace review required Airport Environs Limit Limit Req't for objects > 100 feet tall ' Height Review Same as Underlying Not Same as Underlying Airspace review required Overlay Compatibility Zone Appli- Compatibility Zone for objects >35 feet tall 12 cable ► Avigation easement dedica- tion required Table 2A • Primary Compatibility Com atibili Criteria ButteCounty Airport Land Use Compatibility. Plan 2-14 • • U • Countywide Policies / Chapter 2 NOTES: 1 Residential development should not contain more than the indicated number of dwelling units (both primary and secondary) per gross acre. With clustering, some parcels may be much smaller than others as long as the maximum overall density criterion is not exceeded. Clustering of units is encouraged in Compatibility Zones B2 and C - see Policy 4.2.6 for limitations. 2 Usage calculations shall include all people who may be on the property (e.g., employees, customers/visitors, etc.) both indoors and outside. These criteria are intended as general planning guidelines to aid in determining the acceptability of proposed land uses. Additional guidance is provided by Appendix C. 3 Open land requirements are intended to. be applied with respect to an entire zone. Community general plans and/or implementing policies shall indicate how and where the requirements will be met. Application of open land require- ments to individual.development proposals is at the discretion of the local jurisdiction and is dependent upon the size of the development (some Individual parcels may be too small to accommodate the minimum -size open area requirement) and whether the requirements can be made solely on public property. See supporting compatibility policies on safety (Policy 4.2.5) for definition of open land. 4 The uses fisted here are ones which are explicitly prohibited regardless of whether they meet the intensity criteria. In addition to these explicitly prohibited uses, other uses will normally not be permitted in the respective compatibility zones because they do not meet the usage intensity criteria. 5 Airport proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights should be disclosed as part of all real estate transactions in- ' volving property within any of the airport influence area zones. Easement dedication and deed notice requirements. apply only to new development. 6 The total number of people permitted on a project site at anytime, except rare special events, must not exceed the indicated usage intensity times the gross acreage of the site. Rare special events are ones (such as an air show at an airport) for which a facility is not designed and normally not used and for which extra safety precautions can be . . taken as appropriate. 7 Clustering of nonresidential development is permitted except in Zone A. However, no single acre of a project site shall exceed the indicated number of people per acre. See Policy 4.2.6 for details. 8 An intensity bonus may be allowed in Zones B2 and C if the building design includes features intended to reduce risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. -See Policy 4.2.7 for details. 9 Hazards to flight include physical. (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Land use development which may cause the. attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited. See the supporting compatibility policies on airspace protection (Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.6) for details. 10 For the purposes of these criteria, children's schools include through grade 12. 11 Storage of aviation fuel and other aviation -related flammable materials on an airport is exempted from this criterion. Storage of up to 2,000 gallons of nonaviation flammable materials is also exempted. 12 NLR = Noise Level Reduction; the outside -to -inside sound level attenuation which the structure provides. See the supporting compatibility policy on interior noise (Policy 4.1.5) for details. 13 Objects up to 35 feet in height are permitted; however, the Federal Aviation Administration may require marking and lighting of certain objects. See supporting compatibility policy on height restrictions (Policy 4.3.2) for details. 14 Two options are presented for residential densities in Compatibility Zone C. Option (1) requires an average parcel size of at least 5.0 gross acres. Option (2) requires a density of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (an average parcel size no greater than 0.2 gross acres). In locations where only one of these options is considered acceptable, ' the compatibility maps in Chapter 3 show either a C(1) or a C(2) symbol. In locations where either option is allowed, the map is marked with just the letter C. In the latter locations, the choice between the two options is at the discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. All other criteria for Zone C apply to both the C(1) and C(2) designations. This two -option criterion. is based upon a determination that the intrusiveness of aircraft noise is the most significant compatibility factor in Zone C; safety is only a minor concern The concept is that noise concerns can be minimized either by limiting the number of dwellings in the affected area or by allowing high densities• which tend to have comparatively high ambient noise levels. (Corrected 91261 Source: Shutt Moen Associates (September 2000) Table 2A, Continued 2-15 �■ !; ::. 0 ... r;.:. J :� � . zo I I Appendix D Compatibility Guidelines for Specific Land Uses Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The compatibility evaluations listed below for specific types of land uses can be used by Butte Coun- ty and other affected jurisdictions as guidelines in implementation of the primary compatibility crite- ria listed in Table 2A. The individual evaluations of compatibility versus incoml2atibility are based upon assumptions as to the typical characteristics of the respective land uses. Darticularly with reeard to usage intensity (the number of people per acre). Assumptions also are made with regard to the sensitivity of each use to noise and overflight annoyance and to the height of the structures. Atwical cases of a Darticular land use may be more or less compatible with airDort activities than an evalua- tion indicates. These evaluations.are therefore•not regarded as adopted ALUCpolicies or criteria: • In case of any conflicts between these evaluations of specific. land uses and the policies and criteria in. Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, the contents of Chapters 2 and 3 shall prevail. Natural Uses Fish and Game Preserves _ 0 0 .0 0 0 Land Preserves and Open Space 0 + + + + Flood and Geological Hazard Areas 0 + + + ' + Waterways: Rivers, Creeks, Canals, . 0 0 0 0 + Wetlands, Bays, Lakes - Normally incompatible 0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) • + Normally compatible • Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan D-1 Compatiblltty Zones Land Use A B1 B2 C D Agricultural Uses Truck and Specialty Crops 0 + + + + Field Crops 0 + + + + Pasture and Rangeland 0 + + + + Vineyards 0 + + + + Orchards - 0 + + + Dry Farm and Grain 0 - + + + + Tree Farms, Landscape Nurseries and Greenhouses - 0 + + + Fish Farms - 0 + + + Feed Lots and Stockyards - 0 + + + ' Poultry Farms - 0 0 + + Dairy Farms - 0 + + + Natural Uses Fish and Game Preserves _ 0 0 .0 0 0 Land Preserves and Open Space 0 + + + + Flood and Geological Hazard Areas 0 + + + ' + Waterways: Rivers, Creeks, Canals, . 0 0 0 0 + Wetlands, Bays, Lakes - Normally incompatible 0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) • + Normally compatible • Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan D-1 - Normally incompatible 0 - Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) + Normally compatible Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan # Addendum Revisions (9/26/00) ME Compatibility Guidelines for affic Land Uses / Appendvc D Compatlblllty Zones • Land Use A B1 B2 .(1)/(2) D Residential #. 25.0 acre average parcel size - 0. + +/- + # 1.0-4.9 acre average parcel size - - - -/- + . # 1.1 -3.9 dwelling units / acre average density - - - / + # 4.0-7.9 dwelling units / acre average density - - . - /+ + # 28.0 dwelling units / acre average density - - - -/+ + Mobile Home Parks - - - /+ + Institutional * Children's Schools- * Colleges and Universities _ . - - - 0 + Day Care Centers - - - 0 Hospitals and Residential Care Facilities Churches - - - 0 + Memorial Parks / Cemeteries - + . + + + Recreational " Golf Courses (except clubhouse) 0 0 + + + Golf Course Clubhouses - 0 0 0 + Parks Qow intensity; no group activities) 0 + + + + Playgrounds and Picnic Areas - 0 0 + + Athletic Fields (with small or no bleachers) : - 0 0 + + �. * Spectator -Oriented Sports Complexes. or Stadiums .° Riding Stables - - - 0 - +, - + + + Marinas and -Water Recreation . - 0 + + + Health Clubs and Spas - - 0 0 + Tennis Courts - 0 + + . + Swimming Pools - 0 0 0 + Fairgrounds and Race Tracks - - - - + Resorts and Group Camps - - 0 0 + Shooting Ranges - 0 0 0 + Industrial Research and Development Laboratories - 0 0 + + Warehouses and Distribution Facilities - 0 + + + Manufacturing and Assembly - 0 0 + + Cooperage and Bottling Plants. - 0 + + + Printing, Publishing and Allied Services - 0 + + + Chemical, Rubber and Plastic Products „ - - 0 0 + Food Processing - - 0 0 + - Normally incompatible 0 - Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) + Normally compatible Revisions from March 2000 Draft Plan # Addendum Revisions (9/26/00) ME - Normally incompatible 0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) + Normally compatible * Revisions from March 2000 Draft -Plan 0 Com ffbfflty Guldelinss for SPecilk Land Uses / Append& D Compatibfllty Zones Land Use A B1 132 C D Commercial Uses Low -Intensity Retail (e.g., auto, furniture sales) - 0 + + + Retail Stores (1 floor) - 0.. 