HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-014RESOLUTION NO.
Resolu~ior~
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF ONE {X} DENSITY TRANSFER UNIT FROM THE
STEPHENS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE MANDVILLE PARK
SUBDIVISION {TSM09-0003), APPROVING THE OVERRULE TO THE
INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BY THE BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE
COMMISSION, GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TSM09-0003
(MANDVILLE PARK) ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP TSM09-0003
{SCHUSTER HOMES, INC., MANDVILLE PARK)
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1998, the Board of Supervisors entered into a Development
Agreement with the Stephens Trust covering a portion of a parcel of land in the SR-1 zone of the
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) area, specifying how the Iand could be developed, preserving
open space, and recognizing that thirty-three {33) Density Transfer Units (DTUs) could be used
on the parcel outside of the open space area or an other parcels within the NCSP area, and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission held a public hearing on a
proposed subdivision on June 17, 2009, later submitted to the Butte County of Development
Services for processing as Tentative Subdivision Map TSM09-0003 an Assessor's Parcel
Number 047-440-037, and found it inconsistent with the Butte County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan; and
WHEREAS, said map was referred to various affected public and private agencies,
County departments, and referral agencies for review and comments; and
WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission considered Tentative Subdivision
Map TSM09-0003 in accordance with Chapter 20, Subdivisions, of the Butte County Code, for
Schuster Homes Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined the project is statutory exempt in
accordance with Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on ~cfober 28, 2010 denied the Tentative
Subdivision Map per Butte County Planning Commission Resolution 10-36; and
Page 1 of I1
WHEREAS, an appeal from the applicant of the Planning Commission's denial was
received in a timely manner and with the appropriate fees; and
WHEREAS, said request for an overrule with findings was referred to the Butte County
Airport Land Use Commission and Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics far review and comments;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial on Tentative Subdivision Map TSM09-0003 by the applicant, Schuster
Homes Inc„ in accordance with Chapter 20; Subdivisions, of the Sutte County Code on
Assessor's Parcel Number 047-440-037; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project would utilize one (1) Density Transfer Unit {DTU) to
achieve a lot of less than one acre in size on the project site in the SR-l/North Chico Specific
Plan Zane; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered an overrule request to the
inconsistency determination by the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered an Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing of the Board of Supervisors was held on
February S, 2011 and February 22, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered public comments, a report from the
Planning Division, the recommendation from the Planning Commission, findings, and the appeal
letter on record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors:
I. Grants the appeal
II. Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings:
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Said Study identified significant environmental effects and included
a mitigation measure that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed.
B. The Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with comments received during the review process.
C. On the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, including the
Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the
Tentative Subdivision Map for Schuster Homes Inc., Planning Division File No.
TSM09-0003 would have a significant effect on the environment. The custodian
of the record is the Department of Public Works, Land Development Division.
The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965.
Page2of11
D. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency.
TIT Approves the transfer of one (1} density transfer unit from the Stephens Development
Agreement to the Mandville Park Subdivision (TSM09-0003)
IV. Approves the overrule based on the following Endings:
A. Airport Planning
In December 2000 the Butte County ALUC adopted the ALUCP, which serves as
the airport land use compatibility plan for the Chico Municipal Airport.
Preliminary estimates of future Airport operations, as identified by the Chico
Airport Master Plan, were used in the preparation of the ALUCP. The Master
Plan included a detailed assessment of current Airport operations, as well as
forecasts for future Airport development and expansion needs. The Master Plan
provides the ALUCP and the Board with information related to the future needs
of the Chico Municipal Airport relative to its development and expansion.
Therefare, the ALUCP and Master Plan provide a rational basis from which to
assess the potential for the Project to impede the orderly development and
expansion of the Airport, consistent with the first purpose of Article 3.5 of
Chapter 4 of the State Aeronautics Act.
