Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESCHEDULING OF ALUC MEETINGF 202, 12 I��J'It�CIE CO AIRPORT LAND USH"" COMMISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • MEMORANDUM TO: Affected and Interested Persons FROM: Paula Leasure, Principal,Planner ' DATE: December 6, 1999 ` SUBJECT: Rescheduling of ALUC `Meeting.. The Airport Land Use commission has, rescheduled the December 15, 1999, regularly scheduled meeting to the following date, time and place. ; DATE: December 29, 1999 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Butte County Board of Supervisor's. Chambers . 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA If you have any questions, Paula Leasure can be reached .Monday through Friday 8:00. a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at (530) 538-7601. 7 Y Y BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Special Meeting Minutes of December 29, 1999 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis, Rosene and Chair Hennigan Commissioner Hatley Others Present: Tom Parilo, Development Services Director Dave Doody, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Randy Wilson, Principal Planner Commissioner Lambert Alt. Commissioner Ward Alt. Commissioner Baldridge Alt. Commissioner Wallrich Lisa Purvis Wilson, Oroville Planning Manager Bill Davis, City of Oroville Planner Chair Hennigan reminded the Commissioners that if they want their comments on the record, they need to turn their microphones on. `r C. ' APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of November 17,1999. Commissioner Grierson made the°following two corrections to the minutes of November 17, 1999: Agenda Item E. 1., Paragraph.5 on page 2. Rewrite the sentence to read: "Commissioner Grierson said he made various modifications to the Shutt -Moen model, but feels that the terminology is not consistent with the Caltrans Handbook. He added that although he is comfortable with the densities he has presented, in order to avoid confusion, he requested the Comrnission to disregard his proposal." Agenda Item F., Paragraph 3 on page 7. Discussion regarding the signage issue. Rewrite the sentence to read: "Commissioner Grierson said there must be numerous options that the Commission has to enforce the signage portion of the North Chico Specific Plan. He said, in college, he remembered discussing this topic and learning about a writ of mandamus. That may be an option for the Commissiori to consider." Although Commissioner Lambert's comments were not recorded, Chair Hennigan said, "Nina notes correctly that there is no signature page for the Commission. Commission Grierson said that in all of the years he has worked with Commissions, as a member or as staff, he has never encountered minutes that were released prior to their adoption. There are generally clarifications that have to be made to minutes. There may be certain deletions that have to be made and there are certain errors that occasionally have to be corrected. It is a regular process encountered at all public levels. Minutes should not be distributed until they are formally adopted and become part of the public record. Draft minutes are strictly that - draft, and should always be marked as draft. They should only be available to those persons who are involved in the creation of such minutes. He said he talked about this with staff and was informed that if this was going to be the policy of the Commission, then it should come forth as a,policy from the Coininission. He made a motion that adopted minutes are the public records of these proceedings and that draft minutes are to remain as working papers to be used only by the Commission and it's staff. Chair Hennigan said he had been very unhappy with the same thing in the past and -said he would entertain a second to that motion. Commissioner Rosene seconded the motion. Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services, commented that it was an appropriate motion for the Commission to take, but added that whenever an agenda is prepared with draft minutes, those minutes are to be available to the public. He said perhaps the Commission was talking about an advanced early release of those minutes. If the motion is successful, draft'minutes will appear in the Commission's packets and because it is a part of the public proceedings, they will be available to the public in advance of the Commission's meetings. Cominissioner Grierson said he did not know if there was an early release with these minutes. He said the minutes are an action item that could make them part of a public packet, but until they are a public document that ALUC has adopted, he questioned whether they have to be released as a public document before that time. Mr. Parilo said all agenda materials must be available to the public X number of days in advance of the meetings, so that the public has the benefit of reviewing the minutes as well. The idea of stamping them draft and not releasing them in advance of being presented to the Commission in their formal packets is something that can easily be accomplished. Commissioner Gerst said, in his experience, until the appropriate body has approved the minutes, they are not public documents. The minutes give a lot of misinformation and until they are approved, they are not public documents. Chair Hennigan said there have been substantial omissions from the minutes in the past. The Commission has had strong disagreements with staff when the draft minutes were.published. The draft minutes have been used in overridingfindings. He said that was grossly inappropriate because there was a great deal of important material omitted from those minutes. It took the Commission three months to get that material back into the minutes before ALUC would adopt them. ALUC did not adopt those minutes until a couple of months after we had been overridden based on the draft minutes. So we have a problem here. It may be necessary to release them as draft minutes, but they need to be clearly labeled draft and not misused., He said it was inappropriate when Commission members are receiving phone calls when they have not seen the minutes. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 2 ■ Commissioner Papadakis said if the Commission follows this procedure, then it is his understanding that the Commission "would receive the draft minutes, make corrections, additions, or omissions, and would receive the final minutes ai a subsequent meeting for approval., In other words, the Commission would be extending approval of the minutes one more meeting. He asked if this was correct? Chair Hennigan asked Commission Grierson if that was the intent of his motion? Commissioner Grierson said the intent of his motion was really just to consider the draft minutes as working documents. When we receive our copy of the minutes in our packet, we will review them as we do to determine if that is what was said, the intent of what was said and the manner that it was said. If not, we would then make the corrections. He said his concern was more on the public release of the information before it is a record of the proceedings. If the minutes are clearly marked draft that will take care of that consideration, but when he receives the minutes they already look like an official set of minutes. Considering that the Commission is now meeting on an off day, it would be a. fair assumption for people to assume that the minutes have been adopted, especially since they have been signed. Mr. Doody asked, "With no signature?" Commissioner Grierson said with no signature until they are formally adopted. Commissioner Papadakis asked when the minutes are formally adopted would the word draft be removed? Commissioner Grierson said that was correct. Once they are adopted, the draft labeling would be removed, all appropriate changes would be made and the minutes would be signed off. Mr. Parilo said the Commission needed to appreciate the dynamic nature of the planning process. He said staff would strive to make sure that whenever they pass the Commission's minutes on to a subsequent hearing body, be it the County Planning Commission, City Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, or a City Council, that it is the officially adopted minutes. ' There are times, when because of scheduling, that cannot occur. To make sure that they have the benefit of the Commission's thinking and discussion, there may be times when draft minutes need to accompany those packets. Chair Hennigan said as long as they are clearly labeled as draft, he understood that. It is important to note the'importance of the written minutes because in a recent lawsuit, the decision of the judge was to reject the notion that the tapes have any significance as records of the meeting. The judge said the written minutes were the official records of the meeting. Although that is onejudge's opinion, it contradicts what the Commission has been told about tapes being the record of the meeting. Commissioner Gerst said the adopted rules of the County used to say that the written minutes were the official records. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ Chair Hennigan said the Commission would now vote on the motion to clearly label the Commission's draft minutes as draft and not have them signed or represented as minutes until they have been adopted. He said the minutes were merely a draft until they have been adopted. Commissioner Grierson seconded the motion. Chair Hennigan said Commissioner Grierson made the motion and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Rosene. Commissioner Grierson said the Chair had changed his original motion. He said he would delete his motion and go with Chair Hennigan's motion. Chair Hennigan apologized. He asked Commissioner Grierson to restate his motion. Commissioner Grierson said to strike his motion from the record and that he would second Chair Hennigan's motion. He said his original motion was to only have the minutes for internal release until they have been adopted. Based on the discussion, his motion was not appropriate and, therefore, he withdrew it. Chair Hennigan's motion was to have the draft minutes labeled as draft and not signed until they are adopted, and that is the motion he is seconding. Chair Hennigan said he would allow that. The Commission unanimously passed. the motion to have draft minutes labeled as draft and left unsigned until they are adopted. Commissioner Gerst made the following correction to the minutes of November 17, 1999: Agenda Item E. 1., Page 5, General Statements, No. 1. Mr. Gerst said the statement was entirely different from what the Commission adopted. The Commission adopted -the statement, "All ministerial and discretionary projects' uses shall be reviewed by ALUC, and findings must be made that no adverse impacts will be created." He said the wording was changed in the minutes of November 17, 1999 to, "Projects that do not meet the density or use criteria of the CLUP within the planning area of influence boundary for each airport shall be referred to ALUC." He said that was a considerable change in the wording of the statement. He said the minutes should be changed back to what the Commission adopted. Mr. Doody said Paula Leasure, Principal Planner, reviewed the minutes. Ms. Leasure listened to the tape of the meeting for a two-hour period and the minutes and staffs report correctly reflect the direction of the Commission and are here in their entirety, as correctly stated on the tape. He said there may be some confusion, but for the record, the Planning staff has reviewed the tape very carefully and these minutes do reflect what is on the voice record. Commissioner Gerst said he had the worksheet the Commission was working from and the notes are right on it. He said there were a couple of other items, noted on the worksheet, that did not get into the minutes. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ Mr. Doody said instead of amending the minutes, they can -address Commissioner Gerst's concerns when the CLUP hearing begins. Commissioner Gerst said he would not vote for approval of the minutes until he listened to the meeting tapes himself. He said General Statement No. 1 was a very important statement until there is a CLUP where everything fits. He said they were in such a clutch right now because there is not a CLUP in place now that covers the whole situation. There are a few things dealing with the chart that did not get changed. He said he would bring those things up later. Chair Henr igan asked Commissioner Grierson how he remembered the meeting of November 17, 1999? Commissioner Grierson said he remembered the phrasing and was trying to find in his notes where it was applied. • He said it was a structure of words that he would not ordinarily use himself, although he recalls them being used in the meeting. He said he did not recall where or in what context. He said he was hoping he had something in his notes on it. s Commissioner .Gerst said he did not know what Commissioner it was that recommended changing the word "residential" to "projects," which is a better terminology for this issue. He said it was in the proposal, Attachment No. 2, that the Commission was working from on this statement. ` Chair Henniganasked if the, Commission would like to put the minutes off until next month in order *for the Commissioners to review their notes.. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commission Causey, and unanimously carried to continue the approval of the minutes of November 17, 1999 to the January 19, 2000 meeting. , D. ACCEPTANCE OF'THE AGENDA 4 Commissioner Grierson said he would like to go into a closed session for about 10 minutes before the Commission's discussion of Agenda Item E. 1. Chair Hennigan asked Commissioner Grierson what subject he wished to discuss. He said there were only two things the Commission could discuss in a closed session. One is staff and the other is pending litigation. , Commissioner Grierson answered that he would like to discuss staff and staffing. Mr. Parilo said before the Commission officially amends the agenda, he would like County Counsel to -advise the Commission about whether or not a closed session could take place at this meeting since it was not on the agenda prior to the meeting. The agenda clearly reflects that there is no closed session business for today's meeting. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ Chair Hennigan said Agenda Item J., Closed Session, indicated the Commission did not plan to hold closed session. Commissioner Grierson suggested waiting to schedule the closed session until they receive word from County Counsel. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). Continued from the meeting of November 17, 1999. Mr. Doody said, for the benefit of the public present, staff would like to begin with a summary of the project, where the Commission has been in the last couple of months and how this process has evolved. He said the Public Utilities Code allowed an amendment, once a year, to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan's of the County's public use airports. On October 20, 1999, ALUC initiated an update and review of the CLUP's for the County's public use airports. The Commission discussed three proposals, but did not take action at that time. At the conclusion of the October 20, 1999 hearing, ALUC initiated the CLUP Amendment as proposed by Commissioner Gerst. The item was forwarded to the November 17, 1999 hearing and ALUC discussed the proposed amendment and directed staff to refer Commissioner Gerst's proposal, as amended by the Commission, to agencies for comment, prepare CEQA analysis, and return the project for adoption by ALUC at Today's special meeting. Mr. Doody said this was against staff s recommendation that ALUC not move forward with the 1999 CLUP Amendment because it would significantly complicate the work in process by Shutt -Moen Associates, who are now in the process of preparing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update. Staff has been in contact with Shutt -Moen Associates and it has been determined that they will provide an administrative draft to staff at the end of January 2000, and that the Commission will begin the public review and workshops on the CLUP in March -2000. Following the November 17, 1999 hearing, staff sent the CLUP Amendment to agencies and prepared a Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Clearinghouse comment review period ended yesterday. So far, staff has received six letters on the proposed CLUP Amendment. Overall, staff has not received positive responses. Staff included the letters in the Commissioner's packet. Both the City of Chico and the City of Oroville raised significanf concerns. At the October 20, 1999 hearing, Shutt -Moen Associates advised ALUC that the proposed amendments could have a fiscal impact upon the contract currently negotiated for the preparation of the overall CLUP Update. The City of Oroville Planning Department indicated the CLUP is incomplete and that the accompanying maps were illegible. The City Attorney from Oroville also noted that there was not adequate information in time to comment. The City of Oroville Planning Commission also stated similar concerns. The Planning Commission is urging the ALUC to defer the adoption of the proposed 1999 CLUP Amendment and to turn the work over to Shutt -Moen Associates for review and approval later. The City of Chico also indicated they had significant concerns about the rush to adopt the CLUP before the end of the ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 6 ■ year. The City of Chico noted there was not enough time to prepare a thorough analysis. The City of Chico also requested ALUC not to adopt the proposed 1999 CLUP Update. The City believes that ALUC should defer the proposal until next year, in order for Shutt -Moen Associates to address it more thoroughly. The Planning Division reviewed the Negative Declaration prepared by staff, and found that it was deficient and that it should incorporate further mitigations to address potential incompatible land uses within residential neighborhoods. The letter from the Planning Division raised significant concerns that the limitation of residential uses and a potential "taking" issue would encourage the City to promote commercial, manufacturing, and industrial uses within established residential neighborhoods. The City does not want to be put in a position of disallowing any economical or viable use of a person's property. The Planning Division has indicated that the CLUP Amendment may be too restrictive and create a "taking" issue for vacant residential lands within the area of influence. Mr. Doody said he gave the Commission a hand-out of the proposed Shutt -Moen maps. The maps were presented at the October 20, 1999 hearing. The maps indicate the extent of the professional analysis that they have undertaken thus far. The maps are much more legible and clearly defined than the original maps submitted to staff, which were then submitted to the various agencies. Also, Shutt -Moen provided draft airport noise contours of the 65, 60, and 55 CNEL. The proposed CLUP Amendment contains a restriction in text item E., that states that, "Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL." This area of the proposed CLUP Amendment is too vague for staff to define. From the hand-out prepared by Shutt -Moen, which is a preliminary form to define where the 55 CNEL noise contour is located. This prohibition significantly affects vacant lands within the Inner Safety Zone, the Inner Turning Zone, and the Outer Safety Zone, and is extended to include the Traffic Pattern Zone and the area of influence. Staff s recommendation is to review and consider the staff report and Commissioner Gerst's proposal and the letters from affected agencies. Staff recommends that the Commission reject the adoption of the 1999 CLUP Amendment based upon the finding on page 5 of staffs report. Mr. Parilo said staff does not believe that ALUC has defined the definition of the project so that a complete analysis of impacts can occur. Other agencies, including the Principal Planner from the Planning Division, have commented that there could be some far-reaching impacts that could have negative consequences for the primary land uses around the four public use airports. Most of those land uses are predominantly residential in- nature. The outcome could be commercial uses and industrial uses that could conflict with residential land use patterns. There could be noise impacts, different types of traffic impacts that are uncommon to residential areas, dust impacts, etc. that could result in incompatibility. The draft Negative Declaration has not identified or recognized those issues, or attempted to come up with mitigation measures. Mr. Doody pointed out that the maps the Commission has as part of their proposal and those prepared by Shutt -Moen show many differences between them. Because of the work that Shutt - Moen is doing, they have raised considerable reservations with the Commission proceeding right now. The largest concern is that the Commission provided direction to Shutt -Moen back in October 1999 during the workshop. Shutt -Moen has relied upon that direction and has been working diligently to prepare the draft plan based on that direction. This would be a substantial departure from that direction. Because of these concerns and because the project description has not been fully developed, the CEQA documentation has not been fully satisfied. Staff ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 7 ■ • 0 strongly encouraged the Commission not to take the action that is before them today. Mr. Parilo said all of the participating jurisdictions recognize that the Commission has embarked upon an update to the CLUPs around the airports. Recently, the Board of Supervisors delayed action on a very significant residential project around the Oroville Airport and has postponed any action on the appeal brought forward until they could schedule a workshop with ALUC. The City of Chico also'delayed the processing of one project pending the adoption of the CLUPs. Staff suggested that a more prudent process to maintain the status quo, would be to invite and request each lead land use agency to preclude the processing of significant development projects, be it legislative or non -legislative in nature, until ALUC has had the opportunity to adopt the CLUPs. The advantage would be that all planning options, other than the primary existing land use patterns, would be available for the ALUC to consider in the updates to the CLUPs. According to Shutt -Moen, a public draft plan should be introduced and available for the March ALUC meeting. Public hearings and workshops could follow. Hopefully, during the summer of 2000, updated CLUPs may be adopted for all four public• use airports. Mr. Parilo urged the Commission to consider this option instead of putting something in place now that could raise havoc with the process upon which the Commission has embarked. There could be significant cost implications with changing direction right now. During the review of the CLUPs, the Commission would have the opportunity to include some of the provisions that are now being considered, but would also have the benefit of the professional consultant retained to prepare the Comprehensive Plan. Going forward with the amendments that are before the Commission today would be premature without the benefit of a total look at the CLUPs. Commissioner Rosene said in reading the letters received from the attorneys regarding the need for CEQA review, Jay White and Mr. Remy seem to have differing opinions. He asked Mr. Parilo what he thought about the letters? Mr. Parilo said Mr. White seemed to mix a CEQA process with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. White suggests that they are the same, but they are not. An EIR is part of the CEQA process, but a Negative Declaration, with or without mitigations measures, is obviously one of the documents that could be provided. He said he disagreed with Mr. White's conclusions that reviewing possible land use implications associated with the amendments the Commission is contemplating now, would be speculative. To defer that to a lead agency would not serve the interests of the process that the Commission is going through. The Remy, Thomas, and Moose letter reaffirms the fact that the action before the Commission should be considered a project and, therefore, the CEQA process should follow. The benefit would be to provide some environmental information for the lead agencies when they go forward to review the CLUP amendments. In another letter to the Commission, from the attorney the County has contracted with to provide advice to ALUC, it was indicated that it is the Commission's obligation to identify where the inconsistencies are with the General Plans associated with any amendments to the CLUP. The contract with Shutt -Moen will undertake that task with the comprehensive revisions to the CLUPs and provide the lead agencies with a better indication of where their General Plans might be out of line with the proposed CLUPs. He said he agreed with Michael Remy's conclusion that ALUC should proceed with a more in-depth CEQA analysis and address the implications that the changes will conflict with the predominant land use pattern surrounding the airports. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 8 ■ Commissioner Grierson said we lose an airport every week on a national scale. As a young student pilot in Chicago, he could fly into 35 public use airports in 1974, today, there are 7. When Meigs Field closes there will be 6 and that number will continue to shrink. In the Bay Area and in the basin, 52 public airports closed between 1947 and 1997. We must protect our airports from incompatible development, and proper land use planning is critical to achieving that goal. California is lucky to have a system that creates and empowers ALUCs to protect airports. We must use that power wisely. Having said that, it may sound odd to have an airport manager state that he is not going to support a measure that limits incompatible development around an airport. It may seem even more odd when you consider that it was this airport manager who guided the meeting in November 1999 when the proposed changes were developed. Our approach needs to be one of cooperative planning and development, not land use by decree. Having spent the past month reflecting on the outcome of the November meeting and talking to numerous planners, he decided that he is not going to support Agenda Item E. 1. He said he is withdrawing his support for the following reasons: 1. Consistently, the single largest complaint was the illegibility of the drawings. These drawings are critical to the determination of the zones and their accompanying density limits. It is wrong to demand that communities support adoption of plans that may significantly impact land uses, transportation, utilities, and land values based on an unreadable map. Could staff have generated those drawings in a timely fashion? He said he didn't know. 2. What do we do with non -conforming uses? How do we address the increase in avigation easements? Why are we debating if a change in land use is subject to CEQA? Of course it is. We have not adequately addressed the concerns of the communities, nor have we provided enough time for them to discuss them with us. This is not the forum. for us to debate the merits of this proposal, but we need to listen to them now. 3. Timing of this proposal is very poor. Vacations, holidays, limited hours, and staff availability have made review a rushed and incomplete event. We are not the landowners, nor are we elected to serve the public. Yet we are endowed with a vital public trust and that is to "Protect the airports," but at what cost? In six months we will have a completed CLUP. We can rush to implement this update and then spend the next 6 months watching communities override every portion. Or we can gather information today, establish a solid working relationship with Chico, Oroville, and Butte County in the development of a CLUP that can be implemented and accepted, and not be overridden at every opportunity. Our relationship with the surrounding communities is very poor. Between the lawsuits, overrides, poor land use issues, and weak approach to airport protection, there is plenty of blarne to go around to all parties. However, with the new CLUP, we have a choice of working with communities to establish a long-term land use plan that meets the needs of the communities and those of the airports, or a plan that will last as long as an override takes to process. Let there be no misunderstanding, the communities of Oroville and Chico will override this update. It maybe appropriate for the ALUC to request the communities of Oroville, Paradise, and Chico to enact an urgency ordinance to hold in abeyance any potential land use changes near the airport until the CLUP is updated. There are no guarantees that any ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 9 ■ • 0 community will implement such ordinances, but it is not unreasonable to request it. In focusing on today's meeting and the public discussions on Agenda Item E. 1., let's not blow this opportunity to listen to the comments made by the planning professionals. We need to balance these concerns with the needs of landowners, and then balance those requirements with the long term survivability of the airports and the jobs that they create. Commissioner Papadakis asked Mr. Parilo if his proposal is to ask the lead agencies to withhold any action in the areas of influence until ALUC approves the CLUP? Mr. Parilo said he was suggesting that this was a more responsible approach to take. It may create better partnerships with the various entities. Also, this approach agrees with Commissioner Grierson's comments. In the most rigid form, the adoption of urgency ordinances are with the powers of City Councils and the Board of Supervisors. It would be up to those jurisdictions to elect to enact urgency ordinances. When ALUC meets with the Board of Supervisors, they have the'opportunity to request that they consider the adoption of an urgency ordinance or other measure that could protect airports until the update to the CLUPs are complete. . Commissioner Papadakis said ALUC has a deadline to act on the 1999 Annual Update today. If the Commission were to rely on assurances from the various entities, there is no guarantee that the urgency ordinances would be enacted. He suggested the Commission should take action to the extent where whatever is included in Agenda Item E. 1. is incorporated into the CLUP and direct the consultant to do that. The consultant has.an obligation to follow the dictates of this Commission, while at the same time, take into account his professional capacity of providing the Commission with advice. If the Commission takes action on the document and instead of adopting it in the 1999 CLUP Update, it can be converted into a definitive instruction to the consultant to incorporate it in his CLUP. He asked Mr. Parilo if this was possible. Mr. Parilo asked Commissioner Papadakis if he was talking about the density criteria or the maps? Commissioner Papadakis said if proper planning was done, clearer maps could have been made for this proposal. The maps prepared by Shutt -Moen, dated October 19, 1999, are very definitive. The Commission's proposal could have been overlaid over those maps and distributed to_the lead agencies. If the Commission adopts the 1999 Update proposal, they want this information included in the CLUP and into a future CLUP. It is incumbent upon the consultant to accept the Commission's directive and incorporate it into the CLUP. If the consultant has any questions, he can appear before the Commission to present his views. Mr. Parilo said if the Commission sends the proposal to the consultant and directs him to include it, there may be some impact on the work he has done to date. The consultant may respond that he can do it, but much of the work done already may have to be redone. There may be additional budgeting considerations. The budget that Shutt -Moen has is fixed. If this is the Commission's directive, the Board of Supervisors would have to be approached to see if additional funding can be brought forth to amend the contract. If the Commission sends their ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 10 ■ comments and leaves it up to the consultant to include those provisions that he feels professionally makes sense, that is a different, story. If the Commission is adamant about instructing the consultant, Mr. Parilo suggested holding another workshop with the consultant in advance of the preparation of the draft plan where some dialogue with the consultant can occur before the Commission directs the consultant to include it. Commissioner Grierson said one of the reasons why he instructed to have his plan pulled from the proposal was because his plan was a modification to the Shutt -Moen document. After he had sent it to Ms. Leasure, he was reviewing his plan and determined that the terminology was completely different from the Caltrans Airport Planning. Handbook. After the Commission adopted the densities standards and the terminology at the November 17, 1999 meeting, he sent them to Ken Brody saying these were approved by the ALUC and this is the direction from the Board at this time. The consultant is aware of this information. Commissioner Papadakis asked if there was any indication from Ken Brody that he was going to comply? Commissioner Grierson said Mr. Brody indicated that he would need some time to digest the information. Commissioner Papadakis said his concern was that, we are at a very important crossroads here and he would be comfortable if we had some strong assurance that this was going to happen. He said he was a strong advocate for preserving the environment around airports. There should also be some fairness in the Commission's actions to impact parties, but the message should be strong and clear to the consultant regarding the Commission's desires. Commissioner Gerst said today's proposal is just an interim measure which could be eliminated when the CLUPs are completed. He said the reason the amendment came about is because of the inconsistencies and the problems they have had with the so-called zoning of the land. In 1982, legislative action took place that ALUC's maps should only be referred to as densities of people; the number of people per acre or the number of units per acre. Zoning was eliminated. The Ruddy Creek project is a prime example. Part of the area of influence is in the City of Oroville, part in the County, each of which has different zoning densities. The ALUC also had a different zoning standard. In the so-called CLUP, it said anything over 4 units per acre would come to ALUC. He said the reason for the amendment is to bring it up to government code. He said the 1999 CLUP Update is only an interim deal. The Commission is simply asking the County and the cities to hold off on their projects until the master update has taken place. As far as the maps that were used, they were only to illustrate what was proposed and then the maps would go through the map making process to bring them up to better quality. In reading the comments that came in from the cities and other people concerned, they are bringing out other things that are unrelated with what ALUC is doing here. The Commission is up against the deadline. We have been working on this for 90 days. He said the only logical way to do it is to adopt the 1999 CLUP Update proposal. He handed out detailed copies of the turn zones and all safety zones in the area. These are not on the actual maps, but give all the measurements so that when it goes through the GIS system, they will be accurate. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 11 ■ Chair Hennigan said he has been a member of this Commission for almost four years. Through out that time, we have been urged by staff to be reasonable and that we were just about to achieve an update and things were going to be a lot better. Before he was a member of this Commission, he was an alternate. During that time, staff was urging us to be reasonable and that an update was just around .the corner. He has read the minutes of this Commission back into the late 1980's and, at that time, we were urged to be reasonable and that we were just about to achieve an update. Here is the schedule that was submitted to us on July 15, 1998 as a part of the Shutt -Moen proposal. The schedule shows the update of the CLUP taking 12 months. This was approved by ALUC in August 1998. The Board of Supervisors signed the final official agreement in November 1998. As recently as October, we were told by Ken Brody that we could complete the process by April. Mr. Parilo just told us we may be able to complete it by the summer of 2000. Chair Hennigan said that was not acceptable. We have been delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed. In 22 years, the Department of Development Services and.its predecessor has never proposed a single word of update. Such updates as have been made, have been made at the initiative of the Commissioners. We are not going to wait until the summer of 2000. Commissioner Gerst said he could go back ten years and it was always in the mail. That was from Fred Davis. Mr. Davis agreed we needed an updated CLUP, but it was always being worked on. It's gotten to the point now that we really don't have any kind of a CLUP because it's a disaster. The only thing the Commission can do is "patch -ups" until we do get a full amendment. If the Commission went ahead and adopted today's proposal, it would not be any different than asking the cities and the County to hold off until we get a CLUP. All they have to do is override it or they hold off. He said he doesn't believe it's out of line. We would not be in the shape that we are in now if the County would have gone along and waited on that development to the north and west of the airport until the CLUP update was complete. Commissioner Grierson said according to the project schedule from Shutt -Moen, the earliest that we would see the final meetings and hearings would be the end of April. To date, Shutt - Moen has not received the final noise documents from Reinard Brandley. Commissioner Gerst said he does not believe it is a good idea to adopt a new CLUP until the Master Plan is completed. We also need to see the Master Plan from Oroville. Oroville also has Part 77 maps that the Commission has not seen. Those documents should have come to the Commission for review. Mr. Doody reminded the Commission that in October of 1998, a Comprehensive CLUP Update was done for the Chico Airport and is in effect right now. The Board of Supervisors has already declared that all projects would be referred to the ALUC for review within the CLUP boundaries. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. David F. Anderson, 13936 Rutgers Court, Magalia, said he was appearing on behalf of the Upper Ridge Coordinating Council, which is a volunteer body that undertakes to speak in ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 12 ■ matters of public affairs for the approximately 20,000 residents of the Upper Ridge. The Council is concerned about the use of the Chico Airport for Upper Ridge air tankers. The Council would like to see that the tankers remain at the Chico Airport and that nothing be done in connection with an update of the Land Use Plans that might jeopardize or threaten suitability of the Chico Airport for air tankers. Tony St. Amant from Chico, said the letters and public comments presented to the Commission raised some very good points. The Commission should be concerned about any "taking" issue, and putting light industrial in an incompatible location next to residences. He suggested the Commission may want to adopt their maps and densities pending adoption of the full CLUP update. Then the maps and densities could be submitted to the consultant for his consideration in preparing the comprehensive update. That would create pressure to get the update through and gives the Commission's philosophy to the consultant in a written form that would make it harder for him to ignore. It may also gain some support to keep the revision schedule on track. Bill Davis, City of Oroville Planning Department, said under the Public Utilities Code, Section 21674 (a) and (b), the Commission is charged to assist local agencies in insuring compatible land uses within the vicinity, and to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels. He asked how ALUC has assisted the communities in making sure that compatible land uses will be insured around the airport and how has ALUC coordinated planning with the local agencies to insure that compatible land uses will be maintained around the airports? The Code makes it clear that ALUC should work with the cities and the County and come to a consensus. ALUC should not be dictating what the plan is going to be. There is confusion over whether ALUC's actions in the past have been appropriate or legal. The ALUC has contributed to the stall of the airport plan and all the blame cannot be placed on staff. The adoption of the 1999 CLUP Update is a legislation act that requires careful consideration, public input, and cooperation with all of the agencies involved. The cities and the County do not have complete authority to override the ALUC, unless they make findings. The actions that ALUC takes will. have an impact, and they are subject to CEQA, and require much more consideration that the Commission has been giving. Any action that the ALUC takes must be reviewed by the City Planning Commission and sent to the City Council for review. If any change to Oroville's General Plan has to occur, the City Council must do it. Staff cannot arbitrarily change the General Plan to accommodate the ALUC. At this point, ALUC has not informed the City Council, the Planning Commission or City staff as to exactly what the ALUC is proposing. Since the 1985 Oroville CLUP has been adopted, ALUC has made piecemeal changes, but where are they in the Plan? If the Commission cannot provide a copy of an updated CLUP, in its entirety, he does not see how these so-called updates are valid because ALUC did not meet their requirements under the law for consultation, for assisting or coordinating. He requested that the Commission not adopt the 1999 CLUP Update until the update is completed by Shutt - Moen and Associates. That should provide adequate time. for the communities and the County to comment. If the Commission cooperates at this point, a consensus plan may be developed that everyone can agree upon. Chair Hennigan conceded that some of Mr. Davis's criticism was valid. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 13 ■ Commissioner Gerst asked staff if CEQA requirements have been satisfied? Mr. Doody said that was correct. The State Clearinghouse review ended yesterday. However, comments received have identified deficiencies in the Negative Declaration. CEQA requires that the deficiencies must be addressed and responses made to comments. The environmental document would then have to be re -circulated for further review and consideration. Commissioner Gerst said if the Commission did that it would upset the schedule for getting the project completed this year., He said it is a good idea to work with the cities and the County on ALUC's CLUP, but the law does not require that they do so. ALUC is responsible to determine what the CLUP is going to be. The 1999 CLUP Update is an interim measure to be adopted until the main CLUP is brought forward. There were no further public comments and the hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Rosene said Mr. Parilo stated that the best thing would be to maintain the status quo. Mr. Davis from the City of Oroville said the ALUC should avoid the 1999 CLUP Update and that the ALUC was dictating policy. The trouble is we have planners that were trained in the 1970's and 80's and as we look back to the history of airports, we are losing them like crazy. The typical planning that we have been doing is not working. ALUC's were introduced and empowered to try to correct this problem in planning because no one was paying attention to airports. What we have been doing in the 1990's is nothing. He said he has the same frustration as Chair Hennigan. He said he has watched as an alternate and now as a Commissioner, and ALUC keeps getting promised things or told to just go along and don't cause any waves and then ALUC will get what they want. All ALUC really wants to do is to protect the airports. We have been trying to work with these people and the planners trained in the 70's and 80's when all these airports are being lost, and trying to use the same planning guidelines and it is just not working. He said this is an interim, stop gap until the CLUP is done. It is not so burdensome as to cause huge problems. He said the same comments were made last year when we did the CLUP Update without a CEQA process. As to the Shutt -Moen issue, if they do not know what ALUC wants by now then they are not going to put down in the new CLUP what we want. If this 1999 CLUP Update is so different from what they are doing right now, we do have a problem with Shutt -Moen because they are not getting the big -picture of what we would like them to accomplish. Threats have been made that it is going to cost more money. If it is, we need to know how much -more and why. He said he does not like being threatened. We have provided guidelines to Shutt -Moen before.. The letter from Michael Remy does not say that this falls under CEQA. Although all the planners here feel that it does and they have better knowledge than he has, but the letter says, "There is some debate as to whether CEQA applies to CLUP amendments." The letter further talks about Caltrans guidelines and states that, "CLUPs are exempt from CEQA review because ALUC's do not have the ultimate authority." If someone does not like what we suggest or decide, then they can override us. He said he was willing to accept the overrides because that is the way it should be. The people who are elected into office have the power to make the final decisions. However, we have people here who understand airports better than the people who don't understand airports which are often the elected officials. All ALUC is doing is trying to provide some guidelines. We are not trying ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 14 ■ to be mean or nasty, but we are trying to protect the airports. Given the historical perspective, what we have been doing in the past has not worked in protecting airports. We need to try and change our thinking. He said he believes this is an acceptable stop gap and he will support it. Chair Hennigan said there was one other argument made that he found untenable. That is somehow, because residential uses have been allowed where they were inappropriate, that somehow justifies more residential uses in those areas. He asked Mr. Parilo if he would make the same argument if it were a flood plain and the developer argued that he should be allowed to sell houses in this flood plain because you have already allowed some houses in the flood plain? What it were an earthquake fault? Mr. Parilo said part of what is being recommended to the ALUC deals more with the issue of the implication of actions that take away reasonable use of property. When that happens, the lead agency, which is the Board of Supervisors or the City Council, is in a position to .take property through regulatory controls. When they do that, they have to buy those lands. To avoid a regulatory taking, an agency will look at alternative forms of land use. He said no one is telling ALUC that we should absolutely continue developing at the same densities and intensities that current plans call for. We are responding to what you have put on the table. We are trying to identify what some of the possible implications or consequences are of this action. The argument of whether we would allow people to build in a flood plain or an earthquake zone is a planning process that does that, to a degree, where you have existing parcels or subdivided lands. The ability to take out a building permit is a right, not a privilege. A person has the right to go to the local building department and apply for a permit to build a house. If it is in a flood zone, that house needs to be flood proofed and there are techniques to do that. The issue of subdividing additional lands within a flood plain or an earthquake zone is an entirely different discussion. In that case, the lead agency has discretion over that action. It can be denied or substantially reduced in density, or mitigation measures could be brought to the development of those lands. You do not have that ability where there is existing subdivided land with zoning. Chair Hennigan said all that we have asked for is a restriction on additional subdivisions, but subdivisions are still approved in areas that are subject to noise and safety. Mr. Parilo said he understands the Commission's frustration over delayed promises, but ALUC is as close as they have ever been to having a CLUP adopted. There is substantial progress being made. The Commission could not have said that two or three years ago. He said when he became the Director in January of 1997, he was informed that there was funding to do CLUPs. It took one year and eleven months to finally enter into a contract. There were delays. Caltrans was unwilling to release the funds to allow the contracts to go forward and other delays that were beyond the County's control. The County was resolved to go forward with the contract, but there was resistance and delays from Caltrans. ALUC has a contract and a schedule now, although there may still be some delays in the schedule. The consultant and the ALUC are extremely motivated to finish this process. As the Director of the Department of Development Services, he said he was also motivated to see this process come to an end because the contention that exists around airports needs to be resolved through the adoption of the CLU -Ps. Until the plans are complete, it is very difficult to provide direction. There is ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 15 ■ considerable confusion with the current plans and confusion over which projects need to come before ALUC. This. planning process will resolve that. He said when he recommended maintaining the status quo, it was not necessarily to maintain the status quo of the underlying planning, but is to recognize that .there is an existing land use pattern. If ALUC makes a convincing argument to the various lead agencies to take interim steps to preclude certain types of development, that will be received a lot better than this particular amendment. This amendment will force agencies to look at their General Plans and their zoning during this interim period for very little benefit. Or agencies may go through the override process. He believes the override process will be very contentious between those agencies and the ALUC. He asked the Commission to avoid that disharmony. We have an opportunity now to build some bridges, work together to accomplish some commori goals. The goal of protecting the airports has been stated by the legislative bodies of all lead agencies relative to land use. Commissioner Rosene said it was hard to believe that could be true based upon the actions of the lead agencies. The lead agencies do not return letters and the Commission cannot go to County Counsel. He said he wished that he could believe Mr. Parilo, but he does not. The Board of Supervisors have not even responded to simple requests regarding specific problems. He said it does not make sense that the lead agencies will take steps to be more selective in their projects or be more helpful with protecting the land around the airports. Mr. Parilo asked if ALUC has specifically asked the lead agencies, that have land use authority; to adopt some interim steps without something as drastic as reacting to or responding to something,they feel they have had very little involvement with? Commissioner Rosene said no, we have not. Mr. Parilo suggested trying that. Commissioner Rosene said the reason is that ALUC would be putting it down the road more. The problem is that we keep doing that. So three months later, we get a response and the lead agency says no. Now we are almost to the CLUP again. Where do you say enough is enough? He said enough is enough. A Commissioner Ican serve his entire term trying to get a CLUP done and it won't happen until after he is gone. Sometimes you have to say this is enough. In private business if you _dragged your feet like this, you can forget it. You are either out the door or on the street. Mr. Pan'lo said this is not private business. Governmental institutions work much differently. They are more interactive in nature, there is a public process, and when you don't follow the process, which staff is advising the Commission that they have not done, then your decisions and actions are in jeopardy. It also raises credibility questions with the body that is taking that action. Chair Hennigan said ALUC has some real credibility questions about some other agencies in local government. ■ Butte Aiiport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 16 ■ Mr. Parilo said he understood that. At the same time, ALUC has an opportunity with the Board of Supervisors to sit down and talk with them. He said he understands the Commission has been asking for things that have not taken place. Commissioner Rosene said we just want to talk with them, but they do not even communicate with the Commission. Mr. Parilo said the Chair of the Board has initiated a request to have a joint meeting with ALUC. _ Commissioner Rosene said that meeting is scheduled for March, which is three months away and ALUC asked for a meeting last March. He said that is the whole point. Mr. Parilo said he appreciates the Commission's frustration, but asked if the action before the Commission today is going to improve anything? You can have the best decision in the world, but if you have not followed the legal process, then that action will not stand. That is where the Commission is today. Commissioner Rosene said, from the time lines of CEQA, it is his understanding that the ALUC is within the parameters of meeting the legal documentation, and other than responding to letters that have raised some issues, we have satisfied CEQA. Mr. Parilo said the'Commission has not responded to those letters and has not completely disclosed the environmental effects of the action before them. At this point, to abandon the environmental process when it was ALUC that started the environmental process, is highly suspect. Commissioner Rosene said the last CLUP update did not go through CEQA and it was no big deal. This time we have been instructed to go through CEQA and it has led us to a point where we are boxed into a corner. He said it was because of ALUC's own stupidity and lack of knowledge that we do not understand the whole process. However, in the letter of the law, we have satisfied CEQA. Whether or not we have environmental concerns or not is still debatable. He said it is debatable that ALUC will impact the environment and he does not believe it will. Mr. Pardo said the,Commission has letters to the contrary from professionals that work in the field. Commissioner Rosene said the Commission also has two letters from attorneys that totally contradict each other. Mr. Pardo said he does not know the credentials of Mr., White, when it comes to land use and CEQA, but the firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose are one of the premier law firms in California dealing with CEQA issues. ■'Butte Airport Land Use Commission- Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 17 ■ Commissioner Rosene said the letter from Remy, Thomas and Moose does not say that the Commission needs to follow CEQA. The letter is very ambiguous. The letter basically says it is a debatable issue. Mr. Parilo said the letter indicates the prudent.route is to perform environmental assessment. Commissioner Rosene said that does not mean it is a requirement. The letter says it would be more efficient to go through the CEQA process because it would save time down the road, but that does not mean it is a legal requirement. The letter says it is debatable and efficient. That does not mean it is a legal requirement. Obviously, the Commission would like to go through a public forum and do everything as public and open as possible, and invite comments if we can, but we are up against a time problem. This is an interim measure. It also provides Shutt -Moen with comments as to what direction the Commission would like to go. The actual densities may end up being less. They probably will. The 1999 CLUP Update may be stronger to protect the airport than we need, but said he would rather do that on a short term of six months, than to have some projects go forward that -should not go forward. This happens all over the nation; we lose airports because no one takes a stand. Chair Hennigan commented that he has"seen the rest of the world and they are doing exactly the same thing. He said curfews have already been proposed for the Chico Airport, but they have not been implemented. Commissioner Papadakis asked if the Commission adopts the action before them today, is the consultant required to follow it? Or may he present whatever he pleases? How soon will the consultant be ready with his draft CLUP? Someone said it will be in March, which is only three months away. A better solution -may be to get word to the consultant that this is what we want, so that when the draft is proposed to us, it will contain documents and language that shows the Commission is in agreement. Sfaff has expressed concerns, or they may be threats, that this action by ALUC is not logical and may be considered an act of frustration. He said he supports this action and has also been frustrated to see what has happened to ALUC's recommendations. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst to adopt the amendment as presented, as an interim measure, prior to the adoption of the 2000 update. He added that if this motion passes, there. are a few clarifications he would like to make. Chair Hennigan said the Commission is in agreement that the real update is going to come out of the Shutt -Moen report. He asked whether the same purpose can be served by limiting the time line of that process? We have a proposed schedule that should have completed the process last month. Now we are talking about getting a draft in March and maybe being able to adopt it in the summer of 2000. The composition of the Commission is likely to be very different in the summer of 2000. As an alternative, how would it be if we announced that we were going to adopt the 2000 update at our April 19 meeting? If Shutt -Moen can stick to the original schedule, we can schedule meetings for January, February, March, and April. We can have the workshops in the meetings"with the various agencies and the municipalities and vote on a comprehensive update at our April meeting. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 18 ■ Commissioner Gerst said he is concerned about the Master Plan. Chair Hennigan said we will have to work from Chico's policies. They are novgoing to have their Master Plan done. We can work off of the policy decisions. Commissioner Grierson said the Master Plan is moving right along. They have been working with Shutt -Moen, as far as getting updated noise things. He said he has made some significant changes to what we have been doing in the Master Plan, which is one of the things that has set it back. They have been redirected to focus on the Environs Plan and to get that out as a priority document. They have been working together, but to what extent is not known. He said he met with Reinard Bradley and went over a whole series of things. Mr. Bradley understands where the Commission is with the CLUP and what Ken Brody needs. The information is being given to Mr. Brody piece -meal, but Mr. Bradley has also been taking action as a result of Mr. Brody's input. Mr. Brody has expressed concern that changes may need to be made at the time of adoption. There may be environmental concerns now that the FAA has changed their runway safety area requirements from 250 ft. to 1,000 ft. off the end of the runway. Now we are dealing with the Mud Creek issue, where previously that was not an issue. So there are potential concerns that may lead to changes down the road, but, hopefully, all that can be addressed and adopted in time for our final document. He added that he would like to have the Commission. ask the City of Oroville to send, their Master Plan to ALUC for review. Chair Hennigan said our 'goal should be to adopt the updated CLUP in April. That is four months from now and we have a schedule that said the whole thing should take twelve months. Mr. Parilo said the schedule was predicated on the assumption that the Master Plans would have been complete. Chair Hennigan said Chico can make the necessary policy decisions, that the Master Plan will embody, at their next Airport Commission meeting or their next City Council meeting. The Master Plan may or may not be finished, but if Chico makes the policy decisions then we will know about how much airport we have to protect. Commissioner Grierson referred to the Mud Creek situation and said there are three different potential ways of handling it. One is to create a culvert to provide for the 100 -Year Flood requirement. Other approaches are to re -pipe it or move the creek. They range in cost from two million and sixteen million dollars to accomplish. This may go beyond just a policy decision. We do not have the costs or preliminary engineer estimates on the cost. By April, we maybe able to proceed. We will be unable to establish a policy discussion at the Commission level or the City planning arena until March on this sort of issue. As far as land uses surrounding the airport, we should be able to have a fairly firm document by that time. Chair Hennigan said once Chico has decided how much airport they want to ultimately have and what kinds of airplanes they can accommodate, then we will know what the likely impact of those airplanes will be and we will know how much real estate we have to protect. ALUC may ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 19 ■ want to do the other airports first and delay Chico until later in the process. That would allow us to have the best information possible. We may want to adopt the updates piece -meal. Commission Grierson said having a series of workshops addressing each airport individually would be the best way to go. Chair Hennigan said we need to cstart scheduling those workshops now. He recommended setting some deadlines and announcing when we are going to vote. We can direct the staff and the consultant to arrange a series of meetings leading up to that date. Commissioner Gerst said the adoption of the 1999 CLUP Update is riot as restrictive as a moratorium. Commissioner Papadakis said this proposal will allow the maps to be cleated up and responses can be prepared to address -all of the objections raised by staff and others. Hopefully, we will get a formal letter from Caltrans commenting on and supporting the amendment. We will also have a meeting with the Board of Supervisors to further express our frustrations and desires prior to the April deadline. Chair Hennigan said agencies can simply ignore ALUC's action today if they want to. Mr. Doody asked Chair Hennigan to restate his motion. Chair Hennigan said there is a motion already on the floor, so he was not in a position to make a motion. He then asked Commissioner Gerst if he was willing to accept a friendly amendment? It could be added to Commissioner Gerst's motion that we adopt this as an interim step. My friendly amendment would be that we schedule a vote for adoption for April 19, 2000 and that the staff be directed to work backwards from that date to establish a series of workshops and meetings with all of the affected airports, so that on April 19, 2000, we can vote on the 2000 update. Mr. Parillo asked what the significance is of April 19? The Commission can schedule special meetings to meet on any day. Chair Hennigan said because it is our regularly scheduled meeting date. Our target date and direction to staff is to meet on April 19, 2000 to vote. If it is necessary to hold a special meeting the following week, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. If there are some aspects of the Chico Plan that are not ready to vote on that date, we will cross that bridge then. The Paradise and Ranchaero Airports should be fairly easy. Oroville needs to think about their objectives and what their policy is. They need to decide how much airport they want to have in the year 2035, because those are policy decisions they get to make. Then we will help them protect the land that is essential to protect that vision. Although he has not seen their Master Plan, the fact that they built a 6,000 ft runway indicates that they have a vision of a place where a company jet can land. They must be intent on attracting industry. Obviously, Oroville has some aspirations for their airport and our job is to help them protect that future. It is reasonable ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 20 ■ to have a series of meetings over the next four months. leading up to a vote on most, if not -all, of the elements of the Plan in April. Mr. Parilo said he doe's not know how far along Shutt -Moen is right now or whether they feel they can comply with this schedule. If this motion is successful, he said he would like to have an understanding that if this creates an unworkable schedule for Shutt -Moen, they have the ability to communicate that during the January meeting. 'If so, adjustments can be made at that. time. If this motion is successful, we will relay this information to Shutt -Moen. Chair Hennigan said that is what Shutt -Moen said they could do at our October meeting. They said it would be easy. We are taking them at their word. If they want to.do something different, they can.tell us that. ' Mr. Par]llo said there'are concerns with the Chico Airport Master "Plan. That is taking a little more time than Shutt -Moen expected back in October. The idea of taking one airport at a time or the three airports and keeping Chico out should be discussed with Shutt -Moen. Chair Hennigan said we will•schedule Chico later in the series of meetings because we will need to have workshops in each of these communities with the local people. He. said he intends to hold the Orovi Ile meeting in Oroville and the Paradise meeting in Paradise.. There will be some general meetings for the professionals and the consultant to work out the scheduling of the meetings. He said he wants to have a meeting very soon with Oroville and find -out what their aspirations are, what their intentions are, and how much airport they want to protect. Bill Davis of Oroville has made a very good point that ALUC has not been very good about talking to people. - Let's'schedule a.meeting right away so we can find out what Oroville sees in the future. Staff is to work toward April 19 to vote on something. If we cannot vote on most of Shutt- Moen's product, he said he would be very disappointed. Commissioner Grierson asked if there was a way to break out the motions? Instead of having one, can we have two? Chair Hennigan answered yes, that would be appropriate. Mr. Parilo askedwhat kind of motion regarding the environmental document does your motion reflect? Commissioner Gerst said we should adopt the Negative. Declaration that we have and go from there. Commissioner Rosene seconded the motion made by Commissioner Gerst. Chair Hennigan said -we have a motion and a -second to adopt the interim measure, including the Negative Declaration." ■ Butte Airport -Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 21 ■ Mr. Parillo asked the Commission to think about adopting, as a part of the motion, the maps that Shutt -Moen prepared. The maps are clearer, more concise, tied to set criteria and will be easier for agencies to understand. Commissioner Gerst said no. He added he has not found one other airport or any other information that conforms to this.. This is entirely new. Mr. Parilo said these maps were presented to the Commission in October. The Commission supported this direction. This could be a substantial departure from that map. For consistency with your process leading up to your CLUPs, it is important, as part of this action, to adopt those maps and use that as the basis for mapping around the various airports. Commissioner Grierson said the problem with doing that is the terminology. He said the locations do not correspond. Mr. Parilo said we should try to reconcile.that in discussion before action is taken on the motion. Otherwise, there may be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding that could be minimized if we use the Shutt -Moen maps. Commissioner Gerst said everything would have to be redone. The information that Shutt - Moen put out is incorporated as much as possible in what we are talking about now. The action today is an interim deal and can be changed if Shutt -Moen brings his up to where it is understandable and could be adopted at that time. The action•today is only up to that point. Once a new amendment is adopted, this one will be wiped out anyway. Mr. Parilo asked what would be'wrong in adopting,Shutt-Moen's density tables and maps? Commissioner Gerst said, the reason.is, because the Commission has not covered it. It is not in what we have put here, which is not into the safety zones. Mr. Parilo said it is not in the Commission's format, but it is in Shutt-Moen's format. He said it is the format that is being utilized for your CLUPs. That is the direction you gave Shutt -Moen back in October. Commissioner Grierson.said that was a document that was not reviewed by any local agency or commented on by local agencies. They have never seen it before. Chair Hennigan said you cannot circulate one plan and then adopt another. Mr. Parilo said the Commission has the ability to.make modifications to the plan that is before them. He said although he has not made a direct comparison, the Shutt -Moen plan is a better formula. It is clearer, more understandable, and easier to apply. Commissioner, Grierson said he has done the direct comparison.. Caltrans is in the process of updating their Comprehensive Land Use Handbook. Since Shutt -Moen is in the process of ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission Minutes of December 29, 1999 0 Page 22 ■ doing that and they were the ones who wrote the last one, he believes these are the terms and descriptions that are going to be in the new Handbook. However, that has not even hit draft stage with Caltrans. The current standard, as set by Caltrans, as used within this body, and as distributed to the local communities for comment and through the State Clearinghouse, did not reflect these. This is still a concept. What we are addressing in the 1999 CLUP Update is what has been addressed, accepted and is an accepted practicb. Mr. Pan'lo said from the direction given to Shutt -Moen, they have committed a fair amount of time and resources toward building the plan. Chair Hennigan said that is not a problem or a concern. Commissioner Rosene agreed. He said it would be like converting Italian to English. The consultant will look at the same place on the map and give it a new name. When Shutt-Moen's plan comes up, it will be based ori the numbers from the 1999 Update. Chair Hennigan announced that the Commission would now vote on Commissioner Gerst's motion to adopt the 1999. Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans as an interim measure, prior to the 2000 CLUP Update, with the maps prepared by Caltrans, and to adopt the Negative Declaration as presented. Before the vote, Commissioner Gerst made the following clarifications to the 1999 CLUP Density Criteria adopted by the ALUC on November 17, 1999: Page 6, Attachment "A", Staffs report dated December 22, 1999. No. 3. Inner Turning Zone, take out F. No. 6. Traffic Pattern Zone, take out F. No. 7. Area of Influence, Acre, add, `° * The minimum parcel size is 8,000 square feet." Page 7, General Statements: ,Change No. l.to: "All ministerial and discretionary projects uses shall be reviewed by ALUC, and findings must be made that no adverse impacts will be created." The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Papadakis, Rosene and Chair Hennigan NOES: Commissioners Causey and Grierson ABSTAINS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley 10 MINUTE RECESS CALLED AT 11:30 A.M. It was moved by Chair Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Causey, to schedule a vote for the adoption of the 2000 Comprehensive Airports Land Use Plan at the regularly scheduled ALUC meeting of April 19, 2000, and to direct staff to establish a series of workshops and meetings with all of the affected airports prior to the April 19, 2000 meeting. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 23 ■ The motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis, Rosene and Chair Hennigan NOES: None ABSTAINS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Discussion regarding setting the date and time for a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss issues of mutual concern., Commissioner Grierson questioned whether the Commission would rather "meet" with the Board of Supervisors (Board) instead of having a "joint meeting." He said he was not sure a joint meeting would be all that productive. He suggested that each Commissioner come up with things that the Commission needs to discuss with the Board before they agree to meet. He said this is a wonderful opportunity to find out where the Board stands with issues like the signage, as well as the Commission's discussions on the changes to the land use plan, and other projects that may be going on at other locations at'other.'airports. Chair Hennigan agreed that a'joint meeting would impose constraints. He said he would like to meet at the conference room 'at the Chico Municipal Airport. Commissioner Grierson said he will schedule the meeting. Also, he would like to plan a tour of the airport for the Board and ALUC. Commissioner Gerst said it was suggested to him that the meeting with the Board take place in the evening so that more people could attend. Chair Hennigan said the discussion with the Board is separate from the workshops regarding the ,airports that the Commission wants to hold with the public. He said there are enough issues to hold two meetings. There are issues that are specific to the Oroville and Chico airports and issues relating to the relationship with ALUC and the County. He suggested focusing on the relationship issues for the first informal meeting. He would like to hold the meeting at the Chico airport so that a few things could be discussed that specifically deal with the Chico Municipal Airport: However, since the Board is concerned about Ruddy Creek, perhaps that should be the focus of the first meeting to be, held with the Board in the Oroville area, preferably in the County's Personnel Training Room. Tony St. Amant said the letter from the Board has specific suggestions in it already. Since the Board already has issues they want to discuss and a date proposed, he suggested the Commission be sensitive to the Board's request. In order fo insure that the Commission's concerns are included, the Commission should respond by setting an agenda. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 24 ■ Chair Hennigan said meetings held in the daytime may be convenient for the Board, but are not convenient for the Commission. The Commission will request that the meeting take place on the evening of Tuesday, February 15, 2000. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Mr. Doody summarized the Monthly Status Report. . Chair Hennigan asked staff to include the noise contours from Shutt -Moen, the accident scatter from the Land Use Planning Handbook, and the GIS maps of the Caltrans zones, when they are communicating with the'various cities. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. , L . PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. J. CLOSED SESSION Chair Heri igan announced. that although Commissioner Grierson requested a closed session today, the Commission has'been advise&that they cannot hold one. He suggested the closed session be agendized for the January meeting. Commissioner Grierson said the Closed Session will be focused on the performance of duties, responsibilities and activities of assigned staff support personnel. Commissioner Gerst asked staff if they knew anything about the project that is going in on 18th Street, north of the Oroville Airport? 'He said the ALUC should receive notification regarding the project. Mr. Doody said.he would contact the City of Oroville and advise the Chair directly. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission'■'Minutes of December 29, 1999 ■ Page 25 ■ K. ADJOURNMENT There being'no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:58 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION PAULA LEASURE, Principal Planner Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant. S COMPLETE PACKET BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT= LAND US E CG1VUi4i1VDER{UN 7 County Center Drive, Oro'v`i11erCA 9595 ■ (530)-530601i6 'REGULAR MEETING OF THE,COMMISSION - - . Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors'. Chambers y 25;County Center Drive, Oroville California' N ' • f `• � '' ,{ sir' .. ', .. - . ; ^c . - � a -. _ Date_ /Time: December 29,`1999 - 9,00 am: . ' AGENDA r . "ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A.' Pledge of Allegiance j B: Roll Call. � • ' ..,• �, .�•,,• �` _ i:. ".. • , � �•�.� : ,' C." 'Approval of the Minutes of November_ 17, 1999 D. "Acceptance of the Agenda •1(Commission` members or staff _innay request auditions, deletions, or- -changes in the Agenda" order.) K� E. Business Items: ,, ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1999' Annual:,,Review and,`Update, of the 'Chico; Oroville, Paradise and Ranch_ aero Comprehensive Land Use-Plans (CLUP). Continued from November 17, 1999: `The Butte • County, Airport Land Use,Commission proposes to amend the CLUPs to include a new development criteria and density matrix for the various safety zones that surround . each of the public use airports in Butte County. This amendment is'proposed in accordance with Public Utility Code'Sections,21674.7 and 21675 which allows a once a"year.update to.the comprehensive land:use plans for each of the County's public use airports. . Staff'Recommendation:' Defer'adoption`of'.the�proposed amendmeiii and direct staff to ' forward the proposed'CLUP;Amendinent material to Shutt Moen and Associates for inclusion' in theyear 2000 CLUP'update. - ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2. Discussion ;regarding setting-the date and time for a' joint meeting with, the Board 'of' ' Supervisors to discuss issues of mutual"concern. - F. Monthly, Status.Report, G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Cominissiom� amouncements ` I. .Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session t None K. Adjournment , ArAirport Land Use Commission ArDecember 29, 1999 Agenda mPage 2 • 1 Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula " • Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agendG. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the -Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall- be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. K: I PLA:VNINGU L UCh41E£T/NGSI 12-19- 99.,WTGU GENDA. WPD 0- • Airport Land Use Commission • December 29, 1999 Agenda • Page 3 • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION- Minutes of November 17, 1999, A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis and Vice -Chair Rosene Absent: Commissioner Hatley and Chair Hennigan Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner- -Dave Doody,• Senior,Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Alt. Commissioner Ward Alt. Commissioner Baldridge C., APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of.October 20, 1999. Vice -Chair Rosene said, during the meeting of October 20, 1999, staff was directed to invite Neil McCabe, Deputy County Counsel, to the meeting today to discuss the sign issue. Staff said County Counsel's office had declined to address the Commission on any issue due to the • ' pending resolution of the lawsuit. It was moved by Corrunissioner Papadakis, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of October 20, 1999, as presented. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Causey, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to accept the agenda of November 17, 1999, as presented. Z E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEM WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1999 Annual Review'and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP). Continued from the meeting of October 20, 1999. Mr.. Doody explained that staff had received three separate proposals for CLUP amendments from Chair Hennigan, Commissioner Gerst, and Commissioner Grierson. He discussed the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for review of CLUP amendments. He said to accomplish the most basic CEQA review, they must define the actual project with enough clarity so that the lead agency (ALUC) can forward the project to other agencies for review and comment. • • Ms. Leasure stated that the last CLUP amendment was. adopted by the Commission without following CEQA guidelines and procedures before adoption, hich was against staff s recommendation. Commissioner Grierson said if ALUC is going to proceed with the amendment within the required time limits, the scope of the project must be narrowed to specifically focus on the changes the Commission. wants to make this year. Ms. Leasure said staff s recommendation is that the Commission not move forward with the 1999 CLUP Update. Staff feels that the proposed amendments will significantly complicate the CLUP update currently being prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. Vice -Chair Rosene said Commissioner Grierson would lead today's discussion. , Commissioner Grierson requested the Commission to disregard the proposed amendments he submitted. It was the consensus of the Commission to specifically focus on the addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones and the establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety zones for the 1999 -Annual Review and Update of the CLUP. Commissioner Grierson said the Commission should address non-residential people per acre (i.e., • congregation of people gathering at any point in time, church, flea market, campsite, airport special events, etc.) and the number of residential units per acre. Specific terminology should be established to insure that Shutt Moen Associates includes the language in the updated CLUP. The language should be consistent with ALUC plans and other communities and their plans. • Commissioner Gerst explaincA his proposed amendments regarding densities for non-residential people per acre and the residential units per acre. x The Commission discussed modifying the map of the Ranchaero Airport Area of Influence to move the northwest Inner Safety Zone and the Inner Turning Zone farther to the west to avoid the high densities to the east of the runway. Commissioner Baldridge said the modification would work for the pilots using the airport. Commissioner Ward conunented that the modification would compromise the safety of the aircraft occupants. It was the consensus of the Commission that they widen the area encompassing Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 to allow aviators the option to use the -straight runway or the left-hand approach. Commissioner Gerst explained his definitions for specific, appropriate uses or restrictions on uses. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999•■ Page 2 ■ • • _ It was the consensus of the Commission to delete Item J., Flight Schools Permitted, and Item N., All common aviation related uses acceptable from the list of uses. C • + Commissioner Grierson referred to Section B, Iiems 4 and 5 of Chair Hennigan's proposed amendments where he separated Chico from the other airports for proposed density limits. Commissioner Grierson said that establishing general standards that can.be applied in all cases to all airports was preferable. It was the consensus of the Commission to' approve density limits and uses as shown on the following chart: ' MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE DENSITY• No. Safety Zone People per Acre Dwelling Units per Acre 1 Runway Protection Zone 10 GH 0 - 2 Inner Safety Zone 10 ADHIJM 0 EKN - . 3 Inner Turning Zone 10 ADFHIJM 1 EKN 10 4 Outer Safety Zone 25 CDFHIM 1 EKN 5 5 Sideline Safety Zone 25 CDFHIM 0 - 6 Traffic Pattern Zone 100 CDFHIM 1 unit EKLN 2.5 ac. minimum parcel size 7 Area of Influence No Limit BCDHI 4 EKLN 1 A. 20% Coverage"Per Acre (Buildings and Structures). B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24-hour period ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. C. Caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL; ranges, provided that they are ancillary to the, primary use of a property intended for the purpose of property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable'room. D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. E. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55' CNEL. F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration of persons greater than 25 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ • G. No buildings, structures, above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons at any time. H. Communication Towers (excluding airport related facilities): 1. Prohibited in all safety zones except Zone 8. Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. 2. Strobe lighting at the top of the tower and shielded from striking the ground for a mile. Towers with Guy Wires: l . Starting at 30 feet above the ground: a. Blinking lights along length of tower and guy wires at 20 foot intervals. b. Three feet in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. I. Public and Quasi -Public: • Prohibited Uses: Churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities and similar aggregations of persons. J. 50% Open Space. K. Density Bonus Prohibited. L. Aunt Minnie units permitted with ALUC review for safety and noise protection. • M. No bulk petroleum products (except airport related), flammable or explosives or chemical storage above ground. N. Second dwelling units are prohibited. Staff asked for clarification that these standards are now the Commission's proposal for density and the Commission wishes for this to go forward for circulation to agencies, CEQA review and be brought back in December. The Commission advised that staff is correct. Commissioner Gerst said he would like to add uses permitted upon the adoption of a CLUP update and two general statements tc the 1999 CLUP Update. Ms. Leasure restated the permitted uses upon the adoption of a CLUP update and the two general statements as agreed to by the Commission as follows: All zones in areas of influence. 1. Permitted Uses: A. All projects covered by a vested map or development agreement. B. Any uses covered by a valid building permit. • C. • All uses meeting the airport CLUP standards at time permits are issued. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ General Statements. 1. Projects that do not meet the density or use criteria of the CLUP within the planning area of influence boundary for each airport shall be referred to ALUC. 2. Avigation Easements shall be signed by property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each public or special use airport. The Commission discussed overlay zones. If the cities and county would adopt the ALUC's area of influence for each airport as overlay zones it would make their planning process easier. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson to adopt the language as restated by Ms. Leasure and to adopt,as ALUC's proposed changes to the CLUP listing and establishing densities and uses for the zones at each airport within the purview of the ALUC, Commissioner Gerst said they needed maps to accompany the proposed changes. Ms. Leasure said the Commission referred to the maps identified as 6-1 (Chico Municipal Airport), 7-1 (Oroville Airport), 8-1(Ranchaero Airport) and 9-1 (Paradise Airport). Additionally, the Commission discussed amending the Ranchaero Airport to make the fan wider (Area 3) at the north end. • Ranchaero Airport Area of Influence (8-1). It was the consensus of the Commission to widen Areas 2 and 4 to correspond to the widening of Area 3. The map is to maintain the consistent left boundary and move the right boundary to its existing location so that a.fan is established. Commissioner Grierson amended his motion to adopt the language as restated by Ms. Leasure and to adopt as ALUC's proposed changes to the CLUP, listing and establishing densities and uses for the zones at each airport within the purview of the ALUC, and the maps identified as 6-1 (Chico Municipal Airport), 7-1.(Oroville Airport), 8-1(Ranchaero Airport) as amended and 9-1 (Paradise Airport). Vice -Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Causey seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis and Vice -Chair Rosene NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley and Chair Hennigan •ABSTAINS: None 5 MINUTE RECESS ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission 0 Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ It was the consensus of the Commission to reschedule the regularly scheduled December 15, 1999 " meeting to Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT i Commissioner Grierson referredlb ALUC Staff Time Accounting and asked what projects staff is working on for ALUC to account for the many staff hours reported? Ms. Leasure said clerical staff has worked many hours to learn ALUC procedures and to reorganize the ALUC filing system. Commissioner Grierson announced that on January 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., there will be a Northern California Airport Manager's Conference. There will be speakers from the FAA and Caltrans to discuss airport land use planning. The meeting, will be held at the Chico Municipal Airport in the conference room. 1. Commissioner Grierson mentioned that there is _a recommendation from City staff to the Chico • City Council to override a portion of the CLUP. He asked staff to provide information to the Commissioners and Alternates when this occurs. Commissioner Gerst expressed concern about approval of several planning projects that will be incompatible with the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the CLUP after final adoption. He further commented that the First United Pentecostal Church in Thermalito was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. He said the Church is eventually planning to provide a school on the site. 4 Ms. Leasure `said at ALUC's public .hearing on the project, the applicants stated they were not planning to provide a school. If they expand the use to include a school, the project should come back to the Commission. Vice -Chair Rosene asked staff to look into the issue and report back to the Commission. Vice -Chair Rosene raised the issue of the signs and asked what the County does if a developer does not meet the mitigation standards for a development? . t • Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 • Page 6 ■ Ms. Leasure said mitigation measures are established that are to be complied with prior to -development of the project. In this case, the County has issued building permits and allowed people to develop without all of the mitigations being met. She said she did not know what more ALUC could do. Letters have already been sent to the County Counsel and the Board of Supervisors requesting that the requirements are met. Vice -Chair Rosene said it was the County Counsel's responsibility toenforce the laws of Butte County and, it appears, they have chosen to ignore those laws. He said he did not want to file another lawsuit, but they are not doing what they promised they would do when they passed C.S.A. 87. Commissioner Grierson said they could file a writ of mandamus that would send a sheriff to force the public officials to do their job. Ms. Leasure said County Counsel's office would have to provide ALUC with legal counsel if this is the action that the Commission wishes to take. She suggested waiting six weeks and she would try to find out from another legal counselor what alternative actions ALUC can take. Tony St. Amant, interested person from the public, suggested the Commission consider writing a letter, to the Board of Supervisors and having the Chair appear before the Board to say that ALUC dislikes having to continually threaten „legal action; however, this is an example of the frustration • that comes when trying to follow. through with things. The benefit of this action would be that it becomes a public record that shows ALUC has tried a conciliatory approach which begins to balance some of the inaccurate, assertions that the Commission is looking for a reason to sue the County. Vice -Chair Rosene said that--ALUC has tried that approach. Earlier this year the Board of Supervisors and the developers had their representative meet with Susan Minasian and ALUC's representative met with Neil McCabe to try to iron out a compromise. ALUC came up with a proposed sign, but the Board's proposed sign said no .more that "there is an airport over there." They did not address any of the issues that came close to the sign that was in C.S.A. 87. The Board then dropped the matter although ALUC wrote two letters requesting that the item be placed on the Board's agenda. ALUC's concerns have been ignored`and now the Board will not communicate with the Commission. Commissioner Papadakis suggested the Commission find a Supervisor that will place the item on the Board's agenda. Commissioner Gerst asks what criteria determines when a project should come back to ALUC for reconsideration? • Ms. Leasure said if the Planning Commission makes a substantial change to a project that has previously come before ALUC, it should come back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 7 ■ • Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 8 • :Commissioner Gerst said the Ruddy Creek project has been substantially changed since ALUC adopted their findings 'and should come back for reconsideration. Ms. Leasure said if ALUC found the project consistent and recommended 4 units per acre it would not comeback because it was just.a Commission recommendation. However, if the Commission - found it consistent and adopted findings that said the project shall have no more`than 4 units per acre and the project changes at the Planning Commission level, then it should come back for ALUC reconsideration. The problem is that the Planning Commission is not required to inform ALUC when they make substantial changes. ' G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. , H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA • None. J. CLOSED SESSION None. K. ADJOURNMENT ' There being no further business,,the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION t a l/ PAULA LEASURE, Principal Planner _ Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant. • Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 8 • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ` Minutes of November 17, 1999 ,i A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis and Vice -Chair Rosene C. La E Absent:" Commissioner Hatley and Chair Hennigan Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Dave Doody, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Alt. Commissioner Ward' - Alt. Commissioner Baldridge, APPROVAL OF. THE MINUTES of 'October 20, 1999. • I Vice -Chair Rosene said, during the meeting of October 20, 1999, staff was directed to invite Neil McCabe, Deputy County Counsel, to the meeting today to discuss the sign issue. Staff said County Counsel's office had declined to address the Commission on any issue due to the pending resolution of the lawsuit.: It was moved by C6nunissioner.Papadakis,=seconded by, Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of October 20, 1999, as presented. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Causey, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to accept the agenda of November 17, 1999, as presented. , BUSINESS ITEMS •ITEM WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1999 Annual Review and Update of the -Chico,, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP)., Continued from the meeting of October.20, 1999. Mr. Doody explained that staffhad received three separate proposals for CLUP amendments from Chair Hennigan, Commissioner Gerst, and Commissioner Grierson. He discussed the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for review of CLUP amendments. He said to accomplish the most basic CEQA review, they must define the actual project with enough clarity so that the lead agency (ALUC) can forward the project to other agencies for review andcomment. Ms. Leasure stated that the last CLUP amendment was adopted by the Commission without following CEQA guidelines and procedures before adoption, which was against staffs recommendation. Commissioner Grierson said if ALUC is going to proceed with the amendment within the required time limits, the scope bf the project must be narrowed to specifically focus on the changes the Commission wants to make this year. ` Ms. Leasure said'staffs recommendation is that the Commission not move forward with the 1999 CLUP Update. Staff feels that the proposed, amendments will significantly complicate the CLUP update currently being prepared by Shutt Moen Associates. Vice -Chair Rosene said Commissioner Grierson would lead today's discussion. Commissioner Grierson said he made various modifications to the Shutt Moen model, but feels that the terminology is not consistent with the CALTRANS Handbook. He added that although he is comfortable with the densities he has presented, in order to avoid confusion, he requested the Commission to disregard'his proposal. It was the consensus of the Commission to specifically focus on the addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones and the establishment of specific density limits based' on Caltrans' safety zones for the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the CLUP. Commissioner Grierson said the Commission should address non-residential people per acre (i.e., congregation of people gathering at any point in time, church, flea market, campsite, airport special events, etc.) and the number of residential units per acre. , Specific terminology should be established to insure that Shutt Moeri Associates includes the language in the updated CLUP. The language, should be consistent with ALUC plans and other communities and their plans. Commissioner Gerst explained his proposed amendments regarding densities for non-residential people per acre and the residential units per acre. , The Commission discussed modifying the map of the Ranchaero Airport Area of Influence to move the northwest Inner Safety Zone and the Inner Turning Zone farther to the west to avoid the high densities to the east of the runway. Commissioner Baldridge said the modification would work for the pilots using the airport' Commissioner Ward commented that the modification would compromise the safety of the aircraft occupants. It was the consensus of the Commission that they widen, the area encompassing Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 to allow aviators the option to use the straight runway or the left-hand approach. Commissioner Gent explained his definitions for specific; appropriate uses ofrestrictions on uses ■ Butte Airport Land`Use Commission' ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 2 ■ It was the consensus of the Commission to delete Item J., Flight Schools Permitted, and Item N., E All common aviation related uses acceptable from the list of uses. Commissioner Grierson referred to Section B, Items 4 and 5 of Chair Hennigan's proposed amendments where he separated Chico from the other airports for proposed density limits. Commissioner Grierson said that establishing general standards that can be applied in all cases to all airports was preferable. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve density limits and uses as shown on the following chart: • MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE, DENSITY• No. Safety Zone People per Acre Dwelling Units per Acre 1 Runway Protection Zone 10 GH 0 - 2 Inner Safety Zone 10 ADHIJL 0 EKM - 3 Inner Turning Zone 10 ADHIJL .1 EKM 10 4 Outer Safety Zone 25 CDFHIL 1 EKM 5 5 Sideline Safety Zone 25 CDFHIL 0 - 6 Traffic Pattern Zone 100 CDHIL 1 unit , EKM 2.5 ac. minimum parcel size 7 Area of Influence No Limit BCDHI 4 EKM 1 A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures). B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24-hour period ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. C. Caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, provided that they are ancillary to the primary use of a property intended for the purpose of property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. E. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL. F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration of persons greater than 25 persons per acre at any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. f ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ G. No buildings, structures, above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable or - , explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons at any time. H. Communication Towers (excluding airport related facilities): 1. Prohibited in all safety zones except Zone 8. Free Standing Towers: 1. Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. , • 2. Strobe lighting at the top of the tower and shielded from'striking the ground for a mile. , Towers with Guy. Wires: 1. Starting at 30 feet above the ground: a. Blinking lights along length of tower and guy wires at 20 foot intervals. b. Three feet in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. L Public and Quasi -Public: Prohibited Uses: ' Churches, nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary :and secondary schools; child care facilities and similar aggregations of -persons.: , J. 50% Open Space. 4 K. Density Bonus Prohibited. L. No bulk petroleum'products (except airport related), flammable or explosives or chemical storage above ground. _ M. Second dwelling units are prohibited. Staff asked for clarification that these standards are now the Commission's proposal for density and the Commission wishes for this to go forward for circulation to agencies, CEQA review and be brought back in December. x The Commission advised that staff was correct. f Commissioner Gerst said he would like to add uses•permitted'upon the adoption of a CLUP update and two general'statements to the 1999 CLUP Update.' Ms. Leasure restated the permitted uses upon the adoption of a CLUP update and the two general statements as agreed to by the'Commission as follows:. All zones in areas of influence.' 1. Permitted Uses:. ' A. All projects,covered:by a vested map or development agreement. B. ' Any uses cov,ered.by a valid building permit. • C. - All uses- meeting the airport CLUP standards at time permits are issued. ■ Butte'Ai poi -t Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of .November 17, 1999 • Page'4 ■ 16 General Statements. 1. All ministerial and'residential uses shall be reviewed to ALUC and findings shall be made that there will be no impacts to airport operations. 2. Avigation Easements shall be signed by property owners for all uses located within the planning boundarie's of each public or special use airport. * The minimum parcel size is 8,000 square feet: .- The Commission discussed overlay zones. If the cities and county would adopt the ALUC's area of influence for each airport as overlay zones it would make their planning process easier. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson to adopt the language as restated by Ms. Leasure and to adopt as ALUC's proposed changes to the. CL UP listing and establishing densities and uses for the, zones at each airport within•the purview of the ALUC.. ' Commissioner Gerst said they needed maps to accompany the proposed changes. Ms. -Leasure said the Commission referred to the maps identified as 6-1 (Chico Municipal Airport), 7-1 (Oroville Airport), 8 1(Ranchaero Airport).and 9-1 (Paradise. Airport). Additionally, the Commission discussed amending the Ranchaero Airport to make the fan wider (Area 3) at the north end. Ranchaero Airport Area of Influence (8-1) It was the consensus of the Commission to widen Areas 2 and 4 to correspond to the widening of Area 3. The map is to maintain the consistent left boundary and move the right boundary to its existing location so -that a fan is established. Commissioner Grierson amended his motion to adopt the language as restated by Ms. Leasure and to adopt as ALUC's proposed changes to the CLUP, listing and establishing densities and uses for the zones at each airport within the purview of the.ALUC, and the maps identified as 6-1 (Chico Municipal Airport), 7-1 (Oroville Airport), 8-1(Ranchaero Airport) as amended and 9-1 (Paradise. Airport). Vice -Chair Rosene opened the hearing to the public. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Causey seconded the motion. - The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Papadakis and Vice -Chair Rosene NOES: None r ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley and ChairHennigan ABSTAINS: None ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■.Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ 5 MINUTE RECESS: It was the consensus of the Commission to reschedule the regularly scheduled December 15, 1999 meeting to Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Commissioner Grierson referred to ALUC Staff Time Accounting and asked what projects staff is working on for ALUC to account for the many staff hours reported? Ms. Leasure said clerical staff has worked many hours to learn ALUC procedures and to reorganize the ALUC filing system. Commissioner Grierson announced that on January 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., there will be a Northern California Airport Manager's Conference. There will be speakers from the FAA and Caltrans to discuss airport land use planning. The meeting will beheld at the Chico Municipal Airport in the conference room. Commissioner Grierson mentioned that there is"a recommendation from City staff to the Chico City Council to override a portion of the CLUP. He asked staff to provide. information to the Commissioners and Alternates when this occurs. s Commissioner Gerst expressed concern about approval of several planning projects that will be incompatible with the 1999 Annual Review and Update of the CLUP -after final adoption. He further commented that the First United Pentecostal Church'in Thermalito was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. He said the Church is eventually planning to provide a school on the site. , Ms. Leasure said at•ALUC's public hearing on the project, the applicants stated they were not planning to provide a school. If they expand the use to include_ a school, the project should come back to the Commission. Vice -Chair Rosene asked staff to look into the issue and report back to the Commission. t • Vice -Chair Rosene raised the issue of the signs and asked what the County does if a developer does not meet the mitigation standards for a development? ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 6 ■ Ms. Leasure said mitigation measures are established that are to be complied with prior to development of the project. In this case, the County has issued building permits and allowed people to develop without all of the mitigations being met. She said she did not know what more ALUC could do. Letters have already been sent to the County Counsel and the Board of Supervisors requesting that the requirements are met. Vice -Chair Rosene said it was the County Counsel's responsibility to enforce the laws of Butte County and, it appears, they have chosen to ignore those laws. He said he did not want to file another lawsuit, but they are not doing what they promised they would do when they passed C.S.A. 87. Commissioner Grierson said there must be numerous options that the Commission has to enforce the signage portion of the North Chico Specific plan. He said, in college, he remembered discussing this topic and learning aboui a writ of mandamus. That may be an option for the Commission to consider. Ms. Leasure said County Counsel's office would have to provide ALUC with legal counsel if this is the action that the Commission wishes to take. She suggested waiting six weeks and she would try to find out from another legal counselor what alternative actions ALUC can take. Tony St. Amant, interested person from the public, suggested the Commission consider writing a letter to the Board of Supervisors and having the Chair appear before the Board to say that ALUC dislikes having to continually threaten legal action; however, this is an example of the frustration that comes when trying to follow through with things. The benefit of this action would be that it becomes a public record that shows ALUC has tried a conciliatory approach which begins to balance some of the inaccurate assertions that the Commission is looking for a reason to sue the County. • . Vice -Chair Rosene said that ALUC has tried that approach. Earlier this year the Board of Supervisors and the developers had their representative meet with Susan Minasian and ALUC's representative met with Neil.McCabe to try to iron out a compromise. ALUC came up with a proposed sign, but the Board's proposed sign said no more that "there is an airport over there." They did not address any of the issues that came close to the sign that was in C.S.A. 87. The Board then dropped the matter although ALUC wrote two letters requesting that the item be placed on the Board's agenda. ALUC's concerns have been ignored and now the Board will not communicate with the Commission. Commissioner Papadakis suggested the Commission find a Supervisor that will place the item on the Board's agenda. Commissioner Gerst asks what criteria determines when a project should come back to ALUC for reconsideration? ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of November 17, 1999 ■ Page 7 ■ Ms. Leasure said if the Planning Commission makes a substantial change to a project that has , previously come before ALUC; it should come back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. Commissioner Gerst said the Ruddy Creek project has been substantially'changed since ALUC adopted their findings and should come back for reconsideration. , Ms. Leasure said if ALUC found the project consistent'and recommended 4 units'per acre it would not come back'because it was just a Commission recommendation. However, if the Commission found it consistent and adopted findings that said the project shall- have no more than 4 units per acre and the project changes at the Planning Commission level, then -it should comeback for ALUC reconsideration. - The problem is that the Planning Commission is not required to inform ALUC when they make substantial changes. G. _ COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. f H. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMSNOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. J. ' CLOSED SESSION: None. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the_meeting was adjourned at 1,1:52 a.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION - s' _ I `` • PAULA LEASURE', Principal Planner Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant. , ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■Minutes of. November 17, 1999 ! Page 8 t +BUT'I E COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE -COMMISSION MISSION + • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • AGENDA ITEM - E.I. TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Dave Doody, ALUC Staff DATE: December 22, 1999 ITEM: 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP): Public Utility Code (PUC) Sections 21674.7 and 21675 allow a yearly CLUP update. The Commission will consider adoption of new land use development criteria and density for the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero CLUPs. The proposed amendment specifies persons per acre, minimum lot size, and other development regulations for the safety zones surrounding each of the public use airports in Butte County. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 29, 1999. (This item was continued from November 17, 1999.) SUMMARY: Staff recommends the ALUC direct staff to refer the proposed amendment to Shutt Moen and Associates for inclusion in the 2000 CLUP update. BACKGROUND: Staff received three proposals for CLUP amendments. On October 20, 1999, Chair Hennigan introduced a proposed CLUP amendment for the Chico, Paradise, Oroville and Ranchaero airports. The Commission discussed this proposal but did not take action. Commissioner Gerst also introduced a proposed CLUP amendment. Commissioner Gerst requested ALUC to review his proposal for discussion at the November 17, 1999, ALUC meeting. On November 17, 1999, Commissioner Grierson requested ALUC disregard the proposed amendments he submitted. ALUC discussed Commissioner Gerst's proposed amendment regarding densities for non-residential and residential uses, definitions for appropriate uses, and the various restrictions on uses. Staff recommended ALUC not move forward with the 1999 CLUP update because the proposed amendments would significantly complicate the work in progress by Shutt Moen and Associates. However, ALUC directed staff to refer Commissioner Gerst's proposal, as amended by the Commission, to agencies for comment, prepare CEQA analysis, and to return with the project for adoption by ALUC at'a special meeting of the Commission to be held on December 29, 1999` • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission, December 29, 1999 • 1 ANALYSIS: CEQA: The Caltrans Handbook,'page 2-13, states that the preparation of an Initial Study and Negative Declaration is the CEQA route most commonly taken by ALUCs when adopting a compatibility plan. Therefore, following the November 17, .1999, ALUC meeting, staff circulated the proposed CLUP amendment to affected agencies and prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA. The Negative Declaration was referred to the State Clearinghouse (SCH #99112098) and was distributed to State and local agencies for review and comment. The review period of the State Clearinghouse ends December 28, 1999. The proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration are included in this report as Attachment `B." Comments received in a timely manner are discussed under Agency Responses to the 1999 CLUP amendment. The following agencies were sent either the Comment Requested Transmittal or the proposed Initial Study and Negative Declaration: Butte County Offices: Environmental Health Public Works Agricultural Commissioner Air Pollution Control District Planning Department •LAFCo -Oroville Airport Manager •Ranchaero Airport Manager City of Chico: Airport Commission Planning Department Town of Paradise: Planning Department City of Oroville: Planning Department r -California Dept. of Forestry !Caltrans Division of Aeronautics -Paradise Skypark Airport Manager. Agency Responses to the Proposed 1999 CLUP Amendment: To date staff has received six (6) comment letters on the proposed CLUP amendment. All agency comments are attached (Attachment "D") for your review. The following is an analysis of the comments received: The City of Oroville Planning Department commented that the information is "incomplete" and that the accompanying map is illegible. The City maintains that the Area of Influence boundary.was not legally adopted. The City attorney also noted that there was not adequate information and time to comment on the proposal. f The City of Oroville Planning Commission indicated the informationrprovided was insufficient and stated similar concerns as described above. The City's Planning Commission respectfully requested that, "ALUC refrain from adopting any amendments, revisions or update to the CLUP at this time." The City'§ Planning Commission suggests that ALUC wait for the soon to be released draft CLUP under preparation by Shutt Moen and Associates. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission, December 29, 1999 • 2 City of Chico commented that they had, "reservations about both the update and the rapidity of its adoption process." The City further noted that there was not enough time to prepare a thorough analysis of the proposed 1999 CLUP amendment -and that the maps were "barely legible." They also commented that there was also a lack of supporting data to substantiate the proposed amendment. The City of Chico respectfully requests the Commission not adopt the proposed 1999 update. The City believes the proposal should be deferred until next year and addressed along with the CLUP being prepared by Shutt Moen and Associates. The City of Chico may be forced into overrides, an alternative it prefers to avoid. The City of Chico indicates that the proposed CLUP amendment, "effectively precludes residential development on numerous vacant lots by requiring larger lot sizes than available." The City also commented that other non-residential uses which are compatible within residential neighborhoods, such as childcare facilities, hospitals, colleges, etc., would be prohibited by the proposed CLUP amendment. The letter states that, "because the City cannot leave property owners without economic use of their property, the CLUP amendments are effectively promoting commercial, manufacturing, and industrial uses within these residential neighborhoods." The City's letter also states that the, "Initial Study should analyze the effects of these land use incompatibilities and propose mitigation such as allowing residential development on legal parcels, regardless of size." The City of Chico requests that the CLUP amendment be delayed until adequate environmental review can be completed and the Initial Study be recirculated for commerit. The City of Chico's comments indicates the Initial Study and Negative Declaration should undergo further review and analysis since the proposed CLUP amendment has the potential to promote incompatible land uses within established residential neighborhoods. ALUC staff agrees that this is a potential impact that deserves more consideration. The Caltrans Handbook, page 2-12, notes that there is no legal requirement that ALUCs involve local agencies in the process of developing a CLUP. The Handbook cautions that, "the practical matter is that CLUPs are generally much more effective if they are developed with close attention to local agency concerns. ALUC adoption of CLUPs which will routinely result in agency overrides will accomplish little to promote airport land use compatibility objectives." The City of Chico's comments indicates that, they will likely be forced into overrides. This would be very counterproductive to responsible airport land use planning. The Caltrans Aeronautics Program staff prepared a short hand-written response to the'proposed CLUP amendment. They commented that the Initial Study "looked fine" and suggested it be sent to the Caltrans, District 3 Office. The Initial Study was sent to the Caltrans, District 3 Office via the State Clearinghouse. Caltrans commented on the proposed CLUP Density Criteria Table (Attachment "A") and the accompanying maps (Attachment C) that specify density parameters and land use restrictions. Caltrans suggested adding item "G" to "Area 1" (Runway Protection Zone). Item "G" was omitted • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission, December 29, 1999 • 3 from the Density Criteria Table by•a staff error and has been corrected- Also, Caltrans pointed out that Item "F" at 25 persons per acre did not correlate to the persons per acre in Area 3, the Inner Turning Zone. Caltrans suggested changing the table so that 25 persons per acre were permitted in Area 3 " Inner Turning Zone" as well. The Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning Division has submitted comments ,reflecting concerns similar to those,listed above. Staff Response: Several comments were received noting that the maps sent to agencies were illegible. Due to the Commission's direction to complete the request for,comments and CEQA analysis within 42 days, ' staff had to circulate copies of the maps prepared by Commissioner Gerst and amended by ' Commissioner Grierson. Staff will have GIS maps prepared; however, enough lead time is required- to equiredto make assignments coordinate with other projects in process. Due to the minimal time provided, a thorough analysis could not be prepared regarding the new overflight and land use development criteria and restrictions. Staff• is concerned about the ramifications of these'new restrictions. The City of Chico'indicates that the CLUP amendment may be too restrictive and create a "taking" issue for vacant residential lands within the "Area of Influence." For example, according to the proposed CLUP amendment, the accompanying text item "E" states the following: "Residential development shall not occur in a noise. level greater than SS CNEL. " This prohibition significantly affects vacant lands under the Inner Safety Zone, Inner Turning Zone ` 4 and the Outer Safety Zone and is extended to include the Traffic Pattern Zone and the Area of Influence. Maps of the Chico Airport.55 CNEL are only in draft form and have only recently been made available to staff. On December 20, 1999, Shutt Moen provided faxed copies of 55 CNEL maps for Ranchaero, Oroville and the Paradise Skypark. While the maps showed the extent of the 55 CNEL contour, the information still needs to be digitized into the County's GIS data base in order to permit a thorough analysis. While Shutt Moen was very cooperative about producing these maps, they also indicated to staff their concerns about proceeding with such a restrictive amendment.• RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Commission take the following actions: 1. Review and consider the staff report, Commissioner's Gerst's 'proposed 1999 .CLUP amendment as amended by the Commission,'including letters from affected agencies, and t • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission', December 29, 1999 • .r ' 4 2. Reject the adoption of a 1999 CLUP amendment for the following reasons: a. Review and analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act indicates further study and analysis should be undertaken._ The Negative Declaration should be recirculated to affected agencies. b. Significant -concerns were raised by the City of Chico, City of Oroville and Mr. Ken Brody of Shutt Moen and Associates at the October 20, 1999, ALUC meeting, which include the following:' i. City of Oroville's Planning Division comments states that the maps are illegible and the'information is incomplete. The City Attorney does not consider this to be adequate information for which to comment upon. ii., City of Chico Planning Division comments states the maps are barely legible and there were no accompanying explanations of the reasons for the changes as well as no direciion from AL. UC as to where the City's General Plan is required to be amended as is.specified•by the California Government Code. The City also indicaies that there was not enough time to respond to such a comprehensive amendment. iii. City of Chico's Environmental Planning. Division indicates that the Initial ' Study and Negative Declaration lack sufficient mitigation for the proposed CLUP amendment -and that further study and review is warranted in examining the growth inducing effects of encouraging commercial, industrial ' and manufacturing uses within established residential neighborhoods within the area affected by the new CLUP. C. Adoption of the proposed amendments could have a fiscal impact on the contract currently negotiated with Shutt Moen and Associates. d. Staff believes that the premature adoption of the proposed amendments without more closely working with the affected agencies could create legal liability and result in overrides by Butte County and involved cities. Attachments: "A" Proposed CLUP Density Criteria Table R "B" Initial Study and Negative Declaration "C" Proposed CLUP Maps Density Parameters and Land Use Restrictions. "D" Agency Responses , • Butte County • Airport°Land Use Commission, December 29,91999 • 5' • . ATTACHMENT "A" PROPOSED CLUP DENSITY CRITERIA • MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE DENSITY• No. Safety Zone People per Acre Dwelling Units per Acre 1 Runway Protection Zone 10 GH 0 - 2 Inner Safety Zone 10 ADHIJL 0 EKM - 3 Inner Turning Zone 10 ADFHIJL 1, EKM 10 4 Outer Safety Zone 25 CDFHIL 1 EKM 5 5 Sideline Safety Zone 25 CDFHIL 0 - 6 Traffic Pattern Zone 100 CDFHIL 1 unit EKM 2.5 ac. minimum parcel size 7 Area of Influence No Limit BCDHI 4 EKM 1 A. 20% Coverage Per Acre (Buildings and Structures). B. Uses compatible only if they do not result in a large concentration of people. A large concentration of people is defined as a gathering of individuals in an area that would result in an average density of greater than 25 persons per acre per hour during any 24-h6ur period ending at midnight, not to exceed 50 persons per acre at any time. C. Caretaker residences are a compatible use within all CNEL ranges, provided that they are ancillary to the primary use of a property intended for the purpose of property protection or maintenance, and subject to the condition that all residential units be designed to limit intruding noise such that interior, noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room. D. Measures to achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of buildings where the public is received, office areas, and other areas where people work or congregate. E. Residential development shall not occur in a noise level greater than 55 CNEL. F. Use compatible only if it does not result in a concentration of persons greater than 25 persons per acre at.any time or the storage of flammable or explosive material above ground. G. { No buildings, structures, above ground transmission lines, or storage of flammable' or explosive material above ground, and no uses resulting in a gathering of more than 10 persons at anytime. H. Communication Towers (Excluding airport related facilities): 1. Prohibited in all safety zones except Zone 8. Free Standing Towers: Alternative orange and white paint starting at 30 feet above the ground. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission, December 29, 1999. • +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ` • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 • 2. Strobe lighting at the top of the tower and shielded from striking the ground a for a mile. } Towers with Guy Wires: ` l.- Starting at•30 feet above the ground: a: - -Blinking lights along length of tower and guy wires at 20 foot ' intervals. b. ., Three feet in diameter orange safety markers attached at 20 foot intervals on tower and guy wires. t I- - ':Public and Quasi-Public: - Prohibited Uses: Churches; nursing care facilities, hospitals, colleges and universities, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities and similar aggregations of persons. J, 50% Open Space.. ' K. Density.BoAus Prohibited. , L. No bulk petroleum products (except airport related), flammable or explosives, or chemical storage above ground. M. Second dwelling units are prohibited. All zones in areas of influence.. 1. Permitted Uses: A" All projects covered by a vested map or development agreement. B. -.Any uses covered by a valid building permit. < C. All uses meeting the _airportCLUP, standards at time permits are issued. ' General Statements. 1. Projects that do not meet the density or.use criteria of the CLUP within the area of influence boundary. for each airport shall be referred_ to ALUC. 2. Avigation Easements shall be signed by property owners for all uses located within the planning boundaries of each public or special use airport. KAPLANNING%LUC\MEETINGS\12.29-99.MTG\E1A.RPT " • Butte County • Airport Land, Use Commission, December 29, 1999 • BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION i 7 County Center Drive,.Oroville CA 95965 ■''(530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building; Supervisors' Chambers - 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: November 17, 1999 - 9:00 a:m-. AGENDA. ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT , A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call , C. Approval of the Minutes of October 20, 1999 D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or,staff, may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda'order.) E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico Oroville Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP): Continued from the meeting of October 20, 1999. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chair Hennigari. - Subsequent to the discussion at the meeting of October 20, 1999, proposed CLUP amendments were submitted by Commissioners Gerst and Grierson. The three proposed CLUP amendments are discussed in the staff report dated November 10, 1999. 'Staff Recommendation: Reject the 1999 CLUP amendment based on the concerns raised in the staff report dated November 10, 1999. F.' Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five'minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from ,taking action on any item presented if it isnot listed on the agenda.) ' J. Closed Session - None ` K. Adjournment ' it Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. it *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of ,8'.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chair at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. it 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair., 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. ;i Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance; and glass case. K: IALUCIM£ETINGS11147-99.MTGUGEN. WPD a Airport Land Use Commission Ar November 17, 1999 Agenda Ar Page 2 w BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of October 20, 1999 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present:. ;Y Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Hatley, Lambert, Rosene and Chair Hennigan Absent: w None Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner ' Dave Doody, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant k. Alt. Commissioner Baldridge s - Alt. Commissioner Papadakis , Alt. Commissioner. Wallrich Laura Webster, PMC Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of August 18, 1999 and September 15, 1999. August 18, 1999 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of August 18, 1999 as presented. Chair Hennigan asked staff if they, have received a legal opinion regarding conditions and consistency? Staff answered that they sent a letter to County Counsel, but there has been no response yet. Chair Hennigan asked if the Department of Development Services has a mechanism for bringing up ALUC concerns early in the pre -application process? Staff answered the Commission could include a mechanism for this in the Commission's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S). Also, ALUC previously decided that any developer could approach the Commissioners directly. September 15, 1999 Minutes - It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to approve the minutes of September 15, 1999 as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Grierson, Hatley, and Rosene NOES: None _ ABSENT: None ABSTAINS: Commissioner Lambert and Chair Hennigan D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to accept the agenda of October 20, 1999 as presented. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS " 1. ALUC File No. A 99-11 for Larry Ruby and Sheraton Real Estate Management, Inc. (Planning Division Use Permit No. 00-01) Request for consistency findings. Commissioner Rosene stepped down from the dais due to -a conflict of interest with the proposal. Alternate Commissioner-Baldridge took his place:... . F ' Staff summarized the report. t Chair Hennigan referred to Page 3, third paragraph of staffs report. The second sentence states, "However', no potential accident sites actually fall within the parcel." He said the x's on the Accident Scatter Map aie historicalaccident sites. The. contours show where accidents are likely to occur. He said the. contours were what matters. He also said the Commission had asked for and wants maps prepared for every project to show the relationship of the subject parcel to the airport runway. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public:. Larry Ruby, Sheraton Real Estate Management, Inc., explained the intended use for the expansion of APN 007-160-014, at 1170 East Lassen Avenue, Chico. Chair Hennigan closed the hearing to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and unanimously carried to find that ALUC File No. A 99-11 for Larry Ruby and Sheraton Real Estate Management, Inc.. (Planning Division Use Permit No. 00-01) on APN 007-160-014 is consistent with the 1978 Chico, Municipal Airport Environs Plan and the Airport Land Use Commission requires the following conditions to furtherimprovethe compatibility of the project with the airport operations: 1. Record an Avigation easement that will run with the land notifying future property owners, heirs and assigns of the Chico Municipal Airport's right of continued use of the airspace above the project parcel and acknowledging any and all existing or potential airport operational impacts. 2. Direct all lighting within the project- site downward with shielding to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent properties and aircraft flight activities. o . ■ Butte Airport LandUse Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 2 ■ Commissioner Rosene returned to the dais. 2. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article I). Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance). Continued from September 1 S, 1999. Chair Hennigan noted that staff has listed some changes, but has not provided a final version. The Chair handed out a paper of his suggested changes to Sections 24-6, 24-7, and 24-9 - Non- conforming uses and variances. He said in previous discussions, the Commission said that they did not want to imply that the Planning Commission could grant a variance to a federal air regulation. Staffs report suggests that the Director of Development Services can amend federal air regulations. Staff said before the Director of Development Services could make such a finding, he would have to secure approval from the Federal Aviation Administration finding that the use is consistent with Subpart C of the Federal Code of Regulations (14CFR) Part 77. Chair Hennigan maintained that if a project is consistent with Far Part 77, it would be consistent with the ordinance. He said that granting a variance to a federal rule was not possible. The purpose of the ordinance is to allow the County to enforce the federally protected airspace. There was a brief discussion of growing trees that would eventually violate the floor of the federal airspace. Chair Hennigan said if a tree is not within federal airspace, a variance is not required. If a tree is penetrating federal airspace, the Federal Aviation Administration will restrict the operations of an airport. Ken Brody, Shuit Moen Associates, said FAR Part 77 operates by assessing whether objects are hazards to the airspace around an airport. If an object is proposed to be constructed, the proposal would be submitted to the FAA for review. The FAA would then determine whether the object was a hazard or whether they had "no objection." There could be instances where an object has been subject to a federal airspace study and been found to exceed the limits of FAR Part 77 and the FAA would still determine that they have "no objection" to the object constructed. However, if an object was found hazardous to the airport, the FAA has no authority to cause that object to be eliminated. That would have to be enforced at the local level. That is why the County needs the ordinance. He said there is an FAA Model Airport Zoning Ordinance that includes a section regarding variances. Mr. Brody said he would supply a copy to the Commission. John Franklin, Manager of Paradise Airport, said the Paradise Airport had obtained variances for Part 77 infringements. It seems inappropriate for the County to enforce Part 77 when an airport manager has already went to the FAA and received a variance. If the Development Services Director checks with the FAA and finds that the airport has not received a variance, the County could then enforce the Part 77 rules. Chair Hennigan closed the public hearing. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ It was moved by Chair Hennigan, seconded by Commissioner Hatley, and unanimously carried to direct staff to make further changes to the proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter,24,'Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) that will not allow anything built, grown, erected, assembled, accumulated, accreted or otherwise concocted that blocks the approach to an airport. The motion also directed staff to bring back a draft ordinance, using the FAA . model ordinance or a state ordinance, for the December 15, 1999 regularly scheduled ALUC meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to review staffs work in progress at the November 17, 1999 ALUC meeting. 3. 1999 Annual Review and Update of the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) Chair Hennigan said it was ALUC's policy to examine Comprehengive Land Use Plans (CLUP)' annually and.to update them as needed pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act. The report prepared by staff lists items for discussion. A. Clustering Chair Hennigan said he preferred the 1999 CLUP Update state that no clustering is allowed unless a developer presents a specific and final plan and can make a case about why that specific arrangement enhances safety to persons on the ground and survivability for passengers in,aircraft. Commissioner Gerst said clustering was not effective on small parcels. He said ALUC 's determination where clustering is allowed should be based on a project -by -project basis. Some ' areas close to the airport should be excluded from clustering., Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis said the 1999 Update section regarding clustering should include noise mitigation measures. B. Avigation Easement requirement Chair Hennigan said an Avigation element must be included in the 1999 Update, so there is no doubt that an Avigation easement is'required in all areas that are subject to airport planning law. C. Information on density, safety and hazards This item refers to definitions.- (ie. density, safety hazards, etc.) Commissioner Lambert would like to see a definition of what ALUC means by "clustering. The Planning Division may have a different viewpoint of what. clustering, flexible lot lines and ' averaging density are. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ Chair Hennigan said ALUC was not opposed to clustering, but wants the design of the project to enhance safety and mitigate noise problems. Bill Davis, City of Oroville Planning Department, commented that the primary criteria that ALUC is supposed to establish when adopting a Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the maximum density. The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook includes a provision for clustering. ALUC should address clustering in those areas most likely to be affected, but they should not impose it on all airport areas of influence. ALUC should establish policies that are easy to understand and can be applied regularly without having every development that proposes clustering come before the Commission. Chair Hennigan said ALUC's intention was to establish criteria to determine if clustering meets safety, noise, and overflight standards. Barbara Hennigan said the Commission might want to consider creating a concept for density and dispersion. Commissioner Baldridge said if clustering was located outside Traffic Pattern Zone, Area 6, it may not be as big of an issue. Area 6 extends to the approach zones,�outside overflight zones A and B, and encompasses all of the safety zones. The Commission agreed that would be appropriate if a project did not exceed the zoning density. D. Creation and maintenance of a disclosure file for each airport Chair Hennigan said it was the intent of the Commission to maintain informational files for each airport. E. Requirement for ALUC review of all communication towers and facilities within an Airport Area of Influence Chair Hennigan said it was the intent of the Commission to require ALUC review of communication towers within the Airport Area of Influence: F. Terminal procedures Chair Hennigan said there are instrument approaches published for two airports. The instrument approach airspace may be slightly different from the Part 77 airspace and, therefore, needs to be a part of the airspace review process. It will be the responsibility of airport managers to bring changes of instrument approaches to ALUC. G. Adoption of Area of Influence Maps Chair Hennigan said it had been confirmed that the City of Oroville was properly informed in advance of the hearing when ALUC adopted the Oroville Airport Area of Influence. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ Bill Davis, City of Oroville Planning Department, commented that ALUC was charged by the Public Utilities Commission to establish planning boundaries after hearing and consultation with involved agencies. The appropriate representative of the agency is the Oroville City Council and not Alan Campbell. A formal notification and request for consultation should take place with the City of Oroville. The process should include forwarding the proposed change to the area of influence map to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will make their comments and recommendations to the ALUC. Chair Hennigan said in the next several months, the Commission will be holding a series of public hearings and workshops where involved agencies have the opportunity to suggest changes to the 1999 Update of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plans. Chair Hennigan said maps had been prepared illustrating the Caltrans Handbook Safety Zones and where they would fall on the maps of various public use airports. Commissioner Gerst said he would like to discuss his handout that was prepared to clarify many issues that are unclear and inconsistent. He suggested that the Commissioners review the information so that they may discuss it at the next meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commission Rosene, and unanimously carried to continue this item open for discussion and possible action to the November 17, 1999 regularly meeting. Items H., I. and J. will be discussed at the November 17, 1999 meeting. H. Addition of Caltrans safety, turning and overflight zones I. Establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety, zones J. Establishing density limits in safety zones at the Chico Airport RECESS. MEETING'RECONVENED AT 11:03 A.M. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Working Session - Issue Paper #2 Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates, said compatibility maps have been prepared for the Oroville Municipal, Paradise Skypark and Ranchaero Airports. The map for the Chico Municipal Airport has not been prepared yet because they are waiting for more information. He recommended that the Commission not adopt the 1999 CLUP amendment until after the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been completed. He suggested that unless there is a problem that needs to be resolved immediately, the Commission refer their various concerns to Shutt Moen for review and possible incorporation in the draft CLUP. Copies of the preliminary Primary Compatibility Criteria and Compatibility Maps were distributed to the Commission. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 6 ■ Commissioner Grierson left the meeting due to illness. (11:42 a.m.) Chair Hennigan said Butte County was a rural area so the number of.people per acre allowed under Other Uses seems high. The Prohibited Uses needs to include houses of worship in zones A, B 1, B2 and C. Any assembly of a large group of people should be prohibited in these zones. Mr. Brody said Maximum Densities (people per acre) is intended to address the assembly issue. Chair Hennigan said it was important to remember that existing uses will change over time. The CLUP should be clear that when changes occur in areas that are already developed, those changes move in the direction of airport compatibility. Commissioner Gerst said there should be a definition of what compatible uses are. Mr. Brody said towers were. represented as 'Hazards to flight' under Prohibited Uses. He added that ALUC could establish additional requirements pertaining to .towers if they do not conflict with Federal Aviation Administration standards. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Mr. Doody summarized the supplemental agenda item, Progress ss report on North Chico Specific Plan Airport Overflight Signs. Staff was directed to invite Susan Minasian, County Counsel, to discuss the sign issue at the November 17, 1999 ALUC meeting. Commissioner Lambert asked Mr. Brody to include a section in the draft CLUP regarding overriding findings: Staff was directed to invite Neil McCabe, Deputy County Counsel, to the next ALUC meeting so that he can explain his opinion regarding the overriding of ALUC decisions. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. H.. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999 ■ Page 7 ■ ■ Butte Airport Land -Use Commission ■ Minutes of October 20, 1999. ■ Page 8 ■ ' r COMPLETE PACKET BUTTE COUAY AIRPORT LAND .USI BINDER ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FF__ REGULAR MEETING OF THE,COMMISSI6N Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers ' 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California , Date/Time: October 20, .1999 - 9:00 a.m: a' AGENDA - a ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. Pledge of Allegiance ` B. •Roll,Call C. Approval of the Minutes of August 18, 1999 and September 15, 1999. D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members,or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order)' w E. BUSINESS ITEMS - ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ALUC File No. A 99-11 for Larry Ruby and Sheraton Real-Estate Management, Inc. (Planning Divisibn Use Permit No. 00-01) This is a use permit for the expansion of a non-conforming use pursuant to Section 24- 35.20 of the Butte County Zoriing•Oidinance. The property is 1.46 acres in size, is zoned R-3 , (Multi-family Residential) and- is designated by the General 'Plan for Medium Density • Residential land use. The property is located at 1170 East Lassen Avenue, Chico, Assessors Parcel Number 007-160-014. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission find the project consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Air'findingsort Environs Plan subject to ,. listed in the Staff Report.: 2. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance) (Continued Item from September 15, 1999) The Butte County Department of Development Services, -Planning Division, is requesting the Commission provide consistency findings for the proposed Obstruction Ordinance. At the August 18, 1999 ALUC hearing, staff was directed to make changes and return with a final version -for adoption. Recommendation: Review the changes as made by staff and adopt the recommended consistency findings. { 3. 1999 Annual Review and Update of the •Chico, �Orov_ille, Paradise and Ranchaero Comprehensive Land Use Plans (C'LUP) This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chair Hennigan. Chair Hennigan has•requested the introduction of a 1999 CLURamendment for all public use airports located within Butte County. Proposed amendments include:- Y a. Clustering,' ' b. Avigation Easement requirement, C. Information on density, safety and hazards, d. Creation and maintenance of a disclosure file for each airport, e. Requirement for ALUC review of all communication, towers and facilities within an Airport Area of Influence, f. Terminal procedures, g. Adoption of Area 'of Influence Maps, r h. Addition of Caltrans safety; turning and overflight zones, i. Establishment of specific density limits based on Caltrans safety zones_, and J. Establishing density limits in safety zones at the Chico Airport. Recommendation: Accept "the Chair's proposed CLUP amendments for information purposes, only and refer them to Shutt Moen for review and possible incorporation into the draft CL UP. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Working Session - Issue Paper,#2 Representatives from. the firm Shutt Moen Associates will; solicit input from the Commission and members of the public regarding the second issue paper prepared as part of the Butte County Airport Larid Use Plan Study. The emphasis of this paper is on the Oroville, Paradise and Ranchaero Airports. Recommendation Staff recommends the Commission provide Mr. Brody with direction, comments, and concerns that may need fitrther study. F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments " H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: "The alternative Aircraft Overflight Area signs for , the North Chico Specific Plan is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 1999. I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the. Agenda'- (Presentations. will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land. Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session - None ' K. Adjournment 1 Airport Land Use Commission October 20,'19.99 Agenda • Page 2 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of September 15, 1999 , A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present:, Commissioners Causey, Gerst,, Grierson, Hatley, Papadakis, Wallrich and Vice-Chair Rosene Absent: , Chair HennigAn Others Present: 'Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Dave Doody, Senior Planner • _ Barbra Duncan,.Administrative Assistant Commissioner Lambert Alt. Commissioner Baldridge C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of August 18, 1999will be available at the October 20, 1999 meeting. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE -AGENDA -It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the Agenda of September 15, 1999. E. BUSINESS ITEMS ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article I). Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance). ' Staff summarized the report and the proposed text for Chapter 24, Article I, Airport Air Zoning. Commissioner Grierson commented that Draft Five contained references from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook issued by Caltrans that should be referenced in the document. He asked why Section 24-6,'Non6onforming Uses, is necessary if there are not any non-conforming uses at any of the airports in the County. Staff answered that they have not done a comprehensive, analysis of every airporf within the County. This document, was based upon a template of the existing code, and the non- conforming use section was; left in because it was in the original code. There was a brief discussion regarding trees around airports. Commissioner Grierson said the Federal Aviation Administration,-Part 77, cannotbewaived, adjusted, modified, or tossed aside by any airport manager, local or state government official. Section .24-7, Variances, says that the Board of Supervisors shall have the power to vary or modify any of the rules, regulations, or provisions contained herein. He said the language should be deleted from the section. Vice -Chair Rosene suggested using "aviators" instead of "flyers" in the document. r . The hearing was opened to the public. Barbara Hennigan suggested clarifying Section 24-2, Purpose of Chapter. The real purpose of the document is to,`provide the Board of Supervisors "with a mechanism to protect the Part 77 air space. She suggested the Commission consider the three different kinds of air space: Part 77 air space, terminal-instrument.approaches airspace, and, in Chico, there is "a locally mandated noise abatement procedure. Consideration of the different kinds of air space would prevent the creation of anything that the feds or, the state can'use to start restricting Butte County airports.. ; The hearing was closed to the public. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to bring back Draft Six incorporating the changes that have been noted today. 2. Discussion and Possible Amendment of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures '(SOP'S). Staff summarized the report. The hearingwas'opened to the public. New item "4", "Any Argument to Connect the Elements." It was the consensus of the Commission to use the CLUP's and the Caltrans Handbook as guidelines for implementing conditions. , ,Commissioner Papadakis recommended adding "surface transportation" as another finding as it is an important factor in aircraft safety. ` Bill Davis, City of Oroville Planner, said consistency findings can- only be based upon an adopted policydocument: The CLUP's contain ALUC's adopted policies, whereas the Caltrans Handbook is, a guideline.. ' Commissioner Gerst said although .there are good recommendations contained within the Caltrans Handbook, they do not apply to all geographical areas. Unless ALUC has adopted specific findings, contained within the Handbook, quoting findings within the Handbook are not legal findings. Caltrans have allowed that the CLUP's may -be amended once a year, but they ' may be reviewed periodically. He said Caltrans should clarify the purpose and meaning of "reviewing periodically." ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ! Minutes of September 15, 1999 ■ Page 2 ■ New item "6", "Statement explaining that substantive changes in the project may negate any findiniz of consistency and the project must then be returned to ALUC for a new hearing." It was the consensus of the Commission to define "substantive changes" as increases in density, relocation of facilities or structures, and changes in zoning and land use. Commissioner Papadakis said staff could probably determine what the Commission would consider substantive changes based upon past direction from the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow, staff the -discretion to determine if a project had undergone a "substantive change." Conditions versus Consistency. ' Vice -Chair Rosene said this was to clarify whether ALUC has the right to decide inconsistency versus consistency or if the Commission can attach conditions stipulating that the project can only be found consistent based upon meeting the required conditions. It was the consensus of the'Commission to direct staff to prepare a letter to County Counsel to address this issue. Pre -hearings and charging of fees., ' Vice -Chair Rosene asked staff if ALUC concerns were*already part of Development Services, Planning Division, pre -application development conferences? , Ms. Leasure answered no. It was the consensus of the Commission that ALUCconcerns are most appropriately presented 3 ' by staff at pre -application development conferences. However, ALUC does not want to discourage a,'developer ,from` approaching. ALUC directly. If an applicant still has more concerns, they may express.them directly to ALUC or any, single'Commissioner. Barbara Hennigan commented that there were properly noticed public hearings where ALUC ' adopted Areas of Influence. The Oroville Municipal Airport CLUP has a legally adopted update that includes an Area of Influence that the City of Oroville cannot ignore. Bill Davis said ALUC did not formally notify the City of Oroville of the amendment to the Oroville Municipal Airport CLUP. 3. Discussion and Possible Amendmentlo the ALUC By -Laws. Mr. Doody summarized the staff report. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ii Minutes of September 15, 1999 ■ Page 3 i T , Section 1.3.1 "Membership" " It was the consensus "of the Commission to leave this section as it is and to not include the proposed language as, suggested by Chair Herinigan. Section 1.3.5 "Commissioner Conflict of Interest" ' It was the consensus of the Commission to have the proposed changes to the Conflict of Interest Section reviewed by County Counsel and be brought back for discussion. Section 1.5.8 "Record' -of Proceedings" It was the consensus of the Commission to retain ALUC files for one year and then they may be microfilmed. Files that may be subject to lawsuits will be kept indefinitely., Staff said they would consult with County Counsel, as to the 'statute of limitations for how long these files should be kept. RECESS. MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:10 A.M. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Action of the Butte County Planning Commission, regarding the -Ruddy Creek Use Permit. It was the consensus of the Commission to bring this item back as a discussion item regarding how the Planning Commission'can make overriding findings as opined by the County Counsel. Joint meeting of the City of Chico Airport Commission and ALUC - August 31, 1999, at the Chico Municipal Airporf. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Papadakis, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the August 31, 1999 joint meeting. Appointments to ALUC Mr. Doody said they received two letters of interest.. A letter from C. W. Chase was forwarded to•the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Doody handed out a letter from Eric H. Swenson. ALUC Staff Time Accounting. G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. - ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of September 15, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ ■ Butte Airport"Land Use Commission Miriutes of September 15., 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ - : ? BUTTE COUP-rY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Y. ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 m, (530)538-76101 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: City of Oroville - City Council Chambers COMPLETE PACKET 1735 Montgomery Street BINDER Oroville, Ca. 95965„ Date/Time:' September 15,, 1999 - 9:00 a.m..' t AGENDA- -All All Items Are Open for Public Comment - A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Minutes'of August 18, 1999, will be available at the Octo6er`20 1999,. meeting. D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes, in the Agenda order.) rr # E. BUSINESS ITEMS: ; Public Hearings: None Items Without Public Hearings: 1. Continued Item from August 1-8, 1999: Proposed Amendment'to the Butte -County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24,Article 11 Airport Air Zoning. (Obstruction Ordinances - The Butte County Department of-' , • Development Services, Planning Division is requesting'the:Coinmission provide consistency findings for the proposed Obstruction Ordinance. (Recommendation: Review the proposed obstruction ordinance and adopt recommended consistency findings for forwarding to the Planning Commission.) ` 2. Discussion and Possible Amendment of ALUC'Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's): The Commission will consider changes to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission, Standard Operating Procedures Section 3.1 "SPECIFIC FINDINGS". ALUC may. require that' -Section 3.1 , include. additional_ supporting findings of fact for safety, noise, overflight and airspace protection, among other changes.', This item' was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission ■ Butte,County alirport Land Use Commission ■ provide staff with direction and comments. Direct staff to return with a final SOP for adoption at the next scheduled AL UC hearing.) 3. Discussion and Possible Amendment to the ALUC By -Laws: The Commission will consider changes to the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission By -Laws - Section 1.3.1 "MEMBERSFUP", Section 1.3.5 . "COMMISSIONER CONFLICT OF INTEREST" and 1.5.8 "RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS". ALUC is proposing amending their By -Laws to further define and clarify.what is a direct and perceived conflict of interest and to identify what type of records must be kept on permanent record. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission provide staff with direction and comments. Direct staff to return with a final By -Laws for adoption at the next scheduled AL UC hearing.) F. Monthly Status Report G. Committee Appointments H' Correspondence and Commission Announcements: I. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) J. Closed Session - None K. Adjournment. Any clisablecl person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *. lnv person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S.08 per page. R UL ES A PPL YING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public -wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act onany matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. ■ Butte County m4irport Land Use Commission ■ Butte County ■4irport Land Use Commission ■ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of August 18, 1999 A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson, Lambert, Rosene and Chair Hennigan Absent: Commissioners Causey and Hatley Others Present: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Laura Webster, PMC Dave Doody, Senior Planner Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant Alt. Commissioner Papadakis Alt. Commissioner Ward Alt. Commissioner Baldridge Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 21, 1999 The Commission made the following corrections to the minutes of July 21, 1999: The Roll Call shoulI reflect that Chair-Hennigan was absent on July 21, 1999. Page 4, line 16, should read "It was noted that the Use Permit would only go with the parcel with the existing day care center." Page 9, line 8, should read "There was agreement for staff to check the Planning Commission minutes tape as to what exactly was intended for the Planning Commission presentation about ALUC." It was moved by- Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of June 16, 1999 as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Grierson; seconded by. Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously carried to hear the Oroville items at the end of the August 18, 1999 Agenda. E. BUSINESS ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS The following iterr_s were taken out of order. E • 3. Proposed Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 24, Article 1) Airport Air Zoning (Obstruction Ordinance). Ms. Leasure said Draft Four, Exhibit 1, Proposed Text for Chapter 24, Article I, Airport Air Zoning has been prepared for the Commission to review and make consistency findings. The Commission could make amendments to the proposed ordinance and forward the document to the Planning Commission for review. If there are any substantial changes to the ordinance at the Planning Commission level, the ordinance will come back to ALUC for another consistency finding. Chair Hennigan presented his comments and prepared text to the Commission. He suggested deleting references to the ALUC, the CLUP, the process referring to non -conforming uses and variance procedures from the proposed amendment. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. There were no public comments. It was the consensus of the Commission to take more time to review staff s draft and Chair Hennigan's proposed text. The Commission directed staff to review the proposed text and comment further. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously to continue the hearing open to September 15, 1999 and to direct staff to bring back Draft Five. 1. ALUC File No. A 99-08 (Butte County Use Permit UP 99-21 = Mist United Pentecostal Church) on APN 031-253-046. - Ms. Webster explained this request is for consistency findings for a proposed 14,400 square foot church building, 900 square foot shop building and caretakers' residence on a 4.65 acre site located on the west side of 10`h Street in the Thermalito area. There was a brief discussion regarding the approach zones nearest to the project site. The site did not appear to be under the approach patterns or missed approach procedures for the Oroville Municipal Airport. E Commissioner Gerst said, over the years, airports have been continuously encroached upon and keeping the density down is important. To find the project compatible to accommodate 850 to 1,100 persons would be clustering and ALUC has no provisions for clustering. Ms. Webster said staff was recommending the maximum occupancy of the facility be limited to 700 persons. " Commissioner Gerst said that was still more than the 25 persons per acre recommended in Exhibit Two of the Land Use Guidelines for Safety Compatibility within the 1985 Oroville ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 2 ■ Airport CLUP. He said until they adopt the new CLUP, the Commission should base their decisions on the adopted document they have now. Ms. Webster said the Building Department and the Fire Department would establish and enforce the occupancy limits. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to .the public Kenneth Bledsoe, Pastor of .the First United Pentecostal Church, was present to answer questions. Chair Hennigan explained that ALUC wants to keep people safe because there are hazards near an airport. ALUC also wants to prevent people from being annoyed from the noise of nearby airports. He said the project site was outside the traffic pattern zone boundary, but inside the airport area of influence. He asked Mr. Brody of Shutt Moen Associates, how they calculate densities and what level of density will be recommended for the area. Mr. Brody said he did not know yet what level of density will be recommended for this specific location. He said there are many variables that determine how densities are calculated. Ms. Webster said staff had proposed that the project was consistent as submitted. The conditions have been recommended sb that future Commissions, such as the Planning Commission, could -elect to either implement or not implement the conditions, without having to make' an overriding finding. Mr. Brody said the Commission was required to determine what policies are in place now in order to make consistency findings. He said if there is no policy to base an inconsistency finding on, the Commission could iiot make that finding. The hearing was closed to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried to find the proposed Butte County Use Permit A99-08 (UP99-21, - First United Pentecostal Church) on APN 031-253-046 is consistent with the 1985 Oroville Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The addition of the recommended conditions are included to further improve the compatibility of the project with airport operations. The motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Grierson, Lambert,,Rosene and Chair Hennigan NOES: Commissioner Gerst ABSENT: Commissioners Causey and Hatley ABSTAINS: None RECESS. MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:50 A.M. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 3 ■ 2. Establishment of an ALUC Fee Schedule. Ms. Leasure summarized the staff report. She noted the letter presented today from Lisa Purvis Wilson, Planning Manager from the. City of Oroville, objecting to the fees. Chair Hennigan recommended trying the fees for project processing, as proposed by staff The Commission may modify them in the future if necessary. Chair Hennigan opened the hearing to the public. There were no public comments. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis expressed concern regarding 'an open-ended fee.. He suggested the Commission begin with a fixed fee. Ms. Leasure said public agencies would collect the. fees from the project applicants and submit the fees to ALUC. The hearing was closed to the public. Ms. Leasure said if a resolution is adopted approving the schedule of fees, the effective date would be 60 -days (October 17, 1999) from the date of adoption. It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving the establishment of an ALUC Fee Schedule as detailed in the staff report dated July 30, 1999. ITEMS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) Working Session - "Issues of County wide Significance." Ken Brody explained the purpose of the discussion paper regarding Issues of Countywide Significance is to address issues that are not airport specific, but will apply to general airport planning issues for all airports. He commented on. each item presented in the paper. Noise Compatibili , Concepts Commissioner Grierson said noise, by Federal Aviation Administration Standards, becomes a factor at the 65 CNEL line. In the rural communities, the discussion has been to reduce that to about 55 CNEL; which could impact the sphere of influence associated with land uses surrounding an airport. _ Mr. Brody said that although the baseline standard is 65 CNEL, the criteria may need to be adjusted to reflect certain conditions involving each airport and the community around it. He said Shutt Moen Associates would not be recommending 65 CNEL at any of the airports. ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 4 ■ Chair Hennigan said single -event noise was often more than the passage of a single aircraft. During a fire campaign, hundreds of aircraft may be involved over a period of days. Every year there are several days when there are 30 or more launches. It is a unique situation within Butte County that needs to be addressed in the CLUP. Alternate Commissioner Papadakis recommended using the most conservative noise level possible. Safety Compatibility Concepts Chair Hennigan said that addressing architectural standards allowed in areas close to airports would be appropriate. Commissioner Gerst recommended keeping the density down in those areas. Commissioner Rosene said if clustering is to be allowed, it should be as far away as possible. Barbara Hennigan asked who decides where the cluster is and can the shape, location, size and requirements for the open space determine where the cluster is? Mr. Brody said clustering should be as far away from the centerline of the runway as possible. He said that establishing policy that applies to all areas was hard. Often the decision must be made on a case by case basis. He said clustering was most effective if it is dealt with on a General Plan level. Airport Protection Concepts Commissioner Gerst said Caltrans had stated that reviewing projects that are outside an airport's sphere of influence are possible. He asked by what authority is ALUC allowed to do this? Mr. Brody answered that he does not know where it is explicitly stated that ALUC has the authority, but various other ALUC's have a policy where it is reasonable under certain circumstances. He said Caltrans's attorney had stated that if the law is not explicit about it, then the ALUC should do what they think is appropriate and let someone else argue the opposite point of view. Commissioner Gerst said he was concerned about crop dusters. Chair Hennigan agreed that the Commission was concerned about some things that are more than 25 feet above its surroundings. The Commission requires that those things be marked. Commissioner Grierson asked if the Commission would be reviewing the tower issue as a part of, or separately from, the results of the Aeronautical Study? ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 5 ■ • • Mr. Brody answered that having the study results when dealing with making recommendations on such things as towers would be useful for ALUC. He said it would be appropriate for ALUC to choose to' have the study results before the Commission reviews the tower issue. Commissioner Grierson said HIRT (High Intensity Radio Transmission) sites should be covered in the CLUP, also. Overflight Compatibility Concepts Commissioner Grierson said through buyer awareness measures, ALUC is trying to preempt an individual's right to sue about having airplanes fly over their house. Mr. Brody. said Shutt Moen Associates was trying to accomplish�the ground work for protection of the airports.if someone does decide to sue. Additional Countywide Compatibility PlanningIssues Commissioner Gerst said they should include the issue of conditional use permits in the items of land use actions worthy of ALUC review. Commissioner Lambert asked if there is ever a time when anybody other than the Board of Supervisors or the City Council would be the overriding agency? Mr. Brody said only the governing body can override an ALUC decision by a two-thirds vote, public hearing, and adoption of specific findings. Infill Development Commissioner Lambert said the Commission recently approved a day care facility on a 2 -acre parcel. The applicants then asked if they could split the parcel and keep the day care on one parcel and do something else on the newly created parcel. She said if they developed the new parcel at the density allowed under the General Plan and zoning, was that considered infill development? She asked Shutt Moen Associates to look into that. Chair Hennigan said non -conforming uses troubled him. He said there has been one city within the county that has allowed substantial development that did not conform to the General Plan or the CLUP. Now the city insists that anything within that area is just infill. He said the new CLUP should state that when they redevelop the area, it will be redeveloped with compatible uses. Mr. Brody said he was hoping to have some preliminary recommendations prepared by the November 17, 1999 meeting. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 6 ■ G. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS None. . H. CORRESPONDENCE" AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS .Ms. Leasure said"a letter was received from C. W. Chase indicating an interest in becoming an ALUC Commissioner. Commissioner Grierson asked the Alternate Commissioners to submit letters of interest along with resumes, in serving as regular Commissioners. Chair Hennigan noted that the Airport Area of Influence maps have been corrected. He said Neal McCabe; County Counsel, will be explaining to. the Planning Commission -the purpose of ALUC. Commissioner Lambert said the Ruddy Creek project was approved by the Planning Commission on a Motion of Intent to approve the project at a density of six dwellings per acre. The project will come back "to the Planning Commission on August 26, 1999. Ms. Leasure said that a Planning Division staff'member will be writing a staff report to the Planning Commission that will include overriding findings from 'the last ALUC hearing on the Ruddy Creek project. I. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA None. J. CLOSED SESSION None. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:18 p.m. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ROBERT HENN AN, Chair Minutes prepared by Barbra Duncan, Administrative rAssistant ■ Butte Airport Land Use Commission ■ Minutes of August 18, 1999 ■ Page 7'm . BUTTE COUNTY AO&ORT, LAND USE COMMISSION w:� in 7 County Centel Drive, Oroville CA`95965 ■ (530) 53877601 FAX (530) 538-778.5 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION t Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors'. Chambers 25 County Center, Drive, Oroville California . - & ., WNUTES • . ; � .. ..' . _• AGENDA Date/Time: August' 18, 1999 9:00 a'm'.F 't , - Y ALF11A FILE �. AGENDA All7tems Are Open for Public _Comment- A. - • y Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Approval. of the Minutes of July 21, 1999 - r • _ '' - D. ' Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or' staff may 'request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.) E. BUSINESS ITEMS: Public Hearings:' 1: ALUC File No A 99-08 (Butte County Use Permit UP 99-21- First United ,Pentecostal Church) on APN 031=253-046: A request for consistency findings for a proposed 14,400 square foot'churc_h, 900 square foot shop building and caretaker's residence. The 4.65- acre ' site is located on the west side of 10' Street between Grand and Thermalito, Avenues in the Thermalito area. (Recommendation: Staff, recommends the ;Commission find the project eonsistent.with the 1985,0roville Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan) 2. Establishment of an ALUC Fee Schedule: 'The Commission will review and.consider fee • • information prepared by staff and may adopt a fee.