0 + + * Retail Stores (2 or 3 floors) - - .0 .0 + Large Shopping Malls (500,000+ sq. ft.) - - - 0 + * Restaurants and Drinking Establishments (no drive thru) - 0 0 0 + * ' Fast Food Restaurants - - 0 0 + Auto and Marine Services - 0 + + + Building Materials, Hardware and Heavy Equipment - 0 + + + * Office Buildings (1 -or -2 floors) - 0 + + + . * Office Buildings (3 floors) - - 0 0 + * Banks and Financial Institutions (1 orfloors) - 0 0 ,2 Repair Services - 0'. : 0 : + + Gas Stations - 0 0 + +1 * Govemment Services / Public Buildings (1 or 2 floors) - 0 0 + + * Motels (1 or 2 floors) - - 0 0 + * Hotels and Motels (3 floors) - - - 0 + Theaters, Auditoriums and Assembly Halls - - - 0 + . Outdoor Theaters - _ - - 0 + Truck Terminals - + + + + * Any Uses with more than 3 habitable floors aboveground - - - - 0 Transportation, Communications and Utilities • Aircraft Storage: 0 + + + + Automobile Parking 0 + + + + Highway and Street Right -of -Ways 0 + + + + Railroad and Public Transit Facilities 0 + + + + Taxi, Bus and Train Terminals - 0 + + + Reservoirs - 0 0 0 + Power Lines - 0 0 0 + Water Treatment Facilities - 0 + + + Sewage Treatment and Disposal Facilities - 0 0 0 + Electrical Substations 0 0 0 + Power Plants - - 0 0 + Sanitary Landfills - - - - 0 - Normally incompatible 0 Potentially compatible with restrictions (see Table 2A) + Normally compatible * Revisions from March 2000 Draft -Plan 0 • • • • Documents / This indenture made this day of , 19 _, between hereinafter referred to as Grantor, and the flnsert County or City namel, a political subdivision in the State of Califor- nia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee. The Grantor, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ac- knowledged, does hereby grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual and assignable easement over the following described parcel of land in which the Grantor holds a fee simple estate. The property which is subject to this easement is depicted as on 'Exhibit A° attached and is more particularly described as follows: [Insert legal description of real property] The easement applies to the Airspace above an imaginary plane over the real property. The plane is described as follows: The imaginary plane above the hereinbefore described real property, as such plane is defined by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and consists of a plane [describe approach, transition, or hori- zontal surface]; the elevation of said plane being based upon the Airport official runway end elevation of feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSC), as determined by [Insert name and Date of Survey or Airport Layout Plan that determines the elevation] the approximate dimensions of which said plane are described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The aforesaid easement and right-of-way includes, but is not limited to: (1) For the use and benefit of the public, the easement and continuing right to fly, or cause or permit the flight by any and all persons; or any aircraft, of any and all kinds now or hereafter known, in, through, across, or about any:portion of.the*rspace hereinabove described; and (2) The easement and right -to cause or create; or permit or allow to be caused or created within all space above the existing surface of the hereinabove described real property and any and all Air- space laterally adjacent to said real property, such noise, vibration, currents and other effects of air, illumination, and fuel consumption as may be inherent in, or may arise or occur from or during the operation of aircraft of any and all kinds, now or hereafter known or used, for navigation of or flight in air; and (3) A continuing right to clear and keep clear from the Airspace any portions of buildings, structures, or improvements of any kinds, and of trees or other objects, including the right to remove or demolish those portions of such buildings, structures, improvements, trees, or other things which extend into or above said Airspace, and the right to cut to the ground level and remove, any trees which extend into or above the Airspace; and (4) The right to mark and light, or cause or require to be marked or lighted, as obstructions to air navi- gation, any and all buildings, structures, or other improvements, and trees or other, objects, which extend into or above the Airspace; and (5) The right of ingress to, passage within, and egress from the hereinabove described real property, for the purposes described in subparagraphs (3) and (4) above at reasonable times and after rea- sonable notice. F Appendix F2 Typical Avigation Easement Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan F-5 1�1 r� Sample /mplementatfon Documents / Appendoc F • For and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, the Grantor hereby covenants with the JLnW County or City namel, for the direct benefit of the real property constituting the Airport hereinafter described, that neither the Grantor, nor its successors in interest or assigns will construct, install, erect, place or grow in or upon the hereinabove described real property, nor will they permit to allow, any building structure, improvement, tree or other object which extends into or above the Airspace, or which constitutes an obstruction to air navigation, or which obstructs or interferes with the use of the easement and rights-of-way herein granted. The easements and rights-of-way herein granted shall be deemed both appurtenant to and for the direct benefit of that real property which constitutes the Airport, in the (Insert County or Citv namell State of California; and shall further be deemed in gross, being conveyed to the Grantee for the benefit of the Grantee and any and all members of the general public who may use said easement or right-of-way, in landing at, taking off from or operating such aircraft in or about the Airport, or in otherwise flying through said Airspace. Grantor, together with its successors in interest and assigns, hereby waives its right to legal action against Grantee its successors or assigns for monetary damages or other redress due to impacts as described in Paragraph (2) of the granted rights of easement, associated with aircraft operations in the air or on the ground at the airoort, including future increases in the volume or changes in location of said operations. Furthermore, Grantor, its successors, and assigns shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages through physical modification of airport facilities or establishment or modification of air- craft operational procedures or restrictions. However, this waiver shall not apply if the airport role character of its usage (as identified in an adopted airport master plan, for example) changes in a funda- mental undamental manner which could not reasonably have been anticioated at the time of the granting of this ease- . ment and which results in a substantial increase in the impacts associated with aircraft operations: -Also, this grant of easement shall not operate to deprive the Grantor, its successors or assigns, of any rights which may from time to time have against: any'aircarrier: or private operator for negligent or unlawful operation of aircraft. These covenants and agreements run with the land and are binding upon the heirs, administrators, exec- utors, successors and assigns of the Grantor, and, for the purpose of this instrument, the real property . firstly hereinabove described is the servient tenement and said Airport is the dominant tenement. DATED: STATE OF } ss COUNTY OF } On , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared , and known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Appendix F2, Continued F-6 • • • Local PI0Consistency Review /Appendix H Compatibility Criteria General Plan Document The following items typically appear directly in a general plan document... Amendment of the. general plan will be required if there are any conflicts with the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.3(a)). > Land Use Map — Any direct conflicts between proposed new land uses indicated on a general plan land use map and the land use criteria in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A) must be elimi- nated. This is most likely to involve residential land uses and may require changes to allowable densities. Any specifically identified sites for future schools also must comply with Compatibility Plan criteria. Most other nonresidential uses usually can be consistent with compatibility criteria provided that limitations can be set on the intensity of usage (see below). > Noise Element — General plan noise elements typically include criteria indicating the maximum noise exposure for which residential development is normally acceptable. This limit must bei made consistent with the equivalent Compatibility Plan criteria (see Policies 4.1.3 and 4:1.4). Note, how- ever, that,a general plan may establish a different limit with respect to aviation -related noise than for noise from other sources (this may be appropriate in that aviation -related noise is often judged to be more objectionable than other types of equally loud noises). Zoning or Other Policy Documents The following items need to be reflected either.in.the.general.plan or in a separate policy document - such as a combining zone ordinance:. if a separate, policy.document is adopted, modification of the general plan to achieve consistency.with the Compatibility. Plan-, may not be required. Modifications would normally be needed only to eliminate any conflicting language which may be present and to make reference to the separate policy document. > Secondary Dwellings — The Compatibility Plan counts detached secondary dwellings on the same parcel as additional dwellings for the purposes of density calculations.: This factor needs to be reflected in local policies either. by adjusting the maximum allowable densities or by prohibiting secondary dwellings where their presence would conflict with the compatibility criteria. > Intensity Limitations on Nonresidential Uses — Local policies must be established to limit the usage intensities of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses. This can be done by duplication of the performance -oriented criteria — specifically, the number of people per acre — indicated in the Compatibility Plan (see Table 2A and Policy 4.2.6). Altematively, local jurisdic- tions may create a detailed list of land uses which are allowable and/or not allowable within eacrh compatibility zone (Appendix D provides a starting point for a list of•this type). For certain land uses, such a list may.need to include limits on building sizes, floor area ratios, habitable floors, and/or other design parameters which are equivalent to the usage intensity criteria. Appendix H1 Checklist of General Plan Consistency Requirements Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan H-11 • Local Plans Consistency Review Appendix H • > Identification of Prohibited Uses — The Compatibility Plan prohibits day care centers, hospitals, and certain other uses within much of each airport's influence area (see Table 2A). These often are permitted or conditionally permitted uses within many commercial or industrial land use desig- nations., Policies need to be established which preclude these uses in accordance with the com- patibility criteria. > Open Land Requirements — The Compatibility Plan requirements (see Policy 4.2.5) for assuring that a minimum amount of open land is preserved in the airport vicinity must be reflected in local policies. Normally, the locations which are intended to be maintained as open land would be Iden= tied on a map with the total acreage within each compatibility zone indicated. If some of the area included as open land is private property, then policies must be established which assure that the open land will continue to exist as the property develops. Policies specifying the required charac- teristics of eligible open land also must be. established. > Infill Development — If a jurisdiction wishes -to take advantage of the infill development provisions of the Compatibility Plan (see Policy 2.4.4(a)), the lands which meet the qualifications must be shown on a map. > Height Limitations and Other Hazards to Flight — To protect the airport airspace, limitations must be set on the height of structures and other objects near airports. These limitations are to be based upon Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations; but may include exceptions for objects on high terrain as provided for in the Compatibility Plan (see Section 4.3). Restrictions also mustbe established on other land use characteristics which can cause hazards to flight (specifically, visual or electronic interference with navigation and uses which attract birds). Note that many jurisdic- tions have already adopted an airport -related hazard and height limit zoning ordinance which, if up to date, will satisfy this consistency requirement:: > Noise Insulation Requirements — The compatibility.criteria (see Policy 4.1.5) call for certain buildings proposed for construction within Compatibility Zones Bland B2 to demonstrate that.:: they will contain sufficient sound insulation to reduce aircraft -related noise to an acceptable level. These criteria apply.to new residences, schools, and certain other buildings containing noise - sensitive uses. Local policies must include parallel criteria. > Buyer Awareness Measures — As a condition for approval of development within certain com- patibility zones,.the Compatibility Plan. requires either dedication of an avigation easement to the airport proprietor or placement on deeds of a notice regarding airport impacts (see Table 2A, Policy 4.4.2, and Appendix F). Local jurisdiction policies must contain similar requirements. The plan also encourages, but. does not require, local jurisdictions to adopt a. policy stating that air- port proximity and the potential for aircraft overflights be disclosed as part of real estate transac- tions regarding property in the airport influence area. > Nonconforming Uses and Reconstruction — Local jurisdiction policies regarding nonconform- ing uses and reconstruction must be equivalent to or more restrictive than those in the Compati- bility Plan (see Policies 2.4.4(b) and (c)). Appendix H1, Continued H-12 • n 0 • Local PA Consistency Review / Appendbc H Review Procedures In addition to incorporation of ALUC compatibility criteria, local jurisdiction implementing documents must specify the manner in which development proposals will be reviewed for consistency with the compatibility criteria. > Actions Always Required to be Submitted for ALUC Review - State law species which types of development actions must be submitted for airport land use commission review (see Policy 1.5.1). Local policies should either list these actions or, at a minimum, note the jurisdiction's intent to comply with the state statute. > Other Land Use Actions Potentially Subject to ALUC Review — In addition to the above ac- tions, the Compatibility Plan identifies certain major land use actions for which referral to the ALUC is dependent upon agreement between the jurisdiction and the ALUC. If the jurisdiction fully complies with all of the items in this general plan consistency checklist or has taken the necessary steps to override the ALUC, then referral of the additional actions is voluntary: On the other hand, a jurisdiction may elect not to incorporate all of the necessary compatibility criteria and review procedures into its own policies. In this case, referral of major land use actions to the ALUC is mandatory. Local policies should indicate the jurisdiction's intentions in this regard. > Process for Compatibility Reviews by Local Jurisdictions — If a jurisdiction chooses to sub- mit only the mandatory actions for ALUC review, then it must. establish a policy indicating the procedures which will be used to assure that airport compatibility criteria are addressed during review of other projects. Possibilities include: a standard review procedure checklist which in= cludes reference tacompatibility criteria; use.of.a geographic information system to identify all parcels within the airport. influence area;.etc:. . > Variance Procedures — Local procedures for granting of variances to the zoning ordinance must make certain that any such variances do not result in a conflict with the compatibility crite- ria. Any variance which involves issues of noise, safety, airspace protection, or overflight com- patibility as addressed in the Compatibility Plan must be referred to the ALUC for review. > Enforcement — Policies must be established to assure compliance with compatibility criteria during the lifetime of the development. Enforcement procedures are especially necessary with regard to limitations on usage intensities and the heights of trees. Source: Shutt Moen Associates (August 2000) Appendix H1, Continued H-13 0 • Revised September 1, 2000 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. M. A. Meleka 530/538-6572 4. Project Proponent's Name and Address: . Same as #2 above. 5. Project Location: The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed. boundaries'of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to 5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around. Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2) any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero- nautics Program. 6. General Plan Designation: Various. 7. Zoning: . Various. 8. Description of Project: The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi- cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen- IS-1 0 • Initial Study of Environmenta9pacts • cies that have jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town'of Paradise. The plan also establishes policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor- dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics AcL 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: > Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east. > Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref- uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area. > Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping -terrain in immediate vicinity. . Town of Paradise a mile to the north. > Ranchaero Airport:. Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of Chico nearby to the north and northeast.. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: - 1 The Butte County Airport Land Use .Commission can adopt the plan without approval from any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, *the Commis- . sion and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub- lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics. Program.as required by'state law (Public Utilities Code Sec- tion 21674.7).. Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be accomplished by the general purpose- local: governments which have authority over land use within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent With the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure. The override. proced ure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ing pages. _. Aesthetics — Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services _ Utilities / Service Systems IS -2 _ Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality _ Cultural Resources _ Geology / Soils _ Hydrology / Water Quality _ Land Use / Planning Noise _ Population / Housing Recreation . Transportation / Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance • • 0 It/ Study of Environmentallmpacts DETERMINATION On the basis of this. initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN- �VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. find that the proposed project MAY have a `potentially significant impact" or "potentially . significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at tached sheets._ An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain:to be addressed.., find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE. DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Signature Date Printed Name Representing IS -3 • C] • InlUal Study of • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation'lncorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact;" and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets. General Comment The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land use. restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in Bute County would be influenced by the Compatibility flan, it speculative to anticipatethe spe- cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso- ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un- changed from present conditions... On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely limits the density, and intensity, and height of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af: fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan. Given these considerations, -it is concludedthat ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will :have, no impact with respectao the following environmental impact issues: 1. Aesthetic All 2. Agricultural Resources All 3. Air Quality All 4. Biological Resources All 5. Cultural Resources All 6. Geology and Soils All 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues a), b) c), d), g), h) Z. Hydrology and Water Quality All 9. Land Use and Planning Issue a) 10. Mineral'Resources All 11.' Noise Issues a), b), c), d) 12. Population and Housing . Issues b), c) 13. Public Services Issues a).i), a) -ii), a).iii), a).iv) 14. Recreation All 15. Transportation / Traffic Issues a), b), d), e), fl, g) 16. Utilities and Service Systems All 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues a), c) For'each of these topics, the "No Impact"_column has been checked and reference is made to the above General Comment. IS -4. • A Study of Environmental Impacts • IS -5 1. Aesthetics �.