1. The Pro~ect Will Not Affect Ex ansion or Develo ment of the Ai ort
a. The project is a residential subdivision in the unincorporated portion of
Butte County outside of the City of Chico Sphere of Influence. The
Project site comprises 26.4 acres located on the west side of Garner Lane,
northwest of the intersection with Guntren Road. The project is located
approximately 1.45 miles northwest of the runway for the Chico
Municipal Airport and is 1.06 miles southwest of the extended runway
centerline for the west runway (1.20 miles from the extended centerline of
the main runway). The Project proposes 25 single-family residential lots
of at least 1-acre each and a 1.4-acre detention pond.
b. In December 2000, the ALUC adopted the ALUCP in order to plan for the
orderly expansion and development of the Chico Municipal Airport, based
on preliminary estimates of future operations later developed more fully in
the Master Plan. In particular, the ALUCP includes certain land use
compatibility zones that are planned to accommodate future operations of
the Airport, based on the Airport Noise Analysis for the Airport performed
by Brown-Buntin Associates in 1999. The ALUCP identified 5
Compatibility Zones: Zone A (Runway Protection Zone), Zone B-1
{Approach/Departure Zone), Zone B-2 {Extended Approach/Departure
Zone}, Zone C (Traffic Pattern Zone) and Zane D {Other Airport
Environs).
c. The ALUCP presents two options for residential densities within
Compatibility Zone C; a minimum density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre
{or a minimum parcel size of S.0 acres), or at Ieast 4 dwelling units to the
acre (or an average parcel size of no greater than 0.2 acres). The two-
Page 3 of I 1
option criterion is used because aircraft noise is the mast significant
compatibility factor in Compatibility Zone C, and safety is only a minor
concern. At a compatibility review hearing on June 17, 2049, the ALUC
found that the project was inconsistent with the residential density
standard of either 0.2 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 5-acre minimum parcel
size} or 4 or dwelling units per acre. Most of the project (22.1 acres) is
located in Compatibility Zone C, and the remaining 4.3 acres aze located
in Campatibility Zone D. All but the eastern 300 feet of the Project are
located outside the General Traffic Pattern Envelope. (Master Plan, p. 1-
12, Fig. I -2.}
d. The ALUCP explains that the 5-acre minimum in Compatibility Zone C-1
is justified because "noise concerns can be minimized ... by limiting the
number of dwellings in the affected area". (ALUCP, p. 2-15, Note 15.)
However, within Compatibility Zone C-2, the ALUCP prescribes
minimum densities of at least 4 units per acre, requiring development at a
density considerably higher than proposed in the Project. The ALUCP
justif es the density minimum in Zone C-2 because "high densities ... tend
to have comparatively high levels of ambient noise." (Ihid.} The
separation of Zone C into sub-zones C-1 and C-2 does not appear to be
based on differences in noise impacts on properties in the two zones, as
these areas are nearly all outside of the 55 CNEL in all scenarios {see
below). While mast of Compatibility Zone C is inside of the General
Traffic Pattern Envelope, the density options are expressly not related to
aircraft overflights {see ALUCP, p. 2-15, Note 15} and the distinction
between Zones C-I and G2 does not correspond to the limits of the
Envelope (i.e., areas outside the Envelope are not designated C-2).
{ALUCP, p. 4-14, Exh. 4L.}
e. Most significantly, the ALUCP does not explain why one-acre lots are
incompatible with the Airport in the same Zone where traditional single-
family residential densities are allowed. The explanation for the density
standards in C Compatibility Zone, that higher density developments have
higher levels of ambient noise, would appear to support the development
of one-acre lots instead of five-acre lots. The Board therefore rejects the
use of a S-acre minimum in an arbitrary portion of Zone C with no
apparent relationship to noise ar aircraft overflights, and while traditional
development is allowed elsewhere in Zone C (and higher densities are
encouraged).
f. In order to accommodate the future expansion of the Chico Municipal
Airport, the ALUCP emphasizes the "expanded forecast" noise contours:
"The expanded forecast case is based on an average day of a four-month
f re season for f re attack operations plus 1. S times the 2018 operations
forecast (as presented in the August 1998 preliminary draft Chico
Municipal Airport Master Plan) for all other aircraft types." (ALUCP, pp.
3-5-3-6.) The Project is located approximately 4000 feet west of the
Expanded Forecast 55 CNEL noise contour, and approximately 6000 feet
from the Expanded Forecast 65 CNEL noise contour. (ALUCP, p. 4-8,
Page 4 of 1 I
Exh. 4F.) At more than one mile from the Airport, many aircraft
operations are not audible from the Project site. This situation is not
expected to change with fixture operations {see below).
g. As a condition of approval, Butte County requires the recordation of an
avigation easement over each residential lot created by the Project. The
avigation easement grants aircraft operators the right to conduct aircraft
operations associated with the Airport in the vicinity of the Project. In
light of the requirement to record an avigation easement, the location of
the Froject outside of the applicable noise contours, and the arbitrary
nature of Compatibility Zone C-2, the Board finds that the Project is
consistent with the first purpose of Article 3.5 of Chapter ~ of the State
Aeronautics Act, to provide for the orderly operations and expansion of
the Chico Municipal Airport.