-- Aeronautics Law, Section 21671.5 (f) provides that the Commission may.eitablish a schedule of fees for reviewing and processing proposals: Those' fees shall be charged to the proponents of actions; regulations, or permits r and shall not exceed the" estimated reasonable cost 'of providing service. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission consider the fee as proposed by staff and adopt a ' resolution approving the fee schedule, as proposed by staff.) 3. Propoied Amendment to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance [Chapter 24 Article 1) Airport Air Zoning • (Obstruction Ordinance)' The Butte . County Department of ' '-Devdlopme'nt Services, Planning Division is requesting the Commission provide consistency ■ Butte County skirport Land Us'e Commission ■ findings for the proposed Obstruction Ordinance. (Recommendation: Review the proposed obstruction ordinance and adopt recommended consistency findings for forwarding to the Planning Commission.) Items Without Public Hearings: 4. Comprehensive Land Ilse PlanLIJPI Working Session - "Issues of Counbxide Significance": Representatives from the firm Shutt Moen Associates will solicit input from the Commission and members of the public regarding the first of two issue papers prepared as part of the Butte County Airport Land Use Plan Study. The emphasis of this paper is on land use compatibility concepts and issues having general countywide significance. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission accept Draft Issue Paper #1 for information and provide Mr. Brody with direction, comments, and concerns that may need further study.) G. Monthly Status Report H. Committee Appointments I. Correspondence and Commission' Announcements: J. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (Presentations will bet limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) K. Closed Session - None L. Adjournment - k ■ Butte County 04irport Land Use Commission ■ Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and- documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULESAPPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members ofthe public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction'ofButte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. ' 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. ' The Commission may not act on ariy matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the" matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on speck agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. » 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation; so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. - This Agenda was -mailed to those requesting notice and posted •7Z hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte CountyAdministration Building, front entrance and glass case. r t K.- ALUCWh ETINGSI8-18-99M1G8'-18AG a K IPI - W Butte County &Airpori Land Use Commission ■ r c _ • ^,f _ BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 1999 A. Pledge of allegiance" B. Roll Call PRESENT: Commissioners. Gerst, Grierson, Lambert, and Causey, Alternate Wallrich,and Vice Chairman Rosene ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley and Chairman Hennigan ALSO PRESENT: Brian Baldridge (Alternate) Laura Webster, ALUC Staff Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Dave Doody; Senior Planner Dan Breedon, Senior Planner , John Papadakis (Alternate) Chet Ward (Alternate) C. Approval of the Minutes of June 16, 1999 The Commissioners had the following comment: Regarding the discussion of Volunteer Staffing, Commissioner Papadakis had noted that Barbara Hennigan has been contributing here efforts ,to ALUC for several years, not just recently. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson; seconde&by Commissioner Causey, and carried for appro9val'of the minutes by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst, Grierson and Causey, and Alternate Wallrich and Vice Chairman'Rosene . NOES: 0 ; AB STAIN:- Commissioner. Lambert ` ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley and Chairman'Hennigan D. Acceptance of the' Agenda t It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and carried unanimously, for acceptance of,the agenda: E. Adoption of a Resolution of Appreciation fior Robert Kock for his years for Service to the Airport Land Use Commission Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 - Page 1 It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried unanimously to adopt a Resolution of Appreciation for Robert Koch for his service on the Airport Land Use Commission. F. BUSINESS ITEMS: Continued Public Hearing: 1. ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte - Cuseo/Bird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existingparcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre parcel and five 20 acre parcels. The, property is. zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. (Recommendation: Staff requests the Commission remove this project from the agenda and direct -staff to schedule the hearing after completed plans are received. ) Ms. Leasure asked that this item be removed from the agenda: Staff would reschedule the item when the application is complete. John Franklin was notified of the application. Mr. Doody said the. applicant- is still working on soil profiles to meet Environmental Health requirements. Mr. Franklin has asked for the usual avigation easement. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Grierson, and carried unanimously to remove this item from the agenda until such time as the application is complete. R 2. ALUC File No. A 99-10 Lisa Lucas Tentative Parcel Man TPM 99-16 on 007- 150-109: Tentative Parcel Map .to create two parcels of 0.86 and 1 acre. The property is currently developed with a 1500 sq. ft. child care center (doing business as Kinderville Preschool) approved by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1997 under Use Permit 97-08, and a single family dwelling. Use Permit 97-08 also received review by ALUC. The property is zoned ` R-3 (Multi -family Residential) and is designated by the General Planfor Medium Density Residential land use. The property is located at 2857 Burnap Avenue, Chico. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission find the project consistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan subject to findings listed in the Staff Report dated July 12, 1999.) t Ms. Webster summarized the staff report. There was,a question how the Use Permit which runs with the land would relate to the creation of two parcels. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes -,July 21, 1999 -'Page 2 Mr. Doody said that since another daycare center, cannot be located within 300 feet of an existing one, another daycare center would be precluded from the second parcel. Ms. Webster said the property is zoned for apartment type,uses, so the division of the land into two parcels would not change the potential for development at higher densities as long as the sewage disposal requirements are met. " Commissioner Gerst thought the -land division, decision should 'be postponed until after completion of the revised CLUP and the Master plan. Vice Chairman Rosene said the notification documents supplied by the preschool for the parents to sign refer to an "overflow flight zone" of the Chico Municipal Airport- which doesn't really exist and doesn't really describe the noise and hazards which exist. He was in favor of rewording the document to more adequately educate the parents of the preschoolers. Commissioner Grierson said that apparently land uses are being usedtoestablish densities around the airport rather than a figure of people per acre.. Although the'daycare center`should not be this near the airport, it does exist and the zoning requirements -have been met, so it would be difficult to say the use is inconsistent with the Environs Plan..- Ms. lan. Ms. Webster noted that the daycare center is not the focus of the application, but rather a tentative parcel split. There was a discussion of what the creation of two parcels could open up for future use of the land. `lt was noted that with sewage disposal available, the property could be developed at a higher density of development whether there is. one parcel -or two parcels, and that development would not be subject -to ALUC review. The daycare center could not be expanded without modification of their Use Permit and. there could not be another daycare center, on the other parcel. Ms. Webster noted the daycare center use was not -dependent upon the daycare provider residing in the existing residence. Alternate Ward noted' that the existing daycare center` and .residence could be removed and apartments could be built on the property: Commissioner Wallrich noted that the without a lot split, it.would be virtually impossible to finance the single family dwelling. Alternate Ward suggested that the lot split be conditional upon retaining one house on each parcel Ms. Webster said that could be recommended, but not required. Butte County. Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21,'1999 Page 3 Commissioner Rosene mentioned again the importance of notifying the parents of preschoolers that the school is located in an Overflight area and the current, notice should be much more strongly worded. It was noted that the airport signs for the North Chico Specific Plan would be far away — the nearest sign would be at Eaton Road at East Lassen. Commissioner Gerst was opposed to the parcel split and did not think it would be possible to build apartments on the property. He was in favor of continuing the hearing for several months until the CLUP is finished and the new Master Plan is completed. Ms. Leasure said due to the Permit Streamlining Act there are. only 60 days to make a decision on the project. She said the property is zoned for multi -family dwellings which could be constructed. on the existing parcel. It was noted that the Use Permit would go with the parcel with the existing daycare center. It was noted that R-3 zoning would apply whether there are one or two parcels and the potential density would not increase with two lots. Commissioner Lambert noted ALUC's duty is only to determine if the. lot split is consistent with the Airport Environs Plan, not to approve or deny the project. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson to find consistency with the Airport Environs Plan. Vice Chairman Rosene asked that the language of the notification document be strengthened since it was a requirement of the Use Permit. Ms. Webster suggested adopting Exhibit A with the findings as presented, and including a comment to be forwarded to the Development Review committee regarding. strengthening the wording of the disclosure document. The amendments to the motion were accepted by Commissioner Grierson, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Causey and carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Grierson, Lambert, and Causey, Alternate Wallrich and Vice Chairman Rosene NOES: Commissioner Gerst ' ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley and I Chairman Hennigan Vice Chairman Rosene noted that "infill" is an issue that should be addressed by the CLUP. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21. 1999 - Page 4 Items Without Public Hearings: 3. Discussion of Department of Development Services Goals for 1999/2000 and Proposed Airport Land Use Commission Budget Revisions. Staff will present the Department.of Development Services Goals for 1999/2000 and proposed revisions to the Airport Land Use Commission budget. Staff requests the Commission discuss the proposed revisions and provide support and/or comments to forward.to the Board of Supervisors.. Ms. Leasure distributed a memo from Tom Parilo and a Schedule 9. She said that Bob Hennigan and the Director of Development Services,. Tom Par ilo had met regarding reorganization of the department -- to have a "department within the department" that would include LAFCo and ALUC. The concept of anew budget unit for ALUC was rejected by Administration.' Schedule 9 describes the proposed budget which would be part of the Planning Division budget. Ms. Leasure said that in conversations between Bob Hennigan and LAFCo's Carl Leverenz, it was determined that the proposed staffing levels would not be sufficient and they requested an additional Associate Planner. Ms. Leasure elaborated on the memorandum and asked for suggestions from the Commission regarding funding or staffing. Vice Chairman Rosene said that he and Bob Hennigan are in favor of being in a group with LAFCo but felt the proposed staffing would not be adequate. Also they want staff to receive training and stay with ALUC once they have some experience and training. There is'also the need to track hours on specific projects as part of establishing a fee schedule. Ms. Leasure said last year's budget was $24,000 but she was not able to compare the breakdown of this year's budget with last year's budget. Commissioner Rosene was concerned that if LAFCo gets inundated with work, the staff would not be able to put in time for ALUC's work. -He wanted to make sure that ALUC would have the necessary staff time allotted to its work. Ms. Leasure suggested that someone from ALUC work with Carl Leverenz to work out staff time. She agreed another staff person would be helpful but not likely to be provided. She thinks the ALUC/LAFCo combination is good bui probably underfunded. Commissioner Lambert asked if the budget is only for mandated items or allows for other necessary items. x ` r Ms. Leasure said the numbers were based on last year's time accounting, although during that time period she was on disability and there was not staff available to work on many items ALUC wanted done. Also clerical staff was limited due to staff being out on disability. Ms. Leasure noted the $20,000 for professional services would remain in the budget for only another year. There would probably remain $5,000 for legal fees. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 - Page 5 There was discussions about how LAFCo's and ALUC's are funded and operated in general. There was a discussion of money for staff training, which would come under "Transportation and Travel," and which was $4,000 last year and has been reduced to $1,214. It was noted that ALUC had wanted staff to attend training sessions and that was never approved by the Director of Development Services. - Commissioner Waltrich noted that if two staff members were on disability for a good part of the year, and there was no attempt to normalize staff time, the proposed budget seems inadequate for staff time and doesn't take into account that things were not done that should have been done in the past year due to staff being out on disability. Ms. Leasure recommended that someone from ALUC work with Tom Parilo and Brian Larsen on the proposed budget before the August 12 meeting of the Board of Supervisors when the budget will be finalized. Commissioner Grierson recommended reinstating the $4,000 for "Transportation and Travel" and identify specific times and locations for training courses. He volunteered to provide a list of courses offered by the American Association of Airport Executives, which are much less expensive that the Cal Berkeley courses. Ms. Leasure noted the "Memberships" has a zero balance. Commissioner Gerst recommended getting the California Pilots Association newsletter. Commissioner Grierson recommended subscribing to: the American Association of Airport Executives and the Southwest Association`of Airport Executives in order to be on the mailing lists for courses -- for example upcoming courses in Reno.- The eno: The Commission asked for $500 to be put in "Memberships," for the above items. In sum, the modifications to the budget `are: increased staffing, realistic staffing -- taking into the account the short staff for the past year, $4,000 for ".Transportation and,TraveF' and $500 for "Memberships." It was agreed that; if possible, Bob Hennigan should be the one to work with Planning staff.and Carl Leverenz prior to the August 12 Board of Supervisors meeting. Commissioner Wallrich asked that staff provide to ALUC the supporting documentation for the proposed budget. There was discussion of how ALUC's: budget would be affected by any funds that come in if a fee schedule is established. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 - Page 6 I r 4. Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S): The Commission will discuss the Department of Development Services process for tracking projects submitted for staff and Commission review. (Item continued from ALUC meeting of June 16, 1999.) Mr. Doody said that staff had discussed ALUC'S project tracking request with Mr. Parilo. The packet includes a draft application form and a sample tracking form. Mr. Doody noted that. Ken Brody'of Shutt Moen Associates has made some recommendations for the application form. Ms. Webster recommended including on the application form: site elevation, height of structures, number of occupants. ' Commissioner Grierson suggested indicating the disposition of projects on the tracking sheet. There was more discussion of the'tracking process. Ms. Leasure asked the Commissioners to submit to ALUC staff any suggestions they might have on creating the application and tracking -forms. Commissioner Gerst said that Bob Hennigan suggested placing as a standard.item_ on the Agenda an item for appointment of committees. ; There was a consensus .to have a new item included on the Agenda for establishing committees. 5. Formation of a Sub -Committee to Review CLUP Amendments for 1999: The Commission will form a sub -committee pursuant to adopted By -Laws to explore possible CLUP amendments for 1999. (Placed on'the"Agenda by the Commission at the'meeting of June 16, 1999.) There was a discussion of establishing a committee to work on CLUP Amendments for 1999. There was a consensus that rather than forming a committee, the Commissioners and Alternates should each receive a copy of the CLUP and individually take notes to give to one individual to consolidate and present a report to the Commission. Commissioner Grierson volunteered to compile the notes from the Commissioners and give'a report. Commissioner Rosene asked staff io start a list of issues�that are not clearly,defined in,the CLUP, such as "infill," so they can be addressed in the CLUP update. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 - Page 7 I G. Monthly Status Report Mr. Doody reported on the workshop in Redding. He noted that a legal opinion from James A. Curtis was received that ALUC can establish their own -fees without Board of Supervisors involvement. The Board of Supervisors would only be involved in establishing a budget number in co-ordination with the Auditor. Ms. Leasure distributed maps showing, the Airport Areas of Influence which were adopted on May 21, 1997, for each of the four airports. She'pointed out that there is a Note indicating that the Safety . Zones are informational only and not adopted by ALUC. It was asked that a scale be included on the Airport Areas of Influence maps. Ms. Webster said she talked recently with Ken Brody about the CLUP updates. Mr. Brody expects to prepare a position paper in two parts. Part One would be ready in August for countywide issues such as "infill" and non= conforming uses and clustering. Part Two would be ready in September and would focus on preliminary policies for individual airports. An administrative draft of the CLUP should be ready in October. The draft CLUP should be ready in November. 4 Regarding the Chico Airport Master Plan, the draft should be ready by August. A date has not been set yet for the joint meeting, with ALUC. ALUC returned to further discussion about adopting a fee. Doody suggested that since ALUC could legally approve its own fee, why not adopt the fee of $1,100 that was presented last May. Doody recalled that even though this fee seemed high, the direction he received last May.was that ALUC found the $1,100 fee to be acceptable because this *was how much it really cost to process a project. He further suggested ALUC direct staff to abandon the multi -jurisdiction fee survey and move to adopted the $1,100 fee next month. ALUC questioned Leasure regarding the procedure LAFCo uses to collect a fee. Leasure explained how LAFCo collects fees. There was further discussion about proceeding with a deposit of $300 for a minor project and $600 for a major project and then charging for actual siaff time at the rate of $59/Hr. There was consensus to follow this concept similar to the LAFCo fee structure and abandon the idea of the $1100flat fee. Leasure said a 66016 study :was needed to justify the fee. There was agreement to put discussion of,this item on the August Agenda. Regarding the North Chico Specific Plan signs, Ms. Leasure said the information has been forwarded to the Board of Supervisors, who have not as yet responded. Ms. Leasure said she would contact Administration and Supervisor Dolan on the status of getting the signs installed. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 Page 8 4 Regarding the presentation to the Planning Commission of ALUC,'s role in the planning process, Ms. Leasure said that Neil McCabe was selected to make the presentation since he. is, legal counsel to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lambert said the intent was to have something like a workshop with several participants, including "someone from Caltrans such as Christa-Engles. There was agreement for staff to check the Planning Commission minutes as to what exactly was intended for the Planning Commission'presentation about ALK. Ms. Webster asked that any specific items the Commissioners would like to have addressed in the issue papers should be forwarded,to her through the Development Services. Department. H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: " None I. Public Comment on Items"Not Already on the Agenda None I Closed Session - None. K. 'Adjournment , Vice Chairman Norm-Rosene Minutes by Diana Shuey K:\DOCUMENTIPLANNING\ALUC\NIINUTES%AL.UC99UULY99.wPD Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - July 21, 1999 7 Page 9 ' BUTTE NT ,, C U COUNTY Y AIRPORT LAND USE OMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ Location REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: July 21, 1999 -- 9:00 a.m. AGENDA &MINUTES M ALPHA FILE AGENDA I A -All Items Are Open for• Public Comment - A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Approval of the Minutes of June. 16, 1999 D., Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the .Agenda order.) E. Adoption of a Resolution of Appreciation for Robert Koch for his years for Service to the Airport Land Use Commission. " F. BUSINESS ITEMS: Continued Public Hearing: f 1. ALUC File No. A99-06 (County of Butte - Cuseo/Bird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 3.6 acre parcel and five 20 acre parcels.' The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum).- The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper. Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise.. (Recommendation: Staff requests the Commission remove this project from the agenda and direct. staff to schedule the hearing after . completed plans are received.) 2. ALUC File No. A 99-10 Lisa Lucas Tenetative Parcel Map TPM 99-46 on 007-150-109: Tentative Parcel Map -to create two ,parcels of 0.86 and 1 acre. The property is currently developed with a 1500 sq. ft. child care center (doing business as Kinderville Preschool) approved by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1997 under -Use Permit 97-08, and a single family dwelling. Use Permit 97-08 also received review by ALUC. The property is zoned R-3 ,(Multi -family Residential) and tis designated by the General Plan for Medium Density ■ Butte County ■Airport Land Use Coninission 0 16 - Residential land use. The property is located at 2857 Burnap Avenue, Chico. (Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission find the project consistent with the 1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan subject to findings listed in the Staff Report dated July 1.2, 1999.) 1- Items Without Public Hearings: 3. Discussion of Department of Development Services Goals for 1999/2000 and Proposed Airport Land Use Commission .Budget Revisions. Staff will present the Department of Development Services�Goals for 1999/2000 and proposed revisions to the Airport Land Use Commission budget. Staff requests the Commission discuss the proposed revisions and provide support and/or comments to forward to the Board of Supervisors. (There are no written mater•ials.at this time.) y. . 4. Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's)� The Commission will discuss the Department of Development Services process for tracking projects submitted for staff and Commission review. (Item continued from ALUC meeting of June 16, 1999.) 5. Formation of a Sub -Committee to Review CLUP Amendments for 1999: The Commission will form a sub -committee pursuant to adopted By-Laws'to explore possible CLUP amendments for 1999: (Placed on the Agenda by the Commission at the meeting of Jame 16, 1999.) G. Monthly Statug Report H. Correspondence and Commission Announcements:~ t I. 'Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda - (presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda) J. Closed Session - None K. Adjournment' Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the. Contnu.ssion proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to thevneeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *.Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business Front the Floor" segment of the agenda. *Copies of the agenda and documents relative to an agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S. 08 pet -page. ■ Butte County ■Airport Land Use Commission ■ RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Allember:s of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matte?- so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put 'on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda item's may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation,_ so that the Clerk may take down this information. S. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection: ' This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building; f •ont entrance and glass case. k:I LUCNdEETlNGS17-21-99.A9TG17-21.RGE ■ Butte County ■xlh pori Land Use Commission 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND'USE COMMISSION Minutes of June 16, 1999 ` A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hatley, Rosene, Gerst, Alternates Papadakis, Grierson, and Chairman- Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Causey ' Y p Also Present' David Doody, Senior Planner Laura Webster, ALUC Staff Chet Ward (Alternate) Donald Wallrich (Alternate) . Nina Lambert (Commissioner) Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary C. Approval of the Minutes: April 21,1999,.and May 19,1999 April 21,1999 The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments. It was noted that since.Chairman Hennigan was absent from the meeting,'his alternate Commissioner Wallrich was present and Vice Chairman Lambert conducted the meeting. John Papadakis, Alternate, was not present at the meeting of April 21, 1999. There was a request for the overheads used by Mr. Brody for his presentation of April 21 to be made available to the Commissioners. There was a request to have all staff reports included in the packets in order for the Commissioners to properly review the material and the projects. On Page 5, line 32, Commissioner Gerst did. not vote on the motion. It was noted that good maps are very helpful. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by, Commissioner Rosene; and carried unanimously for approval. of the'minutes as corrected. May 19,1999 The Commissioners had the following corrections and comments: On Page 3, Line 6, the property bought in 1963, wasn't zoned for development until 1978, 15 years after the owners purchased the property. It is not reasonable to maintain that the property was bought in expectation of being able to develop it., Butte County Airpoft Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 -Page 1 ,G On Page 3, Line 43, it should be made clear that there has always been a total of eight signs. There were not two extra signs, but rather two signs that were moved because they had been located too far from the airport. Those two signs were not extra signs, since the total required number of signs has always been eight. k On Page 5, Line 21, it should be clarified that there are two regulations regarding airspace — a general regulation for obstructions more than 200 ft. high that covers all airspace ;and a specific regulation called Part 77 that covers horizontal surfaces of airports. it was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Alternate Papadakis and carried unanimously for approval of the minutes as corrected. D. Acceptance of the Agenda ` The agenda was accepted by consensus, noting that comments on the Chico Master Plan could be discussed along with the Monthly Status Report. E. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. 99-15) on APN 055-250-033.035.037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre parcel and five 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill. Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34, T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. Laura Webster summarized the staff report. Mr. Doody said the project has been determined to be incomplete since more soil tests are needed. The Town of Paradise has no concerns as long as the parcels are at least', 20 acres in size. The lot configuration may change depending on the results of the perc tests or in response to the conditions. If there is a significant change in the map, the project will be brought back before ALUC. There was discussion and agreement that the airport operator should be notified of projects adjacent to the airport. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ; t No one was present to speak. F HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC 1 Butte, County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 2, I� :i It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Hatley and carried unanimously . to continue this item- to July .21, 1999, to allow for soil testing and possible feedback from the operator of the Paradise Airport.` Chairman Hennigan noted that the staff report is -exemplary -and that perhaps it should be provided to potential purchasers with other information as part.of the'disclosure'process. c It was noted that the"' the Paradise Airport should be provided with a copy of the staff • report prior -to the next meeting. Items Without Public Hearings: ` •12.r Consideration'of I:egal Opinion: Discussion item. The Commission will discuss a written legal opinion from James A Curtis, Attorney at Law, relative to the recently amended CLUP for the City of Chico Municipal Airport. This item -was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. • Mr. Doody presented the legal opinion from James A Curtis. j Commissioner Gerst recommended that the 1ega1 opinion be sent to Jay White of the California Pilots Association. The Commission directed staff to'provide Jay White with a copy of the legal opinion. s `1 3. Discussion of Airport'Overtlight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: ' Discussion item". The Commission wi1review and'discuss•the modified sign. as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) Commissioner Rosene suggested that the proposed sign adopted by ALUC, be sent to the Board of Supervisors with,a recommendation to proceed. `Mr. Doody recommended that ALUC agree that the sign meets the provisions of the North Chico .Specific Plan and have the Chairman write a letter .of no[ification to the Board of Supervisors. Staff can put ani item on the Board agenda to, authorize funding of new signs or the repainting ,of the existing signs. Ruben Martinez from the City of Chico sign shop, provided an estimate of $360 to $400 per sign for" new signs_" ? x, Butte County :Airport Land Use Commission minutes 'June 16, 1999 - Page 3 _ Commissioner Rosene asked to participate on a committee on behalf of ALUC to examine the signs ••�. . as they are completed, for final approval ' It was moved by Commissioner Rosene that ALUC write a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to find funding to have the signs placed as required by the 1994 North Chico Specific Plan and to proceed with great haste and also to have a committee from ALUC hake a final look at the final ' version of the signs. Commissioner Gerst noted there have been changes made in the proposed'•locations of some of the signs from what was specified by the North Chico Specific Plan.. He •suggested the subcommittee • also be involved in locating the signs to avoid more problems. Commissioner Rosene said the signs that were to be located at the end of Keefer Road should be 5 moved in closer to the actual North Chico Specific Plan area.. He agreed to an amendment to his motion, that the recommended locations from the committee for the signs be included in the letter and - that the committee be able to work with Public Works in the actual siting of the signs. - Commissioner Rosene said the City.of Chico also plans to place some signs and the committee should • - work with the City also in siting the signs. Mr.' Doody noted the cost estimate of $360 to $400 was for a 2'x 4' sign, but the NCSP requires a 2.5'x 5' sign. Commissioner Rosene thought 2' would:be too narrow and it would be worth.an increased cost to get the signs right. r . Mr. Doody said staff would contact.the City of Chico regarding the larger size. Commissioner Rosene noted that traffic on county roads would be travelingfaster and need the larger signs. a M The motionwas seconded by Chairman Hennigan and carried,unanimously. ' 4. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule: Discuss}op item. The Commission will review and consider,rfee information prepared + - by staff."#LUC may set a hearing to formally recommend the new fee schedule to the - ,Board of: Supervisors.,(Item,continued from March 17, 1999),, f Mr. Doody explained that county staff work -on ALUC projects isnot tracked so there is no data q available for evaluating project planning costs. The work done by Pacific',Municipal Consultants is • tracked ori a project leveL The Dept. of Development Services Principal Analyst recommended that a fee survey be conducted by staff. It should take about two months to prepare.. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 -Page 4 ` I+ 1 j Chairman Hennigan did not think.$1,100 is alsignificant fee for large project. Mr. Doody said ALUC could consider establishing a fee of $1,100 for a major project, which is usually a legislative act such as amending the General Plamor.a Specific Plan. Staff could further analyze developing a specific fee for non -legislative acts. Mr. Doody said the cost for a Use Permit is $1,064, with Planning's portion of the -fee being~. a $7.00' deposit. Since ALUC projects are not individually tracked there is no basis upon which to* develop a fee other than the work done by Pacific ' Municipal Consultants. Commissioner Grierson "asked the reason for the fee - are costs not being covered by the budget or to preclude frivolous filings?- 5r Chairman Hennigan said ALUC is told repeatedly that the County cannot afford to fund ALUC. 4 x'74✓ � Y'I ^.. v .. , . • , Mr. Doody said a fee would help defray the cost of ALUC's operation. ALUC, budget comes from ' the General Fund and ' is' allocated as part of a lump sum, not as a line item, to the Dept. of. Development Services to spend as the Director. finds appropriate to ALUC staffing and project processing: ALUC does;have the authority to establish -fees under the State Aeronautics Law. Chairman Hennigan asked-why.lestablishing fees has to be submitted as a request to the Board of Supervisors if-ALUC has the authority to adopt fees. Mr. Doody said he could research that issue. Commissioner Grierson said that if ALUC could be self sufficient, the County may only need to provide a place, to meet. • Commissioner Gerst was in favor of fees, and wanted to know if ALUC has the. authority to charge fees without going to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Doody suggested that staff get an opinion from County Counsel regarding Section 21671.5(f). Commissioner Grierson suggested surveying other ALUC's regarding their.fee schedule and where they derive the authority to levy the. fee. It was moved by Commissioner Grierson, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and carried unanimously for staff. to bring back in July comment on aeronautic law regarding authority of ALUC to establish fees and to also have the item on the August agenda for a specific recommendation on fees. 5.` Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SDP's): Butte County Airport Land UserCommission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 5 Discussion item. Commission and staff will discuss the proposed SOP's. The purpose of this discussion is to give staff direction on how to prepare "recommended" findings and "required" findings. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. Mr. Doody said the Director of Development Services was not sure what is expected for the items listed on Page 4 on: form of submission, address for submission and acknowledgment of receipt. The Director felt the routing slip and record of time spent on projects is an internal management issue. Chairman Hennigan said staff can establish a process for how to submit a project. There is already an official address. Staff can also figure out a procedure on how to acknowledge receipt of a project. The form of submission needs to include the necessary information in order to make an ALUC determination. Staff can also disseminate the information on submissions. As for the routing slip and ALUC record, it was just said in the discussion of establishing of fees, that there is no project tracking for ALUC projects, so that needs to be done. ALUC wants to know what becomes of projects after submittal so they don't get lost in the process. ALUC also wants to know how many hours are spent on a project. There was a discussion of terminating the MOU or writing a letter to the Director of Development Services and the Board of Supervisors regarding time keeping records and tracking of projects. Commissioner Grierson asked if the SOP's would supercede the MOU upon adoption. Mr. Doody said that it would not. Commissioner Rosene said ALUC's intent is to tell Mr. Parilo what is needed, which is tracking of the projects, however he wishes to get that accomplished. It is important that projects or correspondence do not get lost if ALUC is to do its job and protect the functionality of the airports. He asked that staff ask the Director of Development Services to do the tracking in any manner that will be effective. Commissioner Gerst noted the Monthly Status Report is helpful, but there are things ALUC has tried to get done for years that have never been accomplished. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what the job of ALUC is instead of having disagreements about it all the time. Mr. Doody noted that the job of ALUC can be addressed by the Grand Jury in its next session. Chairman Hennigan noted it is necessary to track time spent on projects in order to justify fees. It is up to Tom Parilo to come up with a way to keep track of projects and hold people accountable in the process and to report to ALUC how it will be done. Mr. Doody said he would take the concerns back to Mr. Parilo for discussion. He noted that the Department of Development Services is working on pamphlets on how to make project submissions. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 6 This -could also be done for ALUC projects and could be discussed with Mr. Parilo as well as the tracking and routing issues; and he could:provida a status report in July on progress on those issues. Ms. Webster said the CLUP, being prepared by Shutt Moen Associations will, address procedures on submission; which should be coordinated with any pamphlets' which are•developed. ,. There was consensus that staff should discuss the items on Page 4 of the SOP's with Tom Parilo and come back in July with a plan of action. There was a discussion of Airport Plans from Page 4 and that -the Master Plan and the CLUP would be developed simultaneously and should be compatible. Ci 6. Workshop with the ty of -Chico Airport Commission: Discussion item The Chairman ,has requested an agenda item to discuss ALUC holding a joint ALUC/ City of Chico Airport Commission meeting. There was a discussion of holding a joint workshop with the City of Chico Airport Commission to ', d'tthe lane in rocess `It was suggested to�hold the meeting at the Chico Municipal Airport. scuss p p There was a discussion of the logistics of arranging such a workshop. Staff was to prepare a letterrto the Chico Airport Commission. requesting 4, workshop be held and to ' Work out the time, date and location and report back to ALUC in August- on the status.of the workshop. 7.Volunteer Staffing and Conflict of Interest: Discussion item. Commission and staff will discuss the use of volunteer staff in light 'of recent correspondence from the Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Doody noted that copies of letters written by Chairman Hennigan and Norm Rosene in response to Supervisor Jane Dolan's- letter ,regaiding 'volunteer staffing had been distributed w the Commissioners. Commissioner Rosene noted that volunteerism. is part of the'Soundation of America, and the Commissioners are volunteering their own time to participate in ALUC and accept volunteer work such as the typing of letters and'the graphic work -on the airport signs. Receiving public input is a large part of what ALUC"does. Why should county staff .be'used unnecessarily especially after being specifically instructed not to do so?. The issue has been blown out of proportion. „ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16,:1999 - Page 7 Mr. Doody said the concern of Supervisor Dolan is that of volunteers acting in official capacity. An example is the information on airports fees which was provided by Barbara Hennigan. The concern is that if that the Commission were to act on information provided by a volunteer, the action might not be legal because of the MOU requiring the Dept. of Development Services to provide ALUC direct information. Use of volunteer staff might be inappropriate on such items as the amending the CLUP or working on a fee schedule where the public might be affected, because of the legal ramifications. Commissioner Rosene said that problem could be solved by making clear the source of the information provided. It, is counterproductive to criticize the use of volunteers, since it can save costly staff time on such things as the survey of project fees. Official maps, for example, have always been clearly provided by ALUC staff. Volunteers can help get useful work done as long as they don't impede regular staff. Mr. Doody said work done by volunteers needs to be put through Dept. of Development Services staff which has the training, education and the experience necessary to make recommendations to ALUC. If a volunteer is to make a survey, that information should be submitted to staff prior to consideration by ALUC. Alternate Ward said that in that -case, any communication between a constituent and a Supervisor should go through County Administrator, John Blacklock. Commissioner Rosene said volunteers can serve effectively, such as the typing done by his wife, or the research done by Barbara Hennigan. As for knowledge, the airport,knowledge of ALUC is frequently disregarded by the Board of Supervisors. He noted that ALUC serves as a training ground for Planning staff who usually serves on ALUC without prior airport experience. If the County provided trained staff, less volunteer work would be necessary. Volunteer work is being provided at a very basic level and is good. It's what makes America work and should save the county money. Commissioner Gerst said he frequently looks at projects and discusses them with several different people and reports back to ALUC what he has learned from his discussions. How is that different from information provided by a volunteer who brings the information directly to ALUC? Mr. Doody said the difference is as indicated in Supervisor Dolan's letter, ALUC is referring to one particular individual. Commissioners should be able talk over projects with various individuals for information. However, there are legal ramifications by using information submitted by Barbara Hennigan, if ALUC were to act on said information in an official capacity:;' Commissioner Rosene asked if any information submitted has been false or misleading or presented in a false way. He always carefully considers information submitted and its source, just as in listening to anyone who comes before ALUC to speak. Why is there a problem? Mr. Doody gave a specific example. He said the fee survey information presented by Barbara Hennigan two months ago referred to Calaveras County, where Mr. Doody used to work. Mrs. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 8 Hennigan said the Calaveras ALUC did not establish a fee since their CLUP was already done, everything was tight, and there was no consideration. for amending a project there. However the Calaveras airport is very remote and surrounded by agricultural lands and in an economically depressed area. The reason they didn't establish a fee is because there is no interest whatsoever in development and very little activity at the airport. That is one example based upon his personal knowledge of the airport. Chairman Hennigan asked if -Mrs. Hennigan did not report accurately what she was told by Calaveras County. Mr. Doody said, "yes." Commissioner Rosene said he figured Calaveras County probably does not have a busy airport and he was interested simply in the fact they don't have a fee. The subject was, "are there any fees and if so what are the fees?" The Commission can use the data regardless of the philosophy of the provider of that data. Mr. Doody clarified and said he not mean to imply that Mrs. Hennigan was supplying the Commission with false information. She may have editorialized on her conversation with Planning staff from that county. Trained staff could have analyzed the information. Chairman Hennigan noted that ALUC staff has been denied the opportunity for training at Caltrans workshops. He noted that as soon as staff begins to become effective in their knowledge of airports, they are transferred away from ALUC duties. He noted that staff did nothing to update the Chico Airport CLUP in twenty years. ALUC will not impinge on the right of any citizen to participate in the democratic process and introduce information into the public record. Commissioner Gerst suggested having a subcommittee to provide information. Alternate Papadakis said he appreciates the information provided by Mrs. Hennigan and said if there is a personality clash it should be overlooked. The focus should be the benefit provided by the research. Commissioner Hatley said anyone has the right to speak before ALUC regardless of who they are and should be applauded for providing information, for evaluation by the Commissioners. The letter by the Supervisor seems vindictive. Many citizens bring information to the City of Oroville Council which saves much staff time and effort and is very helpful. Numbers can be verified by a phone call. He applauds citizen sharing of information, regardless of their last name, and requests that the effort be continued. Commissioner Grierson said the MOU addresses professional staff, but staff and personal information of the Commissioners needs to be augmented. There are volunteers in -the county library, museums, and all levels of government, in public and private sectors. For ALUC to be told by a county supervisor it cannot have volunteers is wrong. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 9 There was no further discussion and the Chair initiated a discussion of Item' F. F. Monthly Status Report 3. Airport Area of Influence Maps: Alternate Papadakis was opposed to including the Tra fic Pattern Zones since they.may be revised and the revisions may not be distributed. Ms. Webster noted that the Traffic Patten Zones are idealized. Commissioner Grierson asked for a graphic overlay showing how the Traffic Pattern Zones correlate to the 1993 Caltrans standards. Chairman Hennigan said that if the Traffic Pattern Zones are adopted as an amendment to the CLUP, the one annual update of the CLUP would be used up. Ms. Webster said with an Issues Paper to be done in July or August, the finalized CLUP will probably not be ready for review until early 2000. She suggested having a notation on the Area of Influence Maps that the Traffic Patterns Zones are "for informational purposes only." Paula Leasure recommended against using up an amendment to the CLUP for the Area of Influence Maps. She recommended putting an adoption date on the map for the Areas of Influence and leaving the other information on the map without an adoption date. Either that, or leave the Traffic Patterns Zones off completely. Commissioner Gerst said there some items in the CLUP that are not minor which need to be addressed. Chairman Hennigan asked if there is interest in forming a committee to look at some items in the CLUP that need to be addressed and updated. There was a discussion of forming a committee of Commissioner Gerst and Alternate Ward. There was consensus to disseminate the Area of Influence Maps (with the adoption date) including as well as the Caltrans safety zones. There was consensus to put on the next agenda the subject of updates to the CLUP. Obstruction Ordinances Chairman Hennigan asked for a status report on the current revision of the Obstruction Ordinance. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999, - Page 10 Chico Airport Master Plan Commissioner Grierson summarized the recent TAC meeting on the Chico Airport Master Plan. Chairman Hennigan noted, that the initial recommendation of extending the runway 1800' was not practical due to the existence of Mud Creek. Chairman Hennigan referred to maps on the wall of noise contours drawn by Brown and Buntin Associates one which shows the average noise levels and one which shows the average noise levels only during the days of a campaign fire. He indicated that noise levels of 55 and 65 CNEL extend into residential neighborhoods which explains why people are becoming more sensitized to airplane noise. Alternate Papadakis suggested putting on a future agenda a discussion -of the Master Plan regarding surface transportation around the airport. He noted the hazardous left turn into the airport from Cohasset Road and increased traffic on Cohasset Road. The subject of surface transportation might also be put on the agenda for the meeting with the Chico Airport Commission. Chairman Henniganagreed that surface transportation would be a good issue to discuss with the Chico Airport Commission. Ruddy Creek Subdivision Mr. Doody said that this kem was to come back to ALUC if the project was redesigned, however the applicant intends to go forward with the original 156 unit project for hearing by the Development Review Committee on -July 22, 1999. The applicant intends to hold a neighborhood meeting to address the benefits of his project. Since the project has not been redesigned, it will not come back to ALUC. Commissioner Gerst said there are four different maps of the Oroville Airport runways. Depending on which map is accurate, the project may or may not have a problem. One shows a runway way to the west of the project. One shows the runway barely to the west. On another map the centerline of the runway runs through the property. There was a discussion of the Oroville airport runways. Staff was directed to figure out which of the four maps is accurate. Commissioner Gerst said he would .search for his box with the maps. G. Correspondence and Commission Announcements H. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda I. Closed Session - None Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 11 J. Adjournment Chairman Bob HennigaA Minutes by Diana Shue K:\DOCUMENIVLANNINGWLUC\NHNUTES\ALUC99UUN16_99.WPD Butte County Airport Land Use Commission minutes - June 16, 1999 - Page 12 rBUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USKOMMISSION - ■ 7 County Center Drive,' Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: June 16, 1999 - 9:00 a -m. AGENDA -All Items Are Open for Public Comment - A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Approval of the Minutes: n April 21, 1999, and May 19, 1999 D. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.) E. BUSINESS ITEMS:, 1. ALUC File No A99-06 (_Counby of Butte - CuseoBird Tentative Parcel Map TPM 99-15) on APN 055-250-033, 035, 037 &120: Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line. Adjustment involving 4 existing parcels,of 20, 37, 40 and 40 acres in size resulting in the creation of two additional parcels in a configuration of one 36 acre parcel and five" 20 acre parcels. The property is zoned FR -20 (Foothill Recreational, 20 acre minimum). The project site is located in the SE 1/4 of Section 34,' T22N, R3E off both Sandpiper Lane and Round Valley Road; approximately 1. 5. miles southwest of Clark Road, south of Paradise. Items Without Public Hearings: 2. Consideration of Legal Opinion: Discussion item. The Commission will discuss a written legal opinion from Jim Curtis, Attorney at Law, relative to the recently. amended CLUP for the City of Chico Municipal Airport. This item was put on the agenda at the request of'Chairman Hennigan. 3. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: Discussion item. The Commission will review and discuss the modified. sign as prepared by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from May 19, 1999) ■ Butte County ■Airport Land Use Commission ■ El w • r 4. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule: Discussion item. The Commission will review and consider fee information prepared by staff. ALUC. may set a hearing. to formally recommend the new fee schedule to the Board of Supervisors. (7tem'continued from March 17, 1999) 5.' Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) Discussion item. Commission and staff will discuss the proposed SOP's. The purpose of this discussion is to give staff direction on ,how to prepare "recommended" findings and "required" findings. -This item was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. 6. Workshop with the City of Chico Airport Commission: Discussion item. The Chairman has requested an agenda item to discuss ALUC holding a joint ALUC/ City of Chico Airport Commission meeting. 7.. Volunteer Staffing and Conflict of Interest: Discussion item. Commission and staff will discuss the use of volunteer staff in light of recent correspondence from the Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors. F. Monthly Status Report G. Correspondence and Commission, Announcements, U.S. Department of Transportation - FAA has submitted a letter advising ALUC of a package of land -use planning initiatives to reduce the problem of aviation noise around airports. This letter in enclosed in your,packet and appears to be for. informational purposes only. A copy has been forwarded to Ken Brody of Shutt Moen for review and comment. H. Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda (Presentations 6Vill Be Limited to Five Alfinrttes. The Airport Land Use Commission Is Prohibited by•State Law fr•onr Taking .Action on Any Item Presented If it Is Not Listed on the Agenda.) I. Closed Session - None J. Adjournment Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the.nreeiing and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "'Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. *Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of x. 08 per Page _RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. 11enrbers of the public wishing to address the Commission upon anv subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC rnov do so upon receiving recognition•fr•orn the Choirriran at the appropriate tinge. ■ Butte County ■Airport Land Use Commission ■ , 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicatedfor 'Public Comment" "on the agenda. The Commission may-not,act on any inatter so raised and will have.to put off action ztntil a meeting at which the' matter can be pztt on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items rnzay be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Choir.., 4. After receiving recognition; please approach the podiztinn and state yortr name and address at, the microphone before making yoarr,pr•esentation,'so that the Clerk moy take down this information. , S. All doczunents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the. Coin inission (original and seven copies)prior• to Call of Order of rneeting..Such documents,shall be distributed to the -Commission and made available for- public inspection. This Agenda ,was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte CoitntyAdnninistration Building, front entrancei and glass case. K:I4LUCNIEETINGSI6-16-99,AfTG16-16.AGN ■ Butte Cortnty. ■Airport Land Use Comnnssion 0 ' COUNTY OF BUTTE -AIRPORT LAND USE "COMMISSION Min* utes of May 19,,1999. Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to, order .at 9:00 ,a.m., in the Butte County Board of 4 y Supervisors'' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A., PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL` CALL: Y Present: Commissioners Rosene, Lando, Gerst;, Lambert'' Hatley, and Chairman Hennigan . r Absent: Commissioner Causey , Also Present: Brian Baldridge (Alternate) ' Chen Ward (Alternate) • . Bob Koch (Alternate) , Donald Wallrich (Alternate)' Barbara Hennigan r. Dave Doody, Senior. Planner,- ti Lynn Richardson, Secretary C. NOMINATION "AND ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ` Chairman Hennigan thanked Don Waldr'ige, his alternate, for all his work in Chairman Hennigan's absence. It was moved •by Commissioner Lambert and seconded by Commissioner Lando to re-elect Bob Hennigan as Chairman.. It was. moved :by Commissioner Lando and seconded by Commissioner P Hatley to close the nominations. Both motions were'passed unanimously. ` It was moved by Commissioner Gerst and seconded by Commissioner Lambert to'elect Norm Roserie as Vice Chair. It was moved, by Commissioner Lando and seconded by Commissioner Hatley to close the nomination. Both motions were passed unanimously. D. Welcoming Introduction of New Members or Reinsfalled' Members. Chairman Hennigan said that Commissioner Hatley was re-appointed to the. Commission. Mr. Doody said the Board.has not acted on Commissioner Gerst's re-appointment at this time. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 1 E. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The April 21, 1999, minutes were not available and were continued to June 16, 1999 F. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA , Chairman Hennigan said Mr. Lando would like to report on a couple of items at this time. Commissioner Lando said that as a City, they are trying to make sure that they correct any past issues or errors. He said the City:Council considered the four parcels that were found to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land'Use Plan and Environs Plan. He said the article in the News and Review was in error and -does not represent what the.Council was doing. He said there were two large parcels, which the recommendation was, to change to multiple family. He said the City Council had concerns, but agreed to the change. He said the sites the Council did not agree to were C and D of approximately 2 - 21/z acres each. The parcels are completely surrounded by existing developed single-family property. He said the Council discussed the matter, and heard from the property owners, who thought holding them to one dwelling was unfair, and the Council agreed. He said the Council directed City staff to come back with override findings. He said the second action he wanted , .to report was a discussion last night and that there was a recommendation from him to the City Council to acquire the overflight rights at Bidwell Ranch and to not allow residential structures on the Bidwell Ranch property. He said the Council will hear the matter again within a 90 day period. He noted that there is a new Chico Airport Manager; Bob Gearson. He said his starting date is June 1st. Commissioner Rosene•said that the air space is governed by the FAA and asked how the City can own the overflight area. Commissioner Lando said there is a right and privilege in regards to overflight areas and this is one of the issues the City is. talking to appraisers about. He said there is a 'value to this property as residential property. He said the action would be to eliminate residential development rights. Commissioner Rosene discussed transfer of the development rights. Commissioner Lando said the emphasis is to remove the residential designation from the property. He said from a ground perspective, it is to not allow'any residential development. Chairman Hennigan said that developers do not understand the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). He said they need appropriate development in the vicinity of the airports. He said they should not allow bedrooms or, the assembly of large numbers of people, i.e., schools or churches. Chairman Hennigan submitted a draft of what is needed to make overriding findings. Commissioner Lando said the City Council understands the findings that are necessary. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 2 r Chairman Hennigandiscussed amending the Chico Land Use Plan (CLUP) only once a year. He asked staff when they anticipate having the revised CLUP ready to submit. Commissioner Lando said that anything they coulddo to "not_ have an override, would be his preference. He discussedhaving the CLUP revised after the Chico Master Plan was adopted. . Chairman Hennigan said there is one land owner who bought property ^in 1963 and has indicated that they are waiting to develop their property. Chairman Hennigan said the property wasn't zoned for development until 1978 -15 after -the owners purchased the property, and it is not reasonable to maintain that the property was bought in expectation of being able to,develop it.. Commissioner Baldridge said they should amend the CLUP to get the two previously discussed sites through without overrides. There was a brief discussion on the 180 day time frame. , G. BUSINESS ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings x None Items without Public Hearings + 1. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: The Commission will discuss the location and design of analternative aircraft overflight sign as proposed by commissioner Rosene. (Item continued from April 21; .1999) Commissioner Rosene explained the process of creating an acceptable sign for the North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area. He said the sign suggested by County Counsel was not informative enough. - He said he went to a graphics designer and they added some text to the sign. He asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Lando said it was a good idea to put these up in the City areas as well. He said it will be hard to get them put up with the words safety hazard on them. ; Chairman Hennigan explained how ,the signs went up and were then taken down. He said the Commission was told the signs were vandalized. He said this is an absurd situation. Commissioner Lando said the signs are a condition of approval of the NCSP. Chairman Hennigan said the NCSP does not have the funding to implement the signs and comply with the mitigation measure. He said with, no funding to do the mitigation measures, there are no mitigaiton measures. ' Commissioner Rosene said that County Counsel has not seen this latest revision for the sign. He said he is asking the Commission to agree on the design so he can take it back to County. Counsel. He ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 3 AV said they need, to accept this sign or, put up "the original signs. He noted that the two extra signs listed in the staff report on Keefer Road are not extras— there has always been a total.of eight signs. There were not two extra signs, but rather two signs that were moved because they had been located too far from the airport. Those two signs were. not extra signs, since the total required number. of signs has always.been eight. He said the stipulated'areas from the NCSP for signs are acceptable. Commissioner Lando agreed with the final draft of the 'sign. Commissioner Ward said he did not see any problem with deleting the word "safety" and leaving the word "hazard" on the sign. He asked that the sign be oriented to show north,. south, east, and west. Commissioner Lando said they should draft a letter to County Counsel and direct staff to make the signs and install them. i Commissioner Gerst said he would like to see less wording. Commissioner Rosene explained the process that they went through to arrive at this final draft. He said he would like to see a proof before the final sign is made. It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously carried for the City and County to approve this sign with the word "safety" deleted. Mr. Doody said staff needs a finalized copy of the sign from Commissioner Rosene to take back to .4 County Counsel. He said they need to get the Board of Supervisors to amend the sign and set aside funds to make a new set of signs. Chairman Hennigan. asked if it would be possible to, purchase signs from the City of Chico_ and display them on private property. Commissioner Lando said'he would need to find out the limitations, as this is a City sign'shop. j 2. Discussion of Cellular Towers: The Commission will discuss ALUC's authority to regulate cell towers within an airport's area of influence. This item was put on the agenda at., the request of Chairman Herinigan. ' Commissioner Lando said the City Council has been asked to discuss. the Pac Bell tower on June 15th. ' Chairman Hennigan noted that this Commission asked that the -light be shielded. Commissioner Lambert explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Pac Bell representative agreed tolshield4he light. . ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19;1999 0 Page 4 m. Commissioner Lando said the City is looking at the process for the Pac Bell Tower. He said there are alternate sites and alternative ways ,to do this. He did not think Pac Bell was out to hurt the neighbors. Chairman Hennigan said'ALUC went through with an ordinance in respect.to obstructions to the, Chico Airport. He said.the Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance twice, to prevent'any' obstructions to.the runways. He said ALUC was told by County Council that the Board would draft. a new ordinance. He said he would like to 'review that effort. He said it is important that { •obstructions'do not penetrate the Part 77 surfaces. He said they need a strong•ordinance. Commissioner Lando asked if this ordinance could be included in the CLUP. Chairman Hennigan said the Board needs to'adopt an ordinance. He said they should ask the y • consultant whether or not the. -ordinance can be incorporated into the CLUP. He said that County Counsel should finish the job they. started. Commissioner Lambert said she agreed with Chairman Hennigan that the ordinance standards need to be in the CLUP. Commissioner Lando said he does not want towers in the. vicinity of the airport. Chairman Hennigan said that the Commission's jurisdiction is the Airport's area of influence. Commissioner Gerst discussed, towers under 200 feet. He said the Part 77 .FAA rules relate to anything over 200 feet. He said he'did not believe towers should be,allowed in the inner -turning radius. Chairman Hennigan said ' there are. two regulations regarding airspace obstructions — a general regulation for obstructions more.than200 feet high that covers all airspace, and a specific regulation called Part 77 that covers horizontal surfaces of airports: He said the surfaces get lower as you get closei to the airport. There was a discussion on marking and lighting different towers in different situations. ; Commissioner Lambert said that not all towers that are installed require a Use Permit or review by either the Planning Commission or'ALUC. s Chairman Hennigan said lie would draft a letter to the Planning Commission and Director of Development.Services regarding ALUC's concerns. Mr. Doody said there is an ordinance in the process of coming back to the Commission for another workshop. - He said the letter can be sent to the Planning Commission. Chairman Hennigan said he went to earlier workshops at the Planning Commission and gave his comments. He asked if the comments were incorporated into the draft ordinance. w ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 5 Mr. Doody said he did not know, but would check. Chairman Hennigan said the part of the tower that is above its surroundings should be marked. There was a brief discussion on marking towers. He asked to be informed as to the status of the ordinance being proposed. `Mr. Doody gave the Commission,a copy of the Public Utilities.Code'on towers. Chairman Hennigan asked if restrictions on obstacles can be included in the'CLUP. Mr. Doody said yes, and he will talk to the consultant. Commissioner Lambert said she would like.the ALUC members to attend the Planning Commission workshop when it is set. 3. Discussion of Information Packet for Local • Real Estate Companies: The Commission will discuss preparation,by Staff of an informational packet for real estate companies. The purpose of.the 'packet will be to advise brokers, agents, and their clients of possible inconveniences of airport operations within the airport's area of influence. This item was put. on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. Chairman Hennigan submitted �a draft information packet for discussion. He said real estate disclosure is state law. He said the packets would be additional information., Commissioner Lando said this was a good idea. Chairman Hennigan said ALUC hasthe information that the Realtors need to comply with the law. He discussed giving a master copy of the brochure to Realtors to be reproduced. He said he would also give the information to title companies and airport managers. He discussed publishing a display ad from time to time. Commissioner Lambert said besides the four public use airports, they need to keep the special use airports in mind, such as heliports, etc. ' Commissioner Lando said a general letter could go out with the information. Chairman Hennigan said jthe cost should not be an obstacle.. He said they already have the . information needed. He suggested getting the County's GIS. to put this on a map. There was a brief discussion on including sending out the CLUP. Chairman Hennigan suggested only excerpts and maps, with a location' on where to get a complete copy. m Butte County ■. Airport. Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 6 A H. 'Monthly Status' Report , Commissioner Lando was absent at this time. Commissioner Koch was present in Commissioner Lando's place: 1. Airport Land Use Workshop ' Chairman Hennigan asked that staff work hard to encourage other groups to attend this workshop, -, i.e., Planning Commissioners, Board members, etc. r . Mr. Doody said.he would: He said the County*will pay ALUC's fee to attend the workshop. .2. .Schedule for agenda information in 1999. Chairman Hennigan said Item J, under PublicComments, would be a good to have items from Commissioners for the upcoming agenda. He said under their SOP, a Board member can put an item on a future agenda. He asked that a discussion on their SOP be on a future agenda. 3. Mr. Doody submitted a set of adopted Oroville Airport area of influence maps. Commissioner,Gerst asked if the traffic pattern configuration had been adopted by the Commission. He said if it has not been adopted, it should be adopted to make it official. He asked if this included the entire overflight area. ' Chairman Hennigan said he was notsure if ALUC adopted the traffic pattern._ ALUC adopted the' -Sphere of Influence maps. on May 21, 1997. He`said he thought they adopted -.the area for planning - purposes, but not specifically adopting the Caltrans zones. Commissioner Gerst said in 1,997 the Commission did not adopt,the Caltrans,turning zones, that was, done at a later date. He said he did not think they adopted the flight tracks and traffic patterns. Chairman-Hennigan asked staff to•review this questions and bring it back next month. Chairman Hennigan asked if staff was going to come back with Ya later report with respect to volunteer staff. Mr. Doody said "yes." t I. Correspondence and 'Commission Announcements. Mr. Doody said'. the'correspondence log has been provided for review. , ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May 19, 1999 ■ Page 7 Ar Commissioner Lambert said she requested tapes, which are listed on the log. She said she would be happy to pay for the tapes. She said she did not want them reflected as a cost against ALUC. J. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA Chairman Hennigan said he had two items he would like to place on a future agenda. One is an enhancement of the Conflict of Interest statement. The second is a slight change in their findings. He said he wants to expand,the safety section of the findings for persons on the ground and for the people in the air. He said according to the information he received from Sacramento, the Commission is allowed to impose conditions of approval. He said the present findings talk about "recommending" approval. He said this language should be changed. r Chairman.Hennigan said he would like the fee schedule discussion back on the next agenda. Chairman Hennigan said he had a confrontation with two members of the Planning Commission. - He said these members were convinced that on is a special interest group. He said there is a complete lack of understanding of who ALUC is and what they do. He said one of the duties of the Grand Jury is to do a management review -of local government agencies. He said he was going to write a letter to the Chairman of the Grand Jury and ask them to review who ALUC is and what they are supposed to do, and ascertain if they are doing it appropriately. Commissioner Lambert said the Planning Commission agreed to have a workshop regarding ALUC and possibly involve ALUC. She said,the time has not been set. She said the workshop in Redding could help.. ' Chairman•Hennigan said they need to explain to people ALUC's functions and purpose. K.. CLOSED SESSION - NONE L. ADJOURNMENT., There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. Chairman Bob He gan :r Minutes by Lynn Richardson', Secretary ` K:\DOCUMENT\PLANNING\ALUC\MINUTES\ALUC99\ALUC0519.99 • ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes May., 19; 1999 ■ Page 8 Ar t 6 4 'BUTTE COUNT' AIRPORT LAND USE t;OMMISSION ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785. ■ REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, ,Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California AGENDA & MINUTES Date/Time: May 19, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. i, ALPHA FILE AGENDA -All Items Are Open for Public Comment - A. Pledge of Allegiance ' B. Roll Call C. Nomination and Election'of Chair and Vice Chair (Attached is Section 1.3:4 of the Butte County By - Laws Regarding Selection of Officers) D. Welcoming Introduction of New Members or Reinstalled Members. E. Approval of the Minutes: April 21, 1999, minutes were not available and. will be continued to the next regularly scheduled ALUC meeting. F. Acceptance of the Agenda (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.) G. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. Items Without Public Hearings: 1. Discussion of Airport Overflight 'Signage for the - North Chico Specific Plan: The ,Commission will discuss the Iodation and design of an alternative aircraft overflight sign as proposed by Commissioner Rosene. (Item Continued from April 21, 1999) 2. Discussion of Cellular Towers: The Commission will discuss ALUC's authority to regulate cell towers within an airport's area of influence. This `item was put on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. 3. Discussion of Informational Packet for Local Real Estate Companies: The Commission will discuss preparation by Staff of an informational packet for real estate companies. The purpose of the packet will, be to advise brokers, agents and their clients of possible inconveniences of airport operations within the airport's area of influence. This item was put on the agenda at the request of Commissioner Hennigan. ■ Butte County ■Airport Land Use Commission 0 H. Monthly Status Report's J. I. Correspondence and Commission Announcements: J Public Comment on Items Not Already on the Agenda (Presentations Will Be Limited to Five Minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission Is Prohibited by State Law from Taking Action on Any Item Presented If it Is Not Listed on the Agenda) K. Closed Session- None L. Adjournment Any disabledperson needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements.will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor segment of the Agenda. *Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of S. 08 per Page RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte AL UC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven . copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. K: t4LUCIMEETIVGSI5-19-99.,WTG15-19.AGN ■ Butte County,IL4irport Land Use Commission' ■ COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of April 21, 1999. o Chairman Lambert called the meeting- to order: at 9:03 a.m., in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ` B. ROLL CALL s . . Present: Commissioner Gerst, Causey, Lando, Wallrich, Rosen'e, and Vice - Chairman Lambert Absent: ! ' Commissioner Hatley and Alternate Commissioner Papadakis i Also Present: Dr. Chester Ward, Alternate Bob Koch,;Alternate , Brian.Baldridge, Alternate Kim Siedler, City of Chico Tom Hayes, City.of Chico Paula Leasure, Principal Planner David Doody, Senior Planner • Laura Webster, Staff Consultant Jill Broderson, Secretary Barbara Hennigan Nick Ellena Since Chairman Hennigan was absent, Alternate Wallrich took his place on the Commission and Vice Chairman Lambert conducted the meeting. C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES March 17, • 1999 It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to approve the minutes as presented. AYES: Commissioner Causey, Lando, Wallrich, Rosene and Vice -Chairman Lambert NOES: No one ABSENT:_ Commissioner Hatley ABSTAINED: Commissioner Gerst D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA, - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 1 • Commissioner Rosene asked if Item No. 6 could be moved ahead of Item Nos. 4 and 5. He said not knowing how long the meeting would last, it was important for his attendance during Item No. 6, as he would have to leave the meeting at 12:30 p.m. By consensus, Item No. 6 was moved ahead of Item Nos. 4 and 5. E: BUSINESS ITEMS Items with Public' Hearings: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Progress Report: Shutt Moen Associates will present a progress report on the preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Input from the Commission regarding preliminary data and findings are requested. Mr. Doody introduced Mr. Ken Brody with Shutt Moen & Associates. Mr. Doody said that Mr. Brody was going .to give a presentation on the update of the Butte County Comprehensive Land Use Plans for the Chico, Oroville, Paradise and Ranchero Airports. Mr. Brody said that for the last three months he has been gathering data and has obtained a large box of planning documents and is getting up to speed on the process. He stated that. he has met with county staff, staff from the cities, airport people and owners the two private airports. • Mr. Brody gave his presentation that included bits and pieces of what he has been working on which would include issues that the Commission had addressed in the past. Throughout Mr. Brody's presentation, there were brief discussions and questions. Mr. Brody kept notes and offered brief insights. During Mr. Brody"s presentation, Commissioner Lando asked if the Commissioners could get a copy of the overheads that were utilized in the presentation. Mr. Brody said that copies would be made available. There was.a request to have all staff reports included in the packets in order for the Commissioners to properly review the -material and the projects. *****Break from 10:26 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.***** There was a discussion regarding an additional meeting if today's agenda was not completed before '12:00 noon. It was decided that an additional meeting would be held if necessary on Monday, April ,26, 1999. 2. ALUC File No. A99-03 (Butte County Rezone, REZ99-05 - Feeney Engineering/Wray) on APN007-410-017: A request for consistency findings for a Rezone to modify a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to convert a tennis court to storage units and RV parking for residents of the Eastwoo&Oaks PUD. The project site is located at the north end of Tom Polk Avenue, approximately 500 feet north • of East Avenue, Chico. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project - Butte County. - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 2 • consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (amended 10-21- 98). Commissioner Lando made a motion to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Wallrich made the second. The hearing was open to the public. No one spoke. The hearing was closed to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to find the proposed Butte County Rezone A99-03 (REZ99-05 - Feeney Engineering/Wray) on APN007-410-017 consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, as revised October 21, 1998, and as noted in the consistency findings. 3. ALUC File No. A99-04 Proposed Citv of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-02: In response to the amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan adopted by ALUC on October 21, 1998, the City is processing four General Plan amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwarded a staff report and a letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676(b), the City requests that ALUC evaluate the proposed amendments and find that they are consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. Ms. Webster stated that the City of Chico is proposing four General Plan Amendments and zoning changes for four sites in the Airport.Environs in response to the ALUCs amendments to the Chico Municipal Airport Plan. She noted that since the staff report was delivered to the Commission on the morning of the meeting and that the Commission did not have appropriate time to review the report, she then gave a detailed summary. Commissioner Lando said he felt there would need to.be a discussion on Sites A and B, but that Sites C and D, seem routine. It was. moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and unanimously carried to approve Sites C and D, as they are consistent and precludes further residential development. Commissioner Lando said that he felt there would be neighborhood compatibility issues with Site A and that changing the site to multiple family residences would accomplish anything. He said there may be more issues about appropriate uses, as well, with Site B. Vice -Chairman Lambert agreed with Commissioner Lando. Commissioner Gerst had a concern with the amount of units per acre. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if being in the Low Density Residential designation was inconsistent? - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 3 Ms. Webster is yes, because both parcels are located within Zone B of Overflight Protection • Zone. She said that the text that was adopted with that specifically precluded single family residential development and for that reason, it is inconsistent if it stays at.Low Density Residential. Commissioner Lando asked if it would allow for Multiple Family Residential. Ms. 'Webster said that the text that was adopted specifically states Multiple Family Residential and at the densities of 7 to 35 units per acre. Commissioner Lando asked if that was for the noise and clustering. Ms. Webster agreed. Commissioner Gerst asked how Ms. Webster arrived at seven units per acre. Ms. Webster stated that on November 18; 1998, which was the next meeting after the Commission had adopted the Overflight Protection Zone and Outer Safety Zone, staff had a list of questions that were presented- for further clarification' on actual density of development that the Commission felt was acceptable. She stated that this information was not included in the original adoption. The Commissioner referred to the Residential densities listed for medium density and high density on Page 613 of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. A Commissioner Lando asked Commissioner Gerst what he thought it should be? Commissioner Gerst said it should be no greater than what the guidelines state, which is a maximum of six'. Ms. Webster said she had the minutes of the meeting where questions were asked regarding density. She said the Commission's response was that the density shown at the top of Page 613 of Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan under medium and high density residential categories would be consistent in Zone B. She said the minutes also reflected that medium densities are from seven to 12 units and. high densities is up to 35. Commissioner Lando asked if theywould be in conformance if they were to meet the density standard of seven units'per acre, but also state thatthe overall number of units could not exceed the number of units that would have been in single family residential? Ms. Webster said that single family development is prohibit in this area. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked what the density is. Ms. Webster said low, one to six units. Commissioner Lando said he heard the plan envisions multiple structures, in which • clustering does make sense. - Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 4 11 • For Site A, it was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and unanimously carried to approve a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential, limiting the number of total units to 24, allowing clustered development to occur on the east side in minimum clusters of seven units per acre minimum and that no more than one-half of the site can be developed. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if the location of "The Villages" was a portion of the North Chico Specific Plan. Ms.. Webster said that staff's review compared the proposal with the CLUP*and not the North Chico Specific Plan, which is what ALUC is required to make its finding based on. Under the review of the amendment that the Commission adopted, the new proposal would be consistent with the Commission. - Commissioner Lando said that for the traffic pattern for general aviation did raise a concern. Commissioner Lando made a motion to approve a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential, limiting the number of 80 maximum multiple family units, requiring clustered development to occur with minimum clusters of seven units per acre, therefore, a total of eight acres to be developed with a remainder of 12 acres undeveloped. • Kim Siedler, City of Chico, Planning Director, said that if the Commission could, it might be something they would want to leave open, because of other environmental constraints that could occur. Barbara Hennigan said that Chico Aerial departs perpendicularly to the runway and that they are required to be below the traffic pattern height and be 500 feet above any persons, places, buildings, etc. She said that depending on the location of the development, ALUC could preclude Chico Aerial from being able to come in and out of the airport. Mrs. Hennigan said that this consideration should be added to the motion. Commissioner Lando agreed with'Mrs. Hennigan. Ms. Webster clarified Mrs. Hennigan's concern of adding to the motion that the pattern required for Chico Aerial Applicators be considered as part of the site plan development. It was moved by Commissioner Lando, seconded by Commissioner Wallrich, and carried to approve a General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential, limiting the number of 80 maximum multiple family units, requiring clustered development to occur with minimum clusters of seven units per acre, therefore, a total :of eight acres to be developed with a remainder of 12 acres undeveloped; and that the -pattern required for'Chico Aerial Applications be considered as part.of the site plan development, by the following vote: • AYES: Commissioners Rosene, Lando, Lambert, Hatley and Chairman Hennigan - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 5 • ABSTAIN:0 ABSENT: Commissioner Causey DID NOT VOTE: Commissioner Gerst Mr. Seidler expressed his appreciation the Commission's staff for its work of getting this item on the agenda quickly. 