--C 4 C C o O E Issues 20► d a E �h � ' E z Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effecton a scenic vista? �t b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? x c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?. �t . d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x Discussion: See preceding General Comment. ' Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources ' Issues m o o m m ��% m �>r E a °1 IL c M E m c am E �N 3� �v� E z In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X IS -5 Initlal Study of EnvlronmentApacts c) Involve other changes in the existing environment k which, due to their location or nature, could result in . + conversion of Farmland to non-agdcultural'use? x Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil- ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports. Mitigation: None required. r .. 3. Air Quality aE E .. Issues zii «c a «tri a c `L r '$ °°a c aveE�Ng �N E z Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied ,upon to make the -following-determina- following determina-tion. tion.Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation:of the 'applica-- ble air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex-. ` - isting or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis- sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? x d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con- centrations? x e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- ber of people? x Discussion: See preceding General Comment. IS -6 Mitigation: • None required. • • - 11 Study of Environmental Impacts 4. Biological Resources Issues Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial. -adverse -,effect on: federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy' or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con- servation plan? Discussion:. See preceding General Comment. « C wea a its a .� � a E moCL n°.vi E $ �c� tai as N E z° x x ►nidal Study of EnWronmental cts • Mitigation: None required. 5. Cultural Resources 8 $ U a a Issues IS c a t dt/1€ 3 C 331E a z Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? k b) . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5? x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 6. Geology and Soils C C C S V $'�% CL E Issues c a 37 2 E � a 3 VU c CL J to z Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault . Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. �t IS-8 C • • Inl! 1 Stu of EnNronmental Im cfg ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including -liquefac- tion? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: . i None required. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Material Issues Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci- dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous. materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of.an existing or proposed school? mg m`g` o :`g 0 -E a O c � a 0. w 0. —E ao��o m o► o. E o ave E �rn� �N E z X IS -9 Initlal Study of Environmentalpacts ( • . d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz- ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? �t e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plans has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X 0 If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in, a safety hazard for people residing or working in the poject area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with,an' adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac- uation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res idences are intermixed with wildlands? X Discussion: 7.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re- duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other objects which might gene - trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a survivable emergency aircraft landing. 7.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. 7.a), 7.b), 7.0, 74, 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. IS -10 IS -11 • In Study o! Environmental Impact -9 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. C oC V.CLm Issues O C E a$ a Ems �m WE z Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc- tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? �t c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of course of a stream or. river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 39 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including.through..the alteration of the course of a stream. -or- river;'or substantially: increaseithe" rate or amount of surface runoff -in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage. - systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol.- luted runoff? x 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? )t h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? !t i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, < injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? )t j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? X. IS -11 I Initial Study of EnvironmentApacis Discussion.- See iscussion:See 'recedin p g General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 9. land Use and Planning Q O ■ f0 01 Issues a t a drag W E 2 _ Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj-. ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe- cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an - environmental:effect?. . x c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation: plan. . or natural community conservation plan? x Discussion: + 9.a) See preceding General Comment. 9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibilityplan (or to go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). With regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would apply to the county of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap- pendix H of the Compatibility Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis- tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications . to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse- quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility 'Plan. For a general plan to be considered consistent with .the Compatibility Plan, it must do both of the following: (1) it must not have�any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ- ated within an airport influence area. IS -12 • is, Study of Environmental Impacts Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which are unacceptable for theirproximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require reduction in planned future residential densities in certain' locations around each of the air- ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no'authority over existing land uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. The Compatibil- ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc- tion were to be proposed. The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim- its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil- ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen- eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati- . bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for compatibility review. Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es- tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Comm ,ission.does not .. . have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris- dictions through the general plan consistency process described above.. Because the affected jurisdictions have multiple options with regardto how to implement the compatibility criteria; as well_as the option to override the ALUC,.theapecific land use environmental impacts which may result cannot be determined. at this timer Only a general evaluation of the impacts, pri- marily with regard to housing, is presently possible (see Section 12, Population and Housing . Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in response to the Compatibility Plan. 9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conseryation plan or natural community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra- tion policies. Mitigation: None required. IS -13 initial Study of Envfronmentalt cts • 10. Mineral Resourcesa r-E re CL 0 Issues ., c v d°tnE� E z° Would the project: 4 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re- source that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Discussion: See preceding Ceneral Comment. Mitigation: None required. 11. Noise Q Q C Co Q - W Issues a a « a c .02E IL h 32 stn E z Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels. in , excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? �t b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels_existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ' noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X IS-14 its Study of Envlronmentel Imp e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such • a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X fl If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo- sure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Discussion: 11.a), 11.b), 11.0, and 11.d): See preceding General Comment. 11.0 The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposurereferred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishingnoise level reduction requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted locations. The plan does not regulate the operation of aircraft orthe noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au- thority over such matters. 11.0 Although the Compatibility. Plamdoes-.notspecifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts.presented:in the: plan would be generally applicable. Mitigation: None required. 12. Population and Housing a o .� c=� '«!E a Issues c a a C .9a E COL o. dH E �y 2 cc z Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne- cessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X • c) Displace substantial numbers -of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X IS -15 Initial Study of Environmenta . pacts Discussion.- 12.a) iscussion:12.a) The Compatibility tyPlan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region- ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu- lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the data summarized in the following paragraphs any .such shifts would be small relative to the overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. 'These impacts are judged to be less than significant. Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan the two having. potential for extensive urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air- port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinity of these two airports. Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati- bi� Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan, the minimum. parcel sizes for this designation range:from.as-little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres (It is recognized that the land use zoning of.,these parcels can be changed without amending the General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat- ibility Plan criteria.) The estimated percentage of each comoatibility zone which is already developed is taken into account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula- tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under currenteg neral plan and zoning criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com- patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par- cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion.. The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelline units to be eauiva- lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this impact is tinv relative to the overall numbers discussed. Chico Municipal Airport • > Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use IS -16 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts . zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with- out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan. > Compatibility Zone B2 Nearly 1,700 acres are planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses. ► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan would be on 400± acres (a portion of the .Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated. ► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not, the city general plan). The Compatibility Plan has *no affect on continued residential use of this ro ► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated. > Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has • been divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone CO) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone 82. Sub -zone C(2) requires densities to be at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi- erit noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflig-hts). ► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone C(1), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini- mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. ' About 850 acres have 1- or 3 - acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re- - maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Last, a small segment (less than 100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is for urban low-density residential develoRment (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total, implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400 new residential parcels which could otherwise be created undercurrent land use plan- ning and zoning. Sub -zone C(2) together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low- density option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop- ment. The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre: Increasing the average density to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in • some 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici- ap ted. IS -17 Initlal Study of Environmentalepacts > Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibility Plan would result in • higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above the net effect could be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000 acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area' This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone CO. For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross'acre within this area would reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether. By comparison. the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling units within the future Chico city limits The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on potential housing development in the airport area is thusjudgedto be insignificant Oroville Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone 81: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres The Compatibility Plan thus would have no effect on the number of potential new residential lots. > Compatibility Zone 82: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi- dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low - or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi- ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels > Com atibilit Zone C: The Com atibilit .Plan re uires future residential develo ment within Zone C to be either very low density (1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderately . high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre). Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini- mum parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. These designations are consistent with the compatibility criteria. ► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of this area is already developed Implementation of the compatibility plan would re- quire any future development to be medium density or at least be at the upper end of the low-density range (1:0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). > Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the CompatibilitX Plan on the Oroville Mu- nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi- cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations. 12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com- patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use • regulations. Also see preceding General Comment. IS -18 • Mitigation: None required. • • Int Study of Environmental lm y Pacts 13. Public Services 0. C o a Ct�2'i .«E o «ciS Issues. a a « °' a �N1c� E a.wE a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? x iv) Parks? v) Other public services? x Discussion: a E 0 z X 13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment. 13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed). The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con- flicts between aviation activity and school uses. In some cases, this restriction would necessi- tate moving the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific plans.' The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order to be accept- able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid- ered to be less than significant. 13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local geri- eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten- cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan. Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to _ simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions. IS -19 IS -20 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: None required. 14. Recreation E V e� a �E E Issues m L m 2o.0 E m a N E 011 zo a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh- borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili- ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re- quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment . . Mitigation: None required. - 15. Transportation / Trafficm E C C C Vi m_ Issues c a e a� E �N 3 E a s o z ddl Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela- tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e:, result'in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? x b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and high- ways? X IS -20 AStudy of Environmental lm pacts • c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ` an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? �t d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 39 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? �t f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? x g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup- porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus,turn-outs bicycle racks, etc.)? x Discussion: 15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.0, and 15.g): See preceding General Comment. 15.0 The Compatibility Plan has no.authority overthe operation of airports or air traffic, although it does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which could have off -airport compatibility implications. • Mitigation: None required. -16. Utilities and Service Systems„ C C C�... . :E m �� E Issues c a a m a «' m a a c 0.0)- E J(A 3� JU) z Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap- plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? �t b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? X IS -21 Initial Stud of Environmental /•acts Y P d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? �t e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment . provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commit- ommitments? ments? )t f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 39 g) Comply with federal,'state, and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required.' 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance : c o CE Issuesa a t O1 a s o E �iv��3� �v� E z IL U) a) Does the project'have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam- ples of the major periods of California history or prehis- tory? x b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection • with the effects *of past projects, the effects of other cur- rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro- jects.) X IS -22 a/ Study of Environmental Impacts • c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei- ther directly or indirectly? x Discussion: 17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment. 17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ- mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safetyimpacts and other air- port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With out adoption of the plan; the adverse impacts — both to airport functionality and to commu- nity livability — of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Mitigation: None_ required. • IS -23 INITIAL STUDY Revised September 1; 2000 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (March 2000 Draft) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. M. A. Meleka 530/538-6572 4. Project Proponent's Name and Address: • Same as #2 above. 