2. The Master Plan Forecasts Onl Modest or Incremental Ex ansion of the
Chico Municipal Airport
a. The Master Plan does not forecast a significant expansion of operations at
the Chico Municipal Airport, but assumes that Airport expansion will
occur incrementally as the overall population increases:
When one considers the effect of such variables as proximity of airports
with low fare airlines, proximity of other general aviation airports, and the
high cost of owning and operating aircraft, it is difficult to forecast
significant increases in operations based on historical trends. (Master Plan
p. 2-2.}
b. As measured by the number of active general aviation aircraft and private
pilots, the Master Plan notes that general aviation traffic at the Chico
Municipal Airport, like airports in California (and the nation}, has
experienced little or no increase from 1980 to 2000. While the mix of
aircraft at the Airport has changed, the overall number of flights
(excluding experimental aircraft) actually declined aver this time period.
c. The Master Plan includes operations forecasts through the year 2040. In
that year, the Master Plan estimates a demand of up to 520 enplaned
passengers per day, which could be accommodated by fve Boeing 737
departures, 12 regional jet departures or 21 commuter airline departures.
Five departures are considered too few to support the introduction of the
Boeing 737 to the Airport. Moreover, the Master Plan estimates that a
significant percentage of local passengers will continue to chose to fly out
of Sacramento International Airport on account of its relatively low fares
and wide availability of destinations. The remaining passenger demands
to be met at Chico Municipal Airport will likely be served by a relatively
limited number of departures of regional and commuter aircraft. The
Master Plan also concludes that the expansion of air cargo operations is
not likely to include aircraft larger than the small propeller and turbo-prop
aircraft currently flown out of the Airport.
Page 5 of 1 I
d. The Master Plan also forecasts modest increases in the operations of based
aircraft. In the year 2020, the number of based aircraft is not forecast to
exceed 50 percent of the number of based aircraft in 2000 (i.e., an increase
from 145 to 211 aircraft). (Master Plan, p. 2-9.) The Master Plan also
forecasts CDF operations through the year 2018. In 1998 CDF flew 850
departures from Chico Municipal Airport. This number was expected to
increase slightly to 1,050 departures in 2008, and is forecast to remain
constant through 2018. The mix of CDF aircraft is projected to remain
unchanged, with an average of only 2 departures per year forecast for its
largest aircraft: the four-engine C-130. The forecast also assumes no
change in the Maximum Day MAFFS fire attack departure profile of the
CDF. (Master Plan p. 2-15.} A significant number of military departures
{C-130 and U-2} also occur at the Airport and are factored into the
operations forecasts.
e. A modest or incremental rate of Airport expansion is forecasted in the
Master Plan, which is unlikely to produce noise impacts that exceed the
Expanded Forecast Noise Impacts modeled in the ALUCP. Given the
signifcant distance of the Project away from the projected noise contours
associated with the Expanded Forecast scenario in the ALUCP and the
modest growth forecasts of the Master Plan, the Board finds that the
Project is consistent with the first purpose of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of
the State Aeronautics Act, to provide for the orderly operations and
expansion of the Chico Municipal Airport.
B. California Ai ort Noise Standards
1. It is necessary to quantify airport noise in order to provide a systematic
method for addressing noise incompatibilities in the vicinity of the Airport.
Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations establishes the noise standards
of the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.
These regulations establish a procedure for defining a noise impact area
surrounding an individual airport. Title 21 establishes 65 dB CNEL as the
maximum noise level acceptable to a reasonable person. (21 Cal. Code Regs.
§5006.} Airport operators, aircraft manufacturers, pilots and local
governments are encouraged to plan airport operations and land use actions to
limit the public's exposure to noise levels according to Title 21. To that end,
for highly noise-sensitive uses, agencies are encouraged to use the 55 CNEL
standard in rural areas. (Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, p. 7-
29, Table 7C.)
2. The Butte County ALUCP depicts CNEL noise contours of 65, 60 and 55
CNEL for a range of operational scenarios of the Chico Municipal Airport,
including Future Average Fire Season Day, Expanded Forecast, and Peak Fire
Attack Day. For each of the three scenarios, noise impacts essentially stretch
in an elongated oval pattern, more or less in line with the extended runway
centerline. By far the largest noise footprint is associated with the Peak Fire
Attack Day, which extends the 60 CNEL noise contour 18,000 feet north of
Page 6 of I 1
the runway and up to 1000 feet southwest of the runway. (ALUCP, p. 4-10,
Exh. 4G.)