4. Discussion of Airport Overflight Si2na2e for the North Chico Specific Plan: The Commission will review and discuss the letter prepared by the Butte County Assistant County' Counsel .relative to the location of the aircraft overflight Signage required by the North Chico Specific Plan. Also to be discussed, is the proposed design of the sign itself. (Item continued from March. 17, 1999) Mr. Doody said that in the Commission's packet submitted was County Counsel's opinion on the sign issue and the proposed locations with the sign graphic and design. Mr. Doody said that staff recommends the Commission consider this and direct staff to make any final findings. ' Commissioner Rosene said that he and Commissioner Baldridge have working with Neil McCabe from County Counsel. Started out working on a sign. more graphic in nature. Unfortunately, as work progress the sign became more benign. He said that the sign does not describe enough of what they are trying to accomplish. He said that he was content with the sign as it currently is depicted. He said that it was not very vivid and that it is hard to • read from a distance. He said he would like to have a north arrow placed on it for orientation. Commissioner Lando suggested placing a dot that would reflect where your location is on the sign. Commissioner Rosene said that -was a good point and that they wanted to orient people of where there were. He recommended that they provide a sign of what they feel is appropriate. He said that two signs were eliminated at the junction of Keefer and Garner and Keefer and Hicks. He said he feels that those are important signs because they lead into the entire North Chico Specific Plan. Commissioner Rosene said that he and Commissioner Baldridge took a field trip of the area and made notations of where they thought signs would work. He said that they would like to submit those areas back for comment. He also said he would like further direction from the Commission. Commissioner Lando agreed with Commissioner Rosene and said that the sign should .some type of wording, such as "Subject to Aircraft Overflight": He said that the. signs should be placed within the City, as well, and that it should be the Commission's decision to decide what is appropriate, after getting advise from appropriate parties. - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 6 • • .Commissioner Rosene said he did like the concept of the sign and that the sign was more compatible with placing in a neighborhood. He said that the purpose of the sign is not just to exist or to satisfy the Commission, but to be educational. Commissioner. Rosene said that he would like to work with a graphic artist on the sign and maybe change the graphics some, add a dot, and include a north arrow. He asked the Commission how many signs. • Commissioner Lando suggested that while homes are. for sale, and as part of the subdivision, itself, include a sign along with the for sale signs. Mr. Doody stated that he would like to work with Commissioner Rosene on the signs. Commissioner Wallrich said he would like to see the junctions of Keefer and Garner and Keefer and Hicks added back to the sign. Mrs. Hennigan asked if Eaton Road extended to the east could be added. Commissioner Rosene said yes. Vice -Chairman Lambert confirmed that this item would be on the next regular agenda. Commissioner Rosene agreed. 5. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule for Project Reviews and Consistency Findings: The Commission will review and consider fee information from a number of public agencies and discuss establishing a fee schedule for Butte County ALUC project review activities. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Item continued from March 17, 1999) Mr. Doody said that at the last meeting held on March 17, 1999, the Commission continued this item and. directed . staff to return with comments on questions and concerns they addressed. In response to the questions, Mr. Doody review what staff has identified as critical items that need to be addressed, should the Commission wish to recommend a fee schedule to the Board of Supervisors. In reference to Item No. 1 of the staff report, Vice -Chairman Lambert said that fees can be used to offset actual staff costs of processing a project. She noted that staff has been providing the Commission hours of staff time related to projects, which would help in justifying a proposed fee. i In reference to Item No. 2, Vice -Chairman Lambertsaid that actual costs have to be substantiated and asked what the goals were of the Commission. - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 7 Commissioner Lando said it makes sense to have a fee schedule, however, he questioned • how this came about and what is it that the Commission is trying" to accomplish? He said knowing that would help, him determine the answers. Commissioner Wallrich said the 'self-sufficient issue is not important. Commissioner Lando agreed with Commissioner Wallrich. He said if it was too expensive billing per hour, then for each type of use, use a fee. Commissioner Gerst agreed with flat fees but also agreed with a billing process, when necessary. Commissioner Lando said that he hopes that the Commission encourages developers to come before the Commission to get feed back on how projects should he designed: Vice -Chairman Lambert questioned the fact that fees may only be applied to projects requiring a consistency finding, that other mandated and unmandated activities would rely on the Butte County General Fund. Ms. Leasure said that fees"could only be applied to actual submitted projects. She also said that with LAFCo projects, the cities are billed on an hourly rate. • Commissioner Lando agreed with Ms. Leasure. He said he was concerned with what exactly is going to be review, i.e., building permits which are administerial, however, he noted that at times, there are exceptions. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked for clarification that if the Commission was to establish a fee schedule, it could only be used for the projects that require a consistency finding, and not - anything else. Ms. Leasure said that projects that do not require a consistency determination are generally funded through the General Fund. At this time, Commissioner Lando left the meeting. In reference to Item No. 3, Mr. Doody said that the Commission would need to decide if categories needed to be established. Commissioner Rosene said that if projects could be categorized, -fees could be placed within each category. Commissioner Wallrich asked if it would be considered on an hourly basis. ® Commissioner Rosene said an hourly basis should be for the bigger projects and a flat fee for the smaller projects. ,1 - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 Page 8 Ms. Leasure discussed the billing process that LAFCo utilizes. Commissioner Gerst said that the process should be the same as what the Planning Division of the Department of Development Services utilizes. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if these fees were in addition to the proposed $20,000.00 budget for the Commission, which is a part of the Department of Development Services? Ms. Leasure said' that assuming the Commission collected fees, those fees would be redeposited in to the General Fund of the County of Butte to help reimburse for the cost of operating the Commission. Commissioner Wallrich said that the fee process makes sense but asked if the Commission would face resistance. Ms: Leasure said that the Commission probably would not have much resistance and once the fees on phased in, there won't be a problem, as the Commission won't be charging that much money. ` Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if the Commission needed to take any action? Ms. Leasure said that the Commission has provided staff with direction. She said that staff will place this item on the agenda in two months and provide a recommendation with a draft • fee schedule. 6. Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's): The Commission will discuss proposed additions and/or changes to the ALUC's Standard Operating Procedures. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Item continued from March 17, 1999) Mr. Doody asked,if this item could be continued to the next special meeting. Commissioner Wallrich said that the Commission should continue on. Vice -Chairman agreed that SOP's should be amended the same way as the Commission's by-laws, at any meeting with a majority vote. Although cell towers were not a part of this discussion, there was,a small discussion on cell towers, etc. i It was moved by Commissioner Wallrich, seconded by Commissioner Gerst, and carried to .accept the Airport Land Use Commission ' Standard Operation Procedures (SOPS) as presented. - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 9 AYES: Commissioner Causey, Wallrich, Rosene and Vice -Chairman_ • • 'Lambert NOES: No one ABSENT: Cormissioner Hatley and. Lando' f ABSTAINED: No one ` F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT 1. Inter-'Regionai Aviation Syste`m.Plan Vice -Chairman Lambert�asked what the status was.on the Inter-Regional Aviation System Plan. 'Ms. Webster said that Plan was formerly called the Northern. California Aviation Systems Plan and is supposed to look at the regional importance of different facilities. She said that according to the Butte Courity.Association of Governments and CalTrans, activity on the - project has been delayed until.the next'fiscal year. According to the'funding source, all money has to be spent within the.same,,iscal year: 2. Budget } No discussion. 3. Pacific Bell Tower -:Butte County UP 99-02 Commissioner Gerst askedif this. was notified to be on the agenda for consideration. Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if Commissioner Gerst-wanted this item as a separate item rather than a part of the status report. Commissioner Gerst'said,yes, and that he requested that'this item be placed on the agenda for discussion and consideration. , Ms. Leasure asked theCommission if they would like to have the item placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Vice -Chairman Lambert suggested'ihat an item be-placed on the next agenda in reference to towers. Ms: Webster said that staff. found the tower to be consistent with what is the. Municipal Airport Environs Plan and out of insight from previous -discussions from the Commission, added recommended conditions along with 'that from previous knowledge of the Commission's concerns. i - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 -.Page 10 • Ms. Hennigan said that she had did a lot of research and that throughout the state there is a wide variety of requirements, but there is nothing statewide. She said it would be nice if there was a state standard. 4. Establish of procedures and guidelines. for volunteer staff and clarification of their status to the ALUC Ms. Leasure said that this item needs more review as they need to review at the FPPC. Guidelines and the County policy for additional staff. Mrs. Hennigan said that the volunteer staff could fit under the SOP, Section 6.2. She said that it should be very clear that the volunteer staff has no official county status, that they are not an employee of the -County, because the issues of insurance and liability need to be addressed. She also said that referring to Section 1.4 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the Airport Land Use Commission, there is nothing that mentions the Director of Development Services or uses the word "sole". She also made reference to a mem from the.County Counsel's office regarding the County's obligation for staffing and funding ALUC. Mrs. Hennigan said in ending, that as a gift from a volunteer staff member, she gave the Commission a binder that the Commissioners could place their by- laws, maps, etc., in for their convenience. Vice -Chairman Lambert thanked Mrs. Hennigan. • 5. Airport Area of Influence Maps C. Mr. Doody gave a brief update. He did say that all maps have been review and approved by this Commission and at the request of Chairman Hennigan, staff will be forwarding a memo to all affected agencies within Butte County notifying that these maps are adopted areas of influence for the airports. He also said that the Commissioners will receive copies of the final approved versions, as well. 6. Status Regarding Overriding Findings for the Stephens Subdivision and Development Agreement 'Mr. Doody said.that this item was per the request of Chairman Hennigan. He said that Chairman Hennigan's main concern was the Board of Supervisors approving an overall overriding findings for the entire North Chico Specific Plan. Mr. Doody said that a review of the administrative record finds that the Board had made specific findings for the Stephens project and did not make an overall blanket finding for the complete North Chico Specific Plan area. He said that Chairman Hennigan also wanted Neil McCabe, Assistant County Counsel to discuss this with the Commission. Mr. Doody said he had spoke with Mr. - Butte County - Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 11 • McCabe, and that Mr. McCabe feels that this would be inappropriate due to the -pending lawsuit. 7. Status- Report of Board of Supervisors Hearing .held on April 13, 1999, regarding ALUC's • October 21; 1998, Amendments, to the Chico Airport Environs Plan' , Vice -Chairman Lambert said that the Board; of Supervisors has decided to send all projects to the Commission. 8'. ALUC Staff Time Accounting ' Mr. Doody 'submitted the hours for the Commission's- information and informed, the Commissionthat staff resources are limited. - Ms! Leasure discussed timelines and deadlines with the Commission. G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS , Vice -Chairman Lambert referred,to an announcement of the Airport Land Use Workshop in Redding on July_ 8, 1999, in Redding, California. She said, she thought these workshops are important and beneficial. She said that she has not heard anymore on a workshop requested by the Planning Commission tobe held locally. , Mr. Brody said that he.strongly encourages the Commission to attend the workshop in Redding, as they are very beneficial. H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY O THE AGENDA , I. CLOSED SESSION None. J. ADJOURNMENT t 'There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. f. 4 ma Lambert, -Vice Chairman Butte County Airport Land Use Commission.: Minutes prepared by Jill Broderson k:\planning\aluc\aunu tes\aluc99\aluc421.99 - Butte County -,.Airport Land Use Commission Minutes - April 21, 1999 - Page 12 BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND E 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 F REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroville California Date/Time: April 21, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: March 17, 1999 AGENDA & NMUTES ALPHA FILE D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Commission members or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.) E. BUSINESS ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Progress Report: Shutt Moen Associates will present a progress report on the preparation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Input from the Commission regarding preliminary data and findings are requested. 2. ALUC.File No. A99-03 (Butte County Rezone REZ99-05 - Feenev Ent>7neerine/Wrav) on APN 007-410-017: A request for consistency findings for a Rezone to modify a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to convert a tennis court to storage units and RV parking for residents of the Eastwood Oaks PUD. The project site is located at the north end of Tom Polk Avenue, approximately 500 feet north'of East Avenue, Chico. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project consistent with the 1978 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan (amended 10121198). 3. ALUC File No. A99-04 Proposed City of Chico General Plan Amendment 99-02• In response to the amendments to the. Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan adopted .by ALUC on October 21, 1999, the, City is processing four General Plan amendments/Zoning Changes. The City has forwardeda staff report and a letter describing the proposed changes. Pursuant to PUC 21676(b), the City requests that ALUC evaluate the proposed amendments and find that they are consistent with the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 1 .: • Items without Public Hearings: is 4. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule for Project Reviews and ConsistencX Findings: The Commission will review and consider fee iriformation from a number of public agencies and discuss establishing a fee schedule for Butte County ALUC project review activities. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Item continued from March 17, 1999) 5: Discussion' of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S): The Commission will discuss proposed additions and/or changes to the ALUC's Standard Operating Procedures. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. (Item continued from March 17, 1999) 6. Discussion of Airport Overflight Signage for the North Chico Specific Plan: The Commission will review and discuss the letter prepared by the Butte County Assistant County Counsel relative' to the location of the aircraft overflight Signage required by the North Chico Specific Plan. Also to be discussed is the proposed design of the sign itself. (Item Continued from March 17, 1999) F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Airport Land Use Planning Workshop in Redding: The California Pilots Association and California Department of Transportation are sponsoring a workshop on July 8, 1999, at the Redding Airport in the U.S. Forest Service Classroom from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. The fee is $10.00 and includes a deli lunch. At the time of preparation of this Agenda, Caltrans has not yet prepared a flier and registration forms for this workshop. When'they are available, they will be forwarded to ALUC and other interested groups and agencies in Butte County. H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if.it is not listed on the agenda.) I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE J. ADJOURNMENT Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate'in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the 'Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. *Copies of the Agenda documents relative to an Agenda item may obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 2 RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to. address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for 'Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agendd items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information: S. All documents to be presented to, the Commission shall be given. to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to' Call'of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to, those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte. County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. ! K.\DOCUMENT\PLANNING\ALUC\MEETINGS\4-21-99.MTG\4-21-99.AGD ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 3, Y COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ' Minutes of March 17, 1999 Chairman Lambert called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m., in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive,-Oroville, California. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL: , Present: Commissioner Rosene, Alternates Koch, Ward, Wallrich, Hodges and Vice - Chairman Lambert Absent: Commissioner Hatley Also Present: Fred Gerst Brian Baldridge (Alternate) Dave Doody, Senior Planner John Papadakis (Alternate) Lynn Richardson, Secretary C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 17, 1999 The Commission had the following corrections: Page 3, line 11, change "planing" to "planning"; line 18, add "Staff said they would investigate the possibility of a credit for 8.25 hours time"; Page 6, line 18 add "Planning" before "Commission"; Page 7, add "10-21-89" before "meeting". Commissioner Koch said these minutes were not included in their packets. Commissioner Wallrich said it was his understanding, from Mr. Doody, that ALUC was going to get a credit back against their budget. Mr. Doody said they were not giving the credit. Mr. Doody said he did not believe he made a commitment that there would be a credit. It was moved by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Rosene, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes as corrected. D. ACCEPTANCE. OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Koch asked to continue Item E.2. He said he would like material in advance in order to review. He said this is Bob Hennigan's proposal and he should be present to answer questions. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999in Page 1 Ms. Hennigan said she could give them ,the material today to review and suggested the item be continued. Commissioner Ward said he was in favor of letting Ms. Hennigan make a short presentation and then continue this item. ' E. BUSINESS ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings - None . Items without Public Hearings ' 1. Discussion of Establishing an ALUC Fee Schedule for Project Reviews and Consistency Findi� The Comniission.will review and consider fee information from a number of public agencies and discuss the appropriateness of developing a fee schedule for Butte County ALUC project review activities. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Chairman Hennigan. Mr. Doody'gave a brief overview of the item. Commissioner Koch asked if a fee schedule is adopted, does it mean that ALUC will have a separate budget? He asked how the budget was funded' if there is no income? How does it would work with proposed budget item E.3. dater on the agenda? He asked what is the point of establishing a fee if it does not directly benefit ALUC? Mr. Doody said the fee -would be established to off -set the costs of ALUC operations. He would have to check with the department's Administrative Analyst to answer the other questions. ' Vice -Chairman Lambert asked if the fees could be used for non -mandated issues. Commissioner Koch said it was his understanding that in the Government Code, when you adopt a fee schedule it is supposed to off -set actual costs for operation. Commissioner, Wallrich`said they are spending money for staff time and are providing a service. IIe said it did not matter where the money goes as long as the County gets paid back for time expended. Commissioner Koch said they might need to discuss this, with County Counsel. Commissioner Ward said that any fees `collected help the General Fund. He recommended that the Planning Division contact Emmett Pouge in Administration to find out how to m Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Coinmission.Minutes March 17, 1999 0: Page 2 Ar establish the fees.. He said Supervisors are reluctant to establish fees. He said this should come back next month with,,a firm recommendation. Vice -Chairman Lambert said it bothers her that everything is limited to mandated items. She said they need to be able to address non -mandated items as well. r Commissioner Koch said they are not held accountable for discussing non -mandated issues. He said they should start by contacting Administration and County Counsel., He said most agencies adopt an average fee. Commissioner Ward said they should go for the full documented cost. Commissioner Wallrich'said they should receive a deposit. for reviewing projects. Mr. Doody explained that is what Planning is doing now. Ms. Hennigan said she .polled other ALUCs in the state. She submitted ,a' copy of her findings and gave a brief summary. 'She said if the Commission wants, she will continue to contact other ALUCs. Vice -Chairman Lambert said she appreciated Ms. Hennigan's efforts. Commissioner Koch said this information was a good representation and he felt this was adequate. Mr. Doody said this will be brought back on the, next agenda as a discussion item. . V 2. Discussion of Ai,UC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S): The Commission will discuss proposed additions and/or changes to the ALUC's Standard Operating Procedures. This item was placed on the agenda at. the request of Chairman Hennigan. Vice -Chairman Lambert suggested that this item be put over to the next agenda. Ms. Hennigan said the rationale'for working on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is the number of hours used for specific projects. She said the. By -Laws are how the Commission operates their business. The SOP is how ALUC instructs staff to conduct their . business. She submitted revisions to the draft SOP. She said Item 3.1 deals with specific findings for project review. Item 6.1 has in it the idea of the annual review of Comprehensive Land Use Plans. She said "one of the questions that has come up is whether to meet at individual airports when reviewing their plans and does this conflict with the By - Laws? She said the next item is the keeping of minutes and records. She said one of the ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999 ■ Page 3 points in contention is whether the tape is the record: She asked if the tape for the December 21st meeting has been found and staff replied, "no.". It was the consensus to take the comments and continue this item to 4-21-99 or a future meeting, in order for Mr. Hennigan to attend. Commissioner Wallrich said he has discussed the SOPs with Mr. Hennigan. He said if this is in writing, it can be adopted. Commissioner Koch said Mr. Hennigan presented a complete outline. He said he would like a complete draft to review before adopting it. Vice -Chairman Lambert'said they might want to1ook at this in conjunction with the By - Laws. Commissioner Wallrich said -that was a good suggestion. He said if there are things in the document they agree. on, why not use them. Commissioner Koch said he would like an updated draft for the next discussion. Mr. Doody said staff will do that and bring it back at the next meeting. Commissioner Wallrich said they could adopt policies they like, as they go. Commissioner Koch said they need a final manual without holes, when it is adopted. Vice -Chairman Lambertsaid ,this will be brought back at the next meeting and if Mr. Hennigan is not present, it can be continued. Ms. Hennigan said at some time there will be a final SOP, but it will change all the time as they go along. 3. Presentation of 1999 - 2000 Proposed Budgek The Commission will review the budget for fiscal,year 1999 - 2000. Mr. Doody'said he had no further comments. s Commissioner Koch asked if the dollar amount for contracted staff is the same amount as this year?, He asked about money from this year being carried over to next year if there is any left over. Vice -Chairman Lambert also questioned carry over of monies from one budget to another. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 1.7, 1999 0 Page 4 A Commissioner Roserie asked about training in this year's budget. He said it is not seen in this budget as was requested.- He said they need training for the staff person assigned to this Commission. Commissioner Koch asked that they can bring the budget back on 4-21-99 as a discussion item. Commissioner Papadakis said there has to be a budget schedule for the County. He said they are entitled to see the schedule and how ALUC fits into it. -He said the schedule should be attached to the budget item in their next packets: 4. Discussion and Reconsideration of 21676.5 (A) - Review of Local Plans: The Commission will review and discuss PUC Section 21676.5 (A), regarding local plan review. This item was placed on the agenda by the Commission at the February 17, 1999, ALUC meeting upon a motion by Commissioner Gerst and carried by a majority vote of the ALUC.' Mr. Doody.said at the last meeting there was a discussion on the Ruddy Creek project. He said the recommendation to defer determination until the CLUPs are complete would be the most judicious use of their time. He said Ruddy Creek may not go through. He said the project is in re -design. He said'it is questionable whether this project will come back at.all. Vice -Chairman Lambert said Ruddy Creek Partners indicated that this will come back. She asked about whether or not the 4 units per acre could be clustered? ' Mr. Doody said it means one unit per 10,000 sq. ft. He said the Partnership has invested a lot of money in their present plan and ALUC needs to enforce their intention. Commissioner Rosene said 4 units.per acre is exactly what it means. Commissioner, Koch said-ALUC needs to be specific with whether or not they want clustering. Vice -Chairman Lambert said at the Planning Commission meeting there was some concern with ALUC's condition and what is ALUC's authority to set the condition. She said there is a workshop coming up. and ALUC members should attend if they can. Commissioner Gerst said regarding PUC 21676.5 -- he heard Mr. Doody say this is connected to the Ruddy Creek project. He said it was connected to the Chico Environs Plan and not Ruddy Creek Partners. He said this came before ALUC and it was voted 3-2 to not do this. It was determined it took 4 votes to make that decisiori. He said he was under.the impression that they were going to discuss towers and clustering of units for Ruddy Creek. He asked if pursuant to PUC 21676.5, do they want to review all projects in this area? ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999 ■ Page -5 Vice -Chairman Lambert said more information: is coming to ALUC, according to the monthly status report. Mr. Doody said the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan will be scheduled for April, 13 at the Board. He said•now all projects in. the, area are coming to ALUC for review. Commissioner. Gerst asked what happens if no action is taken by the Board after 180 days: Mr. Doody said until the CLUP is done by PMC, all projects will go to ALUC for review as of April 20th.. Commissioner Gerst said he was concerned with what happens prior to April 20th. Mr. Doody said.he did not know, but it will be automatic after 4-20-99. Commissioner Koch `said they have no information. He said they do not know if the action has or has not been taken. He said they need official documentation. Vice -Chairman; Lambert asked how. ALUC would know if the Board takes action before April 20th? She said nothing'will happen until 4-20. She asked if the Commission wants this to take effect before 4-20? ' She said she was concerned with a possible override by the City of Chico or the Board of Supervisors. " Commissioner Gerst said this item is to clear up a grey area. Re said. there is no harm in adopting this as a safety measure. It was moved by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Hodges, and carried that ALUC find that there are'no revisions and/or overrides before us at this time, therefore, as of today Section 21676.5 (A) is in effect. F AYES: Commissioners Wallrich, Ward, Rosene, Hodges, and Vice Chairman Lambert NOES: Commissioner Koch ABSENT:" Commissioner Hatley ABSTAINED: No F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Mr. Doody gave a brief summary.: Vice -Chairman Lambert said ALUC was to receive a report referenced in Item 2 and has not. Mr. Doody said County Counsel has declined to comment on this item. Mr. Doody said that in this case, Jim Curtis, ALUC's legal counsel will evaluate the report and the cost will be billed to the+County. He said the cost would not.be out of ALUC's budget.. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999 ■ Page 6 d 'Commissioner Koch discussed the lawsuit. - He said'ALUC requested an opiniodoin impacts of the newly adopted Overflight Protection Zones. He said the Commission wants to be advised by.the attorney. ` Mr. Doody'said that staff also wants to be advised by the,attoffiey. d♦ r 3. Ruddy Creek '• 4 Vice -Chairman Lambert said on the second line its says "to`only approve a project that did not exceed four units." She said she did not know if the Planning Commission ever said they ` would approve this. She said the Planning Commission would re -consider the project. 4. Tower Ordinance Development Commissioner Gerst said he asked the Planning Commission to send a request to ALUC and the Farm Bureau to. get 'standards ori towers. He said this has not happened. He said as of yesterday the Farm Bureau has not been contacted. He discussed what he feels the standards should be. He said there should be no towers constructed in the clear zone, approach' zones, outer safety zones, inner turning zones, and the traffic pattern zones.• He said towers in the environs area above 50 ft. would have the orange and white striping on the top part of the tower, equipped,with a`flashing strobe light shielded from the ground. He said an agreement for tower maintenance is necessary and a provision to remove the towers.. He said Ag. towers are different and should be striped from top to bottom. He said in this case a red light would be •adequate. He said ALUC could send a committee to the Planning Commission; but they would need to take standards with them. Commissioner Wallrich said lie would recommend Commissioner Gerst as a representative to the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Koch said they need to take a position on what the standards should be first. He discussed federal or state legislation under #5.*. - Mr. Doody said staff is not aware of any State standards. He said thatthe Planning Division is currently requiring the cell towers be removed after use is discontinued for a period of 6 months. Ms. Hennigan said she talked to other counties about their tower ordinances. She said ' ALUC's issue is strictly what goes on in Butte County. She said they need to know FAA regulations. She said that the FAA regulates,pilots, not the towers. _ m Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999 ■ Page 7 s Vice -Chairman Lambert'said FAA's conditions are less restrictive than the County's on towers. r�.i• a Ms. Hennigan said there is an issue with who is flying low near these towers. She said safety should be the first concern; not the 'aesthetics or property values.. ' Vice -Chairman Lambert said ALUC jurisdiction is only within.2 miles of an airport. Mr. Doody said they need a sub -committee to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Koch said anyone who is interested can attend the meeting. 4. C.S.A. 87 Notification Signs Mr. Doody said County. Counsel will have a presentation on April 21 st.- Commissioner Wallrich asked what would-be heard on 4-21 and would this be continued t again? w Mr. Doody said County Counsel has.assured him a reportwould be ready for ALUC by the 4-21 meeting. Commissioner Rosene said something needs to be done. He said this has been going on for a year. He said he understands `Commissioner Wallrich's frustration. He said something needs to be done or "ALUC will need to take some action. Commissioner Wallrich asked where Caltrans stands on this issue: He said they should•have some direction from Caltrans., He suggested_ that the Chairman{write: a letter to Caltrans asking for direction. s , Commissioner Ward was -absent at this,time. Commissioner Rosene said lie would like to see anairport workshop _about the airport with all people who are concerned. He said he told the County Counsel, if they were not�going to listen to this group,• then why does ALUC exist? He said ori the sign issue something needs to be done. ' rr a• r 5. Authority toiRegulate Cellular Tower"s. H v ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March 17, 1999 i Page 8 Ar R ' Mr. Doody said he checked with County Counsel and found the statements by Pac Bell to not be true: He said he attached a reference to the Code Section 3032 c (7). There was a brief discussion. 6. Staff time accounting. Mr. .Doody*submitted'.thehours for the Commission's information.' ,.G. ' CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. On March 25, 1999,a Planning Commission Workshop will be held in the Board of Supervisors,Room on the proposed Communications Tower Ordinance. H PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS-NOT zNLREADY ON,TIIE AGENDA I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE J. ADJOURNMENT' V There being no further business; the'meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m: airman Bob Hennigan Minutes by Lynn Richardson, Secretary ; K:\-ALUC\NCNUTES\ALUC99\ALUC0317.99 ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes March'17, 1999 ■ Page 9 Ar - _ • j'r"}'AIRPORTLAND JAE COMMISSION 1Lg7VE COU14 .. ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785-■ - 71 REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION 'Location: -.Butte County Administration'Bbilding, Supervisors'. Chambers " ;25 County Center Drive, Oroville California_,` s � AGENDA & MINUTES A Date/Time:"- ,March 1.7;1999._- 9:00 a.m. ALPHA FILE „. s^ AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE-OPEN, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT' A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE r . B. ROLL-CALL f C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:. February 17, 1999 .' ! D. ACCEPTANCE OF•THE AGENDA (Committee members. or staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order) a • 4. . ' v E. BUSINESS ITEMS: .3 Items with'Public Hearings r•- NONE s Items without Public Hearings + •,'.: r :, . 1. Discussion of. Establishing an ALUC ,Fee Schedule for Project Reviews and Consistency Findings: The Commission will review and consider fee information from a number, of public agencies and discuss the appropriateness of developing a fee schedule for Butte County ALUC project'review.activities. This item was placed on the agenda at-the,request,of Chairrnan'He'nnigan: ;y 2. Discussion of ALUC Standard Operating Procedures (SO P's): ,The Cornmission' will discuss proposed additions and/or°changes to the ALUC's.Standard Operating Procedures. This item .was placed on the agenda_ .:at, the request- of Chairman Hennigan. , 3. Presentation of 1999 - 2000 Proposed Budget: The Commission willy review the budget for fiscal year 1999 - 2000. 2 " 0 Butte County ■'Airpon` Land Use Commission ■ - 4. Discussion and Reconsideration of 21676.5 (A) - Review of Local Plans: The Commission will review and discuss PUC Section 21676.5 (A) regarding local plan review. This item was placed on the agenda by the commission at the February 17, 1999, ALUC meeting upon motion by Commissioner Gerst and carried by a majority vote of the ALUC. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. On March 25, 1999, a Planning Commission Workshop will be held in the Board of Supervisors Room on the proposed Communications Tower Ordinance. H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. 'The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) I. CLOSED SESSION - NONE J. ADJOURNMENT Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. `Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. 'Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per page. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment" on the agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so.raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the :Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission and made available for public inspection. ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission ■ 2 ii Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission m, COUNTY OF BUTTE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION t Minutes of February 17, 1999 Vice -Chair Lambert called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m., February 17, 1999 in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL: i Present: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Hatley, Rosene, Alternates Koch and Wallrich and Vice -Chair Lambert Absent: None Also Present: Brian Baldridge (Alternate) Laura Webster, ALUC Staff . = Dave Doody, Senior -Planner Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Barbra Duncan, Administrative Assistant C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of December 16, 1998 and January 20, 1999 -December 16, 1998 It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded by Commissioner Causey, and carried to approve the minutes of December 16, 1998, as presented.The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey; Gerst, Hatley, Rosene, Alternates Koch and Wallrich NOES: None ABSTAIN: -Vice-Chair Lambert ABSENTr None , January 20,1999 ' It was moved by Alternate Koch, seconded.by Commissioner Rosene, and carried to approve the minutes of January 20, 1999, as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Hatley, Rosene, Alternates Koch and Wallrich and Vice -Chair Lambert NOES: None" ABSTAIN:' None ABSENT: None D.. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA ■ Butte County 0 Airport Land Use Commission 0 February 17, 1999 ■ Page 1 sk E. BUSINESS'ITEMS: Items with Public Hearings ' 1. . ALUC File No. A99-01 (City of Oroville Use Permit UP99/Development Review Board Amplication DRB99-01 - Experimental Aircraft Association) on APN 030-260-0 9. A request forconsistency for a proposed 7,920 square foot aircraft hangar/shop and meeting facility for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) M Alternate Koch asked if this item was properly before ALUC? He stated that the area is completely within the Oroville Airport's property, is for an aviation use that is not subject to ALUC jurisdiction under the Caltrans Manual, and does not seem to support off -airport uses. Ms. Webster said Alternate Koch was• correct in that ALUC has no authority. to make consistency or inconsistency findings for this project. It was'presented to ALUC at the request of the applicant and the City of Oroville due to the proposed mixed *use and different types of display activities that will occur. ,. Lisa Purvis -Wilson, City:of Oroville Planning Manager, said the City was simply requesting comments from the ALUC. Dan Cook, Flight and Facility Chair for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), said the EAA agreed that ALUC comments are not required, but would prefer to have the ALUC express , . that they have no objections to the project. Vice Chair Lambert opened the hearing to the public. Barbara Hennigan spoke in favor of the project. Alternate Papadakis spoke in favor of the project. , The hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Koch moved to inform the City of Oroville and the EAA that the ALUC has no objections, and, in fact, supports the project as proposed. ALUC has considered the staff report dated February 1, 1999 and recommends the EAA consider the conditions as presented with the exception of Condition No. `5. i Commissioner Rosene'spoke in support of the project, but said he would abstain from the vote because he is an EAA member. Commissioner Causey seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following vote: ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 ■ Page 2■ AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Hatley, Rosene, Wallrich, Alternate Koch and Vice -Chair Lambert NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rosene ABSENT: - None Alternate Wallrich commented that at January's meeting, the Commission discussed how much staff time is available in the ALUC budget. -The EAA project required staff s time to prepare a report when it was not required that the project come before ALUC. Vice -Chair Lambert introduced Dave Doody, Senior Planner in long-range policy planning with the Department of Development Services, Planning Division, to the Commission. Mr. Doody explained that he will be acting as the liaison between Ms. Webster and,the Department. He will be coordinating the preparation of the packets and Ms. Webster will continue to prepare the reports. As far as the time necessary for Ms. Webster to prepare the report on the EAA project, he said he would discuss it with Ms. Webster to see if an adjustment could be made and how such things could be avoided in the future. Staff said they would investigate the possibility of a credit for 8.25 hours time. 2. ALUC File No. A99-02 (moi y of Chico General Plan Am ndnment and Rezone GPA98-4/RZ98-5 - Drake) on APN 048-020-060 and 061: A request for consistency findings for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (2.1 to 7 units/acre) to Medium Density Residential (4 to 14 units/acre) and a Rezone from R-1, Single Family Residential (2.1 to 7 units/acre to R-2, Medium Density Residential (4 to 14 units/acre). Ms. Webster summarized the staff report dated February 8, 1999. Commissioner Koch said that prior to this project, staff has been commenting on the fact that the FAR PART 150 Noise Study is in place. Although the ALUC has not adopted the Study, the FAA has adopted the document as the official noise footprint for the Chico Municipal Airport. He questioned why staff did not mention the FAR PART 150 Noise Study in this staff report. Mr. Webster responded that she has repeatedly been told that the ALUC does not consider the Noise Study as their document. She asked if the Commission would like to see the FAR PART 150 Noise Study included for informational purposes on future staff reports. The Commission briefly discussed the merits of including the FAR PART 150 Noise Study in future staff reports. Commissioner Gerst commented that unless the ALUC adopts the Noise Study, there is no need to consider it. He also asked if there had been approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map in 1997 as referred to on page one of staff's report. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 0 Page 3■ D Ms. Webster said that information received from the City of Chico indicated the map was approved. Commissioner Koch said the Foothill Park East map was a part of it. As part of the Foothill Park East discussion a year ago, the Commission recommended that if the project was going to go forward, the 1,000 foot corridor that straddled the channel be part of the final subdivision map and that aircraft, air tankers, and others would use that safety corridor to go through the area. They ultimately adopted the safety corridor for the Foothill Park East project. Although this information is not in the CLUP, we should comment that this Commission has previously evaluated the project and recommended the safety corridor. He expressed concern that they did not include this information in staff's report for this project. Vice -Chair Lambert opened "the hearing to the public. Barbara Hennigan referred to the Environmental Documentation section on page four of staff's report. Staff said the information received from the City of Chico did not address the compatibility of the proposal with any airport related impacts including overflight protection, noise, or safety. The City*of Chico Planning Commission ordered a study by the consulting firm of Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. to deal with the environmental impacts of the airport on this project. Ms. Hennigan presented information and explained to the Commission how the study was inadequate. She also said the 1,000 foot safety corridor presented by the consultant as an adequate safety precaution is inaccurate. A noise abatement departure corridor cannot be a safety mitigation because the corridor involves turns. She presented a copy of additional findings and requested the Commission add them to the findings for this project. The hearing was closed to the public Commission Koch said it would be difficult for the Commission to make findings of inconsistency because the accident impact is minimal and there is no particular safety issue on the site. Further, there are no noise impacts if ALUC requires that appropriate building code requirements are met. There is no impact on air space protection or single event noise. The flight corridor issue as to whether the overflight protection and land use compatibility is appropriate. The adopted flight corridor is not just a noise corridor, but a safety corridor. Commissioner Rosene disagreed because this area gets a lot of overflight approach to th_ e southern end of the runway and he does not believe people in the area should be subjected to the noise because of the overflight. Commissioner Gerst said he would like to see this project and all similar projects held up until the new CLUP and MasterPlan are completed. He would like to see language in the conditions to include that recommendation. He does not object to adding Ms. Hennigan's list of conditions to the conditions prepared by staff. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 ! Page 4■ Commissioner Gerst moved to deny the City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone GPA98-4/RZ98-5 (Drake) because it is inconsistent with the findings stated in staff's report dated February 8, 1999. The motion includes the addition of Ms. Hennigan's suggestions for findings for Foothill Park East Rezone (Item E.2.) as presented to the Commission today. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rosene. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Rosene, Alternate Wallrich, and Vice -Chair Lambert NOES: Commissioner Hatley, and Alternate Koch ABSENT: None ABSTAINS: None Vice -Chair Lambert noted that Commissioner Gerst's suggestion to include a statement in the findings regarding holding this project and all similar projects until the new CLUP and Master Plan are completed was not included in the motion. Ms. Webster said that past procedure has been to send a transmittal letter that includes the findings the Commission made for the project, with a comment that states the project should not. be processed until the CLUP and Master Plan are completed. Commissioner Gerst moved to send a transmittal letter that includes the inconsistency findings the Commission made for the City of Chico General Plan Amendment and Rezone GPA98 4/RZ98-5 (Drake) project, with a comment from the Commission that states the project should not be processed until the CLUP.and Master Plan are completed. Alternate Koch agreed that it maybe appropriate for this particular project, but does not feel it is necessary for all projects. Projects may be brought to the Commission that are consistent with the existing CLUP. Findings should be made on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Rosene believes the transmittal letter with the additional comment from the Commission will create confusion. He suggests a general letter. be sent to inform the City of Chico Planning Commission that the Chico Municipal Airport is re -doing their Master Plan and ALUC is preparing a new CLUP. Commissioner Gerst withdrew his motion. Commissioner Rosene moved to recommend the Chair write a letter to all airport jurisdictions thafthe County is undergoing a new CLUP and if anyone has any questions, they should contact individual Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Causey. The motion passed by the following vote: 0 Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 0 Page 5■ F. AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Hatley, Rosene, Alternates Koch and Wallrich and Vice -Chair Lambert NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Ms. Webster said she would be providing an update on the progress of the new CLUP's at the next meeting. Mr. Doody discussed staff work hours and proposed reduction of staff time by taking action minutes. The Commission expressed their dislike of action minutes. Mr. Doody suggested bringing back the issue as a discussion item or workshop at a future meeting. Vice -Chair Lambert expressed concern regarding, a draft document 'regarding standards and criteria for towers. It was her understanding that the draft'will be presented to the Planning Commission before it is brought to ALUC. She said ALUC would like to provide input on the draft document. Also, there was a hearing at the Planning Commission regarding a tower at the Fox Brother Nursery in Chico. The Planning Commission was told that there was a law that prohibited them from denying a tower. Mr. Doody said he would look into it and report back to ALUC. Commissioner Gerst said the Planning Department needs to think -about the impacts and requirements for towers in the agricultural'areas of the County. Commissioner Koch suggested waiting to see what the outcome is with the Planning Commission. At that time, ALUC can make their comments to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Gerst said the ALUC and Agricultural Committee should come up with standards and recommendations for towers and deliver them to the. Planning Commission. Commissioner Gerst said the ALUC has decided there would be no clustering unless the Commission was made aware of it before hand. Clustering next to the safety zones is not a good idea. Clustering further out in'the perimeters is allowed in the Guidelines. He believes it would be to ALUC's advantage to clarify what the Commission's intent was when they decided on four units per acre regarding clustering. He recommended this item be placed on the next agenda as a discussion item regarding ALUC policy regarding clustering of units in Proposed developments within or adjacent to safety zones.. Commissioner Rosene informed the Commission he met with Brian Baldridge and Neil McCabe to discuss the sign issue for the North Chico Specific Plan. He displayed a draft informational sign and asked for -comments from the Commission. The Commission offered a few suggestions that would help' clarify the map to the public. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 ■ Page 6■ Commissioner Gerst said he would like to have the following discussion items on the next agenda:..l .) the towers, 2.) clustering, 3.) Ruddy Creek, and 4.) reconsideration of the Review of Local Plans 21676.5, paragraph A, to review the CLUP as necessary. . It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Causey, to reconsider 21676.5 on the Review of Local -Plans at the March 17, 1999 ALUC meeting. The motion carried1by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Causey, Gerst, Rosene, Alternate Wallrich, and Vice -Chair Lambert , NOES: Alternate Koch ABSENT: None ABSTAINS: None ' Commissioner Koch requested that the minutes of the 10-21-1998 meeting be included in the staff's report for this item. G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Webster stated that there was no new correspondence for ALUC consideration. H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA Ms. Hennigan said it would be. useful to the ALUC to know what the City of Oroville's plans are for their,airport. I. CLOSED SESSION None. J. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 11:18 a.m. INA LAMBERT, Vice -Chair BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ February 17, 1999 ■ Page 7■ BUTT COUN70-1- AIRPORT LAND AGENDA & MINUTES 11 ALPHA FILE •'y " ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oroville'CA 95965 ■ (530) 538-7601 FAX REGULAR MEETING,OF THE COMMISSION' • .. �. .,. _ .. a ., Location: Butte -County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers 25 County Center Drive, Oroviile California _ Date/Time':: February 17,'l 999 , 9:00 "a. m. ` AGENDA ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. r PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • �•� + i. ..' vt i;. '. alp' ,. .• ;" - • B: - ROLL CALL, C. APPROVAL OF THEIMINUTES: December 16,'1998 January 20, 1909,:,- ^D. 999, i..'D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committee members orstaff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order) - E. BUSINESS ITEMS: 'Items with'Public Hearings 1. ALUC File No:A99-01 (City of.Oroville Use Permit UP99-01/13evelopment Review Board Application DRB99-01 - Experimental Aircraft Association) on APN 030- - 260-039: A request for consistency findings for a proposed, 7,920 square foot aircraft hangar/shop and meeting facility for. the rExperimental,Aircraft Association (EAA). The 3.7 acre lease site is within Oro ville Mdhicipal Airport property and located on, the east side of Wes Barrett Lane, approximately 400 feet south of the intersection = of Highway 162 and Wes BarrettLane: The site,is currently designated as Public in the City of Oroville General Plan. The property? is4so'durrently- zoned -Open Space. Staff recommends that the -Commission find the'project consistent with the 1985 Oroville;Airport Comprehensive'Land Use Plana . 2.�.r• ALUC` File` No " A99-02 (City of Chico .General Plan Amendment and Rezone GPA984/R298-5 - Drake) on APN 048-020-060 and 061: - A request for consistency _ findings -for a ,General. Plan --Amendment from Low Density Residential (2.1 to 7 -A ".units/acre) to Medium Density Residential (4 to 14 units/acre) and a Rezone from R= 1, Single Family Residential (2:1 to •7" units/acre to R-2, Medium Density Residential ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use,Cominission n 1 s H _ a18u,"AA 0a -a i; (4 to 14"units/8cre)7rThe 15 acre project site is bordered on the north -by Eaton Road, .,..,..to,the..west by Ceanothus Avenue and to the east by a line extending the northern terminus of Cactus Avenue to Eaton Road._ The southern edge is defined by an east -west power line easement. Staff recommends that the Commission find the project ' inconsistent with the •1998 Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan. 'h ` Items without Public Hearings NONE F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT4 G. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS r� _ H. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA ' (Presentations will be limited to five minutes.- The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibit d by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the agenda.) I. CLOSED SESSION - NONEEk J. ADJOURNMENT Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is Ucrqueited to contact Paula Leasure at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements `will be made to accomm"odate you. "Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda.. "Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of they Commission at cost of $.08 per page. F RULESf APPLYING TO PUBUC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALUC may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for "Public Comment". on -the • agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meeting at which the matter can be put on the agenda. t. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item_ , upon recognition by the Chair. 4. After, receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphone before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. _ 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original and seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meefing. Such documents shall i'be distributed to -the Commission and made available for public inspection. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ e 2 0 This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at the following locations: Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. A:\2-17-9g.MTG\2-17-99.AGD ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 3 COUNTY OF BUTTE • AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Minutes of January 20, 1999 Chairman Hennigan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m:, January 20, 1999 in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville; California. A. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL: • U Present: 'Commissioners Gerst, Rosene; and Lambert, Alternates Koch and Hodges and Chairman Hennigan Absent: Commissioner Hatley Also Present: Don Wallrich (Alternate) Brian Baldridge (Alternate) Laura Webster, ALUC Staff Paula Leasure, Principal Planner Nick Ellena, Chico Enterprise Record Diana Shuey, Secretary Ken Brody, Shutt Moen Associates . C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998 (continued -from December 16, 1998) December 16, 1998 (not available at this time) December 21, 1998 October 21, 1998 The Commissioners.had the following additions to the minutes: (in addition to the corrections made at the November 1998 meeting) Page 5, line 21 Barbara Hennigan responded to Commissioner Koch by pointing out that when Michael McClintock wasasked why the noise fool print was smaller, he responded that certain aircraft no longer used the airport. However the aircraft he cited were commercial aircraft that had never taken the left turn at low altitude to fly into the foothills with passengers. Only the airtankers took that VFR track and: that many of those were exactly the same plane that were counted in the 1978 study. Since there were still airtankers located at CMA, the track that they created should not have disappeared from the noise study. ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ • 1 • Page 5, line 31 Barbara Hennigan displayed a map of the 1961 Chico General Plan and pointed out that • it incorporated the recommendations of the Dolittle Commission, a'h mile long Clear Zone with no development and 2 mile extension beyond that, 6000 feet wide, at the end of which was to have restricted development. That General Plan had five major policies; one of which was to protect the airport. Paee 5, line 35 Ms. Webster questioned if it had been the intention of the Commission that there be no residential uses built in the outer safety zone. Chairman Hennigan said, `,`yes, we are bound by and follow recommendations from the Caltrans Handbook." Page 5, line 37 Chairman Hennigan said that there will be changes as buildings are replaced. There was a time when we did good planning, that reflected what was. our understanding and is our understanding again of airport safety. The fact that there was a window in time when we did inappropriate land use, doesn't mean that we have to do inappropriate planning.forever. Infill doesn't mean "another church, another school." Page 5, line 40 Chairman Hennigan said that the City of Chico, in response to the NCSP had argued that the residential development on the north end of the runway be limited to not less than one unit/five acres. j Page 6, line 10 Commissioner Rosene said that was the best description that he has ever heard, more complete than he had expected. He pointed out that the City did anoverride of ALUC with no public notice at all. Page 6, line 33 Chairman Hennigan said that Steve Iverson (CDF Battalion Chief at Chico Air Attack Base) was asked by the Chico Planning Department for information on airtankers. This map shows what is physically possible for the airtankers ao fly. Page 6, line 47 Mg. Webster said that, this action would have an impact whether it was taken today or next month. Page 6, line 48 Commissioner Gerst said that the impact isnot a big deaL The ALUC should protect what should have been protected. Beside the tanker information, everything has already been adopted by,Chico. Page 8, line 10 include "application of outer safety zone criteria from the Handbook on Exhibit C - Tanker Departure tracks. • ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 2 Commissioner Gerst was under the impression that once the minutes have been adopted, they become • the official minutes. He suggested that for the October 21, 1998 minutes, the tape be used as the official minutes rather than the written document. Chairman Hennigan wanted to see something in writing about"the status of the tape recording as a legal record of the meeting. There is an opinion from a non -attorney that the tape is the legal record but he would like to see that in writing and the citation from the Government Code., Commissioner Gerst said the tape should be saved for several years if it is the official record. He noted that on some commissions, the tapes are disposed of after the minutes are adopted. Chairman Hennigan said the quality of the tape is also an issue. Mr. Parilo advocates action minutes and a tape; but Chairman Hennigan would like a legal opinion on the matter and a better quality tape. He directed staff to report on what the law says and present a convincing argument if the Commission is to consider using action minutes and a tape. It was moved. by Commissioner "Rosen, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried to approve the minutes of October 21, 1998, with the revisions that were taken directly from the tape as typed out by Chairman Hennigan (and the corrections noted at the November 1998 meeting) by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Rosene, Alternates Koch and Hodges, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: Commissioner'Gerst ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner Hatley December 16, 1998 (not available at this time) December 21, 1998 It was moved by Commissioner Rosene, seconded by Alternate Koch, and carried to approve the minutes of December 21, 1998, as written, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerst and Rosene, Alternates Koch and Hodges, and Chairman Hennigan NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner'Hatley D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Gerst, seconded by Commissioner Lambert and carried unanimously to switch the order of the Business Items on the Agenda and hear Item 2 first. E. BUSINESS ITEMS: • ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 3 s Items with Public Hearings 2: Comprehensive -Land Use Plan (CLUP) Update Kick-off Meeting Representatives from the firm of Shutt Moen,Associates will conduct a CLUP Update kick-off meeting with the Commission, The discussion will focus on review of the project scope' and update process. The consultant will also accept input from the Commission and members of the public regarding preliminary issue identification. Ms. Webster introduced Ken Brody of Shutt Moen Associates. ' `Mr. Brody went over the Scope ofWork for the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Butte County Airports as provided in Appendix A of the staff report. 4 Commissioner Gerst asked if the. Comprehensive Land Use Plan is considered a "project"and if an Environmental Impact Report will be required? Mr. Brody said that an initial study is planned. If it is decided that the CLUP is a project under CEQA and significant impacts are identified as part of the initial study, that leaves open the issue of how an EIR will,be prepared, since that isnot part of the current work scope, If an EIR is required, additional funding would. be necessary. Commissioner Rosene said the Scope, of Work says the FAR PART. 150 study will be included in the data compilation. That study has never been approved by ALUC and in fact is considered by ALUC ito have significant flaws. The -perceived flaws should be addressed. Mr. Brody said he is aware of the concerns regarding the FAR PART 150 study, however -it is one of the many sources of information that will be looked at. To the extent that there are specific actions 'that were adopted as policy by the,City, the policies will need to be taken into account. Because one of the major issues is the noise contours, a, major component of the work effort will be working with the Master Plan consultants to come up with a set of realistic contours. It would be possible to use a different set of contours for, the Master Plan and the CLUP as long as they are not in conflict. Commissioner Rosene was concerned that the projections for the Master Plan are tied to growth of the county, which may not be realistic. The growth of the airport may be underestimated, and Commissioner Rosene would like the numbers for the CLUP to be more current and not simply transferred from the Master Plan. . Mr. Brody said Reinherd Brandley has just obtained data from CDF and the Forest Service for the Master Plan, and will be sharing draft forecasts with Shutt Moen Associates. From there, direction can be given to Brown and Buntin Associates regarding what forecasts will be used to develop the noise contours. • ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 4 Chairman Hennigan noted that recreational flying has decreased, however commercial flying has grown • faster than anticipated. Mr. Brody described the organization of the CLUP, which is anticipated to consist of one document. There will be some background information in Chapter I. Chapter H will include countywide procedural and compatibility policies as the major types of policies. Chapter III will include the compatibility maps and policies that apply to individual airports. The policies will be clearly structured and numbered and separated from informational content. He noted that there will be policies to address: noise, safety, airspace protection and overflight: He said there could be a set of compatibility zones for each of the airports, rather than having policies being tied to the exact location of a noise contour for example, and is a concept he would explain .in more detail later on. Mr. Brody said Chapters IV VII would include current airport layout plans,, a summary of existing land uses around airports, and current policies. The Appendix will include general background information. Mr. Brody said there will be issues that are unique to the individual airports. Chairman Hennigan said that Mr. Brody should have a copy of the correspondence from Mr. Gates. Commissioner Lambert asked what time frame is expected to complete the CLUP. Mr. Brody thought an administrative draft should -be done within six months and then timing depends upon how long the public review process takes. The contract is open through September 2000 although the project typically takes 15 to 18 months. Rather than going directly to preparation of the • draft plan, there might be an extra meeting or two on particular issues and perhaps an issue paper to focus on certain components. Commissioner Rosene recommended that Mr. Brody speak to someone at the airport tower about noise complaints, since the City does not get the same complaints. The airplanes that draw noise complaints should be included in the noise study.. Mr. Brody said information from the tower will be a necessary part of depicting noise contours accurately. Mr. Rosene said the FAR PART 150 study did not include the airplanes that generate the noise complaints — the data sample was not collected at a time when the noisier aircraft were flying — the U2's, C5's, S2's. Commissioner Hodges asked about residential clustering near'airports. Mr. Brody said in general, clustering is a fairly good concept in certain areas both for noise and safety. In many aircraft accidents there is some degree of control and the pilot is able to put the aircraft down in an open area, so there is a benefit in having the open areas available by clustering. Regarding noise, ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 5 a higher density can fie better, since apartments have fewer outside walls, less outdoor activity and • higher ambient noise levels. Often what is beneficial for noise is detrimental for safety and vice versa, which is a good reason to have one -set of policies, so that multiple'issues can be considered. Mr. Brody asked for more input from the Commissioners. Chairman Hennigan said planning in Chico has been both good and bad for the airport depending on -the composition of the City Council. People are becoming more aware of the importance of the airport. Developers are also'a political force. Chairman Hennigan said it is a mistake to zone too much Open Space, which,is "bait" fora developer." Commercial or Light Industrial land uses should be applied whenever possible around the airport since those uses are considered more compatible than residential uses. { Commissioner Hodges asked about dealing with special events such as airshows or fly -ins. Mr. Brody said special events need to be dealt with on a case by case basis and are not really a significant part of the CLUP. , Commissioner Gerst asked about the definition of a vested use does it depend on zoning or actual physical development? Mr: Brody said that is a gray area. The line is usually drawn at the point when the local jurisdiction no longer has any discretionary approvals remaining. ' Commissioner Gerst was in favor of an aircraft overlay zone with very clear requirements "in black and white" as to what is allowed. Mr. Brody said the plan should strive to make clear what is acceptable although there will still be some gray areas. Chairman Hennigan'said gray areas should be handled by saying, "no, unless," and have a list of requirements that must be demonstrated by`the developer. If a range is allowed, a developer would Always ask for the maximum. It should be clear exactly what is required, which avoids the appearance of arbitrariness and endless wrangling. Commissioner Gerst, said for instance the guidelines might say "4 to 6" and yet they are only guidelines and the appropriate number might be higher or lower. Mr. Brody agreed the Caltrans handbook is only a guideline and that the CLUP should use common sense and be tailored to go along with existing zoning increments. ■ Butte Countyi Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20,-1999 ■ 6 . Commissioner Gerst was in favor of language such as, "up to a certain limit" with findings to go . beyond that. Chairman Hennigannoted that the fire fighting activities provide a unique challenge at the Chico airport and that these activities are important to 60,000 people in the foothills in Butte County and thousands in other counties. Mr. Brody agreed the noise impacts of the air tankers must be taken into consideration. He also thought in the future there will be some quieter engines on some of the airplanes. Chairman Hennigan said the longer runway and lower altitude means Chico will be one of the last airports to get the turbine engines. He said the issue of safety maps needs to be addressed because they are challenged by the developers as being only theoretical. It is also argued that the new people moving.into the new development won't complain about the airplane noise. Alternate Baldridge asked if there will be interaction with BCAG and their systems plan for the overall view of regional transportation. Mr. Brody said that has not mentioned,been mentioned to date and should be included. Chairman Hennigan said there might be three separate plans for Northern California. He noted the high number of motor vehicle trips in the north state due to the nearest air transportation being in Reno, Sacramento or the Bay Area. He said Caltrans might have an interest in developing air facilities in this • area in order to lessen the number of motor vehicle trips. Mr. Brody said the BCAG study would enter into the forecasting issue and he would look at it. Chairman Hennigan noted the current lack of interaction between BCAG and ALUC. Barbara Hennigan'said flight'tracks are generally mapped as lines, and a lack of understanding of how the lines are used in the planning process can lead to inaccurate decisions. She recommended that flight tracks be indicated as swaths. The misinterpretation of flight track information is her concern. Mr. Brody said this relates to overflight and there may be a traffic pattern even where there is not a noise contour. ' Ms. Hennigan recommended that there be a policy regarding towers that could be applied countywide by other agencies, that reflects the FAA standards and local circumstances. Ms. Hennigan drew an analogy between campaign fires and floods and noted that a large fire can generate 400 flights in 5 days. • There is, precise data from CDF on numbers and times of flights during a campaign fire. This data is something that could be mapped. She noted that Chico is not in danger • ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 7 from a wild land fire, and the people who need fire protection from tankers are not the people living in Chico who have voting impact on the decision making that affects airport operations. - Commissioner Rosene asked,if Mr. Brody has received the•data on air tankers prepared by Ms. Hennigan. Ms. Webster said she would make sure Mr. Brody receives a copy of the information provided by Ms. Henriigan on air tanker flights: . A diagram that Ms. Hennigan prepared was distributed at,a previous ALUC meeting which shows the difference between the tanker base log data and the monitoring times used in Chico's•FAR PART 150 study.. V Commissioner Rosene said that the data gathered for the FAR PART 150 study was taken in such a way that it appears to be a random sample, however tanker activity that occurred on the same days that monitoring took place was not included. f Mr. Brody said he will be working with the noise consultant who.is working on the Chico Airport Master Plan and,will have access to the same information: ' Commissioner Rosene noted the FAR PART 150 study was approved by. the Chico Airport 'Commission, and on the current Airport Commission are Realtors who are selling property affected by the northwest part of the study. No one on ALUC is selling property in the area. He noted that one �- airport a week is being lost to development in this country. Ms. Webster suggested Commissioners keep notes on.their suggestions so they can be transmitted to Mr. Brody. It was agreed to put discussion of the CLUP on the agenda as necessary. _ Items without Public Hearings 1. Status Report Regarding 'ALUC Staff Budget: Staff will provide an update regarding the remaining,.budget.available for ALUC contract staff services through June ' 30, 1999. Ms. Leasure summarized the Memorandum regarding staffmg'and expenditures. 20, 1999 ■ ■ Butte County, ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January' �. 8 Commissioner Rosene noted that many "non mandated" items in the matrix attached to the staff report were a necessary part of a mandated item, or took up very little time. A great deal of time was spent on the Stephens project which was not by ALUC's choice. Alternate Koch said he is concerned that ALUC should be judicious about use of'staff time and in particular that of Laura Webster, since there are limited funds. Priorities should be set. Ms. Leasure suggested postponing some items. Chairman Hennigan felt Standard Operating Procedures are important. Ms. Leasure suggested establishing a sub -committee that could work on some of the items, for instance to review the draft of the tower ordinance. Commissioner Lambert was in favor of a sub -committee working with staff on a tower ordinance since most of the tower issues deal with the air. Input on the tower ordinance should be provided to staff one way or another if not via a sub -committee. The operating procedures could be handled by a sub- committee. She agreed priorities should be established. Chairman Hennigan noted that the. Director of Development Services has insisted that ALUC would get whatever it needed and did not need a specific budget. R Alternate Koch said he is mainly concerned about using up Ms. Webster's time on items other than the • CLUP, and running out of her time. Additional county staff time will probably be available, but the 'Board would probably not be, providing more money for Ms.. Webster's time. Commissioner Gerst noted that items tend to;get deferred indefinitely. ALUC did not set up the budget and is supposed to be funded adequately. Ms. Webster noted that some of her time is utilized by talking to Commissioners, working on mandated items, preparing correspondence directed by the Commission, research, .relieving Planning staff of some tasks and conversations with Caltrans. Ms. Leasure noted that although the Board is required to fund ALUC, they can also decide how much funding to provide. Commissioner Lambert said ALUC has been told they will be provided with what is necessary and has not been given a budget figure. Ms. Leasure said there is no specific figure but $24,000 is the estimated figure worked up by Steven Lucas some time ago. • ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 91 Alternate Koch suggested.that staff -should be�empowered to tell the Commissioners if something will • take up too much of their time unless the item is authorized by the. entire Commission. Chairman Hennigan asked who decided what was a mandated item in the matrix that was attached to the staff report for this item. L Ms. Leasure said it was a joint effort of three people in the Planning Division. There were comments about the necessity of doing some non mandated items simply in order to function, such as notifying agencies about the official address for ALUC. Ms. Leasure suggested that some Commissioners work with staff to develop a budget for the upcoming work program. There was a consensus that the number one priority is to develop the updated. CLUPs and Commissioners should be more considerate of use of staff time. Ms. Hennigan said there must be records of how much time was spent on the various items, and surely establishing an address did not take the same time as writing a staff report. She noted that Review of Butte County Draft Flexible Lot Size Ordinance is listed as a mandated item whereas discussion of said Ordinance is listed as non mandated. Ms. Leasure said the exact amount of time spent on each item is not known but more detailed record keeping will be done in the future. F. MONTHLY STATUS REPORT y G. - CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Hennigan will provide an update on the status of the CSA 87 Sign Re - Installation There was a discussion of the airport notification signs for the Chico Municipal Airport which had been removed due to alleged vandalism. Chairman Hennigan said,the signs; which were, installed were a standard sign size -- smaller than the 5'x 2.5' feet called for by the mitigation. *The word "zone" on the signs offended the developers. Chairman Hennigan suggested a larger standard sign size and a more graphic representation of the airport area as indicated by a conceptual draft design on.the wall The signs also were located too far from the airport and should be located at areas more heavily impacted by airport operations. Chairman ■ Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 10 Hennigan said he has been meeting with Susan Minasian and Neil McCabe of County Counsel's office . and Ms. Minasian has been meeting separately with some developers to come to an agreement about acceptable signs. A sub -committee consisting of Commissioner Rosene and Alternate Baldridge was selected to work with County Counsel to refine the notification signs. - It was agreed the signs should be simple, show few streets. and the airport property line. Mr. Brody recommended not showing the Caltrans safety zones, because they may change in the future or the Commission may adopt something else as part of the,CLUP. He recommended showing the airport property boundary or the flight track from the pilots' guide. Chairman Hennigan suggested waiting to put up the signs until after safety zones which are part of the new CLUP are adopted. Commissioner Rosene suggested showing the airport. influence area as a large oval. Mr. Brody suggested showing areas which are defined based on standards or current policies. The consensus regarding the Memorandum on staff time was to be more careful about its use, with the • CLUP's having priority. s Ms. Leasure noted the tower ordinance will go to the Planning Commission prior to coming to ALUC. Chairman Hennigan requested that the ALUC members °receive copies of the draft ordinance, and if the Planning Commission makes changes, to also provide the changes. There was a brief discussion of what projects will come to ALUC during the 180 days following ALUC's amendment to the CMAEP. This would include projects being rezoned -= legislative acts. Commissioner Rosene asked if the City of Chico Council is aware of and/or supports the lawsuit against the County of Butte relative to the overriding findings that were adopted on Dec. 1, 1998 during approval of the Stephens Development Agreement. - ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission Minutes January 20, 1999 ■ 11 Chairman Bob Hennig Minutes by Diana Shuey, Secretary ass 'COUNTY AIRPORT" ■ 7 County Center Drive, Oro011e CA 95965. ■ (530) 538-7601 L T REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION Location: Butte County Administration Building, Supervisors' Chambers • ' . _ 25-County Center -Drive, Oroville California .:. Datef rime: January 20, ,1999 - 9:00 a.m-t '. ' AGENDA_ ' •_ -f ALL ITEMS ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT A. ' -,PLEDGE OF, ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL • } " C. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 21, 1998 (continued,from December-16, 1998)• • December 16, 1998 (riot available at this time) December 21, 1998 ' D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA (Committeemembers or staff jf may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order).; E. BUSINESS ITEMS: { Items without Public Hearings, 1; Status Report RegardingALUC Staff Budget: Staff will provide an update regarding the remainin; _ budget available for ALUC contract staff services through June 30, • 1998. Wins with Public Hearings .:2. Combretiensive Land•Use Plan (CLUP) Update Kick-off Meeting_ Representatives from the firn ' of Shutt Moen-Associates will conduct a CLUP Update kick=off meeting with the Commission. Thi discussion will focus on review of the project scope and update process. The consultant will also accep input from the Commission and membersof the public regarding preliminary issue identification. F. �kONTHLY STATUSREPORT ' ' G. CORRESPONDENCE AND' COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS ' -Chairman Hennigan will provide a i update on the status of the CSA'87 Sign Re-Installation 5 AGE 1'1�1V ll: NDA & WNUTES ALF FILE H. PUBLIC COMMENT OKITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to, ve minutes. The Airport Land Use Commission is prohibited by State law from taking acr on any item presented if it. is not listed on the agenda.) L CLOSED SESSION - NONE J. ADJOURNMENT Any disabled person needing special accommodation to participate in the Commission proceeding is requested to contact Paula Leas: at (530) 538-7601 prior to the meeting and arrangements will be made to accommodate you. *Any person may address the Commission during the "Business From the Floor" segment of the Agenda. *Copies of the Agenda documents relative to and Agenda item may be obtained from the Clerk of the Commission at cost of $.08 per pa. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Members of the public wishing to address the Commission upon any subject within the jurisdiction of Butte ALi may do so upon receiving recognition from the Chairman at the appropriate time. 2. Comment on items not on the agenda should be made at the time indicated for °Public Comment" on i agenda. The Commission may not act on any matter so raised and will have to put off action until a meet at which the matter can be put on the agenda. 3. Comment on specific agenda items may be made during the discussion of that agenda item, upon recognit. by the Chair. 4. After receiving recognition, please approach the podium and state your name and address at the microphc before making your presentation, so that the Clerk may take down this information. 5. All documents to be presented to the Commission shall be given to the Clerk of the Commission (original s seven copies) prior to Call of Order of meeting. Such documents shall be distributed to the Commission made available for public inspection. This Agenda was mailed to those requesting notice and posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at t following locations. Butte County Administration Building, front entrance and glass case. A:\1-20-99.AGD ■ Butte County ■ Airport Land Use Commission ■ 2