5. Project Location: The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to land use planning and future development within the environs of the four public -use airports in Butte County: Chico Municipal Airport, Oroville Municipal Airport, Paradise Skypark Airport, and Ranchaero Airport. The plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the plan document. The airport influence areas range in size from about 4.0 miles by 2.6 miles around Ranchaero Airport to 5.6 miles by 4.0 miles around Chico Municipal Airport. Additional locations to which the plan applies are the sites of (1) any proposed structure taller than 200 feet above the ground or (2) any proposed new airportor heliport for which a permit is required from the Caltrans Aero- nautics Program. 6. General Plan Designation: Various. 7. Zoning: Various. 8. Description of Project: The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vi- cinity of the four public -use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agen- IS-1 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • cies that have jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. The plan also establishes policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the four existing airports and development plans for any proposed new, airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accor- dance with requirements of the California State Aeronautics Act. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: > Chico Municipal Airport: On northern edge of expanding Chico urban area. Increasing residential development on north and west. Industrial uses and open land to the east. > Oroville Municipal Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of Thermalito to the northeast. State lands — Thermalito Afterbay and Oroville Wildlife Ref- uge — occupy most of southwestern and southeastern portions of airport influence area. > Paradise Skypark Airport: Lightly populated, steeply sloping terrain in immediate vicinity. Town of Paradise a mile to the north. > Ranchaero Airport: Orchards immediately around airport. Residential neighborhoods of Chico nearby to the north and northeast. 10. Other agencies'whose approval is required: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission can adopt the plan without approval from any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, the Commis- sion and its consultants. have been guided by the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook pub- lished by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program as required by state law (Public Utilities Code Sec- tion 21674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use within the airport influence areas: Butte County, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. State statutes require these agencies to make their general plans consistent with the Compatibility Plan within 180 days, unless they go through an override procedure. The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings must be supported. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ing pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials _ Mineral Resources Public Services • _ Utilities / Service Systems IS -2 Agricultural Resources _ Air Quality Cultural Resources _ Geology / Soils Hydrology,/ Water Quality _ Land, Use / Planning Noise Population / Housing Recreation _ Transportation / Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance ' Initial Study of Environmental Impacts DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: -A- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN- VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" Impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable'legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at- tached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Signature Date Printed Name. • Representing IS -3 • :7 • Initial Study of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant Impact," and "No Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets. General Comment The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in Butte County would be influenced by the Compatibility Plan, it is speculative to anticipate the spe- cific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be asso- ciated with it. One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would remain un- changed from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility Plan neither precludes new development near airports nor dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely limits the density, arm intensity, and heieht of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which af- fected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan. . Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues: 1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural Resources 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Geology and Soils 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 8. Hydrology and Water Quality 9. Land Use and Planning 10. Mineral Resources 11. Noise 12. Population and Housing 13. Public Services 14. Recreation 15. Transportation / Traffic 16. Utilities and Service Systems 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance All All All All All All Issues a), b) c), d), g), h) All Issue a) All Issues a), b); c), d) Issues b), c) Issues a).i), a).ii), a).iii), a).iv) All Issues a), b), d), e), 1),g) . All Issues a), c) For each of these topics, the "No Impact" column has been checked and reference is made to the above General Comment. IS -4 I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? . c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character'or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. • Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources T R wm A o W a Initial Study of Environmental Impacts c rn a 0) on « °1 rn a a(n.9 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are 1. Aesthetics • - _-, ` .. the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- CcAlcc Oc cc cis Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts a E Issues « 0 a 0 o, «� 0 o,1 L a) Convert Prime Farmland,_Unique Farmland, or Farm- aov)E .01ir'n.3� �� E z. Would the project: and Monitoring Program of the California Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? . c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character'or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. • Mitigation: None required. 2. Agricultural Resources T R wm A o W a Issues c rn a 0) on « °1 rn a a(n.9 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model 0 997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,_Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? . b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X - x X X V cisCL E 0 Z Initial Study of Environmental Impacts - • c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil- ity Plan favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of airports. Mitigation: r None required. 3. Air Quality � o C R W C. .. = 6 rw u r- R t- v E Issues ycR o��=c� wEM can „ :. a c - OJy E z Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district'may be relied upon to make the following determina- • tion. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? �t b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex- isting or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emis- sions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? . X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant con- centrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num- ber of people? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. IS -6 Discussion: is See preceding General Comment. IS -7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • Mitigation: None required. 4. Biological Resources T ' �a Wo V tV r =V� a r=Z-«V E Issues c. do�c*o,os « . Cca I v� �al .yiWn 3 E z Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and • Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native. resident or migratory wildlife corridors, . or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fit' fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con- servation plan? x Discussion: is See preceding General Comment. IS -7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: None required. 5. Cultural Resources _ Mitigation: None required. CL' E 6. Geology and Soils Issues «: a go cm O1 rA o) a -R (V41 o CL min 3� ?NE z Would the project: Cc «: CL vii cm= O1 W CMa E a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance coin E 3,rn 3M 3m of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? )t b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site.or unique geologic feature? �t d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 39 • Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 6. Geology and Soils Z, -R (V41 o MtoCL R Issues Cc «: CL vii cm= O1 W CMa E z coin E 3,rn 3M 3m Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the • area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of -Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. x IS -8 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefac- tion? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result -in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- . B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 7: Hazards and Hazardous Material aE « « . o Ww mR �M io Issues c• rn a w CO rn= °> CO o" a C am E Orn 3M 3vj E z Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci- dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X Initial Study of Environmental Impacts d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz; ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? X e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plans has not been adopted, within two miles*.of a public airport or public -use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in, the project area? X fl If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or.working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac- uation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res- idences are intermixed with wildlands? X �. Discussion: • 7.0 The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred toin this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the risk of exposure to the hazards of an off -airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations. of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are re- duced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other. objects which might pene- trate airport airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. The plan also seeks to minimize the consequences of an off -airport aircraft accident by requiring a percentage of the land area in critical areas near the airports to remain open and reasonably suitable for a survivable emergency aircraft landing. 7.