3. The Project is located mare than one mile northwest of the extended runway
centerline far the west runway, and 1.20 miles west of the extended runway
centerline for the main runway. On account of its location, the Project
remains a significant distance away from Airport noise impacts in every
scenario. In the Future Average Fire Season Day, the 65 CNEL noise contour
is 6,000 feet from the Project, and the 55 CNEL contour is aver 4,000 feet
from the Project. The Expanded Forecast 65 CNEL noise contour is
approximately 6,000 feet away from the Project, and the Expanded Forecast
55 CNEL contour is approximately 4,000 feet away. Finally, for the Peak Fire
Attack Day 65 CNEL noise contour is 4,400 feet away from the Project, and
the 55 CNEL noise contour is 2,500 feet away.
4. The ALUCP also uses Noise Compatibility Criteria to gauge the level of
acceptability of certain land use categories in proximity to the Airport.
According to these criteria, single family residential uses are "clearly
acceptable" outside of the 50-55 CNEL contour. (ALUCP, p. 2-27, Table 2B.}
While a 50 CNEL has not been mapped, the Project is located between 2,500
and 4,000 feet away from the 55 CNEL of every scenario depicted in the
ALUCP. Airport noise impacts are also incorporated in the Noise Element of
the Butte County General Plan.
5. Based on its flnding that the Project is located over one mile from the
maximum noise impact level allowed under Title 21 (i.e., the 65 CNEL noise
contour) in the Expanded Forecast scenario (and 4,400 feet away from the
worst-case Peak Fire Attack Day 65 CNEL), is located 4,000 feet away from
the Expanded Forecast 55 CNEL (and 2,500 feet away from the Peak Fire
Attack Day 55 CNEL}, and is a "clearly acceptable" land use according to the
ALUCP Noise Compatibility Criteria, the Project is consistent with the second
purpose of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of the State Aeronautics Act, which is to
provide for the orderly development of the area surrounding the Chico
Municipal Airport by promoting the goals and objectives of the California
airport noise standards.
C. Safety
1. The ALUCP contains several policies designed to ensure that airport safety
hazards are minimized. The primazy objective of these policies is to minimize
the risks associated with anoff-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing.
(ALUCP, p. 2-26, Policy 4.2.1). Policy 4.2.2 intends to limit the extent of
"land uses of particular concern" in certain Land Use Compatibility Zones
identified in the ALUCP:
Land uses of particular conceal are ones in which the occupants have reduced
mobility or are unable to respond to emergency situations. Children's schools
and day care centers (with 7 or more children}, hospitals, nursing homes, and
other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or
Page 7 of I 1
handicapped shall be prohibited within Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, and C.
{ALUCP, p. 2-28, Policy 4.2.3.)
2. Single family homes are not listed as "land uses of particulaz concern" in the
ALUCP. The land use restrictions of ALUCP Policy 4.2.3 are applied by the
County during its review of discretionary project applications and in the
implementation of the Zoning Code. Large day care centers, nursing homes
and other facilities for the elderly, small children and other persons with
limited mobility are not allowed in the Project without a separate permit from
Butte County. (Butte County Code § 24-95 (allowing single-family residential
homes and day care facilities of up to six persons, but requiring a minor use
permit for large day care facilities}. Only single family homes are proposed in
the Project.
3. Other Safety Policies of the ALUCP are either not applicable to the Project or
have been satisf ed. Policy 4.2.5 requires that 10% of the land within
Compatibility Zane C be set aside as open space. "Open land requirements are
intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone." {ALUCP, p. 2-29.}
There is no requirement that a portion of the Project be designated open space.
The ALUCP Policy requiring a 5-acre minimum parcel size in Compatibility
Zone C-1 is related to noise, not safety. {ALCUP, p. 2-15, Note 15.)
4. The Project is consistent with the ALUCP Safety Policies, and is therefore
consistent with the third purpose of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of the State
Aeronautics Act, to provide for the orderly development of the area
surrounding the Chico Municipal Airport by preventing the creation of new
safety hazards.
D. Overflight
1. The land use restrictions adopted in the BCALUCP are based on the
presumption that there would be less potential complaints with parcel sizes of
5 acres or mare or four or more parcels per acre, as compared to one-acre
parcels, in the C Compatibility Zone is not supported by Staff's review of the
actual complaint data for the Chico Municipal Airport over the past decade.