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in theplan would be generally applicable. 7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 7.d), 7.g), and 7.h): See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: ; IS -10 None required. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? K j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, • injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? �t IS -11 • Initial Study 1 Im y of Environmental l 8. Hydrology and Water Quality a Issues QI L R y c o, �' - � o► a o atn E .jra 32 ern E z Would the project: a) Violate any.water quality standards or waste discharge - requirements? x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc- tion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the. course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol- luted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? K j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, • injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- nami, or mudflow? �t IS -11 Initial Studv of Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 9. land Use and Planning ' R� nom o ma 2 R Issues c 0 a d CM �' co oM a o a.0E 3 r Jas E z Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj- ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe- cific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? x c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x A Discussion: 9.a) See preceding General Comment. 9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility plan to modify its general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistency with the compatibility plan (or to go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). With regard to the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, this requirement would apply to the county.of Butte, the cities of Chico and Oroville, and the town of Paradise. Ap-. pendix H of the Compatibility, Plan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consis- tency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications to the general plan of each of the four affected jurisdictions would be required as a conse- quence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Plan. For a general plan to be considered consistent with* the Compatibility Plan, it must.do both of the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it • must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situ- ated within an airport influence area. IS -12 • Initial'Study of Environmental Imp: Direct conflicts most often occur with respect to land use designations and/or densities which • are unacceptable for their proximity to the airport. Elimination of these conflicts will require reduction in planned future residential densities in certain locations around each of the air- ports. Only proposed land uses are affected. The ALUC has no authority over existing land uses even if those uses do not conform to the proposed compatibility criteria. The Compatibil- ity Plan would be applicable to these locations only if redevelopment or extensive reconstruc- tion were to be proposed. The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or other policy documents do not contain criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim- its on the height of structures and the intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The project evaluation requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil- ity Plan. Options include: (1) incorporation of'the ALUC's compatibility criteria into the gen- eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document; (2) adoption of the Compati- bility Plan by reference; and (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for compatibility review. Although ALUC adoption of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan would es- tablish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not have authority to implement the plan. This responsibility rests with individual land use juris- dictions through the general plan consistency process described above. Because the affected jurisdictions have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compatibility criteria, as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use environmental impacts which may result cannot be determined at this time. Only a general evaluation of the impacts,.pri- marily with reeard tohousine, is presently possible (see Section 12, Population and Housine). Each jurisdiction will need to assess these impacts at a higher level of detail as part of the CEQA process associated with the general plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in response to the Compatibility Plan. 9.0 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra- tion policies. Mitigation: None required. is IS -13 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • 10. Mineral Resources C C C C . Col0 R a O (Q /0 «a " «2�' cc a .Issues x.-22 m = " c of a d rn« os . m oM a E c aCnE ern 3E ?mE z Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re- source that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Discussion: , .See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 11. Noise T E Issuesc.. ai CM t °f W o► ®a CL rn °E min 3� �v�E z Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan " or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev- els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X IS -14 • ' e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo- sure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I'1 c: Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Discussion: 11.a), 11.b), 11.0, and 11.0 See preceding General Comment.. 11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive aircraft -related noise by limiting residential densities and,concentrations of people in locations near the four public -use airports in Butte County and by establishing noise level reduction requirements for new structures in the most highly impacted locations. The plan does not regulate the operation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no au- thority over such matters. 11.0 Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. Mitigation: None required. 12. Population and Housing X m M o M M m rte. r a c �. .. R .. E Issues°= a in r ni a A.W E _OJN 3 _OJa E z Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and.businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne- cessitating the construction of. replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X X IS -15 Initial Study of Environmental Aacts Discussion: 12.a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region- ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of residential and nonresidential land uses in the airport's environs to minimize potential noise impacts and safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with currently adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause popu- lation growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. As indicated by the data summarized in the following paragraphs, any such shifts would be small relative to the overall projected growth in the county and individual cities. These impacts are judged to be less than significant. Of the four airports addressed by the Compatibility Plan the two having potential for extensive urban development in their environs are Chico Municipal Airport and Oroville Municipal Air- port. The following analysis examines the effects which implementation of the Compatibility Plan policies could have on the number of allowable new residential lots in the vicinitv of these two airports. Comparisons are made between the number of additional lots allowable under the Compati- bility Plan criteria and the number possible under applicable local general plans and zoning. Zoning is particularly a factor with regard to assessing the development potential of parcels designated agricultural -residential in that, under the Butte County General Plan, the minimum parcel sizes for this designation range from as little as 1.0 acre to as much as 40.0 acres. (It is recognized that the land use zoning of these parcels can be changed without amending the General Plan. However, any such rezoning would need to remain consistent with the Compat- ibility Plan, criteria.) The estimated_ percentage of each compatibility zone which is already developed is taken into account in the calculations of future development potential. For the purposes of these calcula- tions, parcels too small to have subdivision potential under current general plan and zoning criteria are assumed to be developed regardless of whether a house already exists. The Com- patibility Plan explicitly allows a dwelling to be built on any legal lot of record even if the par- cel size is less than the indicated compatibility criterion. The analysis also assumes the numbers of residential parcels and dwelline units to be eauiva- lent. This assumption simplifies the analysis and, for most subdivisions, the two numbers are identical. For multi -family developments, the number of impacted parcels has been calculated as if each dwelling unit would be on its own parcel, thus the numbers are again equal. Where some differences could occur are with respect to secondary dwelling units. The lost potential for secondary units on existing large parcels has not been reflected in the calculations, but this impact is tiny relative to the overall numbers discussed. Chico Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone B1: Most of the 300± acres planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses within this zone are either already developed (250+ acres) or have land use IS -16 �i Initial Study of Environmental zoning which is consistent with the compatibility criterion of 1 dwelling unit per 10.0 acres maximum density (30± acres). Little potential for future subdivision remains with or with- out the added limitations of the Compatibility Plan. > Compatibility Zone B2: Nearly 1,700 acres are planned for residential or agricultural resi- dential uses. ► The greatest potential effect resulting from implementation of the Compatibility Plan would be on 400± acres (a portion of the Bidwell Ranch) planned by the city of Chico for low-density residential use. This development would be inconsistent with the Compatibility Plan. Assuming an average density of 2.5 to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre, some 1,000 to 1,200 planned residential parcels would be eliminated. ► An additional 600± acres of existing low-density residential development south of the airport would become nonconforming (in terms of the Compatibility Plan, not the city general plan). The Compatibility Plan has -no affect on continued residential use of this propeU. ► Lastly, some 300 acres north and northwest of the airport are zoned for 1- or 3 -acre suburban residential uses with the majority already developed. The Compatibility Plan would preclude any remaining larger lots from being subdivided into parcels smaller than a 5 -acre average. About 50 potential lots would be eliminated. > Compatibility Zone C: Zone C at Chico Municipal Airport contains nearly 4,000 acres of land designated for residential or agricultural residential uses. A portion of this zone has been divided into two sub -zones. Sub -zone CO) limits residential densities to 1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres, the same as in Zone B2. Sub -zone CO requires densities to be at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre (the concept is that higher densities will produce higher ambi- ent noise levels and thus lower the intrusiveness of aircraft overflights). ► Of the 2,400 acres in Sub -zone CO), the majority (some 1,450 acres) is zoned for mini- mum lot sizes of 5.0 to as much as 160 acres. This zoning, most of which is east of the airport, is consistent with the Compatibility Plan criteria. About 850 acres have 1- or 3 - acre suburban residential zoning. Over half of this area is already subdivided into the minimum lot sizes. The plan would limit the number of smaller lots into which re- maining undeveloped large parcels could be divided. Lastly, a small segment (less than 100 acres) of Sub -zone CO) is planned for urban low-density residential development (up to 5.0 dwelling units per acre). The plan would preclude this density. In total, implementation of the Sub -zone CO) criteria would eliminate between 200 and 400 new residential parcels which could otherwise be created under current land use plan- ning and zoning_ ► Sub -zone CO, together with the Zone C area which allows either the high- or the low- density option, covers over 1,500 acres of existing or potential residential develop- ment. The chief effect of the density criteria for this zone would be to require future residential development to be slightly more dense than the present average which is estimated at about 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Increasing the average density to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre on the remaining undeveloped land would result in issome 600 to 800 more future dwelling units within this area than are currently antici- a� ted. IS -17 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts • > Total Airport Influence Area: Implementation of the Compatibilit.yPlan would result in higher residential densities in some locations and lower densities in others compared to the densities currently planned. Under the assumptions noted above, the net effect could be a loss of between 250 and 1,050 potential residential parcels over the nearly 6,000 acres of existing or planned residential lands in the Chico Municipal Airport influence area. This loss could be reduced by further increasing average densities within Sub -zone CO. . For example, an average density of 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre within this area would reduce the loss to no more than 450± residential parcels and could eliminate it altogether. By comparison, the 1994 Chico General Plan provides for over 22,000 additional dwelling units within the future Chico, city limits. The overall impact of the Compatibility Plan on potential housing development in the airport area is thus judged to be insignificant. Oroville Municipal Airport > Compatibility Zone 81: All of the roughly 220 acres in this compatibility zone currently require minimum lots sizes of 10 to 40 acres. The Compatibility Plan thus would have no effect on the number of potential new residential lots. > Compatibility Zone 82: About 250 acres of mostly undeveloped lands designated for resi- dential or agricultural residential uses lie within this zone. Some 40 acres planned for low - or medium -density residential uses would be prevented from developing at those densi- ties, resulting in a loss of approximately 200 residential parcels. > Com atibilit Zone C: The ComRatibility Plan requires future residential develo ment within Zone C to be either very low density (1 dwelling unit per 5.0 acres) or moderatelx high (at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre). ► Of the approximately 1,900 acres of residential -designated lands within this zone at Oroville Municipal Airport, about 950 acres are presently zoned for 5- or 10 -acre mini- mum parcel sizes. Over 250 acres are planned for medium -density residential which requires a minimum of 5.0 dwelling units per acre.. These designations are consistent with the compatibility criteria. ► The remaining 700+ acres are planned for low-density residential uses. About half of this area is already developed. Implementation of the compatibility plan would re- quire any future development to be medium densis or at least be at the upper end of the low-density range (1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre). > Total Airport Influence Area: The net effect of the Compatibility Plan on the Oroville Mu- nicipal Airport environs would be about the same number of total dwelling units as indi- cated by current Butte County planning and zoning designations. 12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a.result of the plan's adoption. The Com- patibility Plan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local land use regulations. Also see preceding General Comment. IS -18 Mitigation: ' None required. 13. Public Services Issues a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public services? Discussion: InitiaTStud of Environmental Impacts Y A C C C C C C l02 co rc rn rn « os �v)E V l0 CL E 0 z 13.a) i), ii), and iv): See preceding General Comment. 13.a) iii): The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within much of the influence area of each airport covered by the plan (existing schools are not affected unless expansion is proposed). The restriction is intended as a means of avoiding future noise and safety compatibility con- flicts between aviation activity and school uses. in some cases, this restriction would necessi- tate moving -the location of future school sites identified in local general plans and specific plans. The distance that a planned school site would need to be moved in order,to be accept- able is generally small — approximately 0.5 to 1.0 mile. The overall consequences are consid- ered to be less than significant. 13.a) v): Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would, create a temporary increase in the workload of county and city planning department staffs as a result of the requirement to modify local gen- eral plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten- cies which would need to be addressed are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Plan. Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Plan are intended to simplify the ALUC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and the staff of the affected land use jurisdictions. IS -19 Initial Study of Environmental Mitigation: None required. 14. Recreation Issues a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh- borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili- ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re' quire the construction or expansion of recreational fa- cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 15. Transportation /Traffic Issues Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in rela- tion to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street. system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the.volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and high- ways? IS -2o Z. V �p W a W O W 0. W W o W W t; 41 W .—�. 0 m Of _ E C W Ol C Z Ol tll C W Ed a°w 32, rn CL 0 am N 3a �a� z Q X x Z. V �p W a W O W 0. W « o « t; 41 W .—�. 0 m Of .—� is M Ol E E « W �N SL E z a°w 32, _5y X.. X • InitiMudyof Environmental . c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature . (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? x e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? x g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup- porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn -outs bicycle racks, etc.)? X Discussion: 15.a), 15.b), 154, 15.e), 15.0, and 15.g): See preceding General Comment. 15.0 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which could have off -airport compatibility implications. Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems a, C r- C o r- W R c� R "_ CL E Issues c a d rn r rn o, a E E c �y 3� �� atn z , Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap- plicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? )t b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? )t c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater . drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? �t iS-21 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? - �t e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commit- ments? X 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? �t g) Comply with federal,'state, and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste? �t Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance T E Issues 2o, a a � « � rn � a 20.co E z a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, ' threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam- ples of the major periods of California history orprehis- tory? �t b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited, but cumulatively considerable? J"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project'are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur- rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro- jects.) x IS -22 Initial5tud of Environmental Impacts Y P c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei- ther directly or indirectly? )t Discussion: 17.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment. 17.b) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ- mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air- port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Butte County. With- out adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts _ both to airport functionality and to commu- nity livability — of allowing- incompatible development to occur may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility Plan thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant. Mitigation: None required. 1S-23