2. While overflight and noise complaints were received from residents who lived
on a wide range of parcel sizes, most of the complaints were from residents of
properties to the south of the Chico Municipal Airport on smaller urban lots
located in the City of Chico.
3. Of the actual complaints received that the location was able to be identified
{i.e. mapped), 33 of the 55 (60%) were located in the D Compatibility Zone
{with no parcel size limitation or density requirements under the 2000
BCALUCP) or outside of identified airport influence area (Compatibility
Zones) altogether.
4. In place of the BCALUCP density requirements, the County determines that
overflight concerns can be better addressed by making residents aware of the
aircraft activities in the area.
Page 8 of [ 1
S. The project is conditioned to record an avigation easement with an airport
proximity notif cation. An avigation easement with an airport proximity
notification provides constructive notice with regard to possible aircraft
overflight. This notification is included as part of the preliminary title report.
6. Airport proximity notification signs are located along major arterial ways
around the Chico Municipal Airport.
E. Surraunding_Uses
1. Surrounding development to the north and east is also single family residential
with lot sizes and density similar to the proposed project. Other proposed
development to the southwest will also be single family and be of similar lot
sizes and density. The project will not create a new incompatible use to the
surrounding area.
V. Approves Tentative Subdivision Map 09-0003 for Schuster Homes Tnc., subject to the
conditions found in Exhibit "A" and the following findings:
A. The project was deemed complete in 7uly 2010 and therefore is regulated by the
General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning at the tune the project was
complete.
B. The General Plan Designation for the subject property in 3uly 2010 was
Agricultural Residential (AR). The resulting sizes of the project parcels are
conditionally consistent with the Agricultural Residential General Plan land use
designation because they meet the following five AR General Plan criteria:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The project area has been and is designated as rural/suburban residential
area by the previous and existing General Plan. Although there are existing
agricultural operations located to the west and south, the area includes
additional projects in the review process that would eliminate much of the
surrounding agricultural use. Neither the subject property nor surrounding
parcels are under a Williamson Act contract.
2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity.
Groundwater monitoring was done by Hailing & Associates far 2004-07,
2007-08, and 2009-10 and an exemption letter was received for the existing
development that will be an proposed Parcel 1. Upon prior groundwater
verifications in 07-OS there appears to be adequate combination of dept,
slope, and percolation that will meet the Butte County Subdivision
Improvement Standards, specifically the Appendix VII requirements.
An area review of the existing wells was also completed and it appears from
the well logs that there is adequate water in the area to support this project.
With included Environmental Health conditions, the project would satisfy the
requirements for adequate sewage disposal capacity and potable water.
Page 9 of 11
3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities.
The Butte County Fire Department (CDF) determined that the project
conforms to Department requirements and has applied appropriate project
conditions. A full time CDF station is located approximately 2.6± miles west
of the property, an Highway 99. CDF has undertaken efforts to relocate this
station to Keefer and Garner, which would also provide adequate fire
protection, should those efforts be successful.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to
service area.
Keefer Road at SR99, Garner Lane at SR99 and Garner Lane at Keefer Road
are operating at acceptable levels of service. Given the relatively modest
traffrc generated by the project, approximately 250 average daily trips,
adequate capacity is anticipated to serve the project. Two points of access for
the subdivision are provided: Primary access to the subdivision is off of
Garner Lane. A second point of access is provided via Persimmon Lane.
S. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools.
The project parcels are within 2-3 miles of commercial shopping in Chico and
within 2 miles of the nearest elementary school in Chico.
C. The zoning at the time the project was deemed complete was SR-1/NCSP
{Suburban Residential 1-acre minimurnlNorth Chico Specifzc Plan). The
proposed residential lot sizes range from 0.69 acres to 1.36 acres. All but one of
the residential Lots are consistent with the SR-1/NCSP zone and conditionally
consistent with the AR General Plan land use designation.
D. The applicant, per a development agreement, is using one of his remaining 9
Density Transfer Units {DTU) to allow the one parcel of less than one acre. The
use of the DTU will not exceed the maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre.
E. The project would be consistent with the VLDR (Very Low Density Residential}
land use designation of the adopted General Plan 2030.
Page 1 D of 11
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Connelly, Kirk, Wahl, Yamaguchi and Chair Lambert
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Paul Hahn, Chief
and Clexk of the $~
By:
Officer
e~/[.~-f
STEVE L ERT, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
Paga 11 of 11